# The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)



## WingsofFury

So I thought I'd start this thread to get the debate rolling....

My vote goes to the SLAM Eagle.  I've stated the reasons previously.

Here's a question to ponder; could a competition be held that would exclude the F-35 as mentioned by the Liberals?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Some fancifying on how a PM Trudeau might finagle the F-35 with President Obama:



> Canadian Election: ISIS, the F-35, Justin Trudeau and POTUS
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/mark-collins-canadian-election-isis-the-f-35-justin-trudeau-and-potus



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> So I thought I'd start this thread to get the debate rolling....
> 
> My vote goes to the SLAM Eagle.  I've stated the reasons previously.
> 
> Here's a question to ponder; could a competition be held that would exclude the F-35 as mentioned by the Liberals?



Oh and who exactly is going to buy this aircraft other than us?  Everyone else has either signed up to buy the F35 or opted for a cheaper Russian or French aircraft.

Our only real options are the F35 or the Rafale.


----------



## WingsofFury

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Oh and who exactly is going to buy this aircraft other than us?  Everyone else has either signed up to buy the F35 or opted for a cheaper Russian or French aircraft.
> 
> Our only real options are the F35 or the Rafale.



I realise what you're stating, RoyalDrew; I just ask that you do some research on which countries already use variants of the F-15E Strike Eagle before writing me off.

Cheers.


----------



## Spencer100

I'm betting if it is a Liberal government, approx. 25 F-35 (Canadian businesses have too much lose) And a Hawk replacement RFQ with some extra to go for air policing.


----------



## Good2Golf

WoF, RoyalDrew was probably thinking the same as I was, that you were being specific about SLAM Eagle.  Other than Korea, who operates the 15K? No one.  APG-63(V)1?  *yawn* Fusion for 5th Gen warfare? Neg.

Big, fast bomb truck that can dog fight with Gen 4s once it drops all the bomb stuff..

You took me to task for proponency for Silent Eage but your okay with a decade-old variant of the Eagle? ???

SLAM ER?  Sure, but we could put that on AIMP Block 5 a lot easier, if we're also going to be feeding the ISR-sphere at the same time...

At this point, Libs will probably back out of the cut with a partial fleet of 35s (maybe 25-ish) and whatever continental defence  balances the cost...SH or Grippen NG.

:2c:


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> At this point, Libs will probably back out of the cut with a partial fleet of 35s (maybe 25-ish) and whatever continental defence  balances the cost...SH or Grippen NG.



Or, in a similar vein, follow what the Australians did a few years ago and buy SH as an "interim" measure for the F-35....and then say it was to "supplement" it instead.


----------



## dapaterson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I'm betting if it is a Liberal government, approx. 25 F-35 (Canadian businesses have too much lose) And a Hawk replacement RFQ with some extra to go for air policing.



AFAIK, the Hawks are not RCAF, but belong to the contractor. Not our problem to replace. One of the advantages of contracting out.


----------



## Downhiller229

The Hawks are leased to Bombardier by a federal entity. Not our problem to maintain, totally our problem to replace.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> AFAIK, the Hawks are not RCAF, but belong to the contractor. Not our problem to replace. One of the advantages of contracting out.



Not our circus, not our monkeys.  :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> The Hawks are leased to Bombardier by a federal entity. Not our problem to maintain, totally our problem* decision as to how* to replace.



One person's problem is another's opportunity.


----------



## dapaterson

Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> The Hawks are leased to Bombardier by a federal entity. Not our problem to maintain, totally our problem to replace.


Nope. Owned by CAE who bought the business from Bombardier.


----------



## WingsofFury

Good2Golf, you want us, Canada, to pay for the development of a plane that isn't even in production yet in the Silent Eagle; how much money do you really think we'll have left after the cuts to DND are done?

You have a problem with an air superiority fighter that has made the transition to the penultimate strike fighter gradually.  As an A2A platform equipped with AESA radar, there is no threat that this platform couldn't counter.  When it comes to being part of a strike package, as is often part of our role when involved in NATO or UN missions, we'll be able to stay on target longer and carry out more strikes due to the larger weapons capacity which the SG variant would carry. This would only be enhanced by the carriage of the SDB.

Finally, the Strike Eagle will be in international and US service well into the 2050's which means that part sourcing when needed won't be an issue. The SG is a relatively new platform, and all of the avionics and weapons systems onboard are new.  The awesome thing about the platform is that it made the transition to Strike platform about as smoothly as anyone could have envisaged.

Thanks for your 0.02...but please consider what I'm proposing above.

Finally, given that there WILL be cuts, I doubt very much that we'll have a split fleet.


----------



## PuckChaser

So we buy a fighter now, for delivery in 2022, that has a service life until 2050, that we'll use until 2065 based on past procurement models? What part of that gap makes any sense to you?


----------



## Downhiller229

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope. Owned by CAE who bought the business from Bombardier.



CAE owns the NFTC contract to maintain the aircraft and installations. Not the actual airframes.  

http://www.cae.com/CAE-to-acquire-Bombardier-s-Military-Aviation-Training-unit-to-expand-training-systems-integration-offering/

You think they bought 30 some airframes for 19 million? Of course not... They don't own the airframes, DND doesn't own the airframes. A government corporation does and leases them to BMAT now CAE. They are responsible to maintain them and provide training. When they are finished the government will have to replace them.


----------



## dapaterson

NFTC is a huge mess - poorly designed, poorly executed.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att_9927se01_e_9980.html

http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/milit-air-bondholders-gear-up-to-defend-their-rights

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-fighter-pilots-sent-to-u-s-for-training-after-repeated-problems-at-home-documents


----------



## OldSolduer

Sopwith Camel

Or a upgraded Mosquito


----------



## Good2Golf

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Good2Golf, you want us, Canada, to pay for the development of a plane that isn't even in production yet in the Silent Eagle; how much money do you really think we'll have left after the cuts to DND are done?



If Canada's investment to operationalize the 15SE that Boeing had developed in prototype form will provide a capability that provides Canada with a cost-effective balance of measured stealth technology (conformal weapons bays [CWB], coatings, canted stabilizers, etc...) along with integration of advanced sensor and C2 fusion capabilities, then yes, it is something to consider.  Canada did it in a measured manner with the CH-147F Chinook, getting value for money invested, providing capability that has been implemented on other advanced Chinook operators, to Canada's follow-on benefit.




			
				WingsofFury said:
			
		

> You have a problem with an air superiority fighter that has made the transition to the penultimate strike fighter gradually.  As an A2A platform equipped with AESA radar, there is no threat that this platform couldn't counter.  When it comes to being part of a strike package, as is often part of our role when involved in NATO or UN missions, we'll be able to stay on target longer and carry out more strikes due to the larger weapons capacity which the SG variant would carry. This would only be enhanced by the carriage of the SDB.



No, but you referred to the SLAM Eagle, or F-15K, which has an AN/APG-63(V)1 physically-scanned radar, not AESA.  If you wanted to upgrade your 'preferred variant' from your aforementioned SLAM Eagle to the F-15SG, then you will pick up the 63(V)3 AESA variant, with the general benefit that an AESA radar provides (of course mindful of the significantly reduced off bore-sight accuracy due to widening beam width and increased side lobes - concessions to the increased performance of a fixed AESA antenna).  One would have to determine where the larger load trade-off against concomitant low-observability requirements balances, but I'd assess that ability to carry stores internally as per the F-15SE's CWB, still with a significant load out, including SDBs, to be desirable in conducting strike missions in higher threat/more complex counter-air environments.



			
				WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Finally, the Strike Eagle will be in international and US service well into the 2050's which means that part sourcing when needed won't be an issue. The SG is a relatively new platform, and all of the avionics and weapons systems onboard are new.  The awesome thing about the platform is that it made the transition to Strike platform about as smoothly as anyone could have envisaged.



As would the F-15SE, if produced.



			
				WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Thanks for your 0.02...but please consider what I'm proposing above.



As noted above, I did that.  Please consider that I considered what you were proposing above, and further constrained the capability to more closely align with the overall capabilities that Canada's pervious government was looking for in the JSF. 



			
				WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Finally, given that there WILL be cuts, I doubt very much that we'll have a split fleet.



While split fleets would result in increased (per total fighter units operated by a force) in-service support, until one determines what the acquisition costs and fleet sizes would be for a moderated two-fleet option, one cannot immediately write-off the possibility of operating two-fleets.

:2c::2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## NavyShooter

Avro Arrow....?

There's a group out west building a 2/3 scale Arrow....capable of flight even.  

I guess the question underlying it all should probably be, what will the (new?) Defence White Paper say we need to have?  

NS


----------



## PuckChaser

I hope you're not talking about that Bourdeaux guy that wants $3B to give us 2 prototypes so he can compete in a contract.

Canada can do better than a 1950s design. We might as well update the CF-86 and use that.


----------



## Cloud Cover

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We might as well update the CF-86 and use that.



USAF already did that- the F100 Supersabre. The napalm laden, cluster bomb workhorse of the early part of the Vietnam conflict.

unfortunately, if there is to be a new fighter procurement under this government, I cannot see Trudeau changing the course of the ship away from the F-35. Too much of Quebec is tied up in that. Also, based on latest costs, the ceiling cap of $9B CAD means there will be far fewer than 65 aircraft acquired, so the door is edging ever closer to the more pragmatic decision which is- "at this cost, why have fighter jets at all". Politically, it may be more "progressive and a new way of thinking for Canadians" if this entire range of capability is deleted from inventory and financially, well, the deficit just got that much smaller. 

The only way around that is s snap decision to buy used F18F  Super Hornets or used Typhoons from Germany.  

.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> USAF already did that- the F100 Supersabre. The napalm laden, cluster bomb workhorse of the early part of the Vietnam conflict.
> 
> unfortunately, if there is to be a new fighter procurement under this government, I cannot see Trudeau changing the course of the ship away from the F-35. Too much of Quebec is tied up in that. Also, based on latest costs, the ceiling cap of $9B CAD means there will be far fewer than 65 aircraft acquired, so the door is edging ever closer to the more pragmatic decision which is- "at this cost, why have fighter jets at all". Politically, it may be more "progressive and a new way of thinking for Canadians" if this entire range of capability is deleted from inventory and financially, well, the deficit just got that much smaller.
> 
> The only way around that is s snap decision to buy used F18F  Super Hornets or used Typhoons from Germany.
> 
> .



It's a conversation that may happen, although the results may not be what Canadians really want.  If we decide to not buy fighters, than expect us to pull (get kicked out of NORAD) and the Americans to take over our air space.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would favour a F-15 over the SH, but I could easily see using buying them as the line is open ti 2017. Unless they plan on having a "competition" desgined to allow the F-35 to win, carry on as before and eat the lawsuit costs that will appear.


----------



## FSTO

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> It's a conversation that may happen, although the results may not be what Canadians really want.  If we decide to not buy fighters, than expect us to pull (get kicked out of NORAD) and the Americans to take over our air space.



I would hope that the DND Deputy Minister and CDS will have the ability to brief the new government of the errors of their ways. Also there are enough veteran Liberal MP's who (I would hope) curtail more of the silly Trudeau proposals.

I have no doubt that a majority of the Liberal leftish policies will be quietly shifted to the far right on the priority calendar. That has been their MO forever and I see no change in that policy.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:
			
		

> I would hope that the DND Deputy Minister and CDS will have the ability to brief the new government of the errors of their ways. Also there are enough veteran Liberal MP's who (I would hope) curtail more of the silly Trudeau proposals.
> 
> I have no doubt that a majority of the Liberal leftish policies will be quietly shifted to the far right on the priority calendar. That has been their MO forever and I see no change in that policy.



I do think our NATO allies will lean on the young Dauphin as well. Much the same as Maggie did to Pierre the Ponce.


----------



## Altair

FSTO said:
			
		

> I would hope that the DND Deputy Minister and CDS will have the ability to brief the new government of the errors of their ways. Also there are enough veteran Liberal MP's who (I would hope) curtail more of the silly Trudeau proposals.
> 
> I have no doubt that a majority of the Liberal leftish policies will be quietly shifted to the far right on the priority calendar. That has been their MO forever and I see no change in that policy.


Andrew Leslie was on ctv last night defending the move to buy cheaper alternatives to the F35 and move the savings into the navy.

He might have just been being a good liberal soldier though.


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Canada's *pervious* government



It certainly was not as _*im*_ as it thought...



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I do think our NATO allies will lean on the young Dauphin as well. Much the same as Maggie did to Pierre the Ponce.



Regrettably, there is no more Maggie.


----------



## Altair

Loachman said:
			
		

> It certainly was not as _*im*_ as it thought...
> 
> Regrettably, there is no more Maggie.


The Harper government let spending on the military drop well below 2 percent of the GDP. 

Who was leaning on him?

Don't forsee any issues here.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Altair said:
			
		

> The Harper government let spending on the military drop well below 2 percent of the GDP.
> 
> Who was leaning on him?
> 
> Don't forsee any issues here.



Agreed. 1.3 percent GDP and falling. He had the nerve last night in his resignation speach to claim that his government was managing defence responsibly.


----------



## YZT580

"Andrew Leslie was on ctv last night defending the move to buy cheaper alternatives to the F35 and move the savings into the navy."
You are looking at another EH101 type boondoggle.  Although, JT may start singing a different tune after his conversation with Obama winds up.   The U.S. needs all the cash they can gather from their allies to help with the F35 bills. 
With the focus on peacekeeping and handing out parkas we won't need the F35 capabilities but they will buy a replacement.  My guess says it will be any aircraft that we can license-build in Montreal to provide cash to assist Bombardier out of their hole.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They get sub-contracts but not airframes, unless they build a Hawk 2 as our primary fighter.  8)


----------



## YZT580

Perhaps?  https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-enhanced-f-16v-makes-first-flight-418014/


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Single engine.

Too big a deal has been made about the number of engines a fighter has.

Therefore, whatever we eventually buy will have two engines.


----------



## jmt18325

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Single engine.
> 
> Too big a deal has been made about the number of engines a fighter has.
> 
> Therefore, whatever we eventually buy will have two engines.



I'm not so sure.  I'd put my money on the superhornet, but given enough in savings, this might very well be an option if the focus is on cost.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The biggest knock against the F35 from the commentariat (aside from price) was that single engine is "unsafe" for a fighter.

I doubt the Liberals actually much care what fighter they buy us, except:

1. It deliver exceptional industrial offsets
2. It have two engines
3. It not be the F35

You will note that any consideration about its operational effect are not even in the top 3. This is simply kabuki theatre to keep the USA from patrolling Canadian Airspace for us. Nothing more.


----------



## jmt18325

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The biggest knock against the F35 from the commentariat (aside from price) was that single engine is "unsafe" for a fighter.
> 
> I doubt the Liberals actually much care what fighter they buy us, except:
> 
> 1. It deliver exceptional industrial offsets
> 2. It have two engines
> 3. It not be the F35
> 
> You will note that any consideration about its operational effect are not even in the top 3. This is simply kabuki theatre to keep the USA from patrolling Canadian Airspace for us. Nothing more.



I'm actually impressed with Trudeau (someone I thought was an idiot at the beginning of the campaign).  I believe he'll hold an open competition as he says he will.  I wish he wouldn't leave out the F-35, but again, he said he will, so it'll happen.  I'm thinking, based on cost and effectiveness being balanced, the Super Hornet is a shoe in.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, if you are to have an open competition and eliminate the F-35 and any  other single engine plane (which eliminates the F-16, the Gripen NG and the Rafale), then why not just invite Boeing for its SuperHornet and E.J.G for their Eurofighter directly. They are the only ones left !!!  And both technologically from the 1990's.

But watch out: I can guarantee you that neither will build in Canada under licence nor will want to offset the industrial benefits (why would they want to when they can keep all that money at home and know that Canada will shortly become desperate because the 18's are aging quickly into retirement, so would have to relent on that).

I know that Canadians are generally ignorant of defence matters, but the "silent majority", which is constantly courted by politicians and are polled to death on all sort of subjects, seem to have at least some gut feelings about things that you just should not do in such matters, and I am pretty sure that any government would find that one such gut feeling is that Canadians instinctively know that we have to have some form of fighter aircraft capability at all time, even if they have been told (or sold) on the idea that the F-35 ain't it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Those are good points, OGBD, and I'm sure they, and others for continuing with the F-35, will be made by political insiders, lobbyist, senior officials and generals (listed in what is, in my opinion, their order of importance). But, someone already convinced Prime Minister designate Trudeau to say, "I will cancel the F-35" and that some someone, and others, will tell the new prime minister that cancelling the F-=35 is a "good" and easy promise to keep because, "look at the EH-101, we cancelled it and nothing disastrous happened ~ sure we took some small hits, but they were like shopping car 'dings' in a supermarket parking lot, not Lac Megantic sized train-wrecks. DND can and will find ways to work around a "no F-35" scenario." My suspicion is that _good politics_ not _good policy_ will decide this issue.


----------



## jmt18325

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, if you are to have an open competition and eliminate the F-35 and any  other single engine plane (which eliminates the F-16, the Gripen NG and the Rafale), then why not just invite Boeing for its SuperHornet and E.J.G for their Eurofighter directly. They are the only ones left !!!  And both technologically from the 1990's.



No one in Trudeau's team has claimed that dual engine is a must for the competition - that is just a guess from someone here.



> But watch out: I can guarantee you that neither will build in Canada under licence nor will want to offset the industrial benefits (why would they want to when they can keep all that money at home and know that Canada will shortly become desperate because the 18's are aging quickly into retirement, so would have to relent on that).



That is one reason that I give the Rafale an outside chance of winning.



> I know that Canadians are generally ignorant of defence matters, but the "silent majority", which is constantly courted by politicians and are polled to death on all sort of subjects, seem to have at least some gut feelings about things that you just should not do in such matters, and I am pretty sure that any government would find that one such gut feeling is that Canadians instinctively know that we have to have some form of fighter aircraft capability at all time, even if they have been told (or sold) on the idea that the F-35 ain't it.



The F-35 is political suicide unfortunately.  Even if it won a competition that would be so.  Even the Conservatives didn't but it (or much of anything else in the last 7 years).


----------



## AlexanderM

The Rafale is not a single engine fighter.


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The Rafale is not a single engine fighter.



Well then - better than an outside chance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The Rafale is not a single engine fighter.



Quite right A.M.  My mistake there.

So I agree with jmt18325 that it makes it a contender. Possibly a leading contender.

After all, Dassault has promised that if selected, it could do a 100% technology transfer to Canada by having the planes built in Quebec under license with parts procured locally.

What would be in it for Dassault? First, the adoption of Rafale by Canada would help them bolster their sales around the world : "if its good enough for Canada, who has to satisfy the US of its capabilities, its good enough for you!" Second, it would, on top of that, create a plant where they can be built away from the notoriously difficult French labour unions, thus helping to reduce the cost on the international market.

Maybe some S.M.E. can chime in here, but my understanding is that Rafale has the best Thrust to weight ratio of all the available fighters on the market currently - something that fighter jocks appreciate in a dog fight (I have been told that push-come-to-shove, a Rafale M could be backed up to the stern of the Charles-de-Gaule and take off without catapults if need be. Anybody seen that also?)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and we would end up paying to have it certified to carry US made weapons, which would also help oversea sales.


----------



## AlexanderM

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> my understanding is that Rafale has the best Thrust to weight ratio of all the available fighters on the market currently - something that fighter jocks appreciate in a dog fight (I have been told that push-come-to-shove, a Rafale M could be backed up to the stern of the Charles-de-Gaule and take off without catapults if need be. Anybody seen that also?)


The current version of the fighter does not have the best thrust to weight ratio, although not bad, but for the contract to India, which may not happen, they were to develop a more powerful version of the engine, with an afterburner thrust of 90 kN, which would make it equal with the Typhoon in a smaller airframe. If we did go with the Rafale I would hope we would also go with the 90 kN engine, although I'm not entirely certain of the status of that engine, as to where they are in terms of development.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Cheap (single-engine) F-16V with AESA radar anyone--maybe then some money for RCN :
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/10/21/lockheeds-new-f-16v-flies-advanced-aesa-radar/74319238/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-enhanced-f-16v-makes-first-flight-418014/

http://www.janes.com/article/55400/adex-2015-f-16v-takes-first-flight

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newslockheed-completes-maiden-flight-of-f-16v-aircraft-4699541

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Cheap (single-engine) F-16V with AESA radar anyone--maybe then some money for RCN :
> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/10/21/lockheeds-new-f-16v-flies-advanced-aesa-radar/74319238/
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-enhanced-f-16v-makes-first-flight-418014/
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/55400/adex-2015-f-16v-takes-first-flight
> 
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newslockheed-completes-maiden-flight-of-f-16v-aircraft-4699541
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I would think LM would still want to make a sale.  Don't be surprised if they submit this with the F-35 locked out of competition.  There will be a lot of F-16 parts around for a very very long time.


----------



## blacktriangle

A question for SupersonicMax and others in the know...

What's the ballpark minimum number of airframes that would be required to meet our NORAD commitments while factoring in training and maintenence?


----------



## jmt18325

Spectrum said:
			
		

> A question for SupersonicMax and others in the know...
> 
> What's the ballpark minimum number of airframes that would be required to meet our NORAD commitments while factoring in training and maintenence?



I'm not in the know, but if I were to guess, somewhere from 40 - 50.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I hope the fighter sqn's get more than 40.  We had what, 130'ish CF-18s at the get go.  In the tradition of replacement we in Canada tend to face (replace 40 of the old with 20 of the new...then use them beyond the intended date), I hope it is more into the 60 range at least.

But, going off recent (last 2 decades) history of getting needed replacement tails for the RCAF, I think the Hornet Sqn's might want to start designing their "50th Anniversary" patch like the Sea King community had the...'opportunity'...to do.  And then pass it onto us 140 folks, so we don't have to start from scratch either.

Mr Trudeau might present a different public face to the LPC, but I'll wait for proof that the party overall isn't the _'same bunch of folks from before'_.  Early indications aren't giving me a warm and fuzzy.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I hope the fighter sqn's get more than 40.  We had what, 130'ish CF-18s at the get go.  In the tradition of replacement we in Canada tend to face (replace 40 of the old with 20 of the new...then use them beyond the intended date), I hope it is more into the 60 range at least.
> 
> But, going off recent (last 2 decades) history of getting needed replacement tails for the RCAF, I think the Hornet Sqn's might want to start designing their "50th Anniversary" patch like the Sea King community had the...'opportunity'...to do.  And then pass it onto us 140 folks, so we don't have to start from scratch either.
> 
> Mr Trudeau might present a different public face to the LPC, but I'll wait for proof that the party overall isn't the _'same bunch of folks from before'_.  Early indications aren't giving me a warm and fuzzy.



There was nothing scandalous about Gagnier, other than what was manufactured.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We will have to disagree I guess.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There was nothing scandalous about Gagnier, other than what was manufactured.


Hahahaha... Oh, you were serious?


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hahahaha... Oh, you were serious?


I hope so.

I'm a unapologetic liberal and I found a lot wrong with that email. Especially the pure stupidity of it.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Spectrum said:
			
		

> A question for SupersonicMax and others in the know...
> 
> What's the ballpark minimum number of airframes that would be required to meet our NORAD commitments while factoring in training and maintenence?



I've being out of the field for a long time but I would say what you are asking for is probably classified.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I've being out of the field for a long time but I would say what you are asking for is probably classified.



Yep, definitely classified


----------



## a_majoor

If anyone seriously believes the RCAF will get a new fighter to replace the CF-18 once the CF-35 is cancelled, then you are smoking something that you should share with the rest of us.

The CF-18 replacement will be on infinite hold like the Sea King replacement, and eventually the RCAF will be a global favourite at air shows with its "historic aircraft" flypasts. 

Being unable to interoperate effectively with allies, much less be able to fight in the interconnected "networked nodes" forms of high end warfare (or defend against the peer enemies who also fight that way) is of little concern to politicians who rarely pay in blood or treasure for the results of their decisions.


----------



## Good2Golf

> There was nothing scandalous about Gagnier, other than what was manufactured



I took EITS' comment to refer to the theme of Liberal election-related posturing using Defence capabilities as the pawns, ie like Chretien's Red Book: "I says zero 'elicopters! Zip! Nada! Zilch!"  This time: "We'll hold a fair and transparent competition...that will exclude the F-35."

Maybe it was me, though, and EITS was referring to Gagnier? ???

G2G


----------



## blacktriangle

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I've being out of the field for a long time but I would say what you are asking for is probably classified.



Fair enough. I asked for a ballpark, not an exact breakdown of how the fleet is distributed, readiness levels etc. 

The answer is obviously less than 65. It will become "unclassified" once the Liberals announce how many (if any) new aircraft we will actually get...


----------



## dimsum

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If anyone seriously believes the RCAF will get a new fighter to replace the CF-18 once the CF-35 is cancelled, then you are smoking something that you should share with the rest of us.
> 
> The CF-18 replacement will be on infinite hold like the Sea King replacement, and eventually the RCAF will be a global favourite at air shows with its "historic aircraft" flypasts.
> 
> Being unable to interoperate effectively with allies, much less be able to fight in the interconnected "networked nodes" forms of high end warfare (or defend against the peer enemies who also fight that way) is of little concern to politicians who rarely pay in blood or treasure for the results of their decisions.



When it goes that way, let the Russian Bears cross the ADIZ and "leak" it to the press.  Something with a tagline like "Canada can no longer protect its borders" should fire up the outrage bus enough...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I took EITS' comment to refer to the theme of Liberal election-related posturing using Defence capabilities as the pawns, ie like Chretien's Red Book: "I says zero 'elicopters! Zip! Nada! Zilch!"  This time: "We'll hold a fair and transparent competition...that will exclude the F-35."
> 
> Maybe it was me, though, and EITS was referring to Gagnier? ???
> 
> G2G



A little bit of both but mainly towards the fact someone close to Mr Trudeau had go on time-out before the election even happened.  Chretien tossed $500 million away for not so much as a bolt; that picture to me represents the mockery the liberals made of our democratic system and how they used  the coffers.  Corruption is like an iceberg, you likely only see a small part of the whole thing .   

I should have put more thought into my previous post for clarity...overall I am concerned for both the CAF and Canada as a whole.  I think the old ways" will return because some of "them" are still around.   I think the average Canadian voted for a smile and a name not anything of substance. 

Directly related to the fighter issue, like I said earlier;  might as well start designing your 50th Anniversary patches if you are part of the 18 community...


----------



## AlexanderM

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If anyone seriously believes the RCAF will get a new fighter to replace the CF-18 once the CF-35 is cancelled, then you are smoking something that you should share with the rest of us.
> 
> The CF-18 replacement will be on infinite hold like the Sea King replacement, and eventually the RCAF will be a global favourite at air shows with its "historic aircraft" flypasts.
> 
> Being unable to interoperate effectively with allies, much less be able to fight in the interconnected "networked nodes" forms of high end warfare (or defend against the peer enemies who also fight that way) is of little concern to politicians who rarely pay in blood or treasure for the results of their decisions.


Wouldn't shock me at all if they just announce the purchase of 40 or so new Super Hornets and that's all she wrote, although hopefully they would at least purchase the Ultra Hornet.  It would be an easy way out for them, wouldn't be overly expensive, wouldn't get them into a political dogfight over new fighters, and as they aren't going to pour a bunch of money into the military, all of the other fighters would likely be too expensive anyway.  Just saying.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What is easiest is for them to buy nothing, just like they did before...


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Wouldn't shock me at all if they just announce the purchase of 40 or so new Super Hornets and that's all she wrote



Trudeau promised an open competition.  There will be one.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

He didn't say when or that they will actually buy anything.  I think he said lots of things during an election to get elected.  What a shock!


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Trudeau promised an open competition.  There will be one.



Are you going to keep us a running tally of things he promised but didn't do? You may run out of data storage space on the internet.


----------



## trampbike

How could the F-35 even participate in a competition?
The way I understand it, Canada would have to get out of the JSF MoU. 
Otherwise, there's no way LM would would enter the competition, as it kind of would compete against itself... (JSF MoU deal vs FMS deal)


----------



## YZT580

He promised to spend money.  He will.  He promised to pull out the 18's.  He will.  He promised to equip the military with blue berets.  He will.  What makes you think he won't keep the promise to run an open competition for fighters?  But I would like to see the look on his face when he discovers that those cheaper models really don't exist.  He will end up spending more and getting less.  Perhaps he will use some of his 10 billion infrastructure fund.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Holy fuck, what is it "Gullible Day" in Canada?


----------



## blacktriangle

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Holy frig, what is it "Gullible Day" in Canada?



That was the 19th.  ;D


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are you going to keep us a running tally of things he promised but didn't do? You may run out of data storage space on the internet.



I think I'll actually let him swear in a cabinet before I start railing on him for broken promises.


----------



## jmt18325

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I would like to see the look on his face when he discovers that those cheaper models really don't exist.



We can't know that without actually knowing the cost of anything first.  As it stands now, the Super Hornet is quite a bit less, especially over the lifecycle, given prices from Boeing and Lockheed Martin.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> He didn't say when or that they will actually buy anything.



Uhhh....

We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.
We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability.
We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/A-new-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf

Their platform is nice in that it's easy to keep track of their promises.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability.
> We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.



You cannot have an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 if you automatically exclude certain aircraft because you don't like them politically. That's the exact opposite of an open and transparent competition.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Their platform is nice in that it's easy to keep track of their promises.



I've lived through a bunch - far too big of a bunch - of Liberal governments.

You haven't clued in to the pattern yet.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> I've lived through a bunch - far too big of a bunch - of Liberal governments.
> 
> You haven't clued in to the pattern yet.



I find it best to judge people and governments on their own merit.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You cannot have an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 if you automatically exclude certain aircraft because you don't like them politically. That's the exact opposite of an open and transparent competition.



I agree with you - the problem is that the F-35 has been made politically unpalatable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo4/no4/comment-eng.asp

I see many noteworthy quotes but will use this one:

"For many observers, the Chrétien government’s approach to defence, and defence procurement in particular, was typified by its politically expedient cancellation of the EH101 helicopter in 1993, by its dithering over a successor to the Labrador, and by its abject failure to secure a replacement for the Sea King. Honouring a campaign promise at one’s first cabinet meeting is, these days, nothing short of remarkable, but a more sensible and cost-effective compromise would have retained the original search and rescue (SAR) variant of the EH101 while cancelling the maritime variant. This would have reduced the cancellation costs, expedited the phase-out of the Labrador, and provided a somewhat better equipped SAR helicopter than the Cormorant."

I realize Mr Trudeau is not CHRÉTIEN,  but I submit they are both Liberals and , well...







Replace EH101 with F35,  and Labrador with FWSAR.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I find it best to judge people and governments on their own merit.



It's still the same old Liberal Party, still the same old culture.

A fresh figurehead merely conceals those pulling the strings beneath - and they've not changed.


----------



## AlexanderM

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Trudeau promised an open competition.  There will be one.


The other fighters are expensive.


----------



## Good2Golf

EITS, I too wish our next PM well, but I too am concerned about the remaining concentration of 'old school' liberals within the PM's sphere of influence.  Half a billion dollars to cancel the EH-101, a billion for AdScam, a billion for the long gun registry, a billion for Ontario liberals' cancelation of the gas-fired power plant, the mysterious unknown "fourth investor" in the golf course...  Some will counter that the amount doesn't matter and that Duffy's $90k is just as bad morally (conveniently ignoring Mac Harb's millions, of course)...perhaps morally so, but $3-4B takes a chunk out of Joe and Jane Canada's pockets in a real, impactful way.  I won't be directly impacted when the F-35 is cancelled, but I feel for those in the Canadian aerospace industry currently enjoying well-paying employment from the $637M of current  JSF-related contracts who will lose their jobs when the contracts aren't renewed and the companies that employ them are not permitted to bid on the follow-on estimated $10-11B of future JSF contracts Industry Canada assesses as likely should Canada purchase the F-35.  So e people say it is easy to re-assign contracts to aerospace industries from other vendors, however that is a bit of a facile view.  JSF industrial participation had been crafted over an eighth of a century, since 2002, when the. DND Associate Deputy Minister (Materiel), Alan Williams, signed the first industrial participation MOU in Washington. Anything cobbled together in months cannot possibly have the integration and infusion that JSF had. At least on the plus side, we're talking industrial technological benefits (ITBs), not 'offsets', so we shouldn't end up with new restaurant chains hiring serving staff in return for buying jets made in country XXX - entirely I relate to aerospace. Don't laugh, part of the offset package that Mcdonnell Douglas provide included a new seafood restaurant chain being introduced into Canada...Red Lobster...yup, welcome CF-188 and those yummy buttery biscuits served before your Captain's Shrimp Platter arrives. :nod:

My indirect costs will be the same as those that will be borne by other Canadians as well, and unavoidable at this point.  Opportunity cost, both in money (look at how much we are paying for CH-148 Cyclone now, than had we continued with the EH-101 back in 1993. Chretien's hubris cost both in the short-term and later, not to mention the delays to replacing the Sea King.  People look to JSF and say it's a program that has taken too long...they either conveniently forget, or truly don't appreciate that Eurofighter Typhoon was originally called EFA2000, or European Fighter Aircraft (to be operational in) 2000...missed that target date by about a tenth of a century. For what it's worth, I think history will bear out that Canada was run in a fighter race and, a few meters from the finish line, pulled aside and returned to the starting line wih a different runner...it doesn't matter how fast that runner is, they won't finish the race faster than the first runner, unless the race course is significantly shortened.

I've said before that I don't have a dog in the fight re: F-35, and that's entirely true operationally. Can we put in place a NORAD/Fortress Canada compliant solution? Probably.  Will it be able to endure the way that the CF-18 will (hopefully) endure? Not sure, but we are likely to see the CF-18 undergo some of the same strain as the Sea King and Buffalo, being drawn out significantly past the originally intended lifetime of the aircraft.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## PPCLI Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You cannot have an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 if you automatically exclude certain aircraft because you don't like them politically. That's the exact opposite of an open and transparent competition.



Nor is it open and fair if the SOR is written (by fighter pilots) so that only the F35 will win the bid.


----------



## Altair

Loachman said:
			
		

> It's still the same old Liberal Party, still the same old culture.
> 
> A fresh figurehead merely conceals those pulling the strings beneath - and they've not changed.


Truthiness.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> It's still the same old Liberal Party, still the same old culture.
> 
> A fresh figurehead merely conceals those pulling the strings beneath - and they've not changed.



I guess I'm silly in that I need evidence first.


----------



## Altair

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I guess I'm silly in that I need evidence first.


Truthiness requires no such evidence.

Get on board man.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I guess I'm silly in that I need evidence first.



Let's pretend we are neighbors;  I own a big, but somewhat older German Sheppard.  One day it bites you, or one of your kids quite badly.  You are upset but I argue "that you don't have a proof"  :blotto: my dog did it.  Not long after I am posted and you get a new neighbor.

Life goes on.  Your neighbor moves away, and the house sells again.  You wake up one day to see me, again, next door. 

And dammit! I have a German Sheppard.   You can see it isn't that other one, it's a younger,  nicer looking dog....but still it's a German Sheppard.

Are you going to walk over and pet it, or would it be reasonable to be wary because the last one turned on you?  You can HOPE it's not like the last one but...it IS the same kind after all...


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Let's pretend we are neighbors;



The thing about people is, they aren't dogs...and we aren't neighbours.


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Let's pretend we are neighbors;  I own a big, but somewhat older German Sheppard.  One day it bites you, or one of your kids quite badly.  You are upset but I argue "that you don't have a proof"  :blotto: my dog did it.  Not long after I am posted and you get a new neighbor.
> 
> Life goes on.  Your neighbor moves away, and the house sells again.  You wake up one day to see me, again, next door.
> 
> And dammit! I have a German Sheppard.   You can see it isn't that other one, it's a younger,  nicer looking dog....but still it's a German Sheppard.
> 
> Are you going to walk over and pet it, or would it be reasonable to be wary because the last one turned on you?  You can HOPE it's not like the last one but...it IS the same kind after all...


I got robbed by a native once...

Thankfully I don't apply your logic to every new native person I see.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Fine, ignore the concept that was meant.  I will spell it out for you.  This is assuming you aren't being obtuse on purpose.

The best predictor of the future is the past.  In this case, the Liberals past when it comes to replacing needed fucking airplanes.   :

* notice the word predictor, not guarantee.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Altair said:
			
		

> I got robbed by a native once...
> 
> Thankfully I don't apply your logic to every new native person I see.



Your example would lean to racism.  Mine leans to documented historical facts.

But nice try.  (Well...not really but I try to be nice sometimes...try harder next time)


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Fine, ignore the concept that was meant.  I will spell it out for you.  This is assuming you aren't being obtuse on purpose.
> 
> The best predictor of the future is the past.  In this case, the Liberals past when it comes to replacing needed ******* airplanes.   :


fair enough.

As long as you call it what it is, a prediction. 

You were stating it as a fact. The fact is, trudeau was elected two days ago, so it's a bit hard to say what he will and will not do.


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Your example would lean to racism.  Mine leans to documented historical facts.
> 
> But nice try.  (Well...not really but I try to be nice sometimes...try harder next time)


it's funny, when stephen harper was elected in 2006, I don't believe anyone was saying he would saddle the army with the LSVW like Kim Campbell did.

One can look at the past as a reference, but to flat out say it's the same old liberal party of old when they were elected all of two days ago, well, truthiness.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

How about we stay on track and avoid the  :duel: stuff?


----------



## Altair

Yes sir.


----------



## a_majoor

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Wouldn't shock me at all if they just announce the purchase of 40 or so new Super Hornets and that's all she wrote, although hopefully they would at least purchase the Ultra Hornet.  It would be an easy way out for them, wouldn't be overly expensive, wouldn't get them into a political dogfight over new fighters, and as they aren't going to pour a bunch of money into the military, all of the other fighters would likely be too expensive anyway.  Just saying.



Actually it would shock me (and probably a whole lot of people) if they did purchase anything at all after an expensive and pointless "competition" which various vendors try to pawn 70 and 80's vintage design fighters on the CF. And Super Hornets or the various other potential contenders are going to give you a lot of sticker shock, _without_ offering the capabilities of the CF-35. While I am obviously not an expert in the matter, the idea of trying to retrofit the sensor fusion and networking capabilities of the F-35 onto an older airframe is pretty unlikely, or will result in a fairly improbable aircraft: think of a F-18 "Growler" with most of the hard points devoted to pods of electronics rather than ordinance and you will get the idea.

So it is lose-lose for everyone: The CF will not get a new aircraft, they will not be able to learn or practice "network" warfare for a generation or more (or learn techniques to counter it), the Canadian aerospace industry will be cut out of future contracts (and also not learning and implementing cutting edge technologies to apply to other projects), and we will lose credibility on the world stage as we can no longer back words with actions.

I suppose there is a benefit in watching so called Canadian Nationalists scream in outrage as USAF fighters have to defend Canadian airspace from probes by Russian bombers and UCAVs in the future, but it seems a poor sort of compensation.


----------



## Baz

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I suppose there is a benefit in watching so called Canadian Nationalists scream in outrage as USAF fighters have to defend Canadian airspace from probes by Russian bombers and UCAVs in the future, but it seems a poor sort of compensation.



They won't care: we've been using US Tankers and US AWACS for that for years...


----------



## MarkOttawa

AvWeek's Bill Sweetman:



> Opinion: Euro-Canards, Boeing Likely To Fight For Canada’s Business
> Canada’s election upset heralds a big fighter contest
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-euro-canards-boeing-likely-fight-canada-s-business



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

My musings on an RCAF Gripen notwithstanding - is there a way for the Liberals to save face and buy the F-35 by cobbling together a "better deal"?

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/ge-sets-aetd-record/



> AIR, CONGRESS
> GE Jet Sets Record; Will F-35 Get New AETD Engine?
> By COLIN CLARK
> on _*June 18, 2015*_ at 8:41 AM
> 
> 
> PARIS AIR SHOW: _*Pratt & Whitney has refused to disclose the price of its F135 engines for the F-35 for quite a while, even while Lockheed Martin boasted it would bring down the price of the Joint Strike Fighter to $80 million a copy — including engine*_.
> 
> Now we know why. At a Monday briefing here, the head of Pratt’s F135 program, Mark Buongiorno, told reporters the company didn’t want to release the information because the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program’s engines were being tested for dimensions that matched those of the F-35. *A more fuel-efficient AETD engine could overcome one of the longstanding concerns about the F-35* in an era of ever deeper anti-access/area denial defenses, *its relatively short unrefueled range of a bit more than 600 nautical miles.*
> 
> Then General Electric put out a release late yesterday about testing for its Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) project, which achieved the highest combined compressor and turbine temperature operation “in the history of jet engine propulsion.”
> 
> That release included this sentence: “It is now being applied to the next step – an engine that could fit an F-35-like aircraft.”
> 
> You could almost hear the pin drop. Years after former Defense Secretary Bob Gates pushed hard to kill the so-called second engine program — GE’s F136 — it looks as if GE may be poised to come back with what could be either a second engine for the F-35, a replacement for Pratt’s F135, or the next-generation power plant.
> 
> GE finished tests on a new engine, which included the highest combined compressor and turbine temperature operation “in the history of jet engine propulsion.”
> 
> Daniel McCormick, general manager of GE’s advanced combat engine programs, said there had been a Preliminary Design Review that involved the Air Force, NASA and Lockheed Martin. The new engine can adapt for either maximum thrust — to outrun an enemy anti-aircraft missile, for example — or long-range cruise — say, to penetrate deeply and stealthily into an enemy air-defense zone.
> 
> As more details emerge it will be fascinating to hear how senior Pentagon officials and Air Force leaders view this GE engine: as a technology marvel, the beginnings of the next generation in F-35 power, or as a “second engine.”
> 
> Topics: Adaptive Engine Technology Development, Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology, ADVENT, AETD, anti-access area denial, f-35 joint strike fighter, F135, F136, fighters, GE, General Electric, jet engines, Mark Buongiorno, Paris Air Show, Paris Air Show 2015, PAS2015, Pratt Whitney, PrattAndWhitney



If a new engine is possible, if the specs change, if the contractual obligations change - in other words if the facts change will, Justin, like John Maynard Keynes, change his mind?

And he doesn't have to take any decision until the next election (due in 2019) as the Hornets life can be managed into the 2020-2025 window.

He doesn't have to cancel outright a programme that has already been established - he can dither.


----------



## Ostrozac

Instead of looking at the older technology on offer, is it possible to look forward? According to public statements our CF-18 is life extended until 2025, isn't that about the time that F/A-XX is supposed to be coming into service in the US Navy? It'll be expensive as hell, of course, but all of it is. These are jet fighters, not Timex watches, of course they are going to be expensive.

Is is possible for us to skip a generation? And at the same time, in the finest Canadian tradition, kick the problem down the field for ten years for another government to deal with?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> My musings on an RCAF Gripen notwithstanding - is there a way for the Liberals to save face and buy the F-35 by cobbling together a "better deal"? .... He doesn't have to cancel outright a programme that has already been established - he can dither.


If the platform promise was "we'll review" or "we'll re-do the process", _maaaaaaaaaaybe_, but it's hard to fit what you're proposing into what was promised ....


> We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.


Accuracy.  Brevity.  Clarity.  
For better, or worse.
Meanwhile, "we're still here"  ;D ....


> Oct 22 Dassault Aviation CEO Eric Trappier briefing French aerospace journalists:
> 
> * Wrote to Canada PM-elect Trudeau to congratulate and offering Rafale if F-35 no longer considered ....


----------



## Loachman

Liberal election promises are generally meaningless.

Except for a few bad ones.

And few Liberal policies are based upon logic and fact rather than emotion.


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ....
> Meanwhile, "we're still here"  ;D ....



Aye.....no deid yet.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> Liberal election promises are generally meaningless.
> 
> Except for a few bad ones.
> 
> And few Liberal policies are based upon logic and fact rather than emotion.



Which means...... Wait Out?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Loachman said:
			
		

> Liberal election promises are generally meaningless.
> 
> Except for a few bad ones.
> 
> And few Liberal policies are based upon logic and fact rather than _emotion_.




But my sense is that _emotion_ is exactly what Prime Minister designate Trudeau offered to the Canadian people ... his platform wasn't exactly _empty_ but one can hardly call it comprehensive. He promised _change_ and many people bought _change_ because, presumably, they didn't like (an _emotion_) the direction in which our country was headed. Part of that _change_ will, I think must involve keeping some promises: scrapping the F-35 might be a bit expensive but only a few tens of thousands of Canadians will notice that, millions, even tens of millions will applaud the _change_.


----------



## NavyShooter

http://www.aviatorshotline.com/aircraft/turbine-military/canadair/canadair-cf-5d-0

Why don't we track down a few of these, or re-open the production line again?

Made in Canada solution....?


----------



## Loachman

Because that would be a complete waste of time and money.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

In naval terms, it would be like building a new run of Mackenzie Class DDE....

Pointless.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In naval terms, it would be like building a new run of Mackenzie Class DDE....
> 
> Pointless.



Wouldn't they be better armed than AOPS??    :  

We will see what Trudeau does.  I have a feeling that once the RCAF get to speak on their own behalf then things might change.  Its not like the decision has to be made immediately.  If things were done properly we would get a mix of F-18's, Growlers and F-35's (or some other type of mixed fleet) but god forbid we have more than one type of fighting aircraft.  We can have 7 different ways to haul people and cargo but only one way to deliver metal on target.  Either way wouldn't we need more than 65 aircraft if we get something other than the F-35?  The capability issue defined the number of platforms.

Also, if Leslie is whispering in his ear we are all screwed.  Complete lack of understanding of logistics that guy.


----------



## NavyShooter

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In naval terms, it would be like building a new run of Mackenzie Class DDE....
> 
> Pointless.



Agreed....but...

Made in Canada
Twin Engine

There's most of what the media would understand or care about....


----------



## Loachman

The "D" is a dual - a twin-seat trainer version. Why pick that one?

The F5 had no radar at all, therefore no air-to-air capability. It had no all-weather or night capability. It was slow and had very short range, especially when armed.

The dual had no guns, due to the space required for the extra cockpit.

It is not made anywere, Canada or otherise. Tooling no longer exists. That would all have to be recreated from scratch. Modern manufacturing methods would require considerable redesign as well.

Nobody else would buy an ancient and limited-performance aircraft that would end up costing more than the F35.

Why would you want to do this? Do you hate fighter pilots that much?

What's next - reinvented Shermans for the Armoured guys?


----------



## NavyShooter

No, it was an example...that specific aircraft appears to be up for sale on the civilian market right now.


----------



## cavalryman

Loachman said:
			
		

> What's next - reinvented Shermans for the Armoured guys?


If it's got a frikkin' laser cannon, why not  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

So I went online to check out what was meant by a fourth generation fighter, acknowledging that there are but a handful of the fifth generation jets out there, of which the F 35 is one (as far as I understand).

My very limited research found that there are a number of 4th Gen fighters out there, some of which are even now being developed.  

Assuming that we want fair competition combined with capability, and a nod to our greatest ally (the US), I see the following jets as able to fulfil the roles that the CF 188 currently fill.  Thinking about jets that had their first flights at least in the 1990s, the list shrinks.  These are some of the possible jets that are 4th Gen (all types), and will not include any from either Russia or the People’s Republic of China:
Typhoon (Eurofighter GmbH)
HAL Tejas (India)
F 2 (Japan)
FA-50 (Korea)
F/A-18 Super Hornet (USA)
In development are the following:
HAL Tejas Mark II (India)
F-15SE “Silent Eagle” (USA)
Just looking at the 5th Generation fighters, they are all in development, less the F22, and that is a “no export” fighter, so it’s off the books.  So, I would probably think that a 4th Generation fighter is the way to go.  It can be delivered reasonably soon, and would be flying in time to replace our CF 188s.  

We have a big country, so of all the metrics, I looked at range.  
Typhoon:  3790 km
Hal Tejas: 3000 km
F2: 834 km
FA-50:  1851 km
F/A-18: 3330 km

I think it would be clear that the F 2 and the FA-50 would be cut from the list.  

Next, thanks to the CF 104, we have a phobia of single engine fighters.  So, the Hal Tejas is off the list.

This leaves the Typhoon and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.  I’m sure there are many more variables (are they still in production?  If not, can they be ramped up again?  How much extra?  What of training?)

As I caveat, I'm not a fighter guy, and I barely understand pilots when they talk, so would it be a fair assessment to suggest that we get either the Typhoon or the F/A-18 Super Hornet?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It is a fair assumption to assume that whomever offers the best bribe industrial offset package will win.

The military utility/fighting capability of the aircraft barely enters the equation.

Look- the only aircraft "we" (we being official Ottawa) really care about keeping out of Canadian Airspace are the USAF ones. We need to have enough fighter capability so the US does not assume sovereignty of our airspace, but not enough to actually matter in a fight.

It is the way of the world, kids...


----------



## NavyShooter

Soooo....back to the CF-5...?  ;-)


----------



## vonGarvin

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Soooo....back to the CF-5...?  ;-)


:rofl:


----------



## Eland2

Loachman said:
			
		

> The "D" is a dual - a twin-seat trainer version. Why pick that one?
> 
> The F5 had no radar at all, therefore no air-to-air capability. It had no all-weather or night capability. It was slow and had very short range, especially when armed.
> 
> The dual had no guns, due to the space required for the extra cockpit.
> 
> It is not made anywere, Canada or otherise. Tooling no longer exists. That would all have to be recreated from scratch. Modern manufacturing methods would require considerable redesign as well.
> 
> Nobody else would buy an ancient and limited-performance aircraft that would end up costing more than the F35.
> 
> Why would you want to do this? Do you hate fighter pilots that much?
> 
> What's next - reinvented Shermans for the Armoured guys?



Well, the CF-5 was never designed to be capable of interdiction. Its short range, relatively low speed and limited ordnance handling capability pretty well relegated it to being a ground strike platform, and if I recall correctly, this is generally how the CF-5 was employed in the CF, chiefly with CRV-7 rocket pods and the odd 500-pound bomb here and there.


----------



## vonGarvin

The CF-116 "Freedom Fighter" was also used in the recce role.  It was employed in this role during Op SALON in 1990.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Can we move away from the CF 5 discussion in the context of this thread?

It about as relevant as discussing the Centurion in the context of what Canada needs in a new tank.


----------



## Old Sweat

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Well, the CF-5 was never designed to be capable of interdiction. Its short range, relatively low speed and limited ordnance handling capability pretty well relegated it to being a ground strike platform, and if I recall correctly, this is generally how the CF-5 was employed in the CF, chiefly with CRV-7 rocket pods and the *odd 500-pound bomb here and there*.



Exactly what I saw in Petawawa in a demonstration in the fall of 1973. One CF-5 driver screwed up the FAC's orders and dropped a HE bomb about 500 metres from the packed stands of spectators, but on the other side of some trees. The transmissions were being broadcast live over the PA system and the FAC (a fighter pilot himself) tossed severe "F bombs" down range, mostly about the ability and professionalism of his erstwhile colleagues.

And SKT is right, but I feel strongly about the lack of a "Give a Sh.t" factor in the RCAF about support to land forces.


----------



## Ostrozac

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Can we move away from the CF 5 discussion in the context of this thread?
> 
> It about as relevant as discussing the Centurion in the context of what Canada needs in a new tank.



What is relevant is whether we want a true multi-role fighter (like the F-18 or the F-35) or if we want to get back into microfleets. Back in the day, the CF-101 was air-to-air and intended for NORAD, CF-104 was intended for NATO ground attack, and CF-5/116 was strictly for taking pictures and dropping napalm on people who were unlikely to shoot back.

The occasional talk about a new F-5, or a new Arrow ignores that neither aircraft was multi-role. And from what I understand, the institutional memory of the RCAF is that the days of having three types of fighters weren't happy ones, and that multi-role is the way to go.


----------



## Eland2

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So I went online to check out what was meant by a fourth generation fighter, acknowledging that there are but a handful of the fifth generation jets out there, of which the F 35 is one (as far as I understand).
> 
> My very limited research found that there are a number of 4th Gen fighters out there, some of which are even now being developed.
> 
> [...]
> 
> We have a big country, so of all the metrics, I looked at range.
> Typhoon:  3790 km
> Hal Tejas: 3000 km
> F2: 834 km
> FA-50:  1851 km
> F/A-18: 3330 km
> 
> I think it would be clear that the F 2 and the FA-50 would be cut from the list.
> 
> Next, thanks to the CF 104, we have a phobia of single engine fighters.  So, the Hal Tejas is off the list.
> 
> This leaves the Typhoon and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.  I’m sure there are many more variables (are they still in production?  If not, can they be ramped up again?  How much extra?  What of training?)
> 
> As I caveat, I'm not a fighter guy, and I barely understand pilots when they talk, so would it be a fair assessment to suggest that we get either the Typhoon or the F/A-18 Super Hornet?



Well, given that there is some parts commonality between the Super Hornet and the existing CF-18 fleet, I would hazard a guess that we would opt for the Super Hornet long before we would go for the Typhoon, which would require an entirely new maintenance infrastructure.


----------



## CBH99

Not trying to take this thread around full circle by any means, so feel free to not respond to this post.  

Just in reference to the options listed above - Typhoon or Super Hornet.  If your looking at twin engine, modern aircraft - have to count include the Rafale in your list.


----------



## vonGarvin

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Not trying to take this thread around full circle by any means, so feel free to not respond to this post.
> 
> Just in reference to the options listed above - Typhoon or Super Hornet.  If your looking at twin engine, modern aircraft - have to count include the Rafale in your list.


Since there are variants that first flew in the 90s, sure. And it has good range. There's the three.


----------



## NavyShooter

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> What is relevant is whether* we want *a true multi-role fighter (like the F-18 or the F-35) or if we want to get back into microfleets. Back in the day, the CF-101 was air-to-air and intended for NORAD, CF-104 was intended for NATO ground attack, and CF-5/116 was strictly for taking pictures and dropping napalm on people who were unlikely to shoot back.
> 
> The occasional talk about a new F-5, or a new Arrow ignores that neither aircraft was multi-role. And from what I understand, the institutional memory of the RCAF is that the days of having three types of fighters weren't happy ones, and that multi-role is the way to go.



We want....that's the key statement there.

What WE want doesn't really enter the equation...what we want is the F-35, and the decision is effectively made...we're not getting it.

So, the question now becomes, what do we get instead?  

The answer lies in the definition of what we need our Airforce to do, and that definition will come from the government that's decided we're not getting F-35's.

If the government decides that it's a matter of showing the flag, participating in exercises, and doing minimal tasks in support of national operations, then we don't need much more than a CF-5, since it'd meet the "Made in Canada" and "Twin Engine" and "Show the Flag" capabilities....

Not that it is what we as a military have defined as our ACTUAL need (based on historical employment and deployment), but if the government is looking to save money on the fighters to put into the ships, then maybe we will end up with something like the Hawk ($33 mil est.) or maybe the Scorpion ($20 mil est):

http://www.scorpionjet.com/aircraft-features/

Based on the immediate pull-back from the expeditionary mission against ISIS, is a multi-role capable aircraft what the current government sees that we need?  Or will we be told that we need a less capable platform?

NS


----------



## a_majoor

Since the real next fighter is likely to be none at all, this should take some of the edge off:

Hornet Ball 2015 Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6xcamVTE3Y


----------



## NavyShooter

Oh, and maybe if the decision is for a 'on the cheap' alternative like the Hawk or the Scorpion, it could also be considered for the roles of:

-Trainer
-Snow-Bird replacement

One fleet of aircraft for the whole shebang?


----------



## GR66

Assuming that the F-35 is off the table and a Liberal governments is going to be less likely to "whip out" our fighters for expeditionary roles, would there be any benefit to purchasing something like 40 new, upgraded F-15Cs?  Something like the proposed F-15C2040 (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/afa/2015/09/15/boeing-positions-f-15-as-f-22-supplement/72316414/)?

I don't know what the cost per unit would be, but I've seen figures for the F-15SG which are in the $60 million range, so if the F-15C2040 is in that same ballpark it would be cheaper than the F-35.

The F-15C2040 is strictly an air-to-air fighter so we'd be giving up on the dual role capability (and reducing the number of aircraft to 40 from a proposed 65 F-35s) so our fast air would be relegated to the NORAD role.  But at least it would be an aircraft that is very well suited to that role with long range, and a large weapon load.  I'd think that the US would feel confident in our ability to do our fair share in defending North American airspace with that aircraft and it would probably be very welcome overseas in helping deter countries like Russia or China from looking for military solutions with their neighbours. 

Money saved on replacement fighters could (wishful thinking I know!) be invested in restoring our Navy and transforming our organizational structure, etc.  We could then a few years down the line look at either adding some F-35's to our fleet to re-establish a multi-role capability (once the F-35 has completed development and become a proven commodity) or look at whatever is then in development as a replacement/supplement to the F-15C2040s.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Some USAF, USN views on stealth etc.:



> …the service’s [USAF’s] own air warfare experts at Nellis AFB, Nev., freely admit that stealth works best when complemented with other capabilities like electronic attack—and those officers recognize the need for a platform like the EA-18G Growler. Detection via radar is decided by the signal to noise ratio—stealth reduces the signal while jamming increases the noise. That’s just basic physics—ideally, one works both sides of the problem to achieve the best results.
> 
> At the tactical level—as I recently discussed with a good friend who is an Air Force Weapons School grad with lots of stealth experience—a four-ship of F-35Cs supported by Growlers and E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes and other naval assets is likely to be more effective than a four-ship of Super Hornets operating with the same support assets. While the F-35C does not have good kinematic performance, it does (or will eventually) have stealth, excellent sensors and phenomenal electronic warfare capabilities. Indeed, combining the F-35C with the Super Hornet might work very well in a scenario where the Joint Strike Fighter is used as a spotter for the F/A-18E/Fs. Indeed, the Navy’s director of air warfare Rear Adm. Mike Manazir told me as such a couple of years ago when I was at the U.S. Naval Institute.
> 
> But the problem for the Navy is that the F-35C is expensive both to buy and sustain onboard a carrier. There are many in the Navy that simply don’t believe that any added performance benefits the F-35C brings to the table would be worth the massive additional cost. Moreover, there is a growing understanding in the naval community that the F-35C fundamentally does not have the range or payload needed to keep the carrier relevant in the anti-access/area denial environment of the Western Pacific. Indeed, there have been suggestions that the Navy truncate or cancel its portion of the Joint Strike Fighter buy. But only time will tell…
> 
> Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-militarys-1000000000000-question-stealth-worth-it-14158



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eland2

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> We want....that's the key statement there.
> 
> What WE want doesn't really enter the equation...what we want is the F-35, and the decision is effectively made...we're not getting it.
> 
> So, the question now becomes, what do we get instead?
> 
> The answer lies in the definition of what we need our Airforce to do, and that definition will come from the government that's decided we're not getting F-35's.
> 
> If the government decides that it's a matter of showing the flag, participating in exercises, and doing minimal tasks in support of national operations, then we don't need much more than a CF-5, since it'd meet the "Made in Canada" and "Twin Engine" and "Show the Flag" capabilities....
> 
> Not that it is what we as a military have defined as our ACTUAL need (based on historical employment and deployment), but if the government is looking to save money on the fighters to put into the ships, then maybe we will end up with something like the Hawk ($33 mil est.) or maybe the Scorpion ($20 mil est):
> 
> http://www.scorpionjet.com/aircraft-features/
> 
> Based on the immediate pull-back from the expeditionary mission against ISIS, is a multi-role capable aircraft what the current government sees that we need?  Or will we be told that we need a less capable platform?
> 
> NS



I could actually see the government opting for something like 80 - 90 Scorpions or Hawks to handle ground-strike missions and purchase a fleet of 45 - 50 F/A 18 Growlers or the same number of Typhoons or Rafales, or possibly even F15C's (as someone else posting to this thread has suggested) to handle interdiction duties in critical areas and also take care of any coalition-type missions we might find ourselves involved in later on. 

The manned-bomber threat disappeared long ago, and indeed, it was that threat, plus the need to allocate air assets to Canada's NATO contingent in Germany that drove the purchase of the CF-18. Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.


----------



## vonGarvin

Eland2 said:
			
		

> The manned-bomber threat disappeared long ago, and indeed, it was that threat, plus the need to allocate air assets to Canada's NATO contingent in Germany that drove the purchase of the CF-18. Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.



These may be old, but these have far from disappeared.


----------



## dimsum

Eland2 said:
			
		

> I could actually see the government opting for something like 80 - 90 Scorpions or Hawks to handle ground-strike missions and purchase a fleet Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.



RPAs have so far only been used in air-to-ground surveillance and/or strike, with the Triton (still in development) being designed for maritime surveillance.  No RPAs (so far) have been designed for air-to-air engagements.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I would also point out that the problem of controlling an RPA north of 70 degrees is also ridiculously expensive, either in terms of satellites or a UHF repeater every 200NM...

TANSTAAFL...


----------



## PPCLI Guy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> TANSTAAFL...



The Arctic, like the moon, is indeed a harsh mistress.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

well played, good sir!


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eland2 said:
			
		

> I could actually see the government opting for something like 80 - 90 Scorpions or Hawks to handle ground-strike missions and purchase a fleet of 45 - 50 F/A 18 Growlers or the same number of Typhoons or Rafales, or possibly even F15C's (as someone else posting to this thread has suggested) to handle interdiction duties in critical areas and also take care of any coalition-type missions we might find ourselves involved in later on.
> 
> The manned-bomber threat disappeared long ago, and indeed, it was that threat, plus the need to allocate air assets to Canada's NATO contingent in Germany that drove the purchase of the CF-18. Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.



Hawk or Scorpion for strike ?!  What pod are you going to put on that?  How much payload will it have?  Who is going to integrate all that?

Not going to happen.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

It's been said before, but perhaps it's worth saying again... the best thing we can do is suck back, prepare a white paper that outlines exactly what we want/need to do, and then buy an airframe that meets that mission. I think that ruling the F35 out right off the hop was a poor choice, but having some strategic guidance and then procuring systems that meet that mission makes perfect sense.

The Liberals have noted that their main effort is going to be the navy... hopefully there's some sort of strategic guidance to back why, what, or how. Who knows, maybe naval aviation air will make a comeback

*Realized aviation was the wrong term


----------



## NavyShooter

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Hawk or Scorpion for strike ?!  What pod are you going to put on that?  How much payload will it have?  Who is going to integrate all that?
> 
> Not going to happen.


 
Max,

Like it or not, the statement *Not buying F-35* was pretty clear.

Followup statements to the effect that *Save money to fund naval upgrades* are a bit less detailed, but with the pull-back from a stealthy strike fighter, and looking at the other options on the table...well, like it or not, the Hawk and Scorpion are probably on there.

Consider the idea of the Scorpion...they have no foreign military sales as of yet, but if the Canadian Government said "let us setup the production line" and we started building them, well, we'd have economic benefits/offsets with a made in Canada solution that would make everyone in Quebec happy.  (Can you say Bombardier Partnership?)

Is it what we WANT?  Nope.  We WANT the F-35.  Got it.  

Is it what we might end up getting?  Yup.  Even though it meets almost none of the Military's requirements...but here's what it would meet:

1.  Not the F-35 (Campaign promise)
2. Twin Engine (public perception)
3. Made in Canada possible (Quebec...Bombardier...votes?)
4. Capable of showing the flag 
5. Cheaper than almost anything else on the market...while giving a 'minimal' capability

If we got a pile of Eurofighters, or Rafales, or F-15's, we'd be almost at the same pile of coin that the F-35 would run us, with no industrial offsets likely.  

Additionally, as mentioned, we could use the Scorpion as a trainer, as the Snow-bird replacement, and as our 'fighter/bomber'...even though we all know it's not ideal (at all) for that use.

I'm hoping I'm wrong, and that we get a much more capable aircraft, but I could see this happening, couldn't you?

NS


----------



## SupersonicMax

I am not talking about getting the F-35 (I understand that they will not consider it) but rather not getting those simili-fighter aircraft (Hawk and Scorpion) that would do us no good. It would not meet the requirement for range, endurance and payload.

Requirements are much more specific that the 5 items you said.


----------



## Kirkhill

As I have noted elsewhere - and after a couple of days calming - I have come to the conclusion that Justin, as healer of the land, should follow the advice of Hippocrates and "first, do no harm".

The least harm he can do on this file is do nothing.  By the time of the next election in 2019 the Hornets will still be flying - albeit at a reduced rate and the F35 will be a better defined option.  All Dr. Justin has to do to keep his promise is do nothing.  Don't alter the commercial arrangements currently in place.  Just don't buy a replacement Fighter - yet.

Let him focus on the Navy - and get the AOPS hulls, and the AORs in the water and get a hard start on the CSC (and maybe a BHS).

Let him focus on the FWSAR programme - Even if he bought Challengers and more Hercs and Medium helos, or 295s or C27s he would only add assets that the RCAF and the CAF could find a use for if not the primary choice.

Let him focus on the LVMP and get new trucks on the road.

Let him focus on a new suite of light support weapons (machine guns, mortars, ATGMs, MANPADS).

Let him focus on a new (Made in Quebec - Purely Protective) GBADs system.

Let him focus on sorting out a structure to support and maintain all the technical marvels both in the field and in garrison.

Let him focus on sorting out Reserve/Regular force integration.

Let him focus on sorting out the recruiting, training, career management, "asset disposal" problems of Human Resources.

If he can get that lot sorted before 2019 he will have astounded me, done you lot a lot of favours and done no harm to the NGF file - or to the politically well connected Montreal Aerospace Industry.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I have no dog in this fight, but: No way in hell would a "Scorpion" ever be built or participated in by Bombardier.

The Scorpion incorporates proprietary technology of, and is mostly put together by their arch-ennemy in the field of business jets: Cessna.

And BTW, not even Textron markets its Scorpion as a fighter. They market it as a ground support/reconnaissance bird.


----------



## Baz

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I am not talking about getting the F-35 (I understand that they will not consider it) but rather not getting those simili-fighter aircraft (Hawk and Scorpion) that would do us no good. It would not meet the requirement for range, endurance and payload.
> 
> Requirements are much more specific that the 5 items you said.



I would volunterr that the requirements are not set yet... although the RCAF will be responsible to recommend the requirements after the policy is provided by the government, it is up to the government to decide that policy and approve the requirements.

I see one big question here, do they want to do expeditionary strike or not:
- if they do, then I think they need to be reminded they can't have there cake and eat it to... the only real option is the F-35
- if they don't, they need to explain what that means; however, requirements like payload change pretty significantly...

My sense is that they want the second; and I'm not sure they're wrong.  I just hope they understand what that means.


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> I would volunterr that the requirements are not set yet... although the RCAF will be responsible to recommend the requirements after the policy is provided by the government, it is up to the government to decide that policy and approve the requirements.
> 
> I see one big question here, do they want to do expeditionary strike or not:
> - if they do, then I think they need to be reminded they can't have there cake and eat it to... the only real option is the F-35
> - if they don't, they need to explain what that means; however, requirements like payload change pretty significantly...
> 
> My sense is that they want the second; and I'm not sure they're wrong.  I just hope they understand what that means.



If they want Sense with out Act then why not UAVs equipped with the F-35s EOTS (Avenger) or AESA (Predator), swarm technology (Scan Eagle) and sensor fusion (the hard bit they are still trying to work out with the F-35s?


----------



## jmt18325

I think all the speculation is rather baseless.  The Liberal platform, as clearly as it says no F-35, says that a competition will begin immediately, and used the Super Hornet as an example.  I'm almost positive that it will come down to about 50 Rafales or Super Hornets.  I would say the Typhoon, but if I recall, it's more expensive (although at a reduced rate may be affordable).


----------



## Baz

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> If they want Sense with out Act then why not UAVs equipped with the F-35s EOTS (Avenger) or AESA (Predator), swarm technology (Scan Eagle) and sensor fusion (the hard bit they are still trying to work out with the F-35s?



Sure...

I'm pretty sure their line of thinking is much simpler than that.


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> Sure...
> 
> I'm pretty sure their line of thinking is much simpler than that.



Prolly....


----------



## Baz

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think all the speculation is rather baseless.  The Liberal platform, as clearly as it says no F-35, says that a competition will begin immediately, and used the Super Hornet as an example.  I'm almost positive that it will come down to about 50 Rafales or Super Hornets.  I would say the Typhoon, but if I recall, it's more expensive (although at a reduced rate may be affordable).



I'm not speculating at all.  I am seriously considering calling my MP:
- I want to know what sound defense policy they are making these decisions on
- if they still intend to do expeditionary ops I'm going to point out to them that doing so without the F-35 may be needlessly putting people at risk.

I don't really care about the discussion over jets.  I do care about the discussion over policy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Baz said:
			
		

> I'm not speculating at all.  I am seriously considering calling my MP:
> - I want to know what sound defense policy they are making these decisions on
> - if they still intend to do expeditionary ops I'm going to point out to them that doing so without the F-35 may be needlessly putting people at risk.
> 
> I don't really care about the discussion over jets.  I do care about the discussion over policy.



We're talking the Trudeau Liberals here. I don't think we're going to see very many, if any, expeditionary ops ordered by them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The world may have more of a say about what Canada does than the Liberals realize. I suspect the next 20 years will be quite interesting....


----------



## Loachman

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Like it or not, the statement *Not buying F-35* was pretty clear.



Some previous Liberal campaign promises have been equally clear.

We still have GST.

We are still in NAFTA.

Sometimes, when in a position to view real facts after having benefitted from saying whatever they feel that they need to say in order to get into a position where they can view real facts, they actually make a decent decision.

But then there's always "no Cadillac helicopters".

So who knows for certain?

There is only one sure thing: The Liberals will either stick to their promises, or they won't.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is only one sure thing: The Liberals will either stick to their promises, or they won't.



Tell me something I don't know Captain Obvious!


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Tell me something I don't know Captain Obvious!



I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I'm qualified to pick the best fighter?


----------



## CBH99

I was gonna say....the way that was worded, you bound to be right no matter what they do!


----------



## Loachman

That's my point - what they say to get elected is meaningless.

I would not bet any money either way.


----------



## Underway

So there are a number of factors here:

1) Do the liberals really "need" to keep that particular campaign promise?
2) What happens when the aerospace lobbyists get their claws into the new government (mainly based out of Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto....Liberal seats in the last election)?
3) Does the government want to limit expeditionary capability for future governments, like the conservatives tried to limit taxing and spending by future governments?
4) What happens when the NATO allies get their input in?
5) Does the government need to have a minimum contribution into NORAD, what is it and what are the requirements?
6) What is the required role for the new fighters, just NORAD contribution, expeditionary, other??

That has a huge impact on the type and number of aircraft for the replacement.  I think the RCAF has boxed themselves into a corner.  I wouldn't be surprised if they came out and said we need more aircraft if the F-35 isn't an option.


----------



## vonGarvin

NEWSFLASH:

This is a photo of Justin Trudeau (or any politician from any party, for that matter) illustrating how much they are concerned with what fighter we get:


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:
			
		

> So there are a number of factors here:
> 
> 1) Do the liberals really "need" to keep that particular campaign promise?
> 2) What happens when the aerospace lobbyists get their claws into the new government (mainly based out of Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto....Liberal seats in the last election)?
> 3) Does the government want to limit expeditionary capability for future governments, like the conservatives tried to limit taxing and spending by future governments?
> 4) What happens when the NATO allies get their input in?
> 5) Does the government need to have a minimum contribution into NORAD, what is it and what are the requirements?
> 6) What is the required role for the new fighters, just NORAD contribution, expeditionary, other??
> 
> That has a huge impact on the type and number of aircraft for the replacement.  I think the RCAF has boxed themselves into a corner.  I wouldn't be surprised if they came out and said we need more aircraft if the F-35 isn't an option.



This is my two cents, run a competition, hope Dassault wins, yes I know its not the best offer on the table BUT they are offering a full technology transfer. Meaning we could Canadianize it, upgrade it, and do what every we want, including manufacture. Now if we increased the order and said hey unlike the F-35 we aren't building parts or sections but the entire plane. You'd win those seats back, build the first few in france till our production is online, then bang we are pumping out aircraft here, likely at a costly rate, but you just created thousands of jobs and boosted an entire sector.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eland2 said:
			
		

> The manned-bomber threat disappeared long ago, and indeed, it was that threat, plus the need to allocate air assets to Canada's NATO contingent in Germany that drove the purchase of the CF-18. Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.



 :facepalm:  Are you even in the Air Force??  I am sorry, I am so tired of everyone with their "drones can do EVERYTHING!!!" BS.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> NEWSFLASH:
> 
> This is a photo of Justin Trudeau (or any politician from any party, for that matter) illustrating how much they are concerned with what fighter we get:


Well expressed!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:
			
		

> So there are a number of factors here:
> 
> 1) Do the liberals really "need" to keep that particular campaign promise?
> No party actually "needs" to keep any promises - witness Jean Chrétien in the 1990s: we still have the HST/GST and we're still in NAFTA. But this is a fairly easy promise to keep - witness Prime Minister   Chrétien, again, and the EH-101.
> 
> 2) What happens when the aerospace lobbyists get their claws into the new government (mainly based out of Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto....Liberal seats in the last election)?
> There are always ways to buy off special interests
> 
> 3) Does the government want to limit expeditionary capability for future governments, like the conservatives tried to limit taxing and spending by future governments?
> That is, probably, the farthest thing from the politicians' minds, right now. I expect the PCO national Security Advisor to raise that point, but it will be just one of many
> 4) What happens when the NATO allies get their input in?
> That can matter: witness Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's "walk in the garden" with Chancellor Helmut Schmidt which kept us, in a very limited (essentially useless) way in NATO's European Command and got us new, German, tanks
> 
> 5) Does the government need to have a minimum contribution into NORAD, what is it and what are the requirements?
> I don't think it is detailed down to that level
> 
> 6) What is the required role for the new fighters, just NORAD contribution, expeditionary, other??
> That's the government's decision
> 
> That has a huge impact on the type and number of aircraft for the replacement.  I think the RCAF has boxed themselves into a corner.  I wouldn't be surprised if they came out and said we need more aircraft if the F-35 isn't an option.
> This is a golden opportunity for the DM and CDS to craft and present a CF wide vision to a new government, free of the "I'm more special than he is" stovepipes that characterize high level policy making in DND today. What _[size=13pt]is_ the world situation, today? What do we really need? For what roles/missions? How _jointly_ shall we fight and, therefeore, how _jointly_ should we be organized? But, I expect we'll let newly elected politicians have the final only word.[/size]


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

OK. Time perhaps to provide some people with an Arctic perspective, in layman's term and unclassified version (available to any one who researches it even superficially):

Satellite communication in the Arctic, especially the high Arctic is not the same easy-peasy one available in the South (and even in the South we can lose it in bad weather - see Videotron ads against Bell Satellite). It can still be pretty dicy at times. So for RPA's, you may have to rely on something closer. Best bet if UHF, but that means very short distances, and hence tonnes of towers to set up, man and maintain.

Moreover, with the magnetic North Pole smack in the middle of the North-West Passage, other navigation systems become unavailable. Those same magnetic currents that give us wonderful Auroras also play havoc with all sorts of electronics up there.

Finally, RPA's are good at looking down, but not so great at looking all around them at the horizon. Up in the Arctic, you can see the weather change drastically faster than you can say "HollydelabricamollyBatman!", and it is unforgiving even with humans present. Sorry. you just lost an expensive RPA.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> OK. Time perhaps to provide some people with an Arctic perspective, in layman's term and unclassified version (available to any one who researches it even superficially):
> 
> Satellite communication in the Arctic, especially the high Arctic is not the same easy-peasy one available in the South (and even in the South we can lose it in bad weather - see Videotron ads against Bell Satellite). It can still be pretty dicy at times. So for RPA's, you may have to rely on something closer. Best bet if UHF, but that means very short distances, and hence tonnes of towers to set up, man and maintain.
> 
> Moreover, with the magnetic North Pole smack in the middle of the North-West Passage, other navigation systems become unavailable. Those same magnetic currents that give us wonderful Auroras also play havoc with all sorts of electronics up there.
> 
> Finally, RPA's are good at looking down, but not so great at looking all around them at the horizon. Up in the Arctic, you can see the weather change drastically faster than you can say "HollydelabricamollyBatman!", and it is unforgiving even with humans present. Sorry. you just lost an expensive RPA.




Without wishing to derail the thread, that's the case for satellites in geostationary orbit. Satellites in non-geostationary orbits (low earth orbit or highly elliptical orbit, for example) can and do provide highly reliable communications in the very high Arctic ... but there's a price. A combination of business and technical/legal (agreements made in e.g. the International Telecommunications Union which have the force of treaty law) considerations mean that many LEOs must operate with only limited spectrum which means (relatively) narrow band channels. Service considerations may mean using a very large number of satellites (66 in the case of _Iridium_, for example) which means high costs, too.

There are good, effective ways to communicate into/out of and within the high Arctic, but they all cost money.


----------



## Kirkhill

> 6) What is the required role for the new fighters, just NORAD contribution, expeditionary, other??
> That's the government's decision



Isn't there an opportunity for the Government of the Day to be bloody minded here and, by selecting a particular aircraft, bind future governments to its policy?   If the GotD buys a purely "defensive"aircraft rather than a "multi-role" aircraft that may deny future governments the ability to participate in "offensive" activities.

To remedy the situation the future government would either have to buy an additional fleet of "offensive" aircraft or "multi-role" aircraft  to meet the taskings and be forced to defend themselves in the court of public opinion as spendthrift warmongers.

Buying a "defensive" aircraft would be a political play.  If the GotD decides that it wants to keep the nation's options open it will opt for either a "mult-role" aircraft or will not make a decision and rag the puck until the next election.

WRT the RPA / GPS / Nav / Comms issue.

That is why I am such a fan of the "many, small" solution rather than "one, big" solution.

A swarm of Scan Eagles and Integrators, flying autonomously - navigating by combinations of technologies (Inertial Navigation, Terrain Following, Celestial, Positioning relative to each other, updated by ground operators) - communicating by LOS Laser and UHF amongst themselves and with ground stations, RCN and CCG ships and RCAF aircraft - even transmitting power from UAV to UAV by LOS Laser - and relying on computing power to synthesize the incoming data into a common image much like a bug's eye, with the additional capability of focusing.  The Swarm becomes its own flying network of nodes supplying recce as well as comms support.






http://www.insitu.com/systems/scaneagle - for specs





http://www.insitu.com/systems/integrator - for specs

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2011/december/i_bds01.pdf  - Boeing Swarms



> Laser power beaming keeps drone fully charged
> 19 Jul 2012
> Lockheed Martin and LaserMotive remotely recharge a UAV's power source - indoors, for now.


  Link


----------



## GR66

How big a "swarm" of small platforms would you require to cover our territory?  Just the approaches to our territory?  Are we talking hundreds of mother ships and ground stations and thousands of small RPA's?  If one or two nodes in this network go down do you lose everything further down the command chain too?


----------



## Kirkhill

Start small and build.

And build in redundancy.

Start with programmes that only concern a specific Area of Operations.

Potential.

Surface stations - every settlement in the north and the AOPS and the Ice Breakers as well as the LRPs (not surface stations precisely I know).

ScanEagles and Integrators fly at altitudes up to 20,000 feet and have a comms range of 90 nm.  Post some high as relay nodes and surveillance and some fly low for recce.  

LOS for comms at 20,000 ft is approx 150 nm (distance to the horizon).  With an actual comms range of 90 nm a single surface node could support three relay nodes at 20,000 ft positioned at 120 degrees of arc and 60 nm from the ground station.  With second level relay then each of airborne relay nodes could communicate with 3 more relay nodes at 20,000 feet creating a network of 12 relay nodes distributed over a radius of 180 nm (minimum based on 60nm from Ground 1 to Relay 1 and Relay 1 to Relay 2 and Relay 2 to Ground 2 ) with a theoretical potential of 450 nm (maximum based on theoretical LOS).

That means 12 Integrators at 20,000 ft, on station for 24 hours (assuming no inflight power up) could supply surveillance and comms over an area of 600,000 to 650,000 sq mi (nautical)

Additional Benefits - both Ground 1 and Ground 2 could manage the swarm and update positions, relocate it to avoid weather, send additional UAVs up to provide targeted recce, provide duplication or maintenance reliefs.

The UAVs are cheap and should be treated as re-usable consumables that are going to spend most of their life in flight.  The rate of usage will be expensive but will trend downwards due to the number of units produced (similar to sonobuoys) but will be cheaper than LRPs (which should be husbanded for use alongside this capability), and satellites and can be redeployed after an EMP pulse drops the satellite comms and all flying UAVs (and aircraft).


----------



## kev994

I think you're underestimating the distances involved. If you have a look at the western arctic coast for example, from tuktoyutok the next place is Sachs Harbour at 215 NM, which is feasible? But then the next place is Alert at over 1100 NM unless you want to go into the middle of the arctic to Res Bay, but it is far from any coast.


----------



## Kirkhill

kev994 said:
			
		

> I think you're underestimating the distances involved. If you have a look at the western arctic coast for example, from tuktoyutok the next place is Sachs Harbour at 215 NM, which is feasible? But then the next place is Alert at over 1100 NM unless you want to go into the middle of the arctic to Res Bay, but it is far from any coast.



We're dragging well off thread now -  perhaps a split?

And actually I do want to go to Res Bay - right in the middle of the passage and supported by two AOPS - one with ties to the Bering and the other to Baffin.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

has anyone flown UAV's in the arctic yet and how do they handle icing?


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Start small and build.... etcetera etcetera etcetera



This is all very nice until you factor reality into your proposal.


----------



## Loachman

Colin P said:
			
		

> has anyone flown UAV's in the arctic yet and how do they handle icing?



Icing is best avoided by flying above it, ie not in clouds above the freezing layer.

UAVs are generally useless above cloud. Very few, presently, have sensors capable of seeing through cloud. IR will not.


----------



## Kirkhill

In the spirit of mind games then.....

What if....

Forget surveillance and recce - howabout just nav and comms?


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> has anyone flown UAV's in the arctic yet and how do they handle icing?





> ScanEagle UAS Completes Arctic Search and Rescue Demonstration
> Aug 11, 2015 | by Caroline Rees
> 
> Insitu, a designer and manufacturer of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), has conducted flight operations for the U.S. Coast Guard, launching its ScanEagle unmanned aircraft from Oliktok Point at the North Slope of Alaska.Insitu ScanEagleThe demonstration was part of the Coast Guard Research and Development Center’s Arctic Technology Evaluation 2015 Search and Rescue exercise (SAREX 2015), an event designed to evaluate unmanned technologies in remote area Search and Rescue (SAR) and simulate a collaborative response effort between government and industry entities to an offshore emergency. Other participants included ConocoPhillips, Era Helicopters, the Department of Energy, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North Slope Borough.
> 
> ScanEagle demonstrated Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) hub-and-spoke capabilities, launching from the shore and handing off control of the aircraft to operators aboard the USCGC HEALY. In flight, the platform provided persistent overwatch, delivering real-time imagery and proving its ability to maximize USCG maritime assets that routinely conduct operations in extreme Arctic conditions. ScanEagle also demonstrated its potential for other operations such as marine mammal surveying and ice floe and ice ridge mapping.
> 
> - See more at: http://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2015/08/insitu-demonstrates-arctic-unmanned-search-and-rescue-operation-for-u-s-coast-guard/#sthash.T6qHdBm3.dpuf





> ConocoPhillips makes history with drone flight
> Wesley Loy
> 
> Petroleum News
> September 29, 2013
> 
> 
> ConocoPhillips Alaska recently made aviation history with the first approved commercial use of an unmanned aircraft, or drone, in the United States.
> 
> The flight took place on Sept. 12 in remote airspace over the Chukchi Sea about 120 miles offshore from the village of Wainwright, the company said.
> 
> The drone is known as the ScanEagle, from Insitu Inc., a subsidiary of The Boeing Co. The Federal Aviation Administration in July cleared the ScanEagle and another drone model to fly commercially.
> 
> The aircraft is small, weighing about 40 pounds, and can fly up to 18 hours on a gallon and a half of fuel, ConocoPhillips said.
> 
> The aircraft was launched from the research vessel Westward Wind, managed and operated by Olgoonik Fairweather LLC. The FAA said four ScanEagle planes were aboard the boat, along with FAA inspector Jay Skaggs. The ScanEagle "zoomed off a catapult and into the rainy Arctic skies," completing a successful 36-minute flight, the FAA said.
> 
> The boat captured the aircraft and the mission was complete, the agency said.
> 
> The FAA said the flight is just the start of a plan, mandated by Congress, to establish permanent Arctic areas where small unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, can operate for research and commercial purposes. The plan includes developing protocols to operate the aircraft beyond line of sight.
> 
> The proposed Arctic flight areas are ideal because of the low population and low levels of air and ship traffic, the FAA said.



http://www.adn.com/article/20130929/conocophillips-makes-history-drone-flight



> ScanEagle Streams Live, Stable Video to Tactical Operations Center, Troops in Arctic Exercise
> by Gary Mortimer
> 
> BINGEN, Wash., Oct. 6, 2011 Insitu Inc. announced today that its ScanEagle unmanned aircraft system (UAS) delivered real-time video to Canadian Forces during the largest military exercise to date in the Far North.
> 
> Operation Nanook brought together Canadian Forces, its security partners and numerous federal, territorial and municipal governments to conduct sovereignty operations and security exercises in Canada’s Northwest Passage. The exercise focused around a major air disaster (MAJAID) simulation, during which ScanEagle provided overwatch to Canadian Forces.
> 
> The runway-independent ScanEagle UAS was deployed by Insitu and its partner ING Engineering to identify traversable ground routes, to watch for polar bear threats and to monitor day-to-day iceberg movements. Commanders in tactical operations centers (TOC) and troops on the ground received real-time, stable video.
> 
> During the exercise, Insitu and ING UAS operators launched and retrieved the aircraft. Handing control over to the Canadian Forces, the operators stood by to provide technical assistance as needed.
> 
> “Adverse weather conditions are typical of ScanEagle operations,” said Insitu Senior Vice President of Business Development Ryan Hartman. “Freezing temperatures, wind, whatever challenge our environment presents, we just work through it. Our standard is 99 percent mission-readiness with 30-minutes notice.”
> 
> Designed by Insitu Inc., a subsidiary of The Boeing Company, ScanEagle’s modularity allows for rapid technology upgrades, like the 2010 introduction of the daylight-quality mid-wave infrared imager payload, and the soon-to-be-released electronically fuel-injected heavy fuel engine that will improve reliability in extreme environments like the Arctic. Modularity also allows for rapid system reconfiguration, like adding another network node to beat line-of-sight challenges.



http://www.suasnews.com/2011/10/8957/scaneagle-streams-live-stable-video-to-tactical-operations-center-troops-in-arctic-exercise/


----------



## Kirkhill

Parthian shot.....

http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/UAV/uav_list/scaneagle.html

Unit cost of the scaneagle - <$100,000 apiece.

Cost of 4 scaneagles and a ground station (per Wiki right enough)



> Each ScanEagle system costs US$3.2 million (2006).[1] A complete system comprises four air vehicles or AVs, a ground control station, remote video terminal, the SuperWedge launch system and Skyhook recovery system.



Above network approximately US$10,000,000 including flying nodes, three ground stations and launch and recovery systems.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We don't have the money for FWSAR, fighters, CMA, etc etc and we should take the little money we have and dump it into UAV fleets?

No.  I know there are people that think UAVs are the end-all, be-all.  They are not.  Maybe in 20-30 years, but not now and not for the cost to operate.  If you have to put something in the air and you have one option, you do not want your 'one egg' to be a UAV.  Especially if that egg is a 'wimp' in winds and icing.

You know, there are lots of 'ideas from airchairs' coming out in this thread, about fighters, about UAVs, about all things RCAF.  Yet, no one seems to want to listen to the (educated) opinions from those of us who are part of Air Ops.

I have been on flights where we stayed on-station and the UAVs had to run home to momma; that was in weather conditions our LRPA wouldn't blink an eye at.  Most current UAVs have 'a straws view' over an area limited by the FOV the payload operator is currently using.  A manned platform like the 140 has that, plus 4 blister windows, plus 3 sets of eyes on the flight deck.  The SA is literally almost 360' visual plus sensors.

There is no comparison, IMO.  UAVs are a tool in the toolbelt, nothing more.  They cannot do what something like a P-3/CP-140 or P-8 can do.  Full stop.

I'd like to see the weather and winds those flights were made in.   ^-^  Lets see what they do in 'freezing level - surface, overcast 1000 feet, visibility less than 2 SM, sea state 5+" environment.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We don't have the money for FWSAR, fighters, CMA, etc etc and we should take the little money we have and dump it into UAV fleets?
> 
> No.  I know there are people that think UAVs are the end-all, be-all.  They are not.  Maybe in 20-30 years, but not now and not for the cost to operate.  If you have to put something in the air and you have one option, you do not want your 'one egg' to be a UAV.  Especially if that egg is a 'wimp' in winds and icing.
> 
> You know, there are lots of 'ideas from airchairs' coming out in this thread, about fighters, about UAVs, about all things RCAF.  Yet, no one seems to want to listen to the (educated) opinions from those of us who are part of Air Ops.
> 
> I have been on flights where we stayed on-station and the UAVs had to run home to momma; that was in weather conditions our LRPA wouldn't blink an eye at.  Most current UAVs have 'a straws view' over an area limited by the FOV the payload operator is currently using.  A manned platform like the 140 has that, plus 4 blister windows, plus 3 sets of eyes on the flight deck.  The SA is literally almost 360' visual plus sensors.
> 
> There is no comparison, IMO.  UAVs are a tool in the toolbelt, nothing more.  They cannot do what something like a P-3/CP-140 or P-8 can do.  Full stop.
> 
> I'd like to see the weather and winds those flights were made in.   ^-^  Lets see what they do in 'freezing level - surface, overcast 1000 feet, visibility less than 2 SM, sea state 5+" environment.



10 MUSD for the capability described is a pittance. You lot burn through that in boxed lunches.  

It is not much more than the cost of a single Bell 412.   http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Bell-412/202

Even if the network is grounded 30% of the time, or more likely has to adjust flying boxes, it is better than the capability we have currently.

And I have no doubt that big ships can loiter longer than little ships in worse conditions - so save the flying hours on the big ships for those times when the little ships can't get the job done.

And it is really comfortable in my armchair.  It is a lot like these ones.


----------



## blacktriangle

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We don't have the money for FWSAR, fighters, CMA, etc etc and we should take the little money we have and dump it into UAV fleets?
> 
> No.  I know there are people that think UAVs are the end-all, be-all.  They are not.  Maybe in 20-30 years, but not now and not for the cost to operate.  If you have to put something in the air and you have one option, you do not want your 'one egg' to be a UAV.  Especially if that egg is a 'wimp' in winds and icing.
> 
> You know, there are lots of 'ideas from airchairs' coming out in this thread, about fighters, about UAVs, about all things RCAF.  Yet, no one seems to want to listen to the (educated) opinions from those of us who are part of Air Ops.
> 
> I have been on flights where we stayed on-station and the UAVs had to run home to momma; that was in weather conditions our LRPA wouldn't blink an eye at.  Most current UAVs have 'a straws view' over an area limited by the FOV the payload operator is currently using.  A manned platform like the 140 has that, plus 4 blister windows, plus 3 sets of eyes on the flight deck.  The SA is literally almost 360' visual plus sensors.
> 
> There is no comparison, IMO.  UAVs are a tool in the toolbelt, nothing more.  They cannot do what something like a P-3/CP-140 or P-8 can do.  Full stop.
> 
> I'd like to see the weather and winds those flights were made in.   ^-^  Lets see what they do in 'freezing level - surface, overcast 1000 feet, visibility less than 2 SM, sea state 5+" environment.



As you pointed out - we have no money. I don't think you have to worry about losing your flying seat unless you promote yourself out of it...


----------



## a_majoor

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Isn't there an opportunity for the Government of the Day to be bloody minded here and, by selecting a particular aircraft, bind future governments to its policy?   If the GotD buys a purely "defensive"aircraft rather than a "multi-role" aircraft that may deny future governments the ability to participate in "offensive" activities.
> 
> To remedy the situation the future government would either have to buy an additional fleet of "offensive" aircraft or "multi-role" aircraft  to meet the taskings and be forced to defend themselves in the court of public opinion as spendthrift warmongers.
> 
> Buying a "defensive" aircraft would be a political play.  If the GotD decides that it wants to keep the nation's options open it will opt for either a "mult-role" aircraft or will not make a decision and rag the puck until the next election.



I will avoid the rest of the UAV/UCAV arguments since I see them as being complimentary to manned aircraft rather than replacements. WRT the argument for "offensive" vs "defensive" aircraft, the argument is actually rather moot since for the most part an aircraft is a "truck" which carries the sensors, weaponry and (in the case of a CF-35) the network routers. The USMC now has a kit which allows a C-130 to carry Hellfire missiles and attack ground targets, and the venerable AWACS can carry AAM's for some self protection after all the escorting fighters have been smoked. We have also seen or discussed various other conversions, some more probable than others, such as a re engined B-1B carrying a huge number of AAM's for long range patrols or to act as the "gunship" to shoot in an attacking formation. Conceptually, you could probably convert a F-15E into a "Sea Eagle" carrying Harpoon anti ship missiles and the sensor suite to successfully attack enemy ships off our coast.

In practical terms, these sorts of conversions are more of a testament to the basic versatility of the underlying airframe and the cleverness of the people who build or propose those solutions. Historians can look up WWII aircraft which started doing one role in 1939 and were fulfilling a completely different role in 1945 to see similar work arounds. The essential point is while you might be able to do something with an airplane, or a truck,  or a ship, (or even a guy in a green uniform standing on the ground) it does not necessary mean this is either the best solution or even a viable one. Repurposing CF-104 Starfighters as ground attack aircraft comes to mind....

The argument behind the CF-35 was not so much the "gee whizz" aspect of the here and now, but rather the long term potential of the platform and the systems associated with it. No matter how you slice it, there is only so much you can do with airframes designed in the 1970's to 1990's, and since they don't come with the sensor or networking capabilities of the CF-35, there is a hard upper limit to what you will ever be able to do with them. In actual practice, they may end up being bomb trucks carrying various smart munitions under the command and control of USAF F-35's which _do_ have the networking and sensor capability to run the mission. How much credibility and "clout" we will have on the international stage as handmaidens unable to plan, orchestrate or execute missions on our own is going to be one of those other prices we will have to be willing to pay for not buying a new fighter.


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 10 MUSD for the capability described is a pittance.



That amount alone will not buy you a capability, just some small toys.

You need to be able to get it to where you want it, and to support it in that location. That, especially in our Arctic, is not likely cheap or even feasible - note that these trials were carried out in the "better weather" periods. You need to man it. That means taking PYs away from something else, unless a government suddenly decides that increasing the size of the CF and its budget is a good political move.

There are a couple of us here who have direct experience with UAVs.

Some day, maybe, but not right now. You are grossly overestimating UAV capabilities and underestimating the technical and financial issues.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spectrum said:
			
		

> As you pointed out - we have no money. I don't think you have to worry about losing your flying seat unless you promote yourself out of it...



I am not worried about my seat on the plane at all.  I don't have to even worry about training in the LRPA replacement circa 2030 because I will be CRA.

I _am_ worried about all the people who think they understand what my plane does, and what a UAV can do and compare the 2 like they are the same and interchangeable.  I _am_ worried about the people who do NOT understand that a UAV is not the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am not worried about my seat on the plane at all.  I don't have to even worry about training in the LRPA replacement circa 2030 because I will be CRA.
> 
> I _am_ worried about all the people who think they understand what my plane does, and what a UAV can do and compare the 2 like they are the same and interchangeable.  I _am_ worried about the people who do NOT understand that a UAV is not the best thing since sliced bread.


+1

After working with both UAV's and PA's I'll take the PA in almost every situation if I only get one option.  UAV straw view is enough to make it irritating.  Like you know... that time you were going to shoot a missile and some kid on a bike suddenly rolled into the picture of the UAV.  If that was a LRPA or Figher making that shot the kid would have been seen well before he was 20 m from the intended impact site.  Peripheral vision is an amazing thing.

As for UCAV's why am I thinking about a Bomark Missile argument right now... no we don't need your fighter aircraft cause these missiles are all that's required.... and while I'm at it do you want to buy a bridge?


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> After working with both UAV's and PA's I'll take the PA in almost every situation if I only get one option.  UAV straw view is enough to make it irritating.  Like you know... that time you were going to shoot a missile and some kid on a bike suddenly rolled into the picture of the UAV.  If that was a LRPA or Figher making that shot the kid would have been seen well before he was 20 m from the intended impact site.  Peripheral vision is an amazing thing.
> 
> As for UCAV's why am I thinking about a Bomark Missile argument right now... no we don't need your fighter aircraft cause these missiles are all that's required.... and while I'm at it do you want to buy a bridge?



.....I agreed with you up until the peripheral vision part.  If the fighter is using a Sniper (or other) pod, then the pilot has just as much peripheral SA during the attack run itself as an RPA - ie. not a lot.  I wouldn't bet that a pilot, even with 20/20 vision, would be able to spot a bike at 6 miles away.  

Also, the cameras on RPAs do zoom in and out.  Not going to go into details but it's not like the sensor operator is constantly only using max zoom and staring at the ground.  Huge advantages of RPAs include endurance - staring at the ground for hours on end pre-, and just as importantly, post-strike - and near-real time analysis and forwarding of information to higher.  

As for UCAVs, they aren't cruise missiles.  Obviously all theoretical at the moment, but crews are still needed, etc.


----------



## Underway

Dimsum said:
			
		

> .....I agreed with you up until the peripheral vision part.  If the fighter is using a Sniper (or other) pod, then the pilot has just as much peripheral SA during the attack run itself as an RPA - ie. not a lot.  I wouldn't bet that a pilot, even with 20/20 vision, would be able to spot a bike at 6 miles away.
> 
> Also, the cameras on RPAs do zoom in and out.  Not going to go into details but it's not like the sensor operator is constantly only using max zoom and staring at the ground.  Huge advantages of RPAs include endurance - staring at the ground for hours on end pre-, and just as importantly, post-strike - and near-real time analysis and forwarding of information to higher.
> 
> As for UCAVs, they aren't cruise missiles.  Obviously all theoretical at the moment, but crews are still needed, etc.



Yah I realize all that but there are more eyes with bino's in a LRPA looking out.  Even with a sniper pod a pilot still might see something moving through the cockpit window and take a look real quick with the sniper pod to confirm.  UAV's don't have those options at least with the current camera loadout.  



How did I miss this?  F-35 back in the competition??

Well wonders never cease.  Might get that fighter after all.  Though really they are just following through on what the Tories did and holding an open competition.  I don't think its really going to damage the Liberal brand in any way if they come out and pick the F-35.  Most Canadians hardly pay attention to this stuff.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> .....I agreed with you up until the peripheral vision part.  If the fighter is using a Sniper (or other) pod, then the pilot has just as much peripheral SA during the attack run itself as an RPA - ie. not a lot.  I wouldn't bet that a pilot, even with 20/20 vision, would be able to spot a bike at 6 miles away.



During real missions, I would start by looking out the window and pick up unusual activity around POIs that way.  Once I saw something worthy of looking at, I would make a designation and take a closer look through the Sniper.  Yup, I was abke to spot bikes from 6 miles out.  Espcially with binos.  Because you have a sensor (ie: Sniper) doesn't mean you use it 100% of the time.  A lot of my strikes in CAS were originated by looking out the window.


----------



## Furniture

Anyone suggesting the Scaneagle for use in the arctic does not have experince working with them. Weather keeps larger manned aircraft grounded up there a lot, a small RPA would not stand a chance.

As for fighters, I just hope we don't end up with another Sea King scenario where 20 years after they were due to be replaced they are still the operational MH.


----------



## Good2Golf

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> As for fighters, I just hope we don't end up with another Sea King scenario where 20 years after they were due to be replaced they are still the operational MH.



Hope isn't a great planning method, WD.  

The Hornet will easily be pulling a four-decade tour.  :nod:


G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Hope isn't a great planning method, WD.
> 
> _The Hornet will easily be pulling a four-decade tour._  :nod:
> 
> 
> G2G




And _that_, you see, is why I think some Liberal political insiders, senior advisors to Prime Minister designate Trudeau, think cancelling the F-35 is an "easy" promise to keep. They cancelled the EH-101 and the world didn't come to an end. DND found ways and means to keep the Sea Kings in the air, no one died, etc, etc, etc ~ surely they (DND) can do the same again. There are precious few aerospace engineers, probably none who know about Reliability-Availability-Maintainability, amongst the key Liberal political insiders ... they expect that DND can, somehow, manage, as it has in the past.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think we're onto something. The Liberals can drop there promise of a competition and just not sign a F35 contract. That'll appease most Canadians. In 4 (hopefully) or 8 years when they're worn out their welcome in government, they will have successfully punted this political football to the next government, while claiming the moral high ground.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And _that_, you see, is why I think some Liberal political insiders, senior advisors to Prime Minister designate Trudeau, think cancelling the F-35 is an "easy" promise to keep. They cancelled the EH-101 and the world didn't come to an end. DND found ways and means to keep the Sea Kings in the air, no one died, etc, etc, etc ~ surely they (DND) can do the same again. There are precious few aerospace engineers, probably none who know about Reliability-Availability-Maintainability, amongst the key Liberal political insiders ... they expect that DND can, somehow, manage, as it has in the past.



Actually, two pilots did die near Saint John, NB in 1995 when 425 caught fire...


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, two pilots did die near Saint John, NB in 1995 when 425 caught fire...



Yes, I'm so sorry, I forgot that ... and it was when the _"Zero 'elicopters"_ thing was still fresh in our minds, stil sticking in our collective craw.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, two pilots did die near Saint John, NB in 1995 when 425 caught fire...



SKT, they were good men, for sure, especially when you read the crash investigation report and how their actions saved the lives of the Nav and Flight Engineer.  That said, the EH-101 would not have been delivered at that time.  

One could reasonably place contributing blame to successive governments, PC and Liberal alike, that failed to appreciate and act decisively on the message that the CF was briefing them regarding the ever increasing risk (in many cases to the operators, sometimes to non-military persons collaterally) to extending platforms beyond originally planned lifetimes.  Sea King was one.  AORs another.  Time is ticking on the CC-115 Buffalo.  CT-114 Tutor - ejection seat and other systems are incredibly long in the tooth (almost Sea King aged).  The list continues.

Engineers try their best to make things last, but that challenge only increases with time and becomes more and more expensive, eroding the Department's ability to re-direct investment onto new programs and moving beyond expensive legacy maintenance.  The Hornet may even beat the T-33's current 2nd-place RCAF/CAF record for in-service life (46 years) if things continue the way the next Government appears headed.

"On verra..."

G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> We're dragging well off thread now -  perhaps a split?



Was thinking about it. However, I don't have the hours available to unjumble the myriad of tangents and off topic posts that are either irrelevant (to the thread) or bleed across too many topics, as to be useful on their own.

The best way for people to avoid this and prevent splits _is to stay on topic_.

Tanks!

---Staff---


----------



## Kirkhill

recceguy said:
			
		

> Was thinking about it. However, I don't have the hours available to unjumble the myriad of tangents and off topic posts that are either irrelevant (to the thread) or bleed across too many topics, as to be useful on their own.
> 
> The best way for people to avoid this and prevent splits _is to stay on topic_.
> 
> Tanks!
> 
> ---Staff---



As a frequent offender..... will do what I can.  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FWIW, most of the _'wild bologna chasing' _has still been indirectly related to the thread and it does always seem to wind it's way back to discussing the different type of fighters (that we won't be getting  >) , their caps and lims and what may/may not be good for Canada.

Good discussion and no one is chucking crap at each other so not all is lost..._yet_.   8)


----------



## PuckChaser

Not so fast on canning the F-35. This from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scrapping-f-35-fighter-jets-may-not-lead-to-big-savings-experts-say/article27012886/



> Defence experts are skeptical that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government will reap any significant windfall from buying a warplane that is cheaper than the controversial F-35 fighter.
> 
> The Liberals promised during the election campaign to look elsewhere for a plane and plow the savings into more ships for the Royal Canadian Navy. But military experts say different aircraft might not be a bargain when the costs of buying, operating and maintaining them over 20 to 30 years are tallied up.
> 
> “I don’t think it will produce the magnitude of savings that they think will fund the shipbuilding program,” said George Petrolekas, a retired colonel with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
> 
> “I don’t think there will be a significant savings in acquisition and I suspect there probably won’t be a significant savings in operating costs either,” Mr. Petrolekas said, referring to expenses such as fuel and staffing.
> 
> The sticker price of a fighter aircraft is a small portion of the overall cost of owning and operating it over decades.



Glad the media is starting to ask questions now, after they hammered the Tories over "full lifecycle costing" when the PBO released the numbers a few years back. Unless we're significantly cutting the number of fighters we operate, we're not going to see this large influx of cash into the RCN that Trudeau thinks.


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not so fast on canning the F-35. This from the Globe and Mail:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scrapping-f-35-fighter-jets-may-not-lead-to-big-savings-experts-say/article27012886/
> 
> Glad the media is starting to ask questions now, after they hammered the Tories over "full lifecycle costing" when the PBO released the numbers a few years back. Unless we're significantly cutting the number of fighters we operate, we're not going to see this large influx of cash into the RCN that Trudeau thinks.




Yes, Minister - 2:29  "Surely a decision's a decision?"

We may revisit this part of the thread in a few weeks/months time...  :nod:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not so fast on canning the F-35. This from the Globe and Mail:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scrapping-f-35-fighter-jets-may-not-lead-to-big-savings-experts-say/article27012886/
> 
> Glad the media is starting to ask questions now, after they hammered the Tories over "full lifecycle costing" when the PBO released the numbers a few years back. Unless we're significantly cutting the number of fighters we operate, we're not going to see this large influx of cash into the RCN that Trudeau thinks.



I firmly believe that there are people in the LPC (a former CLS for example) that were well aware of the capabilities of the F35 and the costs of buying a different jet to the F35. So, the cynic in me says that the LPC will simply continue with the purchase of the F35 (knowing it's the top option) and blame the conservatives for it and the inability to put money into the navy. It's a win in that they can talk about delivering the F35 and destroy the conservatives in the east coast by making the people there blame the conservatives for the lack of navy funding.


----------



## dimsum

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I firmly believe that there are people in the LPC (a former CLS for example) that were well aware of the capabilities of the F35 and the costs of buying a different jet to the F35. So, the cynic in me says that the LPC will simply continue with the purchase of the F35 (knowing it's the top option) and blame the conservatives for it and the inability to put money into the navy. It's a win in that they can talk about delivering the F35 and destroy the conservatives in the east coast by making the people there blame the conservatives for the lack of navy funding.



Maybe I need to learn more poli-speak, but how would the LPC possibly end up selecting the F-35, esp as they had slammed the CPC for years over it and it was a very public campaign promise to cancel it, and possibly dress it up as anything other than "....uh, Harper was right after all."   ???


----------



## PuckChaser

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I firmly believe that there are people in the LPC (a former CLS for example) that were well aware of the capabilities of the F35 and the costs of buying a different jet to the F35. So, the cynic in me says that the LPC will simply continue with the purchase of the F35 (knowing it's the top option) and blame the conservatives for it and the inability to put money into the navy. It's a win in that they can talk about delivering the F35 and destroy the conservatives in the east coast by making the people there blame the conservatives for the lack of navy funding.



The Navy is getting $40B in new ships over the next 20 years. I don't think funding will be the Navy's problem in the future.


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Navy is getting $40B in new ships over the next 20 years. I don't think funding will be the Navy's problem in the future.


Is that going to happen now though??  That is the question.


----------



## PuckChaser

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Is that going to happen now though??  That is the question.



The money is happening, the contracts are signed. The ship count is the question, and whether we have the political will to hold Irving and Seaspan to the promised numbers of CSC and AOPS.


----------



## Ostrozac

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Is that going to happen now though??  That is the question.



The bulk of the shipbuilding for the RCN is to occur in Nova Scotia, and the Atlantic Provinces went solidly Liberal, so odds are that the ships are safe. At least for now.


----------



## dapaterson

AOPS and CSC are Irving in Nova Scotia.  JSS is Seaspan in BC.


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Maybe I need to learn more poli-speak, but how would the LPC possibly end up selecting the F-35, esp as they had slammed the CPC for years over it and it was a very public campaign promise to cancel it, and possibly dress it up as anything other than "....uh, Harper was right after all."   ???




You underestimate the willingness of folks with a hate on to believe what they will.  Harper will always be the devil incarnate to some.


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The money is happening, the contracts are signed. The ship count is the question, and whether we have the political will to hold Irving and Seaspan to the promised numbers of CSC and AOPS.



Paint me biased as you will but I strongly believe that the Left Coast will deliver given the opportunity - In fact I think given the opportunity they would have started to deliver Svalbard type AOPS vessels a long whiles back at $100,000,000 a copy.


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You underestimate the willingness of folks with a hate on to believe what they will.  Harper will always be the devil incarnate to some.



As will Trudeau (pere) to others.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As will Trudeau (pere) to others.



Yes.  But that is justified......


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Maybe I need to learn more poli-speak, but how would the LPC possibly end up selecting the F-35, esp as they had slammed the CPC for years over it and it was a very public campaign promise to cancel it, and possibly dress it up as anything other than "....uh, Harper was right after all."   ???





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yes, Minister - 2:29  "Surely a decision's a decision?"



You clicked on the link and listened carefully starting at 2:29, right?  

Try this:  Go straight to 2:29


----------



## MarkOttawa

The only RCN shipbuilding/building contract actually signed is with Irving for A/OPS:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-status-report-transformational-major-crown-projects.page#P3
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/mark-collins-contract-signed-for-5-or-6-rcn-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships/
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/mark-collins-work-actually-starts-on-rcns-first-arcticoffshore-patrol-ship/

Seaspan JSS contract expected 2016:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-status-report-transformational-major-crown-projects.page#P12

Seaspan CCG icebreaker contract 2018-19:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2015-16/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html#s1.4

Irving CSC 2020 (?!?):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-status-report-transformational-major-crown-projects.page#P6

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

That's not true - there is a contract for 3 OFSV.  I'm not sure if the 1 OOSV contract has yet been signed.


----------



## MarkOttawa

jmt18325: note I only said RCN contracts:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-offshore-fisheries-science-ship-under-construction-in-north-vancouver-1.3126130

https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/mark-collins-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-sticker-shock-and-never-never-land-media-scrutiny/

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2015-16/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html#s1.2

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And _that_, you see, is why I think some Liberal political insiders, senior advisors to Prime Minister designate Trudeau, think cancelling the F-35 is an "easy" promise to keep. They cancelled the EH-101 and the world didn't come to an end. DND found ways and means to keep the Sea Kings in the air, no one died, etc, etc, etc ~ surely they (DND) can do the same again. There are precious few aerospace engineers, probably none who know about Reliability-Availability-Maintainability, amongst the key Liberal political insiders ... they expect that DND can, somehow, manage, as it has in the past.



To add, the argument could be made "but our fighters are in Iraq and Syria now in combat roles with the coalition and all seems well.  Why do we need to replace these if they are still _working_?"

The same can be said about our CP-140s; it isn't like the fleet is grounded and not able to conduct ops.  The fact that they ARE in combat roles in a theatre now might make it harder to convince people they need replacement, and set their minds that the money would be better used elsewhere.


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> jmt18325: note I only said RCN contracts:
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-offshore-fisheries-science-ship-under-construction-in-north-vancouver-1.3126130
> 
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/mark-collins-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-sticker-shock-and-never-never-land-media-scrutiny/
> 
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2015-16/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html#s1.2
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I only pointed it out because you mentioned the Diefenbaker.


----------



## SupersonicMax

With this (http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/bombardier-quebec-cseries-investment-1.3293716), I could see the government selecting the Rafale, built in Canada Quebec, especially given that it is close to Trudeau's turf...


----------



## Edward Campbell

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> With this (http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/bombardier-quebec-cseries-investment-1.3293716), _I could see the government selecting the Rafale, built in Canada Quebec_, especially given that it is close to Trudeau's turf...




You know, Max, I would have no objection _in principle_ to a government choosing a fighter plane based on that criteria if it met just two others:

     1. It is pretty close to the minimally acceptable level of our (refined in light of the government's direction: no F-35) requirements; and

     2. The affordable quantities are sufficient for two (large_ish_) NORAD squadrons, one or two (smaller) expeditionary squadrons and a training/OTU squadron, etc.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rafale Aircraft

36 Rafale F.3 single seat ordered for the French Air Force in 2004
11 Rafale F.3 twin seat ordered for the French Air Force in 2004
12 Rafale F.3 single seat ordered for the French Navy in 2004
60 Rafale (additional) ordered for French service in 2009

119 Rafale in service?

126 Rafale ordered for Indian service in 2012 (20 BUSD)
24 Rafale ordered for Egyptian service in 2015 
24 Rafale ordered for Qatar service in 2015 (7 BUSD)

174 Rafale on order

145 F35s in flight (July 2015) Link

88 F35s in production (July 2015) in the US
22 F35s in production (July 2015) Internationally

145 F35s to 119 Rafales flying
110 F35s in production
43 F35s ordered under LRIP 8 for delivery 2016
First bulk buy of 450 aircraft over three years (150 per year) under negotiation.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/fundamental-change-in-direction-for-f-35-kendall-floats-plan-to-buy-450-planes/

There are already more F35s in the air than Rafales and by the next Canadian Election will outnumber them 2 or 3 to 1.


----------



## GAP

What about a mix of F35's and Rafale Aircraft? is that feasible?


----------



## George Wallace

GAP said:
			
		

> What about a mix of F35's and Rafale Aircraft? is that feasible?



Back when we had more than one Air Division, it was feasible.  We flew CF 100's, F-86's and F-104's along with the odd T-33.  Later we have Voo Doo's, F- 104's and the odd CF 100 as Electronic Warfare.  So it should be feasible.


----------



## Loachman

GAP said:
			
		

> What about a mix of F35's and Rafale Aircraft? is that feasible?



Why?


----------



## GAP

Better some than none.....


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook:



> 126 Rafale ordered for Indian service in 2012 (20 BUSD)



Actually none yet contracted for, negotiations now ongoing for 36:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/rafale-deal-france-agrees-to-invest-50-of-contracts-worth-in-indias-related-sectors/articleshow/49487260.cms

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GR66

GAP said:
			
		

> What about a mix of F35's and Rafale Aircraft? is that feasible?



If you're selecting the Rafale as a multi-role alternative for the F-35 then is there any significant advantage to having two aircraft doing the same things to justify the increased cost of a mixed fleet?  

If you had a different mix...a pure air superiority type of fighter for the NORAD role (F-15C variant?)...and F-35s for the expeditionary strike role then maybe would the double infrastructure, support, service and training costs be worth it?  No idea, but the extra cost should definetly be factored in to any decision to have a mixed fleet.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chris Pook:
> 
> Actually none yet contracted for, negotiations now ongoing for 36:
> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/rafale-deal-france-agrees-to-invest-50-of-contracts-worth-in-indias-related-sectors/articleshow/49487260.cms
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Seen.  Thanks.


----------



## Loachman

GAP said:
			
		

> Better some than none.....



You're not going to be able to afford any more machines by buying two different ones, and quite possibly fewer.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Indeed ....


> Incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will consult with President Barack Obama before restarting a process to replace Canada's aging fleet of combat jets, in a bid to head off damage to relations between the two countries, according to an official familiar with the plans.
> 
> Trudeau's Liberals campaigned on abandoning Canada's plans to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35 jets, pledging to "immediately" launch an open bidding process to buy a cheaper plane. Canada has previously considered Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, Saab's Gripen, Dassault Aviation's Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, produced by a consortium including BAE Systems, Airbus Group and Alenia Aermacchi.
> 
> The incoming government won't open bids until discussing the matter with the U.S. government -- perhaps during an anticipated meeting between Trudeau and Obama at a Group of 20 meeting in Turkey next month, the official said. While timing is still being finalized, the consultation means a bidding process likely won't begin until next year, said the official, who spoke on condition they not be identified because a final decision hasn't been made ....


----------



## a_majoor

The story of India's fighter procurement woes makes ours look like a positively elegant process. They have not been able to build a truly competitive home grown fighter, their deal with the Russians for the PAK-FA is floundering since the Russian product is simply not up to snuff (and the Russians themselves cannot afford to put it into production, there are only 12 PAK-FA's currently in operation, including the prototypes; production was delayed) while their current fleet ages out.

Maybe the Indians could pick up our 65 slots on the F-35 production run if we really cut and run (and the Indian aviation industry will get a shot in the arm with access to new and up to date technology and production techniques). Indeed, if the Indian Government and Air Force was clever, they could arrange to pick up all the production slots that other nations have cancelled or reduced and push hard for a good price (after all, they are keeping the production line open and giving everyone else economies of scale).


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why?



As with the (faulty) submarines we purchased used from the UK, nothing says to the world 'we are not American' like a French fighter.


----------



## McG

When will Bomarc II come up as an alternative to the F35?
It seems fitting that it should be considered when others are suggesting an Arrow II be considered for our NORAD needs.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MCG said:
			
		

> When will Bomarc II come up as an alternative to the F35?
> It seems fitting that it should be considered when others are suggesting an Arrow II be considered for our NORAD needs.



Does this mean we will be getting nuclear weapons again?  If so, I'm all in!


----------



## Old Sweat

Probably not tactical nukes, so the army won't have to dust off CAMT 1-8 The Brigade Group in Battle which was our doctrine on how to fight on the nuclear battlefield. Frankly, as one of the few surviving nuclear target analysts, I thought we tended to fling them around rather indiscriminately on exercises in Canada. Four brigade was a different story. 

Going for a next generation Bomarc makes as much sense as trying to create Son of Arrow. The threat is a lot different than in the fifties.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> As with the (faulty) submarines we purchased used from the UK, nothing says to the world 'we are not American' like a French fighter.



Oxymoron? :witch:


----------



## a_majoor

By the time the Liberals leave and we can get around to determining what sort of fighter the RCAF will need in those distant times, _these_ will have reached technical maturity:   >


----------



## daftandbarmy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Oxymoron? :witch:



Nicely done, sir.


----------



## Zoomie

Thucydides said:
			
		

> By the time the Liberals leave and we can get around to determining what sort of fighter the RCAF will need in those distant times, _these_ will have reached technical maturity:   >


That airframe and idea has been scrapped - watched it being done at DM.


----------



## a_majoor

Indeed the Boeing ABL is with us no longer, but the idea of laser armed aircraft is reaching critical mass, and the technology is becoming practical to the point that C-RAM, warships burning small watercraft with 100kW laser weapons, and various airframes carrying lasers are all out of the demonstrator phase to the pre prototype phase.

The Boeing was quite ambitious, looking at a megawatt class weapon, but even then, a megawatt class weapon is now an extrapolation of an existing technology rather than a novel experiment.


----------



## MarkOttawa

National Fighter Procurement Secretariat gone poof, many months ago:



> ...the Public Works Department disclosed to The Hill Times last Friday [Oct. 30] that the secretariat [National Fighter Procurement Secretariat] had been disbanded early this year because its work was done [no mention of that at the Secretariat's website--but it was last modified "2014-12-10"--a clue there I guess
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/snac-nfps-eng.html ].
> 
> “The secretariat was formed to implement government’s seven-point [action] plan. As the secretariat’s work under the plan has now been completed, there are currently no plans to produce and table a 2015 annual update [on the cost of acquiring and operating a fleet of F-35s over each plane’s 30-year lifecycle],”Pierre-AlainBujold, a spokesperson with the department’s media relations branch, told The Hill Times last Thursday, Oct. 29.
> 
> Asked whether the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat still exists, Mr. Bujold provided more information the following day, in the late afternoon.
> 
> “The Secretariat was formed to implement government’s seven point plan. As that work has been completed, it was disbanded in Winter 2015,” Mr. Bujold said in his follow-up email. “PWGSC continues to support all defence procurement by providing expert negotiation and contracting services to ensure best value for Canadians.”
> 
> When The Hill Times earlier asked the Department of National Defence about a decision last fall to extend the life of the Boeing CF-18 fighter jet fleet to 2025 from an earlier plan to retire the fleet by 2020, which would have been possible under an earlier plan to begin acquiring the Lockheed Martin jets in 2017, a National Defence spokesperson reiterated a longstanding government line that no decision had yet been made on the acquisition.
> 
> “No decision has been made on the replacement of Canada’s fighter fleet,” DND spokesperson Daniel Lebouthiller said in an email last Sept. 21, in the midst of the general election campaign. “To ensure that Canada retains a fighter capability during a transition to a new fleet, National Defence has extended the life expectancy of the CF-18s to 2025 [actually not, is working on that extension]...
> http://www.hilltimes.com/news/2015/11/03/governments-quiet-dismantling-of-pwgsc-f-35-secretariat-means-fighter-jet-acquisition/44056



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

If Congress votes the money:



> USN to continue buying Boeing Super Hornets as F-35Cs arrive
> 
> The US Navy officials have reaffirmed plans to procure an additional 24 to 36 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets through fiscal year 2018 while also boosting F/A-18C life-extension rates, primarily due to delays in fielding the carrier-based Lockheed Martin F-35C.
> 
> Boeing has been trying desperately to shore up Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler production in St Louis, Missouri, but the company’s difficulty in securing international sales has raised doubts.
> 
> However, comments by navy officials at a congressional hearing this week suggest more F/A-18 orders in fiscal 2017 and 2018. That’s in addition to the dozen aircraft that are likely to be funded in the current fiscal 2016 budget.
> 
> “We have a strike fighter inventory management challenge,” says navy air warfare director Rear Adm Michael Manazir. “If you look at the demands in the strike fighters into 2030, we have a shortfall. The shortfall in the early part of the 2020s is about 138 airplanes.”
> 
> The navy expects to overcome that shortfall by life-extending the F/A-18C from 6,000h to 10,000h and through the procurement of “two to three squadrons” of Super Hornets...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usn-to-continue-buying-boeing-super-hornets-as-f-35c-418626/



Relevant to RCAF:



> The RCAF’s New Fighter and Long-Term Sustainability: What About the US Navy?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/mark-collins-the-rcafs-new-fighter-and-long-term-sustainability-what-about-the-us-navy/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

USN thinking:



> 2-star: F-35 delays could force further extension of Super Hornets
> 
> Joint strike fighter delays may force the carrier Navy to fly F/A-18 Super Hornets even longer into coming decades, a predicament that could reduce training hours and strain airframes.
> 
> Plans have been in the works to retire the F/A-18C Hornets in the mid-2020s, followed by the F/A-18E and F Super Hornets around 2035, but the consistently delayed development of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter has compelled the service to push the Hornets past their planned service lives. The dilemma raises the possibility that Super Hornets new to the fleet may still be flying in three decades.
> 
> “We might even fly these airplanes close to 2040,” air warfare director Rear Adm. Mike Manazir told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower on Monday [Nov. 2]…
> 
> The Navy has often been billed as being lukewarm on the F-35C, but part of that has to do with a current shortcoming: The aircraft’s latest software suits the Air Force and Marine Corps, Manazir said, but the Navy is waiting for a 2018 update that has a certain mix of weapons and air wing integration support.
> 
> “Because I integrate all my capabilities, I do not need an earlier F-35C with what they call Block-2B software, because it doesn’t give me the capability I need in my air wing,” he said. “So I’m not going to spend money on those earlier block models. I’m going to wait and buy the Block-3F software.”..
> 
> The Navy has plans to speed-up Hornet — and eventually Super Hornet — life extensions; coupled with a proposed buy of 24 to 36 new Super Hornets over the next three years, Manazir said…
> http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/11/06/2-star-f-35-delays-could-force-further-extension-super-hornets/75291560/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kuwait to help keep Super Hornet line going?



> DUBAI: Boeing, the world’s second-largest weapons maker, said on Saturday it expects a sale to Kuwait of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to be finalised soon, but lower oil prices are delaying some weapons purchase programs by Gulf states.
> 
> Kuwait was expected to announce an order for 28 of the fighter jets worth over $3 billion, Reuters reported earlier this year...
> http://tribune.com.pk/story/986899/boeing-expects-kuwait-jet-sale-soon-oil-price-hitting-some-deals/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

So, $107M each huh.


----------



## MarkOttawa

SuperSonicMax: Price obviously more than planes alone (URF). For planes (and engines) alone here are some real numbers, via US DoD “PROGRAM ACQUISITION COSTS BY WEAPON SYSTEM“
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Weapons.pdf

Procurement costs only:

Super Hornet, FY 2013 (p. 24): $2065.4M for 26 aircraft, or $79.4M each.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

That was for US Navy SH.   I suspect international customers pay a little more...


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think the point is that Prime Minister Trudeau, _if_ he wants to keep his "Zero F-35 fighters" promise, does have credible options ... he's not just talking through his hair hat.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So, $107M each huh.



Not a relevant figure, Max, as we don't know what is included in that $3B price tag.  Per aircraft costs are always a 'loaded' figure, and highly dependant on what's included in program costs.

If one were to read the Government news releases on the CH-147F acquisition cost of $2.2B (aircraft, some parts, simulators and some infrastructure) and divide by 15 aircraft, arithmetic would postulate that each Chinook costs $147M...makes Super Hornets and even F-35 look downright economical.   

:2c:

G2G


----------



## a_majoor

Well, here is a solution that should satisfy _everyone_  >


----------



## dapaterson

What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.

How much is national sovereignty worth?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.
> 
> How much is national sovereignty worth?



Not very much. Canada has choosen for decades to scrimp on defence and take an essentially free ride on the US taxpayer. Why should we complain when they want to call the shots?


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.
> 
> How much is national sovereignty worth?



I am pretty sure we can't bring our Hornets (US tech) anywhere we want right now to do whatever we want as it stands. 

While we have some control over our software, it is largely based on the US version of the F-18 software with some Canadian improvements.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.
> 
> How much is national sovereignty worth?



I can think of literally hundreds of other systems that rely solely on US R&D as we simply don't have the capacity to build equivalents or would be playing 20 years of scientific catchup. Major ones off the top of my head from the signals world is tactical radio equipment and encryption devices. There's a reason we're leaning on buying everything from Harris, look at the gongshow the TCCCS system was when we did it ourselves.


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I can think of literally hundreds of other systems that rely solely on US R&D as we simply don't have the capacity to build equivalents or would be playing 20 years of scientific catchup. Major ones off the top of my head from the signals world is tactical radio equipment and encryption devices. There's a reason we're leaning on buying everything from Harris, look at the gongshow the TCCCS system was when we did it ourselves.



And if it is isn't American caveats then it is British, Swedish or French caveats.  TANSTAAFL.  The only weapons we control are the ones we have in hand - until they break.


----------



## NavyShooter

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, here is a solution that should satisfy _everyone_  >



We roll back to the CF-5 or Scorpion Jet option again?

;-)

http://www.scorpionjet.com/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Quote from: dapaterson on Today at 07:52:00



> What has rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.
> 
> How much is national sovereignty worth?


  

At AvWeek Oct.15:



> F-35 Customers Funding U.S.-Based Software Update Labs
> 
> Foreign air forces using the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are being compelled to build and fund $150 million software laboratories, based in the U.S. and almost 50% staffed by U.S. personnel, that generate data crucial to the fighter’s ability to identify new radio-frequency threats.
> 
> This regime is more stringent and far-reaching than earlier U.S. fighter export deals. Those usually withheld key software — known as source code — from the customer, but in most cases allowed local users to manage their own “threat libraries,” data that allowed the electronic warfare (EW) system to identify radio-frequency threats, with in-country, locally staffed facilities.
> 
> For the U.K. in particular, the reliance on U.S.-located laboratories looks like a pullback from its earlier position. In 2006, concern over access to JSF technology reached the national leadership level, and prompted a declaration, by U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, that “both governments agree that the U.K. will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the JSF such that the U.K. retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.”
> 
> That promise seemingly contrasts with the severe limits now being imposed on non-U.S. access to the system.
> 
> Concerns about the lack of sovereignty and access to the core system — since customer laboratory personnel will not be co-located with operating units — are being voiced. A retired senior officer with the Royal Air Force comments that “the non-U.S. operators are going to have to take a very great deal on trust. Further, ‘rubbish in – rubbish out’ is still going to hold sway and I doubt that the non-U.S. customers will be able to check what is going in.” Security arrangements “seem to go a lot further and deeper” than on earlier platforms, he says...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-customers-funding-us-based-software-update-labs



Read on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kilo_302

Not an expert by any stretch, but I still haven't seen a viable argument as to why a single engine aircraft would be considered suitable for the NORAD mission.

 Most of the air forces considering the JSF are either replacing the F-16 (with smaller geographical areas to cover) or are running mixed fleets (RAF, IAF etc). I understand engine technology has advanced since the 70s, and the F-35 engine is apparently far more resistant to bird strikes etc, but the foreign object debris risk is almost non-existent once you're at altitude, and is really only a consideration during take-off and landing (when you don't need to worry about being rescued anyways).

Even if the engine is 99.99% reliable, wouldn't having a single point of failure become a problem over the lifetime of the aircraft given the vast distances being flown?


----------



## dapaterson

I suspect the CAF has adequate data to determine whether a single engine has an adequate safety margin.

While I have many critiques of the F35; its engine (or lack of an "s" at the end) is not one of them.


----------



## Loachman

As I have said here before: "I've got over 4000 hours on single-engined helicopters by day and night, fair weather or foul, over large expanses of wilderness, water, alligator-infested swamp, major cities, and Liberal-held ridings, and not once, ever, did I see that as a problem".

People were worried when airliners went from four engines to three and two. Modern engines are much more reliable. And even four engines are no guarantee against death when one's AWACS runs through a flock of geese on take-off.


----------



## McG

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Not an expert by any stretch, but I still haven't seen a viable argument as to why a single engine aircraft would be considered suitable for the NORAD mission.


Well I still haven't seen a viable argument as to why a single engine aircraft would not be considered suitable for the NORAD mission, and I do know a bit about RAMD.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Not an expert by any stretch, but I still haven't seen a viable argument as to why a single engine aircraft would be considered suitable for the NORAD mission.



Single engine aircraft were always acceptable for the NORAD mission...even back in the 60's and 70's.


----------



## Kirkhill

Or these?


----------



## winnipegoo7

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Or these?



Starfighter buff here.

I think the twin engine Voodoo was our NORAD interceptor and that the Starfighter was with NATO in Europe in a nuclear bomber / recce / ground attack role. I know some Starfighters were used for training in Canada, but I think the operational ones were in Europe. Do you have a reference of Starfighters operating with NORAD?


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.norad.mil/Portals/29/Documents/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20NORAD%20(current%20as%20of%20March%202014).pdf

Page 40 

Jan 58 to Sep 60
Apr 63 to Dec 69

Not in Canadian service and not considered ideal by the USAF but they were assigned NORAD missions.


----------



## winnipegoo7

CP

I didn't know that. Thanks.


----------



## a_majoor

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.
> 
> How much is national sovereignty worth?



Given the sensor fusion and other capabilities of the F-35, allies flying in Gen 4 fighters will essentially be under the command and control of the F-35's anyway, since they will be steering through defences, spotting and assigning targets and doing pretty much all the mission critical stuff anyway. They will essentially be bomb and missile trucks for the Americans to utilize as they see fit (and since they are manned, will be more flexible than a similar fleet of UCAVs doing the same role).


----------



## MarkOttawa

Maybe big Rafale sale (60) to UAE, BAE trying to keep Typhoon line alive:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/11/dubai-airshow-emirates-fighters-idUSL8N1362Y220151111
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/11/12/bae-curtailing-typhoon-production/75640236/

Lots more Rafale at DID:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-rafale-fighters-au-courant-in-time-05991/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Maybe big Rafale sale (60) to UAE, BAE trying to keep Typhoon line alive:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/11/dubai-airshow-emirates-fighters-idUSL8N1362Y220151111
> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/11/12/bae-curtailing-typhoon-production/75640236/
> 
> Lots more Rafale at DID:
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-rafale-fighters-au-courant-in-time-05991/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



And there you have the problem with the Typhoon and the Rafale.

A BIG SALE is 60 aircraft.  And those are necessary to keep struggling lines open.  Similarly for the Boeing products.

Meanwhile LockMart is turning out the F35s at that rate annually even though it is still operating at a LOW RATE and has yet to come up to HIGH RATE even as the aircraft itself continues to develop its full potential.

Currently the F35 is about as good as the old Sea Harrier.   And work can be found for even Gen 3 aircraft like Frogfoots.

Face it.  The only people that are going to buy aircraft in the thousands are the Americans.  Even the Chinese can't afford that, the Russians certainly can't and the Arabs won't.

And the Americans are never going to buy Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon.  And they have made their decision on where their fighter dollar is going.

Boeing will get another project (maybe the UCAV vehicle or the LRS-B in association with others) and kept alive that way.


----------



## CougarKing

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And there you have the problem with the Typhoon and the Rafale.



Speaking of the Typhoon, here's more about the continuing problems with Typhoon sales for BAE:

Defense News



> *BAE Curtailing Typhoon Production*
> By Andrew Chuter 8:53 a.m. EST November 12, 2015
> 
> LONDON —* BAE Systems is halving Typhoon combat jet production in order to keep assembly lines working beyond 2018 when delivery of current orders come to an end, the company said in a trading update issued Nov 12.*
> 
> On the upside, Europe's largest defense contractor also announced it is in discussion with the Saudi air force over a potential order for a further 22 Hawk jet trainers to add to the 72 it has delivered or has under contract.
> 
> The company declined to detail current or projected production numbers resulting from the slow-down, but said the financial impact would see Typhoon sales revenues reduce from about £1.3 billion (US$1.97 billion) this year to around £1.1 billion in 2016.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## AlexanderM

I wonder if we could purchase some Advanced Super Hornets and then lease some F-35's, say 12-16. Then the new PM could say we didn't purchase any and we would still have the newest tech.


----------



## Kirkhill

> n the meantime, Bogdan and his team are focused on more current deadlines. Lockheed is expected to deliver a proposal for LRIP 9 and 10 in January or February of 2015, Bogdan said, which will kick off the next round of negotiations.
> 
> Those negotiations are part of what Bogdan called a “significant” ramp in production rates. The current plan calls for the three US services to buy 34 of 57 total planes in LRIP 9, 55 of 96 total planes in LRIP 10 and 68 of 121 total planes in LRIP 11.



http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20141031/DEFREG02/310310028/F-35-Heading-Toward-Block-Buy



> The US Department of Defense (DoD) and Lockheed Martin finalised the eighth F-35 Lightning II Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP 8) contract on 21 November, the DoD's programme office announced.
> 
> The deal is for 43 F-35 airframes valued at USD4.7 billion. The batch includes 29 aircraft for the United States and 14 for 5 other countries.



http://www.janes.com/article/46129/pentagon-finalises-f-35-lrip-8-contract



> As of November, 115 F-35s, including test aircraft, were delivered from Lockheed Martin's production facility in Fort Worth, Texas.



ibid

So: to summarize

Prior to LRIP 8 (To Date)   115 aircraft delivered (plus initiation of foreign assembly)
With LRIP 8   (2015)           43 aircraft to be delivered
With LRIP 9   (2016)           57 aircraft to be delivered
With LRIP 10 (2017)           96 aircraft to be delivered
With LRIP 11 (2018)         121 aircraft to be delivered
Total F35s  Flying (2019)  432 aircraft in the air

Next Canadian Election 2019
Retiremement Window for CF-188s 2020-2025

Gripen, Rafale, or Typhoon would give their eye-teeth for any one of those LOW RATE LRIP contracts and their total fleet strengths

444 Typhoon
247 Gripen
141 Rafale

for comparison 

195 F22
500? F18 E-F

and for reference

1480 F18 A-D
4560+ F16
1198 F15
337 AV-8Bs


Only the Typhoon is in the same league as where the F35 will be when it hits Full Production rates on the way to a fleet of 2000 to 3000+ to replace all those Eagles, Falcons, Hornets and Harriers.

Super Hornet, Silent Eagle, even Fighting Falcon - may get some bridging orders to fill gaps - but the F35 is the designated Go To to replace up to 8000 existing aircraft.  And nobody, anywhere, is going to match those numbers,  not even if the EU miraculously healed itself and figured out how to agree on a single solution for anything.

Yep.  We can go out and build ourselves a toy fleet of hangar queens for shade tree mechanics, like the French Air Force - or we can order a few dozen Chevys off a General Motors production line.  And make money selling parts to the rest of the 2000 to 3000 (plus) vehicles that are likely to driven for the next 50 years (plus).


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook:



> With LRIP 8   (2015)           43 aircraft to be delivered



LRIP 8 is actually for US FY 2014, started Oct. 1 2013:



> WASHINGTON D.C. – Oct. 27, 2014 - The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin have reached an agreement in principle for the production of 43 F-35 Lightning II aircraft.  Officials anticipate the Low-Rate Initial Production lot 8 (LRIP 8) contract to be finalized in the coming weeks.  The contract is for fiscal year 2014 with _deliveries beginning in 2016_ [emphasis added]...
> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/october/dod-and-lockheed-martin-announce-principle-agreement-on-purchase-of-f-35s_141027ae.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chris Pook:
> 
> LRIP 8 is actually for US FY 2014, started Oct. 1 2013:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I'll take the push Mark. By the time of the election 2019 rolls around I still figure that, in round numbers, there will be 400 to 500 F35s in the air.

And the  F35 line will just be switching into high gear, and the CF-18s will still have another 4 or 5 years life expectancy (especially if they are limited to NORAD response and their Flag exercise time and Air Shows are curtailed.


----------



## SupersonicMax

CP,

You should be the RCAF Comd!  You understand the matter AND are able to put it into coherent words!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> CP,
> 
> You should be the RCAF Comd!  You understand the matter AND are able to put it into coherent words!



My personal favorite was the part about hangar queens and shade tree mechanics.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The Liberals’ defence platform says this (p. 3 PDF):



> We will not purchase the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft will remain the defence of North America. We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 that will exclude requirements that do not reflect Canada’s interests, such as first-strike stealth capabilities.
> https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-to-strengthen-the-economy-and-create-jobs-with-navy-investment.pdf



Now see this at the mandate letter for the Minister of Public Services and Procurement–she is to…



> Work with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs.
> http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-public-services-and-procurement-mandate-letter



The party stated that those needs do not include “first-strike stealth capabilities”; so the F-35 is in fact effectively, if not specifically, excluded? The wording is essentially identical in the MND’s mandate letter:
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-national-defence-mandate-letter

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

A dumb decision is a dumb decision even when it is a decision.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I am not purporting to be any kind of expert here whatsoever but sometimes a little dose of reality and unbiased input helps. When working the Navy's CSC project a few years ago, a group of us (from all 3 environments and none of us were officers) got together right after the F35 hammer came down. We went through the SOR for the CF 18 replacement and determined that there is an aircraft that meets about 80% of the requirements within the SOR and we could probably build under license, around 5000 of them. That aircraft is.............the P51 Mustang....with drop tanks of course....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well that solution would fit the rest of the forces back to the past trend.


----------



## a_majoor

A bit more futuristic, and turbine powered to boot:


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> CP,
> 
> You should be the RCAF Comd!  You understand the matter AND are able to put it into coherent words!



Could he learn to speak with a Scottish accent?  I could write his speeches for him  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

And now for the Afghans via the USAF:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/first-super-tucano-accepted-us-air-force

Delivery next year:
http://www.janes.com/article/54750/super-tucano-deliveries-to-afghanistan-delayed-until-early-2016

Meanwhile Lebanon buying with Saudi money:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/mideast-africa/2015/06/21/lebanon-to-buy-super-tucanos-with-saudi-funds-us-fms/28927563/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/dubai-air-show/2015/11/10/lebanon-a29-super-tucano-embraer-dubai/75500984/











Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm not a pilot, nor an AERE officer ...

So, exclusively for ground attack, what is the difference (advantage?) of this:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     _Textron_ Scorpion

Over this:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     _Sikorsky_ X2 Raider     

And vice versa, of course.

This is a Canadian question, so we can have one or the pother (in addition to a couple of squadrons plus an ATU's worth of a NORAD interceptor), not both.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My guess is the Turcano offers significantly reduced operating costs, with less pilot training and less initial costs. It can still bomb and strafe targets and make life miserable for the enemy. It can be brought down with Gun AA or Manpads, but losing one is not breaking the bank. Pilots in these countries are considered expendable, although in reality it would be hard to replace one as they rarely would have an efficient training scheme. The Textron aircraft is getting closer to the Su-25 in capability.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not a pilot, nor an AERE officer ...
> 
> So, exclusively for ground attack, what is the difference (advantage?) of this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Textron_ Scorpion
> 
> Over this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Sikorsky_ X2 Raider
> 
> And vice versa, of course.
> 
> This is a Canadian question, so we can have one or the pother (in addition to a couple of squadrons plus an ATU's worth of a NORAD interceptor), not both.



Speed, distance you can travel and amount of payload you can carry.


----------



## GR66

Maybe they'll go for a cheap dual role aircraft like the Korean Aerospace / Lockheed Martin FA-50...has some Air-to-Air capability unlike the Scorpion and can be used for ground attack.  Is already in production and in service with a couple of countries and it's unarmed T-50 model is Lockheed Martin's entry into the USAF's T-X advanced trainer program to provide a supersonic aircraft for training F-35 pilots.

If we were to buy these from Lockheed Martin (and possibly boost their chances in the T-X competition by having an in-service base and existing production) would they possibly give Canada some consideration on continuing contractor participation in the F-35 program if we were to "defer" a decision on an F-35 purchase instead of cancelling outright?

http://www.koreaaero.com/english/product/fixedwing_t-50.asp


----------



## jmt18325

GR66 said:
			
		

> Maybe they'll go for a cheap dual role aircraft like the Korean Aerospace / Lockheed Martin FA-50...has some Air-to-Air capability unlike the Scorpion and can be used for ground attack.  Is already in production and in service with a couple of countries and it's unarmed T-50 model is Lockheed Martin's entry into the USAF's T-X advanced trainer program to provide a supersonic aircraft for training F-35 pilots.
> 
> If we were to buy these from Lockheed Martin (and possibly boost their chances in the T-X competition by having an in-service base and existing production) would they possibly give Canada some consideration on continuing contractor participation in the F-35 program if we were to "defer" a decision on an F-35 purchase instead of cancelling outright?
> 
> http://www.koreaaero.com/english/product/fixedwing_t-50.asp



I think it's more likely we'd buy the newest F-16.


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think it's more likely we'd buy the newest F-16.



Nope - the politics of "two engines for the North" is too strong, however misguided that may be.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well that solution would fit the rest of the forces back to the past trend.



How about an RCAF Typhoon instead?  CBC will never know the difference.


----------



## jmt18325

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Nope - the politics of "two engines for the North" is too strong, however misguided that may be.



Yes, that's why I think the Super Hornet has pretty much sealed the deal before the competition even begins, with an outside chance for the Rafale, and the Typhoon being my preference.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Yes, that's why I think the Super Hornet has pretty much sealed the deal before the competition even begins, with an outside chance for the Rafale, and the Typhoon being my preference.


Glad you're willing to buy a gen 4 Typhoon at greater cost than a gen 5 F35.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Glad you're willing to buy a gen 4 Typhoon at greater cost than a gen 5 F35.



It's a better air interdiction fighter by far.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook:

Tee hee:



> ...
> How about an RCAF Typhoon instead?  CBC will never know the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

One thing worth considering - if the new F-16 is around $50M as I've heard, that could be enough to sell it to Canada.  We could even easily afford to replace our entire 80 aircraft.  The procurement budget would go from $9B to $4B leaving a lot of extra money for the Navy, and the Liberals wanted.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's a better air interdiction fighter by far.



Please substentiate.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Please substentiate.



How dare you suggest such a thing!  Everyone knows the discussion revolving around the F35 is all about conjecture.


----------



## Infanteer

It's clear that he's flown a Typhoon in air-to-air combat against an F-35 to see the results first hand!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's clear that he's flown a Typhoon in air-to-air combat against an F-35 to see the results first hand!








I played Jetfighter II growing up, that pretty much makes me an expert on all things Air Force related!  I'm waiting for CBC to drop me a line for some colour commentary!


----------



## Good2Golf

I think I dozed off, did we already address classic Harvard with hard points?


----------



## Kirkhill

Fits with the both the modern Training meme AND the Tradition thing.


----------



## jmt18325

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's clear that he's flown a Typhoon in air-to-air combat against an F-35 to see the results first hand!



As I haven't, I can only by what he read.  Sorry, it's built up as and described as a far better air to air platform than most, in the same league as the F-15.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> As I haven't, I can only by what he read.  Sorry, it's built up as and described as a far better air to air platform than most, in the same league as the F-15.



Again, back your claims up.  Wha makes it better.


----------



## Good2Golf

Fair to say Typhoon was an improvement over the F3 air interceptor variant of the 'East Anglia Landshark', a.k.a. Tornado.   That said, deltas usually do fairly well in climbs to altitude, but not sure their EM performance at the corner is any better than modified delta or more conventional planforms.  I too would be interested to see any (unclassified) information showing why Typhoon would be any better than any other aircraft with similar specific excess power.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Again, back your claims up.  Wha makes it better.



It has better wing loading and thrust ratios than almost any competitor.  I'm not overly committed to this idea, I'm just going by what I've read.  I think, on balance, it's not a good solution for Canada.  It is, apparently, a very good air to air fighter, which is why almost every country that has bought it uses it for border security.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It has better wing loading and thrust ratios than almost any competitor.  I'm not overly committed to this idea, I'm just going by what I've read.  I think, on balance, it's not a good solution for Canada.  It is, apparently, a very good air to air fighter, which is why almost every country that has bought it uses it for border security.



I think he means provide a source


----------



## Ostrozac

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It is, apparently, a very good air to air fighter, which is why almost every country that has bought it uses it for border security.



The Royal Saudi Air Force use F-15C as their primary air defence fighter -- Typhoon is being used for the strike role, especially in Yemen.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/04/06/operation-decisive-storm-rsaf/

And for the NORAD role, do we really care about the relative quality of the air to air capability? Last I heard, Russian doctrine was that Bears were operating without fighter escort. Air to air capability seems more important for the expeditionary role (self-escort strike, enforcing no-fly zones, etc...).


----------



## GR66

I've got a very general question about the costs of modern fighter aircraft.  There is often the argument heard that F-15s and F-18s don't make sense because they are basically 70s technology at the same or higher cost than the F-35.

Why are these older aircraft not any cheaper than they are?  Are the production methods used on the F-35 that much more efficient than that of the older aircraft?  Hasn't Boeing had 40 years of experience in production of these airframes to optimize their production (i.e. maximize their profit on each unit), or is it simply a matter of low-rate production costs vs. high-rate production costs?  Are the efficiency differences really that great between the two (Lockheed and Boeing) production lines?

Or is it because the actual airframe itself is not the major cost in the production of the aircraft and the major price component comes from the electronics and avionics installed in the aircraft?  So if you're installing the latest and greatest AESA radar and advanced combat information systems in ANY aircraft you're likely to be pushing $100 million per copy whether it's installed in an F-35, and F-15, a Scorpion or a Twin Otter?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ostrozac: On Bears (and Blackjacks) and fighter escorts, see latter part here:



> Who Needs Fifth Generation (Stealth) Fighters? But Escorted Russian Bombers?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/mark-collins-who-needs-fifth-generation-stealth-fighters-but-escorted-russian-bombers/



Janes360 story link no longer works but the piece can be seen here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/mig-31-interception-russia-changing-offensive-operations.63747/

More on MiG-31 escorts:



> NORAD (RCAF) vs Bears…and Foxhounds–and Nukes
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/mark-collins-norad-rcaf-vs-bears-and-foxhounds-and-nukes/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I think he means provide a source



Like, I said, I'm not that committed to this position.  Take this opinion piece for what you will:

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/


----------



## jmt18325

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And for the NORAD role, do we really care about the relative quality of the air to air capability? Last I heard, Russian doctrine was that Bears were operating without fighter escort. Air to air capability seems more important for the expeditionary role (self-escort strike, enforcing no-fly zones, etc...).



That's the same reason we really don't need the F-35.  Even the Russians can't make it that distance with a large enough number of fighters to pose that big of a threat to a few Super Hornets.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It has better wing loading and thrust ratios than almost any competitor.  I'm not overly committed to this idea, I'm just going by what I've read.  I think, on balance, it's not a good solution for Canada.  It is, apparently, a very good air to air fighter, which is why almost every country that has bought it uses it for border security.



So you are telling my that wing loading and thrust/weight ratio are more important than weapons, sensors and fusion in Air Superiority?

Got it.  You don't really know what makes a good air-air platform...


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So you are telling my that wing loading and thrust/weight ratio are more important than weapons, sensors and fusion in Air Superiority?
> 
> Got it.  You don't really know what makes a good air-air platform...



I don't pretend to be an expert. Like I said, I can only go by what I read. Most sources consider the F-35 to be a less than capable platform for air engagements.  The Typhoon can go faster, further, and carry more weapons to a fight.  The F-35 does have the advantages of stealth and advanced sensor fusion that only the Super Hornet comes anywhere near.  It's not an easy comparison, and like I said I'm no expert and have never portrayed myself as such.


----------



## PuckChaser

If you're not an expert, be extremely careful making sweeping generalizations. A Eurofighter is also $140M CAD, good luck justifying that cost, when you turned down a ~$110M CAD F-35.

I also strongly doubt the Super Hornet will be able to hold a candle to the sensors/fusion that the F-35 brings to the fight.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you're not an expert, be extremely careful making sweeping generalizations. A Eurofighter is also $140M CAD, good luck justifying that cost, when you turned down a ~$110M CAD F-35.



I didn't mean to sound as if I was making a definitive statement.  In my opinion, based on what I read, I though that to be true.  I also didn't advocate for the purchase of said aircraft, as it isn't the best fit for Canada (again, IMO).



> I also strongly doubt the Super Hornet will be able to hold a candle to the sensors/fusion that the F-35 brings to the fight.



It won't be as good.  It will apparently come within a reasonable distance, but, then again those are Boeing claims, to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## WingsofFury

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't pretend to be an expert. Like I said, I can only go by what I read. Most sources consider the F-35 to be a less than capable platform for air engagements.  The Typhoon can go faster, further, and carry more weapons to a fight.  The F-35 does have the advantages of stealth and advanced sensor fusion that only the Super Hornet comes anywhere near.  It's not an easy comparison, and like I said I'm no expert and have never portrayed myself as such.



Suggestion from someone like you who isn't an expert; any Strike Eagle variant can meet Canada's needs when it comes to air to air and air to ground combat, complete with weaponry and sensors that make it viable in any global theatre.

Only thing is, Boeing wants to sell us the Super Hornet instead....ask yourself why they want to sell us an inferior aircraft that hasn't won any competition it's been involved in.

Answer is simple; because we'll be stupid enough to buy it.


----------



## Pilot-Wannabe

Also not an expert; but one big factor behind the Super Hornet pitch over the Eagle is that we already have legacy Hornets.  

Dont get me wrong I love the F-15 but it is an expensive plane, both to purchase and to operate. Purchase cost is comparable to the F-35 at over 110-120M per airframe and its hourly operating costs may not necessarily be more than the F-35 but definitely a higher hourly cost than the Hornet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Regardless of what the experts say, it will be people with very little knowledge that will make the final decision, they will look at a 3 page briefing note, listen to what a flurry of contradicting experts say and then make a political decision.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And the political decision will not include the F-35 no matter what ... 'cause we, at Wesayso Corporation said so. So there  

Personally, I say go for the Gripen NG and start holding training "deployments" everywhere in Canada's countryside on stretches of roads and highways of  1 Km or more (preferably in Liberal ridings), just to annoy the hell out of canadians so they get back to their government on the issue  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

I appears to me, in appointing Paula Folkes-Dallaire to head a new (or reconfigured) office to oversee procurement, that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has taken a leaf from Prime Minister Harper's playbook: he will let the bureaucrats "break trail" and find a path out of the current mess and into something akin to "daylight."

Mme Folkes-Dallaire has the title (rank) of senior director ~ it may not sound like much but the last person with whom I dealt who had that title was the chief-of-staff to one of the most powerful deputy ministers in Ottawa and he, the senior director, dealt directly, with other, lesser, DMs and with ADMs as a near equal.

Mme Folkes-Dallaire has a solid résumé (her LinkedIn profile is down for refurbishment), she was a director general in her last job, and I'm 99.99% certain that she is well known as an able, politically sensitive manager with some experience at (successfully) handling difficult, complex and politically dangerous files.


----------



## WingsofFury

Pilot-Wannabe said:
			
		

> Also not an expert; but one big factor behind the Super Hornet pitch over the Eagle is that we already have legacy Hornets.
> 
> Dont get me wrong I love the F-15 but it is an expensive plane, both to purchase and to operate. Purchase cost is comparable to the F-35 at over 110-120M per airframe and its hourly operating costs may not necessarily be more than the F-35 but definitely a higher hourly cost than the Hornet.



Just because we have legacy Hornets doesn't mean they are at all similar to Super Hornets.  Matter of fact, many believe that our current legacy Hornets are actually better than Supers....

So while an Eagle may cost more, it's definitely a better platform that a Super Hornet.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Wings of Fury: But does the RCAF need a better aircraft than one the USN is going to fly until 2040 (plus?):



> The RCAF’s New Fighter and Long-Term Sustainability: What About the US Navy?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/mark-collins-the-rcafs-new-fighter-and-long-term-sustainability-what-about-the-us-navy/
> 
> US Navy: Slow F-35C Arrival=Super Hornet Life Extension
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/mark-collins-us-navy-slow-f-35c-arrivalsuper-hornet-life-extension/
> 
> How Long Will the F/A-18E/F Line Growl On?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/mark-collins-how-long-will-the-fa-18ef-line-growl-on/



And can anyone really say what the role and effectiveness of the manned fighter--even the F-35--will be in the 2040s?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Wings of Fury: But does the RCAF need a better aircraft than one the USN is going to fly until 2040 (plus?):
> 
> And can anyone really say what the role and effectiveness of the manned fighter--even the F-35--will be in the 2040s?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Does the US Navy do NORAD?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good2Golf: No, but fleet protection (somewhat similar, obviously not the same).  For me the real NORAD question is whether Russian fighters will escort bombers, in which case stealth makes sense for continental air defence:
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1401357.html#msg1401357

And there is that affordability question esp. with the new government--though F-35 at some point may not be too bad:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/mark-collins-f-35-and-canadian-election-liberals-loose-with-fighter-costs/

Rafale line though now looking pretty secure for some time--note UAE in "Comments" along with BAE curtailing Typhoon production:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/mark-collins-french-rafale-fighter-on-really-big-roll-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Good2Golf: No, but fleet protection (somewhat similar, obviously not the same).  For me the real NORAD question is whether Russian fighters will escort bombers, in which case stealth makes sense for continental air defence:
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1401357.html#msg1401357



Not sure Russian fighters would have the legs that Tu-160, Tu-95 or Tu-22 would have, thus not sure fighter escort is even in play.  Response speed and range, and ability to 'prosecute threats' by RCAF interceptors within CANR is Job 1.  You would likely have a hard time finding anyone saying that an F-15SE wouldn't be the Silver Standard...Gold is the F-22 Raptor, but no one other than the Americans get the Gold standard.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## WingsofFury

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Wings of Fury: But does the RCAF need a better aircraft than one the USN is going to fly until 2040 (plus?):
> 
> And can anyone really say what the role and effectiveness of the manned fighter--even the F-35--will be in the 2040s?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



If we're expected to fly and maintain as a sole country the fighter for an additional 15 -20 years after the US Navy retires theirs, then yes, we do need a better aircraft.  The Eagle is slated to be in service until the 2050's and perhaps even into the 2060's in countries that are considered hot by anyones standards; why should we have less of a capability, given that we are fully expecting a Russian incursion at some point. As well, why not have a platform that is capable not only in air to ground and air to air scenarios, but can perform CAS against maritime vessels as well?

As to a manned platforms role and effectiveness beyone 2040...seriously? The UAV world isn't anywhere near coming up with something that will perform in the capacity of frontline manned fighters. That's why platforms are being bought now with the expectation that they'll be around for another 30, 40, or perhaps 50 years...even the US Navy knows that the -35C is the best option as they continue testing on the X-47.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good2Golf: No disagreement but money, money, money--plus no Raptors to be had for love or money.

Fighter escort matter with refueling worth serious watching methinks, esp. with Russian nuclear "de-escalation" doctrine and new stealthy cruise missiles (Kh-102 http://missilethreat.com/missiles/kh-101-102/ -- Kh-101 just used in Syria http://www.janes.com/article/56062/russia-launches-long-range-air-sorties-into-syria ):

https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Mark, fair point about tanking...that said, such a package would be a pretty big 'telegraph.'

You have pointed out a significant thorn in the AD shield, that being the Kh-10X family of stealthy cruise missiles.  That will be a challenge to anyone's territorial airspace. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good2Golf: A  Sept. 2014 telegram on possible escort fighters:



> ...
> Jeff Davis, a spokesperson for NORAD, said that the Russian planes reportedly flew within about 55 nautical miles off Alaska and about 40 nautical miles off the Canadian coastline, CNN reported, adding that after flying in a loop they returned to Russia. Two Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors intercepted _two Ilyushin Il-78 refueling tankers_ [emphasis added], Mikoyan MiG-31 fighter jets and two Russian Rupolev Tu-95 long-range bombers. Two Canadian McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet jets intercepted two Tu-95s in the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, CNN reported, citing the NORAD statement...
> http://www.ibtimes.com/us-canada-intercept-6-russian-planes-2-bombers-over-their-air-defense-identification-zone-1692342



And Jan. 2015:



> The Russian Air Force (Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily - VVS [major changes since https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/mark-collins-russian-air-force-woes-unification-section/ ]) has conducted a series of 'long-range aviation patrols' with its Tupolev Tu-95 'Bear' strategic bombers over the Atlantic Ocean and Norwegian Sea in the west and the Barents Sea in the east, state media announced on 29 January.
> 
> The flights were conducted out of Engels Air Force Base in the Saratov region on the same day as the announcement, the TASS news agency reported. During the more than 19-hour missions, the Tu-95MS bombers were _accompanied by Ilyushin Il-78 'Midas' tankers_ [emphasis added] and MiG-31 'Foxhound' interceptors...
> http://www.janes.com/article/48418/russian-bombers-fly-more-long-range-patrols



Seems to me whatever fighter the RCAF ends up with must have a big AAM capability vs cruise missiles.  Stealthy the F-35 does not.  What to do if need to be stealthy for fear of escorts?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

How does the F-35 not have a anti-cruise missile capability again?


----------



## MarkOttawa

PuckChaser: If stealthy carries:



> ...
> How many internal air-to-air missiles will the F-35 carry? Will the weapons bays be designed to carry six AAMRAAMs?
> 
> Four internal air-to-air missiles is the current requirement and capability. New, smaller developmental weapons and suspension and release equipment may increase the capacity in follow-on development, but no firm weapons and suspension and release equipment candidates to accomplish this have been identified to date...
> http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-and-military-aircraft/articles/f-35-the-weapons/



Four.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Another non-expert here weighing in but....

Doesn't internal carry result in less drag resulting in longer range - as well as the benefits of stealth?

All those 4th Gen fighters have "stuff" hanging out all over the place - including more fuel to compensate for that "stuff" but in consequence becoming more "stuff" that creates more drag.....

Meanwhile the F-35 shows up all nice and clean and shiny and peaceful looking.  Not a weapon in sight to frighten the horses.  Concealed carry?


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> PuckChaser: If stealthy carries:
> 
> Four.



And it can carry external weapons on pylons if the threat requires it.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35c-conducts-first-external-weapons-release-with-not-one-but-four-500-pou

Look at all those pretty external pylons for missiles, I count space for 8.


----------



## SupersonicMax

It will, at some point, be able to carry 6 internally.  There is room for 2 AAM in space for the heavy weapons.


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It will, at some point, be able to carry 6 internally.  There is room for 2 AAM in space for the heavy weapons.



Which is a pretty stellar missile truck with a few of them configured as stealthy as possible to spot and relay positions. That might not fit the anti-F35 narrative though, of being not good for NORAD.


----------



## a_majoor

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Wings of Fury: But does the RCAF need a better aircraft than one the USN is going to fly until 2040 (plus?):
> 
> And can anyone really say what the role and effectiveness of the manned fighter--even the F-35--will be in the 2040s?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The answer is _no_, of course. People can't even predict what cars or cell phones will be like beyond 5 or 10 years, so expecting to understand what air combat will be like in 2040 is madness. About the only thing predictable will be that it takes place in the atmosphere.

The sensor and electronics packages on an F-35 at least allow you to go into the 2040's with a relatively "fresh" airframe and the ability to plug-n-play with whatever is operating at that time. There could be almost anything, from 747 sized carriers with giant laser weapons or railguns to insect sized drones. A maned aircraft might even be a huge advantage in an environment where there is a lot of ECM and cyberwarfare, since the pilot is still in the loop. Military Science Fiction writers can have fun with any number of scenarios, but making predictions?

Go for the option that has the most flexibility and growth options.


----------



## CougarKing

As expected, Canada pulls out:

Air Recognition



> Canada reopens tender for new fighter aircraft
> 
> Canada has reopened the tender for a new fighter aircraft with a letter to the Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. The country’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, had decided to scrap the Lockheed Martin F-35 acquisition programme by withdrawing the country from the project, mainly due to the high costs, delays and lack of match between the characteristics of the platform and the Royal Canadian Air Force’s needs.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Air Recognition


The next paragraph continues..... Regarding the country’s needs, Justin Trudeau made clear that these are _“North America’s defence”. _

So much for basing procurements on a thorough Foreign Policy/Defence review.


----------



## jmt18325

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So much for basing procurements on a thorough Foreign Policy/Defence review.



To perform the review, don't we first need to set goals?


----------



## McG

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> To perform the review, don't we first need to set goals?


So, you are saying we skipped at least two steps?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> As expected, Canada pulls out:
> 
> Air Recognition



If that article is right, this is much bigger than just not getting F-35.

Canada has been a partner in the development of the F-35 almost right from the start and numerous Canadian companies are involved in it. To state that we won't buy any F-35 is one thing, to actually "withdraw the country from the project" is orders of magnitude above that if true.

If true, it will also Pi...s off a lot of Quebeckers all over again, for the third time since they gain power in Ottawa only a few weeks ago: First, there was the decision to refuse an increase of 12% of the length of Toronto Island airports landing strip, which will lead to the cancellation of the order of C-series planes by Porter Airline; then the delay , which looks like a cancellation, of the Davie contract for a temporary AOR replacement; and, now this which would deprive a large number of sub-contractors in the aero industry mostly located around Montreal of their ongoing contracts related to F-35's.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If that article is right, this is much bigger than just not getting F-35.
> 
> Canada has been a partner in the development of the F-35 almost right from the start and numerous Canadian companies are involved in it. To state that we won't buy any F-35 is one thing, to actually "withdraw the country from the project" is orders of magnitude above that if true.
> 
> If true, it will also Pi...s off a lot of Quebeckers all over again, for the third time since they gain power in Ottawa only a few weeks ago: First, there was the decision to refuse an increase of 12% of the length of Toronto Island airports landing strip, which will lead to the cancellation of the order of C-series planes by Porter Airline; then the delay , which looks like a cancellation, of the Davie contract for a temporary AOR replacement; and, now this which would deprive a large number of sub-contractors in the aero industry mostly located around Montreal of their ongoing contracts related to F-35's.



Dis-quoi?  L'Harper, il ne semble pas si mal a ce point, peut-etre?  Trop tard.  L'eau est en train de bouillir.  Tant pis.   >

Wait until Bombardier funding is rejected outright.....


----------



## McG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Wait until Bombardier funding is rejected outright.....


That can be appeased by investing in a Bombardier "anti-bomber" air superiorety fighter.  That is what we want to replace the CF18 with, right?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Ah! Chris. Nice to see that staid Scotsmen such as you still remember the Auld Alliance.

Nice French, my friend.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Ah! Chris. Nice to see that staid Scotsmen such as you still remember the Auld Alliance.
> 
> Nice French, my friend.



It's always good to know another language.  If you want to insult someone you might as well be understood.....


----------



## Edward Campbell

That's why the English never worry about Scots insults ... no one can ever understand them.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's why the English never worry about Scots insults ... no one can ever understand them.



Ach, awa' wi' ye, ye glaikit scunner.  Hev ye gaun gyte, Wull?


----------



## cavalryman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Ach, awa' wi' ye, ye glaikit scunner.  Hev ye gaun gyte, Wull?


Gesundheit! [


----------



## The Bread Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> As expected, Canada pulls out:
> 
> Air Recognition


Not quite yet, if Reuters is to be believed -- also note the not wanting to talk about the F-35 thing -- highlights mine ....


> Canada's new Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on Friday said it was premature to discuss which aircraft would replace Canada's aging CF-18 fighter jets, caution that just might offer a glimmer of hope to Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet.
> 
> Sajjan's Liberal Party pledged in its campaign to scrap planned F-35 purchases.
> 
> But in an interview with Reuters, Sajjan said his fledgling government was still working to determine its requirements for the next jet and insisted the selection process would be "open and transparent."
> 
> "I'm focused on the requirements that we need ... as a nation that works with our allies as well, with NATO and our NORAD commitments," Sajjan told Reuters, referring to the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
> 
> Sajjan, a former police officer and veteran of military deployments to Afghanistan, said it would be "premature" to talk about the F-35.
> 
> He spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum shortly after meeting Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Work and said he delivered a similar message in private.
> 
> "I told the Deputy Secretary the same thing. I want to focus on making sure we have the right aircraft for Canada," Sajjan said, without elaborating.
> 
> New Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the F-35 "didn't come up" after his first formal meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday in the Philippines.
> 
> Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 program office, said *Canada remained a partner in the program and was still slated to participate in a meeting of the program's executive steering board in Italy early next month* ....


Not out yet ....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Nothing the Trudeau Liberals have done since taking office has been open and transparent. Why start now?


----------



## MarkOttawa

US starting to talk fairly tough, at high Pentagon level:



> U.S. expects F-35 to be part of Canada's next jet competition
> 
> WASHINGTON, Nov 21 (Reuters) - The Pentagon expects the new Canadian government to allow Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter aircraft to compete to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets, despite the Liberal Party's stated opposition to the planes, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said on Saturday.
> 
> But Work cautioned after talks in Canada that how the fledgling government sets its requirements for the competition would ultimately determine what jet the country gets.
> 
> "I think they're going to have another full and open competition. I think the F-35 will be part of that but the requirements from the competition may change. We don't know," Work told reporters traveling with him back from Canada.
> 
> Work's comments came a day after Canada's new Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan, in an interview with Reuters, said it would be "premature" to talk about the F-35 or any aircraft that might or might not be able to replace the CF-18.
> 
> "I'm focused on the requirements that we need ... as a nation that works with our allies as well, with NATO and our NORAD commitments," Sajjan said, referring to the North American Aerospace Defense Command...
> 
> Work said he only sounded out Sajjan when the two met in Halifax, Nova Scotia, adding: "I wasn't here to put any pressure on [SURE]."
> 
> ...Canada, one of the nine countries in the initial F-35 partnership, pledged to invest $150 million in the program's development when it signed up in February 2002.
> 
> Those funds would not be reimbursed if Canada exits the program. Many Canadian firms that supply parts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Lockheed each year could also lose those orders.
> 
> Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 program office, said on Friday that Canada remained a partner in the program and was still slated to participate in a meeting of the program's executive steering board in Italy early next month.
> 
> "Similar to actions taken by other nations, the Government of Canada is working to launch an open and transparent competition to replace their legacy aircraft," he said.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3328517/U-S-expects-F-35-Canadas-jet-competition.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PPCLI Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nothing the Trudeau Liberals have done since taking office has been open and transparent. Why start now?



Mandate letters?

Actual press conferences?

Don't let the facts get in the way.....


----------



## PuckChaser

A media scrum is not a press conference. The only thing the Tories got away from was media scrums where reporters yell questions like children. Just remember, that media press conference availability Trudeau campaigned on disappeared after the Paris attacks, so he could spend a few days being told how to respond.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have no faith in the Liberals, but still it's a tad early to start hammering them. they need more rope


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Mandate letters?
> 
> Actual press conferences?
> 
> Don't let the facts get in the way.....



The mandate letters were clearly designed for our consumption vice the minister's.


----------



## Good2Golf

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The mandate letters were clearly designed for our consumption vice the minister's.



...and you know this to be a fact, how?

You need to start your sentence with an "IMO" or if you are humble, an "IMHO"...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and you know this to be a fact, how?
> 
> You need to start your sentence with an "IMO" or if you are humble, an "IMHO"...



Ack. IMHO these letters were written for public consumption.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> A media scrum is not a press conference. The only thing the Tories got away from was media scrums where reporters yell questions like children. Just remember, that media press conference availability Trudeau campaigned on disappeared after the Paris attacks, so he could spend a few days being told how to respond.


In all fairness to trudeau (ha) word is he was swamped with meeting other leaders.

He has had a bit of a hectic schedule and I'm sure when things calm down some his availability to the press will increase. 

Not that anybody plans on being fair. That's ok. Best to pace yourself, 4 years is a long time to be angry. I would know.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> In all fairness to trudeau (ha) word is he was swamped with meeting other leaders.
> 
> He has had a bit of a hectic schedule and I'm sure when things calm down some his availability to the press will increase.



He's the Prime Minister of the country. "I'm busy" after campaigning on open, transparent government with lots of media availability, doesn't cut it. Especially after a major terrorist attack in a G8 country and an ally. If Harper did that, he would have been crucified, regardless on how "busy" his schedule is. The entire summit is a big press conference, and lots of other leaders made time. He didn't, because he didn't know (or get told yet) on what to say.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The mandate letters were clearly designed for our consumption vice the minister's.



 :brickwall:



> In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> :brickwall:



Ditto


----------



## Edward Campbell

At the risk of  :deadhorse: and   :bla-bla:  may I remind members of this.

It is possible for people to hold strong political opinions and still debate _issues_ in a civil and respectful manner. I don't have a great deal of respect or hope for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and I deeply distrust the "backroom boys" (and girls) in the party he leads, but he is a lot more than just great hair and unicorn farts. He has an able team around him; he performed well enough, under pressure, in his recent trips abroad and very, very well, indeed, on the campaign trail. He's more than just a "shiny pony."

Of course charisma is not a substitute for _gravitas_ or, more accurately, what the Brits call "bottom," but there's some good, solid "bottom" at the cabinet table and behind the big desks in the civil service. So, please, let's agree or disagree with what he says and does, but he deserves, he's earned the benefit of the doubt, it's still early going, and all that, and let's remember, please, that he and his team ~ _HIS_ team, he would have been crucified if he had finished third ~ won an election in which, initially, they looked to be also rans. He deserves at least a modicum of respect for putting himself out there, offering himself to us (to be either our prime minister or a ritual sacrifice) and for convincing 40% of the 69% of us who voted that he and his team were better choices than the others.

My  :2c: ...


----------



## GAP

:goodpost:


----------



## Altair

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At the risk of  :deadhorse: and   :bla-bla:  may I remind members of this.
> 
> It is possible for people to hold strong political opinions and still debate _issues_ in a civil and respectful manner. I don't have a great deal of respect or hope for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and I deeply distrust the "backroom boys" (and girls) in the party he leads, but he is a lot more than just great hair and unicorn farts. He has an able team around him; he performed well enough, under pressure, in his recent trips abroad and very, very well, indeed, on the campaign trail. He's more than just a "shiny pony."
> 
> Of course charisma is not a substitute for _gravitas_ or, more accurately, what the Brits call "bottom," but there's some good, solid "bottom" at the cabinet table and behind the big desks in the civil service. So, please, let's agree or disagree with what he says and does, but he deserves, he's earned the benefit of the doubt, it's still early going, and all that, and let's remember, please, that he and his team ~ _HIS_ team, he would have been crucified if he had finished third ~ won an election in which, initially, they looked to be also rans. He deserves at least a modicum of respect for putting himself out there, offering himself to us (to be either our prime minister or a ritual sacrifice) and for convincing 40% of the 69% of us who voted that he and his team were better choices than the others.
> 
> My  :2c: ...


you seem different from other conservatives I meet online. I hear there is a leadership race coming up, you sure you don't want to throw your hat in the ring?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Ack. IMHO these letters were written for public consumption.



The fact they are going public will cause them to weigh them with a certain wording and direction. I don't have a problem with them going public and it's a good idea. They will also get verbal instructions or other directives that will be covered under Cabinet confidentiality.


----------



## PuckChaser

Colin P said:
			
		

> The fact they are going public will cause them to weigh them with a certain wording and direction. I don't have a problem with them going public and it's a good idea. They will also get verbal instructions or other directives that will be covered under Cabinet confidentiality.


Which goes against what Trudeau campaigned on. He said open and transparent. If he's giving initial direction outside (and perhaps contradictory) to the mandate letters, why aren't they posted? Where's the media crying about a hidden agenda?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have always said the Liberals are far better liars than the Conservative ever were. the Liberals will tell people exactly what they want to hear and then go off and do something else. They rarely closed down any program, just defunded it to the point of bare existence, which allowed them to shove money back into it when the poop hit the fan without making any apparent change in policy, mandate or regulations.

The Conservatives actually shut stuff down, often without doing a great job of consulting broadly beforehand and then recoiling badly from the backlash.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have always said the Liberals are far better liars than the Conservative ever were. the Liberals will tell people exactly what they want to hear and then go off and do something else. They rarely closed down any program, just defunded it to the point of bare existence, which allowed them to shove money back into it when the poop hit the fan without making any apparent change in policy, mandate or regulations.
> 
> The Conservatives actually shut stuff down, often without doing a great job of consulting broadly beforehand and then recoiling badly from the backlash.



It's what makes them "Liberal"  ;D


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which goes against what Trudeau campaigned on. He said open and transparent. If he's giving initial direction outside (and perhaps contradictory) to the mandate letters, why aren't they posted? Where's the media crying about a hidden agenda?



Other than speculation, what says that this is actually happening?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Altair said:
			
		

> you seem different from _other conservatives I meet online_. I hear there is a leadership race coming up, you sure you don't want to throw your hat in the ring?




You're making exactly the same mistake many Tories make about the Grits (and _Dippers_, too): that there is some sort of monolithic, united thing, spouting a "party line."

I have discussed, many time, the "civil war," as I call it, that has been waged, off and on, in the Liberal Party since the mid 1960s: Trudeau vs Pearson in the 1960s, then Trudeau vs Turner in the '70s, then the _Chrétienistas_ vs the _Martinis_ for 15 long years in the '90s and 2000s; well, the same thing happened (in the 2000s) and will, I suspect happen again in the next two or three years, in the CPC.

I understand there are Pierre Trudeau Liberals, on the left, and John Manley Liberals, in the centre, in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's party; Liberals need to recognize that similar divisions exist between the centre and the right in the CPC. If that surprises you then I suggest you aren't giving the opposition the attention (or credit) it deserves.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The left was split in distinct parties that made the lines within less apparent. the left were far quicker to paint the right as one monolithic block and not in a good way. Which funny enough goes against their mantra's about sterotyping, but then it's ok against certain groups. The right meanwhile spanned the entire spectrum of centralist to full out Libertarian.


----------



## Altair

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're making exactly the same mistake many Tories make about the Grits (and _Dippers_, too): that there is some sort of monolithic, united thing, spouting a "party line."
> 
> I have discussed, many time, the "civil war," as I call it, that has been waged, off and on, in the Liberal Party since the mid 1960s: Trudeau vs Pearson in the 1960s, then Trudeau vs Turner in the '70s, then the _Chrétienistas_ vs the _Martinis_ for 15 long years in the '90s and 2000s; well, the same thing happened (in the 2000s) and will, I suspect happen again in the next two or three years, in the CPC.
> 
> I understand there are Pierre Trudeau Liberals, on the left, and John Manley Liberals, in the centre, in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's party; Liberals need to recognize that similar divisions exist between the centre and the right in the CPC. If that surprises you then I suggest you aren't giving the opposition the attention (or credit) it deserves.


What surprises me is not you stances, how right or left you happen happen to be, but more your tone and respect shown to the opposition. 

Conservatives, red Tories, blue Tories,  whatever have shown utter contempt and disrespect for those on the left.


----------



## Lumber

Altair said:
			
		

> What surprises me is not you stances, how right or left you happen happen to be, but more your tone and respect shown to the opposition.
> 
> Conservatives, red Tories, blue Tories,  whatever have shown utter contempt and disrespect for those on the left.



I would recommend then that you go to cbc news and read the comments section of any news article (any news article, not just political ones) that was written while the CPC was still in power. You will see just how nicely the "left" treated/spoke about the right.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Altair said:
			
		

> What surprises me is not you stances, how right or left you happen happen to be, but more your tone and respect shown to the opposition.
> 
> Conservatives, red Tories, blue Tories,  whatever have shown utter contempt and disrespect for those on the left.



I am sorry but having to deal with the barbs tossed at me from the left over the years (and I came from there so I am even worse in their eyes) they are far more ready to insult your intelligence, humanity, genetic makeup and your love/care for environment or mankind than the right. While I generalize, the right is more likely to argue facts and the left on emotions.


----------



## cavalryman

Altair said:
			
		

> Conservatives, red Tories, blue Tories,  whatever have shown utter contempt and disrespect for those on the left.


Glad to see that irony isn't yet a lost art. :nod:


----------



## a_majoor

The main difference I see when looking at posts, arguments or discourse between Classical Liberals and Progressives can be summed up with Classical Liberals (i.e. people who believe in individual liberty, unfettered use of property and the Rule of Law; now generally called Conservatives) using dialectical forms of argument, while Progressives generally use Rhetoric when making their point(s):

http://contracabal.org/201-01-02.html



> The term “dialectic” loosely describes one-on-one logical or philosophical argument as opposed to the term “rhetoric” that loosely describes mass persuasion. Dialectic consists of questions and answers designed to establish truth through interactive argumentation. Generally associated with an audience of one, dialectic uses neither the pathos nor the uninterrupted, non-interactive speech used to address large audiences by rhetors.



Now back to our regularly scheduled debate of what actual platform the RCAF should/could/will be flying in the future


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I hope you all noticed that Altair was paying ERC a compliment: noting that ERC always keeps a polite and respectful tone. 

So what say, maybe we all lay off the guy?


----------



## PuckChaser

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Now back to our regularly scheduled debate of what actual platform the RCAF should/could/will be flying in the future



Could be anything now, after the Liberals balked on the 31 Dec 15 deadline for the refugees. I'm still willing to bet they punt this football for decision after the next fixed election date, to make it either a wedge issue, or someone else's problem.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Could be anything now, after the Liberals balked on the 31 Dec 15 deadline for the refugees.



Actually, their platform never mentioned such a deadline:

https://www.liberal.ca/liberals-commit-to-leadership-on-syrian-refugee-crisis/

The mandate letter to the Minister didn't mention it either (it said in the coming months).

The platform did commit to an immediate competition to replace the F-18, as did 2 ministerial mandate letters.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Actually, their platform never mentioned such a deadline:
> 
> https://www.liberal.ca/liberals-commit-to-leadership-on-syrian-refugee-crisis/
> 
> The mandate letter to the Minister didn't mention it either (it said in the coming months).



The media made up the reporting that their timeline was too quick? The NDP made up the fact that they agreed they could do it by Christmas? The Tories were lying when they said they opposed doing it that fast? The refugee resettlement groups were out to lunch saying they couldn't support the super tight timelines?

Your bias is showing. This is another topic, however.

Immediate competition is dubious language. Immediate competition could last 4 years to select an aircraft. You've obviously never seen procurement work. It took 20 years to produce the last time out of Clothe the Soldier, and that's not a multi-billion dollar aircraft procurement.


----------



## CBH99

For those individuals on this board who may have forgotten it, or for those who have never seen it...just watch the movie "The Pentagon Wars".

Replace everything American with Canadian.  And - while I'm the first to admit I have no experience in working in NDHQ or a PMO - something tells me its not that far off from the truth....  (Especially since the movie was based on the original author's firsthand experiences.)

 :dunno:


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The media made up the reporting that their timeline was too quick? The NDP made up the fact that they agreed they could do it by Christmas? The Tories were lying when they said they opposed doing it that fast? The refugee resettlement groups were out to lunch saying they couldn't support the super tight timelines?
> 
> Your bias is showing. This is another topic, however.



My comment was actually related to the assertion that one written promise was broken, so we can't trust another.
≥.
Also, I agree with you - they promised a commutation.  They didn't at this point promise to buy anything, unlike they did with shipbuilding.


----------



## a_majoor

In theory the fighter competition "could" be very quick, there are only a few aircraft actually in production and the RCAF has a fairly well defined criterion for what they need in a fighter (readers of this thread may note that I don't agree with most choices, but then again I'm not a zoomie  [)

From any sensible technical perspective, we either focus on range and carrying capacity (which in my view should be given much more consideration, given the distances the RCAF has to cover either at home or in an expeditionary context), or the advanced sensor and networking capabilities that the F-35 would offer. Taking the long view, the F-35 will eventually be "talking" to everything in the battlespace, since Western armies and military forces are working towards a fully networked environment, so perhaps this is where we need to be going too, if only to be interoperable with our partners and allies.

In any event, much of the information is right there in Jane's, so informed people can see very quickly what is and is not suitable. One other thing which the Liberals are very quiet about is if *we* choose a lesser aircraft for political or price reasons, we may have to live with the fact we will have far too few aircraft to di the job(s) we want to be able to perform (try explaining that we might need to replace 65 CF-35's with 100 of aircraft "x" to have the same capabilities).


----------



## MarkOttawa

US Navy really wants to keep Super Hornet/Growler line alive, note mention of Canada (lots of further links at original):



> Mabus: Get Moving On That F-18 Sale To Kuwait





> SURFACE NAVY ASSOCIATION: Navy Secretary Ray Mabus wants the arms export bureaucracy to get a move on and approve Boeing‘s “crucial” sale of Super Hornet fighters to Kuwait.
> 
> The Kuwait deal is for 28 fighters, with an option for 12 more. That’s not a huge sale, but in and of itself, it’s enough to keep the Boeing production line active for 14 to 20 months.
> 
> “It’s a frustrating process for all parties involved and it speaks to the need to do something about the whole [export control] process,” Mabus told reporters after his remarks to the Surface Navy Association conference. “I don’t think that there’s been any particular slowdown with this program. [There’s] just the long torturous process you’ve got to go through to do any of this, to do any international sale, whether to an ally or not.”..
> 
> ...the sale would provide a strategically located ally with equipment compatible with the US. Second, it would ensure the F-18 production line in Saint Louis stays open for another few years. (The line also builds the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft).
> 
> Once upon a time, the Navy was willing to let the line go cold as it stopped buying Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and started buying Lockheed’s stealthy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter. But lingering anxieties over how well stealth will hold up against advanced adversaries, repeated delays to the F-35 program, coupled with maintenance problems with older-model F-18s, have revived naval and congressional interest in buying more Super Hornets to fill the “fighter gap.”
> 
> Boeing has long said it needs to build 24 fighters (the Kuwaitis ordered 28-plus) a year — two a month — to keep the production line economically viable...
> 
> As an older design, “competitiveness of the Super Hornet heavily depends upon price,” Aboulafia told me. So the importance of the Kuwait deal, he said, “it’s not just that it guarantees a couple of years, it _guarantees a couple of years at a competitive price [to] keep in the game with Canada”_ [emphasis added] — which is looking for an alternative to the F-35 — “and with the Navy” — which is currently buying Super Hornets “hand to mouth” based on what the service and Congress can wrangle into each year’s budget...
> http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/mabus-get-moving-on-that-f-18-sale-to-kuwait/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

> As an older design, “competitiveness of the Super Hornet heavily depends upon price,” Aboulafia told me. So the importance of the Kuwait deal, he said, “it’s not just that it guarantees a couple of years, it guarantees a couple of years at a competitive price [to] keep in the game with Canada” [emphasis added]



So the Super Hornet's price is at risk of NOT being competitive?  How does that square with "cheaper alternative" meme?  Maybe the gap between the Super Hornet price and the F35 is shrinking?

And with the Canadian dollar being at what it is now even last year's 70 MUSD aircraft - if it existed - would now cost 100 MCAD instead of the 70 MCAD it would have cost in 2013.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook--see:

"F-35 and Canadian Election: Liberals Loose With Fighter Costs"
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/mark-collins-f-35-and-canadian-election-liberals-loose-with-fighter-costs/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chris Pook--see:
> 
> "F-35 and Canadian Election: Liberals Loose With Fighter Costs"
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/mark-collins-f-35-and-canadian-election-liberals-loose-with-fighter-costs/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Thumbs up on that one Mark.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pooks--thanks.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Interesting Liberal member of new Commons committee:



> Fuhr on defence committee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Facebook
> Stephen Fuhr, before his political days.
> 
> As someone who flew CF-18 fighter jets for the Canadian Air Force, and spent years training military pilots, Stephen Fuhr knows a thing or two about Canada's military.
> 
> This is, no doubt, one of the reasons the Kelowna-Lake Country member of parliament was named to Canada's Standing Committee on National Defence late Friday.
> 
> The ten member committee was announced by the federal government along with 26 other committees.
> 
> The national defence committee is mandated to review all matters pertaining to the Department of National Defence and the Armed Forces. It is responsible for examining legislation, activities and expenditures of the military and determining the effectiveness of related policies and programs.
> 
> The chair of most of the committees have not yet been named, but they will be chosen by a secret ballot by committee members on their first meeting.
> 
> Stephen Fuhr, like 200 of the 338 MPs elected in October, is serving his first term in office. Many committee members chosen Friday are rookie MPs.
> http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/157429/Fuhr-on-defence-committee



Earlier:



> Election 2015: Liberal Stephen Fuhr pulls off massive upset in Conservative stronghold of Kelowna-Lake Country
> http://www.kelownacapnews.com/federalelection/334465281.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

I doubt if anybody would confuse me with a Liberal supporter but


With the services of Sajjan, Leslie and Hehr available to the Prime Minister it is going to be pretty difficult to argue that the Liberals don't understand the Defence file.

Maybe the PM doesn't, can't or won't.  Maybe we can debate the choices made (if any are made before the next election).  But it will be hard to say they are uninformed.

A grudging compliment.


----------



## MarkOttawa

SecDef Carter and USN want more new-build Super Hornets (keep that St. Louis line open), to serve for quite a while:



> US Navy boosts F-35C and F/A-18 buy in new budget plan
> 
> The US Navy says maintaining Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet production in St Louis is "vital" for overcoming a strike-fighter shortfall caused by delays in fielding the Lockheed Martin F-35C.
> 
> The navy says its legacy Hornet fleet is aging out faster than it can be replaced through overuse in lengthy campaigns in the Middle East. Now, it is three squadrons or about 35 aircraft short of its fleet requirement, and there aren't enough aircraft available for training and to maintain pilot proficiency. Similar problems are faced by the US Marine Corps as its Hornets and AV-8B Harrier IIs wear down.
> 
> Congress funded five Super Hornets and seven EA-18G Growlers in the fiscal year 2016 defence budget, throwing a much-needed lifeline to Boeing's production facility.
> 
> Today, navy air warfare division chief Rear Adm Michael Manazir tells a congressional hearing on naval strike fighters that the service needs another “16 Super Hornets or so” on top of an increase in F-35C procurement to fill the remaining gap.
> 
> On 3 February, during a tour of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in California, US defence secretary Ashton Carter confirmed the navy will request more F-35s and F/A-18s in next week's budget submission than previously planned. It will reportedly seek 10 more F-35Cs and 16 more F/A-18s over the next five years, as well as more F-35Bs for the marines.
> 
> “We're accelerating that buy and we're also accelerating or enhancing our buy of F/A-18s,” Carter says.
> 
> Manazir backed that up by saying the navy will buy the F-35C in greater numbers going forward and fund more F/A-18s.
> 
> “It is vital to maintain a viable line at St Louis for the Super Hornet for the near term here in order to get those numbers into the air wings and then to extend them through to the 2030s until we get to a predominance of F-35Cs,” he says. “The extra Super Hornets over the next several years covers the slide in initial operational capability of the F-35C to the right.”
> 
> Manazir calls the Super Hornet a “vastly capable” compliment to the stealthy F-35C and through life-extensions _it will continue to operate well into the 2030s.
> 
> “The predominance in numbers until the mid-'30s is going to be in Super Hornets_ [emphasis added],” he says. “The complimentary capability of those Super Hornets along with the F-35C gives us our striking power and reach off the aircraft carrier.”
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-seeks-extra-f-35cs-and-fa-18s-in-new-budget-421628/



Earlier:



> Boeing Offers New, Rebuilt, Upgraded Super Hornets To U.S. Navy
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-offers-new-rebuilt-upgraded-super-hornets-us-navy



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

US Navy budget request--keep Super Hornet line going:



> …
> The overall number of manned and unmanned aircraft planned to be purchased for the Navy and Marine Corps in 2017 remains at 94. The most significant aviation plan change is the insertion of 14 F/A-18 Super Hornets planned for 2018, a move directed by Carter that reverses an earlier Navy decision to end procurement of the Boeing-built aircraft.
> 
> Buys of the F-35C carrier versions of the Joint Strike Fighter show no overall changes until 2020, when the planned purchase of 12 aircraft jumps to 18, with 24 forecast for 2021. A total of 64 F-35Cs are planned through the FYDP. Buys of the F-35B Marine Corps variant rise by two aircraft in 2017 to 16, but remain as planned in later years, with a total of 97 through 2021…
> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2016/02/09/us-navy-absorbing-7-billion-budget-cut/80032964/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Boeing faces choice:



> Boeing nears decision to self-fund more F/A-18 fighters
> 
> Boeing Co (BA.N) is nearing a decision to invest "a significant amount" to keep a F/A-18E/F fighter jet production line in St. Louis running as it waits for the U.S. government to approve a delayed order by Kuwait for 28 jets, a senior executive said.
> 
> Dan Gillian, who runs Boeing's F/A-18E/F and EA-18G electronic attack jet programs, told Reuters the company would decide in coming weeks whether to buy titanium and other materials needed to start work on the jets, even before the Kuwait deal and potential U.S. Navy orders are finalized.
> 
> He said Boeing would weigh strong expected demand for the warplanes against the risk that the orders could still fail...
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-fighter-exclusive-idUSKCN0VL2JK



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> SecDef Carter and USN want more new-build Super Hornets (keep that St. Louis line open), to serve for quite a while:





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> US Navy budget request--keep Super Hornet line going:


So, we have threads on the USN, F-35, and what other countries are doing with their money.  Any of those might seem a better fit for these quoted articles as opposed to a thread on a Canadian procurement project.  If trying to make a point in this thread, you could reference the articles.  Otherwise they seem, at best, a tangent.


----------



## NavyShooter

I will harken back to my previous comments on the Scorpion Jet:

http://www.scorpionjet.com/

There's no-one in the world building them, and if it's a mix of 'anything but the F-35' and 'build it in Canada' this might be the only possible solution.

Recognizing that it meets almost NONE of the requirements that have been written for the Fighter Replacement program....but if it supports a new production line in Quebec (buys votes) gives the RCAF some sort of capability to show the flag, and pushes away the problem that the F-35 has become onto a future government, then it will be a 'win win'....and the Scorpion has the potential for overseas Foreign sales, so that'd be a double bonus?

*shrug*

Doubt it'll happen, but it'd be a solution for the Snowbird replacement aircraft too, wouldn't it?

NS


----------



## MilEME09

My money is still on Dassault, the technology transfer would be a win for Canada, we would be able to set up all required production in Canada, meaning we would only need to reply on European suppliers in times of a shortage. Defeats part of the argument to buy American fighters, and by Canadianizing them we can make sure our existing weapons inventory works with them. So long as we can get timely delivery's it is a win for industry, the RCAF and the country.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am uncertain how this would save money.

Apart from the fact that only about 250 Rafales exist world wide, none of the current air weapons we currently (an inventory worth billions?) are compatible with a French aircraft.

What would it cost to buy an entirely new line of missiles, bombs and gun ammo?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What's old is new again, RCAF wants F-35, we'll get whatever POS a company will let Bombardier build.



We'll probably end up with this.....






 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

At least you know it's safe to get into the reactor air intake.  [


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am uncertain how this would save money.
> 
> Apart from the fact that only about 250 Rafales exist world wide, none of the current air weapons we currently (an inventory worth billions?) are compatible with a French aircraft.
> 
> What would it cost to buy an entirely new line of missiles, bombs and gun ammo?



The technology transfer means we can make design changes, such as modifying it to accept our current weapons invantory


----------



## Colin Parkinson

fighters aren't need we can just use these and lasers


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The technology transfer means we can make design changes, such as modifying it to accept our current weapons invantory


That is a massive expensive and high probability of failure proposition.


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The technology transfer means we can make design changes, such as modifying it to accept our current weapons invantory


When has Canadianizing anything made a procurement cheaper? Your Rafales are $94M USD in 2013, likely about $120m CAD now. Throw in technology transfer fees, infrastructure fees to pay for Bombardier's fighter line to produce 65 airframes, and then the cost to Canadianize, and you're likely looking at over $200M CAD an airframe, not including the ridiculous full life cycle costing that the F-35 was subjected to. F-22s were cheaper than what you're proposing.


----------



## GR66

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That is a massive expensive and high probability of failure proposition.



The point was made in the CSC thread that there was not much point in focusing on transferring missiles from our existing ships to new ships because the missiles are likely at the end of their lifespan anyway and new missiles will have to be purchased regardless.

To what extent does this apply to our current stock of airborne weapons?  Are we going to have to buy new anyway whichever aircraft we end up purchasing (several years from now)?  Are the European weapons (Mica, Meteor, etc.) as good as what we're using now?  

Maybe we could push Dassault to include certification of our key missiles in their package in order to seal a deal (it would be in their best interest for further export purposes anyway).


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That is a massive expensive and high probability of failure proposition.



 :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Colin P said:
			
		

> fighters aren't need we can just use these and lasers



That was the first plastic model I built! ;D


----------



## Loachman

Which would have been just as effective as the real thing, but cheaper.


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> My money is still on Dassault, the technology transfer would be a win for Canada, we would be able to set up all required production in Canada, meaning we would only need to reply on European suppliers in times of a shortage. Defeats part of the argument to buy American fighters, and by Canadianizing them we can make sure our existing weapons inventory works with them. So long as we can get timely delivery's it is a win for industry, the RCAF and the country.



We can't even get our uniforms and boots correct, the last thing we need are fighter jet production in the hands of Canadians. Let the experts build the fighters we need.


----------



## Loachman

Thanks.

Now I'll be having nightmares.


----------



## CougarKing

Boeing's chance to sell the Super Hornet to Canada?

Embassy News (Canada)



> *Boeing, sensing an opening, meets with government on fighter jets*
> 
> Published: Wednesday, 02/17/2016 12:00 am EST
> Last Updated: Wednesday, 02/17/2016 5:34 pm EST
> 
> Boeing is ready for an “open and transparent” fighter jet competition from Canadian leaders “committed to cabinet government,” the president of Boeing International says.
> 
> Marc Allen was in Ottawa this week speaking with industry partners, commercial customers and government.
> 
> Though he wouldn’t confirm whether he had met with Liberal cabinet ministers, he said in an interview with Embassy that meetings were held with a mix of politicians and departmental officials.
> 
> After the Liberals committed themselves to an open fighter jet competition, *Mr. Allen confirmed that Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter jets were on the table.*
> 
> Jim Barnes, who heads up Boeing’s Ottawa office, said “this government does seem to be very interested in making sure all the important parties involved get together and talk about this very serious decision, how it affects priorities.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Alan Willians at it:



> Liberals face dilemma over F-35 fighter jets
> 
> last week, speaking at an Ottawa conference, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told an audience of experts and industry representatives that the government would not exclude Lockheed Martin’s F-35s from the competition for a new aircraft, but instead would hold an open and transparent process that would focus on obtaining the right aircraft for Canada. It wasn’t the first time he’s hinted at the possibility of leaving the door open for the F-35s, but it was the first time he’s said so point-blank.
> 
> Ensuing media coverage framed the statement as a backtrack of the Liberals’ campaign promise, but according to one procurement expert, excluding the F-35 was never an option to begin with.
> 
> Alan Williams was the Defence Department’s assistant deputy minister of materiel in 2002 and signed the initial agreement on behalf of Canada to enter into the joint strike fighter program with the Unites States, eight years before the Conservative decision to purchase the planes. Williams has written extensively on the issues with the Conservatives’ sole-source decision to purchase the jets.
> 
> But despite their huge price and capabilities many argue are unnecessary, Williams told The Chronicle Herald that the Liberals have little choice but to include the F-35s in the competition.
> 
> “When Trudeau made his comments during the campaign they were nonsensical,” he said. “You can’t on the one hand say you’re going to have an open and fair competition and say it’s going to exclude company A or company B. You can’t prevent anyone from bidding.”
> 
> Williams said a trade agreement requires the government to run a competition, unless it can argue that the legislation isn’t applicable and a sole-source contract is required. Prejudging the outcome of the competition by explicitly excluding the F-35 would violate this agreement.
> 
> What Williams said the government can do is write requirements that put far less importance on the features the F-35 boasts — such as stealth capabilities — and higher value on what it doesn’t.
> 
> “Unlike the old requirements that basically ensure that only the F-35 can compete you could say the primary responsibility is ensure proper control over over Canada and its borders and defence of North America, in which case other requirements become much more valuable than the stealth feature,” Williams said. “Then if you decide in an evaluation to put more weight on price, the likelihood of an F-35 winning becomes dramatically reduced.”
> 
> But even with a cheaper plane, Williams said it doesn’t mean the government will have extra money to spend on the navy [how true https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/mark-collins-f-35-and-canadian-election-liberals-loose-with-fighter-costs/ ] ...
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1343988-liberals-face-dilemma-over-f-35-fighter-jets


----------



## Kirkhill

So he would re-write the SOR to exclude the F-35?

How many lawyers does LockMart have?


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So he would re-write the SOR to exclude the F-35?
> 
> How many lawyers does LockMart have?



my thoughts exactly, and even worse right now if the F-35 lost Lockheed could claim bias and political interference cost them the contract. Comments during the election to say anything but the F-35 will cost the libs in the future.


----------



## caocao

Of course they should rewrite the SOR.  The first time around they were written with only the F 35 in mind.  What they need is a document that clearly state what the government expect the RCAF to deliver.


----------



## PuckChaser

caocao said:
			
		

> Of course they should rewrite the SOR.  The first time around they were written with only the F 35 in mind.  What they need is a document that clearly state what the government expect the RCAF to deliver.


Sunshine, candy kisses and pacifist votes don't sound like weapon systems any fighter manufacturer can deliver...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Quote from: caocao on Today at 16:12:40



> Of course they should rewrite the SOR.  The first time around they were written with only the F 35 in mind.  What they need is a document that clearly state what the government expect the RCAF to deliver.



One assumes with the NORAD mission the prime element of the SOR (below based on ret'd RCAF major-general https://www.linkedin.com/in/c-s-%22duff%22-sullivan-88441048 ):



> F-35 and Canada: Good for “Discretionary” Missions, But…
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/mark-collins-f-35-and-canada-good-for-discretionary-missions-but/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Mark:

Doesn't the NORAD requirement now encompass the Maritime domain?  Maritime Strike would seem to be an easy inference.  And Maritime Strike is a whole lot closer to Ground Attack than it is Air Intercept.  Ships have radars.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook:

One might have thought that's why the RCN needs those stealthy subs .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sunshine, candy kisses and pacifist votes don't sound like weapon systems any fighter manufacturer can deliver...



Where there is a will, there is a way


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chris Pook:
> 
> One might have thought that's why the RCN needs those stealthy subs .
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



50 km/h or 1000 km/h.  Reaction times may vary?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook:

One would have thought our Auroras, USN planes, satellites, and various other ISR assets would have spotted any surface threat long before it came into F-35 range.  Moreover the oceans are still a long way from Bagotville or Cold Lake.  If need aerial force against surface ships surely one could let USN deal with it.

Mark Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Shoot Mark, we could let the Yanks take care of everything.  

And the time from Cold Lake to Dixon Channel Entrance by air is a lot less than the time from Esquimalt on top of or beneath the water.

The probability of any force being needed there is, indeed, slim to nil.  But it would be nice to know that it is possible.


----------



## SupersonicMax

caocao said:
			
		

> Of course they should rewrite the SOR.  The first time around they were written with only the F 35 in mind.  What they need is a document that clearly state what the government expect the RCAF to deliver.



That'd be nice to have specific guidance from all levels, from the GoC to the Air Div highlighting exactly what is expected of us (and in what context.  Going against China is much different than going after Ethiopia) boil it down to the types of mission we shall train to and then define specific requirements based on that. That would be the only way to make a fair, open competition.

I feel right now we are somewhat making our own mission sets based on experience.  Having said that, I don't think anybody questions the fact that NORAD is our #1 mission.  But it is a fairly simple one and it leaves ample room to train and be proficient in other areas...


----------



## Fabius

I would be interested to see how the RCAF envisions strike operations in the future and how differant platforms with differant munitions could achieve those mission sets.  
What I mean by that is could a Gen 4.5 fighter with long range stand off muntions (JSSAM, KEPD 350, Storm Shadow, etc) provide a similar capability to a Gen 5 Stealth fighter with JDAM/LGBs in terms of its ability to strike targets within a highly advanced air defence enviroment?
It seems that a lot of countries, South Korea, Australia, Poland to name a few are investing in providing their Gen 4 and Gen 4.5 fighters with long range standoff muntions to off set their weaknesses in ability to penetrate hostile airspace.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The _Flightglobal_ tea leaves look pretty good for the F-35:



> The Trudeau government in Canada has launched the country's largest defence policy review in “over 20 years”  as it considers if and when to exit the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme.
> 
> Canadian defence minister Harjit Sajjan, who assumed the cabinet position in November, has appointed a four-member advisory panel to oversee the wide-ranging defence policy review, which seeks input from citizens, experts, parliamentarians, allies and the nation’s closest neighbour and collective security partner, the USA...
> 
> “The process to replace the CF-18s is just beginning,” the defence minister’s office said in a 6 April email. “We’ve only been in government for a few months, and are making good progress on this file.”
> 
> That process, led by the minister of public services and procurement in partnership with the MoD [_sic_, DND], will "design" a procurement process “for an aircraft that matches Canada’s defence needs” – and local industrial participation will be key.
> 
> “We are committed to ensuring that manufacturing contracts for whichever aircraft is chosen will go to Canadian companies,” the spokesman for Sajjan's office says. “By virtue of our enrollment as a member nation in the F-35 programme [memorandum of understanding], Canadian companies are allowed to compete for F-35 production contracts and have benefitted from these economic opportunities.
> 
> "Regardless of which aircraft Canada decides to buy, industrial benefits to Canadian companies will be part of the decision-making process.”..
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canadas-defence-policy-review-wont-delay-cf-18-rep-423949/



Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Whole lot of LockMart (and Pentagon) lobbying one presumes plus Canadian industry:
http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=18558

Can Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter or SAAB do better?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

One thing missing in the debate is the fact that *we* will be massively outnumbered in virtually every theater where near peers are operating. Even many decrepit third world air forces have a multitude of old Soviet era fighters and ground attack aircraft. Add a heavy layer of GBAD and there is a serious problem.

A small number of any platform is going to run into issues of generating enough force to penetrate enemy airspace, or carry enough ordinance (even long range stand off ordinance) to punch through to the target. The CAF actually had C-RAM capabilities in the late 1980's with Skyguard/ADATS but (as usual) abandoned that capability; many near peers have that ability so you will need multiple missiles or glide bombs to overwhelm air defense systems.

The frank answer is we need far more than 65 CF-35's, and to get the equivalent ability out of Gen 4 or 4.5 fighters we will need at least 100 of those aircraft to equal 65 CF-35's. (If we actually need at least 100 CF-35's, which I think is about the right number, then we are talking about getting 154 Gen 4 or 4.5 platforms). And of course we will need to be stocking up on much more advanced ordinance to engage at longer ranges and defeat powerful countermeasures.

Somehow I don't see the new government giving any sort of consideration to these numbers at all.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The _Flightglobal_ tea leaves look pretty good for the F-35:
> 
> Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Whole lot of LockMart (and Pentagon) lobbying one presumes plus Canadian industry:
> http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=18558
> 
> Can Boeing, _*Dassault*_, Eurofighter or SAAB do better?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




They can, _I suspect_, if they offer a technology transfer package to _*Bombardier*_ which obviates the requirement for this government to be seen to be pouring wheelbarows full of cash into a (perceived to be) failing Quebec company ... assembling a fighter here, in Canada, might be the answer to Team Trudeau's political prayers.


----------



## PuckChaser

If they go with Boeing it'll have to be built here. Super Hornet is shutting down production in the next 2-3 years. We won't have a decision for 5.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like Kuwait (and likely USN) will keep Super Hornet line going awhile:



> U.S. poised to approve Boeing fighter jet sales to Qatar, Kuwait
> 
> The U.S. government is poised to approve two long-delayed sales of Boeing Co fighter jets to Qatar and Kuwait, and could announce the multibillion-dollar deals during President Barack Obama's visit to the Gulf this week, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
> 
> Both deals have been stalled amid concerns raised by Israel that equipment sent to Gulf states could fall into the wrong hands and be used against it, and by the Obama administration's broader decision-making on military aid to the Gulf.
> 
> However, the Pentagon and the State Department both have signed off on the sale of some 36 F-15 fighter jets to Qatar and 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Kuwait, both built by Boeing. The White House is expected to follow suit shortly.
> 
> The sale to Kuwait is worth about $3 billion and the one to Qatar is probably close to $4 billion, sources familiar with the matter said...
> 
> Senior U.S. officials, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus have publicly urged approval of the weapons sales, which will help maintain production of the fourth-generation Boeing fighter jets, while the newer and more advanced Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet enters service in coming years.
> 
> One senior U.S. defense official said the Pentagon is keen to see the Boeing F-15 and F/A-18 production lines in St. Louis continue and does not want to "foreclose any options on fourth-generation aircraft at this point."
> 
> Boeing already is spending "hundreds of millions" of dollars to buy long-lead materials such as titanium to prepare for a possible Kuwaiti order for F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and a separate U.S. Navy order for 12 jets put on the service's "unfunded priorities" list submitted to Congress.
> 
> The Navy is hoping that Congress will provide the funding to pay for the Boeing jets in fiscal 2017, although the planes were not included in its base budget request. It already has earmarked funding for more F/A-18E/F jets in fiscal 2018...
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-mideast-gulf-idUSKCN0XF2KU



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Looks like Kuwait (and likely USN) will keep Super Hornet line going awhile:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I wonder how many Canadian subcontractors there are supplying Boeing? First all the angst supplying "jeeps" to KSA now fighter jets to that other beacon of enlightenment Qatar?


----------



## AlexanderM

Anyone interested in F-22 Raptors? The US Congress is looking at bringing them back and possibly allowing exports to Allies. By the time they shut down the line the cost per aircraft had come down, I remember reading a quote from a US Air Force General that he was paying around 150M USD per aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/f22-raptor-congress/index.html

This article states the cost per aircraft of the last batch.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/everyone-who-wanted-more-f-22s-is-being-proven-right-1732105884


----------



## MarkOttawa

Super Hornet line continuing:



> Pentagon Still Unsure If It Needs More Growlers; Boeing Says Production Restart Would Be Possible
> 
> The Navy may know within the next year if it has enough Boeing EA-18G Growlers to meet not only its own airborne electronic attack needs but also to cover all joint operational needs, the Navy’s director of air warfare (OPNAV N98) told lawmakers last week – though by then there may be a cost increase associated with restarting Growler production.
> 
> The Navy bought seven Growlers this fiscal year – not because its five-year budget plans called for more planes, but because Congress helped secure the funding to keep the common Growler and F/A-18E-F Super Hornet production line running until further domestic and international sales could be shored up. Now, though, the Navy has no additional plans to buy more Growlers, and there is no serious international interest in the program, Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18G programs vice president, told USNI News in an April 21 interview. The _airframe production will continue, as Super Hornet demand remains_ [emphasis added], but the additional work to outfit the planes for sophisticated electronic attack missions will cease.
> 
> ...if the Pentagon ultimately decides it needs more Growlers, “there will of course be production break costs, some things associated with that. We view it as something that is possible, but certainly a little bit of a costly way to acquire Growler kit,” Gillian said, adding that Boeing does believe there is additional need for more Growlers and is in talks with Northrop Grumman about how to proceed once the companies complete the last seven-plane order...
> https://news.usni.org/2016/04/27/pentagon-still-unsure-if-it-needs-more-growlers-boeing-says-production-restart-would-be-possible



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More Super Hornet--and F-35--support at US House of Representatives:



> Draft US defence spending bill funds 11 more F-35s and 14 F/A-18s
> 
> The Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing F/A-18E/F has received strong support from lawmakers in the US House of Representatives, with the defence appropriations subcommittee voting today on a draft spending bill that would buy 11 more Lightning IIs and 14 more Super Hornets than requested by the Pentagon for fiscal year 2017.
> 
> The committee has recommended $8.3 billion for 74 F-35 aircraft compared to the 63 requested by the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The navy and the air force listed five F-35As and two carrier-based F-35Cs on their respective "unfunded priority" lists to Congress in March.
> 
> The navy sought just two F/A-18E/Fs and zero Super Hornet-based EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets in its base budget submission in February, but then recommended 14 more to meet an unfunded need. The draft defence appropriations bill now includes $1.35 billion for 16 F/A-18E/Fs...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/draft-us-defence-spending-bill-funds-11-more-f-35s-a-425209/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

$8.3B for 74 F-35s... Cheaper and cheaper every day.


----------



## CBH99

I THINK you have to add 15% because it would be a FMS....but because we are still a partner nation, I'm not sure if that still applies?


----------



## Kirkhill

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I THINK you have to add 15% because it would be a FMS....but because we are still a partner nation, I'm not sure if that still applies?



I want the Delta Air Lines discount.  They can lease them to the RCAF.


----------



## CBH99

Agreed!!

Although to be fair, I think the Delta Airlines purchase of the C-Series might have saved that jet.  A purchase of 75 jets, with an option of 50 more, is huge for an airplane that was struggling to fill substantial orders.

Adding to that, Delta has a reputation for being pretty selective about which aircraft it puts into service.  So with Delta jumping on-board with such a large order, it could certainly attract other orders from other airlines also.  Both Bombardier & Delta came out winners on that one.


----------



## PuckChaser

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I THINK you have to add 15% because it would be a FMS....but because we are still a partner nation, I'm not sure if that still applies?


They're waving 15% for partners, we haven't formally pulled out yet. If we buy any other jet from the US, we'll have to pay that surcharge.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Danish F-35A selection and Canada:



> Canada and the F-35: The Danish Decision Provides a Way Ahead for Regional Defense
> 
> Recently, Denmark selected the F-35 as their next combat aircraft in an open competition with Eurofighter and Super Hornet.
> 
> Not only did they select the F-35, they have released public information with regard to that selection process and how they reached their decision.
> 
> In the Question and Answer session held last week after Eurofighter testified in front the defence committee of the Danish parliament, the Eurofighter representative was asked directly:
> 
> “Did you consider the government’s evaluation of the mission or military aspects of the competition biased in any way towards F-35?”
> 
> The answer was a clear no.
> 
> This provides an opportunity for Canada to leverage the Danish work, and to have the Danish government directly brief the Canadian government...
> http://www.sldinfo.com/canada-and-the-f-35-the-danish-decision-provides-a-way-ahead-for-regional-defense/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like more Super Hornets for USN:



> Key provisions in the $602 billion House defense policy bill
> 
> Here’s a look at several key provisions in the Republican-led House defense appropriation and policy bill:
> …
> The bill rejects the Pentagon’s proposal to cut one of the Navy’s 10 carrier air wings. It also includes 11 additional F–35 stealth fighter jets, which cost more than $100 million each, 14 F/A–18 fighters…
> http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/politics/key-provisions-in-the-billion-house-defense-policy-bill/article_6fbbde12-9e6c-5899-92a0-61cd9a5fff1f.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

From the company's mouth:



> Boeing Looks To SLAP Super Hornets Into Shape
> 
> With the U.S. Navy using its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets more rigorously than initially expected, Boeing has started preliminary assessments of what is needed to overhaul the aircraft, increase its combat life and keep it relevant much later into this century.
> 
> That work—along with the accompanying need for more parts and future additional domestic as well as international F-18 family aircraft—is expected to keep the company’s production line going into the coming decades, says Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18G Growler programs vice president.
> 
> To get an idea of what will be needed to whip the Super Hornets back into shape and help prepare them for future work, Boeing is using its Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP) to put together a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) that will boost fighters’ life to 9,000 hr. from its current 6,000, Gillian says...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-looks-slap-super-hornets-shape



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

When it states, "Boeing has started preliminary assessments of what is needed to overhaul the aircraft, increase its combat life and keep it relevant much later into this century," it will be interesting to see what kind of an overhaul they have in mind. The Advanced Super Hornet concept is fairly recent, so I expect this would be a more substantial overhaul.


----------



## McG

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-doesnt-have-enough-fighter-jets-liberals-say-despite-plans-to-upgrade-cf-18-fighter-fleet

Are the Liberals laying the ground work to argue for a larger fighter force?


----------



## PuckChaser

Of course we don't, Tories in the late 80s and Liberals in the 90s/early 2000s didn't buy replacements for the ones that crashed/lost air worthiness. Same with every other military procurement, don't break it because you're not getting another.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

If Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party actually expands our fighter fleet, I will need to re-examine everything I thoughts was true.


----------



## MarkOttawa

US Navy backroom ally of Trudeau gov't?



> U.S. Navy chief [SecNav] warns of costlier Boeing jets if no foreign sales
> 
> The U.S. could see the cost of new Boeing Co F/A-18E/F Super Hornets rise unless the government approves foreign sales of the jets soon, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said on Sunday [June 19].
> 
> Mabus, in Germany for a NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea, told Reuters he was frustrated by delays in approving the sale of the Boeing jets to a close U.S. ally, warning that this could affect the cost of jets the U.S. Navy still wants to buy.
> 
> U.S. Navy and other defense officials have said they support the sale of 28 Boeing F/A-18E/F jets to Kuwait for an estimated cost of $3 billion, but this has stalled for nearly a year pending final White House approval.
> 
> Mabus said the delays could have an impact on the Navy's budget plans, since the foreign order was needed to augment U.S. Navy purchases and keep the production line running efficiently.
> 
> The U.S. Congress is expected to approve funding for as many as 16 Boeing F/A-18 jets as part of the Navy's budget request for fiscal 2017, which begins Oct. 1, but that would give Boeing less than the two jets a month it says needs for economical production. The Kuwaiti order would have filled this gap.
> 
> "I'm frustrated. A lot of people are frustrated," Mabus said. "The process is too long, too onerous in terms of getting weapons systems to our friends and to our allies."
> 
> Mabus said Boeing could likely continue F/A-18 production for some time without the foreign sales, but dropping below optimal production rates could affect future pricing.
> 
> The Navy had requested funding for two F/A-18 jets in its fiscal 2017 budget request and 14 more as part of its "unfunded priorities list". It also said it expected to buy a larger number of Super Hornets in fiscal 2018 to bridge a gap in its fleet until the newer and more advanced Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet enters service in coming years.
> 
> Mabus welcomed possible moves by Congress to add jets to the fiscal 2017 budget, but said those orders alone would not keep production at the Boeing facility running at optimal rates...
> http://whtc.com/news/articles/2016/jun/19/us-navy-chief-warns-of-costlier-boeing-jets-if-no-foreign-sales/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Given the historic low priority for defense matters in Canada, we may be forced to consider jumping a generation ahead by going aboard _this_ project. Canadian aerospace companies are perfectly capable of building UCAVs or UAVs on an assembly line basis, and the USAF's "Arsenal Aircraft" idea could be extended to cargo planes like the C-130. While hardly romantic, it is possible to envision a scenario where allied F-35's use their sensors to discover and exploit seams and openings in the enemy AD envelope, and Canadian C-130's lumber in behind and unload large numbers of drones to flood the openings. Of course this is a very poor solution to the problem; ideally you have high performance aircraft capable of self defense as the carriers as well....

http://www.darpa.mil/program/collaborative-operations-in-denied-environment



> *Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE)*
> Mr. Jean-Charles Ledé
> 
> DARPA’s Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) program aims to develop algorithms and software that would extend the mission capabilities of existing unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) well beyond the current state of the art, with the goal of improving U.S. forces’ ability to conduct operations in denied or contested airspace. CODE would enable mixed teams of unmanned aircraft to find targets and engage them as appropriate under established rules of engagement, leverage nearby CODE-enabled systems with minimal supervision, and adapt to situations due to attrition of friendly forces or the emergence of unanticipated threats—all under the command of a single human mission supervisor. CODE envisions improvements that would help transform UAS operations from requiring multiple people to operate a single UAS to having one person able to oversee six or more unmanned vehicles simultaneously.
> The U.S. military’s investments in unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have proven invaluable for missions ranging from intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) to tactical strike, but most current systems demand continuous control by a dedicated pilot and sensor operator supported by numerous telemetry-linked analysts. This requirement severely limits the scalability and cost-effectiveness of UAS operations and compounds the operational challenges posed by dynamic, remote engagements against highly mobile targets in contested electromagnetic environments.
> 
> DARPA’s Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) program aims to overcome these limitations with new algorithms and software for existing unmanned aircraft that would extend mission capabilities and improve U.S. forces’ ability to conduct operations in denied or contested airspace. CODE researchers seek to create a modular software architecture beyond the current state of the art that is resilient to bandwidth limitations and communications disruptions yet compatible with existing standards and amenable to affordable retrofit into existing platforms.
> 
> CODE intends to focus in particular on developing and demonstrating improvements in collaborative autonomy—the capability of groups of UAS to work together under a single person’s supervisory control. The unmanned vehicles would continuously evaluate their own states and environments and present recommendations for coordinated UAS actions to a mission supervisor, who would approve or disapprove such team actions and direct any mission changes. Using collaborative autonomy, CODE-enabled unmanned aircraft would find targets and engage them as appropriate under established rules of engagement, leverage nearby CODE-equipped systems with minimal supervision, and adapt to dynamic situations such as attrition of friendly forces or the emergence of unanticipated threats.
> 
> CODE’s envisioned improvements to collaborative autonomy would help transform UAS operations from requiring multiple operators for each UAS to having one mission commander simultaneously directing all of the unmanned vehicles required for the mission. Commanders could mix and match different systems with specific capabilities to suit individual missions instead of depending on a single UAS with integrated capabilities, the loss of which would be potentially catastrophic. This flexibility could significantly increase the mission- and cost-effectiveness of legacy assets, reduce development times and costs for future systems, and enable new deployment concepts.
> 
> The program plans to develop the operational concepts for CODE-enabled strike missions and validate their effectiveness through detailed modeling and simulation. It also intends to develop the most promising capabilities and demonstrate them in flight using multiple surrogate UAS equipped with mesh network radios and a variety of payloads, augmented by a number of virtual UAS.



This sort of program is also extendable to all other arms and services, as swarms of sensors, weapons and platforms working together in land, sea or air environments are the likely means to overcome active and passive defences in near peer environments and engage fleeting targets in any conflict environment.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> US Navy backroom ally of Trudeau gov't?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



A Squadron of Super Hornets for permanent deployment in Eastern Europe supported by US assets.

Liberals get to claim they have done something  They also get to claim they have expanded capabilities.  They don't need to build infrastructure here in Canada.  They defer the decision on F35.  They unload flight hours from the Hornets and extend their life here in Canada.

Transition training managed by the US Navy.  Not a new concept.

Heck, they could even lease them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Politics, politics all is politics:



> Boeing Super Hornets for RCAF, Jobs for Bombardier…and a Pipeline?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/mark-collins-boeing-super-hornets-for-rcaf-jobs-for-bombardier-and-a-pipeline/



Sigh.  Or hurl.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Altair

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Politics, politics all is politics:
> 
> Sigh.  Or hurl.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Yup,called it. I said it before, bombardier needs help, either in terms of a federal bailout or more business shoved their way, and the federal government would do it but their price would be quebec city approving ( or at least shutting up) about the energy east pipeline.

Everybody wins.


----------



## PuckChaser

Except the RCAF, they get stuck with an inferior aircraft built by a second rate manufacturer. Standard Liberal pork barrel procurements.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Politics, politics all is politics:
> 
> Sigh.  Or hurl.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa









comme il faut


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Except the RCAF, they get stuck with an inferior aircraft built by a second rate manufacturer. Standard Liberal pork barrel procurements.



Since when is Boeing second rate...or Bombardier?  They produce two of the most advanced (the C-series and 787) aircraft on the planet.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Since when is Boeing second rate...or Bombardier?  They produce two of the most advanced (the C-series and 787) aircraft on the planet.



Nobody wants the C-series right now, and we're talking about combat aircraft. How many combat aircraft has Bombardier built, ever?


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Nobody wants the C-series right now,



Assuming the 300 they've sold don't count, sure.



> and we're talking about combat aircraft. How many combat aircraft has Bombardier built, ever?



I don't think the theory is that Bombardier will build the plane.  At least, that's not the way I read it.  Boeing builds the plane, bombardier gets money or work of some kind, and Canada gets a pipeline.  Seems like everything works out pretty well there.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many combat aircraft has Bombardier built, ever?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_Sabre


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_Sabre



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-104_Starfighter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CP-107_Argus


----------



## PuckChaser

I mean, if they're going to build us Super Hornet's they have plenty of experience in 1970s technology in combat aircraft. Great deal.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I mean, if they're going to build us Super Hornet's they have plenty of experience in 1970s technology in combat aircraft. Great deal.


Exactly, they have experience in building combat aircraft, they currently build pretty good high tech aircraft, alberta gets its pipeline and the Americans don't give a damn because we bought one of their planes.

Everything coming up roses


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder if the brakes will squeak.


----------



## McG

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is refusing to recommit to an open competition to select Canada's next fighter jet, despite increasing questions over whether his government will keep its promise to do so.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/justin-trudeau-refuses-to-renew-pledge-for-fighter-jet-competition-1.2957184


----------



## PuckChaser

Without that competition, any "interim" fighter will be what we get to use for the next 35 years or so, chosen not on merit, but partisan political ideals and porkbarreling. That's likely why the Bombardier bailout is taking so long, they want cash to satisfy their shareholders, Trudeau wants them to build Super Hornets instead.


----------



## MarkOttawa

PuckChaser: I doubt Bombardier has the unused facilities actually to assemble Super Hornets--idea would be for Boeing to give the company--and others in Canada--subcontracting work of various sorts (note last comment):



> Boeing Super Hornets for RCAF, Jobs for Bombardier…and a Pipeline?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/mark-collins-boeing-super-hornets-for-rcaf-jobs-for-bombardier-and-a-pipeline/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

That's OK, we'll pay them to build them. Irving got money to retool shops and build facilities for NSBP. Who cares if it costs another couple billion?


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's OK, we'll pay them to build them. Irving got money to retool shops and build facilities for NSBP. Who cares if it costs another couple billion?



taxpayers who are uninformed about the costs of buying canadian


----------



## jmt18325

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> taxpayers who are uninformed about the costs of buying canadian



And on the other side, those who don't understand the benefits.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And on the other side, those who don't understand the benefits.



Like subpar equipment with squeaky brakes and military trucks that can't leave a hard surfaced road.


----------



## Altair

recceguy said:
			
		

> Like subpar equipment with squeaky brakes and military trucks that can't leave a hard surfaced road.


Both parties do it, and the NDP would don't if they had the chance. If they didn't disband the military all together I mean.

Maybe if canadians cared one way or another things would be different but they don't so it isn't.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Both parties do it, and the NDP would don't if they had the chance. If they didn't disband the military all together I mean.
> 
> Maybe if canadians cared one way or another things would be different but they don't so it isn't.


That's the big issue, we don't have all party (or at least the 2 that matter) consensus on a properly funded and supported CAF. One party gets in power saying they'll do better, raids the budget to fund other priorities, opposition says they'll be different, gets elected and does the exact same thing, starting the cycle again. Until we have an Australian model, we'll continue to be political pawns, and used for media releases with no real support.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's the big issue, we don't have all party (or at least the 2 that matter) consensus on a properly funded and supported CAF. One party gets in power saying they'll do better, raids the budget to fund other priorities, opposition says they'll be different, gets elected and does the exact same thing, starting the cycle again. Until we have an Australian model, we'll continue to be political pawns, and used for media releases with no real support.


Want to start a political party?

Actually, bad idea, political parties started by ex military men(or women) tend to drag their respective country into the abyss


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Want to start a political party?
> 
> Actually, bad idea, political parties started by ex military men(or women) tend to drag their respective country into the abyss



I don't think we need to. I think with Stephen Harper and his fetish for completely balanced budgets gone, and if Telford/Butts disappear with their eco-activist agenda, both parties could be convinced to take that path. It would take a gentlemens/ladies agreement (if one could exist with politicians) that deficits as a direct result of military spending are off-limits for political hay. 

PSPC rules for capital procurement (over $1B CAD) would need to be completely overhauled, removing provisions requiring 100% economic benefit to Canada. Timelines set for major equipment replacement tied to capabilities, not specific vehicles: Light trucks/ships/fighters replaced every X years. This would allow some sort of Canadian military manufacturing capacity, as US companies could place subsidiaries in Canada knowing that every X years they can could on a competition on a standard basis, and focus their R&D to win those contracts by showing both Canadian content, and adherence to SOR (not the "pick one" ideals that gives us crappy kit now). There'd also have to be steady funding to slowly purchase that equipment over its life expectancy, 1-2 fighters a year for example, until 5-7 years prior to IOC on that timeline, so any catastrophic equipment failures are replaced from stock, not reducing capabilities.

Its a pipe dream, but wholly possible, and wouldn't take a huge chunk out of the entitlement budget for things like income splitting or child benefits. I don't think the Liberals and Tories are far apart on the issue, but grandstanding and partisan bickering gets in the way of an actual consensus.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think we need to. I think with Stephen Harper and his fetish for completely balanced budgets gone, and if Telford/Butts disappear with their eco-activist agenda, both parties could be convinced to take that path. It would take a gentlemens/ladies agreement (if one could exist with politicians) that deficits as a direct result of military spending are off-limits for political hay.
> 
> PSPC rules for capital procurement (over $1B CAD) would need to be completely overhauled, removing provisions requiring 100% economic benefit to Canada. Timelines set for major equipment replacement tied to capabilities, not specific vehicles: Light trucks/ships/fighters replaced every X years. This would allow some sort of Canadian military manufacturing capacity, as US companies could place subsidiaries in Canada knowing that every X years they can could on a competition on a standard basis, and focus their R&D to win those contracts by showing both Canadian content, and adherence to SOR (not the "pick one" ideals that gives us crappy kit now). There'd also have to be steady funding to slowly purchase that equipment over its life expectancy, 1-2 fighters a year for example, until 5-7 years prior to IOC on that timeline, so any catastrophic equipment failures are replaced from stock, not reducing capabilities.
> 
> Its a pipe dream, but wholly possible, and wouldn't take a huge chunk out of the entitlement budget for things like income splitting or child benefits. I don't think the Liberals and Tories are far apart on the issue, but grandstanding and partisan bickering gets in the way of an actual consensus.


even when the conservatives were at their most rah rah military we have never come close to 2 percent of gdp spent on military.

It would take a whole new party with a pro military stance to try to raise the FST 2 points and direct that money to the military. The CPC and LPC will never do it, and the NDP would prefer we didn't even have guns.


----------



## MilEME09

Altair said:
			
		

> even when the conservatives were at their most rah rah military we have never come close to 2 percent of gdp spent on military.
> 
> It would take a whole new party with a pro military stance to try to raise the FST 2 points and direct that money to the military. The CPC and LPC will never do it, and the NDP would prefer we didn't even have guns.



Well the only other parties to have MP's in the past decade in the house are the greens, and the Strength in Democracy party (just before the election two MP's came together to form it, both lost their seats in the election). Though the Libertarian Party of Canada saw a lot of growth in terms of votes in the 2015 election with 37,407 votes, compared to around 6000 in 2011.


----------



## Kirkhill

I have heard Canada compared unfavourably to the UK on the issue of defence.  

Apparently UK voters are no more likely to bother themselves about defence than Canadian voters







For Tories it is number 5 on the list.

For Labour it is number 7.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I have heard Canada compared unfavourably to the UK on the issue of defence.
> 
> Apparently UK voters are no more likely to bother themselves about defence than Canadian voters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Tories it is number 5 on the list.
> 
> For Labour it is number 7.



http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3222945

Defense doesn't even show up on cansdians list of priorities. Unless one is generous and lumps in defense with foreign policy in which case it's dead last at 2 percent of issues Canadians give a rats ass about.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair dues, Altair.

Short form, though, is even in a Defence (& Security) "friendly" place like the UK it is low on the voter's agenda.

Though thinking further from that.....

Does that mean that politicians should disregard the voter and focus on the international necessities.

I don't think about sewers much.

I rely on the city to have people to think about them and maintain them.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Fair dues, Altair.
> 
> Short form, though, is even in a Defence (& Security) "friendly" place like the UK it is low on the voter's agenda.
> 
> Though thinking further from that.....
> 
> Does that mean that politicians should disregard the voter and focus on the international necessities.
> 
> I don't think about sewers much.
> 
> I rely on the city to have people to think about them and maintain them.


if I had my way I would raise the GST 2 points, call it national defense tax, direct it to the military  and see just how deep supports runs in this country for our armed forces


----------



## CBH99

I hate to say it - I honestly, truly do - BUT.....I think if you raised the GST by 1%, not 2%, and directed that towards national defense/national security, you'd still have an unwinnable battle.

People want all kinds of things.  Just don't want THEIR tax dollars paying for it.  (National childcare, national defense, etc etc)


----------



## Altair

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I hate to say it - I honestly, truly do - BUT.....I think if you raised the GST by 1%, not 2%, and directed that towards national defense/national security, you'd still have an unwinnable battle.
> 
> People want all kinds of things.  Just don't want THEIR tax dollars paying for it.  (National childcare, national defense, etc etc)


Call it something unassailable.  Veterans and serving members support tax.


----------



## larry Strong

Boeing looking to sweeten the offer.......

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-canada-idUSKCN0Z9222


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> Call it something unassailable.  Veterans and serving members support tax.



The Veterans Renewal Tax - To Guarantee a Steady Supply of Veterans?


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> if I had my way I would raise the GST 2 points, call it national defense tax, direct it to the military  and see just how deep supports runs in this country for our armed forces



If my math is right (I'm a SigOp, not a MathOp), that would give us another $13B based on 2015 Revenues from GST. I don't think that's sustainable, as a 40% increase to the GST would cause some economic turmoil, lowering some of that revenue. 1% increase would give us enough money to properly fund capital projects.

All that procurement money does nothing though, if we keep having to buy overpriced Canadian crap that is noncompetitive to foreign goods in the military sector.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If my math is right (I'm a SigOp, not a MathOp), that would give us another $13B based on 2015 Revenues from GST. I don't think that's sustainable, as a 40% increase to the GST would cause some economic turmoil, lowering some of that revenue. 1% increase would give us enough money to properly fund capital projects.
> 
> All that procurement money does nothing though, if we keep having to buy overpriced Canadian crap that is noncompetitive to foreign goods in the military sector.


when one considers that 2 percent of our GDP should be spent on defense and we are currently just under 1 percent a 2 percent raise in GST is not unjustified. 

That extra 13 billion, give or take isn't even enough to get us all the way to 2 percent


----------



## Sailorwest

Truth is that almost none of the pending increases in taxes (carbon, GST, etc) is going to be earmarked for defence. Way too many issues that the liberal voting base are concerned about to dedicate a lot of spending on the military. Never been a priority in Canada and it never will.


----------



## Altair

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> Truth is that almost none of the pending increases in taxes (carbon, GST, etc) is going to be earmarked for defence. Way too many issues that the liberal voting base are concerned about to dedicate a lot of spending on the military. Never been a priority in Canada and it never will.


Yup. The forces are screwed one way or another. One party is too preoccupied trying to lower taxes that it can't spend the 2 percent promised and the other,even while running deficits want to spend on social programs instead of defense.

So we limp along...


----------



## Inspir

I think the problem is more less that the general public doesn't take defence seriously as they have this misconstrued belief that we are wrapped in a security blanket from our allies. I think it would take NATO to say "so long Canada you are not doing your part" for people to be like "oh shit we're on our own now".


----------



## Altair

Inspir said:
			
		

> I think the problem is more less that the general public doesn't take defence seriously as they have this misconstrued belief that we are wrapped in a security blanket from our allies. I think it would take NATO to say "so long Canada you are not doing your part" for people to be like "oh crap we're on our own now".


There is only one person who can make that happen...sadly.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think giving us $13B in one shot would be akin to giving a hobo a million dollars. Look at all the useless crap we're spending money on, with shrinking budgets. No white paper + massive money dump = recipe for disaster. We'd have to phase in the increases, and could phase in the GST increase once the budget becomes unbalanced due to the DND increase.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> *No white paper + massive money dump = recipe for disaster.*


QFTT -- like pouring more water into a leaky bucket without fixing the leaks.


			
				Inspir said:
			
		

> I think it would take NATO to say "so long Canada you are not doing your part" for people to be like "oh shit we're on our own now".


As long as we're this close to/interconnected with these guys ...





... we're never REALLY on our own - for better, _*and*_ for worse.


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> QFTT -- like pouring more water into a leaky bucket without fixing the leaks.As long as we're this close to/interconnected with these guys ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... we're never REALLY on our own - for better, _*and*_ for worse.



The Semi-Autonomous Region of Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Semi-Autonomous Region of Canada.


Like it or not ...


----------



## Journeyman

Perhaps we're looking at this problem the wrong way.  Given the right technological upgrades, it looks like the latest versions of artificial intelligence (AI) are now able to outperform experienced combat pilots.  Interestingly the AI “pilot” can defeat human pilots who have more advanced aircraft. 
Maybe Super Hornets are good enough;  we just need to get rid of all those pesky pilots.    :stirpot:

LINK

Extracts:

Artificial intelligence (AI) developed by a University of Cincinnati doctoral graduate was recently assessed by subject-matter expert and retired United States Air Force Colonel Gene Lee -- who holds extensive aerial combat experience as an instructor and Air Battle Manager with considerable fighter aircraft expertise -- in a high-fidelity air combat simulator.

....[Col. Lee] took to manual controls against a more mature version of ALPHA last October. *Not only was Lee not able to score a kill against ALPHA after repeated attempts, he was shot out of the air every time during protracted engagements in the simulator.*



Pre-emptive calming:  Yes, I know it's just a simulation, and the article _is_  focused on AI, not specifically on air combat or procurement.  It was posted for interest, knowing that all those unemployed pilots would overwhelm the Int / PAO / TDO worlds.  >


----------



## Kirkhill

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Perhaps we're looking at this problem the wrong way.  Given the right technological upgrades, it looks like the latest versions of artificial intelligence (AI) are now able to outperform experienced combat pilots.  Interestingly the AI “pilot” can defeat human pilots who have more advanced aircraft.
> Maybe Super Hornets are good enough;  we just need to get rid of all those pesky pilots.    :stirpot:
> 
> LINK
> 
> Extracts:
> 
> Artificial intelligence (AI) developed by a University of Cincinnati doctoral graduate was recently assessed by subject-matter expert and retired United States Air Force Colonel Gene Lee -- who holds extensive aerial combat experience as an instructor and Air Battle Manager with considerable fighter aircraft expertise -- in a high-fidelity air combat simulator.
> 
> ....[Col. Lee] took to manual controls against a more mature version of ALPHA last October. *Not only was Lee not able to score a kill against ALPHA after repeated attempts, he was shot out of the air every time during protracted engagements in the simulator.*
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-emptive calming:  Yes, I know it's just a simulation, and the article _is_  focused on AI, not specifically on air combat or procurement.  It was posted for interest, knowing that all those unemployed pilots would overwhelm the Int / PAO / TDO worlds.  >



Shares in coffee pots and hotels just took a hit.


----------



## McG

> *Fourth-generation Super Hornets just can’t do the job in the Arctic, retired U.S. Air Force general insists*
> Matthew Fisher
> National Post
> 04 Jul 2016
> 
> A recently retired senior U.S. Air Force general with decades of experience defending the margins of North American air space agrees with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that there will be a “capability gap” in defending the northern approaches to the continent.
> 
> But retired Lt.-Gen. Michael Dubie, a deputy commander of NORAD and of the U.S. Northern Command until last year, offered a different explanation for the gap and recommended that Canada find out the best way to defend the continent by holding a competition.
> 
> After Postmedia reported last month that the government was close to buying Boeing’s fourth-generation Super Hornets to replace some of its current fleet of CF-18s, the prime minister told the Commons that Lockheed Martin’s stealthy fifth-generation F-35 would not be able to fill the developing capability gap because it “is far from working.”
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Canada had to act now to close the gap in order to be able to fulfil its responsibilities in NORAD and NATO.
> 
> Dubie dismissed the idea that the F-35 was still somehow an experimental aircraft.
> 
> After noting that “every new airplane ever designed takes a whole lot of time to operationalize,” the former test and evaluation pilot said the U.S. Marine Corps had already declared IOC (initial operational capability) on its variant of the F-35 and that the USAF planned to do the same by the end of the year with the model that the Harper government had been considering buying.
> 
> “The milestones are being met. They are on track,” the former three-star general said of the F-35. “Sure, there are problems, but this airplane is going forward and it is going to be in the fleets of many countries for many decades to come. They already have 50,000 or 60,000 hours and it is just getting better as the bugs are ironed out.”
> 
> The capability gap was not because the F-35 was not ready, he said, but would occur if Canada and other countries did not purchase the right aircraft to confront a rapidly evolving threat.
> 
> “The threat — and let’s be candid here — is that the Russian threat is evolving and it will become harder to combat in the future without fifth-generation aircraft,” Dubie said.
> 
> “NORAD has to continually evolve with technology and with capability because the threat against North America is going to evolve, too. The F-35 is designed for the threats of the 21st century and those threats will require a much more sophisticated platform than we have in fourth-generation aircraft.”
> 
> This was because the F-35 had “a suite of advanced avionics that provide a superior 360 degrees of situational awareness that can target, track and, if needed, engage a variety of threats to North America whether it be small bots (swarms of tiny weapons), UAVs, advanced long-range cruise missiles, all the way to commercial airliners.
> 
> “The threat is going to become more complex. Information dominance across all spectrums will be essential. That is the F-35’s strength.”
> 
> Dubie, whose father was from Trois Rivieres, Que., emphasized that he did not wish his remarks to be construed as a criticism of the Canadian government.
> 
> “I am not trying to be disrespectful to your prime minister or your minister of defence. I am not being cavalier,” he said. “I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying the threat is going to demand fifth-generation aircraft.”
> 
> A command pilot with 1,500 hours on the F-16s and hundreds of hours on other jets, Dubie said he had reached this conclusion based on what he had learned from flying NORAD missions charged with intercepting Russian aircraft.
> 
> “Around Alaska, they have become incredulous about the aggressiveness of the Russians,” he said. “They are launching complex package of airplanes — bombers, Mi-G-31s (fighters) and tankers — with navy ships below. When we send out AWACS (reconnaissance planes), F-22s and tankers, they are sucking up all our data. It is an orchestrated, sophisticated air campaign the likes of which we have never seen before. They are getting better and more aggressive.”
> 
> Dubie’s opinion is significant because of the key jobs he has held helping to oversee the defence of North America and because he does not work for either Lockheed or Boeing.
> 
> Since last November he has been the president of Revision Military Technologies, a Vermont-based subsidiary of Montreal’s Revision Military Inc., which makes military eyewear and tactical gear.
> 
> While not closely informed on the manufacturing schedules of the F-35 or the Super Hornet, which first flew 21 years ago, he said that “what I do know about the Super Hornet is that it is near the end of the line. As I understand the timeline, the F-35 would be available to cover any capability gap on the NORAD mission.”
> 
> Dubie rejected the reasoning of F-35 critics who have said that because it has a single engine and the Super Hornet has twin engines, the latter aircraft was a superior choice for operations across the vastness of the north. He noted that the USAF had operated single-engine F-16s for years from a base in northern Alaska, and intended to soon replace those jets with F-35s that had “even more reliable” engines.
> 
> The Danes and Norwegians intended to defend the High Arctic with F-35s, too, he said.
> 
> “I am not against the Super Hornet,” Dubie said. “What I am saying is that the F-35 will have greater inter-operability with the U.S. fleet and other NATO partners.”
> 
> Asked what was the most prudent way for Canada to make the crucial, multi-billion dollar decision about which aircraft was best to defend the country for the next 40 years, Dubie replied “the ultimate question is why would you not have an open competition in Canada? If you have a competition, the strengths and weaknesses of the air frames will come out.
> 
> “I cannot envisage any scenario in which the F-35 does not come out better than the Super Hornet or any other aircraft. Fourth-generation jets, they just aren’t as capable.”



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/fourth-generation-super-hornets-just-cant-do-the-job-in-the-arctic-retired-u-s-air-force-general-insists


----------



## CBH99

A retired USAF General with extensive experience both as a fighter pilot, and in a command position with NORAD - who isn't employed by either company?   Pffftttttt....what could _he_ possibly know...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Perhaps we're looking at this problem the wrong way.  Given the right technological upgrades, it looks like the latest versions of artificial intelligence (AI) are now able to outperform experienced combat pilots.  Interestingly the AI “pilot” can defeat human pilots who have more advanced aircraft.
> Maybe Super Hornets are good enough;  we just need to get rid of all those pesky pilots.    :stirpot:
> 
> LINK
> 
> Extracts:
> 
> Artificial intelligence (AI) developed by a University of Cincinnati doctoral graduate was recently assessed by subject-matter expert and retired United States Air Force Colonel Gene Lee -- who holds extensive aerial combat experience as an instructor and Air Battle Manager with considerable fighter aircraft expertise -- in a high-fidelity air combat simulator.
> 
> ....[Col. Lee] took to manual controls against a more mature version of ALPHA last October. *Not only was Lee not able to score a kill against ALPHA after repeated attempts, he was shot out of the air every time during protracted engagements in the simulator.*
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-emptive calming:  Yes, I know it's just a simulation, and the article _is_  focused on AI, not specifically on air combat or procurement.  It was posted for interest, knowing that all those unemployed pilots would overwhelm the Int / PAO / TDO worlds.  >



I think the biggest flaw of the test they performed is the proficiency of the person they used to fly against the AI.  He is a retired Col, meaning, I assume, he hadn't flown fighters in a while, nevermind new generation's fighters.  If you don't practice in this buisness, you lose your edge very rapidly.  I a matter of a couple of months, you need a significant amount of flying to regain your proficiency.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'd like to know how big the PC was to compute everything that fast. Definitely not a desktop size.


----------



## MarkOttawa

By a former CF-104 and CF-18 pilot--exceprts:



> Alan Stephenson – Flying Blind on Procurement
> ...
> “Estimate the situation. Do not situate the estimate.” This fundamental lesson is taught to all junior officers in the Canadian Armed Forces who are being trained in how to examine all relevant factors, determine possible courses of action and select the most appropriate option to achieve their objectives. It’s called an estimate of the situation — or just ‘estimate’ for short.
> 
> ‘Situating the estimate’ means deciding beforehand the course of action one wants to follow, then rationalizing that decision through the motions of the estimate process. In other words, it’s shaping one’s analysis to fit the desired outcome — a flawed approach to military operations, but one that the Liberal government evidently has decided is acceptable when it comes to finding a replacement for the CF-18 fighter aircraft.
> 
> With its plan to sole-source the Super Hornet as an ‘interim’ solution, the Trudeau government has demonstrated clearly that it never intended to fulfill its election promise to “immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the F-18 fighter aircraft.” That’s unfortunate, since it calls into question the validity of the ongoing Defence Policy Review process. If Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has decided already on a solution and is shaping the CF-18 narrative to fit the desired outcome, then Canadians should expect nothing less from the Defence Policy Review.
> 
> For starters, the sudden appearance of Minister Sajjan’s “capability gap” in the current CF-18 fleet is questionable, given that the Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force assured the Standing Committee on National Defence in April that the CF-18s would remain operationally capable until 2025...
> 
> It was heartening to believe that the Liberal government would step away from their party pledge to dismiss the F-35 as a possible replacement for the CF-18 and run a mature transparent purchasing process. There are sound reasons to consider both the Super Hornet and the F-35 to replace the venerable CF-18s — but without a transparent selection process that analyzes and considers the four dimensions of military procurement (political, operational, technological and economic) the government may placate party loyalists, but Canadians will not be assured of receiving the best value for their defence dollar.
> 
> An interim solution ultimately might make sense — but generally, most such solutions are costly in the long run and less than effective in meeting unforeseen contingencies.
> 
> The Liberals’ credibility is at stake in this decision. Transparency was to be the hallmark of this government. Good governance demands that sound public policy trump parochial political platforms. If the Super Hornet is truly the right solution for Canada, then a public procurement process would establish that fact. But the evidence suggests that Canada does not face a ‘capability gap’ that would require a quick, sole-source solution.
> 
> In ‘situating the estimate’, Minister Sajjan does himself and the Liberal government a disservice — unless it is the intent of the new government to play the same old political games with military procurement.
> 
> _Alan Stephenson is a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, holds a PhD from Carleton University and is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces with 3,600 fighter hours flying third generation CF-104 Starfighters and fourth generation CF-18 Hornets._
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/alan-stephenson-flying-blind-on-procurement/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Good article, albeit short, from our friend Lee Berthiaume.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/07/05/defence-minister-set-to-lay-out-next-steps-to-replace-aging-fighter-jets-3/#.V3xZgTWq0sR



> Defence minister set to lay out next steps to replace aging fighter jets
> 
> By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press — Jul 5 2016
> 
> OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will shed some light on how the government plans to replace Canada's aging fighter jets in an address to defence and aerospace industry officials Wednesday.
> 
> The much-anticipated update will not include an announcement on what aircraft will replace Canada's CF-18s, said Sajjan's spokeswoman, Jordan Owens. The minister will instead lay out what "short-term next steps" the government intends to take on the file.
> 
> The Liberals have been under pressure to say something about the replacement plan since reports last month that they were considering buying Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets without a competition.
> 
> The government has insisted no decision has been made, but it also says new warplanes are urgently needed to address a "gap" in the air force's fighter jet capabilities. In particular, the Liberals have said there aren't enough CF-18s to meet all of Canada's defence commitments.
> 
> Critics, however, have pointed to Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood's comments to the Commons defence committee in April as proof the Liberals are manufacturing a crisis.
> 
> Hood said the CF-18 fleet should be able to operate through 2025 thanks to a $500-million upgrade ordered by the Conservatives in 2014. Twenty-six out of 77 CF-18s have already undergone structural work to fly through the mid-2020s, and electronic upgrades are planned.
> 
> Owens said Sajjan's speech will provide more detail on the current state of the CF-18 fleet. The minister will also talk to industry representatives about other military procurement projects, many of which are facing delays and other problems.
> 
> The Liberals promised during last year's election that they would hold an open competition to replace the CF-18s. At the same time, they promised not to buy the F-35. This, however, created a potential legal situation if the government was seen to discriminate against the stealth fighter.
> 
> The F-35 has previously won competitions in South Korea, Japan and Denmark.
> 
> Postmedia reported in June that the government was considering whether to use an exemption in federal procurement laws to buy Super Hornets as an "interim" measure to address the capability gap. That would let it to sole-source the planes without fear of a lawsuit.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in the House of Commons last month that the F-35 "does not work and is far from working." A few weeks later, he refused to say whether his government remains committed to holding an open competition to replace the CF-18s.
> 
> "We are working very, very hard and thoughtfully to ensure that we deliver to our forces the right jets the right way at the right price," he told reporters at the time. "That's what Canadians expect of us, and that's what we are going to be doing."
> 
> The previous Conservative government announced in 2010 that Canada would be buying 65 F-35 stealth fighters without a competition. The Liberals, who at the time were in third place in the House of Commons, were critical of not holding a competition.
> 
> Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the U.S. defence giant behind the F-35, have engaged in fierce lobbying and public relations campaigns to convince Canadians and politicians that their fighter jet is best for the country.
> 
> Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press


----------



## PuckChaser

And here's the MND's announcement:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/07/06/defence-minister-insists-jets-must-be-replaced-soon-but-cant-give-timeline-2/#.V304JjWq0sR



> Sajjan going back to drawing board on fighter jets, launching consultations
> 
> By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Jul 6 2016
> 
> OTTAWA — The Liberal government is launching yet another round of consultations with industry to find a new fighter jet for Canada.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced the approach on Wednesday, as he told industry representatives that only about half of Canada's existing CF-18 fighter jets are capable of flying at any given time.
> 
> Sajjan says the government will sit down with fighter jet companies to determine what their aircraft will cost, what economic benefits they can offer Canada and how fast they can deliver.
> 
> The minister emphasized the need for speed, warning that Canada can't currently meet its commitments to both NATO and North American defence.
> 
> The previous Conservative government launched a similar round of consultations with industry several years ago, when it pushed pause on plans to buy the F-35 stealth fighter.
> 
> The results of those consultations, which included a review by an independent panel of experts, were largely favourable to the F-35 — which the Liberals promised during the last election they wouldn't buy.



Same text, but some video here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-procurement-fighter-jets-1.3666625

My summary: "We have no idea what to do. We said we wouldn't buy the F-35, but if we hold a competition it's going to win. We need "consultations" on how to cook the books so something else wins, so we don't look bad politically."


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And here's the MND's announcement:
> 
> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/07/06/defence-minister-insists-jets-must-be-replaced-soon-but-cant-give-timeline-2/#.V304JjWq0sR
> 
> Same text, but some video here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-procurement-fighter-jets-1.3666625
> 
> My summary: "We have no idea what to do. We said we wouldn't buy the F-35, but if we hold a competition it's going to win. We need "consultations" on how to cook the books so something else wins, so we don't look bad politically."



LSVW anyone?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A new study/process is a valid looking COA that provides a secure buffer from the next step;  doing something/spending money.


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A new study/process is a valid looking COA that provides a secure buffer from the next step;  doing something/spending money.



 :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa

"Farce, flipping farce. The endless Canadian Procurement Gong Show!":



> New RCAF Fighter: Consult, Consult, Consult (with industry)–Why Not Just Compete?
> 
> Keep in mind that the previous government already conducted an extensive “evaluation of options” for the CF-18 replacement in 2013-14 but then made no procurement decision before losing the October 2015 election–some key documents...
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/mark-collins-new-rcaf-fighter-consult-consult-consult-with-industry-why-not-just-compete/



And how come that capability gap, including mentioning NATO (have not heard a government saying that before), suddenly popped up?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

One can readily see how the government is scripting this:

1) Urgent need for some fighters (24/32=two squadrons, one for Cold Lake, one for Bagotville?) to deal with "capability gap";

2) Only Boeing can provide really soon;

3) Ergo must buy Super Hornets as interim measure; and then end up buying all Super Hornet fleet as a mixed fleet too expensive.

QED.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> One can readily see how the government is scripting this:
> 
> 1) Urgent need for some fighters (24/32=two squadrons, one for Cold Lake, one for Bagotville?) to deal with "capability gap";
> 
> 2) Only Boeing can provide really soon;
> 
> 3) Ergo must buy Super Hornets as interim measure; and then end up buying all Super Hornet fleet as a mixed fleet too expensive.
> 
> QED.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Not sure that will save them from legal action by LM or a NFTA claim worth billions.


----------



## McG

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And how come that capability gap, including mentioning NATO (have not heard a government saying that before), suddenly popped up?


It is convenient?  We have the same capability gap for just about everything for which we have commitments.  If one were to add up all the tasks that the Army is to be ready for, you would also find that we run out of land forces before everything is covered.  There is a planning assumption, that governments have typically been very happy with, that not all our commitments will come calling at the same time.


----------



## dapaterson

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Not sure that will save them from legal action by LM or a NFTA claim worth billions.



Define the requirement as an a/c in service, and the F35 falls off the eligible list.


----------



## AlexanderM

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Define the requirement as an a/c in service, and the F35 falls off the eligible list.


Not convinced it's that simple and doubt the Liberals are either. In fact I'm cheering for LM, as that's the only way we might see some F-35's. The Liberals are trying to squirm out of the deal and I'm hoping it doesn't work out for them.


----------



## a_majoor

The F-35 has been accepted in service and the first squadrons are already forming up and training in the US. Looks like the Libs can't use that little dodge.

Regardless, they have managed to put themselves in a poor position with their non policy: either pay penalties plus pay lots more for second tier fighters without the same capabilities or service life as an F-35, or find themselves at the end of the line when they are taking delivery of F-35's (and many of the lucrative contracts that should have gone to Canadian aerospace companies for F-35 support mysteriously may have vanished).


----------



## DonaldMcL

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Define the requirement as an a/c in service, and the F35 falls off the eligible list.



The Marines declared it IOC last year.


----------



## jmt18325

BobSlob said:
			
		

> The Marines declared it IOC last year.



IOC is not combat ready.


----------



## dapaterson

And the Marines fly the VTOL version.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> IOC is not combat ready.



http://www.defencetalk.com/us-air-force-says-f-35a-nearly-combat-ready-67741/?



> US Air Force Says F-35A Nearly Combat Ready
> By Air Force News Agency -
> June 29, 2016
> 
> The first off-station deployment exercise for the F-35A Lightning II confirmed that the Air Force’s newest fighter jet is on track to reach initial operational capability later this year.
> 
> A declaration of IOC means the F-35A will be combat ready.
> 
> Seven F-35A aircraft and 181 personnel from Hill’s active duty 388th Fighter Wing and Reserve 419th Fighter Wing pushed the aircraft to its limits at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, during the training June 6-17.
> 
> The simulated deployment tested the F-35A against a stringent set of IOC requirements to include basic close air support, aerial interdiction and limited suppression and destruction of enemy aircraft.
> 
> “This was really the capstone event in our preparations to reach IOC and it was a resounding success,” said Col. David Lyons, 388th FW commander. “By any measure, the aircraft did well. We should be ready to declare IOC very soon.”



End of the article states 338th Fighter Wing is slated for 3 operational Squadrons by the end of 2019. We'd barely have a SOR written and the USAF will be IOC. How many other capabilities have we put into combat-zones at IOC levels? A lot. IOC doesn't limit core functions, its a statement that those functions along with a capable number of airframes are at operational Squadrons. If we were waiting for FOC, we'd be waiting until 2030s when the USAF has replaced all its legacy aircraft with F-35As.


----------



## dapaterson

Our only successful aircraft purchases have been those in service, in operation with other militaries: C-17; C130J; CH-147.  On the other hand, if you want to buy an aircraft "still working out the kinks" may I suggest you look at the CH-148.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Our only successful aircraft purchases have been those in service, in operation with other militaries: C-17; C130J; CH-147.  On the other hand, if you want to buy an aircraft "still working out the kinks" may I suggest you look at the CH-148.



We'd be 10 years ahead if someone didn't cancel the order for the CH-148s in the 1990s. That project was also Canada modifying a design for only a Canadian order, or Canadianizing it. Everytime we've done that, we get an inferior product that takes forever to deliver.

F-35 as a new aircraft hasn't stop the Danes, Israelis, Auzzies, Norweigens, Italians, Dutch, Brits and Turks who have all ordered aircraft already, and the countless other countries in the project but yet to confirm their firm orders. I guess Canada knows better, and all those countries are buying a lemon.


----------



## jmt18325

According to an article I posted in the past few months, it could be 2022 before the F-35 is combat ready.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

PuckChaser, I thought it was the CH-149 (Cormorant) that was cancelled in the 1990's.

Also, I would think that we were pretty successful with the acquisition of the Sea Kings, even though they were bought right off the original run of the airframe.


----------



## PuckChaser

It was, we would have ended up with the EH101/AW101 (Merlin) instead of the Cyclone, giving us SAR and Maritime helicopters of the same type. Instead they had to restart the process, awarded to Sikorsky anyways (for CH-148), where we are the only military operator. To compare that program, to F-35's multinational R&D, is desperately grasping at straws.

Considering how long we've been using the Sea Kings, I'd agree completely.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> According to an article I posted in the past few months, it could be 2022 before the F-35 is combat ready.



The USAF is ready to declare IOC this fall, which means the aircraft is combat ready. You don't understand what IOC means. If its a capability, and in service, its combat ready. I could buy a fleet of 25,000 radios, and once tested, declare IOC when I only have 5,000 radios to outfit 1 CMBG. You don't just jump from implementation to FOC overnight, you phase in equipment that is ready to go over time, as industry cannot produce you 50,000 radios in one shot, nor would you hold onto all the shipments until you're ready to roll it out to everyone at once. That would be a bigger gongshow than the Liberals are making of the "open and transparent competition" promise they made for CF-188 replacement.


----------



## jmt18325

I'm all for getting the F-35.  But only when it's ready:

And now an independent watchdog group is saying that the long list of unresolved problems means that the F-35 won’t be ready for combat until 2022. The watchdog group, the well-respected Project on Government Oversight, is basing its analysis on a recent Department of Defense report that found numerous serious problems with the fifth-generation fighter.

The watchdog analysis comes after one of the three F-35 variants has already been declared combat ready. The F-35B, designed for the Marines, was declared ready to go in July 2015. However, the jet has not been used by the Marines in combat, despite plentiful opportunities in Syria and Iraq. And the Project on Government Oversight maintains that the declaration was premature, and that official testing proves that the jet is not ready for active duty. Some analysts have speculated that the Pentagon is trying to buy hundreds of planes before testing has been completed.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/03/15/Why-F-35-May-Not-Be-Combat-Ready-Until-2022


----------



## PuckChaser

Official testing just had the aircraft run 88 of 88 sorties, achieve 8 to 0 kill/loss ratio, and have a hit rate of 94% (15/16) on simulated CAS missions. This testing was done after your "independant watchdog" published its report. The USAF is ready to declare IOC, and put it into combat. See a more recent article:

http://www.acc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/5725/Article/808248/10-questions-on-the-f-35a-lightning-ii.aspx



> Q8: Is this aircraft capable of deploying to Iraq or Syria to battle ISIS like the F-22 did?
> 
> A8: After IOC, it will be available to support the needs of the combatant commanders.
> 
> Q9: How soon the F-35 will be deployed to overseas locations?
> 
> A9: There are a number of events being considered for the F-35, to include training exercises and deployments. These events are being assessed and planned for through the needs of the combatant commanders.


----------



## jmt18325

And when that happens, great.  It hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Our only successful aircraft purchases have been those in service, in operation with other militaries: C-17; C130J; CH-147.



Our "F"-model Chinook is not the same as the US Army F-model Chinook.


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> PuckChaser, I thought it was the CH-149 (Cormorant) that was cancelled in the 1990's.



The CH-149 Cormorant (Canadian) designation is correct, for the AgustaWestland AW101 (Merlin).


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And when that happens, great.  It hasn't happened yet.



As the Vicar said to the actress.


----------



## YZT580

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Our only successful aircraft purchases have been those in service, in operation with other militaries: C-17; C130J; CH-147.  On the other hand, if you want to buy an aircraft "still working out the kinks" may I suggest you look at the CH-148.



You forget: we designed, built and sold the CF100 and it was a great aircraft for its era, perhaps one of the better all-weather fighters to emerge from the 50's


----------



## MarkOttawa

In fact Belgium only foreign buyer of CF-100 (75% paid for by the US and 25% paid by Canada):
http://belmilac.wikifoundry.com/page/Avro+Canada+CF-100+Canuck+Mk.5
http://casmuseum.techno-science.ca/en/collection-research/artifact-avro-cf100-100757.php

Cool pic:






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## HB_Pencil

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Our only successful aircraft purchases have been those in service, in operation with other militaries: C-17; C130J; CH-147.  On the other hand, if you want to buy an aircraft "still working out the kinks" may I suggest you look at the CH-148.



Biggest problem with this is the CF-18, which we decided to buy at a much earlier stage comparatively to where the F-35 is now.


----------



## PuckChaser

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Biggest problem with this is the CF-18, which we decided to buy at a much earlier stage comparatively to where the F-35 is now.



If you can trust Wikipedia for dates:

F-18 First Flight:  	18 November 1978
CF-188 Introduction: 	7 January 1983

F-35 First Flight:         15 December 2006


----------



## HB_Pencil

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you can trust Wikipedia for dates:
> 
> F-18 First Flight:  	18 November 1978
> CF-188 Introduction: 	7 January 1983
> 
> F-35 First Flight:         15 December 2006



I wouldn't go by first flight, rather time until IOC in this case to understand maturity: Canada decided to purchase the CF-18 in April 1980, USN IOC was in April 1983. If Canada decided today on the F-35 we'd be basically a year after USMC IOC, and a few months before the USAF IOC. In reality this is really a discussion in semantics: the capability's maturity if fairly evident both in comparison to its competitors, and as a comparison with where the F/A-18A was at its development. Canada actually had issues with its original acquisition because it was in some ways ahead of the USN's own transition process, which complicated our own efforts.


----------



## dapaterson

Don't compare the USMC and USAF IOC dates; they are only slightly related aircraft (and a large part of the program problems).


----------



## HB_Pencil

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't compare the USMC and USAF IOC dates; they are only slightly related aircraft (and a large part of the program problems).



No, they are very relevant. Much of the dissimilarity between the two aircraft are in its structural and propulsion elements. While they may result in some production and sustainability issues, that really ignores the primary cost and capability drivers of the airframe: Avionics. The core of this system is 100% common, and this area accounts for 55% (and perhaps as high as 60%) of the aircraft unit cost. Developmentally, this has been the primary focus of the program for the past few years. 

The Marines went to IOC utilizing the 2B avionics package. Probably the best way to describe it is that this capability reflected what a 4th generation aircraft like the F/A-18E would offer for avionics capability, and a very restricted ordnance selection (though it should be noted that the weapons offered account for the majority of weapons deployed by the US military for the last decade). It did not possess sensor fusion, which the USAF (and marines) employ with Block 3I. 

Really if the F-35 did not employ Sensor fusion and other advanced information management capabilities, they would have long since been in service: they could have compressed the development times significantly and allowed them to enter service several years ago. However in order to fully test and field the electronic capabilities, they have had to employ this protracted development cycle that has been the source of so much criticism.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Chris Pook said:
			
		

>



Hmm. The Tories are ahead in everything except 'social programs'. Education is a right.

As to the Grit's intentions, you're looking at the Little Thug de Shawinigan's helicopter horseshit all over again. The only change in any of this, from that, is the airframe. So, you'll still not, likely, have a new plane or even a decision by the time the PM gets booted from office. They're just putting it in the closet to be found by the party that gets elected next.


----------



## MarkOttawa

White House approval of Super Hornets for Kuwait would sure help keep the production line going--note also unit cost (RCAF?) implications:



> U.S. Air Force urges decision on delayed Mideast fighter jet sales
> 
> A top U.S. Air Force official on Sunday urged the U.S. government to speed up consideration of long-standing bids by Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain to buy U.S. fighter jets, citing growing frustration among the key U.S. allies in the Gulf about delays in the process.
> 
> Air Force Deputy Undersecretary Heidi Grant said she was trying to reassure those countries that Washington's failure to approve billions of dollars of U.S. arms sales to them would not alter their strong bilateral air force-to-air force relationships with the United States.
> 
> "I would like to see a decision soon," Grant told Reuters in an interview on the eve of the Farnborough Airshow in southern England. Grant said she "absolutely" saw growing frustration among officials in the three countries, which have asked to buy a variety of U.S. fighter planes.
> 
> "It's caused us to do more to reassure them that this one transaction should not impact the larger relationship ... that they are very valued partners," she said. "Hopefully the delay in this decision to move forward isn’t going to have any impact."
> 
> Grant said the three requests were still being worked on "at the highest levels of our government." She declined to comment on what was holding up the decisions.
> 
> All three arms sales have stalled amid concerns raised by Israel that equipment sent to Gulf states could fall into the wrong hands and be used against it, and by the Obama administration's desire to integrate arms sales decisions into its broader decision-making on military aid to the Gulf.
> 
> The Pentagon and State Department have both have signed off on the sale of 36 F-15 fighter jets to Qatar for about $4 billion, and 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Kuwait for about $3 billion, both built by Boeing Co, according to sources familiar with the matter. A third deal would sell about 16 Lockheed Martin Corp F-16 fighter jets to Bahrain in a deal valued at just under $1 billion.
> 
> The White House has not yet approved the sales, although _the Kuwait sale at least is expected to see approval before the Obama administration leaves office, the sources said_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> U.S. _Navy Secretary Ray Mabus last month warned the U.S. Navy could see the cost of new F/A-18E/F Super Hornets rise unless the government approves foreign sales of the jets soon_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Mabus said he was frustrated by delays in approving the sale of the Boeing jets to a close U.S. ally.
> 
> Senior U.S. officials have said they are keen to see the Boeing F-15 and F/A-18 production lines in St. Louis, and the Lockheed F-16 line in Fort Worth, Texas, continue, and do not want to foreclose options on fourth-generation aircraft.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-britain-usa-mideast-idUSKCN0ZQ0B2



One is still amazed at how public the US services make their views even when not comfortable for the administration.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

$3B USD for the Kuwaiti deal, about $125M USD an aircraft. Likely $25M of that is support costs that you'd have to pay for any airframe. Super Hornet price keeps climbing, F-35 keeps dropping. Interesting on the F-15 pricetag, under $100M USD a plane. I wonder what model they're getting?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It's not likely you'll get a plane, or even a commitment for one, from this government.

All they are doing is dusting off Chretien's helicopter plan and changing the airframe, expecting people to have forgotten about it by now.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

So if I get this straight, it's 7 B$ US for the acquisition of 60 Gen. 4 aircrafts.

Meanwhile, the CPC plans for acquisition of 65 Gen. 5 F-35 (and we are allowed to talk about acquisition cost only because the Trudeau Libs said that they would only use those figures from now on so as to not "confuse" Canadians) called for 9 B$ Canadian.

In term of cost, I'd call that a pretty even crap shoot.


----------



## PuckChaser

If we us the current USD, $9B CAD is $6.86B USD. Use the full rate production estimate of $85M USD, add $25M for acquisition costs that I credited the Super Hornet, total of $110M USD per aircraft. Buys us 62 F-35s. Pretty good considering when the $9B cost figure was released, the dollar was at par. Its almost like the Tories are good fiscal planners....


----------



## HB_Pencil

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So if I get this straight, it's 7 B$ US for the acquisition of 60 Gen. 4 aircrafts.
> 
> Meanwhile, the CPC plans for acquisition of 65 Gen. 5 F-35 (and we are allowed to talk about acquisition cost only because the Trudeau Libs said that they would only use those figures from now on so as to not "confuse" Canadians) called for 9 B$ Canadian.
> 
> In term of cost, I'd call that a pretty even crap shoot.



No, that's incorrect. The pure acquisitions' price (recurring flyaway) of the F-35 is actually $6.5 billion dollars. The 2.5 billion on top of that is milcon, project management, initial set up, spares ect. That 7 billion figure for F/A-18Es is the rough equivalent to the 6.0 billion. That's the way its been for the past six years, as puck chaser pointed out. 

This has never been about the F-35's cost, or its availability: its purely about politics.


----------



## cavalryman

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> This has never been about the F-35's cost, or its availability: its purely about politics.



Jean Chretien pulled the same crap with the EH101 a generation  ago.  This kind of short sighted imbecility  must be part of the liberal genetic makeup.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good question:



> Replacing the CF-18: What's the plan, Mr. Sajjan?
> The government seems to be backing away from an 'interim' fleet. So what does it want?
> 
> Just a few weeks ago, the Canadian government seemed poised to acquire a number of interim Super Hornet aircraft to offset a purported imminent “capability gap”, owing to its aging fleet of CF-18 aircraft.
> 
> News of this possible plan arose in the midst of public consultations for the government’s Defence Policy Review (DPR), raising more than a few eyebrows. Also noted was the Trudeau government’s less-than-clear stance on whether it ultimately would proceed with an interim fighter, although it certainly seemed ready to prepare the groundwork: Trudeau refused to repeat his promise for an open competition and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was increasingly vocal about problems with the CF-18 fleet.
> 
> The idea of an interim or “bridging” fleet proved controversial. Commentators — ourselves included — were quick to question whether we were really facing so pressing a capability gap given the previous government’s plan to extend the service life of the CF-18 fleet by several years. Another concern was the extent to which acquiring interim aircraft could result in the creation of an expensive mixed fleet...
> 
> at the recent DPR roundtable with defence industry representatives, Minister Sajjan seemed to take a step back from this possibility. His comments at this meeting were, admittedly, highly generalized. But a careful parsing of his words indicates a possible retreat from the notion of an interim fleet — which would be a highly prudent thing to do.
> 
> First, Sajjan admits there will be an upgrade to allow “some” CF-18s to continue operating until 2025. This is an important admission. The previous government had plans for a life extension upgrade to keep the planes flying – a possibility the current government seemed to have largely ignored thus far in favour of an interim fleet. Moreover, these upgrades promise to extend the timeline on when a capability gap will arise until early in the next decade.
> open quote 761b1bBy proceeding with renewed industry consultations, it looks like the government is simply repeating what its predecessor did in 2012.
> 
> Sajjan also says only “some” CF-18s will be operational by 2025. This still leaves open the possibility that the entire fleet will benefit from a life-extension upgrade. As noted in the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat’s Report, the option of extending the CF-18 service life to 2025 would mean that the first plane would retire by 2021 and the last by 2025.
> 
> Second, the defence minister still acknowledges a current capability gap. As he notes, only half of the fleet of 77 CF-18s are available— which isn’t sufficient for NATO and NORAD commitments. This situation promises only to get worse, even with the planned upgrade...
> 
> Lastly, Defence Minister Sajjan raised the prospect of aerospace industry consultations over the summer, in which he’ll seek “up to date information from leading manufacturers” on key issues. So it would not be surprising to see the government undertake a new Statement of Requirements (SOR) on the fighter aircraft replacement in the months ahead.
> 
> But by proceeding with renewed industry consultations, it looks like the government is simply repeating what its predecessor did in 2012 — when it “reset” the F-35 decision by undertaking renewed industry consultations and an options analysis that compared different capability and cost criteria for a number of aircraft, while putting together an independent panel of experts to look into these issues, with their conclusions proving favourable to the F-35.
> 
> The government needs to be clear on how these forthcoming consultations will be distinct from the previous one, and whether it still intends to proceed with an open competition...
> 
> _Dr. David McDonough is research manager and senior editor at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDA Institute), and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University. Tony Battista is the chief executive officer of the CDA and CDA Institute. Views expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the CDA Institute. _
> https://ipolitics.ca/2016/07/11/replacing-the-cf-18-whats-the-plan-mr-sajjan/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note JPO angle on Lockheed subcontracting at end:



> Fighter Makers Cast Wary, Or Optimistic, Eye On Canada
> Long-postponed fighter choice has key manufacturers on edge
> ...
> No matter what fighter aircraft is selected, Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan wants any deal to include local jobs for skilled laborers as well as high-end technology.
> 
> Jeff Babione, Lockheed’s F-35 vice president and general manager, says he is confident the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will trounce any rival, as it recently did in Denmark. However, if Canada opts for a stopgap Super Hornet buy, he does not see the country’s industrial participation continuing at today’s level.
> 
> Fifteen years after Lockheed was selected to develop the F-35, Canada has not put money down for a single airplane, although it remains a bill-paying member of the JSF program writ large. But in light of the possibility of the country exiting from the program, Lockheed is actively looking at how long it would take another supplier to assume the F-35 work now performed in Canada, Babione says.
> 
> “There is a time line where we might have to take a look and say, ‘someone else could do that work,’” tapping in a partner that actually is buying airplanes, Babione said at the Royal International Air Tattoo in the U.K., where the F-35 made its international debut.
> 
> Lockheed notes on its F-35 website that Canadian firms have already secured more than $750 million in contracts related to the F-35 program across 200 projects, which is “more than double Canada’s current investment in the F-35 program.”
> 
> Lockheed President/CEO Marillyn Hewson says losing 65 orders would not substantially affect the price, and industry remains committed to driving down the F-35A unit cost to $85 million by 2019.
> 
> Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Vice President Orlando Carvalho tells Aviation Week his team is in the process of answering a questionnaire Canada provided to all the potential bidders. He says his company will coordinate with the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) on any workshare adjustments, should Canada decide to abandon ship.
> 
> Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall says it is up to the prime contractor Lockheed, and not the F-35 JPO, to figure out how the workshare will be divided if Ottawa exits.
> 
> “We will have to deal with that as the situation arises,” he says. “I think there would be a pretty strong reaction among the rest of the partners to continuing to provide workshare to a country that’s not participating in buying aircraft.”
> 
> The Pentagon has no standard process in place to deal with one partner withdrawing from the program, but future contracts with Canadian industry would likely be up in the air, Kendall says. “I don’t think we would stop any existing work that’s in place; we’re not going to cancel any contracts as far as I’m concerned that are ongoing,” he says...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/fighter-makers-cast-wary-or-optimistic-eye-canada



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## childs56

My understanding is originally Canada had no intent to buy the the F35, but we wanted in on the possibility to buy if the need was there. Canada also wanted in on the R&D, Our Allies wanted us in on the R&D. 
If they were to cancel any and all work in Canada towards the F35, Lockheed would be even further behind on their project for delivery. Because the R&D done by Canadian companies is not specifically for the F35 but more so it is towards future fighters. As such the stoppage of work would result in Lockheed having to pretty much start from scratch at a new factory for the specific capability and equipment. 

It would be interesting to see how Lockheed figures that they can Hold us or any other country to a intent to purchase if they really have not provided a solid date of delivery many years past their promise. 
In the end Canada may loose a few jobs over it, but in the end Lockheed will need Canada for its manufacturing and R&D to continue with future projects. 

Right now we need to replace and supplement what we currently have to fill the gaps that will be coming up in the near future not only with operations but also with training. If that means a few new F18s then so be it. 
The intent to purchase X amount of F35 should not change if we actually intended to do so, even if we buy another 20-40 different platforms. We need Fast Air, we need it now now another 5-15 years from now. 

Buy off the shelf for the next 10 years projection of use. Then buy the F35 or the next next next Gen fighter.


----------



## Good2Golf

CTD, very interesting point you raise about how LMCO would go about REPLACING production of some key components.  Would be interesting to follow the trail of IP on the various sub-systems that were developed to spec by Canadian aerospace industries...

Methinks it's not a clear-cut, "screw you, you're out, Canada!"


----------



## YZT580

If Canada were to order the F35 now for delivery when available would there really be any significant difference in delivery time between them and new Hornets?  After all neither a/c is available off the lot but must be scheduled and assembled.  I grant you that there would be a greater training period required for the F35 but with operational approval pending would buying hornets gain anything other than allowing Trudeau to make good on a really dumb election promise?


----------



## childs56

My understanding is that the Super Hornet is still in low rate production being delivered to the US. If we were to sign a contract with in six months maybe less we could be seeing our first jet. It would depend on the US and their order at the time. If you want a Jet built and delivered within a short time frame you need to order them now. 
Realistically we would not see any sizable amount of F35s until 2020 at the earliest. I think that to is very optimistic as Canada was not a major buyer of this platform. There are many others ahead of the build list.


----------



## Good2Golf

One never knows. 

When the Harper government floated the trial balloon of getting four LRIP aircraft as a training nexus, to trade them back in after a few years when the high-rate production block ran, it seemed like JPO and LMCO were all over the deal.  The Liberals were some of the loudest objectors to the plan, and thus it quietly died on the vine...

Funny how even right back to 2002 when Alan Williams noted, as the Government of Canada signatory to the JSF MOU, how JSF was all about Canadian aerospace industry involvement and not about actually getting the aircraft for the military, his rose-coloured glasses failed to appreciate the nuance of the phasing of expectations as the program proceeded - not sure how a highly-experience mandarin could possibly have thought (or believed) that Canada's decision to proceed or not with procuring the F-35 would in no way affect Canadian industry's likelihood of receiving follow-on contracts once things started to get rolling. ???

I think, years down the road, we'll 'on-board' the JSF program, but that Trudeau's combination of Chretien-like hubris (Zip - Zero - Nada!) and Martin's perceived (or earned) ability of dithering, will earn Canadian aerospace industry the "also ran" award, a pat on the head, and significantly less money to industry than those nations that accepted and climbed on, spurs jangling, for the 8-second bull ride on the JSF rodeo.  Canada will have shown itself to be a great self-congratulatory cheering section in the stands, then try to get on the bull only after the JSF cowboys have wrestled the bull back into its stall and let the crowd come up and pat the bull once it's tied up.

I would have love to have been a fly on the wall back in November when the new government was getting its transition briefs and the table went quiet during the JSF brief when they realized that the F-35 was indeed the best plane and would be not only the cheapest for its life-cycle (for it is the next mass-produced F-16) but most capable when it's still flying in 2050-2060...

:2c:

G2G


----------



## HB_Pencil

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CTD, very interesting point you raise about how LMCO would go about REPLACING production of some key components.  Would be interesting to follow the trail of IP on the various sub-systems that were developed to spec by Canadian aerospace industries...
> 
> Methinks it's not a clear-cut, "screw you, you're out, Canada!"



Certainly it is not clear cut... in some ways its not as bad, in some ways its much, much worse (a bit like brexit, perhaps due to the complexity of both). Canada getting punted will create an increase in the costs to the partners: it will be akin to a Diminishing Manufacturing Sources cost to a US government program and will probably be handled in somewhat a similar way. So there will be a lag while the JPO qualifies new suppliers and get them up to speed, where Canadian manufacturers continue producing components despite not being a part of the program. The program itself owns the IP for the component themselves, and for most parts I believe the IP for the manufacturing process usually, but not always, is owned by the supplier (don't quote me on that, but I'm fairly sure that's the breakdown). A lot of them will face economic hardship: they made investments into manufacturing processes and amortized the cost over a long period... and that will go away.

Perhaps the greater cost will be the damage to our reputation, specifically on multinational programs of this type (and maybe the damage is already done). We spend among the lowest in NATO and the Pacific allies, and our political commitment to foreign relations seems iffy at times. Now with a decision to reject the F-35 on completely illogical grounds, it will make countries question whether Canada will be a reliable partner for any future multinational program. 

Edit: forgot my last point. I think this uncertainty is also the reason why LM and the other partners basically has said that an interim purchase is tantamount to getting ejected from the program. Five years ago the conservative government said that they were going to have a reset on the process (which everybody banked on the F-35 winning), and the outcome was that we would get Super Hornet as an interim purchase. What guarantee do they have now that after the Interim purchase we would get anything at all? None. An even cursory examination of Canada's history on multinational programs would inspire no confidence in them anyways.


----------



## HB_Pencil

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If Canada were to order the F35 now for delivery when available would there really be any significant difference in delivery time between them and new Hornets?  After all neither a/c is available off the lot but must be scheduled and assembled.  I grant you that there would be a greater training period required for the F35 but with operational approval pending would buying hornets gain anything other than allowing Trudeau to make good on a really dumb election promise?



Actually, no. the F-35 is just as fast (and very likely faster) to be acquired and delivered to Canada than the F/A-18E, and its certainly quicker to train. 

A very quick overview on aircraft manufacturing process in the United States: through the budgeting cycle and production it takes over two years from a contract signature, long lead items production, then actual production. But even before you arrive at that point, for a Foreign Military Sales' acquisition (which is what the F/A-18E would be), you need to go through the DCMA process, and there is no guarantees you're going to get a fast approval. Kuwait has been waiting for over a year to get an approval on their Super Hornet Purchase, and the White house can block this.... and given their stated displeasure on this file, I wouldn't be very hopeful for a quick resolution. I'd bank on three years at a minimum. That also means that we will be the sole remaining customer for the aircraft, which increases costs. 

For the F-35, the bureaucratic aspects of acquisition is non-existent because of the MOU, which basically means we bypass the FMS process procure them at our pleasure. So we can have our aircraft within two years. One other point: The size of the production scale also allows us to trade slots from other countries. That means if we purchase the F-35 now and want our first aircraft delivered in a year, we could get them. That doesn't exist for the Super Hornet, as the items are purchased at need with little wiggle room.

Then there is the training side. The F/A-18E would be a disaster for the RCAF: I'm sure some of you can tell us just how tight the manning situation is within the RCAF right now. With the F/A-18E we'd be introducing a second type of aircraft and an entire pipeline to our sustainment system, and create untold havoc. Due to the rapidity required for us to get in on Super Hornet production before it closes, there probably won't be enough time to ramp up the number of personnel available to manage a transition to two fleets. We certainly wouldn't be making any commitment to operations, and probably be unable to meet our most basic NORAD/NATO commitments, which was the entire point of this exercise. 

The F-35 has a ready made training facility and approach ready to go in Luke AFB: if we wanted to get up and running, we just start sending the first wave of air crews down right now, and start the process. There would be a disruption to our operational tempo, but it would be much more manageable than the other alternative. 

From whatever angle you look at this, this is a disaster. This is 100% politics being played here, 0% actual logic. There isn't "another side," rather its just a game being played by the Liberal party of Canada, with the lives and capability of the armed forces.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> Funny how even right back to 2002 when Alan Williams noted, as the Government of Canada signatory to the JSF MOU, how JSF was all about Canadian aerospace industry involvement and not about actually getting the aircraft for the military, his rose-coloured glasses failed to appreciate the nuance of the phasing of expectations as the program proceeded - not sure how a highly-experience mandarin could possibly have thought (or believed) that Canada's decision to proceed or not with procuring the F-35 would in no way affect Canadian industry's likelihood of receiving follow-on contracts once things started to get rolling. ???
> 
> ...




So, he just wanted to tickle her fancy, not actually get her knocked up?


----------



## AlexanderM

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> A lot of them will face economic hardship: they made investments into manufacturing processes and amortized the cost over a long period... and that will go away.


Possible grounds for legal action against Canadian government?


----------



## childs56

Interesting how it is assumed that the length of time to purchase and take delivery of the Super Hornet would be longer then it would for the F35. Considering a few aspects of that assumption. 
Other countries are willing to or able to trade up their spots, they all have budget and operational requirements as we do.
	
	




		Code:
	

[pre]

[/pre]
training the F35 is quicker because they already have a unit set up.  every other partner in the program has members training also, where do we fit into the mix?
the Super Hornet is already established and already has a training facility set up out of Miramar not hard to get Pilots and ground crew there for training.
Boeing has already stated they could be rolling airframes off the line for Canada within 6 months or sooner of a contract signed. (they are in low level production)
Kuwaits wait on the Super Hornet has more to do with poiltics then it does with actual ability to deliver. Canada is not on the same level.

Introducing the Super Hornet I think is a good idea. First off when a major flight incident happens a whole fleet can be grounded resulting in a lack of ability during the investigation. (during a war they may still fly but depends on the reason). Run two platforms. 
Eventually the CF18s will be retired. So we will be operating two fleets of fighters at that time, not three. It would be nice if Canada could increase its fighter numbers above 100 jets, especially if we are going to be deploying 6 to Europe, 6 to Africa and then 6 to the Middle east. Plus our NORAD commitments, along with training and manning the Squadrons at home. For every deployed airframe you need at least two in reserve for various levels of work performed maintained.
The Super Hornet is a very capable platform, even though it is not the newest of the new. 
Maybe Canada is saving itself for a Gen 6 or 7 platform. The update to the F35.  

The Super Hornet production will be going for a few more year to come.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rumour at Farnborough apparently has it that the Interim Super Hornet programme is on the back burner and the Canadians are casting around for information on what new fighters might be available to fill the capability gap - a capability gap that will be presumably clarified after the new Statement of Requirement is issued.  

In the meantime - a word of warning from the Director of Saab back in May of this year:



> LINKOPING, Sweden — The defense industry would struggle to meet customer demands in Europe if spending takes off in the face of pressure from the US for other NATO member states to take a fair share of the spending burden and meet the organization's spending commitment target, according to Saab president and CEO Hakan Buskhe.



And in the same article reminders of other warnings that could be exercising minds in Ottawa.



> Leading US presidential rivals Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both signaled the US could scale back its commitments to NATO if allies don’t step up to the plate and meet the alliance's 2 percent spending target.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Rumour at Farnborough apparently has it that the Interim Super Hornet programme is on the back burner and the Canadians are casting around for information on what new fighters might be available to fill the capability gap - a capability gap that will be presumably clarified after the new Statement of Requirement is issued.
> 
> In the meantime - a word of warning from the Director of Saab back in May of this year:
> 
> And in the same article reminders of other warnings that could be exercising minds in Ottawa.


doubling the defense budget? Oh happy day.

In reality the alliance members would probably look at trump or hillary and say have a nice trip.

Scale back contributions? Not much of a threat. 

Expulsion? That's another kettle of fish.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Poland Plans To Spend $21B on Drones, Helos, Air Defense, Subs



http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/07/20/poland-plans-spending-21-billion-helos-air-defense-systems-submarines-uavs/87341052/

It all depends on motivation.


----------



## a_majoor

Sigh.

It is too bad that Gerald Butts and his cadre have no interest or understanding of defense, and only see us as election props for an never ending campaign. Proposed "Peacekeeping missions", no coherent policy for the Navy, batting made up figures around as to why/why not purchase this or that fighter...

This Decade of Darkness looks to be a lot darker than the last one.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> It is too bad that Gerald Butts and his cadre have no interest or understanding of defense, and only see us as election props for an never ending campaign. Proposed "Peacekeeping missions", no coherent policy for the Navy, batting made up figures around as to why/why not purchase this or that fighter...
> 
> This Decade of Darkness looks to be a lot darker than the last one.



 I know that you hate he Liberals but it's hard to lay the F-35 fiasco at the feet of this government. The Conservatives had 9 years (and a majority for 4 of those) to buy the aircraft and take the decision out of the Liberals hands. They folded to political pressure which the Liberals dont seem to worry about in sole sourcing an aircraft. They also forced onto us the whole "Canada First Defence Policy" which was a jumbled attempt at a military policy (without a coherent policy for the navy, or air force, or army). While the Liberals certainly have their issues on the defence portfolio, lying the F35 at their feet is wrong.


----------



## Altair

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I know that you hate he Liberals but it's hard to lay the F-35 fiasco at the feet of this government. The Conservatives had 9 years (and a majority for 4 of those) to buy the aircraft and take the decision out of the Liberals hands. They folded to political pressure which the Liberals dont seem to worry about in sole sourcing an aircraft. They also forced onto us the whole "Canada First Defence Policy" which was a jumbled attempt at a military policy (without a coherent policy for the navy, or air force, or army). While the Liberals certainly have their issues on the defence portfolio, lying the F35 at their feet is wrong.


Yup. If they had wanted to get the F35 they could have just done so. They played political hot potato with the file, let it gather dust, and hoped to deal with it after the election. Well, it's getting dealt with.

And it's not like the conservatives left the forces with overflowing coffers. Spending dipped to 0.098 percent of GDP by the end of conservative rule, and actually got raised to a heady 0.099 percent under PMJT. 

Both parties starve the forces, the conservatives just do more photo ops with them while pretending to care.


----------



## PuckChaser

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> They folded to political pressure which the Liberals dont seem to worry about in sole sourcing an aircraft.



Whoa now. The Liberals haven't bought a damn thing yet, only leaked intentions to the media to see how it would play out.

Lets see if they actually buy anything in the next 3 years. Remember, they're going to put the savings from F35 into the Navy. So that $85M USD Super Hornet, $150M USD Eurofighter, $120M USD Rafale, $120M USD Gripen and $90M USD F35 are going to buy us more ships.... oh wait, unless they don't buy anything, there's no money for "extra" Naval spending.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Whoa now. The Liberals haven't bought a damn thing yet, only leaked intentions to the media to see how it would play out.
> 
> Lets see if they actually buy anything in the next 3 years. Remember, they're going to put the savings from F35 into the Navy. So that $85M USD Super Hornet, $150M USD Eurofighter, $120M USD Rafale, $120M USD Gripen and $90M USD F35 are going to buy us more ships.... oh wait, unless they don't buy anything, there's no money for "extra" Naval spending.



You're correct, they haven't. So, in 9 months they've achieved the same results that the Conservatives did in 9 years. 

You may also note that I was pointing out that blaming the Liberals for the F35/Fighter Jet fiasco was misguided rather than endorsing their defence position. That said, the CPC could have purchased a new aircraft and new ships but didn't out of political expediency. Saying the CPC is military friendly is disingenuous at best. 

If in 3.25 years we still have no aircraft or no contract to purchase (even if not the F35) than you guys can criticize.


----------



## PuckChaser

Liberals could have signed a contract when they put us in the F-35 program years ago. Didn't. Could have pushed along the CSC/JSS replacements, didn't. The world wasn't created in 2006 when Stephen Harper was elected. A lot of the problems we have now are because of shortsighted defense budgets and planning in the 1990s.

$#%@ing the CAF over on equipment procurement is a multi-party issue. No one gets away scot-free, and no one is worse than the other.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Liberals could have signed a contract when they put us in the F-35 program years ago. Didn't. Could have pushed along the CSC/JSS replacements, didn't. The world wasn't created in 2006 when Stephen Harper was elected. A lot of the problems we have now are because of shortsighted defense budgets and planning in the 1990s.
> 
> $#%@ing the CAF over on equipment procurement is a multi-party issue. No one gets away scot-free, and no one is worse than the other.



Sure. But by the same logic we could go back and blame the Conservatives for getting rid of the Chinooks in 1992. Heck, lets go all the way back to the Ross Rifle and the MacAdam Shield-Shovel. 

The point, of course, is that we shouldn't view parties by the past since the only evidence we really have is what is before us now. The Conservative party of the 2000's isn't the same as the one that Old Sam Hughes hoodwinked in 1914. The CPC had a chance to improve things and didn't. Can't blame the Liberals for that. I'll give the Liberals a chance to make good on their intent to replace the CF-18s.


----------



## PuckChaser

The link is easier today when you have the 1990s Liberals shilling for the current ones. Doesn't endear those who lived through that gongshow to think they've changed. The same reasoning could hurt Jason Kenney in Alberta after Harper endorsed him, but that's for a topic we're not allowed to have anymore.


----------



## QV

You can blame all past governments for the state of the CAF today, but it will do no good.  The current government however now owns it.  From the weak tripwire force going to Latvia, blue hats in Africa, dithering on procurement, and continued sub standard defence spending - it's the government of the day that owns it and right now that is the Libs.  I don't get a warm feeling about any of those files, every one of them will be half assed.


----------



## Altair

QV said:
			
		

> You can blame all past governments for the state of the CAF today, but it will do no good.  The current government however now owns it.  From the weak tripwire force going to Latvia, blue hats in Africa, dithering on procurement, and continued sub standard defence spending - it's the government of the day that owns it and right now that is the Libs.  I don't get a warm feeling about any of those files, every one of them will be half assed.


sure the current guys own it. But nobody should make it sound like the previous guys did any better.


----------



## McG

QV said:
			
		

> I don't get a warm feeling about any of those files, every one of them will be half assed.


So go use the defence review as a conduit to pass your thoughts to the government, and let's get this thread back on topic.  It is not a surrogate for the locked politics thread.


----------



## AlexanderM

This is an article on the F-16 Viper which has the "scalable agile beam radar" similar to the F-22. I've also read that this system could be made available in other aircraft like the Super Hornet, should that be the final choice. In my opinion the Liberals are still squirming, looking for a way out of the F-35 without getting sued or being hit with a NFTA claim worth billions, so I'm thinking the f-35 isn't dead until the new jets are ordered, but if we do get the SH then get the most advanced radar.

http://www.defensetech.org/2015/10/23/new-f-16v-viper-makes-first-flight/

The F-16V includes an APG-83 active electronically scanned array scalable agile beam radar made by Northrop Grumman Corp. The company also makes so-called active electronically scanned array radars for the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The new radar steers beams electronically — without moving parts — and redirects them from one location to another, according to the Government Accountability Office. Unlike a passive version, the radar spreads signals over multiple radio frequencies, making them difficult to detect and jam, and allowing the aircraft employing the technology to remain stealthy.


----------



## SupersonicMax

A radar in itself isn't worth much if it isn't integrated properly with all the other sensors in the aircraft.  If we buy SH then we need to go with what the US Navy has:  The APG-79.  Anything different would be a nightmare in integration, as we have learned the hard way with some of our upgrades.


----------



## Journeyman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> In my opinion the Liberals are still squirming, looking for a way out of the F-35 without getting sued or being hit with a NFTA claim worth billions....


 
Wow, it's been _almost_  two whole weeks since you dragged out the same tired, old line.  You must have been on vacation.




> Quote from: AlexanderM on July 15, 2016, 11:12:36
> Possible grounds for legal action against Canadian government?
> 
> Quote from: AlexanderM on June 08, 2016, 20:10:43
> Look, we aren't buying all F-35's, JT won't allow it, yet if they walk away from the F-35 they could get hit with legal action or a trade board ruling costing Canada billions.
> 
> Quote from: AlexanderM on June 09, 2016, 19:33:21
> ....if we walk away from the F35 we may face legal action or a trade board ruling that could cost Canada billions  ....
> 
> Quote from: AlexanderM on June 27, 2016, 20:18:00
> TransCanada files $15 billion NFTA claim over Keystone, turns the tables a bit considering LM could do the same to us over the F-35  ....
> 
> Quote from: AlexanderM on July 06, 2016, 19:30:36
> Not sure that will save them from legal action by LM or a NFTA claim worth billions.
> 
> Quote from: AlexanderM on July 09, 2016, 13:02:56
> ....we could end up losing all the F-35 contracts and get hit with a NFTA claim ruling or legal action that could cost Canada billions.



We get it.  Honest.     :stars:


----------



## Altair

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wow, it's been _almost_  two whole weeks since you dragged out the same tired, old line.  You must have been on vacation.
> 
> 
> We get it.  Honest.     :stars:


Would LM still sue the Canadian goverment if we bought the 16V?


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Would LM still sue the Canadian goverment if we bought the 16V?



Production line is set to close end of next year without new orders. We won't have a SOR made by then. Cost for 8 F-16 block 52 models is also $700M USD, or $87.5M USD an aircraft. Hardly a discount from any other airframe.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-long-running-f-16-line-in-fort-worth-goin-423293/


----------



## AlexanderM

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wow, it's been _almost_  two whole weeks since you dragged out the same tired, old line.  You must have been on vacation.
> 
> 
> We get it.  Honest.     :stars:


It's all about holding onto hope for the F-35.


----------



## PuckChaser

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> It's all about holding onto hope for the F-35.



Hope is not a valid COA.


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hope is not a valid COA.


And if the Liberals can't squirm out of the F-35 without consequences they may not have any other valid course of action, as the political consequences would be huge. As far as I'm concerned this is not over until we order jets that are not F-35's, which has not yet occurred. It's a political mess that requires a political solution.


----------



## dapaterson

Simple solution?  Restrict the RCAF fighters to NORAD.  Voila.  F35's advantages (once functional) become less critical.  Plus you'll need fewer aircraft, and can refocus the RCAF on air mobility, tactical aviation and maritime patrol.  In many parts of the world (Canada included), more transport and ISR would be tremendous assets.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Simple solution?  Restrict the RCAF fighters to NORAD.  Voila.  F35's advantages (once functional) become less critical.



You mean advantages like BVR engagement of threats and ability to engage before being detected? Yep, sure sound like those wouldn't be critically important trying to defend airspace against bombers with fighter support....


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Simple solution?  Restrict the RCAF fighters to NORAD.  Voila.  F35's advantages (once functional) become less critical.  Plus you'll need fewer aircraft, and can refocus the RCAF on air mobility, tactical aviation and maritime patrol.  In many parts of the world (Canada included), more transport and ISR would be tremendous assets.



That would be extremely shortsighted.  You can't plan for today's threat and theater.  You need to project into the future what your potential threat and operating environment may be.

Essentially nixing the fighter force would remove a capability that cannot be regained without a significant investment (a lot more than you would save) if you wanted to re-activate some of its mission sets.


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Essentially nixing the fighter force would remove a capability that cannot be regained without a significant investment (a lot more than you would save) if you wanted to re-activate some of its mission sets.



Like integral infantry mortar platoons, assault pioneers, GBAD, SPGs, but with extra 0s at the end of the price tag. We have an amazing history of short-sighted procurements.


----------



## SupersonicMax

It would be akin to saying "we'll train and equip the Army for the NEO role only".  It's not shortsighted as in a bad decision.  It's shortsighted as in the security of our Country and oir ability to project any force quickly would dissapear.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Like integral infantry mortar platoons, assault pioneers, GBAD, SPGs, but with extra 0s at the end of the price tag. We have an amazing history of short-sighted procurements.



Off topic, but since we maintained officer and Bdr-WO training active for AD and maintained the ASCC capability we only need to buy a new system and train the lower level ranks to fire them, so the costs of reintegrating GBAD are relatively low to what they would have been had we just completely nixed the AD. Self propelled guns are largely the same... once dets are trained to operate them, the remainder of the artillery system works relatively the same. So the costs are replacing them are relatively similar to what they would have been had we bought a new system right off the bat....


----------



## jmt18325

According to the Toronto Star, all 5 major fighter manufactures have responded to Canada's call for information.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> According to the Toronto Star, all 5 major fighter manufactures have responded to Canada's call for information.



Lockheed
Boeing
Eurofighter?
Dassault?
Saab?


----------



## PuckChaser

Yep, that was them.


----------



## PuckChaser

Here's an article on that questionnaire, including the questions themselves: 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/business-equipment/industry-consultation-questionnaire.pdf (the link on the Toronto Star page is broken, I fixed it here)



> Five aerospace companies battle to replace Canada's CF-18s
> Five aerospace companies respond to Ottawa's call for info, offering their fighter jets as potential replacement for aging CF-18s.
> 
> By Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau
> Sat., July 30, 2016
> 
> OTTAWA—Five aerospace companies are offering their fighter jets as potential replacement for Canada’s fleet of aging CF-18s, including Lockheed Martin’s F-35, the very jet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged not to buy.
> 
> The federal government had set Friday as the deadline for potential suppliers to respond to a detailed questionnaire outlining the costs and capabilities of their jets, as well as benefits that would flow to Canadian companies.
> 
> The defence department said Saturday that five companies responded: Boeing Company, Dassault Aviation, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab Group.
> 
> “Government officials are now reviewing and analyzing information received to date to inform the way forward over the coming months,” a department spokesperson told the Star in an email.
> 
> A Boeing executive said his company is offering its F/A-18 Super Hornet as a “great fit” for Canada, saying the purchase and operating costs for its jet rank as among the lowest of its competitors
> 
> “With respect to capability, cost . . . we’ve really put a good offer on the table,” Jim Barnes, a Canadian development executive for Boeing Defense, Space and Security, said Friday.
> 
> Despite Lockheed Martin’s sales pitch that its F-35 is a more advanced and newer design, Barnes said the Boeing jet easily meets the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> “I would argue that all capability you need is in the Super Hornet,” he said in an interview.
> 
> Lockheed Martin confirmed that its F-35 is also in the mix.
> 
> The F-35 has been dogged by controversy but company officials said the program has turned a corner, noting that the U.S. Air Force expects this year to declare the jet as “operational,” an important milestone that means the F-35 is ready to undertake missions.
> 
> The questionnaire demanded extensive details from the manufacturers. For example, it asked them to detail the cost of new weapons if the current stockpile of ammunition, missiles and bombs for the CF-18s is incompatible with their aircraft.
> 
> It also asked the jet makers to outline potential missions, notably in Canada’s north, flying from places such as Inuvik and Iqaluit.
> 
> The companies were also required to outline how they should share economic benefits with Canadian businesses.
> 
> Defence analyst Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said the aerospace firms were given a very narrow window to respond to a complex request, suggesting the government is in a hurry to find a fix for the aging fighters.
> 
> “It was a crazy request in a crazy time frame . . . It’s a lot of stuff to ask for pretty quickly,” he said in an interview.



More in article here: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/30/five-aerospace-companies-battle-to-replace-canadas-cf-18s.html


----------



## Kirkhill

> Suppliers are to assume the aircraft are purchased by Canada and not leased.



From the questionnaire -

Here's an interesting one.

In the same way that I discovered that people engaged in bestiality and sodomy from the bible I am left wondering if the government may also be considering leasing.  Why else do you need to forbid something.  You don't forbid things that aren't possible.

With the F35 there is some justification for just leasing the aircraft, probably more so than with any other platform we have acquired previously.  That is due to the nature of the software licensing, as I understand it.  If we can't modify the software ourselves, and are only allowed to employ the aircraft on missions that are approved by the US, then why not just lease the aircraft.  In fact, why not go one step further, why not just supply Canadian pilots for a US supplied squadrons for NATO and NORAD missions and have the Americans supply the infrastructure to maintain the capability.   We could make a token cash contribution and maybe get some Canadian flyers some sea time as well.

In point of fact any agreement that we enter into is likely to be backstopped by US infrastructure and limited by US restrictions.  

By the way, I still don't see a reason for employing any of the European options on lease or purchase.  While we might reduce the restrictions we would increase the domestic infrastructure requirement.


----------



## Journeyman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Five aerospace companies battle to replace Canada's CF-18s



 WARNING:  Sheer madness follows

Imagine.....if you can, just _imagine,_  if we had a clearly-articulated foreign affairs and security policy.... in which we'd nest an actual Defence White Paper....that would rationally inform such a competition.     :stars:





> It also asked the jet makers to outline potential missions, notably in Canada’s north, flying from places such as Inuvik and Iqaluit.


 I thought this was worded particularly poorly -- to the point of "WTF?" -- before I looked at the actual questionnaire, to see they're looking at capabilities within different configurations, and not "tell us what missions we should be conducting in the north."   _~whew~_


----------



## GR66

I don't claim any expertise in the deep, dark hidden meanings and biases written into procurement requirements but this bit in the section on interoperability seemed very interesting to me:



> a. State how your aircraft is seamlessly interoperable
> with the following US Air Force assets including
> Air Refuelling assets
> a. F-15C, F-16C, F22A, KC-135
> b. Is your aircraft’s datalink system currently
> compatible with the following US Air Force fighter
> aircraft:
> a. F-15C, F-16C, F-22A



I know that technically the F-35 hasn't yet achieved IOC (but from what I've read here it is imminent) and it is some time off before it achieves FOC but since the F-35 will be the primary fighter of the USAF going forward does it not seem strange that interoperability with it is not even mentioned in the document?  Wouldn't that actually be a key requirement in properly fulfilling the NORAD role for any new RCAF fighter?


----------



## Journeyman

GR66 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that actually be a key requirement in properly fulfilling the NORAD role for any new RCAF fighter?


Freudian slip.  

They already know a "CF-35" would be interoperable with an F-35.  _Clearly_  the decision has already been made, and you just pointed out the leak.   


[Great.   Civic holiday, so I can't buy more stock in tinfoil    ]


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

GR66 said:
			
		

> I don't claim any expertise in the deep, dark hidden meanings and biases written into procurement requirements but this bit in the section on interoperability seemed very interesting to me:
> 
> I know that technically the F-35 hasn't yet achieved IOC (but from what I've read here it is imminent) and it is some time off before it achieves FOC but since the F-35 will be the primary fighter of the USAF going forward does it not seem strange that interoperability with it is not even mentioned in the document?  Wouldn't that actually be a key requirement in properly fulfilling the NORAD role for any new RCAF fighter?



Interoperability is largely achieved through having the proper TDL data links. As most aircraft currently use Link 16 (and possibly Link 22 in the future as the replacement for Link 11) the aircraft must be equipped with a MIDS (Multifunctional Information Distribution System) radio in order to tie into the Integrated Air Defence System (IADS), which includes Air-based, Ground Based, and sea-based air defence systems). To some extent, you could attach a MIDS to a WW1 era bi-plane and it would be interoperable.

Other interoperability factors such as proper connections for A2A refuelling, etc can be better explained by fighter types...


----------



## GR66

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Interoperability is largely achieved through having the proper TDL data links. As most aircraft currently use Link 16 (and possibly Link 22 in the future as the replacement for Link 11) the aircraft must be equipped with a MIDS (Multifunctional Information Distribution System) radio in order to tie into the Integrated Air Defence System (IADS), which includes Air-based, Ground Based, and sea-based air defence systems). To some extent, you could attach a MIDS to a WW1 era bi-plane and it would be interoperable.
> 
> Other interoperability factors such as proper connections for A2A refuelling, etc can be better explained by fighter types...



If interoperability is all about the data links then why mention specific aircraft that you're required to be interoperable with at all (the document specifically cites F-15C, F-16C and F-22A).  If you are going to mention specific aircraft than it just seems a little strange to NOT mention the aircraft that will be the primary fighter aircraft of the USAF for decades to come.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

GR66 said:
			
		

> If interoperability is all about the data links then why mention specific aircraft that you're required to be interoperable with at all (the document specifically cites F-15C, F-16C and F-22A).  If you are going to mention specific aircraft than it just seems a little strange to NOT mention the aircraft that will be the primary fighter aircraft of the USAF for decades to come.



There are technical aspects to interoperability as well, such as the hook ups for A2A refuelling but I would assume that all US built aircraft have similar technical standards for such things.

As for why the F35 isn't mentioned? Beats me... the whole NATO fleet should be interoperable in terms of datalinks so in theory they should have listed every single NATO fighter type... though in terms of being in an IADS or maintaining SA the datalink interoperability is the critical technical factor. Perhaps they just wanted to avoid any mention of the F35?


----------



## SupersonicMax

The F-15C, F-22 and F-16C are NORAD fighters.  The KC-135 is one of the NORAD tankers.   That's why those are mentionned and not the F-35s or any other NATO fighters.


----------



## GR66

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The F-15C, F-22 and F-16C are NORAD fighters.  The KC-135 is one of the NORAD tankers.   That's why those are mentionned and not the F-35s or any other NATO fighters.



Thanks for the clarification.  Is the F-35 not planned to replace any of the above mentioned fighters in the NORAD role?  If not, is there a reason that the F-35 is not being planned for use in that role by the USAF?


----------



## MarkOttawa

USAF F-35As will be with NORAD in Alaska--our fighters will work with them:



> 1) Eielson selected to receive operational F-35A aircraft
> http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/712879/eielson-selected-to-receive-operational-f-35a-aircraft.aspx





> 2) Keeping Hornets’ eyes on target
> 
> Royal Canadian air force (RCAF) Cpl. Yannick Deschesnes, 425th Tactical Fighter Squadron, polishes a visor for a CF-18 Hornet pilot’s helmet at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, May 7, 2015, during RED FLAG-Alaska 15-2. Deschesnes is an aircrew flight equipment technician, but also holds four other maintenance positions within the RCAF. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Shawn Nickel/Released)
> http://www.eielson.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/1819/Article/642402/keeping-hornets-eyes-on-target.aspx



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Harrigan

I am not going to jump into this F35 vs the rest debate.

However, surely we can all agree on one thing: All five aircraft on offer would provide the RCAF with an upgrade on its current fighter force.  We can at least take solace in the fact that no matter what aircraft is chosen, it will be an upgrade.

There are other issues which I am more interesting in hearing answers to, but they tend to get lost amongst the noise of "F-35 is awesome because....." and "F-35 sucks because...." ad nauseum.

1. Purchase cost is a small part of the overall price tag - what about operating costs?  Surely that is a far more important figure in the big picture.  

2. AAR - What would the cost be to get new tankers to support the new fighter if the new fighter requires a different system than our current mix of Airbus/Herc?  Surely that calculation must be added into the mix?  They are not unrelated.

3. Are our northern FOLs compatible with the new fighters?  What is the cost to upgrade these sites, including runway extensions if required?  Again, that is not an unrelated cost - it must be factored into the decision.

4. What industrial offsets will the five companies offer?  LM has been very vocal about the 'potential' economic benefits of buying their offering, but as far as I know they are not guaranteeing any industrial offsets - only the opportunity to bid for contracts. (and I am certain someone on here will swiftly correct me if this is incorrect)  The other four would no doubt have to offer guaranteed industrial offsets to counter the greater potential value of the LM programme.  It will be interesting to see what they offer, and what Canadian companies become involved.

5.  Intellectual property.  We know that Canada won't 'get the codes' on the F-35.  What about for the other four aircraft?

6.  Should we go for the bare minimum number of aircraft, or buy something less capable but more numerous?  Many of us on here know exactly what that minimum is, and why.  But should we start already at the bare minimum required at the beginning of an aircraft's service life?

7. What do we intend to use them for?  If NORAD plus the occasional sixpack vs a relatively benign threat, then probably anything will do.  If we need a first night door-kicker, then maybe only a couple of options.

I have not seen definitive answers to any of these questions.  I have seen a lot of "Company X estimates...", and "expected" and plenty of glossy brochures and promises from all five companies, but one has to take all of the PR with a grain of salt.  They are trying to sell us something.

But at the end of the day, we'll buy a new fighter that will be a step forward from where we are now.  And unlike some of the doomsayers out there (on all sides), no matter what aircraft we choose, we will join other like-minded NATO/Allied nations in fielding a primary fighter that will be in service for at least the next 25-30 years:

F-35 - US + many others
Eurofighter - UK, Germany, Spain, Italy
Rafale - France
Gripen - Czechs, Hungary, Sweden
Super Hornet - USN, Australia

No matter what is chosen, we won't be alone.

Harrigan


----------



## PuckChaser

Harrigan said:
			
		

> 2. AAR - What would the cost be to get new tankers to support the new fighter if the new fighter requires a different system than our current mix of Airbus/Herc?  Surely that calculation must be added into the mix?  They are not unrelated.



I think that's the biggest issue with the F-35A, its boom-fueled by default. Only the B and C models are equipped with probe and drogue system. Definitely either added cost to have them modified on the assembly line, or even larger cost to purchase 2 new refuellers.


----------



## Loachman

Which we will have to replace soon anyway, or tap into US/other tankers.

Question for Max: How frequently do we need to use our tankers? Is this a capability that we need continually given our limited supply of fighters?


----------



## SupersonicMax

The CC-130 and CC-150 tankers are, from my understanding, coming to end of life.  Maybe it's time to buy KC-46s?  Flexible AAR capabilities (Boom and Drogue) and thr ability to deploy our maintainers and some equipment along with the jets.


----------



## SupersonicMax

We use them a fair bit to transit places, on Operations.  It is, IMO, a capability we need to keep.  We can't rely on contractors (Omega) or the US to deploy us.


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The CC-130 and CC-150 tankers are, from my understanding, coming to end of life.  Maybe it's time to buy KC-46s?  Flexible AAR capabilities (Boom and Drogue) and thr ability to deploy our maintainers and some equipment along with the jets.



Is there a project already started from what you're aware to do options analysis for replacement? If not, we'd likely be 10 years into new aircraft before a replacement started being delivered.


----------



## Jarnhamar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think that's the biggest issue with the F-35A, its boom-fueled by default.


I'd say the biggest issue with the F35 is Facebook  ;D


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think that's the biggest issue with the F-35A, its boom-fueled by default. Only the B and C models are equipped with probe and drogue system. Definitely either added cost to have them modified on the assembly line, or even larger cost to purchase 2 new refuellers.



Well we have 6-7 refuelers now, so we're going to need more than 2.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is there a project already started from what you're aware to do options analysis for replacement? If not, we'd likely be 10 years into new aircraft before a replacement started being delivered.



There are two parallel peojects going on.

1 involves a life extension of the CC-150 needed after 2026, and the other involves a whole new aircraft in around the same time frame.  Requirements for the new aircraft, if they go that way, are stated to be awaiting the outcome of the fighter decision.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Well we have 6-7 refuelers now, so we're going to need more than 2.



I am not sure how much we use the Hercs, though, or if at all aside from training.

Max?


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am not sure how much we use the Hercs, though, or if at all aside from training.
> 
> Max?



I have no information on that either.  I believe we used them over Libya in 2011, and that they're at RIMPAC right now.  I say 6-7 because I'm not sure if the aircraft that caught fire while on exercise in Florida ever reentered service.

For proper coverage, we'd need 5 - 7, I would think.  6 would give us one available all the time at each base.  I'd also propose moving 3 of them to be closer to the fighters in the west.  5 would probably be the bare minimum to operate all the time, and 7 would give us the ability to deploy one without losing capability at home.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Harrigan said:
			
		

> But at the end of the day, we'll buy a new fighter that will be a step forward from where we are now.  And unlike some of the doomsayers out there (on all sides), no matter what aircraft we choose, we will join other like-minded NATO/Allied nations in fielding a primary fighter that will be in service for at least the next 25-30 years:
> 
> F-35 - US + many others
> Eurofighter - UK, Germany, Spain, Italy
> Rafale - France
> Gripen - Czechs, Hungary, Sweden
> Super Hornet - USN, Australia
> 
> No matter what is chosen, we won't be alone.
> 
> Harrigan



Why not list all the F35 operators though?

I'll do it for you

USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, RN, Italian Navy, Italian Air Force, Australia, Israel, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Japan, Korea.

Who else is considering it?

Belgium
Finland
Greece
Poland
Romania
Spain

and some others are interested, namely:

Saudi Arabia
Taiwan
UAE



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I have no information on that either.  I believe we used them over Libya in 2011, and that they're at RIMPAC right now.  I say 6-7 because I'm not sure if the aircraft that caught fire while on exercise in Florida ever reentered service.
> 
> For proper coverage, we'd need 5 - 7, I would think.  6 would give us one available all the time at each base.  I'd also propose moving 3 of them to be closer to the fighters in the west.  5 would probably be the bare minimum to operate all the time, and 7 would give us the ability to deploy one without losing capability at home.



Spoken like someone who has no clue how our refuellers are actually used  :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Spoken like someone who has no clue how our refuellers are actually used  :



And someone who forgot about that little OP IMPACT thing that's been going on for...almost 2 years now.  Keeping 1 tanker deployed on a sustained op has to be included in the mix because it takes at least 1 tail, plus crews and techs out of the 'other stuff that's going on' loop.  It also eats up lots of fuel, YFR and time between 2nd and/or 3rd line maint.


----------



## jmt18325

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Spoken like someone who has no clue how our refuellers are actually used  :



Spoken like someone who sees a shortfall in our current capability.  But enlighten me, rather than just making condescending statements.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And someone who forgot about that little OP IMPACT thing that's been going on for...almost 2 years now.



How does anything that I said say that I forgot we've had one tanker deployed since 2014?  That only underscores that we need more of them.  Australia is going to have what, 9, with a similar fighter force.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Spoken like someone who sees a shortfall in our current capability.  But enlighten me, rather than just making condescending statements.



The primary purpose of the CC150 tankers is to support the planes on expeditionary operations, not NORAD, Dom Ops, etc... 

Does it make sense to use aircraft based in Trenton to refuel fighter aircraft launching from Bagotville or Cold Lake?  Especially when the primary direction of travel for said fighter aircraft on NORAD operations is usually OUT not IN.

The H Model Hercs are primarily used for SAR with tactical refuelling being a secondary duty.  Lets not even mention that Hercs are slower than Molasses in comparison to a CF18, not exactly what you want when dealing with a situation that requires QUICK REACTION.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> How does anything that I said say that I forgot we've had one tanker deployed since 2014?  That only underscores that we need more of them.  Australia is going to have what, 9, with a similar fighter force.





			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I have no information on that either.  I believe we used them over Libya in 2011, and that they're at RIMPAC right now.  I say 6-7 because I'm not sure if the aircraft that caught fire while on exercise in Florida ever reentered service.
> 
> For proper coverage, we'd need 5 - 7, I would think.  6 would give us one available all the time at each base.  I'd also propose moving 3 of them to be closer to the fighters in the west.  5 would probably be the bare minimum to operate all the time, and 7 would give us the ability to deploy one without losing capability at home.



6-7 tankers total wouldn't likely every = 6 or 7 tankers available for the PLYPRO at any (most) times.  Not sure what your background is, but a fleet is never at 100% serviceability for ops.   :2c:


----------



## jmt18325

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Does it make sense to use aircraft based in Trenton to refuel fighter aircraft launching from Bagotville or Cold Lake?  Especially when the primary direction of travel for said fighter aircraft on NORAD operations is usually OUT not IN.



I wish people would actually read what I say and respond to that.  I said part of the plan would be to move the AAR aircraft to the bases with the fighters, so that they'd be closer.  They could then be used for training, deployments, and transit.  Fighters that need to stay on scene of a NORAD deployment longer could do so without having to return to an FOB to refuel.



> The H Model Hercs are primarily used for SAR with tactical refuelling being a secondary duty.  Lets not even mention that Hercs are slower than Molasses in comparison to a CF18, not exactly what you want when dealing with a situation that requires QUICK REACTION.



Which is why they aren't all that useful in such a situation.  They're fine for deployments and training though.  Something like the A330 MRTT, much more so.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 6-7 tankers total wouldn't likely every = 6 or 7 tankers available for the PLYPRO at any (most) times.  Not sure what your background is, but a fleet is never at 100% serviceability for ops.   :2c:



6 - 7 tankers would mean that you'd have 2 available all the time (sometimes more, but fleet logistics generally means you need a 3 to 1 and sometimes a 4 to 1 ratio), while still having one available to send elsewhere to contribute.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 6-7 tankers total wouldn't likely every = 6 or 7 tankers available for the PLYPRO at any (most) times.  Not sure what your background is, but a fleet is never at 100% serviceability for ops.   :2c:



It's definitely nothing related to Trigonometry or Time & Space. 



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I wish people would actually read what I say and respond to that.  I said part of the plan would be to move the AAR aircraft to the bases with the fighters, so that they'd be closer.  They could then be used for training, deployments, and transit.  Fighters that need to stay on scene of a NORAD deployment longer could do so without having to return to an FOB to refuel.
> 
> Which is why they aren't all that useful in such a situation.  They're fine for deployments and training though.  Something like the A330 MRTT, much more so.



I read what you said, it makes no sense and ignores simple math i.e. speed, distance and time.  

Co-locating refuellers with the fighters you say?  Do you expect fighter aircraft to slow down and wait for the refuellers to catch up or do you plan on having refuellers doing big circles around the Arctic circle for all hours of the day?  I think you need to go back to the drawing board, the logistics of your plan need a rework.


----------



## jmt18325

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Co-locating refuellers with the fighters you say?  Do you expect fighter aircraft to slow down and wait for the refuellers to catch up or do you plan on having refuellers doing big circles around the Arctic circle for all hours of the day?  I think you need to go back to the drawing board, the logistics of your plan need a rework.



I'm not sure why this is difficult.  They leave at the same time.  The fighter of course gets there first.  The AAR asset stays back within range of the fighter, acting as an airborne FOB, negating the need to land for fuel.  This is how they are used in places like Impact.  This is why Australia needs 9.  I'm not just dreaming this up.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why this is difficult.  They leave at the same time.  The fighter of course gets there first.  The AAR asset stays back within range of the fighter, acting as an airborne FOB, negating the need to land for fuel.  This is how they are used in places like Impact.  This is why Australia needs 9.  I'm not just dreaming this up.



That works well when you're doing on station bombing.  When doing an interception, not so much.  

What would make more sense would be to base refuellers in the North so they can meet the fighter aircraft as they arrive up North.  An interception of the interceptors.  

You're significantly underappreciating the size of the Canadian NORAD region.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I wish people would actually read what I say and respond to that.  I said part of the plan would be to move the AAR aircraft to the bases with the fighters, so that they'd be closer.  They could then be used for training, deployments, and transit.  Fighters that need to stay on scene of a NORAD deployment longer could do so without having to return to an FOB to refuel.



While it sounds good in theory, the problem is that we don't have dedicated AAR aircraft; its a secondary role not their primary role (SAR, transport, etc). The RCAF doesn't have enough aircraft that they can be permanently stationed at Cold Lake and Bagotville when they are required somewhere else.

Secondly, I'm not sure about Bagotville, but when I was in Cold Lake pretty much all of the training was done locally, so there is no need in having a AAR asset sitting on the tarmac doing nothing. Mind you, Cold Lake has the CLAWR right next door, so the situation in Bagotville might be different. 

Finally, dispersing your AAR aircraft around the country creates logistical problems as it adds another link in your re-supply chain. For example, a Herc in Bagotville breaks down, you have to fly the part (and possibly the repair crew)in from somewhere else. If it breaks down at its homebase, you walk down the flight line and get the part.


----------



## jmt18325

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What would make more sense would be to base refuellers in the North so they can meet the fighter aircraft as they arrive up North.  An interception of the interceptors.



That only works if you're sure that every intercept will have to be in that direction.  That wouldn't do much to cover the coasts.


----------



## jmt18325

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> While it sounds good in theory, the problem is that we don't have dedicated AAR aircraft; its a secondary role not their primary role (SAR, transport, etc). The RCAF doesn't have enough aircraft that they can be permanently stationed at Cold Lake and Bagotville when they are required somewhere else.



And it's one area I'd be happy to spend more money so that could be the case.



> Secondly, I'm not sure about Bagotville, but when I was in Cold Lake pretty much all of the training was done locally, so there is no need in having a AAR asset sitting on the tarmac doing nothing. Mind you, Cold Lake has the CLAWR right next door, so the situation in Bagotville might be different.



And maybe that's the case.  Maybe it's not as needed as I think after all.



> Finally, dispersing your AAR aircraft around the country creates logistical problems as it adds another link in your re-supply chain. For example, a Herc in Bagotville breaks down, you have to fly the part (and possibly the repair crew)in from somewhere else. If it breaks down at its homebase, you walk down the flight line and get the part.



That's always a problem.  That's why I don't advocate for any more than a splitting.  Of course that's probably all fantasy.

Sorry for the off topic.


----------



## Harrigan

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Why not list all the F35 operators though?



Surely "..plus many others..." isn't going to confuse anyone.  We all know that there are plenty of buyers out there for the F35.

However, listing off countries that are "thinking about" buying an aircraft is subjective, not relevant, and defeats the point of the list, which is to show that no matter what aircraft we buy, there will be other NATO/Allied countries flying it.  We won't be buying an orphan.

Harrigan


----------



## YZT580

It may not be an orphan but it will definitely be a grandfather and no, combat aircraft are not like vintage wines, maturing with age, they become the major feature at airshows but that is the only purpose they serve.  All aircraft listed are capable of effective operations over the next decade so if we are just trying to bridge a gap in availability almost any of them will suffice.  It is an expensive solution but understandable.  But we don't need to fill a gap as our current aircraft are sufficient for our needs until the mid-20's.  

We are looking for a replacement aircraft to operate until at least 2050 and, unless I am totally mistaken there is only one aircraft available at the moment and that is the F35.  We can't afford an interim fleet.  Perhaps the U.S. will allow us to purchase a six pack of  mothballed F18's and bring them back up to standards if a short-term solution is needed.


----------



## a_majoor

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> While it sounds good in theory, the problem is that we don't have dedicated AAR aircraft; its a secondary role not their primary role (SAR, transport, etc). The RCAF doesn't have enough aircraft that they can be permanently stationed at Cold Lake and Bagotville when they are required somewhere else.
> 
> Secondly, I'm not sure about Bagotville, but when I was in Cold Lake pretty much all of the training was done locally, so there is no need in having a AAR asset sitting on the tarmac doing nothing. Mind you, Cold Lake has the CLAWR right next door, so the situation in Bagotville might be different.
> 
> Finally, dispersing your AAR aircraft around the country creates logistical problems as it adds another link in your re-supply chain. For example, a Herc in Bagotville breaks down, you have to fly the part (and possibly the repair crew)in from somewhere else. If it breaks down at its homebase, you walk down the flight line and get the part.



While there is a lot to be said for that argument, the real issue in Canada is the sheer distance between places. We actually need far more aircraft simply to ensure that they will arrive on station in a timely manner rather than after an eight hour ferry flight. Fighter aircraft, by their very nature, are short legged, so they need support in the form of tankers and so on to reasonably close by.

Of course we are now talking about issues that should be discussed in a proper defense review and articulated in a white paper, but since the current government seems to have already situated the estimate, we may have to wait into the 2020's to have that discussion.


----------



## Loachman

Fuel stops are handy times to eat and stretch one's legs. I never, ever, envied fighter pilots' ability to refuel mid-flight. Never. Not once. Even a teensy-weensy bit.

There's the old story of fighters refuelling from a tanker, doing rolls and other show-offy stuff while waiting their turn. After a while, the tanker pilot asked them if they wanted to see something really impressive. They said "Sure", and politely backed off to give the big, lumbering beast some room. After ten minutes had elapsed while the tanker just droned on, straight and level, the tanker pilot said "Well? What did you think of that?" "You didn't do anything", one of the fighter pilots complained. "Oh, yes, I did", said the tanker pilot. "I got up, walked to the back of the plane, had a leak, got a cup of nice, hot coffee and a delicious sandwich, chatted with a couple of my guys, and just sat back down again".


----------



## MarkOttawa

YZT580:



> We are looking for a replacement aircraft to operate until at least 2050 and, unless I am totally mistaken there is only one aircraft available at the moment and that is the F35.



Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen E will all be flying into 2040s.  After that, given tech evolution (revolution?) I would think bets on what sort of airframes are needed for current fighter missions should be off.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> YZT580:
> 
> Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen E will all be flying into 2040s.  After that, given tech evolution (revolution?) I would think bets on what sort of airframes are needed for current fighter missions should be off.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



So, as referred to earlier in this thread, with the USN replacing the Super Hornet with the F/A-XX in the mid-30s, who will be still operating the SH, and how many will be left, across which the burden of continued in-service support will be borne?  ???


----------



## DonaldMcL

I'm in awe that this is still an argument.

Why, if given the opportunity, would you not want the latest and greatest for the same price as something old.

Super Hornets were a great option, 15 years ago. There's zero reason to buy something virtually outdated at this point and sink hundreds of millions more to upgrade it in a few years to keep up with "emerging technological advances" in the future. 

"But but but Canada doesn't need stealth technology." Maybe, maybe not, I wouldn't have thought we'd be flying combat missions over Libya, Syria and Iraq either. The stealth "option" comes at virtually no cost. Think of it as buying a new vehicle. Most come with power windows/locks now-a-days... do you NEED it? No, of course not. But if it costs little to nothing you're not going to turn it down.

Also, the supply system isn't awesome in Canada. There's something to be said for having the ability to walk across the tarmac and getting a part for your aircraft while in theatre, vice trying to find that part scattered somewhere across the world by one of the few countries still operating it. Doesn't really happen? The Aurora fleet would disagree.


----------



## Harrigan

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Why, if given the opportunity, would you not want the latest and greatest for the same price as something old.



I agree wholeheartedly, except I am quite certain that in this particular case, we don't have that opportunity. 

Most of the discussion on this site (and elsewhere) focuses exclusively on the purchase price as the cost of the aircraft, as though that is the only measure of cost comparison.  It isn't - by a long shot.  There are MANY other costs associated with this purchase that must be factored in to assess the overall cost or benefit of an option.  Operating costs are many, many more times more than purchase costs, but we hear very little discussion of them.  Costs to rebuild our FOL's to suit the new aircraft.  Costs to replace the AAR fleet if required to tank the new aircraft.  Existing base infrastructure may not suit the new aircraft.  All of these costs matter.  It is simply not a question of whether an aircraft is $85M now or $110M now or whatever.  If that was the case, then I agree that there is hardly a discussion - with all things being equal, one buys the newest and greatest.  

Except that all things aren't equal.  Which is why the same questionnaire was sent out to all five companies.

Plus, there is little point in pining for the government to buy an aircraft solely on the basis of operational performance.  We all wish it were so, but why waste our time?  We know that industrial benefits are just as important (or more important, by far, for some governments).  Yet we never see discussion on the relative merits of the 5 x companies industrial benefits policies.

Harrigan


----------



## Journeyman

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Yet we never see discussion on the relative merits of the 5 x companies industrial benefits policies.


The questionnaire sent out to the five companies included a specific series of Industrial Benefit questions (7 specific sub-topics); it's not remotely being ignored.

Cynically, a more relevant question would be "Has the Evil HarperTM ever dealt with your company previously?  'Yes' = exclusion from bidding"  >


----------



## MarkOttawa

F-35C for RCAF (cf. naval Hornet?



> A friend familiar with defence matters observes:
> 
> “I think we need a bit of humility to this discussion. Not everyone in the Norwegian, Danish, British, Israeli etc. air forces are fools and some of these are well respected for the depth of their technical competence. Understandably, many in the CAF find the fighter ‘debate’ in Canada extraordinarily frustrating, even if they are not close to the project, for the simple reason that the public discussion is incredibly idiotic and the politicians are no better. As has been the case in almost every similar procurement, except those done under pressure of war.
> 
> My own sense is that the F-35A has shortcomings in the RCAF context: aerial refueling is by the boom system which the RCAF does not have and the A model doesn’t have an adequate tail hook for use with the arrestor system at the far northern FOLs which is used much of the year, given the marginal length of the runways and the cost of fixing bent aircraft if they over-run. The USN F-35C has neither limitation but would be considerably more expensive.
> 
> I do not believe that the single engine should be a factor for NORAD missions up north but the internal capacity for weapons in stealth mode may be–pylons will no doubt be added for tanks and weapons but that will reduce the low observable quality.
> 
> Range on internal fuel seems no worse than the competition.
> 
> Perhaps it would be most responsible to argue for:
> – the C model
> – at least 80 aircraft.
> 
> Yes, this would cost more but we can afford it with a small increase of the budget to historic averages decade by decade.
> 
> As for the quality of the national conversation on defence, DND has to shoulder some responsibility for cancelling its academic support program.”
> 
> Money, money, money rather than public logical analysis based on knowledge in this country.
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/mark-collins-new-rcaf-fighter-debate-on-f-35-vs-rest-esp-super-hornet/comment-page-1/#comment-18125



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So, as referred to earlier in this thread, with the USN replacing the Super Hornet with the F/A-XX in the mid-30s, who will be still operating the SH, and how many will be left, across which the burden of continued in-service support will be borne?  ???



The US Navy will be operating it as their first line fighter until 2035 and operating it until almost 2050.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The US Navy will be operating it as their first line fighter until 2035 and operating it until almost 2050.



SH would be perfect for our aircraft carriers then. Oh wait....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SH would be perfect for our aircraft carriers then. Oh wait....



They can land on ground too... you do realize the CF-18 is a naval aircraft as well, right?


----------



## PuckChaser

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> They can land on ground too... you do realize the CF-18 is a naval aircraft as well, right?



Google didn't get me that far. CF-18 is a variant of the A-6 Intruder, right?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Google didn't get me that far. CF-18 is a variant of the A-6 Intruder, right?



 : The point was that it's irrelevant if we have aircraft carriers or not.


----------



## PuckChaser

Carrier-based aircraft are hardened for the rigors of carrier launches/landings. Why do we need an aircraft like that? More cost for little operational gain.

Need probe/drogue AAR capability and a hook? Ask Lockmart. Israel heavily modified their F-35 models and are starting to get the first ones now. A hook and a probe where the parts already exist on a variant seem easy.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Carrier-based aircraft are hardened for the rigors of carrier launches/landings. Why do we need an aircraft like that? More cost for little operational gain.
> 
> Need probe/drogue AAR capability and a hook? Ask Lockmart. Israel heavily modified their F-35 models and are starting to get the first ones now. A hook and a probe where the parts already exist on a variant seem easy.



True, carrier based aircraft are hardened for life on a carrier but can also be used off of one based on the variant. The F35C, for example, is designed to be flown off of a carrier. To be honest, I have come around to the F35 and think it's the best option available for Canada as it would allow us, with limited resources, to have more operational impact and "punch above our weight". The F35 has all kinds of advantages over the SH, but the fact that the SH is a naval aircraft is not one of them.


----------



## Harrigan

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The questionnaire sent out to the five companies included a specific series of Industrial Benefit questions (7 specific sub-topics); it's not remotely being ignored.



I didn't mean that it is being ignored at the Government level (they would never ignore industrial benefits), but it is rarely being discussed on this site.  Apologies if that wasn't clear in my previous post.

Harrigan


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 6 - 7 tankers would mean that you'd have 2 available all the time (sometimes more, but fleet logistics generally means you need a 3 to 1 and sometimes a 4 to 1 ratio), while still having one available to send elsewhere to contribute.



Serious questions.  

1.  are you in the military?
2.  if so, are you in the air force?


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Serious questions.
> 
> 1.  are you in the military?
> 2.  if so, are you in the air force?



Do I need to be in the air force to participate in a discussion forum?  Is everyone that comments here in the air force?  Does being in the air force necessarily mean that you'd know anything about fleet logistics?  Does being outside the air force mean that you don't know anything about fleet logistics?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Don't get your knickers in a knot and go all  :tempertantrum: over a simple question.

It answers the question of HANDS ON EXPERIENCE vice "theories and good ideas looking from the outside in".  Pilots and ACSOs, AERE Officers, etc have a better understanding of the things you are talking about, as do the flying NCM trades.  Based on experience.   I find most people who answer that question the way you did have zero experience...and don't want to say it.  I'll take your posts with that level of credibility, as establishing experience levels is a retarded request apparently.


----------



## Kirkhill

JMT:

Check my profile and ask yourself how I have survived as long as I have on this site.  And that is including a number of dust-ups with EITS and a bunch of others.  I was never anything more than a weekend warrior and an interested civilian observer.

I asked a bunch of stupid questions and have offered a bunch of stupid suggestions.  

But I enjoy the learning experience.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Check my profile and ask yourself how I have survived as long as I have on this site.  And that is including a number of dust-ups with EITS and a bunch of others.  I was never anything more than a weekend warrior and an interested civilian observer.



And I've never claimed to be anything else.  I can only get information the same way that you can - from online or print sources, or from things that people tell me.  I don't generally feel though that, for example, a police officer is best place to decide on things like police tactics or what equipment is necessary.  

That's not meant to insult anyone.  It's simply a recognition that we're all people posting on an internet forum.  

In this particular case, I do know that if you want to have 1 of something available all the time (99% of the time, anyway) you need 3 of them.  I also know that Australia, with a not much larger fighter force, feels they need 9 of them.  They have a similar sized area of operation (actually smaller).  In this case, I have to wonder why there is such a discrepancy.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Don't get your knickers in a knot and go all  :tempertantrum: over a simple question.



The question is irrelevant.  The answer though, is no, and I've never made the a secret.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In this particular case, I do know that if you want to have 1 of something available all the time (99% of the time, anyway) you need 3 of them.  I also know that Australia, with a not much larger fighter force, feels they need 9 of them.  They have a similar sized area of operation (actually smaller).  In this case, I have to wonder why there is such a discrepancy.



"know" ?   ???

So you know the availability, serviceability and dispatch rates for RCAF AAR assets? Interesting.


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> "know" ?   ???
> 
> So you know the availability, serviceability and dispatch rates for RCAF AAR assets? Interesting.



That's a general rule for any platform of anything.  It's always going to vary, of course, but as a general rule, to have one of something available 99% of the time, you need to have three of them.

For example, many people lament that we're only getting 2 JSS platforms.  That means a general 70% availability, rather than a 99% continuous ability.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's a general rule for any platform of anything.  It's always going to vary, of course, but as a general rule, to have one of something available 99% of the time, you need to have three of them.
> 
> For example, many people lament that we're only getting 2 JSS platforms.  That means a general 70% availability, rather than a 99% continuous ability.



So airlines have three times more planes than fly every day to support their 99%+ dispatch rate?  ???


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ... I don't generally feel though that, for example, a police officer is best place to decide on things like police tactics or what equipment is necessary.
> ...



I hope you can clarify your thinking on that one - because, frankly, unless you have considerable undeclared medical expertise, I would not be wanting you to be equipping any operating theatre I might have occasion to visit.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Thirty-six RCAF fighters for NORAD, no fixed NATO commitment (new government porkie?):



> No fighter jet requirement for NATO: report
> 
> Canada is not required to provide a certain number of fighter jets to NATO, says a Defence Department report that's raising fresh questions about the Liberal government's rush to buy a new warplane.
> 
> The report, published in June 2014 by the research arm of National Defence, says that while Canada supports NATO and contributes aircraft and other military assets when possible, "there is no hard minimum requirement for the NATO commitment."
> 
> That means the only actual requirement Canada must meet in terms of providing fighter jets is its obligation to defend North America along with the U.S.
> 
> The government has repeatedly stated in recent months that the military does not have enough CF-18s to both defend North America and fulfil its obligations to NATO. It says that is why a new plane is needed sooner rather than later.
> 
> But neither the government nor the Defence Department have said how many jets Canada actually needs, saying that to reveal the numbers would jeopardize national security...
> 
> The Defence Research and Development Canada report suggests that a maximum of 36 aircraft are required to be operational at any time to help defend North America, and that "anything beyond this number is in excess of the current requirement."
> 
> Those planes don't all have to be on high alert waiting for an attack, the report says. Some can be involved in training or NATO operations, and would be called back if required.
> 
> Canada currently has 77 CF-18s, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said only about half of them are operational at any given time. The report confirms those numbers, but also says the military can make do with 65 fighter jets.
> 
> Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said the report may not shoot down the government's arguments for rushing to replace the CF-18s, "but it certainly points out the fact that a lot of this is very ill-defined."..
> http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6795095-no-fighter-jet-requirement-for-nato-report/



You don't say.  

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I hope you can clarify your thinking on that one - because, frankly, unless you have considerable undeclared medical expertise, I would not be wanting you to be equipping any operating theatre I might have occasion to visit.



Chris

Why would you need medical expertise to equip an operating theatre? Nice to have? Maybe? That seems like a management decision to me, one that does not preclude field expertise but shouldn't necessitate it. 

As far as JMT's numbers he's really just repeating what's been accepted on this forum for many other platforms. Why would it be different for AAR?



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So airlines have three times more planes than fly every day to support their 99%+ dispatch rate?  ???



I'm pretty sure they don't, and I've never maintained a fleet profile based on the rule of three. I've just assumed the operational/performance requirements of military platforms were dictating fleet numbers, but maybe it's just the result of spending someone else's money


----------



## Quirky

Sajjan said:
			
		

> Canada currently has 77 CF-18s, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said only about half of them are operational at any given time.



 :rofl: :rofl: Maybe on a good week.


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So airlines have three times more planes than fly every day to support their 99%+ dispatch rate?  ???



Airlines don't have to have their planes available 24 hours a day.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I hope you can clarify your thinking on that one - because, frankly, unless you have considerable undeclared medical expertise, I would not be wanting you to be equipping any operating theatre I might have occasion to visit.



I wouldn't want a general practitioner deciding that either.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Airlines don't have to have their planes available 24 hours a day.



???

For all their scheduled flights, they certainly do, especially international carriers.

I would love to see some reference explaining this rule-of-three that you are referring to...the "back-up to the back-up to the asset" one is employing.

Mind you, perhaps I should explain to my wife why I should get two more cars, especially if my boss says he wants me at work with 99%. reliability.


----------



## CBH99

While your at it, I think you need to explain to your wife why you need 2 more wives also.  

The back-up, and then the back-up to the back-up.  

 :bowing:


----------



## Journeyman

CBH99 said:
			
		

> While your at it, I think you need to explain to your wife why you need 2 more wives also.


Careful what you wish for.  I vaguely recall an old Star Trek episode where Harry Mudd ended up with multiple harpy wives.   :crybaby:


----------



## PuckChaser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Careful what you wish for.  I vaguely recall an old Star Trek episode where Harry Mudd ended up with multiple harpy wives.   :crybaby:


Or if it backfires, and your wife demands 2 more husbands so she has 99% "up time".


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect to the need for an appropriate knowledge base on which to make decisions ....

I am familiar with  young MBAs advising companies on best practices with never a day in the woods behind them.

I am familiar with government inspectors and industry QA/QC types similarly handicapped.  Likewise for young engineers.

I am familiar with the consequences of the problems associated with all of those unfortunate individuals.

For my money I would much sooner engage somebody that had worked in the environment for which they are to be held accountable, gained experience in the tasks, capabilities and requirements of the field, and then learned how to effectively manage and administer.

But that is just me.

I know that it is an uncommon position amongst many administrators.


----------



## suffolkowner

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> With respect to the need for an appropriate knowledge base on which to make decisions ....
> 
> I am familiar with  young MBAs advising companies on best practices with never a day in the woods behind them.
> 
> I am familiar with government inspectors and industry QA/QC types similarly handicapped.  Likewise for young engineers.
> 
> I am familiar with the consequences of the problems associated with all of those unfortunate individuals.
> 
> For my money I would much sooner engage somebody that had worked in the environment for which they are to be held accountable, gained experience in the tasks, capabilities and requirements of the field, and then learned how to effectively manage and administer.
> 
> But that is just me.
> 
> I know that it is an uncommon position amongst many administrators.



I'm familiar with all that as well and don't disagree with what you've said. I just haven't found the opposite to be true either.


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> For all their scheduled flights, they certainly do, especially international carriers.
> 
> I would love to see some reference explaining this rule-of-three that you are referring to...the "back-up to the back-up to the asset" one is employing.
> 
> Mind you, perhaps I should explain to my wife why I should get two more cars, especially if my boss says he wants me at work with 99%. reliability.



rule of 3 or 4ths, I understood to be fairly common militarily. Thus our requirement for 15 CSC even though not all 15 will be deployed or "working" at the same time or Afghanistan where obviously more troops were involved than those in country. With the F-35 simulator time is expected to greatly reduce the need for that extra third or fourth


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am going to jump to JMT's defence. I do not agree that you need to have a fighter, aviation, or even a military background to effectively contribute to this debate. In that sense, his military (or lack of) experience are of no interest to me.

I think what you do need to possess is an open mind, and a willingness to admit that you have reached the limits of your knowledge.

Sorry for the tangent.


----------



## CBH99

Sorry for the tangent?  Pretty polite post.

Man, if that's what you consider a tangent....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Sorry for the tangent?  Pretty polite post.
> 
> Man, if that's what you consider a tangent....



I am having an off day...


----------



## jmt18325

Thanks.  Generally, when I reach the limits of what I know or think to be true, I just stop talking.  Like I keep saying, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Didn't offend me.


----------



## Kirkhill

If lack of knowledge were a pre-condition for debating on this site, I would have been chucked years ago.

Nevermind.  You know what I meant.


----------



## Good2Golf

One should not confuse assets required to support a force in being, a force generation capability and requisite depth for rotational deep maintenance and other reconstitution as a standing requirement for "3 of everything."  Sometimes force structures have something that requires 2, 3, 4 even 5 or more times of something (that includes people, not just equipment) than one might see operationally committed to an activity.  The only way to determine actual numbers of a particular weapon system is to devolve the maximum commitment into a composition of elements that support the associated Concept of Operations and Concept of Support.  If someone (GoC) said CAF/RCAF fighter force need only provide a NORAD force and that is a maximum op force of two 2-plane interception detachments in the North (example only) then one conducts the Estimate based on the mission analysis and associated factors and deduces a certain force structure that includes FOL and MOB requirements and a fleet size flows from that.  In assessments such as that, one will find that a "%" dispatch rate is actually a factor that figures little in the calculus, or at least does not deduce into what some might see as a linear or at least proportional scaling to required fleet size.  An operational capability for something like the aforementioned double 2-pack (4 aircraft) might actually drive something 'like' a small fleet of 24 to 30 aircraft.  That's 6 or 7 times, not 3.  

I was not trying to be immediately dismissive, jmt, of your 3:1 ratio out of hand, but rather to point out that one must determine what is required from a logicical, deductive method that follows the process driven by: Policy > Plans > Capability > Requirements > Specifications > System Design > Acquisition > Implementation > In-service support > Modification/Update as required > Initiation of replacement system acquisition > Disposal. 

The important take-away in this is that the front-end of this process seems...well...undefined/unspecified by Government at the moment.  Perhaps as Defence Policy Review comes to completion, the process will be allowed to run its course and we'll see if we need 65, or 80, or 24-30, of however many fighter aircraft we need and go from there?

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## suffolkowner

I think the NORAD requirement is 36 fighters, which is how we arrive at a fleet 65.


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think the NORAD requirement is 36 fighters, which is how we arrive at a fleet 65.



The requirement of 65 is necessary to maintain 48 aircraft in combat squadrons.  That doesn't mean that all 48 are ready at any one time.  It leaked a few years ago that it was more like 34.

I also note that the 36 aircraft requirement has nothing on them being available all the time.  If we take the rule of 3s, it seems we're expected to have 12 available all the time.


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I was not trying to be immediately dismissive, jmt, of your 3:1 ratio out of hand, but rather to point out that one must determine what is required from a logicical, deductive method that follows the process driven by: Policy > Plans > Capability > Requirements > Specifications > System Design > Acquisition > Implementation > In-service support > Modification/Update as required > Initiation of replacement system acquisition > Disposal.
> 
> The important take-away in this is that the front-end of this process seems...well...undefined/unspecified by Government at the moment.  Perhaps as Defence Policy Review comes to completion, the process will be allowed to run its course and we'll see if we need 65, or 80, or 24-30, of however many fighter aircraft we need and go from there?



I was simply of the belief that we should be using tanker support more in a way that would better allow our air force to protect Canada in an emergency.  I don't know if that would work though, so I'm actually fine with it if we don't need 5 - 7.


----------



## NavyShooter

I think the question I'm pondering (I had this discussion with my brother last night) is, what capabilities do we need our aircraft to have?

Obviously we are required to contribute to the NORAD mission.

What other missions are we involved in, and what aircraft would be suitable?

If we were to get any of the previously listed (Rafale, Grippen, F-35, etc) aircraft, any of them would be capable of meeting the NORAD mission needs.

The next question is, what sort of aircraft would we need for deployed missions?

Are they operating in a permissive (air superiority attained) or non-permissive (enemy has capable air defences)?

If it's the latter case, then the we need an aircraft that is highly survivable in the face of enemy air defences, and the best option there is probably the low observable F-35.  

If we are working in a permissive environment and it's basically an Air-to Ground mission for ground forces support, then do we really need the latest/greatest aircraft? 

Part of the problem is that we don't KNOW whether or not our deployed aircraft (whip out the F-18's?) will always be working in a permissive environment, so against the probability that we will NOT be, we need to get the more survivable aircraft, which is the F-35.  

Splitting our fighter fleet for a nation as small as ours makes very little sense, so buying an aircraft capable of meeting both missions is necessary.

NS


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps as Defence Policy Review comes to completion, the process will be allowed to run its course and we'll see ....


"Perhaps"    op:    (please forgive the lack of 'holding breath')


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "Perhaps"    op:    (please forgive the lack of 'holding breath')



That's as optimistic as I can be...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I was simply of the belief that we should be using tanker support more in a way that would better allow our air force to protect Canada in an emergency.  I don't know if that would work though, so I'm actually fine with it if we don't need 5 - 7.



I tried to get you to read between the tea leaves the last few times I've responded to your post so I'll be direct this time.  Why are you creating a capability that isn't required?

We fulfill that mission already, without the additional tanker support you're proposing we buy.  A rather needless expense don't you think?


----------



## GR66

IF the government decides that the F-35 is out for immediate purchase for political reasons and IF they stick to their claim that they are requiring in interim aircraft to fill a "capability gap" would the following be a possible course of action?

The USAF is retiring F-15C due to budgetary issues (the numbers I've read are somewhere around 51 aircraft in the 2015/2016 budget but can't confirm).  Could we purchase those aircraft and then have Boeing do the life-extension and upgrade they proposed in the F-15C2040 program to provide Canada with a short term NORAD fighter replacement for the CF-18's.

This could then allow the government to wait several years before making a decision on a long-term replacement for the CF-18s.  By this time the F-35 will be a know commoditiy and any next generation aircraft/UAVs might be in the development stages.  The government (even Liberals) could at that time choose to purchase the F-35 without the political liabilities of buying them now (assuming that it has by then been proven to be a success and full-rate production prices have dropped as projected).

This could also possibly be a strategy to keep Canada in the F-35 supplier program since we're NOT saying we're not going to by the F-35...just that we're deferring the decision on what aircraft to buy until our interrim aircraft need to be replaced.


----------



## suffolkowner

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The requirement of 65 is necessary to maintain 48 aircraft in combat squadrons.  That doesn't mean that all 48 are ready at any one time.  It leaked a few years ago that it was more like 34.
> 
> I also note that the 36 aircraft requirement has nothing on them being available all the time.  If we take the rule of 3s, it seems we're expected to have 12 available all the time.



I think the requirement for 36 NORAD(?) fighters drives the 65 to maintain 48 available the total number would be 85(the original number of F-35's for Canada some 10+ years ago now)

65 x 80% x 70% = 36
85 x 80% x 70% = 48

80% aircraft availability
70% aircraft serviceability 

the 48/85 would allow one 6 pack for NATO European operations and one 6 pack for Expeditionary operations?


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think the requirement for 36 NORAD(?) fighters drives the 65 to maintain 48 available the total number would be 85(the original number of F-35's for Canada some 10+ years ago now)
> 
> 65 x 80% x 70% = 36
> 85 x 80% x 70% = 48
> 
> 80% aircraft availability
> 70% aircraft serviceability
> 
> the 48/85 would allow one 6 pack for NATO European operations and one 6 pack for Expeditionary operations?



I would be in favour of 120 and a third combat squadron.  That said, we now have 48 in active combat squadrons.  We don't have 48 active aircraft every day.


----------



## jmt18325

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I tried to get you to read between the tea leaves the last few times I've responded to your post so I'll be direct this time.  Why are you creating a capability that isn't required?
> 
> We fulfill that mission already, without the additional tanker support you're proposing we buy.  A rather needless expense don't you think?



And if we don't need it that's fine.  I simply thought it would be useful - I apologize for my misunderstanding.


----------



## DonaldMcL

GR66 said:
			
		

> IF the government decides that the F-35 is out for immediate purchase for political reasons and IF they stick to their claim that they are requiring in interim aircraft to fill a "capability gap" would the following be a possible course of action?
> 
> The USAF is retiring F-15C due to budgetary issues (the numbers I've read are somewhere around 51 aircraft in the 2015/2016 budget but can't confirm).  Could we purchase those aircraft and then have Boeing do the life-extension and upgrade they proposed in the F-15C2040 program to provide Canada with a short term NORAD fighter replacement for the CF-18's.
> 
> This could then allow the government to wait several years before making a decision on a long-term replacement for the CF-18s.  By this time the F-35 will be a know commoditiy and any next generation aircraft/UAVs might be in the development stages.  The government (even Liberals) could at that time choose to purchase the F-35 without the political liabilities of buying them now (assuming that it has by then been proven to be a success and full-rate production prices have dropped as projected).
> 
> This could also possibly be a strategy to keep Canada in the F-35 supplier program since we're NOT saying we're not going to by the F-35...just that we're deferring the decision on what aircraft to buy until our interrim aircraft need to be replaced.



The F15C was designed, and mostly outfitted to be an Air-Superiority fighter. Limited strike role. Wouldnt be a good fit. The F15E on the other hand... great purchase 10-15 years ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Thanks.  Generally, when I reach the limits of what I know or think to be true, I just stop talking.  Like I keep saying, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.



Like SKT and many others, I wasn't offended;  I asked my question (that I indicated was a serious question), for no other means than to determine where you are coming from, experience-wise etc.  I think that question actually offended _you_.  If it did, I am not sorry to be honest.  The only thing people can judge the credibility of our posts on here is TI/experience/education of relevance/etc.  I was simply trying to establish yours.   :2c:

Good discussion so far overall, hopefully this post of mine is the last of the little 'derail' from fighter and tanker stuff.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GR66 said:
			
		

> IF the government decides that the F-35 is out for immediate purchase for political reasons and IF they stick to their claim that they are requiring in interim aircraft to fill a "capability gap" would the following be a possible course of action?
> 
> The USAF is retiring F-15C due to budgetary issues (the numbers I've read are somewhere around 51 aircraft in the 2015/2016 budget but can't confirm).  Could we purchase those aircraft and then have Boeing do the life-extension and upgrade they proposed in the F-15C2040 program to provide Canada with a short term NORAD fighter replacement for the CF-18's.
> 
> This could then allow the government to wait several years before making a decision on a long-term replacement for the CF-18s.  By this time the F-35 will be a know commoditiy and any next generation aircraft/UAVs might be in the development stages.  The government (even Liberals) could at that time choose to purchase the F-35 without the political liabilities of buying them now (assuming that it has by then been proven to be a success and full-rate production prices have dropped as projected).
> 
> This could also possibly be a strategy to keep Canada in the F-35 supplier program since we're NOT saying we're not going to by the F-35...just that we're deferring the decision on what aircraft to buy until our interrim aircraft need to be replaced.



Devil's advocate...why purchase 51 used fighters that have to be upgraded (not an overnight process)?  Would we, in the end, actually be saving any money after the upgrade is complete?  How long would the 'interim' upgraded F-15Cs fly for?  Think of how the GoC likes to stretch the lifespan of any RCAF aircraft.  Sea Kings come to mind as one example.

Waiting 'several years'...and then buying F35s.  My magic crystal ball tells me the GoC would be happy to walk away from the idea completely after spending X dollars on "upgraded F15Cs that can fly until 20XX".

Why do I think the GoC would be happy to push back from the table and spend no more money?  Well, how have they handled the replacement for the CF-18s?  Seems like a pretty good indicator to me.

Or our MHs.

Or our LRPAs.

Or...boots.

Or...


----------



## suffolkowner

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would be in favour of 120 and a third combat squadron.  That said, we now have 48 in active combat squadrons.  We don't have 48 active aircraft every day.



I would be shocked if we ended up with significantly more than 65 fighters, let's not get too carried away with our design your own airforce. Having said that the Defence Review is in progress an I expect significant pressure from the US whether from Clinton or Trump to start doing more of the heavy lifting so maybe you will get your additional AAR


----------



## AlexanderM

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I would be shocked if we ended up with significantly more than 65 fighters, let's not get too carried away with our design your own airforce. Having said that the Defence Review is in progress an *I expect significant pressure from the US whether from Clinton or Trump* to start doing more of the heavy lifting so maybe you will get your additional AAR


I am expecting, and hoping for, pressure from both the US and the EU through NATO concerning our commitment to the military. They need to make it clear to JT that he can't take a page out of his fathers playbook and let other countries foot the bill. Am I wrong to think that we are heading into a Cold War version 2 with Russia and need to do our part?


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would be in favour of 120 and a third combat squadron.  That said, we now have 48 in active combat squadrons.  We don't have 48 active aircraft every day.



The RCAF actually has four combat fighter squadrons: 410 TFS, 409 TFS, 425e ETAC and 433e ETAC.  Available/serviceable aircraft are not directly related to how many line squadrons are operating.

Regards
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good2Golf: Got your digits reversed --Cold Lake 410 actually operational training,
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/4-wing/410-squadron.page

401 the other tactical squadron:
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/4-wing/401-squadron.page

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

I think that actually was an autocorrect, somehow, Mark, but good catch.  Yes, meant to say 401.  I don't know if they still use the RAM call sign, as 401 did when it was a Kiowa unit in 10 TAG.

Chers
G2G


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The RCAF actually has four combat fighter squadrons: 410 TFS, 409 TFS, 425e ETAC and 433e ETAC.  Available/serviceable aircraft are not directly related to how many line squadrons are operating.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



You're right of course.  What I meant to say is that I'd like to have another combat base worth of fighters - another 24.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You're right of course.  What I meant to say is that I'd like to have another combat base worth of fighters - another 24.


Why? Where do the PYs come from? We're a zero sum game for manning, to get your 24 fighters where do you get the 500(ish) PYs to support them? What capabilities get cut?


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You're right of course.  What I meant to say is that I'd like to have another combat base worth of fighters - another 24.



Seen.  In fairness to you, the additional two fighter squadrons didn't include any more aircraft; it just split the existing operational fleets at 3 and 4 Wing in half and re-assigned that half to the 3rd and 4th squadron, so no more operational assets.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'd also suggest an 'operational trg Sqn' isn't that much different than any other line Sqn.  404 Sqn can man LRPA and their missions; they're all FIC qualified Top Category aircrew.  Students are UT Category aircrew.  I'd guess, without looking at the FOM, that the Fighter community is somewhat similar.  Instructors are still aircrew.  Maintainers are still qualified maintainers.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why?



Because we have a very large country, and the only real threats to it come by air or sea.  Most of that is negated by a powerful fighter force.



> Where do the PYs come from? We're a zero sum game for manning, to get your 24 fighters where do you get the 500(ish) PYs to support them? What capabilities get cut?



We spend more money.  It's one of the areas I'd be very willing to see more money spent.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd also suggest an 'operational trg Sqn' isn't that much different than any other line Sqn.  404 Sqn can man LRPA and their missions; they're all FIC qualified Top Category aircrew.  Students are UT Category aircrew.  I'd guess, without looking at the FOM, that the Fighter community is somewhat similar.  Instructors are still aircrew.  Maintainers are still qualified maintainers.



EITS:  Yes, but a short-term gain for long-term pain eating into your FG capability.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Because we have a very large country, and the only real threats to it come by air or sea.  Most of that is negated by a powerful fighter force.



Is it though?  I think it is but one of the 3 dimensions of the battlespace, all equally important and required, because of things like the pics below, which a fighter can't see or touch.  Maritime approaches are also part of the NORAD tasking.  Aerospace power is important to all, and unfortunately not one single platform best serves air, surface and sub-surface warfare.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> EITS:  Yes, but a short-term gain for long-term pain eating into your FG capability.



Very much so,_ but _possible and if the SHTF you can move experience levels around to balance both.  Just another tool with pro's and con's...


----------



## jmt18325

The other place that I advocate spending more money is the Navy - you'll get no argument from me on that.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Seen.  In fairness to you, the additional two fighter squadrons didn't include any more aircraft; it just split the existing operational fleets at 3 and 4 Wing in half and re-assigned that half to the 3rd and 4th squadron, so no more operational assets.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



The move to me was seemingly anticipating potential future growth. let's say by magic we decide from the defense review to expand the airforce, we order say 120-140 aircraft, go on a hiring blitz to get boots in bases and all those units have to do is grow as needed.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The move to me was seemingly anticipating potential future growth. let's say by magic we decide from the defense review to expand the airforce, we order say 120-140 aircraft, go on a hiring blitz to get boots in bases and all those units have to do is grow as needed.



...or it could equally have been about the RCAF Commander of the day wanting to have proportionately more leadership positions for his fellow fighter pilots in order to apply an institutional/statistical bias to the career advancement of the fighter community, versus other communities in the RCAF?   ???


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The move to me was seemingly anticipating potential future growth. let's say by magic we decide from the defense review to expand the airforce, we order say 120-140 aircraft, go on a hiring blitz to get boots in bases and all those units have to do is grow as needed.


Or to create more top heavy leadership with understrength units? The army's good at the same thing.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or it could equally have been about the RCAF Commander of the day wanting to have proportionately more leadership positions for his fellow fighter pilots in order to apply an institutional/statistical bias to the career advancement of the fighter community, versus other communities in the RCAF?   ???



Very crass but plausible. Makes me want to vomit.

Look at what EITS posted. We need to be able, at all times, to prosecute and kill that. And it's complementary air cover. FML what isn't this country of ours doing that is not just plain f'd up???


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or to create more top heavy leadership with understrength units? The army's good at the same thing.



You mean a Colonel shouldn't be leading a air-group of only a couple hundred? preposterous! how would we ever deploy them over sea's if they aren't the same rank as the person they are replacing from another country, only to come back and do the work of two ranks below them.


----------



## dapaterson

Imagine if the RCAF adopted their "historic ranks".  Someone would have to explain why Squadron Leaders don't lead squadrons, and Wing Commanders don't command wings...


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Imagine if the RCAF adopted their "historic ranks".  Someone would have to explain why Squadron Leaders don't lead squadrons, and Wing Commanders don't command wings...


Probably why they hid in the corner while the rest of us changed back for King and Country or some such.


----------



## CBH99

Come on guys, we ALL KNOW a Division is only 2000 people and needs to be led by a Lt. Gen.  Anything less would be chaotic, and we can't have that....get with the program!

A Wing Commander that doesn't command a wing?  Ha!  I just learned something today.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Imagine if the RCAF adopted their "historic ranks".  Someone would have to explain why Squadron Leaders don't lead squadrons, and Wing Commanders don't command wings...



Though an some of those ranks have a nicer air force ring to them, like Air Marshall instead of Major General


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Come on guys, we ALL KNOW a Division is only 2000 people and needs to be led by a Lt. Gen.  Anything less would be chaotic, and we can't have that....get with the program!
> 
> A Wing Commander that doesn't command a wing?  Ha!  I just learned something today.



They do in Gander and Goose Bay...


----------



## MarkOttawa

MilEME09: Air Marshal=LGEN:
http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/help/TTDASearchTipsSpecial3Help.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or it could equally have been about the RCAF Commander of the day wanting to have proportionately more leadership positions for his fellow fighter pilots in order to apply an institutional/statistical bias to the career advancement of the fighter community, versus other communities in the RCAF?   ???



I remember him in the Sqn brief one morning...talking about nothing but fighter stuff.  More than a few people were sharing looks...I said quietly to the person next to me "he DOES know he is at an Aurora Sqn right now doesn't he?".   ;D

But hey, new (old) Mess Kit and leather jackets (you aren't allowed to wear flying).  What a legacy!   :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> MilEME09: Air Marshal=LGEN:
> http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/help/TTDASearchTipsSpecial3Help.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Don't know where you got that table, Mark, but parts of it are wrong.

In the officers, Navy Sub-lieutenant are not junior tot he equivalent Army and Air Force ranks, actually it is the opposite.

In the Non commissioned personnel, they don't even list the Petty Officer in the Navy, just the Chief Petty Officer, and they only have one level of Warrant officer, which is wrong. The Royal Navy has Warrant Officers first and second class.

And that is just what I spotted in a few seconds. Also, he does not mention the Royal Marines traditional rank-up-one when at sea, which is weird since he seem to have taken the time to note when officers of one service are junior-senior to one another at equivalent ranks. For those unfamiliar, while embarked on a ship, officers of the Royal marines are assumed, for seniority, to have one rank higher than their actual one - so a Captain steps onboard a ship  and ranks as a major for instance. I cannot recall where this tradition comes from or why it exists, but it is so.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver: Thanks--but Air Marshals and LGENs are still three stars.  Another comparison, hope better:
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/armed_forces_ranks.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Also, he does not mention the Royal Marines traditional rank-up-one when at sea.... I cannot recall where this tradition comes from or why it exists, but it is so.


Probably the same thinking that sees the US Marines as a Department of the Navy -- the *Men's*  Department.      :stirpot:


I also note a Private rank of "Kingsman."   I thought that was a Secret Service...where "manners make the man."  :nod:



[Can't wait to see the Mods sort out this derail!  op:  ]


----------



## Kirkhill

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Probably the same thinking that sees the US Marines as a Department of the Navy -- the *Men's*  Department.      :stirpot:
> 
> 
> I also note a Private rank of "Kingsman."   I thought that was a Secret Service...where "manners make the man."  :nod:
> 
> 
> 
> [Can't wait to see the Mods sort out this derail!  op:  ]



Must be Saturday......


----------



## Journeyman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Must be Saturday......


And dog days, at that.   :nod:


----------



## McG

Looks like both Lockheed and Boeing will use the Abbotsford Air Show to market their planes to the Canadian public.

http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/f-35-to-debut-in-canada-at-abbotsford-international-airshow/
&
http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/events/2016-performers/


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> Looks like both Lockheed and Boeing will use the Abbotsford Air Show to market their planes to the Canadian public.
> 
> http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/f-35-to-debut-in-canada-at-abbotsford-international-airshow/
> &
> http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/events/2016-performers/



But will it actually perform an aerial routine? The impression I get from the article is that it will be only on static display.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Even if they did fly, it wouldn't show much in terms of capabilities...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Interesting that possible sale to RCAF not mentioned--lots of detail on possible upgrades (not in quote) and note challenge to Danish F-35 selection (Canada?):



> Boeing Execs Confident of Turnaround as Jet Fighter Production Slows
> 
> The Boeing Co. is hoping that upgrades and international sales of its legendary F/A-18E and F-15 aircraft — as well as an upcoming Air Force trainer program — will keep its jet fighter production lines humming well into the next decade, company executives said Sept. 12.
> 
> Despite dwindling production of the F/A-18E Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in recent years, the company is “very confident” that it would continue to produce aircraft for the domestic services and international customers into the 2020s, said Dan Gillian, Boeing vice president and F/A-18 program manager.
> 
> “Two years ago, we would have ended production in 2016,” he said. “Now, we’re optimistic about a bright future … well into the next decade.”
> 
> The company plans to recommend a series of upgrades for the Navy’s Advanced Super Hornet and Growler fleets and the Air Force’s F-15 Eagle fleet that would extended their ranges and add capabilities to combat emerging threats, Gillian said.
> 
> These include the Super Hornet service life extension program, which aims to extend the planes from 6,000 hours of service to over 9,000 miles, he said…
> 
> Boeing is currently producing two Super Hornets per month at its St. Louis facilities, but that could change with new U.S. and international orders, Gillian said. _Boeing is in discussions at various levels with international customers including Kuwait, Australia and India to buy the Super Hornet, he added_ [emphasis added.
> 
> The company announced Sept. 15 that it would formally challenge the Danish Ministry of Defence's choice to procure Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II for its future fighter jet, rather than the Super Hornet...
> 
> “_Super Hornets and Growlers will be flying alongside F-35s into the 2040s_ [emaphasis added, with USN]…”‘
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2300



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## BurmaShave

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Interesting that possible sale to RCAF not mentioned--lots of detail on possible upgrades (not in quote) and note challenge to Danish F-35 selection (Canada?):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Some questions:

So, Boeing is suing Denmark because they think they know the requirements of the Danish MoD better than the Danish MoD does? That sounds odd.

Are the F-15s in the Israel deal new build? I was under the impression that they were surplus USAF ones, no gain to Boeing.

What is an "Advanced Super Hornet" gonna cost? Low price is about the only thing the Rhino has going for it.


And, an observation:

Despite all these expensive prospective upgrades, they're still not going to change the goddamn canted inboard pylons? C'mon, Boeing.


----------



## a_majoor

The Advanced Super Hornet proposes to have a clean airframe by eliminating the need for drop tanks through the addition of conformal tanks, and possibly eliminating the canted wing pylons by carrying ordinance in the low observable "pod" under the centreline. I note that there seems to be no reason not to retrofit other aircraft with this pod (large aircraft like the F-15 might carry one under each wing and one under the centreline), and even stealth aircraft like the Raptor and F-35 would benefit from being able to carry more ordinance than what is possible in the internal bays.


----------



## MilEME09

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Advanced Super Hornet proposes to have a clean airframe by eliminating the need for drop tanks through the addition of conformal tanks, and possibly eliminating the canted wing pylons by carrying ordinance in the low observable "pod" under the centreline. I note that there seems to be no reason not to retrofit other aircraft with this pod (large aircraft like the F-15 might carry one under each wing and one under the centreline), and even stealth aircraft like the Raptor and F-35 would benefit from being able to carry more ordinance than what is possible in the internal bays.



It should also be noted that Boeing claims the radar cross section of the Advanced Super Hornet is 50% less then the super hornet, combined with the weapons pod in theory I would call this a Gen 4.75 aircraft, that would be still viable in todays battle space. If the claims hold up


----------



## BurmaShave

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Advanced Super Hornet proposes to have a clean airframe by eliminating the need for drop tanks through the addition of conformal tanks, and possibly eliminating the canted wing pylons by carrying ordinance in the low observable "pod" under the centreline. I note that there seems to be no reason not to retrofit other aircraft with this pod (large aircraft like the F-15 might carry one under each wing and one under the centreline), and even stealth aircraft like the Raptor and F-35 would benefit from being able to carry more ordinance than what is possible in the internal bays.



Soooo...two of the famous downsides (stores capacity, maneuverability) of the dreaded F-35, in trade for two of the upsides (clean combat radius, and IRST). It'll have 2 engines (yay, political points) and be proven technology (ish). In trade, worse stealthing (no RAM, unstealthy airframe), worse radar (APG-79 instead of APG-81), no sensor fusion, no EODAS (still have to hang the ATFLIR off the shoulders, too)...Boeing's just not doing it for me with this one. Price dependent, but, given the cost of a normal Rhino, plus all these bells and whistles, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

E&OE; I am, after all, a massive noob.


----------



## BurmaShave

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> It should also be noted that Boeing claims the radar cross section of the Advanced Super Hornet is 50% less then the super hornet, combined with the weapons pod in theory I would call this a Gen 4.75 aircraft, that would be still viable in todays battle space. If the claims hold up



AFAIK (keeping in mind that I am a wee spring chicken), a 50% RCS reduction on the Rhino wouldn't really do much, as a viability thing.

The RCS of a Super Hornet commonly is quoted at 0.1m2 RCS, similar to the rest of the "Gen 4.5" crowd. A 50% reduction (to 0.05) might be enough to write "Gen 4.75" on your brochure, but it's not going to make up much ground against the (published) 0.0015m2 on the F-35, or the (published ("metal marble"), likely lower ("metal fly")) 0.0005m2 of the F-22. You're still going to have a massive detection range deficit against a true stealth aircraft (halving your RCS doesn't halve your detection range, it's non-linear to the 4th power (inverse square law coming and going). You instead reduce your detection range by 16%.). An F-35 with the APG-81 is going to see you 3 times farther away than you'll see him (math via Radar Evaluation Handbook, by Dr. David K. Barton), and, more importantly, is going to be able to engage you while remaining undetected (based on the estimated Rpi of the AIM-120C7 under practical conditions, not Raytheon's ludicrously long range published figure).

In slightly less technical terms, a 50% RCS reduction gives a 16% detection range reduction, which won't really give you a competitive advantage against Gen 4.5 stuff (who can see farther than they can shoot, anyways), and won't save you from being clubbed like a baby seal by Gen. 5 stuff.

Regarding battlefield viability, that's a bit nebulous. If all you want is a Gen 4.5 aircraft (not interested in "near-peer" conflict), sure, it'll be competitive with the EF, Rafale, Gripen, and the like (I don't think a 16% detection range reduction really merits a Gen 4.75 designation, whatever Saab might say about the Gripen NG). Is it a viable substitute for Gen 5 stuff? No.


----------



## a_majoor

And the real deal with the F-35 is the sensor fusion and cooperative targeting. A flight of F-35's is a bit like taking an AWACS and distributing it among multiple airframes, so they can see, fight and better yet command multiple other aircraft and weapons in the battlespace. Gen 4 and 4.5 aircraft will be viable, but if they are able to link into the system, the enemy might have a 16% deficit in detection range but _you_ will know their location, get their marching orders and be set up in the right place to deliver the kill before they are able to respond.

If we don't get CF-35's, I hope we spend the money to buy long range missiles like the MBDA Meteor to carry in the weapons pod. The CF-18s can still be useful as weapons trucks for American air commanders. Indeed the contribution to the alliance may be reduced to being weapons trucks for targets that are detected, prioritized and marked by allies which _do_ have F-35's.


----------



## Good2Golf

BurmaShave said:
			
		

> AFAIK (keeping in mind that I am a wee spring chicken), a 50% RCS reduction on the Rhino wouldn't really do much, as a viability thing.
> 
> The RCS of a Super Hornet commonly is quoted at 0.1m2 RCS, similar to the rest of the "Gen 4.5" crowd. A 50% reduction (to 0.05) might be enough to write "Gen 4.75" on your brochure, but it's not going to make up much ground against the (published) 0.0015m2 on the F-35, or the (published ("metal marble"), likely lower ("metal fly")) 0.0005m2 of the F-22. You're still going to have a massive detection range deficit against a true stealth aircraft (halving your RCS doesn't halve your detection range, it's non-linear to the 4th power (inverse square law coming and going). You instead reduce your detection range by 16%.). An F-35 with the APG-81 is going to see you 3 times farther away than you'll see him (math via Radar Evaluation Handbook, by Dr. David K. Barton)...



If you don't have Skolnik's Radar Handbook, you should get it.  Barton is okay, but Skolnik is the gold standard for all Old Crows....  

Good work with the numbers, thought. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## BurmaShave

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If you don't have Skolnik's Radar Handbook, you should get it.  Barton is okay, but Skolnik is the gold standard for all Old Crows....
> 
> Good work with the numbers, thought. :nod:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Hah, thanks   

Looks like I've got some new bedtime reading, haha.


----------



## Good2Golf

BurmaShave said:
			
		

> Hah, thanks
> 
> Looks like I've got some new bedtime reading, haha.



Luckily the price has come down.  I bought mine for close to $400...(a 'few' years ago)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Keeping the Super Hornet line going:



> Boeing’s F-15, F/A-18 Deals With Qatar and Kuwait Now ‘Imminent’
> 
> The head of Boeing Military Aircraft says fighter deals with Qatar and Kuwait are now “imminent” after clearing all regulatory hurdles.
> 
> Qatar wants 36 Boeing F-15s while Kuwait is seeking two squadrons of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with an option for a third group.
> 
> The deals are worth an estimated $4 billion and $3 billion, respectively, but have been held up because of concerns about Israel’s security. Both arms sales are now proceeding after the White House approved a ten-year, $38 billion military aid package with Israel, which itself could include funding for more F-15I and Lockheed Martin F-35I squadrons.
> 
> “We believe they’re imminent,” Boeing Military Aircraft executive Shelley Lavender said of the Qatar and Kuwait deals during an interview at the company’s headquarters near Washington on Sept. 21. Asked for when she expects those deals will close, she said: “Very soon. We should be over all hurdles.”
> 
> Deals for more F-15s and F/A-18s couldn’t come soon enough for Boeing’s fighter factory in St. Louis, Missouri, which needs more orders to keep production humming into the 2020s.
> 
> The Strike Eagle deal would extend the F-15 line well beyond 2020, although there could be some gap between the delivery of 94 jets to Saudi Arabia in early 2019 and the start of final assembly for Qatar. There are also F-15SGs in production for Singapore. Boeing has captured additional F/A-18 orders from the Navy, but needs extra orders to remain financially viable beyond late 2018...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-s-f-15-fa-18-deals-qatar-and-kuwait-now-imminent



Reason for pressure on Canada.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Boeing brings up Bombardier (at end):



> Canada looking at data in fighter jet purchase: Boeing executive
> 
> Canada is assessing data from bidders to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets, a Boeing Co executive said on Monday [Sept. 26]...
> 
> While the government has yet to release details on such a competition, it requested data this summer from five companies that have fighter aircraft in production or planned production, including Lockheed and Boeing, which wants Canada to buy its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.
> 
> The government sought up-to-date information on areas including capabilities and economic benefits.
> 
> "The focus on data was very clear, very strong," said Marc Allen, president of Boeing International, the unit which handles Boeing's strategy and operations outside the United States. "It gave all of the suppliers a chance to set down in black and white what it is their platform does."
> 
> Since then, Boeing has been engaged in a "ping-pong" set of questions and answers with the government, said Allen.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said the government foresees a growing capability gap in the 2020s and that there is an urgent need to replace the CF-18s.
> 
> "They know it's imperative to solve that capability gap," said Allen. "They are moving in a way that says they understand that."
> 
> Allen said ordinarily it can take multiple years from when an order is placed to when jets are delivered [_but Beoing could be faster?_]...
> 
> As Boeing campaigns to win the contract, it is citing the work opportunities that would be available to Canadian firms across the country if the federal government were to purchase the Super Hornet
> 
> _Allen did not rule out giving work to struggling planemaker Bombardier Inc, noting that Boeing always works with its competitors_ [emphasis added].
> 
> "We're not going to rule out anybody from the perspective of who would be a good partner," he said...
> http://www.reuters.com/article/cbusiness-us-boeing-canada-idCAKCN11W2JG



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace

Just what we need; another cash infusion to an incompetently run Canadian Aviation Company that is moving much of its production off shore.  This brings up the question of CTAT.  What agreements does the US have with Mexico when it comes to holding US technologies?


----------



## MarkOttawa

French being realistic (can they find a Bombardier angle too?):



> After Indian Success, France Targets Malaysia For Rafale Jet Sales
> ...
> The Malaysian procurement is [also] considered a good opportunity by Boeing which manufactures the F/A-18. Malaysia is retiring older versions of F/A-18s in service with its Air Force. Saab which has sold its Gripen fighters to Thailand is also considered a good bet especially when it beat the French in the deal to sell jets to Brazil.
> 
> Regarding Canada, which re-opened the competition after public pressure to reject the super-expensive F-35, the French are not so optimistic given ‘American pressure’ on its northern neighbour...
> http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17180/After_Indian_Success__France_Targets_Malaysia_For_Rafale_Jet_Sales#.V-r6gyRqDIV



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GR66

I wonder if a European design (FREMM?) were selected for the CSC if it would provide any boost to the Rafale due to some commonality in missiles?


----------



## RaceAddict

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just what we need; another cash infusion to an incompetently run Canadian Aviation Company that is moving much of its production off shore.



There's a lot of their admin going offshore as well... pain in my backside.  :


----------



## MarkOttawa

US OKs Super Hornet sale to Kuwait:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/09/28/white-house-approves-boeing-lockheed-fighter-sales-to-gulf-states/#3460d96a774b

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Price for the Super Hornets with the options as indicated is $98B CAD per aircraft. (40 planes, $3B USD total value, current currency rates 1USD:1.31CAD)


----------



## MilEME09

unfortunately all of our hens are coming home to roost. We have pushed off a lot of defense spending, and now its going to cost us, a lot, to get what we need I anticipate a price tag no less then $7B once the contract is actually signed.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Making the pitch:



> F-35 JPO PEO Goes to Ottawa
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/mark-collins-f-35-jpo-peo-goes-to-ottawa/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excerpts from an implicitly pro-F-35 piece at the CGAI:



> Symbolism and the CF-18 Replacement
> 
> The release of the Standing Committee on National Defence’s Report on Canada and the Defence of North America: NORAD and Aerial Readiness last month was, as argued in the Official Opposition’s dissenting opinion, another example of the government’s desire to be portrayed as consulting Canadians yet shaping the issues to align with predetermined party ideas.1 In toto, the report is a decent analysis of the contemporary landscape regarding the defence of North America, however, the conclusions with respect to aerial readiness are inconsistent with the stated scope that limited the study geographically. How does the committee square-the-circle by conflating the high-density threat environment of Canada’s commitments to NATO into the relatively benign Arctic sovereignty mission as a procurement template for the CF-18 replacement in its recommendations?..
> 
> ...By using the narrowly defined scope of the study, the committee members were able to shape the discussion on the requirements for fighter operations to feed into a predetermined narrative – one that focussed on stealth, number of engines, immediacy of replacement and flyaway costs. This, unfortunately, was a continuation of the politicization of the whole procurement saga...
> 
> ...the immediacy of a replacement decision (recommendation three) should not be used as a premise for sole-sourcing or narrowly defining the requirement as the CF-18s will last until 2025 and the government is in a good position to quickly conduct a competitive process given the 40,000 person hours of analysis already conducted by government bureaucrats.3 Finally, the first recommendation’s identification of a replacement fighter having “well-defined capital and sustainment costs” and “working .. [within] ... existing infrastructure” shortchanges the true question of economics – that is, the economic logic of an interim 20-year solution versus a long- term 40-year solution.
> 
> A fourth-generation fighter will have a life-cycle of roughly 20-25 years before it will become prohibitively expensive to maintain. The fifth-generation fighter will have growing pains (as did the CF-18 in the 1980s), but will evolve with the times and technology with the potential to last for 40 years. Having flown both a third-generation fighter (CF-104) and the fourth-generation CF-18, I can personally attest to the paradigmatic shift in both government strategy and operational tactics that accompanies such a dynamic change in fighter technology. However, only an objective competitive process can fully ascertain the factors within the political and economic dimensions needed to determine the best value for money...
> 
> *Alan Stephenson* is a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, holds a PhD from Carleton University, and is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces with 3600 fighter hours flying third generation CF-104 Starfighters and fourth generation CF-18 Hornets. He has held senior appointments in National Defence Headquarters, NATO and NORAD.
> http://www.cgai.ca/symbolism_and_the_cf_18_replacement



But see from 2014:

F-35 and Canada: Good for “Discretionary” Missions, But…



> …its “capabilities…are not a good fit for Canada’s non-discretionary missions.”  So writes (near end of link) a recently retired RCAF major-general...
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/mark-collins-f-35-and-canada-good-for-discretionary-missions-but/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

So some Super Hornets after all as "interim measure"?  How many, any Growlers (good for expeditionary)?  Further to this,



> Canada to Sole-Source Some Super Hornets for RCAF After All?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/mark-collins-canada-to-sole-source-some-super-hornets-for-rcaf-after-all/



is the fix in?  Anonymice abound:



> Cabinet could decide fighter jet plan as early as Tuesday [Nov. 22], industry sources say
> 
> Industry sources expect the Liberal government to decide as early as Tuesday whether to purchase a new fighter jet without a competition.
> 
> Federal cabinet ministers are reportedly considering three options for replacing Canada's CF-18s, one of which they are expected to pick during their weekly closed-door meeting on Parliament Hill.
> 
> The options include holding a competition, buying a new warplane without a competition, or purchasing an "interim" aircraft as a stop-gap measure until a future competition.
> 
> The government was eyeing the third option in the spring, with the intention of buying Boeing Super Hornets, until an outcry from industry and the opposition forced them back to the drawing board.
> 
> But while Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan held consultations with different industry players in the summer, industry sources say the _interim option is back as the preferred choice_ [emphasis added, i.e. a limited number of Super Hornets].
> 
> Sajjan's office refused to comment on Monday, with a spokeswoman saying only that a decision still has not been made...
> 
> Sajjan would only say that the government had done "a considerable amount of work" on the file.
> 
> "We will make a decision on replacing the fighters and will pick a process that will meet the needs of Canada."..
> http://www.brandonsun.com/national/breaking-news/cabinet-could-decide-fighter-jet-plan-as-early-as-tuesday-industry-sources-say-402327245.html?thx=y



Perish the thought that the Liberal Party's political needs might be another consideration.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Has anyone heard any opinions on whether 2nd seat for UCAV control-jamming (Growler) is becoming a priority?  With the rapid advancement of those technologies it would seem like a wise investment, even though it would require training up 2nd crew members.


----------



## PuckChaser

Estimate successfully situated. Orphan fleet of 18 Super Hornets to be purchased as per Mercedes Stevenson:

https://twitter.com/CTVMercedes/status/801123175488778240

Total cost for the Super Hornets will likely be in the neighbourhood of $5B, if compared to Kuwait's recent order of 48 airframes.

Fighter competition starts at ground zero sometime within this government's mandate. I wonder how many extra aircraft we would have been able to purchase without wasting money on 2 extra useless competitions?


----------



## Canuck_Jock

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Estimate successfully situated. Orphan fleet of 18 Super Hornets to be purchased as per Mercedes Stevenson:
> 
> https://twitter.com/CTVMercedes/status/801123175488778240
> 
> Total cost for the Super Hornets will likely be in the neighbourhood of $5B, if compared to Kuwait's recent order of 48 airframes.
> 
> Fighter competition starts at ground zero sometime within this government's mandate. I wonder how many extra aircraft we would have been able to purchase without wasting money on 2 extra useless competitions?



WTF?? So, it's costing us $5bn for the government to avoid making a decision? What a shambles! Australia made the decision to acquire Super Hornets to bridge JSF - but that was 9 years ago. 

We know what the answer is, just buy the damned ac.  :facepalm:

EH-101 clusterf*ck redux.


----------



## Kirkhill

My sense?

No purchase.  Lease of US aircraft with training and maintenance in the US.  Details, like dollars, to be negotiated.  4th Down and Punt.

Edit - Particularly like the 5 year competition.2021

Post 2019 election here, post Brexit also ca 2019, post Trump 2020 if they're lucky.


----------



## Inspir

Super Hornets to be purchased as a stop gap measure. You else has a feeling we will be using the Hornet and Super Hornet for the next 30 years while they still try to figure this out?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Anyone get the sense they don't even have a deal negotiated with Boeing at this point?


----------



## George Wallace

Please do not listen to the Prime Minister on Question Period airing at the moment.  You will be very disappointed.


----------



## George Wallace

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> EH-101 clusterf*ck redux.



My immediate thoughts as well.


----------



## MilEME09

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My immediate thoughts as well.



My two cents is the typical liberal mind set of kicking the ball down the road for someone else to deal with it. Now they are saying we wont have a finished competition until after the next election. So first delivery's of new aircraft around 2030 lets say that means out Hornets (if any of the non-super are still around then) will be almost 50 years old. Congrats we now of the fighter version of the Sea King, and in the end this will cost us more, a lot more.


----------



## George Wallace

Shall we now start referring to the Hornets as the RCAF "Deuce and a Halfs"?


----------



## Inspir

You would think NATO would have some sort of membership rule stating 'own up to the 2% GDP or you're out'. Do you think if NATO started talking about booting nations out it would really sway the government to start taking Defense spending more seriously?


----------



## George Wallace

Inspir said:
			
		

> You would think NATO would have some sort of membership rule stating 'own up to the 2% GDP or you're out'. Do you think if NATO started talking about booting nations out it would really sway the government to start taking Defense spending more seriously?



Enforcing that would cut the membership by over half.   [


----------



## vonGarvin

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 4th Down and Punt.


That will be our plan, and then realize just before sending out the punt squad that this is the CFL...


----------



## Jay4th

There is an excellent research paper in the "Vimy Papers" on the CDA institute website about the fighter replacement program.  It is called "The Fourth Dimmension"
I found it a grat insight into the procurement of aircraft and how badly it can be screwed up.


----------



## CBH99

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-announcement-1.3862210


My apologies if already posted.

I can understand if the government wants to see how the JSF shapes up in a few years, before totally committing to buying them.  I can understand purchasing an interm aircraft if it helps with availability & service rates, as it did for the Australians.

I don't understand how a full blown competition was held within a few months, back in the 80's - when all we had was pen, paper, typewriters, and the odd fax machine.  And how it can take so much longer today.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

> ...as it did for the Australians



Mmm, the big difference is that the Aussies have them.  Real aircraft. With a kangaroo painted on their sides; quite a few flying in combat out in the sand pit as we chat.  Ours are, well...(wet finger in air) maybe 6 or 7 years away?

Canadian defence procurement.  A shower of sh!te that always commands cross-bench support in government no matter what...

NATO 2% commitment?  Arguably the only positive aspect of Trump's otherwise sordid platform was the threat to hold our feet to the fire and get 2% from all countries (only 4 meeting it, IIRC).  Us and most of Europe has been living off a peace dividend long past its geo-political sell by date.

And another thing:  [ !!!


----------



## Inspir

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> NATO 2% commitment?  Arguably the only positive aspect of Trump's otherwise sordid platform was the threat to hold our feet to the fire and get 2% from all countries (only 4 meeting it, IIRC).  Us and most of Europe has been living off a peace dividend long past its geo-political sell by date.
> 
> And another thing:  [ !!!


----------



## Kirkhill

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That will be our plan, and then realize just before sending out the punt squad that this is the CFL...



Still play football in Canada?


----------



## Kirkhill

Did we buy the 6 pack of CH-47Ds for Afghanistan as an Interim Measure?  Or did we acquire them?

Canadian Pilots in USN seats?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

My bet, we buy 18 super hornets and retire the legacy hornets by 2025 as planned.  No new competition is ever held and we end up with a token force only used for continental commitments effectively becoming NZ of the North.  Well on our way to becoming even more irrelevant than we were before.


----------



## Rifleman62

You are forgetting the Trump factor. The Trump factor in defense, trade protectionism(chicken/eggs/dairy), carbon tax etc. A bunch of amateurs in Ottawa who will soon be put in their place. Mr.IQ 0 and buddy Butts will soon have wet pants.


----------



## jmt18325

Having only 18 jets would break our NORAD and Canadian defence commitments.  If anything were to happen, it would simply be the CF-18s bing forever upgraded along side the SH.

This is actually good news for the F-35.  It pretty much means we're going to buy it, - as it will be one of only 2/3 choices come ~2021.  It means to me that the government knows it had to buy the F-35, but has to keep their promise for now.


----------



## PuckChaser

Or it can buy SH, and cook the books for the procurement to overweight the "existing infrastructure and training" card to stick us with an orphan fleet until 2060s.


----------



## caocao

Talking about infra, do our hgrs in CL and Bagot able to support the SH or are we going to need new hgr doors?


----------



## SupersonicMax

New hangar doors?!  I don't know how big you think a SH is but...  doors should be the least of our concerns.  All of our hangars can fit at least a Herc and some an AWACS.


----------



## Loachman

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You are forgetting the Trump factor. The Trump factor in defense, trade protectionism(chicken/eggs/dairy), carbon tax etc. A bunch of amateurs in Ottawa who will soon be put in their place. Mr.IQ 0 and buddy Butts will soon have wet pants.



I am still hoping that Mr Trump fires Trudeau.

He doesn't have to do it in his first hundred days, and it can even wait until after Hillary, Bill, and their minions are in jail, but someday...


----------



## Downhiller229

Frustrating (but predictable) play to save face and try to dodge a political bullet from the wall they backed themselves into. 

Glass half full, if we get the growler convertible ones and keep them as EW platforms after we take delivery of F35s in 5 years then it will be a positive development... Only if


----------



## CBH99

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Having only 18 jets would break our NORAD and Canadian defence commitments.  If anything were to happen, it would simply be the CF-18s bing forever upgraded along side the SH.
> 
> This is actually good news for the F-35.  It pretty much means we're going to buy it, - as it will be one of only 2/3 choices come ~2021.  It means to me that the government knows it had to buy the F-35, but has to keep their promise for now.




Holy crap JMT.  I think you are giving this government *WAY* too much credit in their ability to plan for the future.


----------



## BurmaShave

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> So some Super Hornets after all as "interim measure"?  How many, any Growlers (good for expeditionary)?  Further to this,
> 
> is the fix in?  Anonymice abound:
> 
> Perish the thought that the Liberal Party's political needs might be another consideration.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Can one of the experts give me orientation on this? I don't know much about squadrons and logistics.

Are the gains of the Super Hornet worth the associated headaches of having two fighter types? Is it simple expediency?

Do we need an interim fighter? Are our fighter needs so pressing that we can't wait for a competition to happen? (Or, cynically, is the opposite true? Is this a way of kicking the horrifically expensive fighter purchase down the road, Liberal style?)

Why the Super Hornet? Is there any commonality left between the Hornet and the Rhino? For similar price, why not get Strike Eagles (not the gold-plated Slam Eagle. $100 million is pushing it)?


----------



## suffolkowner

I think I posted this link before regarding fleet requirements single/mixed fighters

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page

the 18 SH should contribute 10 towards the NORAD requirement of 36 leaving the remaining 26 to be covered by the original hornets (46 x0.8 x0.7 = 26). So my guess is that the liberals think they can keep at least 46 of the hornets going in the interim


----------



## armyvern

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think I posted this link before regarding fleet requirements single/mixed fighters
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page
> 
> the 18 SH should contribute 10 towards the NORAD requirement of 36 leaving the remaining 26 to be covered by the original hornets (46 x0.8 x0.7 = 26). So my guess is that the liberals think they can keep at least 46 of the hornets going in the interim



All hail the maintainers; perhaps the libs will give 'em a pay raise for the hell they are going to be living/working with to keep in the air.  And, while we're at it, how about them SK rotor-head maintainers too.  Sigh.


----------



## Cloud Cover

From where and when, precisely, did this mysterious fighter gap arise? What air force document or doctrine, if any, professed a need for any quantity of this particular type of aircraft?  I can see 18 Growlers, but 18 of the E/F models? Not making any sense at all.


----------



## OldSolduer

I'm no expert in the field of air superiority etc, procurement of "stuff", nor strategy, but it seems to me that the PM et al could really care less about fighters and if they could get away with it, they would purchase none at all. After all, "sunny ways" will take care of us and "the budget will balance itself".
Plus given the fact, as one of our esteemed colleagues put it "the Canadian public's support for the CAF is a mile wide and an inch deep". They will meekly listen to the talking heads tell them what to think.

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## suffolkowner

Rumour has it that the government will be looking to lease the SH's. You think it might have been a good idea to have negotiated all this with the USG/Boeing before announcing it?

That ******** guy had posted the hours on all the CF-18, but I was unable to find it elsewhere which might help some with regard to the "gap"


----------



## ringo

18 SH better than nothing, while there in talks with Boeing they should snap up the last unsold C17.
If purchased these SH could be future Snowbird a/c when a 5th gen fighter is in service.
Hopefully the SH will be fitted with conformal fuel tanks.


----------



## suffolkowner

trying this, first time list of cf18 hours


----------



## PuckChaser

What are the headers? First column looks like tail number?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

First column is tail number
Second is location
Third appears to be age
Fourth is airframe hours
Fifth and sixth- not a clue.

Only 51 listed. Perhaps that is the list of the remaining A (single seat) models?


----------



## Inspir

caocao said:
			
		

> Talking about infra, do our hgrs in CL and Bagot able to support the SH or are we going to need new hgr doors?


----------



## suffolkowner

sorry guys did the best i could 
the first is aircraft number , 
second is base, 
third is age,
fourth is hours 
fifth is hours at retirement and 
sixth is date of retirement


----------



## suffolkowner

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> First column is tail number
> Second is location
> Third appears to be age
> Fourth is airframe hours
> Fifth and sixth- not a clue.
> 
> Only 51 listed. Perhaps that is the list of the remaining A (single seat) models?


I missed part of the list here's some of the rest, can't seem to capture the rest


----------



## PuckChaser

So to frame that data a little bit, I found some info on life expectancy from the US F/A-18 aircraft:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-service-life.htm

Seems like retirement age is around 8,000 hours in the US for A/C models, and 10,000 hours for E/F, but also that is for the carrier borne aircraft from the USN and USMC.


----------



## ModlrMike

So we're replacing the F-18 with the F-18? That makes sense.


----------



## jmt18325

It doesn't say anything about replacements.


----------



## MilEME09

most likely if they do end up going through with this interim buy, which they probably will no matter the cost, they will pick the 18 oldest/most flight hours air frames and side line them for spare parts for the rest of the legacy fleet.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> My bet, we buy 18 super hornets and retire the legacy hornets by 2025 as planned.  No new competition is ever held and we end up with a token force only used for continental commitments effectively becoming NZ of the North.  Well on our way to becoming even more irrelevant than we were before.



Or, we continue to be the NZ of the north, punching well below our weight. This decision is indicative of us as an unserious nation.

I reckon once the SH are here, it is the thin edge of the procurement wedge. SH, a nice update of an older ac, will be our de facto CF-18 replacement.

Meanwhile, the real northern power, Norway, has committed to a F-35 block buy:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/10/14/norway-may-become-first-country-f-35-block-buy/


----------



## MilEME09

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> Or, we continue to be the NZ of the north, punching well below our weight. This decision is indicative of us as an unserious nation.
> 
> I reckon once the SH are here, it is the thin edge of the procurement wedge. SH, a nice update of an older ac, will be our de facto CF-18 replacement.
> 
> Meanwhile, the real northern power, Norway, has committed to a F-35 block buy:
> 
> http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/10/14/norway-may-become-first-country-f-35-block-buy/



its going to take something dramatic to get the Canadian government to take defense procurement and the military seriously


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> its going to take something dramatic to get the Canadian government to take defense procurement and the military seriously



Perhaps it will get serious when Trump tells the rest of NATO (Canada) to pony up and pull your weight or business and travel will suffer.  

I really think JT and the Butts team are in for a world of hurt with the Trump presidency.


----------



## dimsum

Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> Glass half full, if we get the growler convertible ones and keep them as EW platforms after we take delivery of F35s in 5 years then it will be a positive development... Only if



As if we'll buy the F model (the one convertible to Growler) - our fighter folks don't like having pesky Navs/WSOs telling them what to do.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> As if we'll buy the F model (the one convertible to Growler) - our fighter folks don't like having pesky Navs/WSOs telling them what to do.



Pretty sure the pilot is still the pilot-in-Command.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Pretty sure the pilot is still the pilot-in-Command.



True, who is always in Command of the aircraft and all onboard. There is such a concept as Crew Commander, who is responsible for mission execution and completion.

Not that I want to drive this down a tangent, but, in some parts of the Air Force, it is possible for non-pilots to give a legal order to pilots while airborne and have it carried out without a lot of argument.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

18 sounds like a number that will keep pilots flying, but forces the government hand to continue with the competition, I suspect some RCAF senior types were very busy trying to slide through the cracks to keep flying and not let the F-35 die completely. Lockmart might decide to not extend or offer any more contracts till we decide. At which point you will have the aerospace industry baying at the politicians heels.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

John Ivison had a pretty clear eyed view of the announcement in this morning's National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-jet-purchase-a-political-solution-to-political-problem

As he clearly states, this was basically a political solution to a political problem: the Liberal's political problem of their own making for issuing idiotic undertakings from ignorance during an election.

Someone in an earlier post in this fora wanted to know where that "gap" came from: As Ivison reminds us, it does not exist as far as the RCAF commander is concerned. We have all we need and it is perfectly possible to do with what we have until such time as a proper competition can be held and a decision made (which would only require a year or so, but put the Libs in a position to include the F-35 - which would likely win - in the competition before the next election).

It is interesting to note what General Vance is quoted as saying about that supposed gap: "The Air Force cannot meet it's current missions AND have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances".

Now this "AND" is important, and is political speak to hide the fact that the Air Force does have all the airplanes it needs to meet its missions. It is only facing those pesky "unforeseen circumstances" that would require extra airplanes.

But here's the problem: When did "meeting unforeseen circumstances" become the standard to decide acquisition numbers for anything in the CF? The Navy stated it need 14 to 15 hulls to meet its missions. Throw in unforeseen circumstances and how many more do you need? You can't tell. It all depends on what that "unforeseen circumstance is, and by definition nobody knows that in advance (or it wouldn't be unforeseen). Same goes for fighters: Depending on those "unforeseen" events, will 18 F-18 E/F be enough, or will you now need 36, or 72? Where do you stop?

That's why "unforeseen" events are not usually taken into consideration when developing plans.

And here's another point: If those stop gap planes are for facing "unforeseen circumstances", then I gather that means they are "extra" to the ones we already have. That would be an increase of more than 25 % of the number of planes. Do we have the personnel to man those extra planes and maintain them? How much expansion in the RCAF personnel will be required and where will the money come from to do it?

Just asking questions here  .


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's why "unforeseen" events are not usually taken into consideration when developing plans.


Sure they are; that's why you always reconstitute your reserve.   :nod:



> Do we have the personnel to man those extra planes and maintain them? How much expansion in the RCAF personnel will be required and where will the money come from to do it?


 I've been told to keep this quiet, but the _real_  reason behind this is being driven by the Canex leather jacket mafia.  
Follow the money.  Follow the money.....  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## jmt18325

So wait, are some of you arguing against keeping the air force at ~80 aircraft?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Semi-technical question from a friend who has had friends disqualified due to being to tall. Does the SH have the same height restriction as the CF-18?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> John Ivison had a pretty clear eyed view of the announcement in this morning's National Post:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-jet-purchase-a-political-solution-to-political-problem
> 
> As he clearly states, this was basically a political solution to a political problem: the Liberal's political problem of their own making for issuing idiotic undertakings from ignorance during an election.
> 
> Someone in an earlier post in this fora wanted to know where that "gap" came from: As Ivison reminds us, it does not exist as far as the RCAF commander is concerned. We have all we need and it is perfectly possible to do with what we have until such time as a proper competition can be held and a decision made (which would only require a year or so, but put the Libs in a position to include the F-35 - which would likely win - in the competition before the next election).
> 
> It is interesting to note what General Vance is quoted as saying about that supposed gap: "The Air Force cannot meet it's current missions AND have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances".
> 
> Now this "AND" is important, and is political speak to hide the fact that the Air Force does have all the airplanes it needs to meet its missions. It is only facing those pesky "unforeseen circumstances" that would require extra airplanes.
> 
> But here's the problem: When did "meeting unforeseen circumstances" become the standard to decide acquisition numbers for anything in the CF? The Navy stated it need 14 to 15 hulls to meet its missions. Throw in unforeseen circumstances and how many more do you need? You can't tell. It all depends on what that "unforeseen circumstance is, and by definition nobody knows that in advance (or it wouldn't be unforeseen). Same goes for fighters: Depending on those "unforeseen" events, will 18 F-18 E/F be enough, or will you now need 36, or 72? Where do you stop?
> 
> That's why "unforeseen" events are not usually taken into consideration when developing plans.
> 
> And here's another point: If those stop gap planes are for facing "unforeseen circumstances", then I gather that means they are "extra" to the ones we already have. That would be an increase of more than 25 % of the number of planes. Do we have the personnel to man those extra planes and maintain them? How much expansion in the RCAF personnel will be required and where will the money come from to do it?
> 
> Just asking questions here  .



Just to jump on OldBoatDriver's line of questioning:

Can anyone elaborate on current NORAD/NATO/Training breakdown of operational aircraft per squadron?

Bagotville
425 - 16 Aircraft?
433 - 16 Aircraft?

Cold Lake
401 - 16 Aircraft?
409 - 16 Aircraft?
410, Training & AETE - 13 Aircraft combined?

[Worked numbers backwards based on the Ivison article stating that there are currently 77 operational aircraft in total]

I'm sure what most people are trying to wrap their head around is how the current operational legacy hornets are deployed, and how the super hornets would be assigned?  

Does a new unit stand-up so operational numbers go from 77 to 95?  

Does the number of operational fighters stay unchanged at 77, so the Super Hornets go to one specific squadron (with 2 for training), then the other units share the replaced 16 legacy hornets to reduce flight time per year?  

The lack of detail in the announcement (no contract pre-negotiated, no operational plan) seems absurd....the sad part is that too much of our population will still love "Prime Minister Selfie" because he's cuter than Harper was.


M.   :facepalm:


----------



## Altair

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So wait, are some of you arguing against keeping the air force at ~80 aircraft?


I'm personally against not holding a open competition as son as possible.

Could have had new aircraft coming in by then end of the decade...now we need to wait until after the next election.

Damn it. Just had to be the Stupid Hornet too.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> John Ivison had a pretty clear eyed view of the announcement in this morning's National Post:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-jet-purchase-a-political-solution-to-political-problem
> 
> As he clearly states, this was basically a political solution to a political problem: the Liberal's political problem of their own making for issuing idiotic undertakings from ignorance during an election.
> 
> Someone in an earlier post in this fora wanted to know where that "gap" came from: As Ivison reminds us, it does not exist as far as the RCAF commander is concerned. We have all we need and it is perfectly possible to do with what we have until such time as a proper competition can be held and a decision made (which would only require a year or so, but put the Libs in a position to include the F-35 - which would likely win - in the competition before the next election).
> 
> It is interesting to note what General Vance is quoted as saying about that supposed gap: "The Air Force cannot meet it's current missions AND have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances".
> 
> Now this "AND" is important, and is political speak to hide the fact that the Air Force does have all the airplanes it needs to meet its missions. It is only facing those pesky "unforeseen circumstances" that would require extra airplanes.
> 
> But here's the problem: When did "meeting unforeseen circumstances" become the standard to decide acquisition numbers for anything in the CF? The Navy stated it need 14 to 15 hulls to meet its missions. Throw in unforeseen circumstances and how many more do you need? You can't tell. It all depends on what that "unforeseen circumstance is, and by definition nobody knows that in advance (or it wouldn't be unforeseen). Same goes for fighters: Depending on those "unforeseen" events, will 18 F-18 E/F be enough, or will you now need 36, or 72? Where do you stop?
> 
> That's why "unforeseen" events are not usually taken into consideration when developing plans.
> 
> And here's another point: If those stop gap planes are for facing "unforeseen circumstances", then I gather that means they are "extra" to the ones we already have. That would be an increase of more than 25 % of the number of planes. Do we have the personnel to man those extra planes and maintain them? How much expansion in the RCAF personnel will be required and where will the money come from to do it?
> 
> Just asking questions here  .



Oldgateboatdriver, all great questions and discussion. Should the answers not be contained in the assumptions and force levels articulated the Security and Defence Review?

Where is the Review? Anyone seen it?


----------



## kev994

Colin P said:
			
		

> Semi-technical question from a friend who has had friends disqualified due to being to tall. Does the SH have the same height restriction as the CF-18?


I believe the Hawk (fighter lead-in trainer) is the limiting factor here so the size of the SH would not alleviate that issue


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So wait, are some of you arguing against keeping the air force at ~80 aircraft?



Even if we had no fighters at all, the a** f**ce would still have more than eighty aircraft.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> I'm personally against not holding a open competition as son as possible.



I am still waiting for somebody to define this much-ballyhooed term "open competition". Jet races?

Evaluations have been done. What more is necessary? What has been missed? And, given the security classification of real capabilities, how "open" can any process be?


----------



## Kirkhill

Given that the aircraft and capabilities are so software dependent these days, and that software development is continuous and rapid, how is that going to be managed over a 5 year competition?


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> Even if we had no fighters at all, the a** f**ce would still have more than eighty aircraft.



You knew what I meant.


----------



## STONEY

I watched the MND being interviewed on news channel and i didn't know weather to laugh or cry. I was amazed that he managed to keep a strait face while sprouting drivel while the host had a hard time not laughing at him. Next came the defence critics from the 3 partys . The libs & cons practially got in a brawl while NDP seemed to be talking on another subject. And Vance does he actually believe what he says or is it just the party line, he should do the right thing and fall on his sword. Five years for an open compition really , thats worse than my spelling.   Cheers


----------



## jmt18325

It's more likely that 5 years as seen as the longest that we can wait (kicking the can as far as it can go) even with the interim SH order.


----------



## Journeyman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's more likely that 5 years as seen as the longest that we can wait (kicking the can as far as it can go) even with the interim SH order.


I suspect that it's more likely that five years was chosen to put it past the next election.

As for the previous post, it's pretty telling that the MND is obviously a neophyte Cabinet Minister because he's such a terrible liar.

Maybe Trump, Brexit, and punting the status quo _are_  the wave of the future -- voters tired of being talked down to as though they're idiots (even the ones who clearly are).



*NOT INTENDING TO START ANOTHER MINDLESS POLITICAL THREAD* -- Please keep this on Zoomie Fighter stuff.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You knew what I meant.



Not necessarily - there is a good chunk of the fighter community who seem to think along those lines.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not necessarily - there is a good chunk of the fighter community who seem to think along those lines.



With these mysterious 18 SH and no reasonable political prospect for a new fleet of 5Gen fighters, that community may in 5-6 years find itself without the numbers to have much clout ...


----------



## suffolkowner

what I can figure out correct or not, I don't know. The "Gap" seems pretty easy to reason out

77 x 80% availability x 70% serviceability = 43

43 - 36 for NORAD = 7 fighters left over for all other contingencies - Is that a gap? Seems pretty tight to me

Of our 77 fighters  50 have over 6000 hrs - Seems pretty tight as well. 

Approximately 25ish fighters had a center barrel rebuild/refurbishment the others were not done due to cost or need? And what airframes were they?

What shape are the fighters left over from the original purchase could they have been rebuilt? 

It still seems real strange to me to announce a purchase/lease before coming to terms with the vendor 
In the end the F-35 still seems like the long term solution assuming the F-35 is operational 4 years hence


----------



## jmt18325

And it's the plan that post 2017, we'll be operating only ~65 CF-18s.  That seems to be a number too small, given your reasoning.


----------



## MilEME09

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And it's the plan that post 2017, we'll be operating only ~65 CF-18s.  That seems to be a number too small, given your reasoning.



According to testimony in the commons defense committee by the head of the airforce, 65 is the number of aircraft at min he needs to meet our obligations to NORAD, and NATO. Probably where the 65 F-35 number came from way back when. That said if we bought exactly 65 airframes, the moment we have an accident does that mean we no longer have enough to cover NORAD and NATO? will we operate a mixed fleet in the future of SH + what ever wins the competition? (assuming it's not the SH which in my belief if it was a fair and open competition I don't think it would win)


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> According to testimony in the commons defense committee by the head of the airforce, 65 is the number of aircraft at min he needs to meet our obligations to NORAD, and NATO. Probably where the 65 F-35 number came from way back when. That said if we bought exactly 65 airframes, the moment we have an accident does that mean we no longer have enough to cover NORAD and NATO? will we operate a mixed fleet in the future of SH + what ever wins the competition? (assuming it's not the SH which in my belief if it was a fair and open competition I don't think it would win)



I don't believe there is a specified number of airframes obligated to NATO(just the 36 to NORAD), although I doubt our allies are impressed with our plan/commitment to 65 aircraft


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I suspect that it's more likely that five years was chosen to put it past the next election.
> 
> As for the previous post, it's pretty telling that the MND is obviously a neophyte Cabinet Minister because he's such a terrible liar.
> 
> Maybe Trump, Brexit, and punting the status quo _are_  the wave of the future -- voters tired of being talked down to as though they're idiots (even the ones who clearly are).
> 
> 
> 
> *NOT INTENDING TO START ANOTHER MINDLESS POLITICAL THREAD* -- Please keep this on Zoomie Fighter stuff.



It may be harsh to say so, but I think MND 'Badass' has reached the limits of his capacity on this. Running the Ministry is ever so slightly more complex than a Reserve Unit. He might have personal credibility as a soldier, but as a Cabinet Minister he is a politician and, call me old fashioned on this, but politicians are paid to weigh options, consider the consequences...*then make a decision*. In government, but not in power.

As for numbers of airframes, pick a random number between say, 50 and 100. Deduct 1/3. Declare that number to NORAD.


----------



## suffolkowner

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And it's the plan that post 2017, we'll be operating only ~65 CF-18s.  That seems to be a number too small, given your reasoning.



I agree but I'm not in charge of the budget


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't believe there is a specified number of airframes obligated to NATO(just the 36 to NORAD), although I doubt our allies are impressed with our plan/commitment to 65 aircraft


Personally I'd want to see a 1 for 1 buy of new aircraft at either our current number or if we somehow saw a large budget increase, the original Hornet fleet size.


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> ...
> It still seems real strange to me to announce a purchase/lease before coming to terms with the vendor
> ....



My guess is that the government just wanted to get this behind them as much as possible because there may be a lot of fancy dancing necessary if Kinder-Morgan is approved.  And XL, Canada East and even Northern Gateway still in the offing.

The Carbon Tax and the Coastal Plan seem to be being set up to supply cover.

But - as Journeyman said - stick to the zoomie stuff here.


----------



## Quirky

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just to jump on OldBoatDriver's line of questioning:
> 
> Can anyone elaborate on current NORAD/NATO/Training breakdown of operational aircraft per squadron?
> 
> Bagotville
> 425 - 16 Aircraft?
> 433 - 16 Aircraft?
> 
> Cold Lake
> 401 - 16 Aircraft?
> 409 - 16 Aircraft?
> 410, Training & AETE - 13 Aircraft combined?
> 
> [Worked numbers backwards based on the Ivison article stating that there are currently 77 operational aircraft in total]



Operational aircraft (single seat) are more or less evenly divided between the gun squadrons in CL and BG. Each of those squadrons has two or more duals. AETE has two which are used for testing and one more is in the tech training unit. 410 has a majority of dual seat jets with a couple of them being singles.



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> what I can figure out correct or not, I don't know. The "Gap" seems pretty easy to reason out
> 
> 77 x 80% availability x 70% serviceability = 43
> 
> 43 - 36 for NORAD = 7 fighters left over for all other contingencies - Is that a gap? Seems pretty tight to me



Availability is around 95% and serviceability around 80% if not higher. I don't see a gap based on the OPS in Libya and Iraq/Syria, we don't send more than a 6 pack anyway.

I think 32 aircraft (F35s) on each coast is more than sufficient to meet our needs. 16 per squadron would be a good number and they would rotate deployment taskings. 410 as it is right now would not be needed as all pilot training is done in sims or down south. The other jet would be our airshow bird to show the public what their money bought them.


----------



## Scoobs

The Super Hornet was never a recommendation to the Government.  This will cost billions as the SH is not a Hornet.  Different engines, avionics, etc.  This means different support tools, etc.  This means increased costs.

One recommendation was to extend the life of the current CF188s until the new a/c was in service.

Another consideration was to purchase the Kuwaiti F18s as they have low hours on them.  Kuwait is buying new fighters.  These F18s would have allowed for flying F18s until the new fighter was ready.  This overall cost was in the 500 million range.  It would have taken approximately 4 weeks per a/c to get them ready for us.  This option would have meant zero need for new training, support equipment, etc.  It is my understanding that the Minister didn't even want to listen when being briefed this option, literally.

This has gone over like a lead balloon in the Air Force procurement world.

The reason being given for buying 18 SHs is Industrial Regional Benefits.


----------



## Quirky

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Another consideration was to purchase the Kuwaiti F18s as they have low hours on them.
> 
> The reason being given for buying 18 SHs is Industrial Regional Benefits.



Having personally seen Kuwati F18s up close, we wouldn't be getting a deal. They look very aged for their hours, all that time in the desert sun and exposed to the sand has worn them down. Our jets had sand absolutely everywhere after OP IMPACT, I can't imagine what theirs would look underneath all the panels.  

If the SHs are just white tails, what benefits will we receive? The line is already established along with suppliers and I doubt Boeing will change that for a measly 18 leased aircraft.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:
			
		

> If the SHs are just white tails, what benefits will we receive? The line is already established along with suppliers and I doubt Boeing will change that for a measly 18 leased aircraft.



I don't think there are any white tail SH right now, the lines are busy pushing out SH and Growlers for the USN (As they were originally about to close in 2017), the Kuwait buy now, that keeps the line open until 2018 so we would be at the back of the line with deliveries as early as 2018/2019


----------



## jollyjacktar

Todays Bruce MacKinnon cartoon on the subject.   :nod:

Chronicle Herald Cartoon


----------



## suffolkowner

Quirky said:
			
		

> Operational aircraft (single seat) are more or less evenly divided between the gun squadrons in CL and BG. Each of those squadrons has two or more duals. AETE has two which are used for testing and one more is in the tech training unit. 410 has a majority of dual seat jets with a couple of them being singles.
> 
> Availability is around 95% and serviceability around 80% if not higher. I don't see a gap based on the OPS in Libya and Iraq/Syria, we don't send more than a 6 pack anyway.
> 
> I think 32 aircraft (F35s) on each coast is more than sufficient to meet our needs. 16 per squadron would be a good number and they would rotate deployment taskings. 410 as it is right now would not be needed as all pilot training is done in sims or down south. The other jet would be our airshow bird to show the public what their money bought them.



the 80% availability and 70% serviceability are for planning purposes, it doesn't matter if you exceed the numbers at any given point in time, only if you fall below  [lol:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Todays Bruce MacKinnon cartoon on the subject.   :nod:
> 
> Chronicle Herald Cartoon



Now, that is going full circle for the family: When Trudeau Sr. was in power, he was often pictured as a ditherer himself. As a result, a cartoonist in Montreal drew a circular track with a limousine driving around on it. The Caption read: "Ah! Ah!, said Mr. Trudeau in the car, we are at a turning point in the affairs of the state".

 ;D


----------



## Rifleman62

Canuck_Jock: 





> It may be harsh to say so, but I think MND 'Badass' has reached the limits of his capacity on this. Running the Ministry is ever so slightly more complex than a Reserve Unit. He might have personal credibility as a soldier, but as a Cabinet Minister he is a politician and, call me old fashioned on this, but politicians are paid to weigh options, consider the consequences...then make a decision. In government, but not in power.



If you remember way back when the Minister was appointed, ERC said the same thing but much, much more eloquently as his norm.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

He is one voice in many, I think his main failing is that he is a good soldier and follows his marching orders, perhaps to much.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Perhaps he is also doing the best he can to influence from the inside, toeing the line enough to keep his post because he fears what a replacement might do.  How many people have had to deal with wanting leadership above them yet weathered the storm to keep as straight a track as possible until the winds of change blew again?


----------



## a_majoor

Meanwhile, in the real world, the F-35 continues to demonstrate new capabilities. Spotting and controlling a missile from another platform is just the first step towards what the US is calling the "Third offset". Canada buying lesser jets would only make sense if we also buy long range missiles and "stealth" weapons pods like the demonstrated by the Advanced Super Hornet so out planes can act as useful bomb and missile trucks for their American controllers in the command F-35's.

One consequence of tis Liberal dithering is Canada's contributions to coalition missions will become increasingly irrelevant not only in terms of numbers, but even in effectiveness, further reducing our already tenuous influence on the world stage.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/f-35b-controls-missiles-on-aegis.html



> *F-35B controls missiles on an Aegis equipped destroyer to shoot down a drone*
> 
> The Marines completed a proof-of-concept test in which a Marine Corps F-35B detected a cruise-missile decoy (a drone), passed targeting information to a remote sensor, and set up a shot by an Aegis combat system of the sort you’ll find on modern destroyers. A battery controlled by the Aegis fired a live SM-6 missile, which took down the drone.
> 
> The Aegis weapon system is on 33 ships
> 
> The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. Under MDA and Navy plans, the number of BMD-capable Navy Aegis ships is scheduled to grow from 33 at the end of FY2016 to 49 at the end of FY2021. The figure for FY2020 may include up to four BMD-capable Aegis cruisers in reduced operating status as part of a program to modernize 11 existing Aegis cruisers
> 
> The SM-6 has a range of up to 290 miles.


----------



## Journeyman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> .... Canada's contributions to coalition missions will become increasingly irrelevant .....


But if a government wants our coalitions limited to sharing campfire songs with our blue-hatted Bangladeshi and Ethiopian comrades in arms, what better way to limit our options than self-disarmament.....


----------



## PuckChaser

Interesting article here from Lee Berthiume, with an important piece quoted below:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/11/23/former-military-procurement-chiefs-slam-liberals-fighter-jet-plan/#.WDck01yq3Nh



> The government has refused to say how much it expects to pay for the Super Hornets, or what it will do with them if another jet fighter wins the promised competition.
> 
> But Ross and Williams predicted the figure could run anywhere between $3 billion and $8 billion, depending on what is included and how long they are kept.
> 
> Officials say the cost of the Super Hornets won't hit the government's bottom line or make the deficit any bigger in the short term because there is already $9 billion set aside by the previous Conservative government for the purchase of fighter jets.
> 
> However, there is no extra money in the fiscal framework for another tranche of jets. Those planes will need fresh financing to the order of many billions of dollars.
> 
> Analysts have long warned that the military is dealing with unrealistic expectations under a tight spending cap, though the government says it will address that problem with a new defence policy next year.



These 18 aircraft are being financed out of the $9B set aside for the F-35. If there's no new money, the table is heavily tilted towards SH in the competition, or else we make do with significantly less airframes of whatever plane wins the competition.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Interesting article here from Lee Berthiume, with an important piece quoted below:
> 
> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/11/23/former-military-procurement-chiefs-slam-liberals-fighter-jet-plan/#.WDck01yq3Nh
> 
> These 18 aircraft are being financed out of the $9B set aside for the F-35. If there's no new money, the table is heavily tilted towards SH in the competition, or else we make do with significantly less airframes of whatever plane wins the competition.



ig Thats the case I'd be crying fowl right now if I was any one but Boeing


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Perhaps he is also doing the best he can to influence from the inside, toeing the line enough to keep his post because he fears what a replacement might do.  How many people have had to deal with wanting leadership above them yet weathered the storm to keep as straight a track as possible until the winds of change blew again?



Imagine if you took someone, oh I don't know, say an ordinary beat cop and put them in charge of a complex organisation of 100,000 personnel, $19 Bn annual budget and the requirement to make decisions that will affect operational effectiveness for decades to come. Not a good idea! Oh, wait... :facepalm:

Sorry, good intentions and tough looking happy snaps does not cut the mustard. Further afield, the best Sec Def the UK has had of late spent his formative career in medical equipment and consultancy. No military experience but loads of experience effectively running large orgs.

As for the SH/CF-18, there is some commonality but it will still be, at best, a fleet within a fleet.


----------



## Journeyman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> ...I'd be crying fowl right now if I was any one but Boeing....


"...God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly ... "


----------



## MilEME09

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "...God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly ... "



If you throw them off the peace tower they will


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

/DERAIL

No matter where I look, I just can't find any reference in any online curriculum of the DEFMIN to the fact that he ever graduated from any university.

He was commissioned in the reserves in 1991. By that time hadn't the requirement to either hold a university degree or be enrolled in one then have to finish it been introduced to the reserves yet?

Otherwise, he was a police officer (obviously a good one, that rose to detective), a militiaman who rose to command a reserve Regiment, and who had a few tours in AFG, where his knowledge of the local language made him a good asset for intel work.

However, none of this introduced him in any way to the Byzantine organizations that are NDHQ and the Department of defence.

Put into the mix that he is brand spanking new politician in his first ever siting in parliament and he is way over his pay grade (which takes nothing away from him as a soldier or policeman). Anybody else here thinks his appointment instead of retired Gen Leslie as DEFMIN  is a way for the Young Dauphin's handlers (Yes, the Chretien clan of the Liberals) to be in position to outmaneuver anything coming from Defence by using a neophyte?

/END DERAIL


----------



## Loachman

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "...God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly ... "



For those that have never seen the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3mgmEdfwg


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And today is the perfect day to watch the episode all over again.  ;D

"Baby, if you ever wondered. Wondered whatever became of me ...   :warstory: "


----------



## FSTO

Loachman said:
			
		

> For those that have never seen the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3mgmEdfwg



One of the funniest moments in the history of sitcom TV.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> /DERAIL
> 
> No matter where I look, I just can't find any reference in any online curriculum of the DEFMIN to the fact that he ever graduated from any university.
> 
> He was commissioned in the reserves in 1991. By that time hadn't the requirement to either hold a university degree or be enrolled in one then have to finish it been introduced to the reserves yet?
> 
> Otherwise, he was a police officer (obviously a good one, that rose to detective), a militiaman who rose to command a reserve Regiment, and who had a few tours in AFG, where his knowledge of the local language made him a good asset for intel work.
> 
> However, none of this introduced him in any way to the Byzantine organizations that are NDHQ and the Department of defence.
> 
> Put into the mix that he is brand spanking new politician in his first ever siting in parliament and he is way over his pay grade (which takes nothing away from him as a soldier or policeman). Anybody else here thinks his appointment instead of retired Gen Leslie as DEFMIN  is a way for the Young Dauphin's handlers (Yes, the Chretien clan of the Liberals) to be in position to outmaneuver anything coming from Defence by using a neophyte?
> 
> /END DERAIL



The Degreed Officer Corps arose from the 1997 Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces; it's often referred to as MND recommendation #10, which is sometimes broken down into 10A - Regular Force, and 10B, Reserve Force.

CANFORGEN 154/12 implemented that direction, stating (in part) "...A START DATE OF 1 APRIL 2013 HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. ALL PRIMARY RESERVE OFFICERS ENROLLED AFTER THAT DATE WILL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DEGREE IN ORDER TO BE PROMOTED TO THE RANK OF MAJ/LCDR UNLESS COMMISSIONED FROM THE RANKS. OFFICERS ENROLLED PRIOR TO THAT DATE WILL BE ENCOURAGED, BUT NOT REQUIRED, TO OBTAIN A DEGREE "


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thanks for the info DP. 

I had lost track of the timeline, and at the two reserve units I served at, it was an irrelevant issue: every single officer I ever served with at those units was either in university or had one or  more degrees, with one exception - he was a graduate from the Coast guard college who was a Chief Engineering Mate on the river icebreakers and a reserve engineering officer at the same time.


----------



## PuckChaser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> /DERAIL
> Put into the mix that he is brand spanking new politician in his first ever siting in parliament and he is way over his pay grade (which takes nothing away from him as a soldier or policeman). Anybody else here thinks his appointment instead of retired Gen Leslie as DEFMIN  is a way for the Young Dauphin's handlers (Yes, the Chretien clan of the Liberals) to be in position to outmaneuver anything coming from Defence by using a neophyte?
> /END DERAIL



IMO, Trudeau needed an inexperienced minister to toe the party line and not question decisions. Saijan was that man. He owes the party for his election, whereas Leslie could have lived comfortably on his General's pension and courted other parties. Leslie could not be counted on not to point out bonehead decisions after he dropped his transformation report as a giant FU (calling the system out for what it is) when he knew he wouldn't get CDS. Leslie was placed as government whip because his entire job would be to ensure party line was followed, and to gauge his trustworthiness to take on other roles should Trudeau decisions cause ministers to have to fall on their swords through no fault of there own.

Best case scenario, we are now down to $6B CAD without a cash infusion to buy our next fighters. If people thought we had a capability gap with 77 aircraft, wait until we can't afford more than 50 in 5 years regardless of what one is picked.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, that is going full circle for the family: When Trudeau Sr. was in power, he was often pictured as a ditherer himself. As a result, a cartoonist in Montreal drew a circular track with a limousine driving around on it. The Caption read: "Ah! Ah!, said Mr. Trudeau in the car, we are at a turning point in the affairs of the state".
> 
> ;D



 :cheers:


----------



## NavyShooter

Enter again the Scorpion?

http://www.scorpionjet.com/

Consider, we will now have 18 combat fighters, that would be able to do 'expeditionary' actions as necessary.  As we reduce the flying hours of the remaining CF-18's, they roll into the NORAD role.

Political 'football' of potential lost contracts is kicked out of the park by announcing that a deal has been struck to have Bombardier manufacture 100+ Scorpions for the CAF, and then they'll be taking international orders.  That 100 airframes at a cost of $20 mil each runs to only a $2 billion purchase price, but they get sold to John Q public as a 'multi-role capable aircraft':

http://www.scorpionjet.com/missions/

It takes over as the trainer of preference, replaces the Snowbirds, and becomes beloved of the nation, and is made in Canada due to the Bombardier connection.

This allows the coffers in Quebec to be filled, gives the CAF new 'more capable' aircraft, and enables the government to push off the purchase of real fighters by a few more years.

Does it meet the needs of the CAF?  Not as they're currently defined, but who defines those needs?  The people who buy the airframes and send out the contracts....and remember, it's not about the actual capability, it's about waving the flag and being seen to be 'doing something' for Canada.

Plausible?  Getting more and more....if we lose F-35 contracts, this would be an ideal "we are spending money at home" infrastructure solution, and would be a way for the government to crow about their successful business planning models and capability delivery to the CAF...

NS


----------



## jmt18325

So much for this not becoming another political tread.

At worst, we'll probably end up with more Super Hornets.  At best, this is a way to ease people into the F-35 whilst keeping a stupid promise.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So much for this not becoming another political tread.
> 
> At worst, we'll probably end up with more Super Hornets.  At best, this is a way to ease people into the F-35 whilst keeping a stupid promise.



JMT, there is literally no way of separating politics from military procurement- especially in Canada.


----------



## GR66

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Enter again the Scorpion?



The Scorpion has no air-to-air capability.  Your scenario makes no sense as this aircraft cannot fulfill the most basic requirement of a "fighter" aircraft...which is to have the capability of shooting down another aircraft.

IF the Liberal government were to go for a "cheap" solution it would likely have to be something more like the Gripen or the KAI FA-50.  What other "budget" fighter will be in production at the time we are buying and has air-to-air capability and an advanced radar?


----------



## Canuck_Jock

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Enter again the Scorpion?
> 
> http://www.scorpionjet.com/
> 
> Consider, we will now have 18 combat fighters, that would be able to do 'expeditionary' actions as necessary.  As we reduce the flying hours of the remaining CF-18's, they roll into the NORAD role.
> 
> Political 'football' of potential lost contracts is kicked out of the park by announcing that a deal has been struck to have Bombardier manufacture 100+ Scorpions for the CAF, and then they'll be taking international orders.  That 100 airframes at a cost of $20 mil each runs to only a $2 billion purchase price, but they get sold to John Q public as a 'multi-role capable aircraft':
> 
> http://www.scorpionjet.com/missions/
> 
> It takes over as the trainer of preference, replaces the Snowbirds, and becomes beloved of the nation, and is made in Canada due to the Bombardier connection.
> 
> This allows the coffers in Quebec to be filled, gives the CAF new 'more capable' aircraft, and enables the government to push off the purchase of real fighters by a few more years.
> 
> Does it meet the needs of the CAF?  Not as they're currently defined, but who defines those needs?  The people who buy the airframes and send out the contracts....and remember, it's not about the actual capability, it's about waving the flag and being seen to be 'doing something' for Canada.
> 
> Plausible?  Getting more and more....if we lose F-35 contracts, this would be an ideal "we are spending money at home" infrastructure solution, and would be a way for the government to crow about their successful business planning models and capability delivery to the CAF...
> 
> NS



Cheap.
Can be made in Quebec.
Meets no known requirement.
Painted grey.
Designed for use by Third World countries. 

Perfect for Canada!

NavyShooter, like a job at DND? It's an Intern post; title of 'Minister'. No experience needed, all on the job trg.

(we had an ac like this before, remember the CF-5?)


----------



## larry Strong

Liberals order 235 military personnel, bureaucrats to take fighter jet details to the grave

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/more-than-200-officials-forced-to-sign-lifetime-gag-order-on-fighter-jets




> The Liberal government has brought in an unprecedented gag order that prevents 235 Canadian military personnel and federal workers from ever talking about the program, now underway, to replace the country’s fighter jets.
> 
> The non-disclosure agreement for the equipment project puts the fighter jet replacement on the same level as top secret counter-terrorism missions undertaken by the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit as well as clandestine operations by the country’s spies, military sources say.
> 
> The permanent non-disclosure agreements were uncovered by Conservative defence critic James Bezan after he requested information through Commons “inquiry of ministry” process.
> 
> The information provided to Bezan noted that 121 individuals at the Department of National Defence were required to sign the non- disclosure agreement, 39 at Public Services and Procurement Canada; and 18 at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The rest of the 235 were employed by the Department of Finance, Treasury Board, Department of Justice and Privy Council Office.
> 
> Five other individuals working on the fighter jet replacement project who are under contract to DND were also required to sign the non-disclosure agreement or NDA.
> 
> “The NDA is a life-time agreement,” the response to Bezan noted. Persons signing the NDA are considered “persons permanently bound to secrecy” on the future fighter jet capability project, it added.
> 
> Defence industry executives and retired public servants say they have never seen such secrecy surrounding an equipment program.
> 
> The NDAs were first implemented in January 2016, said DND spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier. As individuals became involved in the fighter jet work, the agreements were signed, he added.
> 
> “It was done to remind employees of their obligations to the Crown under the Security of Information Act,” Le Bouthillier explained. “Given the subject-matter and commercial sensitivities ‎associated with the work, it was deemed to be an appropriate and necessary procedure.”
> 
> He said that such agreements have been used with procurement staff before on occasion.
> 
> But Alan Williams, the former assistant deputy minister for materiel at the DND, said he has never heard of such agreements. Over the years Williams oversaw hundreds of equipment projects at both DND and Public Works, worth billions of dollars.
> 
> “I’ve never heard of this type of thing before,” said Williams. “I never required it of my staff. I think if I had, I would have been laughed out of the building.”
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced Tuesday the Liberal government was entering in negotiations with Boeing to buy 18 Super Hornets as stop-gap measure before embarking on a competition to replace Canada’s existing fleet of CF-18s.
> 
> That competition, yet to start, will take at least five years.
> 
> Bezan has alleged that the Liberals are pushing off a decision to replace the fighter jets until after the next election. The move heads off what could have been an embarrassing decision for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Lockheed Martin F-35 had the potential to win any competition but Trudeau has stated his government will never buy that plane.
> 
> Sajjan blamed the previous Conservative government for mismanaging the fighter jet replacement and creating what he calls a capability gap that now requires the purchase of the Super Hornets.
> 
> But a number of defence sources say there is no capability gap.
> 
> Earlier this year, Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood said the CF-18s could fly until 2025 and potentially beyond.
> 
> In his appearance before the Commons defence committee, Hood didn’t mention anything about a capability gap.
> 
> “I know that some aircraft will end their useful life before that date (2025), starting perhaps in 2023,” Hood told the committee. “Others could last longer.”
> 
> But Hood added that he was confident that an open and fair competition would provide an aircraft in time for replacing the aging CF-18s. “I’m confident that if a decision were taken, certainly in the next five years, we’ll be in a comfortable position changing that aircraft,” Hood said.




Cheers
Larry


----------



## NavyShooter

GR66 said:
			
		

> The Scorpion has no air-to-air capability.  Your scenario makes no sense as this aircraft cannot fulfill the most basic requirement of a "fighter" aircraft...which is to have the capability of shooting down another aircraft.
> 
> IF the Liberal government were to go for a "cheap" solution it would likely have to be something more like the Gripen or the KAI FA-50.  What other "budget" fighter will be in production at the time we are buying and has air-to-air capability and an advanced radar?



Agreed, it meets no operational requirements in terms of providing an Air to Air capability.

It could meet other government imperatives:

-Ability to build in Quebec - JOBS
-Ability to build new factory in Quebec - INFRASTRUCTURE
-Ability for government to be seen to be - DOING SOMETHING

It would provide:
-Grey airframes flying over Canada at a reasonable cost (pork-barrel dependant)
-Trainer and Snowbird replacement 
-Ground attack capability with PGM capability 
-Supplemental ISR capability to 'help out' the Aurora Fleet
-Has twin engines, so that whole "F-35 doesn't have 2 engines" crowd gets silenced

Joe Q public would be happy because the government would be spending money 'wisely' on the CAF, getting airplanes, built in Canada, fraction of the cost of an F-35, they can bleat that the 'interim' CF-18 SH's provides 'all the upgraded Air-to-Air capability we need to sustain' until 5+ years down the road when they do another competition.

If the government buys it and calls it a "fighter" then the average member of the public will see it as that.  Grey, carries missiles/bombs, that's a fighter.  The inability to do A-A is something that'd get swept under the table.  Just like the average member of the public thinks that my AR-15 is an assault rifle, even though it's not select fire.  It's black, it's got a pistol grip and magazine, it's scary, yup, it's an assault gun.  

Is it plausible?  Yup.

Would it fill the needs that the CAF has?  Nope.

Would it be a Band-Aid solution that would make the Government look good?  Yup.

Personally, I'd love to see a mitt-full of F-35's show up, and sooner rather than later.  My relatively un-informed opinion is that with the sensor fusion and data sharing capabilities, it brings the RCAF into the modern world.  As a sailor, I know what Link does for us in terms of expanding the RMP, having that ability in the air in a fighter, not just in an AWACS will be a leap of capability for the individual airframes.

The realistic (read cynical) side of me sees that not happening, and something like this rolling into place as an affordable panacea that will please the public.

NS


----------



## NavyShooter

I will note one more thing....it looks like the AIM-9X could be mounted.

"The last upgrade to the missile motor on the AIM-9X is the addition of a wire harness that allows communication between the guidance section and the control section, as well as a new 1760 bus to connect the guidance section with the launcher’s digital umbilical."

The Scorpion claims it will have 2 hardpoints capable of supporting the MIL-1760 bus.

Doesn't mean it's a GOOD option, kind of like putting a Sidewinder on an A-10, but it is a capability that could be pointed at as an excuse.

NS


----------



## MilEME09

At that point those are more the oh shit personal defense engagement weapons, two AIM-9X's cant offensively engage an enemy, at least in my humble uniformed opinion. On the subject of the gag order, it screams to me the government is trying to cover something up, most likely this BS five year competition, or that their super hornet choice was made long ago and they were just waiting to spin it right )oh wait we all know thats what it was, we just need documents now)


----------



## SupersonicMax

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I will note one more thing....it looks like the AIM-9X could be mounted.
> 
> "The last upgrade to the missile motor on the AIM-9X is the addition of a wire harness that allows communication between the guidance section and the control section, as well as a new 1760 bus to connect the guidance section with the launcher’s digital umbilical."
> 
> The Scorpion claims it will have 2 hardpoints capable of supporting the MIL-1760 bus.
> 
> Doesn't mean it's a GOOD option, kind of like putting a Sidewinder on an A-10, but it is a capability that could be pointed at as an excuse.
> 
> NS



So, you don't have a radar therefore you need to cue it visually.  To cue it visually, you need to see the aircraft.  That's at best a 5-mile pick up.  The 9X is not worth it...


----------



## Journeyman

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> "The last upgrade to the missile motor on the AIM-9X is the addition of a wire harness....


I read that as 'wire-guided'... like the TOW.  

Having seen TOW wires all over former battlefields around Israel, I thought that could be pretty awkward in the air.    ;D


----------



## jmt18325

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> JMT, there is literally no way of separating politics from military procurement- especially in Canada.



Maybe not, but all the political theorizing (baseless, at that) gets pretty tiring after going through page after page.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Scorpions that are equipped with IR missile would only have utility against dissimilar ac, e.g. rotary. Air to air means killing the target 30-50nm away. But we are really missing the bleedin' obvious here.

Has there been a free and fair competition even to select the F/A-18E/F as the interim ac?? Methinks not. :-(


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Maybe not, but all the political theorizing (baseless, at that) gets pretty tiring after going through page after page.



If you read Canadian history, all procurement have always been political. it's the only consistency that we have.


----------



## Kirkhill

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> Scorpions that are equipped with IR missile would only have utility against dissimilar ac, e.g. rotary. Air to air means killing the target 30-50nm away. But we are really missing the bleedin' obvious here.
> 
> Has there been a free and fair competition even to select the F/A-18E/F as the interim ac?? Methinks not. :-(



National Defence - CF-5






Norad - CF-101





NATO - CF-104


----------



## Ostrozac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> National Defence - CF-5



I thought that we acquired the CF-5 for Vietnam style expeditionary brushfire wars, hence why it was originally assigned to Mobile Command and was the only one of those three fighters that lacked a nuclear weapons capability.

There is still a niche for cheap aircraft to drop bombs on people who lack the full range of air defence weapons, but the new trend seems to be to use UAV and transport aircraft in the role that used to be filled by light strike fighters like CF-5.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

RCAF 2030: Ground Attack:






RCAF 2030: Air Defence:






As much use as a 'Scorpion' but far more classy (and the aircraft too...):


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we had a viable Air Reserve with active squadrons a Scorpion or prop driven attack aircraft would be a good idea and fairly cheap to run compared to the larger aircraft.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> If we had a viable Air Reserve with active squadrons a Scorpion or prop driven attack aircraft would be a good idea and fairly cheap to run compared to the larger aircraft.



AH HA!  Bring out the Good Idea Faerie and we will have movement in that direction...  :warstory: ...Probably not.

Perhaps if National Defence spending actually did reach 2% of GDP, such luxuries could be a reality......but we know where our Government's loyalties actually lie.....Not with the CAF.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin P said:
			
		

> If we had a viable Air Reserve with active squadrons a Scorpion or prop driven attack aircraft would be a good idea and fairly cheap to run compared to the larger aircraft.



What capability would that bring that we don't already have?


----------



## dimsum

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> Has there been a free and fair competition even to select the F/A-18E/F as the interim ac?? Methinks not. :-(



FTFY.  If the F-model (two-seater, with an ACSO as the Weapons Systems Officer at the back) is selected, I will eat my hat.


----------



## dapaterson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> FTFY.  If the F-model (two-seater, with an ACSO as the Weapons Systems Officer at the back) is selected, I will eat my hat.


Of course wr'll get some two seaters.  It's good to have someone to carry the pilot's luggage...


----------



## Ostrozac

Dimsum said:
			
		

> FTFY.  If the F-model (two-seater, with an ACSO as the Weapons Systems Officer at the back) is selected, I will eat my hat.



((SARCASM MODE))

No, we won't be buying the E or the F model. We will be buying the G model Growler, and it will be acquired as a Cyber asset.

That's why Commander RCAF wasn't at the briefing  -- those planes will fall under Cyber authority and can therefore ignore 1CAD procedures.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

While this discussion, has invariably headed down the path towards the toilet that is “Canadian Politics” I want to redirect it towards what I believe are the two main issues which have plagued this file from the very beginning (all the way back to when the conservatives paraded out the shiny new F35):

1.	The government has a poor understanding of warfare and doesn’t understand the cost/benefit of procuring an F35 vice FA18, Eurofighter, Gripen, etc…

2.	 The military hasn’t properly communicated the cost/benefit to the government in a way that allows them to make a reasonable decision.  The military also hasn’t framed the discussion in a way that presents procuring an F35 in a favourable light.  I’ve got a couple of thoughts on this:

a.	The Canadian Military has a poor understanding of just what capabilities procuring an F35 would bring to the table because the military has a poor understanding of System of Systems (SoS) approach.  This isn’t unique to the Air Force but exists across all services and comes down to institutional culture, limited resources and lack of intellectual manpower within the Canadian Armed Forces.  

b.	The Canadian Military still thinks about military effects delivery in a “platform centric” environment vice one of “distributed functionality”.  

3.	I have serious doubts that anyone in the CAF is really thinking that hard about how all our effects we are able to deliver now and in the future, integrate with each other.  Has anyone responsible for the design of future Canadian Air Warfare thought about how the FUTURE FIGHTER integrates with JUSTAS, other Canadian Aviation, Cyber, Space?  How does the FUTURE FIGHTER interact with the Future Surface Combatant?  Will the Future Surface Combatant have a Land Attack Capability that our next generation fighter can utilize?  How does FUTURE FIGHTER interact with ground forces?

4.	Luckily, others to the South have thought about this.  DARPA has put out a pretty good video on just how they envision these platforms working together.  

 https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwipssD10sTQAhVdF8AKHYE8DxwQtwIIQDAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D77gTSr07Jqs&usg=AFQjCNGms9JP5XgxGvBJWVfMLQ2QMD1ouQ&sig2=Sc1ScuE1ejvBHYPIfUqZnQ

Also, this from DARPA System of Systems Integration and Experimentation (SoSITE) team:



> System of Systems Integration Technology and Experimentation (SoSITE)
> Dr. John Shaw
> 
> Historically, the United States has built its military capabilities on highly capable, multi-function platforms. These platforms have been expensive and have had long development times, but have incorporated sophisticated military technologies that potential adversaries have not had the ability to access or counter. This strategy has been highly successful, leading to a long period of U.S. air dominance.
> 
> However, the globalization of technology has made this strategy increasingly unsustainable. Potential adversaries are now able to access advanced technologies with relative ease and incorporate them quickly into military systems—sometimes accomplishing multiple upgrades during a U.S. weapon system’s development and acquisition period.
> 
> The goals of the System of Systems (SoS) Integration Technology and Experimentation (SoSITE) program are to: develop SoS architectures to maintain U.S. air superiority in contested environments; demonstrate rapid integration of mission systems into existing and new architectures; and demonstrate the combat effectiveness and robustness of those architectures.
> 
> SoSITE aims to demonstrate that an SoS approach to maintaining air superiority: will be militarily effective; can adapt apace with the emergence of new technologies; and will impose on any adversary seeking to counter these systems a financial cost greater than it costs the United States to field.
> 
> SoSITE seeks to develop and deliver systems architecture concepts for rapid integration of new U.S. technologies as they are developed, without requiring significant re-engineering of existing capabilities, systems, or systems of systems. A successful SoSITE program will help U.S. forces maintain their advantage in a fast-changing world by facilitating the integration of new technologies faster than near-peer adversaries can adapt to or counter them.
> 
> SoSITE will leverage advances in algorithmic, software and electronics technology to pursue multiple objectives: first, to distribute functions across networks of manned and unmanned platforms offering favorable capability-cost tradeoffs; second, to rapidly integrate advanced mission systems onto manned and unmanned platforms using open system architectures; third, to apply warfighter-managed autonomy to coordinate distributed effects; and fourth, to enable system heterogeneity to reduce common-cause vulnerabilities and provide system adaptability.



 http://www.darpa.mil/program/system-of-systems-integration-technology-and-experimentation


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> What capability would that bring that we don't already have?



A place to keep semi-retired fighter pilots gainfully employed, trained up and able to tell exciting stories in the Mess. Not to mention actually having more aircraft to bring to fight if ever something big and bad happening which leaves you zero time to build up.


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> A place to keep semi-retired fighter pilots gainfully employed, trained up and able to tell exciting stories in the Mess. Not to mention actually having more aircraft to bring to fight if ever something big and bad happening which leaves you zero time to build up.



The one big problem would be that aircrew quals are fairly frequent - pilots must fly at least once a month, and different mission sets practiced frequently.  Can Class A folks keep that up indefinitely?


----------



## Quirky

So assuming we divide up the SH equally and 410 doesn't get any, that leaves about 4-5 per for each squadron. So what good will those 4-5 be? Are they going to be used for NORAD/QRA duties only, will they perform local training missions? 18 total seems like a useless amount. They will probably just be integrated into the current squadrons with current pilots and techs being qualified on both airframes. Billions wasted.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Quirky,

Why would you assume that the RCAF is stupid enough to penny packet 18 aircraft amongst 4 Sqns?

Which would require 4 sets of tooling. And 4 sets of spares. And every Sqn to maintain two sets of quals. On two completely different aircraft.

I can predict with nearly one hundred percent certainty that all 18 will go to one Sqn.


----------



## BurmaShave

Quirky said:
			
		

> So assuming we divide up the SH equally and 410 doesn't get any, that leaves about 4-5 per for each squadron. So what good will those 4-5 be? Are they going to be used for NORAD/QRA duties only, will they perform local training missions? 18 total seems like a useless amount. They will probably just be integrated into the current squadrons with current pilots and techs being qualified on both airframes. Billions wasted.



Would be inadvisable to integrate them into current squadrons. They're different aircraft.

I think this is one of the common misunderstandings I see (particularly in the CBC comments section). The Super Hornet is _not interchangeable with the legacy Hornet._ They had 10% structural commonality when the airframe was new. Everything about the Rhino, from the (stupid!) canted pylons, to the cute little diamonds of RAM around the IFR probe, is completely new, and will not fit with the C/D Hornet. The F414 fits in the same space as the F404, but it, too, is completely new, using the hot section from the YF120, blisks, and FADEC. The only point of commonality is the avionics fit on the Block 1 Super Hornet, but that's long gone (and why would we want a plane with the same avionics, anyways? Gimme that AESA).

Trying to fit it in a legacy squadron would be a nightmare. There's no way you could be current on two aircraft. Trying to stay current on one aircraft is a full time job. You'd need two sets of spares, maintainers would have to be dual hatted (and maintainer currency is a full time job, too). It'd be like trying to have Eagles and Mudhens in the same squadron, only worse, because at least those aircraft share some spares.

Perhaps this is why we bought the Super Hornet? To trick the public into thinking we're buying a "super" version of our current planes?


----------



## SupersonicMax

BurmaShave said:
			
		

> Trying to fit it in a legacy squadron would be a nightmare. There's no way you could be current on two aircraft. Trying to stay current on one aircraft is a full time job. You'd need two sets of spares, maintainers would have to be dual hatted (and maintainer currency is a full time job, too). It'd be like trying to have Eagles and Mudhens in the same squadron, only worse, because at least those aircraft share some spares



From a pilot point of view, flip-flopping betwen the two is a non-issue.  It feels the same, flies the same and I don't think you'd need two entirely different type ratings.   It's a similar leap than from legacy to R2. We flew both interchangeably for quite some time.

Apart from a couple of emergency procedures (hydraulics and the fact there is no mech reversion in the flight controls) even the checklists are the same.


----------



## kev994

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I can predict with nearly one hundred percent certainty that all 18 will go to one Sqn.


In Quebec


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I can predict with nearly one hundred percent certainty that all 18 will go to one Sqn.



So, what's the next 400-series fighter squadron that needs to be stood up?   >

BurmaShave:  You know full well that's what the Govt was trying to pull over the public.  Also, SHs are freaking loud - much louder than the legacy Hornets.  Hope the offices and living areas near the flightline get some extra sound insulation.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> From a pilot point of view, flip-flopping betwen the two is a non-issue.  It feels the same, flies the same and I don't think you'd need two entirely different type ratings.   It's a similar leap than from legacy to R2. We flew both interchangeably for quite some time.
> 
> Apart from a couple of emergency procedures (hydraulics and the fact there is no mech reversion in the flight controls) even the checklists are the same.



Most people here really weren't talking about the pilots (they're pretty good at doing that on their own), but about substantive challenges.  

I'm with BurmaShave and SKT on this one.  Given that the four guns squadrons was a travesty against good judgement and common sense in the first place, let's not even talk about the four-squadron option.  I foresee a split between two guns squadrons East and West and wouldn't be surprised if Cougar-Niner put in a pitch for a few SHs in his own lines.  I'd say 8 in YBG and 10 in YOD and let 4 WComd sort out the internal Cool Pool split.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## dapaterson

I say we retire the Tutors and use the 18x SH for the display team... no point wasting the shiny new stuff on operations...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I say we retire the Tutors and use the 18x SH for the display team... no point wasting the shiny new stuff on operations...


QFTFT


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

If they do penny-packet we'll know the intent is lock-in the SH as the eventual permanent solution as all the infrastructure, tooling and training will have already been paid for, which would be an insumountable advantage for the other competitors to overcome.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I say we retire the Tutors and use the 18x SH for the display team... no point wasting the shiny new stuff on operations...



Don't need expensive avionics and weapons systems for that use either.


----------



## Kirkhill

The lack of a blue suit at the press conference was noticeable



> Canada's CF-18 fighter jets can all fly past 2025, RCAF commander says
> The Canadian Press
> 
> NOVEMBER 25, 2016 11:26 AM
> - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/canada-s-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-all-fly-past-2025-rcaf-commander-says-1.3208923#sthash.2oqmqAXN.dpuf



http://www.timescolonist.com/canada-s-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-all-fly-past-2025-rcaf-commander-says-1.3208923

In keeping with the employment plan of the fighters you might have to also consider the employment plan of CRCAF.


----------



## PuckChaser

Gotta respect Comd RCAF. He knows he's not getting to CDS now, and refuses to pass on a lie for political gain.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Gotta respect Comd RCAF. He knows he's not getting to CDS now, and refuses to pass on a lie for political gain.



Or he was simply ordered to stay away, to avoid any embarrassing questions getting asked...


----------



## PuckChaser

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Or he was simply ordered to stay away, to avoid any embarrassing questions getting asked...



Didn't mean the press conference. His written response to clarify his April position could have been a whole lot of backpeddling and ass covering, but he stuck to his position that he did not see a capability gap before 2025.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Didn't mean the press conference. His written response to clarify his April position could have been a whole lot of backpeddling and *** covering, but he stuck to his position that he did not see a capability gap before 2025.



he just earned a lot of respect in my books for not bowing to the government line, I can see the opposition hammering the government now on if the airforce commander says everything is okay, then where is the problem, oh wait its with the liberals.


----------



## QV

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> he just earned a lot of respect in my books for not bowing to the government line, I can see the opposition hammering the government now on if the airforce commander says everything is okay, then where is the problem, oh wait its with the liberals.



And now we have an unprecedented gag order on the fighter replacement procurement... this does not pass the sniff test.


----------



## dimsum

What some (most?) aren't talking about - the Arctic interoperability problem.  Good points by Matthew Fisher.



> Matthew Fisher: Why the Super Hornets will force Canada out of its own north
> 
> LONDON — The most questionable aspect of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s quixotic decision to renege on the promise of an open competition for Canada’s next fighter jet and suddenly ram through the sole-source purchase of Super Hornets — a decision Postmedia News has revealed it is close to making — is that, by doing so, Canada will end up surrendering sovereignty of its Arctic air space to the United States Air Force in about 10 years.
> 
> Critics of the F-35 will laugh and say this is hyperbole and melodrama. It is not. Keeping the U.S. safe is the top priority of every U.S. president. If Canada cannot or will not protect its Atlantic, Pacific and northern approaches, its Norad treaty with the U.S. permits Washington to do so.
> 
> Russia announced last week that its air force will begin deploying its first stealthy T-50 fifth-generation jet fighters next year. Such a timeline is highly doubtful. But Vladimir Putin has no higher priority than acquiring stealth technologies and, within a decade, T-50s will be deployed at air bases across the top of Russia.
> 
> Once this happens, and with threats from T-50-launched cruise missiles and Russian and North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35 will be far more able to shoot down than Super Hornets, the reality is that the U.S. will do whatever it has to to defend itself.
> 
> That will mean patrolling Canada’s margins with USAF F-35s, which will use fighter jet-capable airfields in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Inuvik and Yellowknife built mostly with U.S. money in the 1980s.
> 
> Worse than that, Washington will insist that Canada’s Super Hornets stay in the rear.
> 
> The reason is clear. Four allied air forces operate in the Arctic. The U.S., Norway and Denmark, which defends Greenland and sometimes deploys fighter jets to a base they jointly operate with the USAF at Thule, will soon only be flying state-of-the art F-35s in the Far North. The other country, Canada, will not.
> 
> The F-35 is revolutionary in that it will basically be a flying computer with sensor fusion. F-35s flying hundreds of kilometres apart will be able to create a common battle picture. Being stealthy, they will secretly patrol far more safely while collectively surveying vast amounts of territory for information that they can instantly share with each other, spy and command aircraft and ground stations.
> 
> Once the Super Hornet is found, as it will be by a stealthy enemy, F-35s in the vicinity will become targets, too. That is why the U.S. will not want Canadian fighters operating anywhere near its warplanes in the north.
> 
> A new argument advanced by the government last week is that there is a “credibility gap” for NATO and Norad with the existing F-18 Hornets that must be immediately filled by an interim purchase of Super Hornets. NATO and Norad people have privately but emphatically insisted that no such crisis exists and will not exist for about a decade, so there is no reason for Canada to rush to make a decision.
> 
> As for this being sold as an interim buy, with a decision on the F-35 later, this is a red herring. Canada  has neither the money nor the military infrastructure to support two fleets of fighter aircraft.
> 
> An older but still persistent argument to support the Super Hornets is that it will be safer to operate in the Far North than the one engine F-35s. Advances in civilian and military jet engine technology long ago made such thinking obsolete. Otherwise, the Pentagon would not have decided that only F-35s will fly from its most northern air base near Fairbanks, Alaska.
> 
> The Super Hornets’ advantages in range, payload and an extra engine are irrelevant if the aircraft is not survivable. The Super Hornet will not be invisible to radar so, at a certain point in the not too distant future, it will be shot down long before it can engage the enemy.
> 
> With the U.S. defending Canadian air space because of Ottawa’s refusal to buy F-35s, what the RCAF will eventually end up with in the north is a niche capability in air/sea rescue.
> 
> That Canada is prepared to cede its defence and sovereignty over all three maritime approaches to the USAF is one of the many reasons that there is extreme disappointment and disbelief across the upper reaches of Canada’s military community about what has been decided. What makes them furious is the government’s refusal to discuss the matter.
> 
> Finland has looked at the numbers that Denmark came up with after a competition in which it chose the F-35 over the Super Hornet. As a result, the Finns are believed to be close to deciding that they, too, will reject the Super Hornet in favour of the F-35. If Finland follows Denmark’s lead, it will become the 12th western-oriented air force in a row to choose the F-35 over the Super Hornet, with Canada the only exception.
> 
> Canadians should ask themselves: Is everyone who made those decisions — including those confronting similar security challenges in the Arctic — stupid? What is it that makes Canada so unique that it feels it can ignore the collective wisdom of all its allies and friends?
> 
> There are no two more important issues for a government than national defence and sovereignty. Such matters must be settled fairly and as transparently as possible. Have the promised open competition to decide what aircraft is best to defend Canada for the next half-century.



http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fcanadian-politics%2Fmatthew-fisher-why-the-super-hornets-will-force-canada-out-of-its-own-north


----------



## PuckChaser

QV said:
			
		

> And now we have an unprecedented gag order on the fighter replacement procurement... this does not pass the sniff test.



https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/science-and-scientists/



> We will value science and treat scientists with respect.
> 
> We will appoint a Chief Science Officer who will ensure that government science is fully available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are considered when the government makes decisions.



I guess military/civilian procurement officers are not valued and to be treated with respect...


----------



## Quirky

BurmaShave said:
			
		

> Would be inadvisable to integrate them into current squadrons. They're different aircraft.



Yes they are different aircraft but they have common similarities. From a maintenance stand point things would only be easier. It wouldn't be all too hard to get the senior CF18 techs qualified on a Super Hornet, AFAIK the "upgrade" course in the Navy is only a month. It's not too hard to follow a maintenance manual.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> While this discussion, has invariably headed down the path towards the toilet that is “Canadian Politics” I want to redirect it towards what I believe are the two main issues which have plagued this file from the very beginning (all the way back to when the conservatives paraded out the shiny new F35):
> 
> 1.	The government has a poor understanding of warfare and doesn’t understand the cost/benefit of procuring an F35 vice FA18, Eurofighter, Gripen, etc…
> 
> 2.	 The military hasn’t properly communicated the cost/benefit to the government in a way that allows them to make a reasonable decision.  The military also hasn’t framed the discussion in a way that presents procuring an F35 in a favourable light.  I’ve got a couple of thoughts on this:
> 
> a.	The Canadian Military has a poor understanding of just what capabilities procuring an F35 would bring to the table because the military has a poor understanding of System of Systems (SoS) approach.  This isn’t unique to the Air Force but exists across all services and comes down to institutional culture, limited resources and lack of intellectual manpower within the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> b.	The Canadian Military still thinks about military effects delivery in a “platform centric” environment vice one of “distributed functionality”.
> 
> 3.	I have serious doubts that anyone in the CAF is really thinking that hard about how all our effects we are able to deliver now and in the future, integrate with each other.  Has anyone responsible for the design of future Canadian Air Warfare thought about how the FUTURE FIGHTER integrates with JUSTAS, other Canadian Aviation, Cyber, Space?  How does the FUTURE FIGHTER interact with the Future Surface Combatant?  Will the Future Surface Combatant have a Land Attack Capability that our next generation fighter can utilize?  How does FUTURE FIGHTER interact with ground forces?
> 
> 4.	Luckily, others to the South have thought about this.  DARPA has put out a pretty good video on just how they envision these platforms working together.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwipssD10sTQAhVdF8AKHYE8DxwQtwIIQDAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D77gTSr07Jqs&usg=AFQjCNGms9JP5XgxGvBJWVfMLQ2QMD1ouQ&sig2=Sc1ScuE1ejvBHYPIfUqZnQ
> 
> Also, this from DARPA System of Systems Integration and Experimentation (SoSITE) team:
> 
> http://www.darpa.mil/program/system-of-systems-integration-technology-and-experimentation



Um, you're off the mark. The people who are most aware of the systems of systems approach work in this specific area. Instead the government told them to shut it, put a gag order on them, then conducted its own procurement process from the minister's office based on what they were told by Boeing Reps and advocates within the political organization. 

And if you think this is hyperbole, it isn't. Zero Military involvement in this decision.


----------



## NavyShooter

Quirky said:
			
		

> Yes they are different aircraft but they have common similarities. From a maintenance stand point things would only be easier. It wouldn't be all too hard to get the senior CF18 techs qualified on a Super Hornet, AFAIK the "upgrade" course in the Navy is only a month.* It's not too hard to follow a maintenance manual.*



And that's why we have flight incidents....


----------



## SupersonicMax

The US Navy has at least one Squadron with a mixed fleet (A/B/C/D/E/F) and had others before.  Maintenance was not an issue for them and is likely not going to be one for us.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The US Navy has at least one Squadron with a mixed fleet (A/B/C/D/E/F) and had others before.  Maintenance was not an issue for them and is likely not going to be one for us.



Jesus wept. So we are likely to make this bad situation worse by penny packeting Super Hornets?

 :facepalm:


----------



## SupersonicMax

There are plenty or arguments against the Super Hornet, maintenance is not one of them.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The US Navy has at least one Squadron with a mixed fleet (A/B/C/D/E/F) and had others before.  Maintenance was not an issue for them and is likely not going to be one for us.



What is the problem with making one of the sqns a Super Hornet one (with its integrated schoolhouse) and leaving the others as legacy Hornets?


----------



## Old Sweat

Dimsum said:
			
		

> What is the problem with making one of the sqns a Super Hornet one (with its integrated schoolhouse) and leaving the others as legacy Hornets?



As perhaps the most unqualified to comment person on this forum, perhaps this sends a signal that the salvation of the air force aircraft are being distributed across the fleet to enhance overall operational effectiveness. Or maybe not.


----------



## Quirky

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> And that's why we have flight incidents....



Warranty voids on wheels up.  



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> What is the problem with making one of the sqns a Super Hornet one (with its integrated schoolhouse) and leaving the others as legacy Hornets?



I don't think setting up a training squadron just for the SH in house would be needed. Send the techs to the US to get their courses, much like the rest of the modern fleet (J model Herc, C17 etc) of maintainers are doing. Pilots would do their sim time and flights with the Navy. The transition would be relatively simple.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Jesus wept. So we are likely to make this bad situation worse by penny packeting Super Hornets?
> 
> :facepalm:



I would have thought this fighter stuff would be something you'd welcome with open arms.  Takes the spotlight off the 110% cluster fuck your Cyclone project has been for....how long now?   I don't see any fighter drivers on here saying they think this is the solution, they also probably realize at the end of the day, their opinion as SMEs on fighter stuff doesn't matter to the government.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It does not amuse me when any military procurement program goes off the rails. For the record, the long delayed Cyclone program actually looks to be (more or less) on the rails, currently.


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It does not amuse me when any military procurement program goes off the rails. For the record, the long delayed Cyclone program actually looks to be (more or less) on the rails, currently.



I'm really hoping that I will see an operational deployment of a Cyclone before I retire in 5 years.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping that I will see an operational deployment of a Cyclone before I retire in 5 years.



12 to 18 months from now is realistic, I think.


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 12 to 18 months from now is realistic, I think.



 :Bday Dancer:


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:
			
		

> :Bday Dancer:



51 years after the sea king was introduced


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It does not amuse me when any military procurement program goes off the rails. For the record, the long delayed Cyclone program actually looks to be (more or less) on the rails, currently.



And I don't suspect any of use who are the 'users of the kit' are amused.  I am sure the MH community isn't.  Just like some of the 'things' the LRP community knows/lives with on the inside aren't amusing.  I suspect SSM and the Fighter community is no different.

I don't see SSM advocating for the SH at all, just pointing out some facts/informed opinion on issues like Maint, etc.  

Military aviation procurement is, normally, a gong show to those of us who know what we have, what else is out there, what system would be better for XYZ reasons.  This, and other, governments, have also made it clear they don't particularly care about SME opinions.  The LRP community was all but dead not long ago.  The MH project, FWSAR, JUSTAS, fighter replacement - all indicative of a "we don't REALLY care" attitude that is based more around politics, "regional benefits" and all that stuff that, as a flyer, I could give 2 shits less about.

I don't suspect any of the operators in the RCAF feel all that differently, really.  Lots of other countries are scooping up P-8s, F-35s, developing and already flying things like the NFH while we continue to 'make it work' and watch success governments kick cans down the street and point the finger at the other guys for kicking the can before they did...


----------



## MilEME09

just watched the West block and laughed as John McKay was a deer in the head lights and having to stick to the government line after he called the current situation in the airforce an emergency. He had no real answer when asked "So if it's an emergency why are you taking 5 years to replace them?"


----------



## FSTO

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> just watched the West block and laughed as John McKay was a dear in the head lights and having to stick to the government line after he called the current situation in the airforce an emergency. He had no real answer when asked "So if it's an emergency why are you taking 5 years to replace them?"



That was painful to watch.
"F35 is in the developmental stage". Really? Isn't there a couple of operational squadrons?

Also this gem, "A risk adverse organization."


----------



## jmt18325

Anyway, now we know more:

“The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and NATO commitments,” Hood told senators.

“I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren’t enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously,” he said.

----

“I’ve been told I will be given all the resources I need to increase the numbers available. I’m happy the government is investing in the Royal Canadian Air Force,” he said.


https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/28/more-fighters-eyed-for-canadas-air-force.html

Leaving aside the Super Hornet, I think that's a good policy change.


----------



## MilEME09

So not 65 fighters any more, well 76+18= 94, so maybe that is going to be the new number floated? either way it's all good for Hood to be told the resources will be there, its another to back it up with funding. The next federal budget will be interesting.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Leaving aside the Super Hornet, I think that's a good policy change.



Good change, except with the political promises stated, the Liberals cooked the books to create a capability gap. If only the rest of the CAF would be so lucky for them to double the rapid reaction requirements so we could get new kit, but I strongly doubt that'll happen as there was no promise of logistic vehicles for the Army last election.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Good change, except with the political promises stated, the Liberals cooked the books to create a capability gap.



I'm quite happy with a larger RCAF fighter fleet.  It's something I've advocated for.


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm quite happy with a larger RCAF fighter fleet.  It's something I've advocated for.



"Larger" and "more capable" aren't necessarily the same thing.  As mentioned in the NP article, if the countries using F-35s don't let the Super Hornets anywhere near them as they aren't stealthy (not to mention the lack of sensor fusion) and can blow their cover, then what's the point of having them in a coalition environment?


----------



## jmt18325

Well since the USN, France, Spain, the UK, Germany, and a whole host of other allies will all by flying less stealthy aircraft, put that to them.


----------



## Loachman

So - if there is to be an actual increase in the number of fighters, will there also be an increase in aircrew and groundcrew positions? Will that mean an increase in the size of the CF, or will these positions be taken from somewhere else? Additional equipment is meaningless without additional people, unless there is a pool of under-employed fighter pilots and techs somewhere. Has a Liberal government ever improved any aspect of the CF without significant outside pressure to do so before this? Why now, suddenly, with no explanation? Is there a hidden Liberal plan to require invoking full NORAD and NATO commitments that no previous government has ever considered? What is it?

We had fifty-four CF18s based in Germany during the last few years of the Cold War. Subtract that number from the number purchased, and it is remarkably close to the number of survivors, which has been considered adequate up until this panic that erupted just a few weeks ago.

Normally, I would welcome an equipment purchase. Normally, I would welcome an overseas mission that would make some people's lives better. This government, however, just makes me more and more baffled and suspicious.

I'd likely feel more comfortable if they announced a fifty-percent reduction to the whole CF - that would at least be more "normal".


----------



## Cloud Cover

Doesn't make much sense for a government that has already once disavowed itself (in the middle of a successful air campaign) from the use of airpower as foreign policy enforcement/support tool. Air observation/targeting seems to be more their appetite. Are we sure these are not Growlers?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Growlers are not observation and targeting birds.

Funny enough, however, the Growlers are designed to do that which the stealth aspect of the F-35's is there to do: Deny the enemy the use of the electro-magnetic spectrum over their own territory so they cannot know that you are coming, or figure out what you are doing, or use the spectrum to target you for attack.


----------



## jmt18325

NATO wants Canada to do more.  It's easy to see how this may be part of the more.


----------



## Loachman

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2016/11/28/liberals-changed-fighter-jet-requirement-says-air-force-commander.html

News / Canada 

Liberals changed fighter jet requirement, says air force commander

By: Lee Berthiaume The Canadian Press Published on Mon Nov 28 2016 

OTTAWA - Opposition critics accused the Liberal government of trying to manufacture a crisis Monday after the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force pulled back the curtain on Canada's apparent fighter-jet shortage.

Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood told the Senate defence committee the Liberals recently changed the number of jet fighters he is required to have ready at any given time for NATO missions and to defend North America.

The change was made after he testified in April that he was "comfortable" with the air force's current fleet of CF-18s, Hood said.

As a result, the current number of CF-18s available is now insufficient, Hood said, while Canada will also need to buy more new planes than originally expected.

The previous Conservative government had planned to purchase 65 F-35 stealth fighters.

"Certainly the policy of the government of Canada would mean that 65 is not sufficient," Hood said, later adding: "They've changed the policy of the number of aircraft I have to have."

The fatal crash of a CF-18 fighter jet near Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake in Alberta cast a shadow over Hood's appearance before the committee, with the meeting cut short after he confirmed the pilot had died.

But while expressing condolences for the family of the pilot, who had not yet been identified, the air force commander said he didn't see any link between the crash and the debate over the fighter jet fleet.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan pointed to the policy change on aircraft numbers when he announced last week that Canada planned to buy 18 Super Hornet jets as an "interim" solution to the air force's "capability gap" until a competition to replace the CF-18s could be held.

Hood shed some more light on it on Monday, saying the Liberals increased the number of jets the air force is required to have available at a moment's notice.

Asked the reason for the change after the committee meeting, Hood said: "I'm not privy to the decisions behind the policy change."

The minister previously said the Liberals are not comfortable with the same level of "risk" as the previous government because Canada was not capable of meeting both NORAD demands and NATO demands at the same time.

Critics immediately latched onto Hood's comments as proof the Liberal decision to buy Hornets now and delay a competition to replace the CF-18s for five years is part of a larger plan to avoid buying the F-35.

"He's confirmed the numbers required was a political decision," said Conservative defence critic James Bezan. "This is a hoax and completely politically driven."

Hood revealed to reporters that the change implemented by the government since April relates to Canada's relationship with NATO.

Until recently, Canada committed a certain number of fighter jets as well as ships, troops and other military equipment on a voluntary basis each year. Any fighter jets committed were drawn from the stock providing defence of North America, Hood said.

But under the new policy, Canada will have what Hood described as a "firm" commitment to NATO in terms of the number of aircraft that it must provide. While he did not reveal specifics, Hood said the result is that he can't draw upon those defending the continent.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute questioned why the government would change the policy when it was still in the midst of a comprehensive defence review.

"The change in policy makes what they're doing on fighters seem a lot more rational," he said.

"But it's interesting that change happened outside of the defence policy review, which is looking at all of our defence policies."

Perry also asked whether the Liberal government would shore up Canada's other commitments to NATO, notably to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Could they make a "firm" commitment  to NATO for warships too, so we can have a frigate/destroyer gap to fill with "18 interim purchases".

 :nod:


----------



## Loachman

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-policy-forcing-need-for-new-jets-rcaf-head/article33085693/

Liberal policy forcing need for new jets: RCAF head 

Daniel Leblanc 

OTTAWA - The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Nov. 28, 2016 11:18PM EST 
Last updated Monday, Nov. 28, 2016 11:26PM EST

Canada needs an interim fleet of fighter jets only because the Liberal government created a policy that increased the number of aircraft that must be available for NORAD and NATO missions at the same time, the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force says.

The Liberals invoked a long-standing “capability gap” last week to justify the sole-source purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornets, but Lieutenant-General Michael Hood on Monday said the need for new jets was caused by the recent policy change.

"Previously … we were comfortable as an armed forces in meeting those [NORAD and NATO commitments] with our extant fleet," Lt.-Gen. Hood told reporters after appearing at a Senate committee.

"That policy has changed with a requirement to be able to meet both of those concurrently, as opposed to managing them together, thus the requirement to increase the number of fighters available," he said.

Lt.-Gen. Hood spoke shortly after a CF-18 from the current fleet crashed in Saskatchewan during a routine training mission near the air-force base in Cold Lake, Alta.

"The pilot did not survive the crash," the head of the RCAF said. "It’s a very, very sad day for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and our hearts go out to the family of our fallen member."

The government has refused to put a firm price on its plans to acquire the 18 new fighter jets, stating it did not want to tip its hand before negotiations with Boeing and the U.S. government.

Still, Lt.-Gen. Hood said that in addition to the acquisition budget, he is trying to determine the costs related to expanding the number of air-force pilots and technicians. He added he has a commitment from Ottawa and the Chief of the Defence Staff for the resources necessary to achieve the government’s goals.

"Certainly I will need more people and I will need more funding to deliver on the additional flight hours for an interim fleet," he told senators.
When it announced plans to buy the "interim" fleet of Super Hornets, the government also said it will launch an open competition next year for a full fleet of fighter jets to replace the 76 remaining CF-18s.

The competition is expected to last five years, with the fleet being fully operational in the late 2020s. The two main contenders are expected to be the Super Hornet and the Lockheed-Martin F-35 stealth fighter jet.

Lt.-Gen. Hood said the previous Conservative government’s plan to buy 65 F-35s would not meet Canada’s new policy in terms of international commitments.

Lt.-Gen. Hood refused to say how many aircraft will be needed, but indicated the number would exceed the current CF-18 fleet, which suggests that acquiring the new fleet will be much more expensive than expected.

"The policy of the government of Canada at present would mean that 65 aircraft aren’t sufficient as the final size of the fleet," he told the committee. "Suffice to say that the [76] that we presently have are incapable of delivering that number."

Opposition critics and defence analysts have criticized the Liberals for invoking a capability gap, with Conservative MP James Bezan saying the government has a "credibility gap."

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has often said that if the capability gap widens, Canada would no longer have a functional fighter jet fleet. Last week, he gave the terrorist attacks of 2001 as an example of why the Super Hornets are needed.

"If anybody thinks we are not going to have any unforeseen situations, think about 9/11, when we had to put every single fighter up in the air," Mr. Sajjan said.

However, Ken Pennie, who was deputy commander of NORAD at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the plan will exacerbate the situation as the RCAF expends resources integrating the Super Hornets.

"It takes time to train people and put everything in place," said Mr. Pennie, a retired lieutenant-general and former head of the air force. "The capability gap is going to get bigger."

******

Ken Pennie was my first Flight Commander when I arrived at 427 Squadron in 1982. He remains one of the finest Officers that I have ever known.


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Could they make a "firm" commitment  to NATO for warships too, so we can have a frigate/destroyer gap to fill with "18 interim purchases".



That's next week's surprise.

The following week, it'll be boots that work.


----------



## Loachman

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-meetings-1.3866445

Boeing met federal officials 7 times as often as Lockheed Martin in lead-up to fighter deal

'We regularly meet with Canadian government officials' and not always about fighters, says Boeing executive

By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Nov 24, 2016 6:18 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 24, 2016 6:18 PM ET 

The U.S. manufacturer set to win the sole-source fighter jet deal had more recorded face time with senior federal officials than its rivals, raising questions about how level the playing field really was in the run-up to this week's announcement. 

The federal lobbyist registry indicates that Chicago-based Boeing, which will provide 18 Super Hornet jets to the air force, had roughly seven times as many official meetings with federal staff since the beginning of the year as rival Lockheed Martin, the maker of the F-35.

The breadth and scope of the access are also extraordinary.

Lobbyists representing Boeing Operations International and Boeing Global Sales met 23 times with federal officials, including with Defence, Industry, Public Services and Procurement and even senior staff in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office.

Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Md., the world's largest defence contractor, had only three recorded meetings, according to the registry.

A spokesman for Boeing was unable to say how many of meetings revolved around the fighter jet decision, but noted the company has wide-ranging business with the federal government and a number of projects on the go, including the recent delivery of industrial benefits under the C-17 heavy lift transport program. 

"We regularly meet with Canadian government officials as part of the normal course of business," said Scott Day, Boeing's international vice-president of communications, who noted the company fielded questions from Canadian officials last summer following a survey of all potential bidders.

Officials at Lockheed Martin did not return messages.

Was there another solution?

But NDP defence critic Randall Garrison says the number of recorded meetings raises questions about whether the Liberals had anything else in mind other than an "interim" sole-source purchase.

It also makes him wonder even more about the kind of open competition the Liberals are planning to run over the next five years.

"They stalled for a year and it looks like they intend to sole-source jets, just like the Conservatives did," he said. "The Liberals are behaving like the Conservatives. The Conservatives had a favourite jet. Now the Liberals have a favourite jet."

Senior federal officials, who are close to the file but asked for anonymity, argued not to read too much into the lobbyist registry, saying it does not capture the full picture.

The officials, who would only speak on background, said there were instances when senior aerospace executives, who are not registered lobbyists, sought and obtained meetings.

One of those times was last summer, according to documents obtained by CBC News under Access to Information legislation.

Ministerial face time

All five potential competitors for the replacement of the air force's CF-18s managed to meet with Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote at the Farnborough International Airshow in Britain last July.

She rarely met with defence contractors interested in specific programs, according to her staff.

In fact, the documents show her officials recommended she avoid meeting directly with competitors and focus on talking with industry groups.
But they made an exception for the annual air show, considered one of the premier aerospace events in the world.

According to a July 7, 2016, memo, officials went out of their way to encourage Foote to take a meeting requested by Lockheed Martin Canada's chief executive and an international vice-president, both of whom were not registered lobbyists.

Foote may not have been taking meetings about the fighter replacement, but public service and procurement documents show her officials met three times with representatives of Boeing, once with Lockheed Martin and once with Dassault, the French aircraft maker that hopes to sell its Rafale jet to Canada.

The federal registry shows lobbyists for Dassault met eight times in total with federal officials, most of the time at National Defence.

Senior executives of both Lockheed Martin and Boeing sought meetings with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan during the annual aerospace summit a few weeks ago, prior to cabinet's approval of the plan.

But officials say they were turned down because of the proximity to the decision. Instead, they were offered sessions with senior officials and only Boeing seized the opportunity.

Regardless of who initiated the meetings, Garrison said he believes the process has now been tilted in favour of Boeing.

"When you buy a third of your fleet from one manufacturer, you no longer have a level playing field for any further competition," he said. "I think that's quite clear."


----------



## FSTO

So the liberals have seemed to have enlarged the corner their leader painted them into.

To justify the no F35's they invented the "Capability Gap"
To fill the Capability Gap they sole sourced F18 SH (but only 18)
To justify the sole source they kicked the "open and fair" competition 5 years down the road
To justify the delay they now state they need more new fighters!

But then the sticker shock will hit in about a year followed by "Presto!" GENERAL ELECTION! and......................
Sorry RCAF/CAF no money in the kitty.



This is all from my conspiracy mind and has no basis in fact, but it is fun to speculate the spin going on at the PMO.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> That's next week's surprise.
> 
> The following week, it'll be boots that work.


I'll be even more surprised if the troops _get_ said mythical unicorn-leather boots ...


----------



## George Wallace

FSTO said:
			
		

> This is all from my conspiracy mind and has no basis in fact, but it is fun to speculate the spin going on at the PMO.



I am sure your conspiracy theory is based on precedence set several times over the past century of RCAF aircraft procurement.   >


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> "Larger" and "more capable" aren't necessarily the same thing.  As mentioned in the NP article, if the countries using F-35s don't let the Super Hornets anywhere near them as they aren't stealthy (not to mention the lack of sensor fusion) and can blow their cover, then what's the point of having them in a coalition environment?



Well.....You can look at it the same way as a runner doing a 'Bear Drill'.  All you have to do is not be the slowest runner.    >

In the case of the F-35, just not be the most obvious target.  The others would act as 'bait'.


----------



## a_majoor

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.....You can look at it the same way as a runner doing a 'Bear Drill'.  All you have to do is not be the slowest runner.    >
> 
> In the case of the F-35, just not be the most obvious target.  The others would act as 'bait'.



Using sensor fusion and off board cuing/targeting, F-35's can scout ahead, identify targets and set up shots for the following Gen 4 aircraft. This would reduce the role of the RCAF to bomb and missile trucks for USAF targeteers and flight leaders (stop and contemplate the implications of that for a moment), but even then, it is contingent on the other air assets having capable log range weapons for the USAF to take advantage of that. If the case of an RCAF constrained by a mixed fleet of Hornets and Rhinos, each aircraft *should* be carrying the "Stealth pod" (shown of the enhanced Super Hornet demonstrator) carrying long range weapons like the MBDA Meteor AAM or GBU-53/B (Small Diameter Bomb II), allowing them to reach targets 100+ km away.

Of course, since the reason for having an air force seems to have escaped the government's decision makers, the sorts of ordinance being carried isn't going to get proper attention either.


----------



## dimsum

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Using sensor fusion and off board cuing/targeting, F-35's can scout ahead, identify targets and set up shots for the following Gen 4 aircraft. This would reduce the role of the RCAF to bomb and missile trucks for USAF targeteers and flight leaders (stop and contemplate the implications of that for a moment)



If you're talking legal/sovereignty implications, then the Canadian red-card holder (and up the chain) will accept/reject the target on behalf of the CDS, like during OP IMPACT when we had fighters there.  I'm not sure if NORAD works the same way though.


----------



## dimsum

From the National Post:



> Michael Den Tandt: Super Hornet purchase leaves ‘brave men and women in uniform’ where they’ve always been — last on the list of priorities
> 
> It’s truly remarkable, given how Liberal and Conservative MPs speak so often and sincerely of their sacred covenant with the “brave men and women in uniform,” that this country’s air force is obsolete and decrepit, and has been so for as long as anyone now living can remember.
> 
> You’d think, given the volume of talk in the House of Commons over the past decade on their behalf, that RCAF pilots – one of whom died Monday, tragically, in a training accident in Cold Lake, Alta. – would be flying X-wing fighters out of Star Wars by now, and not a ragtag fleet of 1980s-vintage refurbs that were new when many members of the current parliament were children.
> 
> The Liberal government, with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan leading the charge, has pledged redress with a sole-source purchases of 18 Boeing Super Hornets – the updated version of Canada’s CF-18. So grievous is the “capability gap,” of the Royal Canadian Air Force, we’re told, there’s no time for competitive bids. That’s for later, perhaps as many as five years hence when, with due deference to best practices and Treasury Board guidelines and other such guff that means a lot until cabinet decides it means nothing, the actual next RCAF fighter will be chosen.
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II fighter-bomber will be among the competitors at this pageant, gainsaying the Liberals’ 2015 election pledge to nix the vaunted “fifth generation” stealth fighter entirely. But never mind: Five years from now is another term, another cabinet, possibly another government. In political terms it may as well be another universe on another planet.
> 
> Politically, it is all quite clever – which is why the howls of outrage have been muted to non-existent, unlike the state of affairs in late 2012, when the former Conservative government got mauled over its own sole-source plan to buy 65 F-35s, and later shelved it. The reason for the soft landing is twofold.
> 
> First, the RCAF really does badly need new fighters. In an increasingly uncertain geopolitical climate, the opposition Conservatives are in no position to argue forcefully against any purchase that makes the Canadian military more capable in the short-term. Second is the aerospace contracts, tied to Canada’s continuing membership in the F-35 consortium.
> 
> Those contracts, held by more than 30 Canadian companies that contribute to Lockheed-Martin’s supply chain, are worth more than $600-million. Any final decision to ditch the F-35 would put them at risk – particularly now, we have to assume, with a protectionist U.S. Congress and a protectionist U.S. president on the ascendant.
> 
> Kicking this can further down the road keeps Lockheed in the game, at least technically: Since last year, the U.S. weapons manufacturer has lobbied simply for inclusion in an eventual competition, a guarantee it now apparently has.
> 
> Political cleverness aside, this is egregiously dishonest, on several fronts.
> 
> First, the “capability gap.” It emerged this week that the cabinet, not the RCAF, had arbitrarily changed the definition of how many planes it needed in order to fulfill its basic mandate of protecting Canadian air space and meeting NATO commitments.
> 
> This makes sense when you consider the 77 functioning CF-18s are up for another refurb, price tag about $500-milion, that will keep them flying until 2025. There may indeed be a looming emergency that requires Canada to have 95 working fighters (77 plus 18) heading into the next decade. If so, what emergency? And at what budgetary cost?
> 
> Had the Conservatives dared to quietly grow the RCAF fighter fleet by 23 per cent, at a cost of $65-$70-milion per plane, the Liberals would have called them warmongers and spendthrifts. To be sure, the Liberals may be embarrassed by the very mention of the CF-18 – having made such a to-do about withdrawing them last spring from the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Having beaten swords into ploughshares, they’re now buying more swords. How awkward.
> 
> More disingenuous still is the claim that a proper, open fighter competition is impossible in short order. The five possible selections are the F-35, Boeing’s Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab’s Grippen, and Dassault’s Rafale. The specs, per-unit and operating costs of all these aircraft are known. Given an abridged new statement of requirements, a competition could have been run and a new fighter selected in 2017, industry sources tell me.
> 
> Follow the Liberal strategy to its conclusion and you end up with this: A mixed fleet, comprising some CF-18s, 18 newish Super Hornets, and years hence, long after the punters have forgotten Campaign 2015, the F-35 – by which time it, too, will likely be obsolete.
> 
> It boils down to this: The “brave men and women in uniform” will get the barest minimum the government can get away with providing, until another military crisis on the scale of the Afghan war forces its hand, after which it will buy whatever equipment it can find, in a panic. It’s how we roll, here in Canada.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-super-hornet-purchase-leaves-brave-men-and-women-in-uniform-where-theyve-always-been-last-on-the-list-of-priorities


----------



## jmt18325

The F-35 won't even be fully combat capable until 2021, when we're set to pick our new fighter.  It'll hardly be obsolete.  More sensationalist media, just like the story about Canada being forced out of the north.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The F-35 is fully combat capable right now.

The fact that not all capabilities are fully developed doesn't mean it can't fight. It can, and the USAF has them in operational squadrons right now.

Besides, 2021 is like tomorrow in materiel timelines, whereas the Liberals want to push the decision of even holding a (fair and open???) competition to 2021.

Do you know what that means, jmt18325? I'll tell you from experience: It means that the actual first delivery is in 2035. What basis do I have for this? It's called the Chretien helicopter fiasco. We went from a signed contract that would have replaced the SeaKings between 1998 and 2004 to still waiting for an operational helicopter today, with probably 12 to 18 months to go before I.O.C.

I suspect that you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## jmt18325

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The F-35 is fully combat capable right now.



How many combat missions have they undertaken?  There's nothing wrong with the F-35 - I'm not one of those people.  It's just not quite ready yet.



> The fact that not all capabilities are fully developed doesn't mean it can't fight. It can, and the USAF has them in operational squadrons right now.



Yeah, it can do some things. It's not ready yet to do what it's advertised to do.



> Besides, 2021 is like tomorrow in materiel timelines, whereas the Liberals want to push the decision of even holding a (fair and open???) competition to 2021.



I'm not sure that's the way I read it.  I read it as a competition taking until 2021.  But yes, you're right, some of the CF-18s will need to fly until ~2030 (as late as 2032).  That's apparently not a problem.  The USN will just be retiring the last of theirs before that, and the Super Hornet will still be the bulk of their fleet. 

In fairness, we're only here because the Conservatives took the easy way out and punted this.  The could have just bought the F-35, like they said they would.



> I suspect that you have no idea what you are talking about.



I suspect that you don't either, and that you're just pulling things out of thin air.  I'll go with quoted sources over that any day.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So what's the new number for total fighters, once the SH's are added?


----------



## PuckChaser

76+18 total aircraft between CF18 and SH.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I suspect that you don't either, and that you're just pulling things out of thin air.  I'll go with quoted sources over that any day.



Actually, I must apologize jmt18325. I got brain cramp.

My last sentence was meant to read: "I suspect that's what you actually meant to talk about".  No slight on your knowledge base should have appeared anywhere.

Again, my apology.


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In fairness, we're only here because the Conservatives took the easy way out and punted this.  The could have just bought the F-35, like they said they would.



And the Liberals can admit to making a mistake during the election and immediately conduct the competition. They can make the choice by late 2017 (according to a retired senior bureaucrat) and have F35's in our inventory by 2020.

I would actually be very impressed if the Liberals did that.


----------



## fruitflavor

since these new planes will most likely be bought though FMS can US government say no to these?


----------



## dapaterson

The US government must approve all FMS cases, so yes, they could say no.

That said: right now Canada is committing to continue contributing to F35 development while also acquiring Super Hornets - in other words, money to both Boeing and Lockheed.  Can't see anyone in the US government saying "No" to that.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 76+18 total aircraft between CF18 and SH.


Does that mean we will later get 94 F35 to replace both hornet fleets?


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> Does that mean we will later get 94 F35 to replace both hornet fleets?


Not likely when they're taking the money from the 18 SH from the $9B pot assigned to pay for the 65 F-35s.

They cooked the books to buy 18 fighters from Boeing, hopefully they're not in power to cook the books again to say we only need 65 (or even less).


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not likely when they're taking the money from the 18 SH from the $9B pot assigned to pay for the 65 F-35s.
> 
> They cooked the books to buy 18 fighters from Boeing, hopefully they're not in power to cook the books again to say we only need 65 (or even less).



It's pretty hard to square that circle with them actually having us meet our fighter fleet requirements for the first time in two decades.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's pretty hard to square that circle with them actually having us meet our fighter fleet requirements for the first time in two decades.


We had the planes to meet the stated requirements. They changed the requirements to make a gap to justify more planes. What's makes you think they won't just change it back later on when it comes to actually spending the big bucks and replace the majority of the fleet? Sticker shock does odd things.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We had the planes to meet the stated requirements.



No, we in fact didn't.  We had planes to meet our NORAD requirements, and 'flexibility' to meet our NATO requirements.  Now, it's mandated that we meet both NATO and NORAD requirements (that would mean having something like 42 jets available every day - 36 for NORAD and 6 for NATO).  I see that as a good thing, as it also helps to make us look better in the eyes of our NATO allies.

This decision was all politics, no question, but it's more positive than negative for the RCAF.  The the pronged strategy they've put forward means additional jets soon, more pilots, and a new plane sometime after 5 years (too long, but at least we have a path now).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 76+18 total aircraft between CF18 and SH.



Well I do like that!

Will they be standing up a new squadron?  Or increasing the number of aircraft per squadron?


----------



## HB_Pencil

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> How many combat missions have they undertaken?  There's nothing wrong with the F-35 - I'm not one of those people.  It's just not quite ready yet.
> 
> Yeah, it can do some things. It's not ready yet to do what it's advertised to do.



There are two parts to this. First the Block 2B F-35 has all of the capabilities that the F/A-18E and even more. That's been in service for nearly two years now. Next month the USMC will deploy to Iwakuni Japan, as part of the United States' primary capability to deter Chinese and North Korean aggression in the Eastern Pacific. You have data from Green Flag, Red Flag and several Bold Alligators. This is currently a capability that's combat ready and its going to get a lot more capable. Want to hear how "unready" the USMC feels they are? Watch this video by General Goldfein.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4auM08D-S_E

Yes he's being full throated in his support of the F-35B, but does this sound remotely like a capability that we can't throw any current scenario at? Do you really think that in its present form the F-35 can't undertake our NORAD requirements? 

Second by the time we even start seeing the F/A-18E, the F-35 will have reached FOC. Israel, who are incredibly picky about what they operate, just purchased another squadron of aircraft this week, and will have their operational squadron up and FOC before we get our "interim" F/A-18E squadron going. Same with the Aussies. Claims that "its not quite ready yet" is just patently, and ridiculously false. Its a dumb as **** position that people who really don't have a clue what their talking about. 

And the irony of the its not ready position, is that the government is going to obtain a capability that is already showing obsolescence. We're deploying our fighters to eastern Europe, which is the most deadly threat environment we can send our aircraft... yet we're buying a capability that the US Government says cannot actually operate in. This is why they are considering accelerating F-35 buys.  The government has been clearly warned about it, yet they chose to actually ignore that advice because they want plausible deniability.

JMT you want to make this out to be a smart move by a government who is being reasonable. Be in full knowledge that you are completely off the mark in that assessment, and are naively buying into their propaganda. They basically have ignored ALL of the advice given to them, then gag ordered the military so they could just ride rough shod over their expertise, because guys like the PMO's principle secretary somehow knows better than subject matter experts who have worked in their fields for decades. Perhaps you should wonder why there is not a SINGLE Op ed supporting the government on this. Make all the justifications you want, you're simply parrotting a government who has made a disaster out of this field. Perhaps self awareness is not your strong suit. 


Edit: oh yeah, and the Super Hornet costs more than the F-35.... go figure.


----------



## Journeyman

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> JMT you want to make this out to be a smart move by a government who is being reasonable. Be in full knowledge that you are completely off the mark in that assessment, and are naively buying into their propaganda.





> They basically have ignored ALL of the advice given to them, then gag ordered the military so they could just ride rough shod over their expertise





> you're simply parroting a government who has made a disaster out of this field. Perhaps self awareness is not your strong suit.



I'm just quoting someone who knows what he's talking about.  Some of us prefer informed opinions.


----------



## jmt18325

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> JMT you want to make this out to be a smart move by a government who is being reasonable.



But I didn't say that - not even once.  I think it's a politically driven decision with no basis in reality, just like withdrawing the fighters from Iraq.  What I am in favour of is a larger fighter fleet.  What I am also in favour of is meeting our obligations.  That this stupid decision has a couple of upsides is pure coincidence, but I'll take it.

This forum has to be full of the most condescending people on the internet - even when they're wrong, they're condescending.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> But I didn't say that - not even once.  I think it's a politically driven decision with no basis in reality, just like withdrawing the fighters from Iraq.  What I am in favour of is a larger fighter fleet.  What I am also in favour of is meeting our obligations.  That this stupid decision has a couple of upsides is pure coincidence, but I'll take it.
> 
> This forum has to be full of the most condescending people on the internet - even when they're wrong, they're condescending.



In a choice between you and HB on this subject- I am going with HB.

I'll take a small fleet of F35s over a large(ish) fleets of Hornets/Super Hornets any day of the week. It is not even a contest, in my mind.


----------



## jmt18325

And when we come to a contest (not the one in your mind) I fully expect the F-35 to win.  For now, we're getting more capability than we had up to this point, in larger numbers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And when we come to a contest (not the one in your mind) I fully expect the F-35 to win.  For now, we're getting more capability than we had up to this point, in larger numbers.



Not if this Government tilts the (eventual) competition in favour of Boeing.

However, your faith in their evenhandedness is touching.


----------



## McG

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And when we come to a contest (not the one in your mind) I fully expect the F-35 to win.  For now, we're getting more capability than we had up to this point, in larger numbers.


Could we not just go straight to buy 94x F35 in less time and for less money if we go straight to that answer as opposed to first growing the fighter force with an interim buy of 18x super hornets?


----------



## McG

> *Fighter jet farce leaves Liberals in awkward spot*
> Michael Den Tandt
> The Whig-Standard
> 30 Nov 16
> 
> You'd think, given the volume of chatter in the House of Commons over the past decade, that RCAF pilots - one of whom died Monday, tragically, in a training accident in Cold Lake, Alta. - would be flying X-wing fighters out of Star Wars by now, and not a ragtag fleet of 1980s-vintage refurbs that were new when many members of the current Parliament were children.
> 
> The Liberal government has pledged redress with a sole-source purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornets - the updated version of Canada's CF-18. So grievous is the "capability gap," of the Royal Canadian Air Force, we're told, there's no time for competitive bids. That's for later, perhaps as many as five years hence when, with due deference to best practices and Treasury Board guidelines, the actual next RCAF fighter will be chosen.
> 
> Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II fighter-bomber will be among the competitors at this pageant, gainsaying the Liberals' 2015 election pledge to nix the vaunted "fifth generation" stealth fighter entirely. But never mind: Five years from now is another term, another cabinet, maybe another government.
> 
> Politically, it is all quite clever.
> 
> First, the RCAF really does badly need new fighters. In an increasingly uncertain geopolitical climate, the opposition Conservatives are in no position to argue forcefully against any purchase that makes the Canadian military more capable. Second is the aerospace contracts, tied to Canada's continuing membership in the F-35 consortium.
> 
> Those contracts, held by more than 30 Canadian companies that contribute to Lockheed-Martin's supply chain, are worth more than $600 million. Any final decision to ditch the F-35 would put them at risk - particularly now, we have to assume, with a protectionist U.S.
> 
> Congress and a protectionist U.S. president on the ascendant. Kicking this can further down the road keeps Lockheed in the game.
> 
> Political cleverness aside, *this is dishonest* - on several fronts.
> 
> First, the "capability gap." It emerged this week that the cabinet, not the RCAF, had arbitrarily changed the definition of how many planes it needed in order to fulfil its basic mandate of protecting Canadian air space and meeting NATO commitments.
> 
> This makes sense when you consider the 77 functioning CF-18s are up for another refurb, price tag about $500 million, that will keep them flying until 2025. There may indeed be a looming emergency that requires Canada to have 95 working fighters (77 plus 18) heading into the next decade. If so, what emergency? And at what budgetary cost?
> 
> Had the Conservatives dared to quietly grow the RCAF fighter fleet by 23 per cent, at a cost of $65 million to $70 million per plane, the Liberals would have called them warmongers and spendthrifts. To be sure, the Liberals may be embarrassed by the very mention of the CF-18 - having made such a to-do about withdrawing them last spring from the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Having beaten swords into ploughshares, they're now buying more swords. How awkward.
> 
> More disingenuous still is the claim that a proper, open fighter competition is impossible in short order. The five possible selections are the F-35, Boeing's Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab's Grippen, and Dassault's Rafale. Given an abridged new statement of requirements, a competition could have been run and a new fighter selected in 2017, sources tell me.
> 
> Follow the Liberal strategy to its conclusion and you end up with this: A mixed fleet, comprising some CF-18s, 18 newish Super Hornets, and years hence, long after the punters have forgotten Campaign 2015, the F-35 - by which time it, too, will likely be obsolete.


http://www.lfpress.com/2016/11/29/fighter-jet-farce-leaves-liberals-in-awkward-spot

_- mod edit to add a link -_


----------



## Journeyman

Excellent phrase:

To be sure, the Liberals may be embarrassed by the very mention of the CF-18 - having made such a to-do about withdrawing them last spring from the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Having beaten swords into ploughshares, they're now buying more swords. How awkward. 

I've seen no evidence that the term "embarrassed" is even in their vocabulary   :not-again:

... although _personally_,  I'm increasingly disappointed in our Defence Minister.


----------



## Old Sweat

Welcome to the sixties and seventies all over again. To give it a modern spin, the government is playing the line that the amount a country spends is not important; it is how it is spent that matters.

Next on the agenda - a (large?) budget cut wrapped in fancy rhetoric along the lines of we are taking up the torch in Africa [unsaid which we feel is safer and cheaper] to allow our Allies free rein (or is it free reign) elsewhere.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I am surprised no journalist has yet hit on the most important related issue: How is the RCAF (who hadn't planned on getting these surprise extra fighters) supposed to make this work?

Replacing kit one-for-one is something, but adding 23% more fighters in just a few years is another thing altogether. It raises the questions: Who is going to fly them? Who is going to fix and maintain them?

I haven't read any concurrent announcement to the effect that the overall authorized strength of the CAF will be increased by the five or six hundred souls needed for these extra airplanes (which, coincidentally, would then have come at the same time that the Auditor-general reminded us that the CAF is already four thousand people short of its current authorized strength and still has difficulty meeting those requirements due to the inefficient and slow nature of our training system).

What is the RCAF supposed to do without extra personnel? Park half the herky-birds and retrain their personnel? Ask the army to disband one battalion so as to free extra positions (again, at the same time it was ordered to deploy one such force to Eastern Europe, and is waiting for orders to deploy up to 600 people to Africa)? Get the technicians to work seven days a week 20 hours a day? That leads to mistakes and mistakes leads to loss airplanes and dead pilots.

Always nice to get new kit. Extra kit is different because in the CAF, everything is connected to everything else. That has not been addressed, that I can see, by the Liberal government.

Wasn't it only a little more than a year ago that the DND civil servants advised the minister to not attempt to get the two French Mistral amphibs because of the "extra pressure on the budget and unforeseeable budgetary risks" they would cause. Where are those civil servants now to advise on the extra pressure on the budget from this acquisition?

/RANT OFF


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect they would mothball an equal number of the older CF-18, so the immediate result would be the same number of aircraft, with the ability to increase a bit if they can train up new pilots.


----------



## HB_Pencil

MCG said:
			
		

> Could we not just go straight to buy 94x F35 in less time and for less money if we go straight to that answer as opposed to first growing the fighter force with an interim buy of 18x super hornets?



We can have them delivered and in-service faster and for a significantly lower cost (even if we did an "interim" buy of F-35s now). This has to do with the fact that the F/A-18E has to be bought through FMS, the limitations of the St Louis line, and the set-up time for a new squadron training pipeline, compared to the JSF Partnership (Which avoids FMS), the vast flexibility of the Ft Worth line,  and the existence of the Luke AFB training pipeline.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin, what you discuss is one-for-one replacement, which is not what this is sold as. 

This is supposed to be to cover a gap in numbers required. CRCAF has been ordered to have more airplanes available at any given time, hence the purchase. Mothballing an equivalent number would be disobeying orders.

Besides, how easy or hard is it to mothball planes and then put them back in operation? I don't know the answer to that one. I just know that in the Navy, we don't like doing that in view of the complexity of putting mothballed equipment back in operation (Windsor class subs anyone?).


----------



## HB_Pencil

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Wasn't it only a little more than a year ago that the DND civil servants advised the minister to not attempt to get the two French Mistral amphibs because of the "extra pressure on the budget and unforeseeable budgetary risks" they would cause. Where are those civil servants now to advise on the extra pressure on the budget from this acquisition?
> 
> /RANT OFF



They were ignored or not consulted. That's why the gag order exists; the Liberals believe that they can ram this through and if they keep the Armed Forces quiet, they can avoid it sticking to them. The "analysis" for this decision (and I use quotation marks deliberately because it barely fits the word), was done by people in the PMO and the Minister's office, not the bureaucracy. They didn't like what the Bureaucrats were telling them, so they put them in a box, taped it up with a gag order, set them aside and did their own work to make this decision. They wanted to get super hornet and push off the F-35 (if we ever get it, because now that decision becomes a lot more fraught with the industrial benefits requirements), and this all suited their needs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin, what you discuss is one-for-one replacement, which is not what this is sold as.
> 
> This is supposed to be to cover a gap in numbers required. CRCAF has been ordered to have more airplanes available at any given time, hence the purchase. Mothballing an equivalent number would be disobeying orders.
> 
> Besides, how easy or hard is it to mothball planes and then put them back in operation? I don't know the answer to that one. I just know that in the Navy, we don't like doing that in view of the complexity of putting mothballed equipment back in operation (Windsor class subs anyone?).



Orders not based in reality are fables. The planes would not be "officially mothballed" but pushed into a hanger and not kept at flight ready status, but still capable of flight, but with no pilots or technicians to operate them, they will be effectively mothballed.


----------



## Loachman

That still requires work by somebody. Parked machines deteriorate.

And, as I said earlier, without extra personnel to man and maintain them, empty machines do not add any capability. We have to start now in order to train those extra people.

This is a completely stupid decision for so many reasons.


----------



## Quirky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I haven't read any concurrent announcement to the effect that the overall authorized strength of the CAF will be increased by the five or six hundred souls needed for these extra airplanes (which, coincidentally, would then have come at the same time that the Auditor-general reminded us that the CAF is already four thousand people short of its current authorized strength and still has difficulty meeting those requirements due to the inefficient and slow nature of our training system).



At our current training system, it takes about 5-6 years (and two years after QL5) from the start of basic training to having a competent technician being able to sign for his work. One of out every ten technicians can meet that 6 year mark if they are "on the ball" so to speak. Some are hard workers but need constant supervision and will need more time. Even if we can start taking deliveries of these 30 year old aircraft in 2019/20, we don't have the personnel available to replace those going to train on the SH. What I see happening is people already in getting trained on the Super Hornet. Just do more with less.  :


----------



## jmt18325

MCG said:
			
		

> Could we not just go straight to buy 94x F35 in less time and for less money if we go straight to that answer as opposed to first growing the fighter force with an interim buy of 18x super hornets?



I would certainly prefer that.


----------



## Good2Golf

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> We can have them delivered and in-service faster and for a significantly lower cost (even if we did an "interim" buy of F-35s now). This has to do with the fact that the F/A-18E has to be bought through FMS, the limitations of the St Louis line, and the set-up time for a new squadron training pipeline, compared to the JSF Partnership (Which avoids FMS), the vast flexibility of the Ft Worth line,  and the existence of the Luke AFB training pipeline.



Yup, the 4 LRIP aircraft were almost a done deal until the Opposition (Orange Crush) and the #3s (Team Red) of the day screamed foul and the Govt quietly eased back from the sales desk and closed their wallet, and decided to let those who thought the JSF was such a bad idea, deal with the consequences.  The cynic would say that Canadians working in the aerospace sector (currently supporting $600M+ worth of JSF contracts) are perhaps not considered "middle class" _enough_...

The only difference between this and previous promises of cancellation* is that I figure the legacy Hornets when done (still in the late-2020s), will be one or two years short of the Sea King's exemplary and distinguished service record... 

:2c:

Regards
G2G

* Chretien's 'Red Book' - three cancellations:  GST, NAFTA and EH-101.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Serving (!) Air Force major in 2006, pp. 3-4 (just after Conservatives took office, clearly previous Liberal policy):



> ...In NORAD, the Canadian Forces are committed to provide 36 fighters for air sovereignty and homeland security.  In addition to this Canada is committed to provide six or more fighters to the United Nations and/or NATO at any given time, should the need arise...


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AE9UsPxVGYUJ:www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/doc/roberds-eng.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

And in 2011:



> The ability to defend the skies and operate overseas at the same time would be in peril if the Harper government buys fewer stealth fighters than planned, the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force said Monday [Dec. 12].
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps said the air force would have to review how much "concurrent activity" it could handle if the number of radar-evading F-35s drop below the 65 aircraft the government has promised...
> 
> "In the end, it's all about managing risk in delivering the defence mission. The number 65 gives us the capacity to cover all our missions with confidence."..
> 
> It is the smallest fleet the air force is able to live with given its current commitments to North American air defence, which requires at least 36 fighters to be set aside for NORAD missions [not clear if the general himself gave that number].
> 
> The initial joint-strike fighter proposal said Canada was prepared to buy 80 aircraft, replacing the current fleet of CF-18s almost one-for-one.
> 
> Deschamps said the decision to move to 65 jets was based on a mixture of "affordability" and what numbers the air force believes "it needs to deliver on our numerous defence missions."..
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-jet-purchase-will-be-up-in-the-air-until-2013-1.1093739



Plus 2014 (story Aug. 2016):



> No fighter jet requirement for NATO: report
> 
> Canada is not required to provide a certain number of fighter jets to NATO, says a Defence Department report that's raising fresh questions about the Liberal government's rush to buy a new warplane.
> 
> The report, published in June 2014 by the research arm of National Defence, says that while Canada supports NATO and contributes aircraft and other military assets when possible, "there is no hard minimum requirement for the NATO commitment."
> 
> That means the only actual requirement Canada must meet in terms of providing fighter jets is its obligation to defend North America along with the U.S.
> 
> The government has repeatedly stated in recent months that the military does not have enough CF-18s to both defend North America and fulfil its obligations to NATO. It says that is why a new plane is needed sooner rather than later.
> 
> But neither the government nor the Defence Department have said how many jets Canada actually needs, saying that to reveal the numbers would jeopardize national security...
> 
> The Defence Research and Development Canada report suggests that a maximum of 36 aircraft are required to be operational at any time to help defend North America, and that "anything beyond this number is in excess of the current requirement."
> 
> Those planes don't all have to be on high alert waiting for an attack, the report says. Some can be involved in training or NATO operations, and would be called back if required.
> 
> Canada currently has 77 CF-18s, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said only about half of them are operational at any given time. The report confirms those numbers, but also says the military can make do with 65 [surprise!] fighter jets...
> http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6795095-no-fighter-jet-requirement-for-nato-report/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

Mark, it's pretty clear where the numbers come from, it's also never been a secret. Clearly previous governments were planning on doing the bare minimum. I imagine our NATO allies have been less than impressed, perhaps the Liberal government is moving to get ahead off any stronger opinions coming out of the US in particular. 

The Liberal government is also clearly not as comfortable with the risk management of the F-18/F-35 switch over as the RCAF and previous governments have been

I would think the 18 SH would allow greater room in managing the remaining CF-18 airframe's

I think that the plan is for Boeing to buy the SH's back at their end of use (as in the Kuwait deal?)

12 Growlers might have made more sense, if we're going to maintain two airframes in such small numbers.

I would be happier if it didn't appear that this whole process was decided in advance.
If we can't get the SH's up in going in short time I don't see what is gained over procuring the F-35


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So.....

Do we know if this means we are adding a new squadron?  Or will the SH's go to an existing squadron, with the replaced legacy hornets being distributed to other squadrons?


----------



## MarkOttawa

From RCAF head LGEN Hood–looks like this means that the 18 Super Hornets will be added to the fleet of (now with crash) 76 CF-18s:



> …the Government has just announced that it is investing in the RCAF, and that we will grow to meet their policy direction regarding the availability of our fighter capability.
> 
> The Government has now directed that we be ready to meet our daily NATO and NORAD commitments simultaneously. The Government has committed to delivering those resources, in part through an open and transparent competition to replace the fighter fleet. Meanwhile, they will enter into discussion with the United States Government and Boeing to augment our present CF-188 fleet.
> 
> We will also be provided the additional resources required to continue to fly the CF-188 and a potential interim fleet through to transition to the ultimate replacement aircraft. This will include recruiting and training additional pilots and aircraft technicians….
> http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=the-government-of-canada-s-investment-in-the-rcaf/ivxn69uj



More resources? Hmmm. Believe it when I see it.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

From previous comments and from observing the time required for the U.S. to approve sales to Kuwait it is evident that we will not be taking delivery of any new aircraft for at least 5 years which is fine because it will take at least that long to train the ground and aircrew required to stand up any new squadrons.  Any open competition could be completed and a total replacement of our current fleet could be underway by that time with the first 18 being added to strength before the first legacy aircraft was retired.  That is just common sense.  So why are we wasting the money buying the SH unless the fix is already in to fully equip with SH and growler aircraft?


----------



## SupersonicMax

It won't take 5 years to train ground and air crews....


----------



## a_majoor

YZT580 said:
			
		

> From previous comments and from observing the time required for the U.S. to approve sales to Kuwait it is evident that we will not be taking delivery of any new aircraft for at least 5 years which is fine because it will take at least that long to train the ground and aircrew required to stand up any new squadrons.  Any open competition could be completed and a total replacement of our current fleet could be underway by that time with the first 18 being added to strength before the first legacy aircraft was retired.  That is just common sense.  So why are we wasting the money buying the SH unless the fix is already in to fully equip with SH and growler aircraft?



Nailed it. This way they get to avoid that open competition and the revelation that there is no real alternative to the F-35 if the RCAF is to remain a relevant air force in the medium and long term. Being bomb and missile trucks for USAF planers, targeteers and flight leaders is honourable employment, to be sure, but I wonder how the Liberals will square their reflexive anti-Americanism with stripping the RCAF of the ability to act independently in Canada's interest except in the most limited of circumstances?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Nailed it. This way they get to avoid that open competition and the revelation that there is no real alternative to the F-35 if the RCAF is to remain a relevant air force in the medium and long term. Being bomb and missile trucks for USAF planers, targeteers and flight leaders is honourable employment, to be sure, but I wonder how the Liberals will square their reflexive anti-Americanism with stripping the RCAF of the ability to act independently in Canada's interest except in the most limited of circumstances?



It's a good way to validate our 'second world' status though


----------



## HB_Pencil

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Mark, it's pretty clear where the numbers come from, it's also never been a secret. Clearly previous governments were planning on doing the bare minimum. I imagine our NATO allies have been less than impressed, perhaps the Liberal government is moving to get ahead off any stronger opinions coming out of the US in particular.
> 
> The Liberal government is also clearly not as comfortable with the risk management of the F-18/F-35 switch over as the RCAF and previous governments have been
> 
> I would think the 18 SH would allow greater room in managing the remaining CF-18 airframe's
> 
> I think that the plan is for Boeing to buy the SH's back at their end of use (as in the Kuwait deal?)
> 
> 12 Growlers might have made more sense, if we're going to maintain two airframes in such small numbers.
> 
> I would be happier if it didn't appear that this whole process was decided in advance.
> If we can't get the SH's up in going in short time I don't see what is gained over procuring the F-35



No, this government doesn't care whether we are meeting our current requirements or not, they were looking for a convenient pretext to get Super Hornets and they thought they found one. I'm not kidding you, that's their intent. Think about the break in logic here: "we really think we need to meet our NATO and NORAD commitment, but we're going to ignore what those allies are doing and select an inferior, more costly aircraft to what everyone else."  That and the fact they can't get the Super Hornet Faster than the F-35. They didn't even discuss the commitments gap with Commander of the RCAF... does that really sound like an government that was overly concerned with it as an actual issue, or wanted to use it to push its agenda? Its the latter, I can assure of that. 

Honestly, this government doesn't care about the AF, they just wanted to meet a terrible election promise because they don't like the F-35 / and perhaps cripple the AF's ability to meet overseas contingencies. 

Growlers are only ECM aircraft, they are 40% more expensive than a Block III Super Hornet and cannot carry an appropriate a2a loadout.


----------



## HB_Pencil

YZT580 said:
			
		

> From previous comments and from observing the time required for the U.S. to approve sales to Kuwait it is evident that we will not be taking delivery of any new aircraft for at least 5 years which is fine because it will take at least that long to train the ground and aircrew required to stand up any new squadrons.  Any open competition could be completed and a total replacement of our current fleet could be underway by that time with the first 18 being added to strength before the first legacy aircraft was retired.  That is just common sense.  So why are we wasting the money buying the SH unless the fix is already in to fully equip with SH and growler aircraft?



Super Hornets won't be available by 2022. The USN has been buying SH through congressional action in the Unfunded Liabilities column for the past two years... while the OSD tried to kill the program. Next year the F-35C buys start to ramp up with USN IOC and the funding will be directed to that program. If the USN stops procuring F/A-18Es after next year, then I suspect Boeing will just replace the 12 USN slots a year with Kuwaiti and Canadian purchases... or add a third aircraft to the line a month if the USN continues to buy. However that gets you to 2020 at the latest. Basically we're buying an orphaned fleet. 

This is problematic because there will be ITB issues for the F-35 if Canada selects it in 2022... you won't see 100% because we will have lost out on all important contracts. As a partner we can't get guaranteed workshare. So that leaves only the Gripen.


----------



## SupersonicMax

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Growlers are only ECM aircraft, they are 40% more expensive than a Block III Super Hornet and *cannot carry an appropriate a2a loadout.*



Not true.  When employed as an EW platform, maybe.  Otherwise, it has the same capabilities as the Rhino.


----------



## suffolkowner

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Super Hornets won't be available by 2022. The USN has been buying SH through congressional action in the Unfunded Liabilities column for the past two years... while the OSD tried to kill the program. Next year the F-35C buys start to ramp up with USN IOC and the funding will be directed to that program. If the USN stops procuring F/A-18Es after next year, then I suspect Boeing will just replace the 12 USN slots a year with Kuwaiti and Canadian purchases... or add a third aircraft to the line a month if the USN continues to buy. However that gets you to 2020 at the latest. Basically we're buying an orphaned fleet.
> 
> This is problematic because there will be ITB issues for the F-35 if Canada selects it in 2022... you won't see 100% because we will have lost out on all important contracts. As a partner we can't get guaranteed workshare. So that leaves only the Gripen.



I was trying to figure out when our SH's would be coming off the line. I was thinking it would be 2021 before we would get them in which case what is the point?

regarding the Growler's I was thinking of them as more of a complement to the F-35


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Not true.  When employed as an EW platform, maybe.  Otherwise, it has the same capabilities as the Rhino.



Couldn't agree more, SupersonicMax.

But the idea here is, if you don't intend to buy the thing as a EW platform because what you want is an actual attack/fighter plane, then why waste your money on what is then, in effect, a two seater Rhino F/A bird? 

I don't think that the government's intent here is to develop a new capability with EW airplanes. All they want is an "interim fighter" to give themselves the out on a proper competition, which we all know is likely to be won by the F-35. So in the end, the are definitely not going for the Growler, there are going for the Rhino, and we both know this to be the truth.  

And all of you people mentioning the Growler: Stop it! It ain't happening. That is not what this government is after.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I agree that it is a far stretch but it is the only thing, in my mind, that would make this purchase worth it.  

Growlers would give us capabilities that would bring us to the modern battlefield and would open up some other possibilities (and guarantee the APG-79).

But I feel we'll get 18 F/A-18E with APG-73.


----------



## ringo

E's F's or G's I hope these 18 a/c have AESA and conformal fuel tanks.


----------



## MilEME09

ringo said:
			
		

> E's F's or G's I hope these 18 a/c have AESA and conformal fuel tanks.



AESA, yes, CFT's not likely unless Boeing sells Canada the Advanced Super Hornet


----------



## larry Strong

DND removes report critical of 'interim' fighter jet purchase from website

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/dnd-removes-report-critical-of-interim-fighter-jet-purchase-from-website-404115616.html



> OTTAWA - An internal defense study that dismissed any plan to buy "interim" fighter jets because of "significant additional costs," has been pulled off the National Defense website.
> 
> The department says it took down the report, originally published by its research arm in June 2014, because of concerns it contained classified information.
> 
> But critics say it was removed for the same reason more than 200 federal officials have been sworn to a lifetime gag rule: it poses a threat to the Liberals' plan to buy "interim" Super Hornets.
> 
> Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan admitted Thursday that the decision to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornet jets to augment the existing fleet of CF-18s until a competition to find a replacement can be held in five years will cost taxpayers more.
> 
> But he said those extra costs are necessary as Canada has to provide a certain number of aircraft for the defense of North America as well as NATO, which it currently cannot do at the same time.
> 
> "We have NORAD obligations and we have NATO obligations in terms of our commitments," he told reporters after appearing before the House of Commons defense committee.
> 
> "And to meet those minimum obligations, we do not, right now, have enough operational aircraft to meet those simultaneously if called upon."
> 
> He also raised the specter of another 9/11 or similar "unforeseen situation."
> 
> But the now-deleted Defense Research and Development Canada report came out strongly against buying a "bridging," aircraft to fill the type of "capability gap" described by the government.
> 
> "The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term," reads the report, which The Canadian Press downloaded before it was removed from the website.
> 
> Critics and experts have questioned the government's assertion that it will take five years to replace the CF-18s.
> 
> The report also appears to contradict the minister by saying that Canada does not have a "hard minimum requirement for the NATO commitment."
> 
> That suggests the only actual requirement Canada must meet in terms of providing fighter jets is its obligation to defend North America along with the U.S., and anything beyond that is voluntary.
> 
> The report said a maximum of 36 aircraft are required to be operational at any time to help defend North America and "anything beyond this number is in excess of the current requirement."
> 
> Those planes don't all have to be on high alert waiting for an attack, the report said, but can be involved in training or NATO operations and called back if needed.
> 
> Sajjan on Thursday accused the previous Conservative government of having settled on a "fictitious number" when it planned to buy 65 F-35 stealth fighters and that the Liberals will buy more planes.
> 
> But the report said the air force can meet its NORAD requirements with a single fleet of 65 fighter jets, given that up to half planes will be in day-to-day or long-term maintenance at any given point.
> 
> National Defense spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said in an email that the report was removed "as it was found to possibly contain classified information, not because it looked at the costs of operating more than one fleet."
> 
> But the report's authors write that they specifically withheld some information "in order to keep this analysis unclassified."
> 
> Conservative defense critic James Bezan latched onto the missing report as proof the government's plan buy Hornets before holding a competition to replace the CF-18s is part of a larger Liberal plan to avoid buying the F-35 stealth fighter.
> 
> "They're trying to re-write history," he said. "This is the greatest hoax going."
> 
> Defense analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said there has been growing tendency toward secrecy within National Defense, which includes a clampdown on information over Canada's mission in Iraq and now the fighter project.
> 
> The Canadian Press reported last week that the government has ordered 235 federal bureaucrats working on the fighter project to sign lifetime non-disclosure agreements, which two former heads of military procurement said was unprecedented





Cheers
Larry


----------



## PuckChaser

So much for open and transparent government.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> DND removes report critical of 'interim' fighter jet purchase from website
> 
> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/dnd-removes-report-critical-of-interim-fighter-jet-purchase-from-website-404115616.html


Funny, though, how nothing _really_ disappears on the interwebs:  _*"A Comparative Analysis of Minimum Resource Requirements for Single and Mixed Fleets for The National Fighter Procurement Evaluation of Options"*_ (with thanks to Google Cache searching)  ;D

And if that link doesn't work for you, here's another site that has it as part of its coverage of all things F-35.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So much for open and transparent government.


Yup ...


----------



## George Wallace

Watch US Navy Tests F-35C Carrier Variant Aboard USS George Washington

F- 35 Short Take Off & Vertical Landing On Ground & On Carrier

U.S. Marines F-35 B Stealth lightning Plane on USS America


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering all the other contracts the Conservative got done, I suppose the Libs had really hoped that the CPC would have signed the deal, so they could whine and complain without any responsibility.


----------



## BurmaShave

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Not true.  When employed as an EW platform, maybe.  Otherwise, it has the same capabilities as the Rhino.



On the Growler, the gun's deleted to free up space for some secret squirrel stuff, and and the wingtip AIM-9 stations (1 and 11?) are replaced by EW receivers (ALQ-218?).

It's theoretically less capable in close than a Rhino. Given that the last gun kill was ~25 years ago, by a Thunderbolt, on a helo, it's probably a non-issue.


----------



## STONEY

Canadian Government Glossary.

Open and transparent= Secret , under the counter , keep media and public out of picture at all costs.


----------



## SupersonicMax

BurmaShave said:
			
		

> On the Growler, the gun's deleted to free up space for some secret squirrel stuff, and and the wingtip AIM-9 stations (1 and 11?) are replaced by EW receivers (ALQ-218?).
> 
> It's theoretically less capable in close than a Rhino. Given that the last gun kill was ~25 years ago, by a Thunderbolt, on a helo, it's probably a non-issue.



I have seen Growlers without the wingtip jammers with normal LAUs (for AIM-9s).  No gun, you are correct, but in how we would intend to use them, I would consider this a non-issue, like you say.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

In the ASH, I was surprised th gun wasn't replaced by an IRST....


----------



## suffolkowner

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny, though, how nothing _really_ disappears on the interwebs:  _*"A Comparative Analysis of Minimum Resource Requirements for Single and Mixed Fleets for The National Fighter Procurement Evaluation of Options"*_ (with thanks to Google Cache searching)  ;D
> 
> And if that link doesn't work for you, here's another site that has it as part of its coverage of all things F-35.Yup ...



I was wondering what report they were referring to I thought it might be this one, the above I had already posted

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-cf18-estimated-life-expectancy.page


----------



## The Bread Guy

An update ...


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny, though, how nothing _really_ disappears on the interwebs:  _*"A Comparative Analysis of Minimum Resource Requirements for Single and Mixed Fleets for The National Fighter Procurement Evaluation of Options"*_ (with thanks to Google Cache searching)  ;D ...


This link no longer works - gone from Google's Cache -- but this one still works  ;D


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And if that link doesn't work for you, here's another site that has it as part of its coverage of all things F-35.


Aaaaaaaaaand just to be safe, a copy of the globalsecurity.org version is also attached - in case THAT link stops working, too


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> An update ...This link no longer works - gone from Google's Cache -- but this one still works  ;DAaaaaaaaaand just to be safe, a copy of the globalsecurity.org version is also attached - in case THAT link stops working, too



So....Like all things Harper, the LPC "Scrubbers" are hard at work.   [


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So....Like all things Harper, the LPC "Scrubbers" are hard at work.   [


Also, they can't seem to un-archive versions saved at archive.org - which also seems to have the PDF version of the report (attached, you know ...) ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start of a post by Carleton Prof. Steve Saideman (further links at original):



> Good Times for Civ-Mil Scholars, Bad Times for Democracy and Governance
> 
> I just wrote about the problems facing the US as President-Elect Trump may choose too many retired generals for his cabinet.  In Canada, the problems is a bit different: active generals are being put in awkward positions by the politicians.
> 
> How so?  The story of the week in Canadian civ-mil, regarding the fighter plane procurement problems, appears to be part of a larger trend: the Liberals getting advice they don't like and soldiering on (sorry) anyways (see electoral reform effort or not).
> 
> The Liberal government has stated that it needs to buy 18 Super Hornets to fill a capability gap--that Canada doesn't have the planes it needs to defend North American airspace (the NORAD requirement) and to meet its NATO commitments at the same time.  There are lots of problems with this:
> 
> *There is no formal NATO requirement BUT to be fair to the Liberals, there has been a regular demand by NATO for planes to patrol over Iceland and over the Baltics plus regular multilateral efforts elsewhere (Kosovo, Libya, Iraq).
> *Interim purchases are interim: Canada will have to sell, scrap, give away or somehow transfer the 18 Super Hornets once Canada gets the big batch of new planes (whether they are Super Hornets, F-35s, Rafaeles, or whatever).
> *The math.  Canada needs 36 planes for NORAD, 6 for NATO-ish=42.  But you need to have twice as many or so in order to field the 42 at any time time=84.  But planes, alas, crash and have other problems, so you probably need another 6-12.  So, 90+ planes in the next batch of purchases.  Given the budgetary envelope for the next plane was enough for 65 F-35s, the math suggests that the Liberals would need to buy a plane that is 2/3s the price of the 65 as 65/90 is 2/3s-ish.  But the Super Hornet is not that cheap.  Plus the Liberals had promised to take the money saved on the planes to fund the ship-building.  Ooops.
> 
> But the problem du jour is making generals dance.  RCAF Commander Hood has been caught between what he has said before and what he is saying now...
> http://saideman.blogspot.ca/2016/12/good-times-for-civ-mil-scholars-bad.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/procurement-minister-contradicts-air-force-head-over-fighter-jets-1.3187510

Federal Procurement Minister says that Comd RCAF is wrong about Canada's fighter requirements and current situation.  Press should just ask the CDS and he will set the record straight.  And it would seems she also implies the MND is qualified to challenge the RCAF's technical assessment of what we need in the air because he has been there "on the ground."

If I wore a tinfoil hat, I would wonder if somebody were trying to run a political divide-and-conquer campaign against NDHQ.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

With all the statements back and forth, is it possible we could see Hood saying screw you, and resigning??


----------



## PuckChaser

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> With all the statements back and forth, is it possible we could see Hood saying screw you, and resigning??


Maybe he stays in as a screw you to the current government, because unless he does something super serious to get pulled from the command position, they can't do anything about it. If he has time to CRA, he could stay in after his current posting is up even though he knows they'd never pick him as CDS now.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> With all the statements back and forth, is it possible we could see Hood saying screw you, and resigning??


As some WAY smarter than me have said around these parts, nobody seems to resign anymore on principle ...


----------



## Old Sweat

If he, as a serving officer, gets in a fight over defence policy with one or more ministers, than he must be fired by the government, be it the PM, the MND or the CDS. Right or wrong, like it or not, civilians call the show. Remember that PM Chretien fired Admiral Anderson, the CDS, after the 1993 election for criticizing the platform position to cancel the EH101 purchase.


----------



## Kirkhill

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> If he, as a serving officer, gets in a fight over defence policy with one or more ministers, than he must be fired by the government, be it the PM, the MND or the CDS. Right or wrong, like it or not, civilians call the show. Remember that PM Chretien fired Admiral Anderson, the CDS, after the 1993 election for criticizing the platform position to cancel the EH101 purchase.



The issue though, is can the PM fire the General 

Quietly

Or by making the General appear incompetent.?


----------



## PuckChaser

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> If he, as a serving officer, gets in a fight over defence policy with one or more ministers, than he must be fired by the government, be it the PM, the MND or the CDS. Right or wrong, like it or not, civilians call the show. Remember that PM Chretien fired Admiral Anderson, the CDS, after the 1993 election for criticizing the platform position to cancel the EH101 purchase.


Is he in a policy fight thought? I believe all he's stated thus far is the facts. Up until the Liberals changed what he had to provide, he said the RCSF was good to go. After they changed it, he stated there was now a gap. Nothing wrong with the truth, right?


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The issue though, is can the PM fire the General
> 
> Quietly
> 
> Or by making the General appear incompetent.?



Yes.  All General/Flag Officers serve at the pleasure of the Crown, and if the PM wants him to move on, the G.G. isn't likely to refuse the "night letter" that Comd RCAF would get.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Ostrozac

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yes.  All General/Flag Officers serve at the pleasure of the Crown, and if the PM wants him to move on, the G.G. isn't likely to refuse the "night letter" that Comd RCAF would get.



Now, if an officer is asked to resign, and then submits a 4C release, that's pretty straightforward. But if the member refuses to resign, what would be the release item? What's the reference for General Officers being forced out? Can the CDS, MND or PM just direct a 5C release for a BGen+, without any other justification or administrative measures? A quick scan of QR&O I Chapter 15 doesn't seem to single out GO/FO for special release procedures.

Has there ever been a Canadian General/Flag Officer that has been forcibly released in this manner? Admiral Anderson (I suspect) was on paper a voluntary release -- given that he remained in public service as Ambassador to NATO.


----------



## Good2Golf

5C: Completed Service for Which Required. (most likely, if they don't voluntarily take a 4A)

QR&O 15.17 - - RELEASE OF OFFICERS - AGE AND LENGTH OF SERVICE

Likely (3).b.?

(3) Subject to paragraph (5), an officer of the Regular Force shall be released:
a. upon reaching the appropriate age prescribed under subparagraph (1)(a); or
b. after the completion of 30 years of full-time paid service in any of Her Majesty's Forces, including service as a non-commissioned member, if the Chief of the Defence Staff so recommends.


----------



## Ostrozac

Thanks for that. I always found the "retirement age" concept as described in QR&O I 15.17 to be a bit of an impenetrable mess to understand. But would that apply to any officer, not just to GO/FO?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/procurement-minister-contradicts-air-force-head-over-fighter-jets-1.3187510
> 
> Federal Procurement Minister says that Comd RCAF is wrong about Canada's fighter requirements and current situation.  Press should just ask the CDS and he will set the record straight.  And it would seems she also implies the MND is qualified to challenge the RCAF's technical assessment of what we need in the air because he has been there "on the ground."



 :boke:


----------



## Good2Golf

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Thanks for that. I always found the "retirement age" concept as described in QR&O I 15.17 to be a bit of an impenetrable mess to understand. But would that apply to any officer, not just to GO/FO?


  

It could.  There are many bits in there that could see a lot of members being released if one chose not to exercise judgement and consideration in the application of existing regulations.  

That said, I'm not certain this is the article, but there are a few people one might ask to see what article they were released under...

Note that QR&O 15-1 notes the Governor General as the release authority for all commissioned officers.  Most certainly, this is done with delegation, but if the G.G., on recommendation from Government, says it's time to go...it's time to go. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It won't take 5 years to train ground and air crews....



Not to convert from one type to another, no.

But as this is claimed to be an increase in number of aircraft, an increase in personnel numbers will be required. A year in the application process, four years at RMC, another couple in the flying training mill...

Or more people get streamed off for fighters, so other already under-staffed communities have to make up the difference.

Or standards get dropped and more of those currently in the system pass.


----------



## dapaterson

Or more folks flying desks get posted to Cold Lake and Bagotville.  The a solid grop (perhaps a majority) of pilots are in non-flying positions; there is no need for more pilots,  just for more of them to fly.


----------



## Loachman

Despite current shortages at Squadrons, we keep getting pushed to provide our share of staff officers in various places.

I'd be surprised if enough fighter pilots could be freed up without somebody else getting stuck in those positions.

Had a reduction in the glut of unnecessary HQ positions been announced and plans initiated, yes, I'd buy that.

Maybe.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And even if we free up pilots by reducing HQ positions, the aircraft won't fix themselves.

I can garauntee that there are not a Fighter Squadron's worth of Avn/AVS/ACS Cpls (ie the worker bees) sitting in staff jobs. There might be a surplus of AERE Officers along with AM Supervisors that could be freed up.

Maybe it is time to revisit the worth of the combat support Sqns?


----------



## MarkOttawa

This would keep Super Hornet line going for some time--perhaps help with costs for RCAF?  Also legacy Hornet spares for us too?



> US Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets
> 
> The US Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said.
> 
> The plan, which is still being finalized, could be implemented as early as part of the fiscal 2018 budget, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
> 
> "To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official.
> 
> The Navy also plans to field and deploy a new unmanned carrier-based refueling plane, the official said.
> 
> Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years.
> 
> If implemented, the plan would provide dozens of new orders for Boeing and keep its St. Louis production line running for several more years.
> 
> "We would welcome an opportunity to develop a plan, with the Navy, that would allow us to continue providing the robust capabilities of the Super Hornet well into the future," said Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher.
> 
> The company had suffered a setback last month when Congress failed to include 12 Super Hornets in the fiscal 2017 defense authorization bill, opening a potential gap in the Boeing production line until several foreign orders for Kuwait and Canada are finalized. The $618.7 billion bill was passed Friday by the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Senate is expected to vote on the measure next week.
> 
> Navy officials say the jets could still be added to the fiscal 2017 budget as part of a supplemental budget that lawmakers are urging Republican President-elect Donald Trump to submit after he takes office...
> 
> The older model Hornets could be transferred to the Marine Corps, which has faced its own maintenance issues, including a lack of spare parts.
> http://nation.com.pk/international/04-Dec-2016/us-navy-aims-to-buy-more-boeing-f-a-18e-f-super-hornets



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kev994

Loachman said:
			
		

> Or standards get dropped and more of those currently in the system pass.


That would likely be counterproductive, those that I've seen squeak past that shouldn't have end up failing on a later platform, thus wasting an OTU slot.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yes.  All General/Flag Officers serve at the pleasure of the Crown, and if the PM wants him to move on, the G.G. isn't likely to refuse the "night letter" that Comd RCAF would get.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



No arguments on the authority.  I am just speculating on the optics of the pushing/jumping of the Comd RCAF at this particular juncture.  

I can't see it being done tidily if the Comd objects.


----------



## Good2Golf

Concur, potentially untidy should the Comd feel that he has done nothing wrong, in noting the revision in policy.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## HB_Pencil

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Not true.  When employed as an EW platform, maybe.  Otherwise, it has the same capabilities as the Rhino.



No, sorry, you're right, I overstated the position. In my discussion with some USN folk a few years ago that Growlers are operated exclusively for the EW mission... and while they do have A2A weapons for self protection, they are considered limited in that respect. Also, Canada can obtain "pre-wired" Hornets (As did the RAAF in their second tranche). 

I don't think any of this is going to happen as you note. First, they stated it in public. Second because even the wired SH comes at a significant expense over the Block II, not to mention the full capability. However there is also the expense of building a second pipeline for EW trained backseaters (which I believe you've discussed before), who would also be used sparingly, or the mechanics of converting between different mission sets when there are only 18 aircraft. Its an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.


----------



## jmt18325

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> No, sorry, you're right, I overstated the position. In my discussion with some USN folk a few years ago that Growlers are operated exclusively for the EW mission... and while they do have A2A weapons for self protection, they are considered limited in that respect. Also, Canada can obtain "pre-wired" Hornets (As did the RAAF in their second tranche).



Didn't they end up not using that wiring, and just ordering new Growlers?


----------



## Loachman

kev994 said:
			
		

> That would likely be counterproductive, those that I've seen squeak past that shouldn't have end up failing on a later platform, thus wasting an OTU slot.



Somewhat more than just "likely".

But when a government is planning to ram something through that defies all logic and truth, why would that deter them?


----------



## MarkOttawa

RAAF and Super Hornet, Growler--from a major article at DID (further links at original):



> Australia’s 2nd Fighter Fleet: Super Hornets & Growlers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _EA-18G: key systems_
> 
> Engines, support, and asstd. items for Australia’s coming EA-18Gs; AGM-154C JSOW test successful.
> 
> December 8/2016: Australia has been cleared to purchase external link  AEA-18G Growler Aircraft Electronic Warfare Range Systems in a $115 million foreign military sale . The deal includes two systems, personnel training, integration testing, and other supporting equipment. Alongside the US, Australia is the main customer of EA-18G Growler aircraft.
> 
> Australia’s A$ 10+ billion Super Hornet program began life in a storm. Australia’s involvement in the F-35 Lightning II program have been mired in controversy, amid criticisms that the F-35A will (1) be unable to compete with proliferating SU-30 family fighters in the region, (2) lack the range or response time that Australia requires, and (3) be both late and very expensive during early production years.
> 
> The accelerated retirement of Australia’s 22 long-range F-111s in 2010 sharpened the timing debate, by creating a serious gap between the F-111’s retirement and the F-35’s likely arrival. Further delays to the F-35 program have created new worries that even the upgraded F/A-18AM/BM Hornet fleet won’t last long enough to allow smooth replacement.
> 
> The Super Hornets survived potential cancellation, and the “surprise” stopgap buy has steadily morphed into a mainstay of the future RAAF, with a new and unique set of electronic warfare capabilities thrown into the mix. This DID Spotlight article describes the models chosen, links to coverage of the key controversies, and offers a history of contracts and key events from the program’s first official requests to the present day...
> 
> Australia’s EA-18G buy has made them the first export customer for an American electronic warfare fighter, and will give the RAAF an historically novel range of capabilities. As of February 2009, 12 of Australia’s 24 F/A-18Fs were slated to receive the additional wiring required to allow future EA-18 conversions. They were delivered that way, and as of December 2012, orders for the associated equipment, jamming pods, and remaining conversion work have begun, and a 2014 contract will add 12 new-build EA-18Gs to carry them.
> 
> If Australia eventually wants to expand to 24 EA-18Gs, they could do so in future by paying conversion costs for 12 of their F/A-18Fs, and buying the required jammers...
> 
> The RAAF can be expected to hang on to its Super Hornets for many years. Its F/A-18A/B Hornets entered service in 1987, and the last aircraft in that 71-plane fleet will retire in 2022 thanks to upgrades and life extension overhauls. A similar career for the Super Hornets would see them serve beyond 2040, and the EA-18G’s usefulness could give them an even longer career.
> 
> There had been talk of retiring the F/A-18F fleet well before 2040, and having an all-F-35 fleet. Instead, growing orders made it likely the Super Hornets and Growlers would end up subtracting F-35s from Australia’s planned 100-fighter fleet. The May 2013 White Paper dropped planned F-35A orders to 72 planes, with the ability to raise that to 90 planes if Australia wants to replace its Super Hornet family around 2030. Give the F-35’s higher operating costs, and Australian demographics, it remains to be seen whether Australia will be able to afford that 4th squadron.
> 
> Meanwhile, the late arrival of Australia’s F-35As pushed Australia toward a second bridge buy, in order to keep up fighter numbers as older F/A-18AM/BM Hornets are retired. Once the 12 planned EA-18G Growler electronic warfare planes are under contract, the odds of early retirement for the Super Hornet fleet will drop to almost zero, and the government is beginning to acknowledge this publicly...
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RaceAddict

That didn't take long...

Super Hornet fighter jet costs under scrutiny


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> :facepalm: holy frig, over.  We aren't buying a new car for Granny.



No - we're buying an interim aircaft.  More comonality would seem like a good thing given that.

I would prefer they simply run a fast competition.  Of course, there is no such thing here.  Just look at the air combat training competition.


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would prefer they simply run a fast competition.  Of course, there is no such thing here.  Just look at the air combat training competition.



So, knowing that there are no fast competitions (ie. the "interim aircraft" may well be there for longer than anticipated), you still think that just buying "the next model up", which was developed in the 90s, instead of one that's a generation later is a good thing?


----------



## suffolkowner

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> No - we're buying an interim aircaft.  More comonality would seem like a good thing given that.
> 
> I would prefer they simply run a fast competition.  Of course, there is no such thing here.  Just look at the air combat training competition.



I think we're actually looking at leasing the Super Hornets. It's important to note what the expected delivery date on these aircraft will be, 2020? that's a joke. Run a competition until 2021?, that's a joke as well. 

Personally I'm glad the FWSAR is resolved, time to move onto the next boondoggle. Every purchase is going to involve trade offs and reasonable people can disagree on the relative merits of any platforms.

I think in Canada the government can do whatever it wants with the Canadian Forces the public interest is that low. It could just as easily invest as starve. Trudeau didn't win because of any F-35 promise and Chretien didn't win because of the EH-101. That 10% of the vote that is up for grabs was just tired of  the PC's/Mulroney/Harper


----------



## PuckChaser

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think we're actually looking at leasing the Super Hornets. It's important to note what the expected delivery date on these aircraft will be, 2020? that's a joke. Run a competition until 2021?, that's a joke as well.



The government has no $@#$ing idea what they want to do other than "acquire Super Hornets". There was no analysis of options, cost estimates, etc done. No fiscal prudence. Simply we'll get 18 Super Hornets (without asking Boeing if they're available and when we could get them), and whatever the cost (money's no object), it will come out of the deferred spending pot designated for Fighter Replacement. We're now in line behind Kuwait, who's recent approved purchase will keep the line running until early 2020s. Worst case scenario we get the 18 aircraft just as the competition closes and a real replacement is announced. Trudeau has a crapload of sucking up to do to Trump to get him to allow us to jump the queue on the USN/USMC purchases, which are required to keep their Squadrons up until F-35B/C is FOC.


----------



## suffolkowner

They've met with Boeing enough to (including pre-election) to have formulated some kind of plan.LOL


----------



## MarkOttawa

USN wants 58 more Super Hornets:



> SECNAV Mabus Memo: Navy Budget Submission Built with Trump’s Pentagon in Mind
> 
> Outgoing Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has crafted the Fiscal 2018 Department of the Navy budget submission in line with the stated goals of the new Trump administration rather than the priorities of the current Department of Defense, according to a memo Mabus sent to Pentagon leaders on Thursday [Dec. 8]...
> 
> The Navy...added, “a number of items to its budget, including 58 F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters..."
> https://news.usni.org/2016/12/09/navy-budget-submission-built-eye-toward-trumps-pentagon



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So, knowing that there are no fast competitions (ie. the "interim aircraft" may well be there for longer than anticipated), you still think that just buying "the next model up", which was developed in the 90s, instead of one that's a generation later is a good thing?



The Super Hornet can be integrated with Hornet squadrons easier than the other aircraft.  Interim.


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> USN wants 58 more Super Hornets:



That old outdated thing?


----------



## Loachman

They don't replace their whole fleet all in one go at forty-year intervals, and have an economy-of-scale that we lack.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> They don't replace their whole fleet all in one go at forty-year intervals, and have an economy-of-scale that we lack.



But why would they want that old outdated thing?


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The Super Hornet can be integrated with Hornet squadrons easier than the other aircraft.  Interim.



I know what "interim" means.  I just don't share the same faith that you do that the Govt (whichever party, it doesn't matter) won't say "in 2016 we ordered 18 Super Hornets; that'll be good enough" and conveniently forget to look at the actual replacement.


----------



## Quirky

I have a hunch that nothing will be purchased/leased until the next government is elected, the auditor general's report on the SH lease will pretty much put a halt to the whole bulls**t "interm" replacement. This has the makings of the 65 F35 purchase announced by the Cons all over again. Someone just make a god damn decision and put it into action, rubber on the damn ramp already.  :


----------



## dimsum

From the Times Colonist:



> Comment: Super Hornet wrong choice to replace aging planes
> 
> The recent announcement by the federal government to acquire 18 F-18 Super Hornets as a capability gap filler for the RCAF is the wrong choice for the following reasons: the Super Hornet is a fourth-generation aircraft and does not have stealth capability; it lacks interoperability with fifth-generation aircraft (such as the F-35 and F-22 Raptor); and its overall cost is higher than the F-35.
> 
> Stealth capability is a fundamental requirement for air defence (air-to-air) as well as air-to-ground missions. The whole purpose of stealth is to be able to attack the target undetected, an essential aspect of North American air defence.
> 
> Stealth must be built into the aircraft during manufacture, it cannot be retrofitted. If Canada buys the Super Hornet, which would be detectable by attacking enemy forces, it becomes a liability to the defending force, not an asset. Our NORAD and NATO allies who have F-35s would not fly with us for that reason.
> 
> It has been incorrectly stated by the prime minister that the F-35 does not work (because it is in development), but this is misleading: There are more than 180 F-35s flying with an accumulated 70,000 hours. The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Marine Corps have both declared initial operational capability and continue to expand their F-35 fleets.
> 
> It is true that developmental work continues on the F-35 and will for some time, but that is understandable. Fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35 have a fusion of sensor capability, integrated avionics, situational awareness and weapons components, aimed at providing a pilot first-kill capability.
> 
> There will always be developmental changes to these various systems to improve performance, much the same as operating systems of personal computers undergo continuous improvement to make those computers more effective. Interoperability between aircraft fleets is essential.
> 
> More to the point, developmental work has to be done on the F-18 Super Hornet because it does not have secure, digital communications. Its use would compromise the stealth of the F-35. This is a major setback and work is being undertaken in the U.S. to develop a common link.
> 
> Should Canada buy the Super Hornet, it would not be capable of communicating with USAF air crews operating the F-35 or F-22 until the developmental work on the Super Hornet is completed in the future.
> 
> The question of cost is murky at best and potentially blatantly misleading at worst. Several reviews and audits by various government departments of an F-35 buy have been done. Those studies revealed that the overall cost of buying F-35s is less than any other contending aircraft. Competitive cost and operational effectiveness are the reasons that other allies have chosen the F-35.
> 
> Also, there has been no costing of a Super Hornet buy, which would incur a foreign military sales charge of 15 per cent. The F-35 would not, because Canada is part of the F-35 consortium.
> 
> The additional cost is particularly troubling when added to the operating costs of the current CF-18 fleet with no new money added to the defence budget. It should be clearly understood that the CF-18 and the F-18 Super Hornet are two different aircraft. They require different simulators, training and logistics support.
> 
> Moreover, the F-18 is at the end of its production cycle. Canada cannot afford two fleets of fighter aircraft to do the same job.
> 
> To aggravate the foregoing, it is troubling that the government has compelled those who were involved in the decision to purchase the Super Hornet to sign a lifetime non-disclosure agreement. Those agreements preclude knowledgeable military and civil servants, forever, from discussing the Super Hornet buy.
> 
> It would appear the federal government is covering its tracks and is going to repeat the mistakes that they made with the useless F-5 fighter buy and the E-101 helicopter debacle, costing billions of wasted dollars and failing to meet military requirements.
> 
> The F-18 Super Hornet purchase is clearly a choice of political expedience. Canadians deserve better defence and leadership than what is being provided.
> 
> William C. Weston of Salt Spring Island is a retired RCAF colonel who served for 37 years. He is a graduate of the Canadian Forces Staff College, as well as the USAF Staff College. He served in France and Germany as well as numerous appointments in the U.S. and Canada. He is a past director of exercise and analysis and deputy commander of the former 25th NORAD Region in Tacoma, Washington.



Good luck getting invited into coalition operations if the other fighters in the coalition are F-22/F-35s.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-super-hornet-wrong-choice-to-replace-aging-planes-1.4471153


----------



## MarkOttawa

"Interim" Super Hornets--what legislation says:



> Legal Complexities of Acquisition
> BY ALAN WILLIAMS
> http://defence.frontline.online/article/2016/6/5838-Legal-Complexities-of-Acquisition



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From the Times Colonist:
> 
> Good luck getting invited into coalition operations if the other fighters in the coalition are F-22/F-35s.
> 
> http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-super-hornet-wrong-choice-to-replace-aging-planes-1.4471153



Another absolute garbage article.  The US Navy will continue to operate the Super Hornet, and several alliance members will operate non stealth aircraft, including France.


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> "Interim" Super Hornets--what legislation says:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



That's why it has to be leased - just as with the Asterix.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's why it has to be leased - just as with the Asterix.



Here's where you're completely wrong. We don't have to lease anything. Boeing isn't going to build planes just to lease them out unless its for far more than they'd make selling them outright. USN/USMC aren't going to give up aircraft to us because they need them to fulfill their missions. Who else has extra Super Hornets just lying around for someone to lease? Nobody. So now we have to buy them, which means aircraft will take likely 3-4 years to start rolling off production lines because there's lots of other people in the queue (we're behind Kuwait as the last planes off the line in the early 2020s).

You're desperately trying to justify a situated estimate of "buy Super Hornets". The government could have announced a flyoff to be conducted in 2017 with contract award early 2018 which gets us the full replacement plane (whatever it is) arriving exactly when our interim planes start showing up (if they even show up at all). There was absolutely no analysis done by the government as to how or when they could get these magical Super Hornets before they made the announcement. Its a political announcement to serve a political promise based on desperate lobbying from Boeing to save their production line an extra few years. You didn't see Rafale or Saab popping up with massive lobbying efforts like Boeing because they're completely comfortable waiting for the actual competition that's been punted (again) by this government due to their unrealistic political promise in the campaign.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Another absolute garbage article.



... by somebody with a little bit of background to base his statements upon.

Whose opinion to take seriously, whose opinion to take seriously...



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The US Navy will continue to operate the Super Hornet, and several alliance members will operate non stealth aircraft, including France.



The US Navy will have options, depending upon the conflict(s) at hand. We would not, and too much money would have been wasted.

I am concerned about OUR situation, not the US Navy's, nor France's.

Both of them tend to tailor their needs to actual reality, however, unlike the clueless Sun King.

And no mention of leasing has been made by this government.


----------



## Kirkhill

All a bunch of crap anyway.

If the Statement of Requirement is the driving document then all that is necessary, if the outcome is not that desired, is to change the Statement of Requirement.  It is nothing more than a set of assumptions. As assumptions they are always capable of being challenged.  My assumptions will not be yours.  

Politicians love the concept, especially when wedded to the "Alice in Wonderland" concept of "words meaning "just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.""

You can chase the mulberry bush forever.

I note that Mr. Williams proclaims that:



> Generally, competition benefits everyone. Men and women in the military benefit from the “best” that the marketplace has to offer; taxpayers benefit as competition requires contenders to “sharpen their pencils” to get orders. Canadian industry gains by having the opportunity to team with various prime contractors to deliver their industrial regional commitments; and finally, ministers are able to blunt attacks on their integrity or allegations of political interference....
> 
> For officials working in the system, it is gratifying to know that their efforts will not be discarded because of political considerations. If a politically-guided system were the reality, discussions between the bureaucrats and industry become redundant – after all, why would industry waste time and money working with bureaucrats if politicians can overrule the official recommendations? In such a scenario, industry would quite rightly devote the bulk of its efforts to lobbying and influencing ministers.
> 
> Reassuringly however, the current legal framework creates confidence within the industrial sector, as it assures that success or failure will be determined solely on the quality of each bid.



I am gratified that the bureaucrats are gratified, even justified.  

I am filled with joy that industry is confident in the system (although that might be at variance with industry's lack of desire to offer product for consideration and challenging final decisions).

I might, however, challenge the assertion that the military benefits from the best the market can offer .....



By the way, does anybody have any insight into what Alan Williams was working on in 1993 and 94 when this Agreement on Internal Trade he is touting was drafted?  1993 - The year Chretien came to power and cancelled the EH-101.

PS - there is merit in leasing, as a temporary, expedient, even interim measure, to determine if a piece of kit suits your needs.  In fact leasing a squadron of F35s to operate out of US airfields, would be an excellent way to verify their suitability for Canadian missions.


----------



## Journeyman

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... by somebody with a little bit of an extensive background to base his statements upon.


The subtlety might be too.....subtle.  Not that it will matter.


----------



## RaceAddict

Is this the same Alan Williams that said:



> The military has to know and has to be told... that their job is to define requirements for equipment needs and it's the government's job to hold an open, fair tender and pick the winner. And that's it.
> 
> I have no doubt the air force wants the F-35. I can understand that. I have no doubt the air force wanted the C-27J. I can understand that, too.
> 
> But that's why it's incumbent on the assistant deputy minister of materiel, the deputy minister and the minister to safeguard the process and protect the military — actually — from themselves.



How reassuring to know that people in suits sitting comfortably in offices are there to "protect" those that serve and put their lives on the line.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here's where you're completely wrong. We don't have to lease anything. Boeing isn't going to build planes just to lease them out unless its for far more than they'd make selling them outright. USN/USMC aren't going to give up aircraft to us because they need them to fulfill their missions. Who else has extra Super Hornets just lying around for someone to lease? Nobody.



Where did I say that?  You went off on a long tangent that had nothing to do with what I said.  The purchase must be organized as a lease to comply with the rules that the Conservatives created to lease the Asterix.



> You're desperately trying to justify a situated estimate of "buy Super Hornets". The government could have announced a flyoff to be conducted in 2017 with contract award early 2018



On what planet would you think that Canadian defence procurement could move that fast?  It never has, and it never will, it seems.

Also - I haven't really defended this at all.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... by somebody with a little bit of background to base his statements upon.
> 
> Whose opinion to take seriously, whose opinion to take seriously...



Not like he has an agenda, or anything.



> The US Navy will have options, depending upon the conflict(s) at hand. We would not, and too much money would have been wasted.



What conflict that we entered since getting the CF-18 would have been inaccessible with the Super Hornet?

That's what I thought.



> I am concerned about OUR situation, not the US Navy's, nor France's.



I'm concerned about dealing in reality.



> Both of them tend to tailor their needs to actual reality, however, unlike the clueless Sun King.



And yet they, like the 'sun king' will be operating non stealth (less stealthy, anyway) aircraft.



> And no mention of leasing has been made by this government.



That was the original talk, but it seems that it's changed:


The government press release doesn't use the words "purchase" or "buy", saying they will be used "for an interim period of time". That leaves open the possibility the jets will be leased from Boeing.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24012/canada-f-18-order/

-----

Canada intends to buy the 18 Super Hornets outright, as opposed to leasing them or purchasing them with a buyback provision, a source familiar with the matter said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/quebec-aerospace-industry-expects-benefits-from-boeing-deal/article33023076/

----

They must have somehow found a way to change the regulations governing emergency procurement.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> But why would they want that old outdated thing?



Because congressional and senate-approved appropriation bills only allow a portion of total requirements to be fulfilled over time, so like Loachman say, they get thing (even ships) in 'flights'...there were still 1960's-vintage A-7 Corsair IIs flying in the USN for a decade+ (retired 1991) while the shiny new F/A-18s were coming into service.

To specifically answer your inadvertently insightful question above, "because the RCAF does not want to mothball 77 CF-188s right now..."


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Not like he has an agenda, or anything.



Which would be what? Buying the best possible aircraft to do the job that we need, without dicking various people around (like those that will entrust their lives and Nation with it, and those who will pay for it)?

What, on the other hand, is the Liberals' agenda? Weaselling out of a stupid, illogical campaign promise? Anything actually worthy?

(Sorry, Mustela nivalis - that was unfair to you and I apologize to you all.)



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> What conflict that we entered since getting the CF-18 would have been inaccessible with the Super Hornet?



Irrelevant.

We are buying an aircraft for the FUTURE, not the past.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm concerned about dealing in reality.



So am I - not Liberal fantasies and frenzied spinning.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And yet they, like the 'sun king' will be operating non stealth (less stealthy, anyway) aircraft.



He won't be operating anything much more complicated than the camera on his selfiephone.

"They" are not "us".

And the US Navy will have F35 operational before we have the obsolescent Super Hornet. We cannot afford a mixed fleet. They can.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> They must have somehow found a way to change the regulations governing emergency procurement.



They're not that smart. They've just been caught in another lie.

I still respect the MND for his military record. His political record, as brief as it has been, not so much. It is painful to see him this way.


----------



## Kirkhill

MERX ULCV



> RFI Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV) (W6399-16HB11/A)


  



> Published	2015-08-26
> Revised
> Closing	2015-09-28 02:00 PM Eastern Daylight Saving Time EDT




Aug 12 2016 

http://globalnews.ca/news/2879194/canadia-buying-new-fleet-of-lightweight-combat-vehicles-that-could-cost-over-190k-each/



> This week’s call for tender comes just under a year after an initial request for information, which went out last August, and the first 52 vehicles are expected to be delivered by Nov. 15, 2017.



Dec 15 2016

Rumours of order according to source who must not be named  

To summarize

One month to gather info
11 months to prepare request for tender
4 months to receive and review tenders and issue order.


----------



## Loachman

And there is likely not much more info to gather on the various fighter contenders, so the selection and contract should happen in just over a year...


----------



## HB_Pencil

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Not like he has an agenda, or anything.
> 
> What conflict that we entered since getting the CF-18 would have been inaccessible with the Super Hornet?
> 
> That's what I thought.



Operation Reassurance. 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/navy/2015fa18ef.pdf

Key line: 

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapon system continues to demonstrate operational effectiveness for most threat environments; however, *the platform is not operationally effective in specific threat environments, which are detailed in previous DOT&E classified reports.*

I wonder if the most difficult operational environment in the world, where Canadian forces are squared off against numerous batteries of S-300 and 400 Air defence systems, Su-35s and Mig-31s would qualify? 

Enjoy eating crow.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> Which would be what? Buying the best possible aircraft to do the job that we need, without dicking various people around (like those that will entrust their lives and Nation with it, and those who will pay for it)?



Everyone has an agenda.  His apparently involves misleading articles.



> What, on the other hand, is the Liberals' agenda? Weaselling out of a stupid, illogical campaign promise?



Yes - something I've said all along about this particular file.  



> Wea re buying an aircraft for the FUTURE, not the past.



We're buying an aircraft for our foreseeable use.



> He won't be operating anything much more complicated than the camera on his selfiephone.



He's the Prime Minister of Canada.  He has people to do that for him.



> "They" are not "us".



And their requirements are obviously less than ours.  Right?



> And the US Navy will have F35 operational before we have the obsolescent Super Hornet. We cannot afford a mixed fleet. They can.



And then they'll buy more Super Hornets.  Do you think we operate in a more dangerous environment than the US Navy?




> They're not that smart. They've just been caught in another lie.



That's the difference between you and I - I realize that no matter who is in power, there are generally smart and knowledgeable people running the show.


----------



## jmt18325

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Operation Reassurance.
> 
> http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/navy/2015fa18ef.pdf
> 
> Key line:
> 
> The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapon system continues to demonstrate operational effectiveness for most threat environments; however, *the platform is not operationally effective in specific threat environments, which are detailed in previous DOT&E classified reports.*



How many planes did we lose?  

The F-35 is better.  I freely admit that.  I haven't said any different, and won't say any different.

For our uses, there's no evidence the Super Hornet isn't good enough.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> MERX ULCV
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 12 2016
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2879194/canadia-buying-new-fleet-of-lightweight-combat-vehicles-that-could-cost-over-190k-each/
> 
> Dec 15 2016
> 
> Rumours of order according to source who must not be named
> 
> To summarize
> 
> One month to gather info
> 11 months to prepare request for tender
> 4 months to receive and review tenders and issue order.



That's a $20M procurement.  Look to the FWSAR (worth almost $4B) or even the CATS program (worth $1.5B) for how this is more likely to go.


----------



## HB_Pencil

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> How many planes did we lose?



So if we send troops to a situation with inadequate equipment and because nobody died, that makes it okay? 

Its quite obvious you're just reaching for whatever thin logic you can find to justify this decision. The sad truth is that this government is doing the exact same thing.


----------



## jmt18325

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> So if we send troops to a situation with inadequate equipment and because nobody died, that makes it okay?
> 
> Its quite obvious you're just reaching for whatever thin logic you can find to justify this decision. The sad truth is that this government is doing the exact same thing.



I'm against the procurement of Super Hornets. I understand she reasoning and reject the hyperbolic arguments.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's a $20M procurement.  Look to the FWSAR (worth almost $4B) or even the CATS program (worth $1.5B) for how this is more likely to go.



According to PSPC anything over $100K is treated the same.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> According to PSPC anything over $100K is treated the same.



Not by the media and or the public.  If you were correct, we'd already be getting our new F-35s.


----------



## PuckChaser

We're not talking about that. You said it was impossible to buy something that fast, someone gave you an example where you were incorrect. You said it wasn't the same dollar amount. Proven wrong again because over $100K the policies for contracting are all the same.


----------



## jmt18325

How many large contracts have happened that fast?  That something can technically happen is sort of irrelevant when it doesn't, isn't it?


----------



## Kirkhill

If it is permitted to happen that fast, and it has happened that fast then anything slower than that fast is a result of inefficiencies in the system - inefficiencies that the system has demonstrated do not have to be there.

Apparently best is subjective - there is military best, bureaucratic best, commercial best and political best.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> How many large contracts have happened that fast?  That something can technically happen is sort of irrelevant when it doesn't, isn't it?



5th C-17...4 months.

QED


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That explains why they want more of the Super hornet.
> 
> Actually it doesn't.



It explains sequencing and replacement in phases, and why they (must) keep older while they get newer in many steps, unlike how smaller fleet operators like Canada have done things in the past with single-phase procurement...except the C-17 program, of course.


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It explains sequencing and replacement in phases, and why they (must) keep older while they get newer in many steps, unlike how smaller fleet operators like Canada have done things in the past with single-phase procurement...except the C-17 program, of course.



So that still doesn't explain why they would elect to order more Super Hornets rather than increasing their F-35 order.


----------



## PuckChaser

Because the US is capable of procuring aircraft to anticipate losses and keep a 10% spares pool, while we order one shot and as things become BER we end up with less and less.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because the US is capable of procuring aircraft to anticipate losses and keep a 10% spares pool, while we order one shot and as things become BER we end up with less and less.



Or perhaps it's because the Super Hornet isn't quite as outdated as some like to make it out to be.  If it were, they wouldn't be buying brand new ones.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's more akin to buying 18 super hornets without a competition.



No, it would be like Canada having bought 32 more original CF-188's in the mid-80s a few years after the purchase of the original 138 in 1982...but more to the point, was in giving an example to your question as to when did Canada more recently execute a procurement in a very short period.

If you insist on ignoring the basis of answers to the very questions you posed, you will likely get fewer and fewer answers to your questions, and then you can turn into a hermit, complaining about how no one will answer any of your questions.  Or, at least warn people that your follow-on response to your questions will always be a divergent tangent to your question...


----------



## YZT580

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Or perhaps it's because the Super Hornet isn't quite as outdated as some like to make it out to be.  If it were, they wouldn't be buying brand new ones.



No, they would be resurrecting hulks from Arizona or buying used.    Seriously though, just consider the number of a/c that are required. Just to equip the navy would take several years of production and there are both the air force and marines plus all the partners to schedule.  There current aircraft are rapidly running out of hours.  They wouldn't last until their F35 replacement comes down the assembly line even if the navy could place its complete order tomorrow.  So navy gets replacement a/c that it needs now.  The second advantage of buying new F18s instead of increasing the F35 order is it will push delivery into the later 20's when navy can expect further development and  improvements on the F35.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:
			
		

> No, they would be resurrecting hulks from Arizona or buying used.    Seriously though, just consider the number of a/c that are required. Just to equip the navy would take several years of production and there are both the air force and marines plus all the partners to schedule.  There current aircraft are rapidly running out of hours.  They wouldn't last until their F35 replacement comes down the assembly line even if the navy could place its complete order tomorrow.  So navy gets replacement a/c that it needs now.  The second advantage of buying new F18s instead of increasing the F35 order is it will push delivery into the later 20's when navy can expect further development and  improvements on the F35.



^ This. :nod:

...in particular the older Marine A/Bs and Navy's C/Ds running out of FLE faster than planned.  This is a far more significant factor that F-35 with, to DoD's view, minor delays.


----------



## suffolkowner

YZT580 said:
			
		

> No, they would be resurrecting hulks from Arizona or buying used.    Seriously though, just consider the number of a/c that are required. Just to equip the navy would take several years of production and there are both the air force and marines plus all the partners to schedule.  There current aircraft are rapidly running out of hours.  They wouldn't last until their F35 replacement comes down the assembly line even if the navy could place its complete order tomorrow.  So navy gets replacement a/c that it needs now.  The second advantage of buying new F18s instead of increasing the F35 order is it will push delivery into the later 20's when navy can expect further development and  improvements on the F35.



The Marines are doing this now. I'm not completely understanding why they wouldn't just increase their B buy. Especially considering the small number of fighters that are getting refurbished by Boeing. Does anyone know how feasible this course of action would have been for us?


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That wasn't a competition.  I'll ignore irrelevant answers, as they're irrelevant.



And the Super Hornets are being secured through a competition?   :stars:


----------



## ringo

I hope Canada buys the last C-17 from Boeing, combine with SH purchase.


----------



## Good2Golf

ringo said:
			
		

> I hope Canada buys the last C-17 from Boeing, combine with SH purchase.



We had been told the last white tail was sold to XXXX...seems that fell through, then?  :dunno:


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The Marines are doing this now. I'm not completely understanding why they wouldn't just increase their B buy. Especially considering the small number of fighters that are getting refurbished by Boeing. Does anyone know how feasible this course of action would have been for us?



Like the USN, only worse (the Marines operate legacy A/B Hornets like us) and I'm not even sure the Marines have had CP3 done to their A/Bs, so they could be in more of a failing state than our Hornets, which by many estimates, can hit mid 2020's with some care and attention (and CP3, which will cost a bit of $).  There are few true legacy A/B-version Hornets out there for the USMC to flesh out their ranks, let alone Canada grabbing some more.  The Canadian (and Australian) Hornets are some of the best-assessed (as far as remaining FLE) Hornets in the world, so the extended ELE (2025) would seem a fairly solid plan.

Ordering more 35Bs would not help the state of the existing USMC Hornet fleet.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That umm, wasn't the argument.




...recall, through the magic of the interwebz, this:



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> How many large contracts have happened that fast?  That something can technically happen is sort of irrelevant when it doesn't, isn't it?



I figured $445M CAD qualifies as large, so I provided it as a factual example to your question. (ref: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-to-buy-5th-c-17-aircraft-1.2155642 ) 

So your argument is that too many informed people are factually answering your questions, so you're going to cover your ears, sing "la, la, la, la, la...I can't hear you!" and keep changing what you want people to respond to?  ???


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That umm, wasn't the argument.



Your argument is that we can't buy things fast. You've been given numerous examples when we could purchase things quickly, if the political will is there to retask the procurement machine. Enough trees have been cut down for 2 procurement processes (3 if you count the original process in the 1990s) that we have sufficient data to quickly review and issue SOR, have it close in one year, and a decision 6 months later and finally make a decision on replacement that would likely have that aircraft start showing up around the same time as these "interim" SHs would.

Heck, we're capable of doing a full defense review in less than 18 months, why can't we figure out a fighter aircraft in that time as well?


----------



## Old Sweat

Further to the above, while this does not refer to an aircraft, the original M777 Howitzer buy took five months from initiation to first rounds going down range in Canada on St Barbara's Day 2005. Less than three months later the guns were in action in Afghanistan.


----------



## Good2Golf

10 months to go from the pre-SOR "Manley Report" to $292M contracted and 6 x CH-147D flying in Kandahar.


----------



## PuckChaser

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 10 months to go from the pre-SOR "Manley Report" to $292M contracted and 6 x CH-147D flying in Kandahar.



Didn't we have the contract signed for the CH-147F about a year after that? 2 years and we had completed a procurement cycle for a $5B CAD purchase.


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Didn't we have the contract signed for the CH-147F about a year after that? 2 years and we had completed a procurement cycle for a $5B CAD purchase.



6 months - July 2009.  The fleet of CH-147Fs was actually delivered one month earlier than contracted. :nod:


----------



## suffolkowner

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No, not Trudeau.
> 
> The ULCV happened on his watch.  The FWSAR happened on his watch (or at least was completed on his watch).
> 
> It is true that there are many procurement cockups.  It is also true that some business gets done sometimes.  The fact that some successes happen makes it all the more frustrating when failures occur.
> 
> I am guessing there weren't many jobs/IRBs at stake in the ULCV contract.  And there was "will" to get materiel to people currently engaging the enemy (even though they are not in combat).



I'm not anti-Trudeau by any stretch, but I'm not willing to give him any credit on those files. If he/the Liberals can come up with a plan on the fighter plane replacement that makes sense to me or even progress on the shipbuilding project than that's another matter


----------



## PuckChaser

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The ULCV happened on his watch.  The FWSAR happened on his watch (or at least was completed on his watch).



Both of those were going to happen regardless of who won the election. The files were so far forward it would have taken an active effort to stop them. I'll give someone credit if they stand up on record and say "this is taking too long" and make results happen.

You can't use CANSOF procurement as an example of government efficiency. They don't seem like they dick around with anything, and when you get to silver bullet anything you want to Pri 1, its real easy to get things quick.


----------



## a_majoor

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Heck, we're capable of doing a full defense review in less than 18 months, why can't we figure out a fighter aircraft in that time as well?



Because it was already "figured out" to exclude the CF-35. No need for a messy competition or anything which might derail the narrative (like facts or an RCAF report denying a capability gap and expressly warning against an "interim" fighter).


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is your entire goal here to just disagree with everyone to be a troll? You said you don't want SH, you don't want an expedited competition to actually pick a replacement, so what do you really want here? You've never been able to clearly articulate a position other than to be opposed to everyone else.



You misunderstand me.

I don't want to buy interim super hornets.  On the other hand, I like the idea of a larger air force, and I don't believe the F-35 is completely ready, based on what I've read.  I want to have a fast competition with aircraft arriving in the early 2020s.  A fast competition doesn't seem to be possible for the government given recent history for almost every project.  Given that, I understand the logic to simply buying some aircraft to get us through.  It is not ideal.  It is political.  It might work.  

Positions are not always simple - nuance.

I actually haven't been opposed to what everyone else has said.  A lot of other people simply like to argue because the Liberals did something.  I don't have time for that.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Given that, I understand the logic to simply buying some aircraft to get us through.  It is not ideal.  It is political.  It might work.
> 
> A lot of other people simply like to argue because the Liberals did something.  I don't have time for that.



There's a lot of experience here in Liberal policies that directly affect lives in a negative fashion (EH101, sold CH-147Ds) where they can see what this SH road is leading us too. There might be some utility in buying interim jets awaiting the final replacement (Aus buying SH to await F-35) IF that final decision had been made. What a lot of folks are up in arms about, is the large punt of the file past an election to avoid an inconvenient decision having to be made, to save political face. Very much of the same from the 1990s Liberals cancelling EH101 with no replacement, starting the process from scratch. 20 years later we're just getting helicopters.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What a lot of folks are up in arms about, is the large punt of the file past an election to avoid an inconvenient decision having to be made, to save political face.



So we've now got both major political parties in Canada who have punted the file past an election to save political face.

Therefore, everyone complaining here will be voting NDP in the next election, since they're the only of the three largest parties in Canada who haven't punted the F35 file yet...


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What a lot of folks are up in arms about, is the large punt of the file past an election to avoid an inconvenient decision having to be made, to save political face.



Just as was done before the 2011 election.  I voted Conservative in 2008 and 2011.  I supported them most of the way through the last campaign.  They did a good job of governing.  They didn't do much in the way of good for the military post 2010.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't believe the F-35 is completely ready, based on what I've read.



The Israelis, not a people keen to make mistakes in matters of national survival, seem to disagree with you. They think that is ready enough to accept their first two examples.

But, yes, we all get it: you are the only one in step.

Canada is the only member of the partnership dithering on acquisition, and that is purely due to stupid partisan reasons.

The time between finally making the right decision, which could be immediately if this government wished to actually make an evidence-based decision as they have promised to do with all decisions, and first deliveries will be enough to assure sufficient performance.


----------



## HB_Pencil

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 1997 when the Chretien government bought us into the F-35 program.



To be fair, the actual procurement phase started in 2006 with the establishment of the Next Generation Fighter Capability Office. Before that point Canada's participation in the JSF program was largely focused on keeping Canada abreast of developments in the project and (much more importantly) obtain industrial opportunities for Canada.


----------



## MarkOttawa

It's interesting by comparison with defence buys that the Coast Guard's recent effectively sole-sourced light and medium helo acquisitions proceeded pretty rapidly and attracted little media scrutiny and were not politically contentious.  Why? A) Nobody pays much attention to the Coast Guard; B) Contracts went to Bell, Montreal:



> Bell Rung: All 15 Canadian Coast Guard Light Helos Delivered
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/mark-collins-bell-rung-all-15-canadian-coast-guard-light-helos-delivered/
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard’s New Medium-Lift Helos Sole-Sourced to Bell Helicopter Canada
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guards-new-medium-lift-helos-sole-sourced-to-bell-canada/
> 
> Government of Canada accepts new [medium-lift] helicopters for the Canadian Coast Guard
> http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1166679



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RaceAddict

Back on topic of the CF-188 replacement:

Aircrew Injured During Ground Aircraft Emergency; Naval Air Forces Declares Operational Pause for Super Hornet and Growler Fleet


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sounds like a failure of landing gear?


----------



## kev994

The Super Hornet fleet is not ready yet, lets buy some F5s instead 

I couldn't resist, please don't take that seriously.


----------



## MarkOttawa

F-35 LRIP 9 costs (US$, without engine)



> F-35 ‘Not Out Of Control’: Prices Drop 5.5% For F-35A
> 
> One week after President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted that the cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was “out of control,” the F-35 program office announced the price of most variants had dropped yet again. The contract for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 9 will buy 57 aircraft, 34 for the US and 23 for foreign partners Britain, Norway, Italy, Japan, and Israel:
> 
> 42 F-35As (26 US, 16 foreign), the vanilla variant used by the Air Force and most foreign partners, at $102.1 million apiece — 5.5 percent less than the previous lot, LRIP 8, and 60 percent below the first fighters bought under LRIP 1.
> 13 F-35Bs (6 US, 7 foreign), the “jump jet” variant used by the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy, the most technologically challenging model, at $131.6 million apiece — 1.8 percent below LRIP 8.
> 2 F-35Cs (both US), the US Navy variant reinforced for tooth-rattling aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings,  at $132.2 million apiece — a 2.5 increase over LRIP 8, but that’s because the Navy slashed its buy in half (from 4 planes to 2), losing economies of scale.
> 
> In other words, if you want to reduce the cost per plane, you really don’t want to reduce the number you’re buying...
> http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/33483/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

It's not that the cost per unit is out of control - I think we all agree that the price per unit is going down.

It's the amount of money that Lockheed is charging to iron out remaining deficiencies in the software, which according to the US DoD's chief tester, remain quite serious.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-07/misleading-f-35-answers-drafted-by-pentagon-testing-chief-says-iwerk3w8


----------



## PuckChaser

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It's not that the cost per unit is out of control - I think we all agree that the price per unit is going down.
> 
> It's the amount of money that Lockheed is charging to iron out remaining deficiencies in the software, which according to the US DoD's chief tester, remain quite serious.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-07/misleading-f-35-answers-drafted-by-pentagon-testing-chief-says-iwerk3w8



I think LockMart and the rest of the DoD contractors are going to realize the new reality is fiscally responsible programs. No more blank cheques for $2B USD bombers or $4B USD Destroyers. They'll rapidly adjust or they simply won't win contracts. General Dynamics is lucky the F-35 exists, or all this heat over cost overruns would be on their heads for Zumwalt.


----------



## SupersonicMax

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It's not that the cost per unit is out of control - I think we all agree that the price per unit is going down.
> 
> It's the amount of money that Lockheed is charging to iron out remaining deficiencies in the software, which according to the US DoD's chief tester, remain quite serious.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-07/misleading-f-35-answers-drafted-by-pentagon-testing-chief-says-iwerk3w8



And why are the Canadian public and Liberals arms up in the air criticizing balooning cost for the JSF when really, it doesn't affect our bottom line?


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> And why are the Canadian public and Liberals arms up in the air criticizing balooning cost for the JSF when really, it doesn't affect our bottom line?



Because the media would rather sensationalize than report things accurately.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> Back on topic of the CF-188 replacement:
> 
> Aircrew Injured During Ground Aircraft Emergency; Naval Air Forces Declares Operational Pause for Super Hornet and Growler Fleet



I'm betting that it's a first strike by the neo-raging Grannies of Oak Bay 

Oak Bay to U.S. Navy: Keep Growlers away

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/oak-bay-to-u-s-navy-keep-growlers-away-1.3185591


----------



## Rifleman62

Read the article. Funny. These people are complaining about who is protecting them and safe guarding their freedom to compose music, hold meetings etc. Don't you think that it was the RCAF flying around they would have the same bitch. Talk about complacent Canadians. The US has been protecting North America since the end of the Second World War because Canada does not have the gumption to even protect Canada.

When Luke AFB in Phoenix, AZ was in the USAF competition with other areas to host the exclusive F-35 training, vice the F-16 which Luke was doing,  the citizens were overwhelming behind the proposal even though the F-35 was louder. Sure a few objected, but the open houses,TV News, newspapers were full of people supporting the transition. The "Sound of Freedom".

For me personally, seeing 2,4, 6 sometimes 8 fighter aircraft, Mon to Fri, flying around in formation was exciting. How often do we see this in Canada other than Canada Day or the Grey Cup.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Vancouver Island = Blue hairs and granola crunchers. These people complain about everything and if they run out of things to complain about they will invent stuff.


----------



## PuckChaser

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> Back on topic of the CF-188 replacement:
> 
> Aircrew Injured During Ground Aircraft Emergency; Naval Air Forces Declares Operational Pause for Super Hornet and Growler Fleet


He who shall not be quoted is reporting it was a canopy failure just prior to takeoff. There is also indications of a serious oxygen issue in the SH, read like it was a similar problem the F-22 had to tackle a while ago, but the Navy has no clue how to fix it.


----------



## jmt18325

Another reason to be against an interim procurement, even if it means having to wait a while for new planes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He who shall not be quoted is reporting it was a canopy failure just prior to takeoff. There is also indications of a serious oxygen issue in the SH, read like it was a similar problem the F-22 had to tackle a while ago, but the Navy has no clue how to fix it.



This is what I don't get. O2 systems are old tech and not all that complicated. How can they not know how to fix it? The only thing I can possibly think of is that they need to ensure the regulator works at high G's or they have some fancy blood 02 monitoring device that attempts to regulate the 02 supply to maximize benefit and reduce 02 consumption.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Because O2, in OBOGS-equipped aircraft, comes from high pressure air from the engine compressor.  This complicate things a bit and conditions are different from aircraft to aircraft.  These are not the old Liquid O2 bottles.  This is _relatively_ new.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ah thank you, I be guessing that 02 production and pressures are not what they anticipated. Now likely complicated by the fact they have no place to put 02 tanks in with the current designs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It explains sequencing and replacement in phases, and why they (must) keep older while they get newer in many steps, unlike how smaller fleet operators like Canada have done things in the past with single-phase procurement...except the C-17 program, of course.



speaking of which http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FIGHTER_JET_FINAL_FLIGHT?SITE=CARIE


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile at AvWeek:



> F-35 Development Could See 7-Month Slip, $530M Increase
> 
> Just a week after president-elect Donald Trump slammed Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as “out of control,” the Pentagon revealed that it is preparing for a delay of up to seven months in the new fighter’s development program and projecting cost growth of $530 million.
> 
> Defense Secretary Ash Carter has directed the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to prepare to continue flight testing through May of 2018, which would be a seven-month delay from the expected end date of Oct. 31, 2017, JPO Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Dec. 19. However, Bogdan was adamant that the F-35’s System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase will be completed months before that deadline, by the end of February 2018.
> 
> “The JPO believes that sometime between 1 November of 2017 and 28 February 2018 we will have flight testing complete; I am driving my team to finish it at that point in time,” Bogdan said. “The department’s independent estimate, independent look, says, ‘Gen. Bogdan, you better prepare in case it lasts longer than that, from February to May,’ so I am preparing to do that.”
> 
> The end of SDD will be “event-driven,” and the JPO will continue the development program until all of the full warfighting capabilities planned to be rolled out in the final 3F software configuration are verified, Bogdan stressed.
> 
> The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, sent a letter Dec. 19 to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, detailing the department’s decision.
> 
> If SDD is not completed by February of 2018 as Bogdan plans, the JPO will use funds allotted for F-35 follow-on modernization to finish up development, Bogdan said. He anticipates that he will not need to take more than $100 million from follow-on modernization to close out the SDD program after February.
> 
> However, siphoning funds from follow-on modernization, also known as Block 4, could delay that effort by as much as six months, Bogdan warned.
> 
> In total, the JPO says the program will need an additional $532 million to close out the F-35 development program. However, Bogdan downplayed that figure, saying that $100 million is money the department took out of the budget in 2014 to pay other bills, and another $165 million is for added scope such as new security requirements. The remaining $267 million is a true overrun, driven by unforeseen challenges such as the 2014 engine fire, stability issues with 3i software, redesigning the hook and helmet, and other efforts, Bogdan said...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-development-could-see-7-month-slip-530m-increase



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> speaking of which http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FIGHTER_JET_FINAL_FLIGHT?SITE=CARIE



The original 'Rhino'...


----------



## a_majoor

How the USAF may fight air wars in the future. In time, the B-52's may be replaced or supplemented by B-1B's or B-21's. Any Canadian contributions to coalition air armadas may be limited to escorting the arsenal planes, or acting as bomb and missile trucks for the USAF flight leaders and targeteers.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1650624-pentagon-arsenal-plane-to-fly-with-f-35-f-22



> *Pentagon Arsenal Plane to Fly With F-35, F-22*
> KRIS OSBORN
> Sunday at 10:06 PM
> 
> The Air Force is already upgrading the historic, 1960s-era bomber with new radios, avionics and weapons capability
> 
> The Pentagon’s emerging “Arsenal Plane” or “flying bomb truck” is likely to be a modified, high-tech adaptation of the iconic B-52 bomber designed to fire air-to-air weapons, release swarms of mini-drones and provide additional fire-power to 5th generation stealth fighters such as the F-35 and F-22, Pentagon officials and analysts said.
> 
> It is also possible that the emerging arsenal plane could be a modified C-130 or combined version of a B-52 and C-130 drawing from elements of each, Pentagon officials said.
> 
> Using a B-52, which is already being modernized with new radios and an expanded internal weapons bay, would provide an existing “militarized” platform already engineered with electronic warfare ability and countermeasures designed to thwart enemy air defenses.
> 
> “You are using a jet that already has a military capability. The B-52 is a military asset, whereas all the alternatives would have to be created. It has already been weaponized and has less of a radar cross-section compared to a large Air Force cargo plane. It is not a penetrating bomber, but it does have some kind of jamming and countermeasures meant to cope with enemy air defenses. It is wired for a combat mission,” said Richard Aboulafia, Vice President of analysis at the Teal Group, a Virginia-based consultancy.
> 
> Flying as a large, non-stealthy bomber airplane, a B-52 would still present a large target to potential adversaries; however, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said part of the rationale for the “Arsenal Plane” would be to work closely with stealthy fighter jets such as an F-22 and F-35, with increased networking technology designed to increase their firepower and weapons load.
> 
> An "Arsenal Plane" networked to F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters would enable the fighter aircraft to maintain their stealth properties while still having substantial offensive bombing capability. If stealth fighters attach weapons to their external pylons, they change their radar signature and therefore become more vulnerable to enemy air defenses. If networked to a large "flying bomb truck," they could use stealth capability to defeat enemy air defenses and still have an ability to drop large amounts of bombs on targets.
> 
> Such a scenario could also likely rely upon now-in-development manned-unmanned teaming wherein emerging algorithms and computer technology enable fighter jets to control the sensor payload and weapons capability of nearby drones from the cockpit of the aircraft. This would enable Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance assets to more quickly relay strategic or targeting information between fighter jets, drones and “Arsenal Planes.”
> 
> Aboulafia explained that air fighters being developed by potential adversaries, such as the Chinese J-20 and other fighters, could exist in larger numbers than a U.S. force, underscoring the current U.S. strategy to maintain a technological edge even if their conventional forces are smaller.  An “Arsenal Plane” could extend range and lethality for U.S. fighters, in the event they were facing an enemy force with more sheer numbers of assets.
> 
> “There is a concern about numbers of potential enemies and range. When you are dealing with a potential adversary with thousands of jets and you’ve got limited assets with limited weapons payloads, you have got to be concerned about the numbers,” he said.
> An effort to be more high-tech, if smaller in terms of sheer numbers, than rival militaries is a key part of the current Pentagon force modernization strategy.
> 
> “In practice, the “Arsenal Plane” will function as a very large airborne magazine, networked to fifth generation aircraft that act as forward sensor and targeting nodes, essentially combining different systems already in our inventory to create wholly new capabilities,” Carter told reporters. Aboulafia added that an idea for an “Arsenal Plane” emerged in the 1980s as a Cold War strategy designed to have large jets carry missiles able to attack Soviet targets.
> 
> Carter unveiled the “Arsenal Plane” concept during a 2017 budget drop discussion at the Pentagon wherein he, for the first time, revealed the existence of a “Strategic Capabilities Office” aimed at connecting and leveraging emerging weapons and technology with existing platforms. This effort is aimed at saving money, increasing the military’s high-tech lethality and bringing new assets to the force faster than the many years it would take to engineer entirely new technologies.
> 
> “I created the SCO (Strategic Capabilities Office) in 2012, when I was Deputy Secretary of defense to help us to re-imagine existing DOD and intelligence community and commercial systems by giving them new roles and game-changing capabilities to confound potential enemies -- the emphasis here was on rapidity of fielding, not 10 and 15-year programs,” he said.
> 
> Carter said “Arsenal Plane” development would be funded through a $71 billion research and development 2017 budget request.
> U.S. Air Force
> 
> While Carter did not specify a B-52 during his public discussion of the new asset now in-development, he did say it would likely be an “older” aircraft designed to function as a “flying launchpad.”
> 
> “The last project I want to highlight is one that we're calling the “Arsenal Plane,” which takes one of our oldest aircraft platforms and turns it into a flying launchpad for all sorts of different conventional payloads,” Carter added.
> 
> The Air Force is already surging forward with a massive, fleet-wide modernization overhaul of the battle-tested, Vietnam-era B-52 bomber, an iconic airborne workhorse for the U.S. military dating back to the 1960s.
> 
> Engineers are now equipping all 76 of the Air Force B-52s with digital data-links, moving-map displays, next-generation avionics, new radios and an ability to both carry more weapons internally and integrate new, high-tech weapons as they emerge, service officials said.
> 
> The technical structure and durability of the B-52 airframes in the Air Force fleet are described as extremely robust and able to keep flying well into the 2040s and beyond – so the service is taking steps to ensure the platform stays viable by receiving the most current and effective avionics, weapons and technologies
> 
> Weapons Upgrade
> 
> Aboulafia said the new B-52 “Arsenal Plane” could, for the first time, configure a primarily air-to-ground bomber as a platform able to fire air-to-air weapons as well – such as the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile, or AMRAAM.
> 
> The integration of air-to-air weapons on the B-52 does not seem inconceivable given the weapons upgrades already underway with the aircraft.  Air Force is also making progress with a technology-inspired effort to increase the weapons payload for the workhorse bomber, Eric Single, Chief of the Global Strike Division, Acquisition, told Scout Warrior in an interview last year.
> 
> The 1760 Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade, or IWBU, will allow the B-52 to internally carry up to eight of the newest “J-Series” bombs in addition to carrying six on pylons under each wing, he explained.
> 
> B-52s have previously been able to carry JDAM weapons externally, but with the IWBU the aircraft will be able to internally house some of the most cutting edge precision-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles, among others.
> 
> “It is about a 66 percent increase in carriage capability for the B-52, which is huge. You can imagine the increased number of targets you can reach, and you can strike the same number of targets with significantly less sorties,” said Single.
> 
> Single also added that having an increased internal weapons bay capability affords an opportunity to increase fuel-efficiency by removing bombs from beneath the wings and reducing drag.
> 
> The first increment of IWBU, slated to be finished by 2017, will integrate an internal weapons bay ability to fire a laser-guided JDAM. A second increment, to finish by 2022, will integrate more modern or cutting-edge weapons such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, JASSM Extended Range (ER) and a technology called Miniature Air Launched Decoy, or MALD. A MALD-J “jammer” variant, which will also be integrated into the B-52, can be used to jam enemy radar technologies as well, Single said.
> 
> IWBU, which uses a digital interface and a rotary launcher to increase the weapons payload, is expected to cost roughly $313 million, service officials said.
> 
> The B-52 has a massive, 185-foot wingspan, a weight of about 185,000 pounds and an ability to reach high sub-sonic speeds and altitudes of 50,000 feet, Air Force officials said.
> 
> Communications, Avionics Upgrades
> 
> Two distinct, yet interwoven B-52 modernization efforts will increase the electronics, communications technology, computing and avionics available in the cockpit while simultaneously configuring the aircraft with the ability to carry up to eight of the newest “J-Series” precision-guided weapons internally – in addition to carrying six weapons on each wing, Single said.
> 
> Eight B-52s have already received a communications (coms systems) upgrade called Combat Network Communication Technology, or CONECT – a radio, electronics and data-link upgrade which, among other things, allows aircraft crews to transfer mission and targeting data directly to aircraft systems while in flight (machine to machine), Single explained.
> 
> “It installs a digital architecture in the airplane,” Single explained. “Instead of using data that was captured during the mission planning phase prior to your take off 15 to 20 hours ago – you are getting near real-time intelligence updates in flight.”
> 
> Single described it key attribute in terms of “machine-to-machine” data-transfer technology which allows for more efficient, seamless and rapid communication of combat-relevant information.
> 
> Using what’s called an ARC 210 Warrior software-programmable voice and data radio, pilots can now send and receive targeting data, mapping information or intelligence with ground stations, command centers and other aircraft.
> 
> “The crew gets the ability to communicate digitally outside the airplane which enables you to import not just voice but data for mission changes, threat notifications, targeting….all those different types of things you would need to get,” Single said.
> 
> An ability to receive real-time targeting updates is of great relevance to the B-52s close-air-support mission because fluid, fast-moving or dynamic combat situations often mean ground targets appear, change or disappear quickly.
> 
> Alongside moving much of the avionics from analogue to digital technology, CONECT also integrates new servers, modems, colored display screens in place of old green monochrome and provides pilots with digital moving-map displays which can be populated with real-time threat and mission data, Single said.
> 
> The new digital screens also show colored graphics highlighting the aircraft’s flight path, he added.
> 
> Single explained that being able to update key combat-relevant information while in transit will substantially help the aircraft more effectively travel longer distances for missions, as needed.
> 
> “The key to this is that this is part of the long-range strike family of systems — so if you take off out of Barksdale Air Force Base and you go to your target area, it could take 15 or 16 hours to get there. By the time you get there, all the threat information has changed,” said Single. “Things move, pop up or go away and the targeting data may be different.”
> 
> The upgrades will also improve the ability of the airplane to receive key intelligence information through a data link called the Intelligence Broadcast Receiver. In addition, the B-52s will be able to receive information through a LINK-16-like high-speed digital data link able to transmit targeting and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, or ISR information.
> 
> The CONECT effort, slated to cost $1.1 billion overall, will continue to unfold over the next several years, Single explained.
> Twelve B-52 will be operational with CONECT by the end of this year and the entire fleet will be ready by 2021, Single said.
> 
> B-52 History
> 
> Known for massive bombing missions during the Vietnam War, the 159-foot long B-52s have in recent years been operating over Afghanistan in support of military actions there from a base in Guam.
> 
> The B-52 also served in Operation Desert Storm, Air Force statements said.  “B-52s struck wide-area troop concentrations, fixed installations and bunkers, and decimated the morale of Iraq's Republican Guard,” an Air Force statement said.
> 
> In 2001, the B-52 provided close-air support to forces in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom, service officials said. The B-52 also played a role in Operation Iraqi Freedom. On March 21, 2003, B-52Hs launched approximately 100 CALCMs (Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles) during a night mission.
> 
> Given the B-52s historic role in precision-bombing and close air support, next-generation avionics and technologies are expected to greatly increase potential missions for the platform in coming years, service officials said.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this,



> F-35 LRIP 9 costs (US$, without engine)
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1468946.html#msg1468946



in fact an "Oops", engine included:



> ...
> After 14 months of intense negotiations, the Pentagon moved forward on its own with the LRIP 9 contract. Under the $6.1 billion award, Lockheed will deliver 57 F-35 airframes. _Including engines_, the mandated pricing per aircraft amounted to $102.1 million for each F-35A, $131.6 for each F-35B and $132.2 million for each F-35C...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/unilateral-negotiations-still-in-play-for-f-35-cont-432564/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

By comparison, the US pays $92.5M USD per Super Hornet (an increase of $22.5M USD per aircraft from FY16 appropriations). Works out to $143.4M CAD with exchange rate (today's) and the FMS surcharge of 15%.

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/F-18-Super-Hornet.html


> FY 2017 DoD Program:
> 
> FY 2017 provides procurement funds in the amount of $184.9 million for the production of two aircraft to make up for OCO combat losses.


----------



## vonGarvin

At the rate we're getting planes, rebuilding our own fleet of CF-104G Starfighters would be better than this display of feces on parade.  It's faster than the Lightning II, has a similar ceiling, but less combat radius and less ordnance; but with modern avionics...

Better than the Arrow....


----------



## dimsum

Technoviking said:
			
		

> At the rate we're getting planes, rebuilding our own fleet of CF-104G Starfighters would be better than this display of feces on parade.  It's faster than the Lightning II, has a similar ceiling, but less combat radius and less ordnance; but with modern avionics...
> 
> Better than the Arrow....



Yeah, I'm sure a fleet of "Widowmakers" (Canada lost 46% of its F-104s (110 of 235)) will not cause any headlines in the media  >


----------



## McG

Looks like questions are starting to be asked.  If we have a critical operational shortage of CF188, how can we afford to allocate any for this:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=2017-demo-hornet-will-honour-canada-s-150th-anniversary/iw7ntu6l


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MCG said:
			
		

> If we have a critical operational shortage of CF188, how can we afford to allocate any for this:



It's probably Comd RCAF telling the higher authorities to F*** O** for changing air defence policy without consulting him.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> So, don't fly so close to the ground.



Wait, they were flying ??? I thought they were driving  [:-[


----------



## PuckChaser

Look, more aircraft. Don't worry about the pilots and maintainers, we can knit those up real quick:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/12/23/retired-rcaf-commanders-flag-pilot-numbers-as-weak-point-in-liberals-jet-plan/#.WF2sHVyq3Nh



> Retired RCAF commanders flag pilot numbers as weak point in Liberals’ jet plan
> 
> By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press — Dec 23 2016
> 
> OTTAWA — Two former Royal Canadian Air Force commanders are raising questions about the Liberal government's rush to buy "interim" fighter jets, saying there won't be enough pilots to fly the planes for years to come.
> 
> Retired lieutenant-generals Kenneth Pennie and Andre Deschamps say that defeats the purpose of acquiring Super Hornets as a stop-gap measure, and running a full competition now makes more sense.
> 
> "Trying to do a short-term Band-Aid is not going to be helpful," said Deschamps, who commanded the air force from 2009-2012.
> 
> "The only thing that's going to work to address the gap is to finish off the competition process, pick a winner, and implement it. Then you can start addressing this gap concern."
> 
> The government announced last month it wants to buy 18 Super Hornets before a competition can be held in five years to find a replacement for the air force's aging CF-18 fighter jets.
> 
> The Super Hornets are needed because the air force doesn't have enough jets to meet the government's recent order that it be ready to defend North America and contribute to NATO at the same time.
> 
> In separate interviews with The Canadian Press, Pennie and Deschamps welcomed any move to increase the size of the air force's fighter-jet fleet after years of budget cuts and attrition.
> 
> But they said such an expansion cannot happen overnight, even with the rushed purchase of new Super Hornets, because of the need for more trained personnel.
> 
> The air force has struggled to get enough aspiring top guns and technicians to fly the military's 76 CF-18s even without 18 new cockpits to fill.


----------



## Loachman

Increasing the number of Pilots - a problem that I identified here before - requires time and effort. Recruiting and selection time, four years (wasted) at RMC, and a couple of years in the flying training mill. Increased throughput will be required at each stage, especially in Portage, Moose Jaw, and Cold Lake. More hours on the aircraft in each location, and more instructors, and more cost - or else another flying community gets robbed, and all are already short.

This whole imperial decree is a lie based upon faulty assumptions, or faulty assumptions based upon a lie.

It is unnecessary, illogical, and wasteful.

Perhaps if we could convince the Sun King that the F35 has a lower carbon footprint because it only has one engine, he might do the right thing.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Loachman said:
			
		

> Increasing the number of Pilots - a problem that I identified here before - requires time and effort. Recruiting and selection time, four years (wasted) at RMC, and a couple of years in the flying training mill. Increased throughput will be required at each stage, especially in Portage, Moose Jaw, and Cold Lake. More hours on the aircraft in each location, and more instructors, and more cost - or else another flying community gets robbed, and all are already short.
> 
> This whole imperial decree is a lie based upon faulty assumptions, or faulty assumptions based upon a lie.
> 
> It is unnecessary, illogical, and wasteful.
> 
> Perhaps if we could convince the Sun King that the F35 has a lower carbon footprint because it only has one engine, he might do the right thing.



I heard a rumour that the F35 was actually solar powered. True?


----------



## dapaterson

There are plenty of pilots; the problem is that they are not treated as a specialist occupation.  Given the training cost, the majority of pilots should be in flying positions, not in HQs doing staff jobs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are plenty of pilots; the problem is that they are not treated as a specialist occupation.  Given the training cost, the majority of pilots should be in flying positions, not in HQs doing staff jobs.



Stop that.

Next thing, you will be suggesting that the nearly 40 percent of dentists in the CF be taken out of their staff jobs and see actual patients...


----------



## Loachman

There are staff positions that require Pilots, plus the generic anybody-positions. If Pilots are pulled out of staff positions, who fills them? (As I doubt that excessive HQ positions will be reduced). Why should others have to fill more staff positions? Why should Pilots lose the professional development value? How many of these staff Pilots are fighter guys?

There are a few non-Pilots in Pilot staff positions already. We have two.

How many extra techs are kicking around in non-tech jobs?

From where do the extra YFR costs come? Who goes short to cover those?

And where is the solid justification for any of this?

"We must get back to peacekeeping".

"There must be some peace to keep somewhere".

"Our party will look bad if we can't find any peace to keep".

"We won't buy the F35".

"It's the best option in reality, so we have to come up with a cunning plan to delay the inevitable, or find a weasel-way to push another aircraft despite the fact that it will cost more and provide less capability".

"Our party will look bad if we admit our error".


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Actually Loachman, this is where you and I part company.

We spend anywhere between $2-7 million per pilot getting them useful to the military. Pilots should, on average, spend more time in Sqns flying, not less.

If that means a few dozen fewer pilots make it to GO, I can live with that.


----------



## Infanteer

Is a Pilot useful to the CAF because he knows how to fly a plane, or because he know how to plan, sustain and apply airpower?


----------



## dapaterson

Perhaps we need to move from a pilot occupation to a pilot branch; the majority would be pilot NCMs, who spend the majority of their career flying, with a small number of pilot officers, who fly less than the NCMs, but who do the institutional leadership function on top of flying.  That also eliminates the degree requirement for most pilots, as an added bonus.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps we need to move from a pilot occupation to a pilot branch; the majority would be pilot NCMs, who spend the majority of their career flying, with a small number of pilot officers, who fly less than the NCMs, but who do the institutional leadership function on top of flying.  That also eliminates the degree requirement for most pilots, as an added bonus.



Certainly one branch of the pilot occupation could make that work, but light blue would never let that happen...I think...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is a Pilot useful to the CAF because he knows how to fly a plane, or because he know how to plan, sustain and apply airpower?



Both, but we probably have too many pilots trying to do the later, or working in tasks entirely unrelated to combat flying.

Back on topic- unless there are going to be big changes made to how we recruit and train pilots and technicians, there is basically no chance of having a Super Hornet Sqn stand up in 4 years. Unless we plan on shutting some other capability down to free up people.


----------



## vonGarvin

I'm sitting over here wondering why I spent four years to be an infantry platoon commander when I ended up being an infantry platoon commander for a year.  Then I spent 10 weeks learning how to be a mortar platoon commander and ended up being a mortar platoon commander for 2 years.  


TL;DR: bring back the CF 104


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps we need to move from a pilot occupation to a pilot branch; the majority would be pilot NCMs, who spend the majority of their career flying, with a small number of pilot officers, who fly less than the NCMs, but who do the institutional leadership function on top of flying.  That also eliminates the degree requirement for most pilots, as an added bonus.



I think that horse has fled the barn already.  Aside from the US Army Warrant Officers, no other military I can think of has anyone other than commissioned Officers flying manned aircraft (RPAs are different.)  

I totally agree with that concept and I think it'll work (again) with Navigators as well, if they are winged as Sergeant (or Warrant) Pilots/Navs, but I can't see senior officers signing off on that.


----------



## kev994

Flying the aircraft is the easy part, we can teach any numpty to fly an airplane in ~500 hours, the decision making is where pilots make or break it. I'm not insinuating that is an NCM less capable at making a decision than than someone with a degree in basket weaving, and certainly I know great pilots who joined before a degree was a requirement, but that is where the logic of the degree is going to come in.


----------



## Old Sweat

Speaking from the dangerous position of having a little bit of knowledge and not enough information, let me toss in my recollection of another approach. When I came through the system as an officer cadet in 1960-1961 the RCAF had an approach for aircrew production that was broadly similar to what the RAF had used pre-Second World War. A fair number of aircrew came through ROTP and had permanent commissions; however a large number, perhaps a majority, were officers with short service commissions who had joined from high school to learn to fly. These folks qualified through the common aircrew training system and then served in operational squadrons for something like, I guess, five years. They could apply for a permanent commission but the acceptance rate was very low. The army used to recruit a number, especially in the artillery and service corps, to eventually become aviators. These were enrolled as captains and proceeded on Officer Candidate Program (OCP) with the officer cadets recruited off the street. 

The army was making noises about doing something similar with most of we OCP plugs being career-limited to captain. In practice ROTP retention was not sufficient to fill the more senior army requirements and most of us did better than that, but I digress.

The wheels came off the wagon with integration as Hellyer and the like were not impressed with a very expensive aircrew training program that then tossed out a large number of its graduates just when they were at a peak of ability and experience. Thus all at once the air force found itself with a large number of pilots with permanent commissions and some hard choices as well as not enough non-flying jobs. I don't know how many want to move to staff jobs and progression and how many would prefer to stay flying as long as possible. The options have pluses and minuses, but whatever course is adopted does not, in my opinion, have an obvious edge over the others, or else we would not be having this debate.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Would air reserve pilots work? Move the majority of pilots into the reserves once they hit Captain, give them sufficient training simulator and wheels up time to stay qualified, but take away  the flying desks and useless postings/tasks. Dedicate, say, 2/3 of the fighter fleet to air reserve? Same number of aircraft available, just fewer full time pilots and many, many more part time pilots. Also, open up opportunities for pilots to go and fly with foreign air forces on exchange role.  That way they keep up a constant cycle of pilots in training and pilots that are qualified.


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I think that horse has fled the barn already.  Aside from the US Army Warrant Officers, no other military I can think of has anyone other than commissioned Officers flying manned aircraft (RPAs are different.)



UK AAC...


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> UK AAC...



I stand corrected  :-[


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Would air reserve pilots work? Move the majority of pilots into the reserves once they hit Captain, give them sufficient training simulator and wheels up time to stay qualified, but take away  the flying desks and useless postings/tasks. Dedicate, say, 2/3 of the fighter fleet to air reserve? Same number of aircraft available, just fewer full time pilots and many, many more part time pilots. Also, open up opportunities for pilots to go and fly with foreign air forces on exchange role.  That way they keep up a constant cycle of pilots in training and pilots that are qualified.



It might work in some fleets but not ours IMO.  There already are some exchange positions now.

sorry but this isn't the fix.


----------



## Rifleman62

Interesting web page.

http://robdavistelford.co.uk/webspace/raf_bc/

Aircrew ranks, the Second World War:


> Whilst processing large tracts of aircraft loss and casualty data I noticed that many RCAF airmen who became casualties at Sergeant, Flight Sergeant or Warrant Officer rank subsequently appeared in official data as Pilot Officer or a higher. Whilst it is not uncommon for an airman's commission to have happened so shortly before his death that Squadron records did not reflect the change, this anomaly was far too common for RCAF airmen to have been coincidence. Guessing that this 'lightning quick' commission was effected to afford a widow or dependant an improved pension, I queried the matter with Canadian officialdom. Stephen Harris, Acting Director and Chief Historian of the Directorate of History and Heritage, National Defence, Canada, replies:-
> 
> "The Canadian Minister of National Defence for Air, Chubby Power, believed all aircrew should be commissioned but could not achieve this goal because of limitations on commissioning contained in the BCATP agreement (Empire Air Training Scheme in UK). We negociated for, and received, higher commissioning rates in the May 1942 conference -- and some increases thereafter. Aircrew who were captured were "off the books", in a way, and it was Canadian policy to commission them so that they went of officer PW camps. For some Canadian aircrew, especially those serving on RAF squadrons, the time delay between their commissioning and the notification of the RAF squadron concerned could be considerable. Even for those serving on RCAF squadrons there could be a delay: when Mynarski took off, he had been promoted but his squadron did not know it. Thus he was wearing WO insignia, but his VC was issued to reflect his commissioned rank. All that is preamble to the answer we can give re: casualties. We have never found policy. We are aware of practice, but have never found policy. And it certainly wasn't universal: there wasn't the same urgency in commissioning air gunners." (October 2012)


  

And:



> Rank differences, and comradeship
> 
> It was common for a pilot to be of Non-commissioned rank (Sergeant, Flight Sergeant or Warrant Officer) with a commissioned officer as navigator or bomb-aimer. The pilot was captain of the aircraft irrespective of rank (except in some RCAF and Polish units), and most crews, in the air, had a first-names policy. The correct "form" was that an NCO saluted an officer in his crew the first time they met every day and after that rank was ignored, unless there was a senior officer about. Certainly most crews went off to the pub together, regardless of rank
> 
> Whilst it was considered fine for a pilot to socialise with another pilot, or an air gunner to mix off-duty with other air gunner pals, it was regarded as unnatural for a pilot to socialise frequently with a navigator from another crew, or for any member of a crew to regularly associate with an airman of a different category from another crew. This sounds weird, but illustrates the comradeship and bond between members of a crew. They were "all in it together", as most often their fate as a crew was combined.
> 
> In a typical instance of the comradeship of airmen, dozens of aircrew had arrived at the local pub and a new barmaid had refused to serve the sergeants and flight-sergeants, insisting that the lounge bar was for officers only. All the non commissioned ranks had immediately departed for the public bar, and to a man, the officers had set down their pints and followed them, leaving the lounge deserted and the men in the packed public bar breathing by numbers. Quietly informed of the situation by the senior flight-commander, the pub's owner had hurriedly rushed downstairs from his supper and put the barmaid right. Offering his apologies to the aircrew, the situation was restored to normal.


----------



## Loachman

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Would air reserve pilots work? Move the majority of pilots into the reserves once they hit Captain, give them sufficient training simulator and wheels up time to stay qualified, but take away  the flying desks and useless postings/tasks. Dedicate, say, 2/3 of the fighter fleet to air reserve? Same number of aircraft available, just fewer full time pilots and many, many more part time pilots. Also, open up opportunities for pilots to go and fly with foreign air forces on exchange role.  That way they keep up a constant cycle of pilots in training and pilots that are qualified.



I have posted about this before.

To have a successful Reserve Force operation, one has to have sufficient numbers of Reservists matched with sufficient suitable equipment and infrastructure.

We have two fighter bases. Both are far-removed from sufficiently-sized pools of ex-Regular Force Pilots and Techs, who, if they seek other flying/maintenance jobs post-release, tend to live around major population centres with large airports, none of which have hangar space, other infrastructure, or ranges and suitable airspace to support fighter operations.

Exchange positions as a solution? They are expensive, and we have to offer something at least as good to the other exchanges in return. How does that fit your model?



			
				kev994 said:
			
		

> Flying the aircraft is the easy part, we can teach any numpty to fly an airplane in ~500 hours, the decision making is where pilots make or break it. I'm not insinuating that is an NCM less capable at making a decision than than someone with a degree in basket weaving



Then what are you insinuating?

How do the current and previous crops of Pilots achieve this decision-making ability that you seem to feel would be lacking in NCO Pilots? Neither rank nor commission automatically confer that, or guarantee it.

We expect NCOs to make complex decisions all of the time, and they generally manage to do so quite well - no less so than Officers - with no degree, no commission, and for less pay.

Sergeants command tanks, for example. It takes some brains to be able to do that well.

Our Observers in the Kiowas were Artillery and Armoured (and a few Infantry and Combat Engineer) Sergeants (and some Warrant Officers). They were very intelligent, very experienced, and carefully-selected people who had to perform to an extremely high standard to pass their demanding Observer course. They could easily have been given the Driver (Air) course and done at least as well as the commissioned Pilots. Most of those that I flew with made it to Chief Warrant Officer and some took commissions later. They were a very impressive bunch.



			
				kev994 said:
			
		

> certainly I know great pilots who joined before a degree was a requirement, but that is where the logic of the degree is going to come in.



What "logic" is there in requiring a degree in order to be a Pilot? How does a degree in a completely unrelated field make anybody a better Pilot?

Subtle hints: "None" and "It does not".

Put a Corporal and an Officer Cadet through the same selection and training process, and you'll have two people with remarkably similar abilities.

And, yes, the British Army was training Corporal Pilots a few years ago, who would rapidly be promoted to Sergeant. I am not sure if they still train at the Corporal rank, but they certainly still have Sergeant Pilots.

I would not push that model on the whole CF flying operation, but it makes a lot of sense for Tac Hel.


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:
			
		

> What "logic" is there in requiring a degree in order to be a Pilot? How does a degree in a completely unrelated field make anybody a better Pilot?
> 
> Subtle hints: "None" and "It does not".
> 
> Put a Corporal and an Officer Cadet through the same selection and training process, and you'll have two people with remarkably similar abilities.
> 
> And, yes, the British Army was training Corporal Pilots a few years ago, who would rapidly be promoted to Sergeant. I am not sure if they still train at the Corporal rank, but they certainly still have Sergeant Pilots.
> 
> I would not push that model on the whole CF flying operation, but it makes a lot of sense for Tac Hel.



Honest question:  How does TH work out Crew Commanders, etc?  Do you guys use them?  In the LRP world, the CC is a Pilot or a TacNav and while I certainly have no issues with NCM Pilots, for admin/discipline issues, wouldn't it pretty much default to CCs requiring commissions?  Or would it be a matter of always having a commissioned CC and an NCM FO (which prob wouldn't work out in the long term)?

And mods, feel free to split this off from the main thread.


----------



## Loachman

One of the two Pilots is the Aircraft Captain. Other crewmembers are FE (on both Griffon and Chinook), LM (on Chinook), and Door Gunners when required. Obviously, none of them are in any position to command anything. The AMC (Aviation Mission Commander) on an airmobile operation may be a flying Pilot, or he/she may elect to sit in the back where he/she can concentrate on co-ordinating lift aircraft, escorts, and whatever fire support is involved without having to drive and/or navigate as well.

Aircraft captains in the British Army are generally Sergeants, with the Officers actually commanding Flights, Squadrons, and Regiments much the way that an Armoured organization works (ie the Officer commands his tank as well as his Troop, Squadron, etcetera).

A battlefield helicopter is, in reality, a vehicle like a tank or APC/IFV but with a rotor rather than tracks or wheels for mobility, but the a** f**ce is blind to that. The basic ground vehicle crew of commander and driver works best, also, for the basic air vehicle crew.

We were forced to have that backwards in the Kiowa, because the Observer could not command, but only suggest, even though he had the map and sensors (binoculars/stab monocular) while the Crew Commander had to drive while commanding, but with less situational awareness than the Observer had. This doubled the internal communication required while reducing its effectiveness.

At least, with two Pilots in each machine, both of whom are commissioned, that problem is solved - but it is the least of our problems.


----------



## rnkelly

Loachman said:
			
		

> A battlefield helicopter is, in reality, a vehicle like a tank or APC/IFV but with a rotor rather than tracks or wheels for mobility, but the a** f**ce is blind to that. The basic ground vehicle crew of commander and driver works best, also, for the basic air vehicle crew.



How can the Air Force be blind to what a battlefield helicopter is when much of it's leadership comes from the Tac Hel community?  The commander of 1 Cdn Air Div is a Tac Hel guy right now.  Lot's of room to improve, don't get me wrong.  

A degree obviously isn't required to be a pilot, as evidenced by the education entry standards being ANY degree (ie;the famous basket weaving, I've actually met someone with a 4 year degree in the fine art of glass blowing that met the entry standard).   The Air Force isn't blind to this either because they have identified that their pilots were becoming too old when receiving their wings so they hastily created the CEOTP-AEAD entry program where a candidate can go from a high school grad to a degreed winged pilot in 4 years.  Unfortunately for the Air Force some of these candidates aren't 17/18 years old like they wished.


----------



## CBH99

That's more of a huge issue with communicating the opportunity, rather than the pool of applicants being older than the Air Force desires.

Trust me, if you launch an information/recruiting campaign at high schools & colleges across the country...stating that in 4yrs, those people will have a university degree AND be winged pilots in the Air Force, you'd fill up the empty slots pretty quickly!  Especially since that degree is paid for by the government, and you get paid for your service while the service pays for your degree.

I think it's more of a community relations/recruiting issue, not shoving this amazing opportunity right in the face of young Canadians.  


(I assisted in community relations/recruiting in southern Alberta for the CF a few years ago, and high schools LOVED having us there.)


----------



## rnkelly

CBH99 said:
			
		

> That's more of a huge issue with communicating the opportunity, rather than the pool of applicants being older than the Air Force desires.
> 
> Trust me, if you launch an information/recruiting campaign at high schools & colleges across the country...stating that in 4yrs, those people will have a university degree AND be winged pilots in the Air Force, you'd fill up the empty slots pretty quickly!  Especially since that degree is paid for by the government, and you get paid for your service while the service pays for your degree.
> 
> I think it's more of a community relations/recruiting issue, not shoving this amazing opportunity right in the face of young Canadians.
> 
> 
> (I assisted in community relations/recruiting in southern Alberta for the CF a few years ago, and high schools LOVED having us there.)



At the risk of getting even more off topic I'll respond; there isn't a lack of applicants interested in the Pilot occupation.  We attract lots for all entry types but there is a limit in capacity to train them also.  My comment on the age of pilot candidates didn't mean we were lacking applicants.  As long as the applicant can serve the initial term of service, we can't discriminate between a 47, 37 or 17 year old applicant.  

My point was that creative ways are being looked at to get winged pilots in a variety of ways, hopefully the different entry types will be complimentary in the long run too.


----------



## tomahawk6

Trump is suggesting a stealth F/A-18.After all the money sunk into the F-35 program I dont this would be a viable project.Thoughts ?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Stealth, or more accurately low observable, implies a lot more than a special coating.  Stores, fuel, aircraft and surfaces shapes all have to be taken into consideration.  Making the Super Hornet low observable is just not physically possible.


----------



## Old Sweat

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Stealth, or more accurately low observable, implies a lot more than a special coating.  Stores, fuel, aircraft and surfaces shapes all have to be taken into consideration.  Making the Super Hornet low observable is just not physically possible.



Damn details keep getting in the way of good ideas that make catchy social media lines, don't they. Thanks for that, SM.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Damn details keep getting in the way of good ideas that make catchy social media lines, don't they. Thanks for that, SM.



They could always re-define "stealth" to fit their political agenda.


----------



## tomahawk6

The plane would have to be re-engineered for internal stores right ? So you might as well build from scratch ?


----------



## jmt18325

Not that I endorse it, but the low observable Super Hornet was to carry a 'stealth' weapons pod.


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Not that I endorse it, but the low observable Super Hornet was to carry a 'stealth' weapons pod.



Yes.







As SupersonicMax says, it's more than just a special coating or podded weapons - even from the front, those big engines will be a big RCS target.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Not that I endorse it, but the low observable Super Hornet was to carry a 'stealth' weapons pod.



These pods on canted pylons won't affect range and endurance at all... :

Yes, the olane would need to be re-engineered..


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's one belly mounted pod.



Yes, which is stealthy, but the plane itself is not.  

Also, if the ASH wants to have a decent range/endurance, it'll likely need drop tanks and if it wants more than what the pod can carry, it'll need to mount external weapons - all of which decrease what "stealthiness" it would have already.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

It would be interesting if Boeing received funding from Trump/Pentagon to develop and integrate the under-wing conformal pods that were developed for the Stealth Eagle....


----------



## MarkOttawa

More from May 2016 on Boeing Super Super Hornet proposals--apparently no stealthy weapons pod now:



> Boeing resumes Advanced Super Hornet push as US Navy considers fleet size
> 
> Boeing Defense has “matured its thinking” about the Advanced Super Hornet concept that it launched in 2013 and flight tested, revealing a scaled-back configuration this week with fewer stealth features and perhaps a greater chance of being picked up by the US Navy.
> 
> The new design, which would be mostly common between Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler warplanes, is a mix of new capabilities and upgrades like the centreline fuel tank-mounted infrared search and track (IRST21) sensor, integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and next-generation jammer that are already being introduced as programmes of records.
> 
> Upgrades that have not yet been adopted by the Pentagon include an enhanced engine, conformal fuel tanks and an open architecture cockpit with a 48cm (19in) wide-area display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> It terms of differences between the Advanced Super Hornet proposal put forward in 2013 – which included low-observable enhancements like an enclosed weapons pod – and the one presented to the media on 11 May, Gillian says “the biggest different is maturation of thought”.
> 
> “Twenty-thirteen was really about how great can we make Super Hornet in some of those stealth areas?" he says. "That was a little bit more of a head-to-head discussion [versus the F-35].
> 
> "Twenty-sixteen is about complimentary capability and what does the carrier air wing need given the other assets like F-35, [Northrop Grumman] E-2D and Growler that are going to be out there.”
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-resumes-advanced-super-hornet-push-as-us-navy-425221/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The plane would have to be re-engineered for internal stores right ? So you might as well build from scratch ?



Yes, and like Max said, it's not just radar-absorbant coatings.  The entire structure, not just outer surfaces, is also designed and tuned to counteract targeted RF bands.  A pod just shields the individual non-stealthy weapons, it in no way improves the stealthiness of the original platform.  In fact, no matter how amazingly stealthy the belly pod is, the interior/concave angles created between the pod and lower fuselage of the Super Hornet will create some pretty interesting reflectors and have some notable RCS spikes at certain lateral aspects.  Note: lipstick (on the sow's ear) is not radar absorbent...

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

So...

Lockheed Martin has been told they have a "competitor"
Boeing has been told they have an "opportunity".

Lockheed has been arguing for a long term commitment for a while.  The counter has been that the F35 "could be better".
Boeing has been arguing they can do stuff too.  The counter has been the F35 is the programme.

So Boeing is now being challenged to put up at the same time Lockheed is being challenged to get their price down.

Lockheed has a plan for getting the price down but it needs the co-operation of the government.
Can Boeing provide a credible alternative?

My betting is that it can't and that this "discussion" will pave the way for a cost reducing plan that involves a long term commitment to the F35.


----------



## NavyShooter

What would happen if Boeing resurrected the XF-32 (shudder based on looks alone) in the "A" model only (air-force version without the tailhook and strengthening of the -C and eliminating the VTOL of the -B) and offered them up as an alternate?

They're ugly as sin, but it'd give them another pan in the fire as a 5th gen fighter option.


----------



## PuckChaser

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> What would happen if Boeing resurrected the XF-32 (shudder based on looks alone) in the "A" model only (air-force version without the tailhook and strengthening of the -C and eliminating the VTOL of the -B) and offered them up as an alternate?



It would show how stupid it is to cancel the F-35 now. The cost for Boeing to get up to speed and make XF-32 a viable aircraft to the point of where F-35 is would be astronomical, and set the US back 15 years.

Maybe we can sell Trump the Avro Arrow, its probably only slightly further behind than the XF-32 in development, at least the Boeing plane isn't designed on a napkin.


----------



## CBH99

I have to ask guys, as someone who has been watching this thread for quite a while.

Why is it whenever JMT says anything, people jump down his throat?  And whenever he tries to state that his comments are simply trying to contribute to the discussion, do people continue to insult him by suggesting that his comments aren't contributing, or welcome, or useful?

We all make comments in threads that temporarily derail conversations.  We all have discussions on here in which various posters have varying levels of expertise.  Some people on this board have a huge amount of experience & expertise in the LRPA community, fighter community, infantry, armour, frigates, etc etc.  

We all contribute our opinions or ideas, and sometimes those opinions & ideas are different from each others.  Sometimes we have disagreements on what direction the government should take, or what decisions it should make in the future, or what our force structure should look like in the future, etc etc.

It's a discussion board.  That's supposed to happen.  What isn't supposed to happen is the near instantaneous bullying of a contributor just for posting thoughts or ideas that are perhaps different than some others.

If it is intended well or a constructive part of the conversation (JMT wasn't party to the Super Hornet decision being made) - even if it is something disagreed on, can we lay off the heavy handed responses?     :2c:


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I have to ask guys, as someone who has been watching this thread for quite a while.
> 
> Why is it whenever JMT says anything, people jump down his throat?  And whenever he tries to state that his comments are simply trying to contribute to the discussion, do people continue to insult him by suggesting that his comments aren't contributing, or welcome, or useful?
> 
> We all make comments in threads that temporarily derail conversations.  We all have discussions on here in which various posters have varying levels of expertise.  Some people on this board have a huge amount of experience & expertise in the LRPA community, fighter community, infantry, armour, frigates, etc etc.
> 
> We all contribute our opinions or ideas, and sometimes those opinions & ideas are different from each others.  Sometimes we have disagreements on what direction the government should take, or what decisions it should make in the future, or what our force structure should look like in the future, etc etc.
> 
> It's a discussion board.  That's supposed to happen.  What isn't supposed to happen is the near instantaneous bullying of a contributor just for posting thoughts or ideas that are perhaps different than some others.
> 
> If it is intended well or a constructive part of the conversation (JMT wasn't party to the Super Hornet decision being made) - even if it is something disagreed on, can we lay off the heavy handed responses?     :2c:



When people do have things to add, significant things to add either from operational or technical or programatic experience, they often (usually) get the "you're just one more un-verified dude on the internet and I can have my own opinion" from jmt.  That and the numerous unsubstantiated deliberate excursions (not just thread drift) based on nothing more than personal opinion, followed by tucking behind the 'I was just adding this simple, irrefutable statement' inject to reinforce the 'that's all I'm saying, and you're all ganging up on me' theme.

The day that jmt provides even a moderately considered (and researched, if not able to comment through operational/technical/procedural experience) input, fine...he'll probably get a modicum of respect.  But it's the woe-is-me M.O. that irritates many.  Ever notice that when there is solid information put out there, jmt conveniently moves on without referencing it and pick up some other piece of fly poop from the pepper later in the thread, CBH?  There are a few of them on here that given a level of desire that I don't have at the moment, I'd identify for you, maybe some time in the future.

There are always a few "what about this [partially or completely irrelevant] piece of information?" types out there, that do not positively add to the discourse.  If jmt had a general record of positive contribution on such issues, he'd probably get a bit of slack for the unconstructive excursions...but...

My own :2c: ...

G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm a reader on this thread for the most part;  fighters aren't my area of knowledge and/or experience.  But G2G summed it up nicely.

There have been posts from many Air Ops types here, but the constant thing I seem to notice is JMT disregarding those comments (we've even had SME input from SSM as a fighter type) and periodic stuff like the "inferiority complex" stuff.

Hence the 'civie twat' comment.  That's my honest overall take on his contribution to the thread at this point.  It seems to me the main goal is to be dismissive of credible posts from folks trying to provide the meaningful input he says he's looking for and/or take a stance that is argumentative.


----------



## Zoomie

Let's move on and get back to talking about the most important RCAF weapons platform purchase this decade - FWSAR.


----------



## dapaterson

Ditch said:
			
		

> Let's move on and get back to talking about the most important  *only* RCAF weapons platform purchase this decade - FWSAR.



FTFY


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...*only* RCAF weapons platform purchase this decade - FWSAR.


I don't think that Lawn Darts SAR Techs are considered weapons systems -- 'offensive,' possibly, but not really offensive weapons.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I don't think that Lawn Darts SAR Techs are considered weapons systems -- 'offensive,' possibly, but not really offensive weapons.



The RCAF calls every aircraft a weapons system.  Even the Tutors, where the most offensive thing you can find is the pilots' egos.


----------



## suffolkowner

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> These pods on canted pylons won't affect range and endurance at all... :
> 
> Yes, the olane would need to be re-engineered..



so are there going to be a stealth pods on the wings or just a center line pod or none at all


----------



## RCPalmer

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just a suggestion to JMT....
> 
> There are guys on here who have real-life experience with systems that we only read about.
> 
> Based on my experience as a civvie on this forum for what I think is close to 10 years, those guys are totally open to provide their insights (where not breaking OPSEC) if you phrase your inquiry in the form of a question as opposed to stating an opinion as fact, when you don't really have the facts.
> 
> Your call.....



The key thing to keep in mind here is that no one is going to "have the facts" or the "ground truth" until these aircraft are engaged on a two way range against a foe in possession of a modern air force and/or AD capability.  Simulation, testing, and exercises will help us to iterate towards the truth, but we must recognize the limitations and potential biases of those methods.

There are clearly some very smart people on the thread with intimate knowledge of air operations, and that real life experience is a critical component of the discussion.  However, that experience and knowledge comes with its own inherent biases which are inevitable as a result of being close to any issue and the prevailing institutional narrative.  I would hope that this same experience and knowledge would lead those well-informed individuals to recognize the level of complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity associated with this issue (primarily due to our limited knowledge of current and future adversary capabilities), and respect alternative views.  

All too often in this thread (and many others here), I have seen the discussion slide into a comparison of the referent power of the posters.  Again, referent power (aka knowledge and experience) is an important part of the dialog, particularly when those individuals are able to offer observable "facts", but it is by no means the whole story.  In a discussion topic such as this, whenever possible the arguments should stand on their own merit.

There is a great deal of information available through open sources on this topic, so there is no reason a layperson could not produce an intelligent argument.  The layperson also has the advantage of not being subject to the same institutionalization that the experts have, which opens the door to fresh ideas.  

If a layperson can produce an argument that cannot be refuted by an expert (with their associated advantage in knowledge and experience) without that expert retreating into their referent power, that is probably a sign of trouble.  

While I don't agree with a lot of what JMT has said, he has generally provided references to support his positions, and in my opinion, has defended himself (relatively) amicably in spite of the considerable hostility he has experienced here.  I would offer that JMT might be the subject of the kind of "dog pile" I have often seen on this site when someone enthusiastically champions a position that differs from the prevailing view.  This dynamic has certainly kept me on the sidelines over the years, and I would imagine has scared a lot of good people away.


----------



## Good2Golf

Then perhaps a reference that jmt can sink his teeth into...the very basis of stealth technology by the Soviet Academician Dr. Pytr Ufimtsev: "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction."  Many of us who have studied RF reflective energy at the undergraduate, and certainly the graduate level familiarized ourselves not only with Maxwell's Equations, but the underlying theory of edge wave diffraction that Dr. Ufimtsev championed (and luckily for us was essentially ignored by his Soviet masters, but fortunately not by Kelly Johnson and his team).  All of the sub-sets of reflective/diffractive surfaces that Ufimtsev studied are what form the blended shape(s) that figure prominently in stealthy technology.  There is a lot more to stealth than "hey look, there's a cool shaped weapons container we can add to the Super Hornet..."

"Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction, P.Y. Ufimtsev (1962, trans. USAF 1971)."

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## RCPalmer

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Then perhaps a reference that jmt can sink his teeth into...the very basis of stealth technology by the Soviet Academician Dr. Pytr Ufimtsev: "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction."  Many of us who have studied RF reflective energy at the undergraduate, and certainly the graduate level familiarized ourselves not only with Maxwell's Equations, but the underlying theory of edge wave diffraction that Dr. Ufimtsev championed (and luckily for us was essentially ignored by his Soviet masters, but fortunately not by Kelly Johnson and his team).  All of the sub-sets of reflective/diffractive surfaces that Ufimtsev studied are what form the blended shape(s) that figure prominently in stealthy technology.  There is a lot more to stealth than "hey look, there's a cool shaped weapons container we can add to the Super Hornet..."
> 
> "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction, P.Y. Ufimtsev (1962, trans. USAF 1971)."
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Ok, so what is your objective here? I don't think anyone on this thread (including JMT) is saying that an Improved Super Hornet could achieve comparable stealth to the F-35 from a radar signature perspective. However, if you are trying to patronize someone (who you presumably disagree with) until they throw up their hands and go away, you seem to be on track.  My question is "Why"?  I really don't understand the hostility.


----------



## vonGarvin

As a subscriber who has on more than one occasion been a total dolt on these fora, may I suggest that we get back on topic and talk CF-188 and its replacement?  Now to get back on topic, please remember that we would have to use said replacement not so much against these guys:





But these guys:








Thanks


----------



## HB_Pencil

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> Ok, so what is your objective here? I don't think anyone on this thread (including JMT) is saying that an Improved Super Hornet could achieve comparable stealth to the F-35 from a radar signature perspective. However, if you are trying to patronize someone (who you presumably disagree with) until they throw up their hands and go away, you seem to be on track.  My question is "Why"?  I really don't understand the hostility.



Oh, I can tell you why the hostility is occurring. On several occasions I've explained a why he's incorrect on a point or position, and his near constant response when he's cornered is to say "oh but you've misunderstood what I said" when clearly he was intimating a specific point. Then he has the gall to say "oh but I've referenced everything" when in a number of cases myself and others have explained why its incorrect by applying our unique knowledge sets. His response in those cases, despite the rash of evidence in front of him is to say "oh well I'll trust the article by the reporter, or the government press release." 

I'm all for free flowing discourse, but JMT isn't about that. Its about him ignoring all evidence to push his views.


----------



## suffolkowner

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> RC:
> 
> I do understand the hostility.  It relates to tone.  That seems to be a work in progress.



I don't. Tone must be a one way street. I get that sometimes it seems that jmt reaches a little too far in order to justify a Liberal position, but surely people can get over that. I don't think anyone interested in the Canadian Armed Forces is entirely comfortable with the this interim Super Hornet purchase idea or the justification for it put forth so far. Unfortunately that is part and parcel with the secrecy with which all things Canadian Forces is done


----------



## RCPalmer

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Oh, I can tell you why the hostility is occurring. On several occasions I've explained a why he's incorrect on a point or position, and his near constant response when he's cornered is to say "oh but you've misunderstood what I said" when clearly he was intimating a specific point. Then he has the gall to say "oh but I've referenced everything" when in a number of cases myself and others have explained why its incorrect by applying our unique knowledge sets. His response in those cases, despite the rash of evidence in front of him is to say "oh well I'll trust the article by the reporter, or the government press release."
> 
> I'm all for free flowing discourse, but JMT isn't about that. Its about him ignoring all evidence to push his views.



Fair enough.  Admittedly I haven't read every post in detail, but I had been following the thread and it didn't seem that bad. If a person isn't able to concede a point in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I could see how that would be annoying. I also agree that tone is an issue in this case.

To return to the scheduled programming, is there anyone in the Air Ops community willing to play devil's advocate on the F-35?  What are the risks we (and I include the USAF, USN and our allies in the broader "we") need to mitigate if go down/stay on that path?


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Your word is not better evidence than published sources, and never will be.  That's simply the way it is.



Nope.  That's not the way it is.  Because it is publishes does not make it absolute or true.  I speak from personnal (first hand) experience in the Fighter community for the last 8 years, involving some F-35 tactics development, some Super Hornet flying with the USN (albeit in a fairly limited fashion but more importantly interracting and befriending with those that flew them into combat) and a developmental test pilot qualification.

I would say that in a lot of cases, this has more weight than a published article by some outsider or observer.


----------



## Good2Golf

So a Michael Byers publishes a paper on fighter strategy and capability and he's to be believed, and Max isn't, JMT (and others of the same view)?  

While a number of us with operational, technical and academic (applied) experience have traded paint in the past over specifics, it is still from a position of relative mutual respect and appreciation, understanding where each is coming from.  That is not something that I will ever be able to say of jmt, so based on his past performance here, as well as his having nothing really to add other than hyperlinking to other material that in many cases, is merely published opinion, he will never have my personal respect on these types of issues.  Max has flown the Super Hornet in person.  I've worked EW for decades, have actually programmed on earlier Hornet variants, and during service pre-retirement briefed up to and including DM on the fighter portfolio.  Frankly, I really couldn't care any less that jmt's feelings are hurt, or that to some, worse yet, he doesn't take my word or anyone else's who "hasn't published" for what it is.  My feelings are by no means the least hurt by his dismissiveness while he takes egregious offence to others refusal to pay heed to his willy nilly postings.

This will always be a Mexican Standoff for a number of us, with jmt.

Back on point, the principle issue is that now, a serving Government has to many's view compromised the capability path of the RCAF's fighter force with a politically-driven face-saving exercise that I will bet you dollars to donuts will cost more in overall life-ccle costs to run an interim split fleet, that it would be to accept that "new information not available during the time of election campaigning" has made it clear that full acquisition and in-service support costs for the F-35 would in fact be the best value for Canadian taxpayers for the next 40 years.  If I had 5 mins with ex-PM Harper, it would be to admonish him for believing that it was worth kiting the fighter force cheque beyond the next election than owning it and committing the Government to supply the Canadian military with the best and most affordable full-capability fighter force for the foreseeable future, full stop.  Rest assured, F/A-18E interim will cost the Gov't more for less than going straight to F-35 without delay.

:2c: reasonably informed...

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325

The last government also compromised the fighter fleet capability by kicking the can down the road.  I'm not a fan of this interim buy, but, the slow nature of our procurement system, and the fact that the project has been continuously delayed makes the fact that at least something is happening a defacto positive.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

No, JMT, no.

Buying an "interim" capability in the Super Hornet is in no way a positive development for Canada.

It will consume finite cash and more importantly, personnel resources. It will make it near impossible for any Government post next election to abandon the sunk costs of those 18 aircraft, which will make it a near certainty that the fix will be in for the actual replacement project. I can pretty much bet that we will now be operating a SH fleet out to 2050, and it will cost us a bag load more money for a boatload less capability. And before you trot out the USN again, I remind you the USN is not facing a binary choice of fighters (F35 or SH)- they intend on and can afford to operate both- in a unique carrier based role. Unlike Canada.

I did not start out as an F35 fan. However, once I came to understand even the unclassified characteristics of this aircraft, I recognized that it will change fighter tactics forever. By the mid 2030s we will have, essentially, a fighter force fit only for the air show circuit, if we go down the Boeing road.


----------



## jmt18325

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I did not start out as an F35 fan. However, once I came to understand even the unclassified characteristics of this aircraft, I recognized that it will change fighter tactics forever. By the mid 2030s we will have, essentially, a fighter force fit only for the air show circuit, if we go down the Boeing road.



That's needless hyperbole.  Yes, the US Navy will operate more than one fighter post in the ~2030 range, but their most used fighter until 2035 will be the Super Hornet.  Unless they're going to be flying a whole lot of air shows, they probably plan to use those aircraft.


----------



## YZT580

If, and I realize that that is an enormous If there was a significant acquisition and operational cost advantage to purchase the hornet as a primary aircraft is there a capability to link the SH to the F35 as a delivery vehicle and purchase only sufficient F35's to fulfill the role of tactical commander?  From what I understand the cost advantage just isn't there but I am covering all eventualities in my mind


----------



## jmt18325

Being as a fighter fleet is so important to a country like Canada (relatively isolated), it really is too bad that we don't put emphasis on spending money on this in a way that would allow us to replace and maintain our aircraft in a reasonable manner.  We should have replaced half of a slightly larger fighter fleet 10 years ago, and now been starting to look to replace the other half.


----------



## tomahawk6

I see a future with unmanned fighter aircraft.


----------



## childs56

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I see a future with unmanned fighter aircraft.



I think you nailed it on the spot.
 The US Navy has mentioned this in one of their briefs about the shortfalls of the F35 and when they look to the future of Air platforms. Why they are hesitant to purchase more F35 if they even take delivery at all. It is interesting that they are looking past manned Jets in the near term, let alone 20-30 years from now. I believe they are already using unmanned refuelers on trial right now.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Being as a fighter fleet is so important to a country like Canada (relatively isolated), it really is too bad that we don't put emphasis on spending money on this in a way that would allow us to replace and maintain our aircraft in a reasonable manner.



That would require whoever is in Opposition to not try to make desperate political hay out of the costs of acquiring modern weapons systems, and accept them as the cost of doing business like Australia does. You can't blame the past government for kicking the can down the road without blaming the current government for trying to score political points on the cost of those aircraft. We could have been contract signed, sealed and starting some preliminary training by now if the uproar from the Liberals/NDP wasn't so loud.


----------



## dimsum

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If, and I realize that that is an enormous If there was a significant acquisition and operational cost advantage to purchase the hornet as a primary aircraft is there a capability to link the SH to the F35 as a delivery vehicle and purchase only sufficient F35's to fulfill the role of tactical commander?  From what I understand the cost advantage just isn't there but I am covering all eventualities in my mind



Even if there is (I don't know), one of the main advantages of the F-35 is that it is low observable.  If it becomes the tactical commander of a few SH, and if the enemy knows that, then that advantage is lost b/c they'd spot the SH, then immediately know that there's an F-35 somewhere around there.  

In that case, you might as well link it up to something like a P-3 (with hardpoints, wpns in the bomb bay, laser designator...) and use that as a missile truck with the F-35 as the spotter*.  The enemy won't know what hit it (literally!)

As for the UCAV thing, I don't think it's ready in short term (5-10 years).  RPAs in general have some pretty significant limitations at the moment that they are working through, but I don't think it'll be solved in the short-term without massive infrastructure (IT, etc) upgrades.

*See what I did there?  Tangent!


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=SeaKingTacco]


I did not start out as an F35 fan.  However, once I came to understand even the unclassified characteristics of this aircraft, I recognized that it will change fighter tactics forever. By the mid 2030s we will have, essentially, a fighter force fit only for the air show circuit, if we go down the Boeing road.
[/quote]

I'm in the same boat. I'm not a fan of the F35 and I think Lockheed is fleecing a lot of people. If we're going to spend money somewhere (and I think it's better spent elsewhere) then we should do it right and not dump money into squeezing just a little more blood and sweat out of the F18s or buying a Super Hornet as a gap.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That would require whoever is in Opposition to not try to make desperate political hay out of the costs of acquiring modern weapons systems, and accept them as the cost of doing business like Australia does. You can't blame the past government for kicking the can down the road without blaming the current government for trying to score political points on the cost of those aircraft.



I think that was nothing but petty politicking, so we're on the same page there.


----------



## jmt18325

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm in the same boat. I'm not a fan of the F35 and I think Lockheed is fleecing a lot of people. If we're going to spend money somewhere (and I think it's better spent elsewhere) then we should do it right and not dump money into squeezing just a little more blood and sweat out of the F18s or buying a Super Hornet as a gap.




I agree with you, but there's really not much else out there - the F-35 is the only new generation aircraft available to us.  I think we could be served well by an air superiority fighter like the Typhoon, but, it's cost prohibitive and lacks stealth.


----------



## Quirky

It all comes down to what our future missions look like and what our government intends to do with the fighters. If the only plan is to tool around the arctic and play hide and seek with Russian bears then hornets would probably fill the need for a few more decades. Same goes for dropping bombs onto sand people with no capability to shoot us down.

I'd be more concerned when we send our jets to the edge of Russian airspace which is littered with their rocket toys. I wouldn't want to be in anything less than a F22 or 35 in that case. I view our whole involvement in the Baltic region as rather laughable, like Putin is scared of our contribution to air "policing".


----------



## jmt18325

The objective of any of those missions is not to scare Russia, or even to confront them.  It's simple a deterrence with the added benefit of placating the Baltic states and keeping them on our side.


----------



## Journeyman

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> .... is there anyone in the Air Ops community willing to play devil's advocate on the F-35?


Why does it have to be someone in the Air community?  Wouldn't their "experience and knowledge come with its own inherent biases, which are inevitable as a result of being close to any issue and the prevailing institutional narrative"?

You can't dismiss the opinions of those who have consistently demonstrated that they know what they're talking about in favour of someone parroting internet articles, and then ask the opinion of those with experience you've just rebuffed.


----------



## Good2Golf

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> Ok, so what is your objective here? I don't think anyone on this thread (including JMT) is saying that an Improved Super Hornet could achieve comparable stealth to the F-35 from a radar signature perspective. However, if you are trying to patronize someone (who you presumably disagree with) until they throw up their hands and go away, you seem to be on track.  My question is "Why"?  I really don't understand the hostility.



So you've judged this to be patronizing?  Should I have accused my professors of being patronizing and trying to hurt my feelings and being unfair when they provided such references for me to use when they assigned...work...in order for me to develop a mental framework of understanding and to gain a deeper appreciation of how RF energy is absorbed and reflected by conducting bodies in a mutli-static EM environment?

So I can't actually offer a reference (which is fascinating to read, BTW, I'm willing to bet it's even more interesting in its native Russian) that some, even jmt, might find at least moderately interesting?  Seems like Social Justice is starting to creep into life at Army.ca.  Change that narrative -- forced respect for those who 'contribute/participate', especially when it goes against 'the institution'.  Those who participate from 'the institution'...reject them and accuse their participation as being personally oriented towards others who are looking to participate in their own way.

So, RCPalmer, perhaps you can give greater insight into the conspiracy against jmt and others here on the replacement fighter thread.  What will make you and other protectorates of jmt sleep easier at night?

G2G


----------



## suffolkowner

Assuming this interim purchase goes thru I still can't see purchasing anything other than the F-35 in the 2021 time frame. The other fighters are barely hanging on right now. If the 18 interim fighters come out of our 65 fighter budget does that mean we're only going to get 47 more fighters of whatever type, or somehow we dump the interim fighters and split the difference. God help us but someone needs to take national defence more seriously in this country


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Assuming this interim purchase goes thru I still can't see purchasing anything other than the F-35 in the 2021 time frame.



I agree with you.  I see this as a face saving move by Trudeau.



> The other fighters are barely hanging on right now. If the 18 interim fighters come out of our 65 fighter budget does that mean we're only going to get 47 more fighters of whatever type, or somehow we dump the interim fighters and split the difference. God help us but someone needs to take national defence more seriously in this country



That depends I suppose on if the government is actually serious about their capability gap.  Considering the Super Hornet is expected to operate into the 2030s as an interim aircraft, I'm not sure what will happen.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Assuming this interim purchase goes thru I still can't see purchasing anything other than the F-35 in the 2021 time frame. The other fighters are barely hanging on right now. If the 18 interim fighters come out of our 65 fighter budget does that mean we're only going to get 47 more fighters of whatever type, or somehow we dump the interim fighters and split the difference. God help us but someone needs to take national defence more seriously in this country



Actually, Suffolkowner, it should be more like 95 F-35's if one is to believe our current government: They just identified that the current 77 airframes are not sufficient to meet our obligations and that we need 18 more airframes "urgently" (otherwise, there goes the single source purchase option) to meet them: 77 + 18 =  95. 

So, *unless they change policy again *after the single source purchase so that 65 airframes become, yet again, sufficient, they need to go for 95 on the actual replacement purchase.

C.Q.F.D.


----------



## RCPalmer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why does it have to be someone in the Air community?  Wouldn't their "experience and knowledge come with its own inherent biases, which are inevitable as a result of being close to any issue and the prevailing institutional narrative"?
> 
> You can't dismiss the opinions of those who have consistently demonstrated that they know what they're talking about in favour of someone parroting internet articles, and then ask the opinion of those with experience you've just rebuffed.



I think that is a little unfair.  I haven't dismissed anyone's opinions, certainly not those of the pilots of the broader Air Ops community.  If I offended anyone, I apologize. Everyone has biases.  It is natural and unavoidable.  Part of being an effective critical thinker is to have the self knowledge to recognize one's own biases, and keep an open mind.  In this way, diversity of experience and perspectives which includes "outside" stakeholders such as industry experts not directly involved in the project, congressional oversight committees, competing manufacturers, and ultimately the voting public who will be asked to pay for these things become a useful tool to help overcome inherent bias, and prevent tunnel vision.  

Additionally, I did not speak out in favour of any of JMTs opinions.  All I did was highlight my concern over what I perceived as a dog pile on a dissenting view. I am still not crazy about the manner in which dissenting views are handled on the forum generally.  Admittedly, JMT hasn't done himself any favours in improving the tone of the dialog since I made my original post, so I am starting to regret having said anything at all.

I happen to be in favour of an F-35 purchase myself, and consider the Interim Super Hornet buy to be the worst option of all.  As has been noted here, we are now in a position where a solution to a politically fabricated fighter gap today will create a real fighter gap in a little over a decade.  

We have seen lots of "insider" perspectives in favour of the F-35 and not insignificant "outsider" perspectives speaking out against it.  In an effort to bring the conversation back to its original topic, I simply requested some insider perspectives on the opposing view, asking someone with an Air Ops background to play "devil's advocate" on the F-35.  

When dealing with such a complex set of systems, and an ambiguous future threat environment, there have to be downsides and risks associated with all options.  Identifying those downsides and risks doesn't take away from any argument.  If anything, a frank recognition of the downsides and risks serves to strengthen one's argument because it shows they have kept an open mind.


----------



## Good2Golf

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> ...We have seen lots of "insider" perspectives in favour of the F-35 and not insignificant "outsider" perspectives speaking out against it.  In an effort to bring the conversation back to its original topic, I simply requested some insider perspectives on the opposing view, asking someone with an Air Ops background to play "devil's advocate" on the F-35.
> 
> When dealing with such a complex set of systems, and an ambiguous future threat environment, there have to be downsides and risks associated with all options.  Identifying those downsides and risks doesn't take away from any argument.  If anything, a frank recognition of the downsides and risks serves to strengthen one's argument because it shows they have kept an open mind.



First point...you likely won't get any dissenting views on JSF/F-35 from Air Ops folks, nor from those who are/were part of a 'Line Department' making the case for a capability that the Government wanted the military to be capable of operating as part of the Nation's full-spectrum, combat-capable force.  You should in fact be asking for folks working within PCO or PMO or PSPC or even TBS to be providing their thoughts on what the Gov't at a higher level (than a line Department) think of the characteristics of the required future capability.

On your second point, if there is the level of complexity and ambiguity in the future security environment that you posit (and with which I fully agree), then logic would support having a more robust/survivable capability than a lesser one, no?  F-35 is the former.  F/A-18E is the latter.  The F-16 (and the F-15 as well, as part of the USAF's Gen 4 Hi-Lo fighter system-of-systems) program had very much the same issues of cost, higher during LRIP then settling down as the planned production turned into actual production.  F-35 "Lo" capability (and its F-22 "Hi" sibling [avail only to US, vice the F-15 export for Gen 4 analogy], both using the USAF Hi-Lo framework) budgeting will settle as production moves into Full-rate from Low-rate.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Quirky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The objective of any of those missions is not to scare Russia, or even to confront them.  It's simple a deterrence with the added benefit of placating the Baltic states and keeping them on our side.



Are we not there to provide military support in case a shooting war breaks out? If not then what's the point. You don't send war machines into areas of conflict without the possibility of using them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Quirky said:
			
		

> Are we not there to provide military support in case a shooting war breaks out? If not then what's the point. You don't send war machines into areas of conflict without the possibility of using them.



Two words:

Hong Kong.


----------



## Old Sweat

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Two words:
> 
> Hong Kong.



And when circa 1970 the government announced it had accepted the Canadian Air-Sea Transportable (CAST) Combat Group role to reinforce North Norway in an emergency, the troops began to refer to it as Hong Kong Mark Two.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Are there any rumours re:
1.  How the gov't plans to distribute the  18 new aircraft?  
2.  What variant of the SH they are negotiating for?  (Quietly hoping to hear we will be launch customer for ASH).


----------



## Quirky

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Are there any rumours re:
> 1.  How the gov't plans to distribute the  18 new aircraft?
> 2.  What variant of the SH they are negotiating for?  (Quietly hoping to hear we will be launch customer for ASH).



The government has no clue what they are doing. The USN and Kuwait aren't about to give up their spots for a measly 18 aircraft lease. We are about to be dumped with 18 aircraft we don't need and will just become a major headache for the RCAF. If these things actually show up at Canadian bases I can't see them standing up new squadrons. The personnel just don't exist. The more likely scenario is techs and pilots will just be qualified on both.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Quirky said:
			
		

> The more likely scenario is techs and pilots will just be qualified on both.



Having lived thru some time on a dual-qual fleet,  this isn't easy as it sounds or appears for anyone who has not done it.  There's a big difference between  current and proficient with these scenarios.


----------



## Old Sweat

A flying Ross Rifle, anyone?

Seriously, how can this be made to work without screwing up the resources to support a finites number of flying hours with proficient* aircrew across the fleet? Without gutting the RCN and the Canadian Army that is.

* I wrote proficient without appreciating the difference between proficient and current implied in EITS's post.


----------



## McG

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 2.  What variant of the SH they are negotiating for?  (Quietly hoping to hear we will be launch customer for ASH).


Given that the government seems to have decided that the F-35 is _just not ready_, I suspect they will have little interest in a variant that is not already flying with somebody.  So, I would not bet on super-super hornets.


----------



## PuckChaser

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 2.  What variant of the SH they are negotiating for?  (Quietly hoping to hear we will be launch customer for ASH).



Which version of the ASH? The 2013 version with stealth features and desperately trying to keep up with the F-35? Or the 2016 version of the ASH that has some new sensors, but no approval from the USN on conformal fuel tanks, enhanced engines or updated cockpit?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-resumes-advanced-super-hornet-push-as-us-navy-425221/


> It terms of differences between the Advanced Super Hornet proposal put forward in 2013 – which included low-observable enhancements like an enclosed weapons pod – and the one presented to the media on 11 May, Gillian says “the biggest different is maturation of thought”.
> 
> “Twenty-thirteen was really about how great can we make Super Hornet in some of those stealth areas?" he says. "That was a little bit more of a head-to-head discussion [versus the F-35].
> 
> "Twenty-sixteen is about complimentary capability and what does the carrier air wing need given the other assets like F-35, [Northrop Grumman] E-2D and Growler that are going to be out there.”



Sounds perfect, we'll end up buying an aircraft for an "interim" basis that is only considered by its manufacturer as complimentary to the F-35, not able to stand on its own.


----------



## Old Sweat

MCG said:
			
		

> Given that the government seems to have decided that the F-35 is _just not ready_, I suspect they will have little interest in a variant that is not already flying with somebody.  So, I would not bet on super-super hornets.



In the 70s the government direction to tDND and the CF was to not purchase anything that was not ready already developed, and thus had no risk involved. On the macro scale the direction was to only provide a minimal military capability, whatever that meant. A senior airman told me this used to cause the light blue community considerable angst whenever we won an international competition as it indicated we had excess capability.

However, it seems to me some people may be assuming that an inservice aircraft will be cheaper, besides allowing them to claim they filled a capability gap quickly and without risk.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Quirky said:
			
		

> The government has no clue what they are doing. The USN and Kuwait aren't about to give up their spots for a measly 18 aircraft lease. We are about to be dumped with 18 aircraft we don't need and will just become a major headache for the RCAF. If these things actually show up at Canadian bases I can't see them standing up new squadrons. The personnel just don't exist. The more likely scenario is techs and pilots will just be qualified on both.



Thanks for bringing up the Kuwaiti and USN orders - I was wondering if those deals being signed on their own may have derailed Trudeau's end-around.

Does anyone have any idea about how those other orders are likely to delay first availability (as opposed to what availability would have looked like prior to the other signed deals and what Trudeau and team thought would be possible)?

Did first delivery get bumped by 18-months? 24-months? Or even more?


----------



## HB_Pencil

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Thanks for bringing up the Kuwaiti and USN orders - I was wondering if those deals being signed on their own may have derailed Trudeau's end-around.
> 
> Does anyone have any idea about how those other orders are likely to delay first availability (as opposed to what availability would have looked like prior to the other signed deals and what Trudeau and team thought would be possible)?
> 
> Did first delivery get bumped by 18-months? 24-months? Or even more?



So it doesn't really affect us. No matter what, it will take us 24 months at a minimum from contract signature to the first delivery of aircraft. We will go through the traditional FMS process (if we go DCMS that is will be an epic disaster), which will entail US congressional appropriations process, that will likely add an additional year to the cycle, then it take two years for it to be manufactured. So we're probably looking at a 2020 initial delivery, and perhaps a one to two year delivery cycle. 

Currently the St Louis Line operates at two aircraft per month, which covers what the current demand is (USN and Kuwait). Prior to 2015 they were at three a month, they restructured to two, but I believe they can spool up easily back to three if necessary. A lot of this depends on what the USN does... its been purchasing Hornets through the unfunded liabilities process, which circumvented the normal budget cycle. Whether that practice continues is a better question... but it won't materially affect the  Nevertheless, we're likely to see aircraft URF costs of about 85~95 million for a Block II F/A-18E/F, if not higher if diminishing manufacturing sources effects really start to take hold. 



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> I think you nailed it on the spot.
> The US Navy has mentioned this in one of their briefs about the shortfalls of the F35 and when they look to the future of Air platforms. Why they are hesitant to purchase more F35 if they even take delivery at all. It is interesting that they are looking past manned Jets in the near term, let alone 20-30 years from now. I believe they are already using unmanned refuelers on trial right now.



No... I think you have the wrong read on the US Navy. There is a heavy institutional bias against new aircraft, particularly if its a joint one. You saw it with the F-111B, the A-4 transition to the A-7, the A-7 transition to the F/A-18A, the F-14 transition to the F/A-18E and now the F/A-18 to the F-35. 

And the UCLASS program was a very poorly run program... so much so that it was direct review by congress that required the Navy to report on its progress every month. The navy didn't know what it wanted, figured out that getting a high level capability was far too costly, so it opted for the most limited mission possible: air to air refuelling. 

Where a doctrinal difference may emerge between the Navy and the USAF/USMC on the F-35 is what role that fighter will play in the overall operations. The USAF/USMC are increasingly looking at the F-35 as a key decision-making node on the battlefield, while de-emphasizing the role that widebodies and other traditional C2 nodes play. The USMC is actually further ahead in this thinking: they are looking at their burgeoning UAV fleet and will have the F-35B tie into them, partly because they don't have these traditional C2 nodes to rely on. They've been working on this for quite awhile: they had a number of personnel billeted with the F-22 community over the past decade to gain a fuller sense of how a fifth generation aircraft operates and how to apply that to the F-35B's operations. 

The US Navy has been more reserved in its view, with the F-35Cs seen more as a strike-reconnaissance platform, while the E-2D and the Fleet will still have a stronger role to play in C2. Thus its need isn't there. However its an open question whether they will retain this view, or shift once they are exposed to the benefits of the USAF-USMC approach become apparent.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Thanks for bringing up the Kuwaiti and USN orders - I was wondering if those deals being signed on their own may have derailed Trudeau's end-around.
> 
> Does anyone have any idea about how those other orders are likely to delay first availability (as opposed to what availability would have looked like prior to the other signed deals and what Trudeau and team thought would be possible)?
> 
> Did first delivery get bumped by 18-months? 24-months? Or even more?



From  DefenseNews (17 Nov 2016):



> Presumptive purchases of the Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler by the US Navy in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 and the FMS sale to Kuwait would extend production into the 2020s, allowing the company to keep the line open for future sales, Boeing officials have said.



From the same article:



> The Kuwaiti deal is worth approximately $10.1 billion for 32 E-model Super Hornets, 8 F-models, their associated F414-GE-400 engines and spares, 41 AN/APG active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and a slew of weapon systems, including 20mm guns, 240 guided missile launchers, 45 AN/ALR-67(V)3 radar warning receivers, 12 AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER advanced targeting pods, 48 Link-16 systems, eight conformal fuel tanks among others. The sale also includes associated support and logistics services.



Using the above figures as a guide, and making a WAG, it _could_ cost the Canadian taxpayer as much as $6.5 billion CDN (based on todays exchange rate) for 18 F-18s SH, plus all the spare parts, weapon systems, etc.


----------



## Kirkhill

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> Where a doctrinal difference may emerge between the Navy and the USAF/USMC on the F-35 is what role that fighter will play in the overall operations. The USAF/USMC are increasingly looking at the F-35 as a key decision-making node on the battlefield, while de-emphasizing the role that widebodies and other traditional C2 nodes play. The USMC is actually further ahead in this thinking: they are looking at their burgeoning UAV fleet and will have the F-35B tie into them, partly because they don't have these traditional C2 nodes to rely on. They've been working on this for quite awhile: they had a number of personnel billeted with the F-22 community over the past decade to gain a fuller sense of how a fifth generation aircraft operates and how to apply that to the F-35B's operations. ....



And, in there, you have "The All-Canadian Sales Point":  The F35 - Canada's Enhanced FWSAR Capability.  Finding Lost Snowboarders Faster.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Current US Navy Super Hornet thinking (Dec. 8 story):



> Defense, Navy Secretaries Spar Over Budget
> ...
> The Department of the Navy budget submitted Thursday afternoon [Dec. 8] to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is reportedly billions more than the marks set by Carter, sources told Defense News...
> 
> ...the OSD source said...the Navy...[added] a number of items to its budget, including 58 F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters...
> 
> Although not speaking directly to the Carter-Mabus rift or the budget imbalance, Adm. Bill Moran, the vice chief of naval operations, might have given some insight into the Navy department’s thinking when he spoke Dec. 6 with a small group of reporters.
> 
> ...In the strike fighter shortfall world, we need to keep buying Super Hornets to offset the delay in F-35 and the material condition of our current fleet.”..
> http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-lawmakers-rip-dod-over-125-billion-in-wasteful-spending



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

> Where a doctrinal difference may emerge between the Navy and the USAF/USMC on the F-35 is what role that fighter will play in the overall operations. The USAF/USMC are increasingly looking at the F-35 as a key decision-making node on the battlefield, while de-emphasizing the role that widebodies and other traditional C2 nodes play.



Does that mean all RCAF F-35 pilots (if we get the F-35) must be Colonels?  [


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Does that mean all RCAF F-35 pilots (if we get the F-35) must be Colonels?  [



What makes you think that Colonels are allowed to make decisions?


----------



## MarkOttawa

With Kuwait having ordered 40 Super Hornets, and if the USN gets anything like this from The Donald,



> ...the OSD source said...the Navy...[added] a number of items to its budget, including 58 F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters...



when might the RCAF start getting its 18?  The poor LPC's best-laid political plans might go astray as a result of unanticipated (if the Liberals were even aware of what others might do) sales to others . 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

The Kuwaiti order pushes the Super Hornet line to close early 2020s. That means our order goes in after Kuwait, delivering planes probably 2023-2025, which is well after we'll have closed the contract on the real replacement. We might get the real planes before Super Hornets.


----------



## dapaterson

I've seen nothing said about the procurement strategy.  Perhaps there's no intent to buy at all, but merely to take 18 (slightly used) on loan from the USN.  There are multiple ways to address acquisition; the assumption that Canada will buy is not based on any Governmental announcement I have seen.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I've seen nothing said about the procurement strategy.  Perhaps there's no intent to buy at all, but merely to take 18 (slightly used) on loan from the USN.  There are multiple ways to address acquisition; the assumption that Canada will buy is not based on any Governmental announcement I have seen.


The USN wants more Super Hornets than its currently getting. Why would they give us operational aircraft they need to keep their own squadrons going?

The reason we've seen nothing about the procurement strategy is because the government doesn't have one. They situated the estimate and picked an aircraft without even knowing if we could get them. Boeing can promise all it wants but it's largest purchaser in Uncle Sam controls their production lines.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Kuwaiti order pushes the Super Hornet line to close early 2020s. That means our order goes in after Kuwait, delivering planes probably 2023-2025, which is well after we'll have closed the contract on the real replacement. We might get the real planes before Super Hornets.



Now *that* is "kicking the can" level 2000 - it's so interim that the final solution was already there by the time it came out, therefore negating the need for the interim airframes.   Brilliant!   >


----------



## dapaterson

In certain instances, the US military has been ordered by Congress to take equipment they neither want nor need.  There can be situations where it is beneficial to push off deliveries for a number of years.  As you (and I) know nothing of Boeing's production line, nothing of the USN capacity to induct new aircraft, nothing of who in Canada and who in the US have had discussions, it's premature to announce that nothing will happen.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In certain instances, the US military has been ordered by Congress to take equipment they neither want nor need.  There can be situations where it is beneficial to push off deliveries for a number of years.



Do you see this happening with the USN consistently getting less SH aircraft than they want each year due to budget cuts? They want more, and aren't getting it. If the money goes up, they'll get more airframes, especially with Trump wanting to negotiate with LockMart to get a better deal. What a great way to get a better price on the F-35 with Boeing getting more SH orders from USN/USMC?


----------



## MarkOttawa

PuckChaser: USMC has no Super Hornet acquisition intent--in any event those planes cannot fly off their own carriers:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400

As for leasing, how might Boeing be involved (though one can imagine terribly convoluted ways)--gov't Nov. 22, note "new":



> ...Canada will immediately explore the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement arrives. The Government will enter into discussions with the U.S. Government and Boeing regarding use of these jets for an interim period of time...
> http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do;jsessionid=e2a745269c5aa8dce20d6d28c5228f5bb8235efbfcff1bdd37e342d00fcef1c0.e34Rc3iMbx8Oai0Tbx0SaxuRbh50?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1158669



Mark
Ottawa

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Leasing doesn't just apply to used things.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Leasing doesn't just apply to used things.



Yep.







http://www.casr.ca/101-af-cu170-heron-uav.htm


----------



## childs56

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> PuckChaser: USMC has no Super Hornet acquisition intent--in any event those planes cannot fly off their own carriers:
> http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400
> 
> As for leasing, how might Boeing be involved (though one can imagine terribly convoluted ways)--gov't Nov. 22, note "new":
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Marines fly F18s Jets off Navy Carriers. 
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/04/22/navy-leans-toward-building-more-super-hornets-after-f-35c-delays/ 
the above is interesting.


----------



## Good2Golf

CTD said:
			
		

> Marines fly F18s Jets off Navy Carriers.
> http://www.defensetech.org/2015/04/22/navy-leans-toward-building-more-super-hornets-after-f-35c-delays/
> the above is interesting.



Legacy C/Ds, not the Super.  They are going straight to F-35B 'jump jets' from the Legacy Hornets.


----------



## observor 69

Wow, thanks for the link.
A super video of the Super Hornet, the music, the production quality make for a real experience.   :christmas happy:


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Legacy C/Ds, not the Super.  They are going straight to F-35B 'jump jets' from the Legacy Hornets.



Isn't the USMC still operating some Harriers?


----------



## Jarnhamar

'jump jets'  seem like they would have a lot of tactical advantages.  Does the jump capacity reduce a jets combat efficiency?


----------



## dapaterson

Limited range, limited payload, increased complexity of systems to maintain... it's a significant contributor to the complexity of the F35 program; omit the USMC requirement for the VTOL variant and the program would likely be significantly advanced from where it is today, since there would only be the A and C models.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 'jump jets'  seem like they would have a lot of tactical advantages.  Does the jump capacity reduce a jets combat efficiency?


It is never as simple as your question.  You want to ask about what are the trade-offs.  To gain capability or increase performance, your design engineers will have to trade-off some other capability or performance.  The end state is something that does some things better and and other things worse.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Folks,
I went back and did a 'clean-up' on the last months posts in this thread.
Lets try and keep this more on the subject matter and less on the personalities posting in it.
Thanks,
Bruce


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think we could be served well by an air superiority fighter like the Typhoon, but, it's cost prohibitive and lacks stealth.



Why buy something that is already 20+ years old?  Why would we be "well served" by it?


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why buy something that is already 20+ years old?  Why would we be "well served" by it?



Yeah...remember when they renamed "EFA-2000" to Eurofighter as 2000 came and went, and Typhoon first flew operationally mid-2003, a third of a decade after its planned date?  :nod:


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why buy something that is already 20+ years old?  Why would we be "well served" by it?



Because most of our missions are defence of Canada missions, and an air superiority fighter would theoretically be best for that.  If the Raptor was available, and cost were no option, I wouldn't have mentioned the Eurofighter.


----------



## Good2Golf

Then wouldn't F-15C40's be the best thing to get?


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Because most of our missions are defence of Canada missions, and an air superiority fighter would theoretically be best for that.  If the Raptor was available, and cost were no option, I wouldn't have mentioned the Eurofighter.



That does not answer the question of "why would we want to buy something that is already 20+ years old".

We had a similar question at the end of the 1980's about replacing our Leopard 1 C1 tanks with M 60's.  Yes, we could have had more M 60's to replace the Leopard fleet, but they were more of a mechanical nightmare to maintain than the Leopards, and perhaps not as sophisticated gunnery wise as the Leopards.  In the end, replacing an aging fleet with another aging fleet was not accepted.  So why do you think we should do so with our Air Force?


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Because most of our missions are defence of Canada missions, and an air superiority fighter would theoretically be best for that.  If the Raptor was available, and cost were no option, I wouldn't have mentioned the Eurofighter.


Except for those pesky airstrike missions on IMPACT and Kosovo...

We're too small for a mixed fleet, we need multirole fighters to do a little bit or everything.


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Then wouldn't F-15C40's be the best thing to get?



I actually forgot the F-15 was still available - yes, it probably would be better.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Except for those pesky airstrike missions on IMPACT and Kosovo...
> 
> We're too small for a mixed fleet, we need multirole fighters to do a little bit or everything.



My personal view is that our major focus should be the defence of Canada, and that we should spend far more money on the Air Force (and navy).  If that means paying for a mixed fleet so be it.  65 F-35s (or Super Hornets if we have to) and 35 F-15s would be a pretty well rounded fleet.

Too bad that's just a fantasy.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> My personal view is that our major focus should be the defence of Canada, and that we should spend far more money on the Air Force (and navy).



Much like cyber security, when you allow a threat to get onto your system (or borders in this case), its already too late. You cannot have a strong military/foreign policy by bottling up and staying within your EEZ.


----------



## Jarnhamar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> My personal view is that our major focus should be the defence of Canada, and that we should spend far more money on the Air Force (and navy).



This doesn't reflect the current threats Canada and Canadians face today.   The defence of Canada is accomplished  by engaging radical extremists in their backyards not repelling Russian bombers.


----------



## CBH99

I understand your logic JMT, and the old me would have agreed.

From a 'birds eye view' focusing on purely military threats, engaging threats away from Canadian soil is ideal.  Much like the video game Command & Conquer, blowing up the enemy ships & bad guys as far away from your own territory is always the most ideal.

Unfortunately we live in this murky world, where the threats being faced by people in the West aren't really military in nature anymore.  While the Russians may fly flights in their far north & occassionally 'venture a wee bit far', and while they may hold drills on their western borders with Europe -- the people in the West aren't at immediate risk of a purely military confrontation.

The real threat is now far gloomier, harder to detect, individuals & groups that operate in the shadows.

Good intelligence, strong law enforcement, strong border security, and killing them before they try to get here is the name of the game these days.

Multi-role fighters capable of performing those roles reasonably well, is ideal for us, given our manpower, budget, and geopolitical climate.

 :2c:


(That isn't to ignore possible military threats.  But as much as our extremely biased media industry tries to keep itself alive on half-truths and fearmongering, the large peer states don't want a fight any more than we do.)


----------



## Journeyman

Then, once you get your head wrapped around the complexities of the purely security- and defence-driven side of the equation (good luck with that), then there are the equally complex political and economic issues, each with their own factors at play:

- local employment, such as construction, maintenance, knock-on employment opportunities linked to defence communities;
- participating in others' procurement through specific parts/technologies;
- assisting others' security through knowledge, experience, and expertise (published or otherwise);
- standing and potential alliance commitments;
- 'quid pro quo' for otherwise unrelated diplomatic/trade initiatives, which come linked to providing security support;
- debt servicing, depending on aircraft source and negotiations;
- _etcetera, etcetera,_.......

Less than  :2c:  since it's just off the top of my head.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This doesn't reflect the current threats Canada and Canadians face today.   The defence of Canada is accomplished  by engaging radical extremists in their backyards not repelling Russian bombers.



Not sure I'd agree.

Our domestic terrorist threats appear to be just that: "domestic".

Re: Protecting Canadians - I think the key issue is if Canada is going to maintain its NATO commitments and continue to try to support fledgling nations like Ukraine.  As long as we are, we owe our military personnel the best weapons systems we can afford to ensure that any conflict with Russia maximizes their casualties and minimizes our own.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Much like cyber security, when you allow a threat to get onto your system (or borders in this case), its already too late. You cannot have a strong military/foreign policy by bottling up and staying within your EEZ.



Nor would I advocate doing only that - it's simply what I see as being our primary focus.  I could of course, be completely wrong, which is very possible.


----------



## NavyShooter

What you see as our primary focus.  AHA, here we have the cusp of the matter.

What is the actual RCAF focus....and what is the government's direction?  

You're worried about you, we're worried about the institution.

See the difference?

NS


----------



## daftandbarmy

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Not sure I'd agree.
> 
> Our domestic terrorist threats appear to be just that: "domestic".
> 
> Re: Protecting Canadians - I think the key issue is if Canada is going to maintain its NATO commitments and continue to try to support fledgling nations like Ukraine.  As long as we are, we owe our military personnel the best weapons systems we can afford to ensure that any conflict with Russia maximizes their casualties and minimizes our own.



More importantly, we want to make sure that we maximize 'deterrence'. 

If the bad guys have better stuff (and leadership) than us, they will have fewer qualms about stepping in and doing what they want without fear of retaliation. Other nations tend to think more in terms of 'acceptable losses' than we do.

You know, like that Obama 'too little, too late' thing  http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-obama-finally-finds-his-courage-pills-now-that-its-too-late-to-matter


----------



## MarkOttawa

RCAF fighter "capability gap"?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/mark-collins-what-stinking-rcaf-fighter-capability-gap-for-norad-and-nato/

Well, with 24 CF-18s recently in California...official tweet:
https://twitter.com/CanadaNATO/status/816215529169879040



> Canada at NATO Verified account
> ‏@CanadaNATO
> 
> #Forces2016 #ExPumaStrike16B @CanadianForces @RCAF_ARC @USMarines @CanCGLA @CanadianAlly @USNATO @usembassyottawa



And from NORAD:



> Exercise PUMA STRIKE: Royal Canadian Air Force conducts training aboard Miramar
> 
> Marine Corps Airstation Miramar, Calif. -- Service members with the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) began Exercise PUMA STRIKE with 24 CF-18 Hornets aboard Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California, Oct. 31.
> 
> Pilots, air crew, technicians and support personnel from 3 Wing, Bagotville; 4 Wing, Canadian Force Base Cold Lake; 17 Wing, Winnipeg; and 414 Electronic Warfare Squadron from Ottawa, Ontario, deployed to MCAS Miramar to conduct this warm weather training exercise...
> http://www.norad.mil/Newsroom/Article/1002309/exercise-puma-strike-royal-canadian-air-force-conducts-training-aboard-miramar/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

These exercises are critical for Force Generation.  Puma Strike is, I believe, an OTU driven exercise meaning is mostly benifits OTU students rather than the fighting units although the line units sometimes piggy back on the exercise as well.  With 24 deployed, I'd say that's the case.  

IIRC, you can generate 2-3 times as much on a deployed exercise than at home, especially in the wintery months.


----------



## MarkOttawa

SupersonicMax: Was engaging in a bit of snark  .

Mark
Ottaa


----------



## Retired AF Guy

I didn't realize that the RCAF still had an EW sqn. Learn something new every day.


----------



## PuckChaser

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I didn't realize that the RCAF still had an EW sqn. Learn something new every day.



Info machine says they fly Alpha Jets, as well as whatever likely classified EW support required.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/3-wing/414-squadron.page


----------



## SupersonicMax

414 is a Squadron of EWOs that fly in the backseat of Alphajets owned and operated by Discovery Air Defense Services (Top Aces).  They do not provide any combat roles but rather are more like a support Squadron, providing a target that may or may not have a jamming pod that may or may not emmit.  They are essentially Red Air to the Hornets.  They also provide targets for ships and FAC training for the Army.


----------



## YZT580

Israel has 40 f16's gently used, well-tested and available right now if we really need a filler.


----------



## Spencer100

I would not say "gently used" but combat tested!


----------



## Quirky

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> These exercises are critical for Force Generation.  Puma Strike is, I believe, an OTU driven exercise meaning is mostly benifits OTU students rather than the fighting units although the line units sometimes piggy back on the exercise as well.  With 24 deployed, I'd say that's the case.
> 
> IIRC, you can generate 2-3 times as much on a deployed exercise than at home, especially in the wintery months.



All the more reason to shut down the sh*t bucket that is cold lake and move the jets back to the island where the temperature is more moderate in the winter.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:
			
		

> All the more reason to shut down the sh*t bucket that is cold lake and move the jets back to the island where the temperature is more moderate in the winter.



Pretty much sums up why the only people that invested in "our" north has been the USAF.


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:
			
		

> All the more reason to shut down the sh*t bucket that is cold lake and move the jets back to the island where the temperature is more moderate in the winter.



While I'd agree generally, neither Comox nor Pat Bay would be able to support all of that.  It's not like there's tons of room to build, since they're pretty much penned in with development now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Quirky said:
			
		

> All the more reason to shut down the **** bucket that is cold lake and move the jets back to the island where the temperature is more moderate in the winter.



yea and the USAF should abandon Alaska as well. It's the price you pay for being an Arctic country.


----------



## quadrapiper

Dimsum said:
			
		

> While I'd agree generally, neither Comox nor Pat Bay would be able to support all of that.  It's not like there's tons of room to build, since they're pretty much penned in with development now.


Shouldn't there be room (to build, at least - not sure how full the existing hangars are) at Comox? Or has MPA and SAR expanded too much since the last time there were fighters, etc.?

Not arguing the advisability - just curious about how much space would be needed versus what's actually available.


----------



## YZT580

Could re-open Port Hardy.  Do wonders for the economy of the north island.  Build a complete new base with all the accessories to handle the SH fleet.  Save having to duplicate resources in several bases and allow us to build for the F35 when they are delivered in 20??


----------



## Ostrozac

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Could re-open Port Hardy.



Treasury Board considers Port Hardy to be an Isolated Post. A geographic location that imposes a fixed tour length posting isn't exactly compatible with keeping aircrew and techs current on the new airframe.


----------



## dimsum

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Shouldn't there be room (to build, at least - not sure how full the existing hangars are) at Comox? Or has MPA and SAR expanded too much since the last time there were fighters, etc.?
> 
> Not arguing the advisability - just curious about how much space would be needed versus what's actually available.



Aside from 407 Sqn and 442 Sqn's hangars, there will be the new school for FWSAR.  

Another issue would be noise - SH is much louder than the legacy Hornet.  I've worked in offices near both and can definitely tell the difference.  FWIW, F-35 is supposed to be even louder than the SH.


----------



## Quirky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Pretty much sums up why the only people that invested in "our" north has been the USAF.



The USAF is properly equipped to run operations out of the north, we aren't. They can deal with a little bit of snow and each aircraft has its own little hangar during flying operations. Jets don't do well in extreme cold sitting outside all day. There hasn't been any money spent on hangar infrastructure up there in years, hangars are falling apart. 

The majority of new techs are from population centres so a posting to cold lake, where you are isolated, won't keep them around for too long. It really is a shit hole.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:
			
		

> The USAF is properly equipped to run operations out of the north, we aren't. They can deal with a little bit of snow and each aircraft has its own little hangar during flying operations. Jets don't do well in extreme cold sitting outside all day. There hasn't been any money spent on hangar infrastructure up there in years, hangars are falling apart.
> 
> The majority of new techs are from population centres so a posting to cold lake, where you are isolated, won't keep them around for too long. It really is a shit hole.



No disagreement Quirky.  In fact it seems to go to my point.  We, Canadians, don't walk our talk.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No disagreement Quirky.  In fact it seems to go to my point.  We, Canadians, don't walk our talk.


 In the early eighties a friend of mine told me of his attempt to sell a conversion kit to the armed force that would in under ten minutes convert any four wheeled vehicle to a tracklayer . 
He got a letter back stating that basically  the Canadian Armed Forces had no interest in Arctic warfare nor would it likely have any in the future..........Yeah  :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Was it this, JKD?

http://trucktracks.com/en/

Well, they're available on the open market if need be.


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:
			
		

> The USAF is properly equipped to run operations out of the north, we aren't. They can deal with a little bit of snow and each aircraft has its own little hangar during flying operations. Jets don't do well in extreme cold sitting outside all day. There hasn't been any money spent on hangar infrastructure up there in years, hangars are falling apart.
> 
> The majority of new techs are from population centres so a posting to cold lake, where you are isolated, won't keep them around for too long. It really is a shit hole.



Bit of a "what-if" - what happens when the majority of pilots and maintainers are from population centres, don't take too kindly to a Cold Lake posting and get out?  Do we institute something like "stop-loss" that the US did in the 2000s?  Will it backfire (likely) and then what?  For that matter, how does the USAF keep their footprint in random places like AK, etc?

Same can be said of the Army and Shilo/Wainwright/etc.


----------



## kev994

Dimsum said:
			
		

> For that matter, how does the USAF keep their footprint in random places like AK, etc?


From what I've seen, if all else fails they send someone who is under contract and is unable to refuse orders (posting message)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Bit of a "what-if" - what happens when the majority of pilots and maintainers are from population centres, don't take too kindly to a Cold Lake posting and get out?  Do we institute something like "stop-loss" that the US did in the 2000s?  Will it backfire (likely) and then what?  For that matter, how does the USAF keep their footprint in random places like AK, etc?
> 
> Same can be said of the Army and Shilo/Wainwright/etc.



The situation in Alaska is a bit different from what you see in a place like Cold Lake, two points:

I've visited Fort Wainwright, where the 25 ID Stryker Bde is located.  It's right beside Fairbanks, which is a city whose metro area is about the same as Fredericton, NB.  It isn't much different than being posted to Gagetown.  Eielson AFB is also only 26 miles from Fairbanks, so basically right beside the place.

The demographic of the US Armed Forces is a bit different from our military in that they've got far less career soldiers.  Go to a US base and you'll note that the soldiers, especially the NCOs are very young.  It's basically do your time, get fed a fire hose for a few years then get out and go to College afterwards.  It's far different from our "get a career for life" messaging.  

Our big problem is Canada is by and large a highly urbanized country, heck 1/2 of our population lives in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.  We are not a very rural country and as a result, when we put our Military bases in the middle of nowhere and then post people from Toronto to Petawawa, of course they're going to be dissatisfied!  They've got zero appreciation of how to actually entertain themselves in a place like that.  Couple this with spouses that are probably from Toronto as well and you've got a big retention problem.  

Our issue is the recruitment pool for the military, traditionally having been rural folk from places like where I grew up (Bathurst, NB) is drying up and we haven't adjusted to that very well.

Likewise, the military has done a piss poor job investing in activities and infrastructure in places like Petawawa to give soldiers activities to keep them interested.  The CAF continually underfunds sports and leisure programs and really can't be bothered to organize anything.  Even simple adventure training is met with scorn.  The old save a dime to spend a dollar is how financial planning works in the CAF.  

Go to Deep River, Ontario where AECL is located, I used to live there.  The place is right beside Petawawa but is night and day, they've got a yacht club, cross country ski club, downhill skiing club and a bunch of different amenities and services.  Petawawa though, which is 4x the size of Deep River has basically nothing and folks are required to drive to Pembroke or Deep River for pretty much anything.


----------



## Altair

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The situation is Alaska is a bit different from what you see in a place like Cold Lake, two points:
> 
> I've visited Fort Wainwright, where the 25 ID Stryker Bde is located.  It's right beside Fairbanks, which is a city whose metro area is about the same as Fredericton, NB.  It isn't much different than being posted to Gagetown.  Eielson AFB is also only 26 miles from Fairbanks, so basically right beside the place.
> 
> The demographic of the US Armed Forces is a bit different from our military in that they've got far less career soldiers.  Go to a US base and you'll note that the soldiers, especially the NCOs are very young.  It's basically do your time, get fed a fire hose for a few years then get out and go to College afterwards.  It's far different from our "get a career for life" messaging.
> 
> Our big problem is Canada is by and large a highly urbanized country, heck 1/2 of our population lives in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.  We are not a very rural country and as a result, when we put our Military bases in the middle of nowhere and then post people from Toronto to Petawawa, of course they're going to be dissatisfied!  They've got zero appreciation of how to actually entertain themselves in a place like that.  Couple this with spouses that are probably from Toronto as well and you've got a big retention problem.
> 
> Our issue is the recruitment pool for the military, traditionally having been rural folk from places like where I grew up (Bathurst, NB) is drying up and we haven't adjusted to that very well.
> 
> Likewise, the military has done a piss poor job investing in activities and infrastructure in places like Petawawa to give soldiers activities to keep them interested.  The CAF continually underfunds sports and leisure programs and really can't be bothered to organize anything.  Even simple adventure training is met with scorn.  The old save a dime to spend a dollar is how financial planning works in the CAF.
> 
> Go to Deep River, Ontario where AECL is located, I used to live there.  The place is right beside Petawawa but is night and day, they've got a yacht club, cross country ski club, downhill skiing club and a bunch of different amenities and services.  Petawawa though, which is 4x the size of Deep River has basically nothing and folks are required to drive to Pembroke or Deep River for pretty much anything.


A posting to a place like shilo or wainwright is the sign to get out for me and my family.


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The situation in Alaska is a bit different ....


A female friend did an exchange posting with the USAF at Elmendorf Air Force Base. Her comment was that, for a woman "the odds are good...but the goods are odd."   ;D


----------



## FSTO

Altair said:
			
		

> A posting to a place like shilo or wainwright is the sign to get out for me and my family.


You joined the wrong service if you are trying to avoid going to so called "out of the way" postings! LOL!

I'm from a farm south of Shilo (Killarney) and still love the area, so don't knock the place without ever having experienced it okay?


----------



## George Wallace

Altair said:
			
		

> A posting to a place like Shilo or Wainwright is the sign to get out for me and my family.



After all your posts on this site, this indicates that you really have NO IDEA what you want.  Nor does it show any true dedication to the CAF on your part, with your total lack of understanding of what the CAF really is all about.  Have you not gained anything from your 'readings' of this site, (If indeed you have been reading what has been posted on this site.) and gained an understanding of what life in the CAF is like?  I am sure that any occupation one would apply for, anywhere in the world, would not change to adapt to the wants of the applicant, but expect the prospective employee to learn and follow the established workings of that occupation.  

With the above comment, I would be of the opinion that it would be best that you NOT join the CAF.  It would save a lot of time and effort, plus expense, of those who are in the Recruiting and Training Systems, and a lot less grief for those who would be in whatever Element/Branch/Unit that you may land up posted to.


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With the above comment, I would be of the opinion that it would be best that you NOT join the CAF.  It would save a lot of time and effort, plus expense, of those who are in the Recruiting and Training Systems, and a lot less grief for those who would be in whatever Element/Branch/Unit that you may land up posted to.



His profile says he's in 2CMBG HQ/Sigs.  

Do you know who doesn't get posted to Shilo/Wainwright?  Aircrew.   :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Pretty sure hard sea trades don't get posted there either.  [


----------



## Jarnhamar

Edited to keep on topic.  (save to say putting your family first is hardly lack of dedication)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Back on topic please.


----------



## Kirkhill

:cheers:





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Back on topic please.


----------



## Loachman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Do you know who doesn't get posted to Shilo/Wainwright?  Aircrew.



Wrong.

Call the CMTC G5 Avn and ask him what his occupation is.


----------



## Altair

George Wallace said:
			
		

> After all your posts on this site, this indicates that you really have NO IDEA what you want.  Nor does it show any true dedication to the CAF on your part, with your total lack of understanding of what the CAF really is all about.  Have you not gained anything from your 'readings' of this site, (If indeed you have been reading what has been posted on this site.) and gained an understanding of what life in the CAF is like?  I am sure that any occupation one would apply for, anywhere in the world, would not change to adapt to the wants of the applicant, but expect the prospective employee to learn and follow the established workings of that occupation.
> 
> With the above comment, I would be of the opinion that it would be best that you NOT join the CAF.  It would save a lot of time and effort, plus expense, of those who are in the Recruiting and Training Systems, and a lot less grief for those who would be in whatever Element/Branch/Unit that you may land up posted to.


I've been in 7 years. Thanks for your advice though. I will definitely talk to my recruiter.

I've been to shilo. I've been to wainwright. I don't like them. As a big city guy with a big city wife, we arent willing to torture ourselves with small town Canadian life for years. The CAF is nice, but with other options in this vast country of ours in big population centers it's not a must for me to stay in. 

That's just how the needs of myself and my family are. Push comes to shove and family comes first.


----------



## Scott

Altair said:
			
		

> I've been in 7 years. Thanks for your advice though. I will definitely talk to my recruiter.
> 
> I've been to shilo. I've been to wainwright. I don't like them. As a big city guy with a big city wife, we arent willing to torture ourselves with small town Canadian life for years. The CAF is nice, but with other options in this vast country of ours in big population centers it's not a must for me to stay in.
> 
> That's just how the needs of myself and my family are. Push comes to shove and family comes first.



Good on you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Altair said:
			
		

> I've been in 7 years. Thanks for your advice though. I will definitely talk to my recruiter.
> 
> I've been to shilo. I've been to wainwright. I don't like them. As a big city guy with a big city wife, we arent willing to torture ourselves with small town Canadian life for years. The CAF is nice, but with other options in this vast country of ours in big population centers it's not a must for me to stay in.
> 
> That's just how the needs of myself and my family are. Push comes to shove and family comes first.



Be glad you were not there in the 80's


----------



## AlexanderM

Trump has plans for the Super Hornet? Where are they going with this? lol

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/trump-tells-twitter-he-wants-a-super-hornet-with-f-35-capabilities


----------



## daftandbarmy

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Trump has plans for the Super Hornet? Where are they going with this? lol
> 
> http://www.defensenews.com/articles/trump-tells-twitter-he-wants-a-super-hornet-with-f-35-capabilities



He's a good negotiator. His opening position is 'you suck 'cause you're too expensive so make me happy'. 

Governments too often dance to the tune of big corporations who use various smoke and mirror approaches to limiting the buying decisions of their main customers: the Public Service on behalf Taxpayers. Costs can therefore be ratcheted up based on perceived vs. actual scarcity or risk.

I'm looking forward to seeing some hard bargaining on behalf of taxpayers in the future... too bad it's only going to happen in America.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> He's a good negotiator. His opening position is 'you suck 'cause you're too expensive so make me happy'.
> 
> Governments too often dance to the tune of big corporations who use various smoke and mirror approaches to limiting the buying decisions of their main customers: the Public Service on behalf Taxpayers. Costs can therefore be ratcheted up based on perceived vs. actual scarcity or risk.
> 
> I'm looking forward to seeing some hard bargaining on behalf of taxpayers in the future... too bad it's only going to happen in America.



 :cheers:


----------



## NavyShooter

Thought.

What if Trump shut down the VTOL B model, going ahead with the less complex (and less expensive) A and C models only, then made the Marines buy the SH instead as an interim (yes, I KNOW it won't work on the LHD's) and told industry to come up with a new VTOL aircraft for the Marines?

I see many downsides to that (reducing the number of planned airframes) but it has some advantages.

One of Trump's big 'things' is to get jobs in the USA.....this would do that.

NS


----------



## ringo

I think it more likely that F35C gets canned replaced with SH, while A and B model production continues.


----------



## Loachman

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> but it has some advantages.



What are these advantages? I do not see any.



			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> One of Trump's big 'things' is to get jobs in the USA.....this would do that.



By dumping all of the effort and money expended to date and starting all over again, with the newer aircraft entering service twenty-plus years hence?



			
				ringo said:
			
		

> I think it more likely that F35C gets canned replaced with SH, while A and B model production continues.



I do not think that that is likely at this point.


----------



## YZT580

NavyShooter raises an interesting question.  Considering that the marine assault ships are intended for just that, assault and that I would envision the primary purpose of the aircraft to be close-in support is stealth capability really a primary necessity or is the stol of greater importance.  The harrier was a good design for close-in support.  would a revamped harrier equipped with improved sensors to enable linking with navy F35 traffic from conventional carriers be a better alternative as in cheaper because of development costs or is it too late in the development stage of the B to abandon it now?  Bear in mind with your replies that I am not an expert.


----------



## GR66

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ...
> is it too late in the development stage of the B to abandon it now?
> ...



I'd suggest that since they announced yesterday the overseas operational deployment of a squadron of F-35B's to Japan that it might be a little too late in the development stage.


----------



## Grizzly

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the C model that is both the most expensive version and the version that is having the most trouble rather than the B? They just reported a new issue with the C model regarding pilot pain during carrier launches and landings that will require a nose landing gear modification to fix. The C is also the only one not to achieve IOC. Here is a link to the nose gear issue:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/expensive-f35-snag-years-to-fix-2017-1


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

YZT580 said:
			
		

> NavyShooter raises an interesting question.  Considering that the marine assault ships are intended for just that, assault and that I would envision the primary purpose of the aircraft to be close-in support is stealth capability really a primary necessity or is the stol of greater importance.  The harrier was a good design for close-in support.  would a revamped harrier equipped with improved sensors to enable linking with navy F35 traffic from conventional carriers be a better alternative as in cheaper because of development costs or is it too late in the development stage of the B to abandon it now?  Bear in mind with your replies that I am not an expert.



If you think of an Amphibious Assault in the traditional sense of troops rolling up in boats on a beach then no, stealth isn't that important; however, things have changed considerably with the advent of the helicopter and "over the horizon amphibious assaults".  This is especially relevant when you consider that primary role of the F35 is STRIKE.  The F35 will be used to punch a hole in an enemy A2AD network for the heliborne force to fly through.  In a sense, it acts as a COVERING FORCE and a SCREEN for the Main Body of Heliborne forces on the way to their respective objectives.  

Consider if the US had to repel a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?  How does an American naval force get close enough to recapture the Island of Taiwan without getting decimated by A2AD and how do you deliver the Marines on to an objective without exposing the main body of troops to an A2AD saturated environment.  This is where Stealth technology comes in to play.


----------



## YZT580

Humphrey, many thanks for that.  I will go back to listening now.


----------



## AlexanderM

What is the true cost of the F-35? I have no idea if the figures in this article are accurate. 

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/trump-asks-boeing-to-price-out-advanced.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Current cost is current cost for partners--but just airframe and engine:



> ...the Pentagon moved forward on its own with the LRIP 9 contract [US FY 2015, started Nov. 1 2014]. Under the $6.1 billion award, Lockheed will deliver 57 F-35 airframes. Including engines, the mandated pricing per aircraft amounted to $102.1 million for each F-35A...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/unilateral-negotiations-still-in-play-for-f-35-cont-432564/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Current cost is current cost for partners--but just airframe and engine:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Mark it is also only the lot cost and does not include other contract costs or modification costs


----------



## MilEME09

Well going by wikipedia, which i know isn't the best, thats only 4 million more then the estimated per unit cost of the super hornet (98.3 million). in the DoD FY 2017 budget $184.9 million is set aside to purchase two aircraft to replace loses. So thats 92.45 million each, ten million less then the F-35 LRIP 9 cost.  By the time LRIP 12 comes around I would suspect those costs to be equal if not less.


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> What is the true cost of the F-35? I have no idea if the figures in this article are accurate.
> 
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/trump-asks-boeing-to-price-out-advanced.html



The answer:  "It depends."

There isn't a single country that has paid the same price.  It depends on what each country negotiates and what each country has included in its respective in-service support package.  

Until a country commits and signs, identifies what the entire price of their respective package and how many airframes they procured, you will never know what a "true cost" of "an" F-35 is.  I've said it before and will repeat it..."per airframe" cost is not a meaningful number without realizing it is simply the math of an agreed upon package price averaged over airframes.

Regards
G2G


----------



## AlexanderM

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The answer:  "It depends."
> 
> There isn't a single country that has paid the same price.  It depends on what each country negotiates and what each country has included in its respective in-service support package.
> 
> Until a country commits and signs, identifies what the entire price of their respective package and how many airframes they procured, you will never know what a "true cost" of "an" F-35 is.  I've said it before and will repeat it..."per airframe" cost is not a meaningful number without realizing it is simply the math of an agreed upon package price averaged over airframes.
> 
> Regards
> G2G


So the cost of the airframe and engine may be $102M, but then one must select the combat systems which may increase the price significantly? Do we have the cost breakdown for the combat systems? I would imagine it can get complicated.


----------



## Kirkhill

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> So the cost of the airframe and engine may be $102M, but then one must select the combat systems which may increase the price significantly? Do we have the cost breakdown for the combat systems? I would imagine it can get complicated.



Wouldn't that mean looking at all the bullets, bombs, missiles and rayguns that the vehicle might carry, now and in the future, considering first and foremost those that have already been tested and approved for carriage?


----------



## AlexanderM

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that mean looking at all the bullets, bombs, missiles and rayguns that the vehicle might carry, now and in the future, considering first and foremost those that have already been tested and approved for carriage?


Combat systems as in Radar, computers, sensor fusion technology, etc, which I'm assuming is not included in the airframe and would be expensive. So the question would be, what is included in the airframe?


----------



## Kirkhill

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Combat systems as in Radar, computers, sensor fusion technology, etc, which I'm assuming is not included in the airframe and would be expensive. So the question would be, what is included in the airframe?



And I think that brings us back to G2G's comment that it depends.

My understanding is that the "sensors" are "fused" with the airframe.  That is part of the charm of the beast.

For the competitors many of the same types of sensors are available as optional, ancillary devices that may, or may not, fuse with the rest of the aircraft and pilot and accompanying forces as well as the package that is represented by the F35.


----------



## GR66

I'd assume that the "combat systems" (radar and other sensors, etc.) and the software to run them ARE included in the airframe cost since they are integral to operating the aircraft (correct me if I'm wrong).  External "add-ons" (like sensor pods) I'm guessing would be extra.

I believe the additional costs that are variable between purchasers would be the in-service support for the aircraft once purchased.  I'm sure it must vary greatly depending on the expected lifespan of the aircraft, expected usage, planned availability rates, expected annual flying hours, etc.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I will clarify.


----------



## MarkOttawa

One extra start-up cost is weapons--how many missiles, bombs, 25mm rounds does one buy?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I guess it depends on how many you intend to drop ... or shoot.

But seriously, not all ordnance becomes useless just because you buy a new plane. I think for the most part, the various loading points and bays in the new plane are designed to take existing ordinance, so whatever stocks we have or ongoing purchase programs for ordinance remain valid.

But overall, it goes back to what I have said wayyyyy back int the original Conservatives F-35 costs debacle thread: Our system of "acquisition project accounting" has to change so that the voters (and all other Canadians that either can't vote or won't) get accurate information and the various figures on (1) how much the acquisition of the actual piece of gear from the manufacturer costs, then, (2) the expected "associated" costs, such as ammunition, hangars, spare parts original buyout, conversion training, etc. , then, (3) the expected costs of operation of the new piece of gear in each year and finally, (4) how each one of those figures will affect each annual defence budget.

Those numbers let everyone discuss these matters intelligently, and avoids a lot of the politicking surrounding major acquisitions.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on how many you intend to drop ... or shoot.
> 
> But seriously, not all ordnance becomes useless just because you buy a new plane. I think for the most part, the various loading points and bays in the new plane are designed to take existing ordinance, so whatever stocks we have or ongoing purchase programs for ordinance remain valid.
> 
> But overall, it goes back to what I have said wayyyyy back int the original Conservatives F-35 costs debacle thread: Our system of "acquisition project accounting" has to change so that the voters (and all other Canadians that either can't vote or won't) get accurate information and the various figures on (1) how much the acquisition of the actual piece of gear from the manufacturer costs, then, (2) the expected "associated" costs, such as ammunition, hangars, spare parts original buyout, conversion training, etc. , then, (3) the expected costs of operation of the new piece of gear in each year and finally, (4) how each one of those figures will affect each annual defence budget.
> 
> Those numbers let everyone discuss these matters intelligently, and avoids a lot of the politicking surrounding major acquisitions.



Thumbs up on that OGBD.

But it also depends on our politicians playing fair and not doing their best to obscure the situation for their partisan advantage.


----------



## dimsum

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But it also depends on our politicians playing fair and not doing their best to obscure the situation for their partisan advantage.



I have some oceanfront property for sale in Saskatchewan that I think you'd love  >


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I have some oceanfront property for sale in Saskatchewan that I think you'd love  >



To sleep, perchance to dream.   [

And by the way - spent way too much time in Saskatchewan.


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I have some oceanfront property for sale in Saskatchewan that I think you'd love  >



I did skiing and sailing in Saskatchewan, but the beaches were not quite as nice as the Caribbean...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I did skiing and sailing in Saskatchewan, but the beaches were not quite as nice as the Caribbean...



Wait until after the 'Big One' hits in BC


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sen. John McCain wants 58 more Super Hornets, 16 more Growlers for USN (p. 13 PDF):
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/25bff0ec-481e-466a-843f-68ba5619e6d8/restoring-american-power-7.pdf

Mark Collins


----------



## CBH99

The US really is Rome before the fall...

One of the quotes in the article references the damage that has been done to the US Military in the past 8 years due to such severe budget cuts.  This isn't true.  The US defense budget, as it stands now, is larger than it ever was even under President Bush.

The decline in US military power is brutally overstated, and is the fault of none other than US military leadership.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on how many you intend to drop ... or shoot.
> 
> But seriously, not all ordnance becomes useless just because you buy a new plane. I think for the most part, the various loading points and bays in the new plane are designed to take existing ordinance, so whatever stocks we have or ongoing purchase programs for ordinance remain valid.
> 
> But overall, it goes back to what I have said wayyyyy back int the original Conservatives F-35 costs debacle thread: Our system of "acquisition project accounting" has to change so that the voters (and all other Canadians that either can't vote or won't) get accurate information and the various figures on (1) how much the acquisition of the actual piece of gear from the manufacturer costs, then, (2) the expected "associated" costs, such as ammunition, hangars, spare parts original buyout, conversion training, etc. , then, (3) the expected costs of operation of the new piece of gear in each year and finally, (4) how each one of those figures will affect each annual defence budget.
> 
> Those numbers let everyone discuss these matters intelligently, and avoids a lot of the politicking surrounding major acquisitions.



I infer that the internal weapons stores may constrain which weapons may be carried and that if a future weapon does not fit or can't handle the interior temperatures then it would have to be hung on a outside pylon. So with the adoption of the F35, the pressure will be that any design of a future weapon should fit those bays. It may be a non-issue with the miniaturization of electronics.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CBC scare headline is service life cost--talks underway with US gov't, Boeing:



> Stopgap Super Hornet purchase could have $5B to $7B price tag
> _Canada aims to begin receiving U.S.-made fighter jets by 2019_
> 
> The Trudeau government has begun talks with Washington about the sole-source purchase of up to 18 Super Hornet jet fighters.
> 
> The measure, intended as a stopgap solution to ease pressure on the air force's aging fleet of CF-18s, could cost taxpayers between $5 billion and $7 billion over the lifetime of the aircraft, according to data circulating within the Department of National Defence and shared with CBC News by sources who insisted upon anonymity.
> 
> The figures are only preliminary, but they are backed up by U.S. congressional budget information.
> 
> CBC News was granted rare, extraordinary access to officials and facilities belonging to Boeing, the U.S. manufacturer of the Super Hornet, and to the U.S. navy's principal air base where the fighters operate and train. During that visit, Boeing officials confirmed Canada has begun talks with the Pentagon to buy the planes.
> 
> The decision to buy 18 warplanes in a sole-source deal, originally announced last fall, is meant to address what the Liberal government describes as an urgent "capability gap."..
> 
> There are questions about what kind of deal Canada will get on the Super Hornets, especially with the new U.S. administration.
> 
> A final agreement, which requires congressional approval, will take about a year to negotiate, but CBC News has learned the Liberal government has already signalled it would like to see the first aircraft arrive in 2019, which would coincide with the next election.
> 
> A Boeing official, when asked, confirmed both the timeline and anticipated delivery date, and said the company is currently waiting for formal, written notice — known as a letter of request — from the Canadian government, which will be submitted to the U.S. Pentagon within the next few weeks.
> 
> Dan Gillian, Boeing's vice-president of the F-18 programs, said the company is looking at how production of Canadian jets can be slotted alongside existing orders from the U.S. navy and Kuwait. Boeing currently produces two Super Hornets a month.
> 
> "We think we can build all of those airplanes in time to meet the customer demands," said Gillan. "We may have to increase production rate, but that is very doable."..
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-super-hornets-1.3956306



A rather confused account of unit costs follows.  For the real current ballpark see this from US Navy (at end of story):



> ...the Navy’s revised list...includ[es] $2.3 billion for 24 additional F/A-18 Super Hornets...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/light-attack-fighter-work-f-35-top-revised-usaf-wish-list



US dollars, you do the arithmetic.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Roughly 3 billion canadian for 24 jets that would be. Still a lot of money but that doesnt sound like 5 to 7 to me.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## MarkOttawa

MilEME09: As my post noted $5/$7 billion was service life cost.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> MilEME09: As my post noted $5/$7 billion was service life cost.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Ack, missed that line, why does the media love service life cost so much? 7 billion over the 40 years we will use them doesnt sound so bad.......

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser

Life cycle cost makes a little more sense in this case, because it's an increase in capability (more parts/maintainers/pilots) and a one-off purchase.  Applying it for a replacement program is just dumb as we're paying for all that jazz regardless of what we buy.


----------



## jmt18325

I think the net lifecycle costs would be a far more useful measure.


----------



## dapaterson

Any time we replace an existing capability, we are deciding whether or not to continue doing things the same way, with the same number of people doing the same thing.  If, for example, we decide to fully contract out second line for a vehicle fleet, that in turn impacts the number of vehicle techs (and potentially civilian mechanics) we have on our establishments. If we buy ten trucks to replace forty, there are potential reductions in the number of operators.

All those represent costs to DND.  That we may reallocate that effort elsewhere does not mean that capturing those costs is not relevant; it's part of making informed decisions.

Too often, though, the Army, Navy or Air Force begins with the assumption "I will keep all the people to do what I want, and the new equipment will sort itself out".  Unfortunately, in a zero sum game like Reg F personnel (the Government has said "You've got 68 000, all in"), that's not necessarily an optimal decision; those positions need to be moved - so if we retire the Airbuses and don't replace them (hypothetical example), then maybe those positions get converted from aircrew and ground crew into Bosuns, stokers and MARS officers to man HMCS Bonnie the Second.

Of course, those costs need to be well explained - and often DND does a poor job of explaining them.  So a press release announces "$600M for trucks!" when in fact, DND should have said "We're spending $100M to buy new trucks; $50M to replace obsolete garages and workshops; $300M for personnel costs in support of the trucks over 20 years (drivers and mechanics); $60M for fuel over 20 years; $60M for spare parts over 20 years; $25M for driver and mechanic training over 20 years; and $5M at end-of life to dispose of them safely."


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Any time we replace an existing capability, we are deciding whether or not to continue doing things the same way, with the same number of people doing the same thing.  If, for example, we decide to fully contract out second line for a vehicle fleet, that in turn impacts the number of vehicle techs (and potentially civilian mechanics) we have on our establishments. If we buy ten trucks to replace forty, there are potential reductions in the number of operators.
> 
> All those represent costs to DND.  That we may reallocate that effort elsewhere does not mean that capturing those costs is not relevant; it's part of making informed decisions.
> 
> Too often, though, the Army, Navy or Air Force begins with the assumption "I will keep all the people to do what I want, and the new equipment will sort itself out".  Unfortunately, in a zero sum game like Reg F personnel (the Government has said "You've got 68 000, all in"), that's not necessarily an optimal decision; those positions need to be moved - so if we retire the Airbuses and don't replace them (hypothetical example), then maybe those positions get converted from aircrew and ground crew into Bosuns, stokers and MARS officers to man HMCS Bonnie the Second.
> 
> Of course, those costs need to be well explained - and often DND does a poor job of explaining them.  So a press release announces "$600M for trucks!" when in fact, DND should have said "We're spending $100M to buy new trucks; $50M to replace obsolete garages and workshops; $300M for personnel costs in support of the trucks over 20 years (drivers and mechanics); $60M for fuel over 20 years; $60M for spare parts over 20 years; $25M for driver and mechanic training over 20 years; and $5M at end-of life to dispose of them safely."



You make an excellent point about prioritizing the "effort".

My personal sequence of events.... FWIW

Decide the effort 
Decide the kit
Decide the bodies
Decide the command

Surplus PYs after the bodies have been determined to be assigned to the infantry - the only trade that, IMO, can't be replaced by a motor.  (That sounds harsher than I want it to - but better words escape me just now.)   And Privates are cheap.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think the net lifecycle costs would be a far more useful measure.



Also clearly indicating what "life cycle costs" are included in the numbers, but that doesn't sell headlines.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Review of article by Ottawa U. Prof. Srdjan Vucetic (knows his stuff) on how Canadian print media handled Conservatives' effort to acquire the F-35--almost all about politics and supposed costs, not substance of what plane should be bought and why.  Surprise:

H-Diplo Article Review 678 on “Who Framed the F-35? Government-Media Relations in Canadian Defence Procurement.”
https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/165289/h-diplo-article-review-678-%E2%80%9Cwho-framed-f-35-government-media

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Also clearly indicating what "life cycle costs" are included in the numbers, but that doesn't sell headlines.



So, maybe, the "life cycle costs" of maintaining the CAF for the life of the longest lived piece of inventory should be the bench-mark?  So, Korean War vintage guns in service until 2050 gives a window of 100 years and a budget of $20,000,000,000 = a Baseline Cost of $2,000,000,000,000 to supply the capability (and that is $ Trillion x 2).

How much of that budget do the fighters consume?  And how often do they have to be refreshed, in whole or in part?

Of course the same logic should be applied to Canada Post, the CBC, (edit: the RCMP) and all of the Government of Canada Administration.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Of course the same logic should be *but isn't *applied to Canada Post, the CBC, (edit: the RCMP) and all of the Government of Canada Administration.



FTFY, just to be clear. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## suffolkowner

Are not some of these institutions mandated to overturn their capital equipment on a certain time frame and roll whatever they get into the replacement equipment. I'm thinking specifically about the RCMP but I'm sure I've seen others


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So, maybe, the "life cycle costs" of maintaining the CAF for the life of the longest lived piece of inventory should be the bench-mark?  So, Korean War vintage guns in service until 2050 gives a window of 100 years and a budget of $20,000,000,000 = a Baseline Cost of $2,000,000,000,000 to supply the capability (and that is $ Trillion x 2).
> 
> How much of that budget do the fighters consume?  And how often do they have to be refreshed, in whole or in part?
> 
> Of course the same logic should be applied to Canada Post, the CBC, (edit: the RCMP) and all of the Government of Canada Administration.



or WWII pistols....


----------



## MarkOttawa

From PM Trudeau/President Trump joint statement today (Feb. 13)--statement overall could almost have mainly written by Canadian side.  But have we lost price leverage with Boeing?:



> ...
> The United States welcomes Canada’s recently announced decision to launch an open and transparent competition to replace its legacy fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft. The United States also welcomes Canada’s decision to explore the immediate acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft as an interim capability to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement is ready. Canada appreciates the cooperation of the United States to facilitate these processes...
> http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/02/13/joint-statement-president-donald-j-trump-and-prime-minister-justin-trudeau



No direct mention of missile defence, nothing on Canadian defence spending nor on UN peacekeeping--cf. these two Globe and Mail pieces:



> Trudeau to emphasize common ground in Trump meeting
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will use his first face-to-face meeting with President Donald Trump on Monday to propose broad areas of co-operation to boost jobs and continental security – ranging from joint infrastructure projects to cyber and energy security and possibly Canada joining the U.S. missile-defence shield...
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-to-emphasize-common-ground-in-meeting-with-trump/article33995593/
> 
> Justin Trudeau will tread carefully on global security in Trump meeting
> 
> Justin Trudeau was going to bring Canada back into UN peacekeeping. Now, that’s on hold as he waits to understand Donald Trump’s global priorities...
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-will-tread-carefully-on-global-security-in-trump-meeting/article33995381/



I think the preparations by our government were excellent; and LGEN Flynn surely distracted POTUS today.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From PM Trudeau/President Trump joint statement today (Feb. 13)--statement overall could almost have mainly written by Canadian side.  But have we lost price leverage with Boeing?:
> 
> No direct mention of missile defence, nothing on Canadian defence spending nor on UN peacekeeping--cf. these two Globe and Mail pieces:
> 
> I think the preparations by our government were excellent; and LGEN Flynn surely distracted POTUS today.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Acquisition - the acquiring of.  

Purchase is one option.  Lease, loan, beg, steal or borrow.   

Perhaps 18 Super Hornets, based over seas with US supplying support and training and Canadians supplying 18 pilots and contribution to the US budget.


----------



## dimsum

So this appeared 4 hours ago on Laurie Hawn's FB (highlight mine):


> Speaking truth to power can be risky
> 
> I re-confirmed that this week by speaking out rather more forcefully than was appreciated to the Commander of the RCAF and the Chief of the Defence Staff, on the issue of the CF-18 replacement. This is a condensation of some of my main points, and I know that senior military leaders have their hands tied. As followers will know, I have been very critical of the 100% politically motivated plan to buy 18 “interim” Super Hornets for some time and the story only gets worse.
> 
> We could fill the fabricated “capability gap” with 27 F-18C/D aircraft from Kuwait at the bargain basement price of $330 million, but we’re not pursuing it. We could also upgrade our 76 CF-18s to Super Hornet system status for about 20% of what it will cost us to buy 18 Super Hornets. Rather than pursue either of those options, we’d rather waste about USD 5.4 Billion on 18 aircraft with no real increase in capability. The cost of 90 F-35As will be USD 8.5 Billion (USD 94.6 million per) in the latest contract; and that unit cost will come down to USD 85 million by the time we should be receiving our first aircraft about 2020. What is wrong with this picture?
> 
> The F-18C is virtually identical to our CF-18s, while the Super Hornet is very different in size, radar, engines, mission computers and other systems. We don’t have the qualified technicians, pilots and support capacity to manage our current fleet; and adding a dissimilar fleet will make a very difficult job impossible. We are losing pilots to release at a rate that is unsustainable, and there is no ether that we can dip into to hive off more to get trained on the Super Hornet.
> 
> Neither the CF-18 nor Super Hornet actually has the kinematics to properly execute our primary mission of peacetime air sovereignty, with commercial aircraft operating above 40,000 feet. F-35 can properly execute that mission, and many more. The real experts were not consulted and, in fact, 240 of them have been muzzled with lifetime non-disclosure agreements. Why would a government with nothing to hide do that? The answer is that they wouldn’t, and this government has a lot to hide. It would be nice if the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner would take an interest. The options analysis that was conducted and clearly showed F-35 to be the answer has been suppressed, because it didn’t conform to the Prime Minister’s foolish and inaccurate statements during and since the 2015 campaign. And you thought that Donald Trump was the only purveyor of “alternate facts”.
> 
> Super Hornet also has serious safety concerns with the oxygen system that has resulted in 297 (reported) incidents that have resulted in the permanent grounding of some aircrew. Can we afford that and has anyone done a risk analysis of operating Super Hornet?
> An open and fair competition could be started tomorrow and take no more than a year; but the government wants to kick the can down the road until after the next election. If the Statement of Requirements (SOR) is not “modified” to eliminate F-35, that aircraft would win any fair competition, just as it has in so many other cases. There’s good reason to believe that the SOR is being “massaged”. There will be nothing interim about a Super Hornet buy. Even if F-35 were to win a rigged competition, the sudden realization will be that, “Gosh, we just cannot afford a mixed fleet and we’ll just have to buy more Super Hornets.” The first part of that statement would be correct – we cannot afford a mixed fleet of Super Hornet and F-35 down the road, just as we cannot afford a mixed fleet of CF-18 and Super Hornet today.
> 
> The latest bit of insanity is that we are looking at buying two-seat Super Hornets and putting navigators in the back seat as Weapons System Operators (WSO). Our primary mission is air defence and there are no two-seat air defence fighters in the world today. There is a reason for that - navigators in fighters and many other applications have been overtaken by technology years ago. To be sure, fighter pilots will also eventually be overtaken by technology; but for the next few decades they have a job to do. We have no capacity to train WSOs, even if someone did invent a reason to want to do so.
> 
> The bottom line is that we can’t afford to do what we’re doing for a wide variety of reasons – Canadian sovereignty and security, financial, technical, personnel, moral, alliance support, Canadian industry, etc. If we carry on, I firmly believe and many others share my belief that we will kill the fighter force. I simply can’t support that and my conscience will not let me stay silent and be deemed complicit by that silence. I have been in and around the RCAF for 53 years and it is soul destroying to see what is happening in the name of politics. As anticipated, my vocal opposition to the plan was not well received by the most senior leadership of the RCAF and Canadian Armed Forces. I was asked to resign my position of Honourary Colonel of 401 Tactical Fighter Squadron (the oldest Squadron in the RCAF, 20 Nov 1918). That, I dutifully did, but since I’m not important enough to have sword, I just fell on my pen-knife.
> 
> I will continue to advocate for what I think is in the best interests of the RCAF, Canada, our aerospace industry AND taxpayers. Most Canadians may not really care about Super Hornet versus F-35, but I think they do care about the waste of billions of dollars for very little return, especially if it’s purely in the name of politics.



I agree broadly with everything except for the yellow bit.  Sure, the CF-18 role domestically is NORAD, but we've been using them to hit ground targets in far off places for a few decades now, and that makes it de facto "multi-role" even if it wasn't written into the spec.  The USN, USMC and RAAF use Ds and Fs - both with WSOs - in addition to their single seat Cs and Es.  I'm not wading (again) into if that is better or worse, but the point is two-seater aircraft are still used for fleet air defense.  

The "training system" bit is a red herring.  Sure, the initial cadre would be trained elsewhere (USN or RAAF primarily) but then it'd be a matter of bringing a few more PYs into 410 Sqn or wherever their OTU ends up being.  If we were to adopt the F-35, the initial cadre of Pilots would be trained elsewhere too.  

https://www.facebook.com/laurie.hawn.9/posts/1294479427303345


----------



## SupersonicMax

This is a capability we don't have and that would need to be built from the ground up. It would take years to create such a capability then maintain it for a squadron of 18 aircraft?  What exactly is this going to add in term of net capability?  We can do the job without now.  Would the pain of creating this capability outweigh the benefits?  In my informed opinion, no.  

From my experience operating with our ACSOs/EWOs and sharing a cockpit with USN's WSOs (and speaking in general terms), there would need to have a shift in focus and attitude from the ACSO's community to fit in the fighter community.  Perhaps training pipeliners through USN's training pipe would be the better option.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> This is a capability we don't have and that would need to be built from the ground up. It would take years to create such a capability then maintain it for a squadron of 18 aircraft?  What exactly is this going to add in term of net capability?  We can do the job without now.  Would the pain of creating this capability outweigh the benefits?  In my informed opinion, no.
> 
> From my experience operating with our ACSOs/EWOs and sharing a cockpit with USN's WSOs (and speaking in general terms), there would need to have a shift in focus and attitude from the ACSO's community to fit in the fighter community.  Perhaps training pipeliners through USN's training pipe would be the better option.



To be honest, I'm not of the opinion that we need Fs either - my comments were directed in that it's not a monumental undertaking, and that we're not blazing new ground (or going back to archaic ways) if this were to happen.

What is the shift needed in your opinion for ACSOs to work in the fighter community?  The RAAF does what we do now for the Supers - stream all ACSOs through a common wings program, then off to OTUs to teach the real meat of the stuff.  The shift in focus and attitude can be done in the OTUs.  

Unless things have changed drastically, Nav school and OTU are totally separate beasts in focus/attitude already - I doubt very much that any Sea King TACCO uses much of the stuff they learned from 1 CFFTS.

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So is the recruitment and retention issues afflicting the RCAF more of the same that afflicts all of the Forces or are there additional issues?


----------



## Kirkhill

Actually, I think including a couple of F's in the buy is an excellent idea.

Then you can take the programme managers from Public Services and Procurement Canada along for the ride when operating over Syria, the Black Sea, the Baltic....the Sea of Japan.....

It would be a useful experience for them, I'm sure.


----------



## Quirky

Colin P said:
			
		

> So is the recruitment and retention issues afflicting the RCAF more of the same that afflicts all of the Forces or are there additional issues?



It's pretty bad here in the fighter world, can't blame them for wanting to leave the shit hole that is cold lake.


----------



## Loachman

When I was in Germany, 80% of the fighter guys posted home put their releases in, because they'd had their good tour, and knew that the rest of their careers would be spent between Bagotville and Cold Lake.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> my comments were directed in that it's not a monumental undertaking, and that we're not blazing new ground (or going back to archaic ways) if this were to happen.



This is exactly my point: it is not a simple process.  You can't compare us to the RAAF.  They had this capabilities for at least the last 40 years, with their F-111s and now Rhinos/Growlers.  They have people with experience at all levels of training to decide whether an individual have the required traits to make it in the stream.  We don't.  Also, it would not make sense to get an OTU for 18 jets.  I suspect we'll train our pilots and potential WSOs at the USN RAG.  For me, taking new ACSOs and sending them to the Navy for WSO training would provide screening and expert, tailored training for the role.

Loachman: Bagotville is probably th best hidden secret in the Air Force.


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Loachman: Bagotville is probably th best hidden secret in the Air Force.



It may not have been thirty years ago, or maybe just not with the Anglo guys. Maybe the Francos were the 20% not bailing.

I heard that claim from several. I used to go to Baden for one Happy Hour per month, as I knew quite a few people, including guys from my course in Moose Jaw - and the Mess shenanigans were a little different as well.

Airlines were hiring as well.


----------



## dapaterson

... besides, pilots don't want adult supervision in their aircraft... :stirpot:


----------



## Loachman

Backseat drivers...

I've flown over 4000 hours without a navigator. Show me a navigator who's flown even a small fraction of an hour without a Pilot.


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Backseat drivers...
> 
> I've flown over 4000 hours without a navigator. Show me a navigator who's flown even a small fraction of an hour without a Pilot.



On the other hand, how many ACSOs have done controlled flight into terrain, vs the number of pilots who have done it?


----------



## SupersonicMax

You don't need a backseater to avoid CFIT.  Look up Auto-GCAS.  Here's a video of a real save on an F-16C (single seat): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZGL7RQBVw

Obviously, all the piloting mistakes will be made by pilots since they are the ones in charge of flying the aircraft and the aircraft itself.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> On the other hand, how many ACSOs have done controlled flight into terrain, vs the number of pilots who have done it?



No nav has ever got himself and his Pilot lost, in cloud, in mountainous terrain...?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile Boeing pitching Block 3--rather than Super Super Hornet (aka "advanced")--to USN.  Price? RCAF?



> Boeing’s Souped-Up Super Hornet Adds Smart U.S. Navy Firepower
> 
> As President Donald Trump signals he may reconsider the mix of F-35Cs and F/A-18s for the carrier air wing of the 2020s and beyond, Boeing is pitching an upgraded “Block 3” Super Hornet designed to add firepower and act as a smart node on the U.S. Navy’s future network.
> 
> While the service’s first F-35Cs will come online in 2018, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet will make up at least half of the carrier air wing through the 2040s. The challenge is to keep the Super Hornet, an airframe originally designed in the 1990s, relevant and effective against advanced threats into the middle of the century.
> 
> That issue is nothing new for Boeing, but the discussion about the next step for Super Hornet has shifted in the past few years. While the “Advanced Super Hornet” Boeing proposed in 2013 focused on stealth, the new and improved Block 3 is designed to optimize the Navy’s integrated network architecture, says Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager.
> 
> The big question for the carrier air wing through the 2030s, says Gillian, is:  “How can the Super Hornet evolve in a complementary way with the E-2D [Hawkeye] and Growler to help address some of those carrier gaps?”
> 
> Boeing believes the Navy could detail a plan to procure the Super Hornet Block 3 as soon as the fiscal 2018 budget proposal, expected later this spring. A fiscal 2019 buy would mean Boeing could have aircraft off the production line in the early 2020s, Gillian notes...
> 
> Gillian envisions a Block 3 Super Hornet working in tandem with the stealthy F-35C, Growler’s full-spectrum jammer and E-2D’s early-warning capability to dominate the skies. The addition of a long-range infrared sensor (IRST) will allow Block 3 to detect and track advanced threats from a distance, while conformal fuel tanks (CFT) will extend range by 100-120 nm. The CFTs are designed to replace the extra fuel tanks Super Hornets currently sling under the wing, reducing weight and drag and enabling additional payload.
> 
> These changes allow a fully loaded Block 3 Super Hornet to operate in conjunction with a stealthy F-35, providing air cover and greater magazine depth.
> 
> “You can have an F-35 in its very stealthy way doing a deep-strike mission with Super Hornet providing air superiority at that same range, or you can have Super Hornet carrying large standoff weapons that F-35 cannot carry, with F-35 providing some air cover,” Gillian says. “You get very mission-flexible, so range is important.”..
> 
> _Certain features of the 2013 proposal, such as the enclosed weapons pod and internal IRST sensor, were dropped from the 2016-17 package because Boeing’s analysis determined the Super Hornet was “stealthy enough_ [emphasis added]”—it can fly full-up and still be survivable. Boeing engineers found they needed to make design compromises to significantly reduce the aircraft’s radar cross-section—for instance, by restricting payload.
> 
> “At some point we drew a line that would allow us to be stealthy enough in a balanced survivable way to be effective, and that is what we think we have,” Gillian says. “The F-35 is a stealthier airplane, but we have a balanced approach to survivability, including electronic warfare and self-protection.”
> 
> Block 3 also features an advanced computing infrastructure designed to take advantage of the future carrier air wing’s sophisticated sensor architecture. The aircraft will have an advanced cockpit system with a large-area display for improved user interface, a more powerful computer called the Distributed Targeting Processor Network (DTPN), and a bigger data pipe for passing information known as Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT). TTNT is already a program of record for Growler and E-2D, and DTPN is also fielded on the Growler...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-s-souped-super-hornet-adds-smart-us-navy-firepower



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ostrozac

> The latest bit of insanity is that we are looking at buying two-seat Super Hornets and putting navigators in the back seat as Weapons System Operators (WSO). Our primary mission is air defence and _there are no two-seat air defence fighters in the world today._ There is a reason for that - navigators in fighters and many other applications have been overtaken by technology years ago.



The SU-30 and MIG-31 are certainly two-seat air defence fighters (and so are Iran's F-14). All due respect to Laurie Hawn, but just because he thinks that backseaters are a bad idea doesn't mean that he can throw out statements like that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The SU-30 and MIG-31 are certainly two-seat air defence fighters (and so are Iran's F-14). All due respect to Laurie Hawn, but just because he thinks that backseaters are a bad idea doesn't mean that he can throw out statements like that.



All of the aircraft you just pointed out are 30 year old designs.  In the case of the F14, the first flight was in 1970!  I'm sure our aviators in WWII would have loved to fly around in Sopwith Camels while taking on Me109s.   :

Sorry, I don't see the point of your argument.

I shouldn't be surprised though, Discussing Defence issues in Canada is a lot like reading a Cosmopolitan, the argumentation is cute but devoid of any real substance whatsoever.


----------



## Loachman

And the Iranian F14s haven't had access to spares for about four decades.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Loachman said:
			
		

> Backseat drivers...
> 
> I've flown over 4000 hours without a navigator. Show me a navigator who's flown even a small fraction of an hour without a Pilot.



In your fleet(s), sure.  I've done missions with 3 ACSOs (1 TacNav and 2 NavComms) onboard and all going pretty steady for an 8 hour ONSTA.


----------



## dapaterson

Yes, but your community spends much more time on operations than others.


----------



## The Bread Guy

I was 50-50 about putting this in the Politics thread, but it's still relevant here, so here it is - from Laurie Hawn's FB page (highlights mine)...


> I re-confirmed that this week by speaking out rather more forcefully than was appreciated to the Commander of the RCAF and the Chief of the Defence Staff, on the issue of the CF-18 replacement.
> 
> (...)
> 
> The bottom line is that we can’t afford to do what we’re doing for a wide variety of reasons – Canadian sovereignty and security, financial, technical, personnel, moral, alliance support, Canadian industry, etc. If we carry on, I firmly believe and many others share my belief that we will kill the fighter force. *I simply can’t support that and my conscience will not let me stay silent and be deemed complicit by that silence. I have been in and around the RCAF for 53 years and it is soul destroying to see what is happening in the name of politics. As anticipated, my vocal opposition to the plan was not well received by the most senior leadership of the RCAF and Canadian Armed Forces. I was asked to resign my position of Honourary Colonel of 401 Tactical Fighter Squadron (the oldest Squadron in the RCAF, 20 Nov 1918). That, I dutifully did*, but since I’m not important enough to have sword, I just fell on my pen-knife ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

At they very least, more time ONSTA.  Point, ACSOs are more than just backseat drivers in the RCAF and some fleets _can't _fly without them.  There's more to an air force than its fighter force, and fighters aren't the only platforms that operate ISO the NORAD stuff.   :2c:

That is one switched-on, professional looking crew in the picture  ;D.


----------



## Loachman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In your fleet(s), sure.  I've done missions with 3 ACSOs (1 TacNav and 2 NavComms) onboard and all going pretty steady for an 8 hour ONSTA.



Without a Pilot? Methinks not. Sitting in the front seat? Methinks not.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Loachman said:
			
		

> Without a Pilot? Methinks not. Sitting in the front seat? Methinks not.



And without technicians, the aircraft would not be flying; without AESOPs it would just be an airliner.

This is pointless. A modern combat aircraft is a team effort- trying to decide which is the "critical" MOSID is pointless.


----------



## Loachman

Yes, I know...

There just aren't any uppity Flight Engineers here to use that one on.


----------



## dapaterson

In the Army, we let Corporal drive the bus.  Just saying...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, but your community spends much more time on operations than others.



Do they though?  

I'd say the spread across the Air Force is probably pretty equal across the platforms in terms of aircraft being employed operationally.  Fighter jets are on NORAD duty 24/7, 365 days a year.  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the Army, we let Corporal drive the bus.  Just saying...



The difference being, the bus costs thousands as opposed to millions of dollars per individual aircraft.  



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And without technicians, the aircraft would not be flying; without AESOPs it would just be an airliner.
> 
> This is pointless. A modern combat aircraft Warfare is a team effort- trying to decide which is the "critical" MOSID is pointless.



TFTFY


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> A modern combat aircraft is a team effort- trying to decide which is the "critical" MOSID is pointless.



That was my point, just didn't quite make it as well as you did.   :nod:

Sometimes the folks we called "Driver" in the blackhat world need to be reminded they're just part of the effort that makes a mission a success.  You can fill a CP-140 with 20 pilots.  The best ones in the RCAF, or heck, make it the Aurora community.  The only way it is moving, let alone taking off, is behind a Mule.  

And that Mule...would be operated by maintainers.   

Sorry for the slight derail!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Do they though?
> 
> I'd say the spread across the Air Force is probably pretty equal across the platforms in terms of aircraft being employed operationally.  Fighter jets are on NORAD duty 24/7, 365 days a year.



Well, part of the NORAD missions is the maritime approaches as well, and Aurora crews are on duty 24/7, 365 days a year, west and east coast.  I had a few no fly months last year, and I still logged IVO 750 hours. 

NORAD link

NORAD Mission
The North American Aerospace Defense Command conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defense of North America. 

NORAD Missions

In close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners, prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.

I'd say each community is pulling their weight, and then some.  We have a small force afterall, and getting new platforms is a royal PITA, as this and other threads on here have proven.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the Army, we let Corporal drive the bus.  Just saying...


And if remember correctly, in WW2, it was overwhelmingly NCO's flying gliders - when they had only one chance to get 'er right >


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That was my point, just didn't quite make it as well as you did.   :nod:
> 
> Sometimes the folks we called "Driver" in the blackhat world need to be reminded they're just part of the effort that makes a mission a success.  You can fill a CP-140 with 20 pilots.  The best ones in the RCAF, or heck, make it the Aurora community.  The only way it is moving, let alone taking off, is behind a Mule.
> 
> And that Mule...would be operated by maintainers appropriately qualified and authorized personnel.
> 
> Sorry for the slight derail!



I have seen Flight Engineers, Loadmasters and Pilots qualified on D-4 (and FE and LM on D-8 and up).  Can't vouch for Nav/ACSOs or AESOPs as I did my own navigation and operated my own EO-IR.  

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman

So...








Who gets to tow the CF18 replacement?


----------



## SupersonicMax

I think it's a very difficult question to answer right now..


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I have seen Flight Engineers, Loadmasters and Pilots qualified on D-4 (and FE and LM on D-8 and up).  Can't vouch for Nav/ACSOs or AESOPs as I did my own navigation and operated my own EO-IR.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Shhhhhhhhhhhh...I am trying to get this thread interesting for a bit with some  :slapfight: stuff.   8)

And..okay, the Aurora can be towed around with a Mule driven by a Pilot, works for me too.  The other 20 onboard _still_ aren't getting off the ground.   8)


----------



## Underway

Would there be a possibility of the F/A-18F being converted into a Growler (prewired etc...)?  Also, the Advanced Super Hornet AFAIK only comes in the F derived model so a two seater is the only option if that is what the Gov't is looking at.  What's the advantage/disadvantage for a Nav in the back of a regular two seat fighter (serious question)?  I can understand a Growler (task management for the EW portion) but why the Rhino?


----------



## Loachman

Put one of those blow-up emergency co-pilots from Airplane in the back seat.

Or R2D2.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Underway said:
			
		

> Would there be a possibility of the F/A-18F being converted into a Growler (prewired etc...)?  Also, the Advanced Super Hornet AFAIK only comes in the F derived model so a two seater is the only option if that is what the Gov't is looking at.  What's the advantage/disadvantage for a Nav in the back of a regular two seat fighter (serious question)?  I can understand a Growler (task management for the EW portion) but why the Rhino?



If we're acquiring Rhino, wouldn't it make sense to utilize the tactics developed by the US NAVY which would necessitate integration of Growler units too?  Even if not all 18 were Growlers?


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> Would there be a possibility of the F/A-18F being converted into a Growler (prewired etc...)?  Also, the Advanced Super Hornet AFAIK only comes in the F derived model so a two seater is the only option if that is what the Gov't is looking at.  What's the advantage/disadvantage for a Nav in the back of a regular two seat fighter (serious question)?  I can understand a Growler (task management for the EW portion) but why the Rhino?



From Wiki:

On 27 February 2009, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced that 12 of the 24 Super Hornets on order would be wired on the production line for future fit-out as EA-18Gs. The additional wiring would cost A$35 million. The final decision on conversion to EA-18Gs, at a cost of A$300 million, was to be announced in March 2012.[57][58]

On 23 August 2012, the Australian Government announced that 12 RAAF Super Hornets would be fitted with Growler capability at a cost of $1.5 billion;[59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler#Australia


----------



## CBH99

Anybody have any further information on the $300M projected price, to the $1.5B final price, for the conversions?  Or am I misunderstanding the context of that statement?


----------



## suffolkowner

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From Wiki:
> 
> On 27 February 2009, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced that 12 of the 24 Super Hornets on order would be wired on the production line for future fit-out as EA-18Gs. The additional wiring would cost A$35 million. The final decision on conversion to EA-18Gs, at a cost of A$300 million, was to be announced in March 2012.[57][58]
> 
> On 23 August 2012, the Australian Government announced that 12 RAAF Super Hornets would be fitted with Growler capability at a cost of $1.5 billion;[59]
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler#Australia



I thought the Aussies changed their mind again and kept the 24 SH's and bought an additional 12 Growlers?


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Anybody have any further information on the $300M projected price, to the $1.5B final price, for the conversions?  Or am I misunderstanding the context of that statement?



I think in the 1.5B is the cost of furnishing the sensor pods etc.., wiring/potential is one thing but outfitting can be variable and up to end user


----------



## MarkOttawa

Another possible Super Hornet upgrade:



> US Navy revives interest in Super Hornet engine upgrades
> 
> The US Navy has revived interest in studying a major upgrade of the engine that powers the Boeing F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and two foreign fighters, including the possible addition of new technologies.
> 
> In early February, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) notified industry that it would ask GE Aviation to submit a proposal for a contract for the company’s engineers to perform a study on an “F414-GE-400 core enhancement evaluation”.
> 
> Such notifications are required when the government plans to award a contract without inviting competing bids. No other details about the contents or objectives of the study were provided in NAVAIR study, which is described only as an assessment of “how upgrades ... could improve engine performance, as well as F/A-18E/F and EA-18G performance”.
> 
> Asked to comment on the contract notification, GE released a statement to FlightGlobal that was approved by NAVAIR.
> 
> “NAVAIR has expressed interest in GE evaluating how our latest engine technologies could be applied to the F414 Enhanced Engine,” GE says.
> 
> GE’s proposed Enhanced Engine design surfaced as a proposal several years ago as part of Boeing’s Super Hornet bid for India’s fighter competition. GE has tested the durability or thrust upgrades in laboratory rigs. NAVAIR also paid GE in late 2013 to evaluate the F414 Enhanced Engine, with the possibility of funding a development programme two years later, although that follow-on contract never materialised...
> 
> NAVAIR’s interest in upgrading the F/A-18E/F’s propulsion system comes after a remarkable turn-around for the Boeing production line in St. Louis. A year ago, the programme appeared to be close to winding down after completing remaining deliveries to the USN. Then, Boeing won long-sought deals to deliver at least 28 Super Hornets to Kuwait, 36 fighters to Qatar and a_ commitment from Canada to buy at least 18 F/A-18E/Fs_ [emphasis added, note that "buy"]. Moreover, US Defense secretary Jim Mattis said in late January that the F/A-18E/F could continue to be used as an internal competitor against the F-35...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-revives-interest-in-super-hornet-engine-upgr-434227/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Pretty long and well-researched (lots of links)--but ignores USN uses SH for fleet air defence, somewhat analogous to NORAD mission.  And lack of inter-operability with F-35A for continental air defence seems bit overstated.  Note emphasis on personnel problems:



> Super Hornets, Eh? Canadian Airpower Falls Short on North American Defense
> ...
> _Dr. Gary Schaub, Jr. is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Military Studies, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.
> 
> Richard Shimooka is a Research Fellow at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute._
> https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/super-hornets-eh-canadian-airpower-falls-short-on-north-american-defense/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

We'll see--if buy SH for RCAF soon presumably would not have extra capabilities:



> Trump Eyes ‘Big Order’ of New F/A-18XT Super Hornets
> 
> President Donald Trump on Friday announced he’s considering a “big order” of advanced Super Hornet fighter jets designated F/A-18XT and made by Boeing Co.
> 
> “We are looking seriously at a big order,” he told the audience at Boeing’s South Carolina facility during the unveiling of the company’s 787 Dreamliner. “Do you care if we use the F-18 Super Hornets?”
> 
> The comments came less than a month after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis ordered a review of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a fourth-generation fighter, as a potential lower-cost alternative to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, the carrier version of a fifth-generation fighter made by Lockheed Martin Corp...
> 
> According to White House pool reports from the Trump event, Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, was spotted holding a brochure for the “F/A-18 XT.” The XT is the Advanced Super Hornet, or the Block III fighter jet concept for the Navy, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to Military.com.
> 
> “While Boeing demonstrated advanced Super Hornet capabilities in flight in 2013, the package of upgrades has evolved to best complement F-35, EA-18G and E-2D as they will be operating together in the air wing well into the 2040s,” Boeing said in a description of the XT/Block III aircraft.
> 
> Boeing developed the Block III jet concept to “address the strike fighter shortfall as well as to ensure the air wing has the capabilities needed to win in the 2020s and beyond,” the description said.
> 
> The new variant will feature an enhanced network capability to allow large amounts of data on and off the airplane, which would increase the ability to receive targeting information from aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, EA-18G Growler and the E-2D Hawkeye, according to Boeing.
> 
> The twin-engine plane is also designed to come equipped with longer-range, low-drag, stealthy conformal fuel tanks; long-range sensors that can detect and target threats without having to depend on radar; a new advanced cockpit system to enhance situational awareness, providing the pilot with the capability to see, track and target multiple long range targets; and improved low-observable next-generation radar cross section for increased survivability, according to the company...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/17/trump-order-fa-18xt-super-hornets/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

If the US get's the XT/ block III, I think it would be more likely to see it appear in any open competition the liberals hold in the future, which I fear the libs would push towards.


----------



## Kirkhill

Would all this suggest that the F35 is pushing forward as a well armed Recce force (Pathfinders) while the Gen 4/4.5s (And Gen 1s - B52s) are supplying your aerial artillery or bombardment force?  

The F35s are armed but it seems as if their greatest advantage is being able to get close and then designate targets for stand-off missiles carried by older platforms.  The longer they keep their bays closed the longer they stay unobserved and don't need to bug out.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook:



> And Gen 1s - B52s



Actually BUFF is Gen 2--B-45 Gen I  :
http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/na_b-45.php
http://www.airplanesofthepast.com/b45-tornado.htm






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair comment


----------



## MilEME09

> Retired air chiefs urge Liberals to ditch ‘costly and unnecessary’ plan to buy Super Hornet jets
> 
> OTTAWA — Former chief of the defence staff Paul Manson and 12 other retired senior air force commanders have written to the prime minister asking the government to abandon the $5-7 billion interim purchase of Super Hornet fighter jets.
> 
> Gen. Manson, who held Canada’s top military role between 1986 and 1989, said the government’s plan to buy an interim fleet to replace the current CF-18 fighters is “ill-advised, costly and unnecessary.”
> 
> “I’m 82 years old and I may not see the outcome of all this but I want the facts put before the public,” he said in an interview.
> 
> “The main point right now is that the government seems determined to go ahead with a plan that those of us with countless decades of experience running the air force think would take decades to correct. It makes no sense.”
> 
> Manson and the 12 former air force lieutenant-generals say they have serious misgivings about the government’s claim that a “capability gap” exists, justifying the need for an interim fleet of 18 Super Hornets.
> “Your government’s newly created policy calling for the Royal Canadian Air Force to meet its NATO and NORAD treaty commitments concurrently does not reflect a real and sudden change in the strategic situation. In our experience, it has been decades since Canada had sufficient aircraft to meet all our commitments simultaneously. Over the years, the air force, by judiciously balancing strategic risks and available resources, has managed its operational contributions reasonably well,” the letter states.
> 
> Rather than increasing fighter availability, the air force commanders claim the interim fleet would tax resources, because it would require training for pilots and technicians, plus new flight simulators, logistics support and maintenance operations.
> 
> Even that would not be enough, the authors say. “It would be necessary to recruit, train and qualify several hundred new technicians and dozens of pilots. Recent experience suggests the RCAF would face difficulty in achieving this … We forsee that bringing in an interim flight would create serious practical problems of this kind.”
> 
> If the government is intent on an interim purchase, the letter says, it should examine the prospect of buying so-called legacy Hornets, which are similar to the existing CF-18 and are increasingly becoming available as such partner nations as Australia and the United States replace their Hornet fleets with the F-35 fighter.
> 
> “The acquisition cost would be a fraction of a Super Hornet buy,” the air commanders say, pointing out that all the training, logistics and infrastructure needs are already in place.
> The letter also urges the government to proceed to the open and fair competition for a permanent replacement for the CF-18s promised by the Liberals during the past election.
> 
> During the campaign, Justin Trudeau said the Liberals would not buy the F-35, a statement Manson called “outrageous.”
> 
> He said he remains a strong proponent of the F-35, even if that is not the focus of the letter sent to the Trudeau government. He is a former chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada, manufacturer of the F-35, but said he left the company 20 years ago and today has no commercial interest in Lockheed.
> 
> Manson admitted that with the Liberals having just backed down on their electoral reform proposal, the prospect of a reversal on the interim purchase is slim.
> 
> “There is not an awful lot of hope they’ll do the right thing,” he said.
> 
> But, he added that if the interim purchase is being made by the Liberals to ingratiate the government with the incoming Trump administration, it is a superficial solution.
> 
> “The point needs to be made that it may add to the one per cent of GDP (spent on defence) but if it doesn’t improve operational effectiveness, it won’t fool our NATO allies,” he said.
> 
> According to Jordan Owens, spokesman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, the government has no intention of reversing its decision on the interim purchase.
> 
> “The Royal Canadian Air Force faces a significant challenge because it does not have the number of fighter aircraft available to meet Canada’s NORAD and NATO obligations if called to do so simultaneously,” Owens said.
> 
> “Our government believes that we owe it to our women and men in uniform to provide them with the equipment needed to do their jobs. By acquiring an interim fighter fleet and proceeding to an open and transparent competition to procure the full replacement fleet, we will be providing the Royal Canadian Air Force with the resources necessary to meet this challenge.
> 
> “We have full confidence in their ability to do so.”
> 
> National Post



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/retired-air-chiefs-urge-liberals-to-ditch-costly-and-unnecessary-plan-to-buy-super-hornet-jets


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from Laurie Hawn's FB page ...


> Open Letter to the Prime Minister
> 
> From Former Air Force Commanders
> 
> Dear Prime Minister,
> As former commanders of Canada’s air force, we respectfully but urgently ask that your government not proceed with the plan to purchase a fleet of Super Hornet aircraft as an interim measure pending the eventual replacement of our venerable CF-18 fighters. It is our firm belief that the interim strategy is ill-advised, costly and unnecessary. Most important, it would significantly impair the Royal Canadian Air Force for years to come and ultimately damage the nation’s defence posture. The situation is complex, but our call for dropping the Super Hornet buy is based on some compelling facts, which we offer for your consideration.
> 
> First, we have serious misgivings about the use of a “capability gap” as the basis for your interim plan. Your government’s newly created policy calling for the Royal Canadian Air Force to meet its NATO and NORAD treaty obligations concurrently does not reflect a real and sudden change in the strategic situation. In our experience, it has been decades since Canada had sufficient fighter aircraft to meet all our commitments simultaneously. Over the years the air force, by judiciously balancing strategic risks and available resources, has managed its operational contributions reasonably well. We certainly welcome any initiative that promises to close the longstanding capability gap, but purchasing eighteen Super Hornet aircraft would in fact exacerbate the gap in the near to mid-term by imposing a heavy burden on the RCAF’s existing resources without producing a meaningful increase in fighter availability.
> 
> Although the Super Hornet does have some commonality with our current CF-18s, it is a different airplane, requiring its own training system for pilots and technicians, as well as new flight simulators, logistic support and maintenance organizations specific to the Super Hornet. The air force would have to draw personnel from the existing CF-18 fighter fleet (usually its most experienced people) to help bring into service a new and more complex fleet of fighter aircraft. But that would not be enough. It would be necessary to recruit, train and qualify several hundred new technicians and dozens of pilots. Recent experience indicates that the RCAF would face difficulty in achieving this; it can take four to five years from recruitment to produce fully trained, operationally ready pilots and specialists for advanced fighter aircraft. We foresee that bringing in an interim fleet would create serious practical problems of this kind.
> 
> Quite apart from such technical issues, we are aware that buying, operating and supporting an interim fleet of Super Hornets would be an expensive proposition, with cost estimates ranging from $5-$7 billion. We therefore ask that your government seek a better way of keeping the RCAF operationally effective until its fleet of CF-18s is replaced with a modern fighter.
> 
> To this end, we respectfully recommend that three important initiatives be undertaken.
> 
> First, the RCAF should be given the necessary resources to conduct an aggressive recruiting and training process to eliminate existing personnel shortfalls and to provide for the interim period leading to CF-18 replacement.
> 
> Second, if your government feels compelled to acquire additional fighters for the interim, it should seriously examine the prospect of purchasing so-called legacy Hornets (i.e. basically the same as our current CF-18s) that are increasingly becoming available as Canada’s partner nations replace their older Hornet fleets with the F-35. For example, both the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force will have surplus F-18s that are very close in configuration to our own. These would require very little modification to make them essentially identical to the CF-18, having the same operational effectiveness and excellent safety record as today’s fleet. The capability exists in the Canadian aerospace industry to do the necessary modifications. The acquisition cost would be a fraction of a Super Hornet buy. Of critical importance, all the training, logistics and infrastructure needed to support the additional CF18s are already in place, and the larger CF-18 fleet would fill the operational capability gap in the interim. All of this would be achieved without the cost, delay and disruption of burdening the RCAF with a second fleet of fighters.
> 
> Finally, and emphatically, we urge the government to proceed without further delay to implement the open and fair competition that you promised for replacement of our CF-18s. Completing this within the next few years is entirely feasible, and it would allow for a faster, more effective and much less costly transition to full operational service by the CF-18’s eventual replacement.
> 
> We offer these recommendations based on our collective experience of many years of serving Canada’s air force, with the sole purpose of bringing to your attention some important realities regarding the future of the RCAF and the nation’s defence. We look to you for wisdom in resolving the matters that we have placed before you.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Larry Ashley
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Yvan Blondin
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Lloyd Campbell
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Bill Carr,
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) André Deschamps
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Dave Huddleston
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Dave Kinsman
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Steve Lucas
> General (Ret’d) Paul Manson
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Don McNaughton
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Ken Pennie
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Fred Sutherland
> Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Angus Watt


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from Laurie Hawn's FB page ...


Speaking truth to power, even with all those high-ranking signatures, can't make the emperor hear that he has no clothes, if he refuses to listen.

...._and_  the current RCAF Commander fired him as 401 Sqn's HCol, on behalf of the emperor.


----------



## dapaterson

Keep in mind, the signatories are those responsible for the failed training system for pilots,  a point they neglect to mention.

In addition,  used Hornets would not be immediately usable, as they would not have the same configuration as our legacy fleet; we would either have to upgrade them all to current CF18 standard, or operate the split fleet these gents seem so opposed to.

Politics is the art of the possible; methinks the RCAF would be better served by a small fleet of more modern aircraft than none. Punting the problem of the F35, as governments of all stripes seem to do, means replacements will not arrive in Bagotville or Cold Lake for a decade or more.  The legacy Hornet fleet faces numerous avionics issues that the Super Hornet does not.

TL;DR Better 18 more modern aircraft than zero most modern aircraft.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> TL;DR Better 18 more modern aircraft than zero most modern aircraft.



Unless the cost of that 18 modern aircraft comes out of the budget for the real replacement, leaving us shorthanded in 20 years again. Indications thus far are that the government plans on purchasing the SH out of funds earmarked for the CF-188 replacement plan, which either cooks the books for us to buy the SH later down the road, or means we buy less real replacements later on.

Anyways, those SH jets are sure going to look great at airshows and RIMPAC instead of bombing ISIL and doing real work.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Unless the cost of that 18 modern aircraft comes out of the budget for the real replacement, leaving us shorthanded in 20 years again. Indications thus far are that the government plans on purchasing the SH out of funds earmarked for the CF-188 replacement plan, which either cooks the books for us to buy the SH later down the road, or means we buy less real replacements later on.
> 
> Anyways, those SH jets are sure going to look great at airshows and RIMPAC instead of bombing ISIL and doing real work.



Glad you'll be happy with clapped out Hornets, no Super Hornets, and no F35, since no government is willing to touch that live wire.  Again, art of the possible: which is better: zero F35s or 18 Super Hornets?  If your answer is "Never the Super Hornet", then the CF18s will need a mid-life refit around 2025 to keep them flying to Canada's bicentennial.

(Or maybe we can convince President Trump to re-open the F22 line...)


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Keep in mind, the signatories are those responsible for the failed training system for pilots,  a point they neglect to mention.
> 
> In addition,  used Hornets would not be immediately usable, as they would not have the same configuration as our legacy fleet; we would either have to upgrade them all to current CF18 standard, or operate the split fleet these gents seem so opposed to.
> 
> Politics is the art of the possible; methinks the RCAF would be better served by a small fleet of more modern aircraft than none. Punting the problem of the F35, as governments of all stripes seem to do, means *replacements will not arrive in Bagotville or Cold Lake for a decade or more*.  The legacy Hornet fleet faces numerous avionics issues that the Super Hornet does not.
> 
> TL;DR Better 18 more modern aircraft than zero most modern aircraft.



I won't disagree with the rest of your comment but the highlighted bit suggested this to me:



> Under pressure from the
> terms of the Manley Report, DND
> arranged to buy CH-47Ds already
> in Afghanistan from the US Army.
> In August 2008, the Government of
> Canada announced the purchase
> of six Chinook CH-47D helicopters
> from the US Army under a Foreign
> Military Sales Agreement with the
> Government of the United States.
> These Chinooks, redesignated by the
> CF as CH-147D, were bought to meet
> the immediate need for medium-toheavy-lift
> helicopters as directed by
> the March 2008 Parliamentary motion
> to extend the Afghan mission to 2011.
> The transfer of the helicopters, which
> were already located in Afghanistan,
> was completed on 30 December
> 2008. On 8 January 2009, a CH-147D
> Chinook made its debut flight as
> a Canadian aircraft at Kandahar
> Airfield, where they are based.



http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1550&context=cmh

So, capability gap identified in 2008 (Manley Report), gap filled for 292 MCAD in the same year by purchase from the US Army as an FMS and was flying in the RCAF by January 2009.

To my pea-sized brain this seems like the least cost, least risk, least harm solution for the RCAF.

FMS of existing USN/USMC F18s (Cs or Es) - piggy back on their training and maintenance infrastructure - and preserve as much of the available (unincreased presumably) budget as possible for the "replacement" when/if it eventuates.


----------



## dapaterson

You assume that USN/USMC have excess capacity, and that any SH solution would not leverage US training and facilities.  Not sure either is supported by any open source info.


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed on the assumption - and the absence of personal knowledge due to lack of access to anything but open source info.

On the other hand I believe that with cash anything is possible.

Canada buys some slightly used F18s, either As, Cs or Es. The US gets to replace them with new Es partly funded with Canadian dollars.

Canada takes the 18s and if As brings them into Canadian compliance and adds them to the hangars in Cold Lake and Bagotville.

If Cs or Es Canada parks 6 at Patuxent for conversion training and 12 in Poland or Romania or Lithuania or some other place in the neighbourhood.  

Money for flying the beasts comes out of operations (just as it did when flying the CH-47Ds in Afghanistan) and that budget comes out of Foreign Aid, not National Defence.

Pilot and Maintainer supply is still a problem but managed by managing existing pipelines rather than having to establish new ones.  

Even if we only had 60 pilots for 95 aircraft - and you only had 70% availability on the aircraft - sorties could still be mounted.


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Even if we only had 60 pilots for 95 aircraft - and you only had 70% availability on the aircraft - sorties could still be mounted.



Some of those sixty are going to be on leave, on course, or sick, so there is still no capability increase without a trained personnel increase, and the cost is still too high.

Drop the nonsense, run another (unnecessary) evaluation, with the same basic data used in similar evaluations in this and many other countries, and, inevitably, reach the same conclusion - and then buy F35.

First, though, the government has to open its mind, accept facts, and become honest.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> Some of those sixty are going to be on leave, on course, or sick, so there is still no capability increase without a trained personnel increase, and the cost is still too high.
> 
> Drop the nonsense, run another (unnecessary) evaluation, with the same basic data used in similar evaluations in this and many other countries, and, inevitably, reach the same conclusion - and then buy F35.
> 
> *First, though, the government has to open its mind, accept facts, and become honest.*


----------



## Loachman

Yes, I know - no breath is being held.


----------



## a_majoor

President Trump is shaking the box and setting conditions for more favourable (to the taxpayer) negotiations WRT defense items in general, and sending a clear warning to Lock-Mart to smarten up. Super-Duper Hornets are still Gen 4.5 aircraft and are not designed to fight the way 5th gen fighters are. The one potential use they do have is as bomb, missile and gun trucks for flight leaders going ahead with F-35's to identify and mark targets (the USMC demonstrated a F-35 identifying a target then cueing, firing and guiding a missile from a warship to the target).

In the longer run, this means anyone in a coalition without F-35 capabilities will be regulated to shooting at targets that the USAF or Marines are designating, which also means ideas like National Caveats, independent operations or leading missions becomes a quaint relic of the past. Or we simply don't go, and see how much influence that buys. Not every cost is monetary.


----------



## George Wallace

"Laurie Hawn was asked recently about F-35 capability to carry external stores. This photo shows all the stores that F-35 is designed to carry; certainly not all cleared, yet, but it is an impressive array. External fuel tanks can also be carried. These external stores would only be carried in a permissive environment."


----------



## MarkOttawa

Stealth? Not. Compare and contrast with Super Hornet as suitable for NORAD air defence mission, the only one critical for an RCAF fighter.  Super sensor fusion over the high north off our coasts vs Russian bombers and their cruise missiles a determining factor pro F-35?  Honest questions.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

To paraphrase a famous Canadian:  "Stealth if necessary, but not necessarily stealth"


----------



## Underway

Super Hornet article from Vanguard magazine.

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/02/23/super-hornet-to-play-key-role-in-2ist-century-net-centric-warfare/.



> *Super Hornet to play key role in 2ist Century Net-Centric warfare*
> 
> Nestor Arellano   Feb 23 2017
> 
> Inside the pilot briefing room, the whine of fighter jet engines revving up on the tarmac penetrated the closed door and glass windows. The din of aircraft mechanics working a several F/A-18s (Super Hornets are called Rhinos here to distinguish them from the legacy F-18 Hornets) in various stages of repair in the hangar below punctuated every other sentence that Capt. Christopher Boyle uttered. “Net-centric warfare is the reality…that’s how we will be fighting,” says Boyle, commander of the United States Navy’s Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic Fleet (SFWL) at the Naval Air Station Oceana, in Virginia. “Integrated, onboard systems will enable me to see whatever the other planes on my squadron are seeing…I can shoot anything they see and vice-versa. The capability is a force multiplier.”
> 
> The ability of aircraft to rapidly transmit and receive data will become key elements of survivability – almost as important as speed and lethal weaponry – in the air combat of the very near future.  Sensors, enhanced situation awareness, rapid target assessment and distributed weapon assignment are the thing in the air combat of the information age, according to the seasoned Navy pilots who has amassed more than 3,000 flights hours.  Boyle was speaking to a group of journalists that were part of a recent Boeing media tour.
> 
> Naval Air Station Oceana is the U.S. Navy’s largest type wing with 18 squadrons flying more than 300 aircraft composed of six different variants of the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. It is also home to the east coast F/A-18 Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) which trains pilots and Weapon Systems Officers (WSOs) in the Hornet and Super Hornet before they are assigned to operational fleet squadrons. The fleet squadrons deploy as part of Carrier Air Wings (CVWs) on aircraft carriers on both the east and west coasts. The facility has more fighter planes than some countries do in their entire air force.
> 
> Boyle was referring to a military doctrine which traces its origins back in the late 1990s.The concept promotes the use of information and communication technologies to improve situation analysis, speed up target assessment, connect commanders and troops to effectively flatten the hierarchy and dramatically hasten decision making and action. It is gradually being used in various services.  For instance, during Desert Storm in 1990, it took up to two days for target planners to obtain a photo of a target, confirm coordinates, plan a mission and deliver that plan to a bomber crew. Today, real-time imaging of targets allows photos and coordinates to be transmitted instantly to aircraft that are already in flight.
> 
> The scenario, which requires a lot of integration between systems of disparate aircraft, vehicles and command centres is one where the Super Hornet can thrive, says Boyle confidently.
> “You’ll need F/A-18s integrating with other planes and then integrating with ships and the battle network,” he says. “We’ll be flying the Rhinos well into 2040, it still has a lot of development capability in it…it’s the mission system that matters.”
> 
> *Super Hornet mission systems has room for growth*
> The Block II Super Hornet in production today was a brand new aircraft introduced in 2007, says Dan Gillian, vice-president of Boeing Military Aircraft’s F/A-18 and EA-18 programs.
> “Advanced capability like the APG-79 AESA radar, Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared system, bigger mission computers and integrated sensors really take the Super Hornet to the next step beyond the F-18s you fly today,” he says. “It has true next-gen capabilities.”
> 
> The aircraft was built to through “evolutionary and modular approach,” which make easy to plug in mission-specific equipment or new technology, he explains.  Currently, Super Hornets are equipped with the APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar, Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared system, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, Multifunctional Information Distribution System, advanced high-capacity computer system, and new cockpit which provides the pilot with “intuitive situational awareness and capability.” The plane has a reconfigurable digital flight control system which can detect damage to or full loss of a flight control and still allow safe recovery, according to Boeing.
> 
> The Super Hornet has 11 weapons stations which give it extraordinary payload flexibility by carrying more than 400 configurations of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance.
> A typical loadout for a self-escort strike mission starts with an advanced infrared targeting pod, one AIM-120 AMRAAM, two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, a 20mm cannon and an external fuel tank. This leaves six under-wing weapon stations available to carry a variety of weapons and other stores.  Gillian also pointed out that the Super Hornet is ideal for missions over Canada’s Arctic territory because it has the ability to fly more than 100 nautical miles farther than the legacy CF-18s and can extend that distance farther with its buddy fueling capabilities. The Super Hornet is also considered to be the most cost-effective aircraft in the U.S. tactical aviation fleet, costing less per flight hour to operate than any other tactical aircraft in U.S. forces inventory, including single-engine aircraft such as the F-16.
> 
> “We’re far more advanced that we’re given credit for,” says Ricardo Traven, a former Royal Canadian Air Force fighter pilot who is now chief Boeing test pilot for the F/A-18. “It is a fighter that is very adaptable, flexible, and it meets Canada’s mission requirements.” While the legacy C-18 Hornet and the F/A-18 Super Hornet are “two different aircraft,” Traven said pilots like him who have flown a CF-18 will find it easy to transition to the Super Hornet.  “The control, hydraulics, and philosophy behind it are all the same and very easy to pick-up,” another pilot said.
> 
> Canada is looking to is looking to replace its fleet of aging Boeing CF-18 fighter jets which were purchased from 1982 to 1988. Apart from the Super Hornet, the contenders include the Dassault Rafale, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lighting II, the Saab JAS 39 Gripen, and the Eurofighter Typhoon. However, it’s the 5th-generation fighter F-35 that considered a top rival of the Super Hornet for the Canadian contract.
> 
> “The 5th gen (platform) was super innovative 10 years ago and on paper, we’re far more advanced now,” according to Traven. He also downplayed the stealth capability of the F-35 as a “passive” form of defense which could be leaf frogged and rendered ineffective by advances in radar technology. “No one knows what will happen by 2025 to 2035, things evolve so quickly. But the Super Hornet has space to grow,” says Traven.
> 
> *Canada’s interim Super Hornet purchase*
> Recently, the Trudeau government had initiated talks with Washington on the purchase of 18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure to relieve the pressure on the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of aging CF-18 jets which were purchased from 1982 to 1988. Accidents and retirements have reduced the original fleet of 138 1980s-era fighters to 77, and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan had been very vocal about the military’s need for newer fighter aircraft. According to Gillian, Boeing is working on how the production of the jets for Canada can be scheduled since the company has existing orders from the U.S. Navy as well. He is confident that Boeing, which turns out two Super Hornets a month, can meet its customers’ demands.
> When the interim Super Hornet purchased was announced last fall, Sajjan promised that an “open and transparent competition” to replace the RCAF’s entire FF-18 fleet will take place. That competition will be launched sometime before the end of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s term of office.
> 
> Sajjan said the government expects a permanent fleet delivered as quickly as possible. Some estimates put that somewhere between 2029 and 2032.
> 
> *Boeing’s ITB performance*
> Boeing also touts its record industrial and technological benefits (ITB) to Canada.  “For every dollar we spend in Canada directly, there is another dollar that comes in as economic impact through the supply chain,” according to Roberto Valla, Boeing’s vice-president of global sales for is Canadian operations. He said Boeing has completed $6.7 billion of its ITB commitments to Canada ahead of schedule.  The company has a supply chain of more than 560 companies in Canada.  Boeing is also on track to invest over $10 million in Canadian research and development and another $10 million in university and industry research facilities.
> 
> *The Advanced Super Hornet*
> The interim purchase presents an excellent opportunity for Boeing to show the Canadian armed forces just how well the Super Hornet performs.  However, another recent development south of the border could also be a boon for the aerospace company’s concept for an enhanced Super Hornet.  United States Defence Secretary James Mattis recently ordered a review of the country’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The review will compare the F-35C’s capabilities with that of the F/A 18 E/F as well as assess the viability of Boeing’s Advanced Super Hornet program.
> 
> The idea of an Advanced Super Hornet was rolled out in 2013. Essentially, the proposed aircraft will feature new capabilities and upgrades such a centerline, fuel tank mounted infrared search and track (IRST21) sensor, conformal fuel tanks, integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) Block iV, active electronic scanned array (AESA) radar, and a next-generation jammer.
> 
> The review ordered by Mattis could boost Boeing’s push for its Super Hornet and provide the company a chance to prove the Advanced Super Hornet concept.


----------



## GR66

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Stealth? Not. Compare and contrast with Super Hornet as suitable for NORAD air defence mission, the only one critical for an RCAF fighter.  Super sensor fusion over the high north off our coasts vs Russian bombers and their cruise missiles a determining factor pro F-35?  Honest questions.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I'd argue that if a war with Russia gets to the point where Russian bombers are launching cruise missiles over the high north it will not really matter what type of fighter we have.  They have cruise missiles with enough range that they do not have to enter our airspace and if a wave of cruise missiles comes over the pole then the US response will be nuclear since there is no way to tell what kind of warheads the Russian missiles are carrying and the US will not take the chance of absorbing a Russian nuclear first strike.

That to me at least suggests that the only role that really matters for the RCAF is not NORAD defence but rather overseas deployment to prevent a localized conflict from turning into a general nuclear exchange between Russian and the West.  For those types of conflicts stealth and sensor fusion would definitely be a major asset and the F-35 the fighter of choice over the Super Hornet or any other 4th Generation fighter.


----------



## MarkOttawa

GR66: The number of fighters we can now deploy abroad can only have a symbolic and political effect, plus doing something useful in wars against those who can't fight back.

As for NORAD, which is the only crucial role esp. in the eyes of the US, consider _limited/limited_ and detectable in advance Russian cruise missile strikes (no "wavc" that may be nuclear:

NORAD and Russian Cruise Nukes: “de-escalation”?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GR66

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of symbolic and political military deployments.  The whole concept of NATO's collective defence is the understanding by Russia that an attack on ONE member is an attack on all.  Having even an handful of Canadian fighters (or ships, or troops) in the line of fire and potentially suffering casualties along with the targeted ally lets the Russians know that the consequences of an attack are potentially far greater than the local effects.

As for the article you posted, the commentary about the Russian policy document reads much more into it than what is actually stated.  The commentary talks about exercises where missiles were targeted in various places around the globe (including the continental United States) but nowhere in the posted document does it talk about nuclear attacks against the US as a "de-escalation" policy.  It simply states that Russia reserves the right to use all weapons...up to and including nuclear weapons...in response to a conventional attack "in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation".  

I don't see Russia initiating a nuclear war with NATO over limited political objectives like Ukraine or the Baltic States.  They may have political and economic objectives in those areas but I seriously doubt they would INITIATE nuclear war and all that it risks to their very existence over those objectives.  

The stated policy sounds much more defensive in nature to me, so unless you foresee NATO launching an offensive against Russia I don't expect to see Russian nuclear cruise missiles heading over the pole.


----------



## Edward Campbell

GR66 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't underestimate the importance of symbolic and political military deployments.  The whole concept of NATO's collective defence is the understanding by Russia that an attack on ONE member is an attack on all.  Having even an handful of Canadian fighters (or ships, or troops) in the line of fire and potentially suffering casualties along with the targeted ally lets the Russians know that the consequences of an attack are potentially far greater than the local effects.
> 
> As for the article you posted, the commentary about the Russian policy document reads much more into it than what is actually stated.  The commentary talks about exercises where missiles were targeted in various places around the globe (including the continental United States) but nowhere in the posted document does it talk about nuclear attacks against the US as a "de-escalation" policy.  It simply states that Russia reserves the right to use all weapons...up to and including nuclear weapons...in response to a conventional attack "in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation".
> 
> I don't see Russia initiating a nuclear war with NATO over limited political objectives like Ukraine or the Baltic States.  They may have political and economic objectives in those areas but I seriously doubt they would INITIATE nuclear war and all that it risks to their very existence over those objectives.
> 
> The stated policy sounds much more defensive in nature to me, so unless you foresee NATO launching an offensive against Russia I don't expect to see Russian nuclear cruise missiles heading over the pole.




Slightly  ff topic:  but you're quite right.

Putin, who is not, _in my estimation_, the sharpest knife in the drawer, has learned from history: the American led West hammered the old USSR into submission because, in part, we always reserved the right to use maximum (nuclear) force, first, whenever we felt our vital interests were threatened. We were, thus, able to shift resources, (massively) in the 1950s, away from conventional military forces and devote the savings to civilian industries that made us rich and happy while the USSR, which had made an ill conceived "no first use" promise, languished in "second world" status (despite some great arts and science achievements): poor, dejected and always on the outside, looking in.

Only stupid people want wars.

Smart people, like Sun Tzu and Eisenhower, want to win without fighting, but they are, always, prepared to fight if they have to ... that's something Justin Trudeau doesn't quite grasp ~ one of many, many things.

Putin is not, _in my opinion,_ all that smart or, in any meaningful way, a really good leader ~ he's crafty and, as I have said elsewhere, an "_*opportunistic adventurer*_" or "_*adventurous opportunist*_" as e.g. Crimea showed ... but, so was Hitler (sorry, but the comparison does need to be made because Hitler had one run of good luck despite having dreadful strategic judgment).

The one big thing Putin has going for him, _I think_, is that Donald Trump appears to be a bloody fool ... which is bad enough, but Xi Jinping is neither foolish nor adventurous and he is, _I believe_, waiting, patiently, to pick up the pieces.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So if all these aircraft are Networking, are they not producing great blobs of EM signature? Are we assuming that a peer enemy can't track that activity and can't jam it?


----------



## Good2Golf

Spread-spectrum links are generally -50dBm+ below background noise, so very low probability of intercept...

Regards
G2G


----------



## Underway

This looks like a good place for this article...

China's Quantum Radar

This is where I think the message is getting lost.  _They_ spent so much time talking about how the F-35 is stealthy and almost no time talking about how it's the ultimate in networked/electronic warfare. If the F-35 loses stealth it's still a spectacular plane.  The Red Flag exercises show how it can change a battlespace with its data sharing tools, more so than it's stealth capability.  Can a new F-18 do that?


----------



## Kirkhill

Given all the talk these days about US political appointments I started to wonder about this one:  Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.  That office has had quite a bit to say about the F35, often in opposition to positions claimed by the Department of Defence.

Apparently the DOTE is also a political appointment - not a bureaucratic one.  Is it unreasonable to suggest that the analyses generated and the conclusions reached may be politically flavoured?  If the administration were looking for opportunities to stall on making a big decision might this not be a vector for providing evidence in support of that position?



> 10 U.S. Code § 139 - Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes
> Authorities (CFR)
> 
> (a)
> (1) There is a Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the office of Director. The Director may be removed from office by the President. The President shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/139

I note that the outgoing Director issued a missive on 17 January (Inauguration -2) and that he had been in place since Sept 23 2009.  
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/policies/2017/20170117_Clarification_on_Guidance_on_the_Validation_of_ModSim_used_in_OT_and_LF_Assess(15520).pdf
https://www.defense.gov/About/Biographies/Biography-View/Article/602704/j-michael-gilmore



His acting replacement was appointed on 20 January



> Mr. David W. Duma
> Acting Director, Operational Test & Evaluation
> Office of the Secretary of Defense
> 
> *Mr. Duma is the Acting Director, Operational Test and Evaluation as of January 20, 2017.* Mr. Duma was appointed as the Principal Deputy Director, Operational Test and Evaluation in January 2002. In this capacity he is responsible for all functional areas assigned to the office. He participates in the formulation, development, advocacy, and oversight of policies of the Secretary of Defense and in the development and implementation of test and test resource programs. He oversees the planning, conduct, analysis, evaluation, and reporting of operational and live fire testing. He serves as the Appropriation Director and Comptroller for the Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense Appropriation and coordinates all Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Execution matters. *He previously served as Acting Director, Operational Test and Evaluation from February 2005 to July 2007 and again from May 2009 to September 2009*.



http://www.dote.osd.mil/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Was just reading how inter service politics intervened between the US Army and the USN in regards to the Flying Fortress vs the B10. So would not be surprised that they will stab each other in the back over the F-35.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Was just reading how inter service politics intervened between the US Army and the USN in regards to the Flying Fortress vs the B10. So would not be surprised that they will stab each other in the back over the F-35.





> Americans love to compete. More Americans strongly agreed than any other surveyed country’s residents that they like situations where they compete.1 Praised in various contexts,2 competition is the backbone of US economic policy. The US Supreme Court observed, ‘The heart of our national economic policy long has been faith in the value of competition.’3 The belief in competition is not only embodied in the antitrust laws. Every US executive agency, for example, is legally required to have an advocate for competition.4



https://academic.oup.com/antitrust/article/1/1/162/274807/Is-competition-always-good

Kinda also relates to what you were saying about democracy - and what happens when the centre becomes too stable.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gr66, E.R. Campbell:

US certainly takes Russian cruise missile threat (however armed) as very real--so must we in NORAD, main RCAF fighter job.  And RCN might pay attention too



> US Worrying Seriously About Russian Cruise Missiles
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/mark-collins-us-worrying-seriously-about-russian-cruise-missiles/
> 
> NORAD Note: Russian Bomber (with cruise missiles) Strikes in Syria
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-norad-note-russian-bomber-with-cruise-missiles-strikes-in-syria/
> 
> NORAD to Face Escorted Cruise Missile-Carrying Russian Bombers?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/mark-collins-norad-to-face-escorted-cruise-missile-carrying-russian-bombers/
> 
> USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN? [note Kilo subs and cruise missiles]
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/



And note this regarding US Army:



> JLENS: Co-ordinating Cruise Missile Defense – And More
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jlens-coordinating-cruise-missile-defense-and-more-02921/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

According to the Swedes the Russians have 27 TU-95 MS6 and 30 TU-95 MS16 Bears dating from 1984 as well as 13 TU-160 Blackjacks from 1987 for a total of 70 Bombers to deliver those missiles.  Of those Bombers the number of runners is up for debate

Table 2.4  p.41


On the other hand



> Russia possesses a growing number of offensive non-strategic nuclear weapons. Sutyagin (2016)
> estimates that in *mid-2016 there were 156–200 operationally assigned warheads for ship-launched
> cruise missiles*, an increase of 50 per cent since 2012. The number of *operationally assigned
> warheads for the Tochka-U and Iskander-M short-range surface-to-surface missile systems has almost
> doubled to 248–372 warheads* according to Sutyagin (2016), who also holds it possible that warheads
> still are operationally assigned to heavy artillery units. Kristensen and Norris (2016: 132) do not
> mention artillery but ascribe merely some 140 warheads to the Tochka-U and the Iskander-M missiles.
> Finally, according to Sutyagin (2016), the Air Force operates several kinds of aircraft and a total
> of 264 operationally assigned warheads and another 36 for naval fighter-bombers. This also differs
> significantly from Kristensen and Norris’ (2016: 131) estimate of approximately 570 warheads. Even
> with the lower estimates, the number   of operational warheads is significant. The marked increase
> in offensive non- strategic nuclear weapons noted by Sutyagin is mainly due to the deployment of
> Kalibr and Iskander-M LACMs.
> Regarding  the  distribution  of  warheads  between Russia’s




Russian Military Capability in a Ten-Year Perspective – 2016 via 
https://www.foi.se/en/pressroom/news/news-archive/2016-12-08-russian-military-capability-is-strengthened-and-increasing.html
The pdf download is free

I recommend reading it.  212 pages of statistical goodness and analyses of what the Swedes think the Russians can do with what they have available.


----------



## Loachman

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/hawn-choosing-super-hornet-over-f-35-will-just-keep-canada-grounded

Hawn: Choosing Super Hornet over F-35 will just keep Canada grounded

Laurie Hawn

Published on: February 28, 2017 | Last Updated: February 28, 2017 12:11 PM EST 
​
"Per Ardua Ad Dis-Astra." This altered RCAF motto sums up what the federal the government’s convoluted process to buy 18 "interim" Super Hornets to fill a "capability gap" really means. It will kill Canada’s fighter force.

Everything can be traced to the prime minister’s election campaign promise to never buy the F-35 fighter jet, allegedly because it is too expensive and doesn’t work.

His conclusions are being proven wrong, but he seems determined to proceed without a timely competition, thanks to a politically created "capability gap." That gap was based on aircraft numbers that have never been demanded simultaneously; by fudging actual CF-18 operational serviceability history; and by the false narrative that the CF-18 cannot keep operating until we start getting new aircraft.

Any imagined gap, however, could be filled by 27 available Kuwaiti F-18C/D aircraft for $330 million US. Or, we could upgrade our entire fleet of 76 CF-18s to close to Super Hornet systems status for about 20 per cent of what we’ll pay for 18 Super Hornets. Neither option was explored.

We don't have technicians and support capacity for today. Eighteen Super Hornets will cost about $7 billion Cdn and add 350 non-existent personnel and Super Hornet-specific infrastructure. We are already losing pilots to voluntary release at rates we can't re-generate, and we certainly don’t have extras for the Super Hornet.

Many real experts were never consulted, and 240 were forced to sign lifetime non-disclosure agreements, which hides the truth. The Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer should take an interest. 

Competitions don't take five years, and to satisfy everyone, we need to start one immediately. Denmark did one quickly, and Canada already has a (now suppressed) options analysis that points to the F-35. As in the past, the F-35 will win any competition not rigged against it.

The Super Hornet is a fine aircraft for its roles and time, but we need a fighter for projected threats into the 2050s. The Super Hornet also has a thorny safety issue in its oxygen system, which has resulted in 297 incidents and permanent grounding for some aircrews.

One argument that doesn’t stand up is that the F-35 doesn't work. Its operational development continues and in every exercise where F-35 participates, its effectiveness is very evident. In our own primary aim of air sovereignty, the F-35's clean configuration will allow it to conduct higher-altitude intercepts that the Super Hornet cannot.

Another argument that doesn't stand up is cost. The latest cost for the F-35A is $8.5 billion US for 90 aircraft, or $94.6 million per aircraft. But as predicted, that cost will continue to decrease and in 2020, when we should start receiving our aircraft, it will be about $85 Million. The F-35 is cheaper than the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet will not be interim. Even if the F-35 were to win a competition, we would suddenly realize that we can't afford two small fleets, due to duplication of everything. That will apply to the Super Hornet and CF-18, and assuredly to the Super Hornet and F-35. The Aussies are doing it, but we are not them, and we would be stuck buying more Super Hornets.

Canadian aerospace industries, jobs and the economy will also be losers on our current path. We will lose out on billions in contracts and be out of step with future technology. This will be an industry-killing Avro Arrow redux and/or a costly Sea King redux.

We cannot afford to continue on the current path for many reasons: Canadian sovereignty and security, taxpayers, technical, personnel, moral, commonality with allies and Canadian industry. I have received virtually unanimous support for my position, most importantly from members of the RCAF at all rank levels. 

Lt.-Col. (Retired) Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD is a former RCAF CF-18 Squadron Commander and member of Parliament.


----------



## dapaterson

Laurie Hawn was also part of the previous government that did not buy the F35 when they had multiple opportunities to do so.


----------



## jmt18325

The US Navy is going to be grounded.


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Ack, missed that line, why does the media love service life cost so much? 7 billion over the 40 years we will use them doesnt sound so bad.......
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



Simple answer it makes headlines and that's all we tend to read. The average taxpayer will go "they don't NEED those jet fighters when we can use that money to house refugees, etc"

The public support for the military is great as long as it doesn't cost anything.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The US Navy is going to be grounded.



The US Navy does not and will not operate the Super Hornet in isolation therefore you cannot place the same assumptions on them than with us.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The US Navy does not and will not operate the Super Hornet in isolation therefore you cannot place the same assumptions on them than with us.



Of course they won't.  That will, however, be their main type of aircraft for the next 20 years (by their own claim) and they will continue to operate in much more dangerous environments than we do (routinely).  They will do so with F-35s, yes - but also with F-18 and G-18 aircraft.  Australia will do the same.

On top of that, the idea that Canada's air force will be utterly useless with Super Hornets and hornets instead of just hornets (that's what Laurie Hawn and his gang left us with for ~ another decade) is a complete laugh.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Why buy something that is 20 years old for the same price as something brand new with new technology?

Would you buy a 1990 Ford Mustang when you can buy a 2018 Ferrari for the same price?


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Why buy something that is 20 years old for the same price as something brand new with new technology?
> 
> Would you buy a 1990 Ford Mustang when you can buy a 2018 Ferrari for the same price?



1.  What's the lifecycle operating cost?

2.  More importantly, if your bank refuses to loan you money for the Ferrari, but will front the money for the Mustang, what will you do? Refuse to buy a car as a matter of principle?


----------



## SupersonicMax

If the price tag is the same, your bank would have a hard time justifying not lending you money on a car that will keep its value a lot better...  Unless of course it has a political agenda to follow.

Don't buy the SH and conduct a flyoff (send Test Pilots flying all contenders, assess them against specs (they ought to exists after how many years?) and qualitative evaluations).  Plan for 2 months, fly for 3 months, report for 2-3 months and make a decision within 5-6 months. Get your first true replacement aircraft on the line 3 years from now.  I am prety sure this is how we did it in the 70s, well before technology allowed us to plan and report quickly.  No reason we can't do this now.


----------



## dapaterson

Sigh.

This government and the previous government have clearly shown that they are gunshy about the F35.  And will not commit.  So, do you accept 18 x Super Hornet and a future fly off (dates and requirements TBD), or do you refuse 18 x SH and commit to Hope (which is not an option) and a future fly off?

Politics is the art of the possible.  It is indeed remarkable that the RCAF would fight so hard against getting new aircraft, with new avionics, when their preferred choice is so clearly outside the realm of the politically palatable at this time.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I would not buy the SH as an interim aircraft.  This would have been a great decision in 2005.  We're way past the interim replacement at this time.

There will be a procurement at some point.  Do it right. Once. And this goverment (and previous ones) had the opportunity to have a fair competition rather than sole-source. I am pretty sure what the outcome would be and that's a political hot potato that the current government cannot afford, hence putting the decision to buy a replacement down the line and putting the RCAF in a tough spot.

Where do we get the pilots?  The maintainers?  Where do we house this magical new squadron?


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Why buy something that is 20 years old for the same price as something brand new with new technology?



Considering that their principle user is still buying them brand new, as we will be - no.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There will be a procurement at some point.  Do it right. Once.



So you pick nothing (for at least a decade).  That's fine.  Just know that would be the choice you'd be making.


----------



## SupersonicMax

They are buying them to supplement an existing fleet (and retiring their legacy fleet) while waiting for the F-35.  They are not buying an entirely diffeent fleet to fill a gap.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So you pick nothing (for at least a decade).  That's fine.  Just know that would be the choice you'd be making.



If it takes another 10 years to get the replacement, I'll quit.  And I am only half joking.  There are means to do this now the way most canadians ones.

I don't think we are prepared to support another squadron.


----------



## dapaterson

Pilots: The RCAF owns pilot training.  If it is broken, that's not a government problem, but an RCAF problem.

Maintainers: Ditto.


It's nice to be a purist. "Do it once, do it right".  But that will not happen now, or within the mandate of this government.  And it will not be a priority for the next government, or the one after that.  So, in 2025, will the RCAF look back and say "Good thing we never bought those Super Hornets" or "Shit! the legacy hornets are ageing out (for airframe and avionics reasons) and we've got nothing on hand to mitigate the gap!"?

Again, politics is the art of the possible.  A bifurcated fleet of legacy Hornets and Super Hornets is better than only a fleet of legacy Hornets in 2025.

Or start lobbying to restart the F22 line for US and a limited number of foreign partners...


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pilots: The RCAF owns pilot training.  If it is broken, that's not a government problem, but an RCAF problem.
> 
> Maintainers: Ditto.
> 
> 
> It's nice to be a purist. "Do it once, do it right".  But that will not happen now, or within the mandate of this government.  And it will not be a priority for the next government, or the one after that.  So, in 2025, will the RCAF look back and say "Good thing we never bought those Super Hornets" or "crap! the legacy hornets are ageing out (for airframe and avionics reasons) and we've got nothing on hand to mitigate the gap!"?
> 
> Again, politics is the art of the possible.  A bifurcated fleet of legacy Hornets and Super Hornets is better than only a fleet of legacy Hornets in 2025.
> 
> Or start lobbying to restart the F22 line for US and a limited number of foreign partners...



We were fine with 4 operational squadrons.  Ramping up training and getting bodies for an extra squadron is an issue that is unforseen.  We need to create positions or move them somehow.  This is a political problem that was delegated not only to the RCAF but to the CAF as a whole.  But don't be mistaken, this whole thing is a political problem.  We only suffer the consequences of the decisions that are made.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> They are buying them to supplement an existing fleet (and retiring their legacy fleet) while waiting for the F-35.  They are not buying an entirely diffeent fleet to fill a gap.



So we get what we were going to have anyway (actually, it sounds like we get to keep 77 CF-18s instead of 65 if they're going to meet stated obligations.), and 18 more and better aircraft.  That sounds like a win over the alternative (nothing).


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If it takes another 10 years to get the replacement, I'll quit.



That was always the plan, modifying and updating the hornet to last until (at least) 2025.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Want a true gap filler?  But those Aussies or Kuwaities legacy Hornets. Put them in existing squadrons and increase the number of serviceable jets on any given day.

The Super Hornet is only marginally better than the legacy Hornet.  The only advantage I see is getting the APG-79 but the cynic in me doubts this will happen.  In which case we are back to a bigger legacy Hornet with a worse targetting pod, canted pylons and potentially operating it in a way we have never operated Hornets (with a backseater).  Is it still "that" great?



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That was always the plan, modifying and updating the hornet to last until (at least) 2025.



Because we fly Hornets till 2025 doesn't mean we'll get the replacement in 2025.  In fact, it'd be stupid to do so.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So we get what we were going to have anyway (actually, it sounds like we get to keep 77 CF-18s instead of 65 if they're going to meet stated obligations.), and 18 more and better aircraft.  That sounds like a win over the alternative (nothing).



It is _not_ a win if eighteen aircraft simply get parked because there are no Pilots to fly them, and no techs to maintain them, and more money is spent to operate two fleets rather than one.

There is simply no justification for this purchase. It is a waste of money and effort.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> It is _not_ a win if eighteen aircraft simply get parked because there are no Pilots to fly them, and no techs to maintain them, and more money is spent to operate two fleets rather than one.



It's far more likely that 18 legacy hornets would get parked, leading me to....


----------



## SupersonicMax

At least it'd be cheap and we could use the parts.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Want a true gap filler?  But those Aussies or Kuwaities legacy Hornets. Put them in existing squadrons and increase the number of serviceable jets on any given day.



...this.

That is not a realistic solution.  Those aircraft would need months if not years of work (there are not Australian aircraft available anyway, as far as I know) to bring them to the same standard as ours, and we'd still end up in no better of a position.  We'd have clapped out hornets that have sat in the desert sun and wind. 



> The Super Hornet is only marginally better than the legacy Hornet.  The only advantage I see is getting the APG-79 but the cynic in me doubts this will happen.



Do they even build it without one anymore?  Only marginally better (in your opinion) is still better.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ...this.
> 
> That is not a realistic solution.  Those aircraft would need months if not years of work (there are not Australian aircraft available anyway, as far as I know) to bring them to the same standard as ours, and we'd still end up in no better of a position.  We'd have clapped out hornets that have sat in the desert sun and wind.



Why would it take years to bring them to our standards?  Please be detailed.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Do they even build it without one anymore?  Only marginally better (in your opinion) is still better.



Boeing will sell you want you want. Both radars are compatible.  

My opinion comes from more than 1400 hours in legacy Hornets and experience in the Super Hornet with the US Navy.  By marginally I mean nothing that will make us better war-fighter.  In a clean aircraft, you have more excess power.  I have never flown a clean aircraft operationally.  That's about it.  Roll rate and turn rate are more sluggish and systems are essentially the same.  

FWIW, most Fighter pilots feel it is a bad decision (and 12 ex-RCAF commanders)  Some with far more experience than I have in both platforms.  Does that mean anything?  I think so.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Why would it take years to bring them to our standards?  Please be detailed.



They would need to be refurbished.  They would need equipment changes.  They would still be old.  The Super Hornet won't be.



> Boeing will sell you want you want. Both radars are compatible.



When was the last time they made one with a different radar?



> {FWIW, most Fighter pilots feel it is a bad decision.  Some with far more experience than I have in both platforms.  Does that mean anything?  I think so.



So given the option of something better (more modern with more modern technology - new and able to last into the future at least 25 years operated along side our allies) and nothing, you take nothing.  I'm glad we're clear on that.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's far more likely that 18 legacy hornets would get parked, leading me to....



... finally understand that the politically-generated "justification" for this, a hastily-manufactured "capability gap" that "requires" eighteen MORE aircraft, not eighteen _replacement_ aircraft, is a blatant lie?


----------



## jmt18325

I've said before - I support getting the F-35 post 2021 when it's actually ready for us to use to the full spectrum of capabilities.  The reality is that this government (like the one before them) will not buy the F-35 any time soon.  This government is willing to buy something.  Lets (collectively as Canadians) take the something.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... finally understand that the politically-generated "justification" for this, a hastily-manufactured "capability gap" that "requires" eighteen MORE aircraft, not eighteen _replacement_ aircraft, is a blatant lie?



I (and you, like me) have no idea if any aircraft will be parked.  I'm speculating on the most likely outcome if aircraft have to be parked (you don't park the new car and find a driver for the old one, generally).


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> They would need to be refurbished.  They would need equipment changes.  They would still be old.  The Super Hornet won't be.



What would need to be refurbished?  They are flying now.  What equipment would need to be changed?  The fact they are old (and they are younger than ours, mid-1990s) means nothing.  They are low hours and the price could be right.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> When was the last time they made one with a different radar?



Makes no difference.  It has been integrated already (and the Navy still flies SH with 73s).  Because they haven't built them wih 73s in years is irrelevant.  It's not harder to install a 73 vs a 79.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So given the option of something better (more modern with more modern technology - new and able to last into the future at least 25 years operated along side our allies) and nothing, you take nothing.  I'm glad we're clear on that.



For 5B$?  Nope.  Not when we can get JSF for the same price.  I have an idea.  Let's get F-35 as a fill gap.  It's more capable in its state now that the SH will ever be.  Would you agree with that?


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> What would need to be refurbished?  They are flying now.  What equipment would need to be changed?  The fact they are old (and they are younger than ours, mid-1990s) means nothing.  They are low hours and the price could be right.



You just said why buy something old - I agree.  We shouldn't buy someone else's 20 year old hornets.  I've heard (I don't know where, I looked but can't find it) that the Kuwait hornets are actually in far worse shape than you would expect for their relatively young age.



> Makes no difference.  It has been integrated already (and the Navy still flies SH with 73s).  Because they haven't built them wih 73s in years is irrelevant.  It's not harder to install a 73 vs a 79.



So you're assuming that we'll get something that they don't build the aircraft with now.



> For 5B$?  Nope.  Not when we can get JSF for the same price.  I have an idea.  Let's get F-35 as a fill gap.  It's more capable in its state now that the SH will ever be.  Would you agree with that?



This competition is not between the F-35 and the Super Hornet.  We aren't getting the F-35 (right now).  We weren't getting the F-35  right now no matter who won the 2015 election.  This is between the Super Hornet and nothing.  I know what I would pick.

And just to explore (at a very very basic level) some of the differences between a legacy hornet and a super hornet:

https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/

There is actually a great deal of capability that we lack in the super hornet vs the hornet, even if there are drawbacks.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You just said why buy something old - I agree.  We shouldn't buy someone else's 20 year old hornets.  I've heard (I don't know where, I looked but can't find it) that the Kuwait hornets are actually in far worse shape than you would expect for their relatively young age



I said don't buy and old, new aircraft.  For a fraction (1/10th) of the price, I would buy used aircraft.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So you're assuming that we'll get something that they don't build the aircraft with now.



You don't understand.  I know for a fact that they can put 73s in as easily as a 79.  If our government ask for it, we'll get it.  


			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This competition is not between the F-35 and the Super Hornet.  We aren't getting the F-35 (right now).  We weren't getting the F-35  right now no matter who won the 2015 election.  This is between the Super Hornet and nothing.  I know what I would pick.



Let me re-phrase.  What woukd you say here if the government purchased F-35As as an interim measure?



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And just to explore (at a very very basic level) some of the differences between a legacy hornet and a super hornet:
> 
> https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/
> 
> There is actually a great deal of capability that we lack in the super hornet vs the hornet, even if there are drawbacks.



Remove APG-79 and tell me what added significant capability we get from those Rhinos that we wouldn't get from used legacies?


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So given the option of something better (more modern with more modern technology - new and able to last into the future at least 25 years operated along side our allies) and nothing, you take nothing.  I'm glad we're clear on that.



It is not better enough to justify the cost. I care about how my tax dollars are misused. You may not.

We bought old Chinooks as an interim measure until our own, truly better, ones could be built and delivered. Buying older Hornets as an interim measure, if any are available and in decent-enough condition, would make similar sense (but we would still need more people to fly and maintain them, and that is a problem).

Buying new machines does not even remotely resemble an interim measure. They will become permanent additions/replacements. That means that we will either be stuck with an increasingly obsolescent/obsolete design for several decades as all of our current fighters are replaced by the same thing - and we will gradually become marginalized - or we will be forced to bear the costs of operating and maintaining two small fleets when some politician wakes up and develops the spine to purchase what we should have bought all along.

We could order F35 now and receive the first ones in more than enough time to replace our old aircraft.

The only obstacle to such common sense is a prime minister who is too arrogant to break a stupid election promise that he should not have made in the first place. He would rather waste billions of _our_ money than admit a mistake and correct it.

He caved on the election-meddling promise. Enough pressure may generate similar results.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I (and you, like me) have no idea if any aircraft will be parked.  I'm speculating on the most likely outcome if aircraft have to be parked (you don't park the new car and find a driver for the old one, generally).



The Liberals are claiming that we do not have enough aircraft as the justification for this purchase. If we do not have the Pilots to fly or the techs to maintain eighteen additional aircraft, what else is going to happen other than eighteen aircraft being parked? There is, therefore, no gain for the billions spent and their "capability gap" remains. The exercise, therefore, is completely stupid as we could have our F35s, and a true capability improvement, within the same timespan.


----------



## jmt18325

New aircraft almost always have a higher availability rate.

Of course, you're just guessing.  You don't know what the plan is at this point any more than I do.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I said don't buy and old, new aircraft.  For a fraction (1/10th) of the price, I would buy used aircraft.


\

Do you have the pricing figures in front of you?



> You don't understand.  I know for a fact that they can put 73s in as easily as a 79.  If our government ask for it, we'll get it.
> Let me re-phrase.



If - if.

If my grandma had wheels.... 



> What woukd you say here if the government purchased F-35As as an interim measure?



Exactly the same thing that I'm saying now (provided it arrived when we could actually use it to shoot at moving targets on the ground, something we do regularly).



> Remove APG-79 and tell me what added significant capability we get from those Rhinos that we wouldn't get from used legacies?



I think we're back to my grandma's wheels.


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Exactly the same thing that I'm saying now (provided it arrived when we could actually use it to shoot at moving targets on the ground, something we do regularly).



The F-35 can hit moving targets, you just need to do it manually, like we do now.  Shocker...


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The F-35 can hit moving targets, you just need to do it manually, like we do now.  Shocker...



So it would make a great interim aircraft.

Now, who is proposing buying it?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Perhaps you should ask the government why it doesn't consider it as the "interim" solution.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should ask the government why it doesn't consider it as the "interim" solution.



Because politics.  The same reason that the last government didn't buy it.

Also because the US doesn't consider it to be ready for combat.  How do I know that?  Well, because they said so.  They also said that it would be valuable in the fight against ISIS.  Yet it isn't there.  That's interesting.  Maybe in a few years, they say.


----------



## HB_Pencil

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Because politics.  The same reason that the last government didn't buy it.
> 
> Also because the US doesn't consider it to be ready for combat.  How do I know that?  Well, because they said so.  They also said that it would be valuable in the fight against ISIS.  Yet it isn't there.  That's interesting.  Maybe in a few years, they say.



Ah no, Its considered "ready for combat." It has passed USAF and USMC IoC. Those are not insignificant milestones. With Block II and Block IIIF, it is significantly more capable than the F/A-18E will ever be. 

Last month it went to Red Flag, the US Military's premier operational training/testing exercise. In a high threat, high tempo, operational environment (as close to war as can be simulated) it exhibited a 90% mission ready rate and a 17-1 kill ratio, destroyed 49 SAM Sites. It is currently being deployed to Iwakuni Japan to operate in the second most challenging threat environment in the world, the Chinese A2AD in the Western Pacific. Two weeks ago the USMC asked to double their procurement rate, as did the USAF who wants to accelerate their production after 2019.  There is talk by the Senior USAF brass that they will deploy them to operate over Syria later this year. This is an aircraft that is already operational in threat environments that far outstrip anything the Liberals may be considering. 

I have a number of friends in other air force/procurement communities, Japan, US, UK, AUS, and DK, and we're a complete and utter laughing stock by the arguments our government and people like you spout out. The Liberal's only saving grace is that we have an electorate who doesn't give a **** about the military, and is willing to take their bald faced lies at face value.... even if its going to cost them $7 billion dollars to actually decrease the combat capability of the RCAF.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> New aircraft almost always have a higher availability rate.



Really?

Typically, in the early days of a new fleet, techs are still learning about the aircraft, therefore troubleshooting and fixing tends to take longer, moving parts are wearing in, and insufficient spares have been purchased. It can take years to get past that point.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Of course, you're just guessing.  You don't know what the plan is at this point any more than I do.



My guessing, however, is based upon a little more knowledge and experience than you have.

As for "the plan", I don't even think that there is one.


----------



## jmt18325

Yes - that's called guessing.  My guessing is actually non existent.  I'm not willing to guess because if I guess wrong, someone here will jump all over me for it.  I'd rather just read and at best interpret information that's available. 

As for the F-35 being ready for combat - they haven't sent it into combat.  They say it would be useful there.  It's not there.  We have a thread for that though, so my apologies for bringing it here. 

In fact, at this point, the F-35 doesn't really belong in this discussion at all.

M


----------



## HB_Pencil

Loachman said:
			
		

> As for "the plan", I don't even think that there is one.



There isn't one. People are scrambling to make this work, but the very clear strictures won't let them. The pilot training pipeline, which the RCAF has tried to fix a number of times, can't be increased. The contract cannot be easily modified, and there is no more budget to purchase additional aircraft that might be able to increase the rate. 

The other side is that the retention levels are bad, and about to get worse. The Liberal party might be able to fool the electorate this is a good idea, but as SuperMax makes clear, they aren't fooling the operators who know what this decision is about. 

This plan was hatched by the PMO and the Minister's political appointees, specifically a certain Ex-CBC reporter.... who has absolutely zero experience in this area. They put the gag order on the Forces, then made them make this turd work. That's the reality of it.


----------



## HB_Pencil

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Yes - that's called guessing.  My guessing is actually non existent.  I'm not willing to guess because if I guess wrong, someone here will jump all over me for it.  I'd rather just read and at best interpret information that's available.
> 
> As for the F-35 being ready for combat - they haven't sent it into combat.  They say it would be useful there.  It's not there.  We have a thread for that though, so my apologies for bringing it here.
> 
> In fact, at this point, the F-35 doesn't really belong in this discussion at all.
> 
> M



Complete and utter BS. This post shows just how ignorant you actually are about any of this. Do you know what Redflag is? Here, go and read this book (which was on the CSAF reading list this year), and learn a bit before coming and talking about this. 

What excuse are you going to give at the end of this year when its over Syria? What would you say to the USMC pilots who are currently flying the F-35Bs in a cold war type environment against Chinese forces.... are you really going to tell them that their experiences "don't count." I guess the F-15 was never "combat ready" until the Gulf War because it never saw combat, yet was at nearly 20 years of Red Flags... and showed what it was capable of there. 

If you're going to troll, do it somewhere else please.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest from Laurie Hawn ...


> “Per Ardua Ad Dis-Astra.” This altered RCAF motto sums up what the federal the government’s convoluted process to buy 18 “interim” Super Hornets to fill a “capability gap” really means. It will kill Canada’s fighter force.
> 
> Everything can be traced to the prime minister’s election campaign promise to never buy the F-35 fighter jet, allegedly because it is too expensive and doesn’t work.
> 
> His conclusions are being proven wrong, but he seems determined to proceed without a timely competition, thanks to a politically created “capability gap.” That gap was based on aircraft numbers that have never been demanded simultaneously; by fudging actual CF-18 operational serviceability history; and by the false narrative that the CF-18 cannot keep operating until we start getting new aircraft.
> 
> Any imagined gap, however, could be filled by 27 available Kuwaiti F-18C/D aircraft for $330 million US. Or, we could upgrade our entire fleet of 76 CF-18s to close to Super Hornet systems status for about 20 per cent of what we’ll pay for 18 Super Hornets. Neither option was explored.
> 
> We don’t have technicians and support capacity for today. Eighteen Super Hornets will cost about $7 billion Cdn and add 350 non-existent personnel and Super Hornet-specific infrastructure. We are already losing pilots to voluntary release at rates we can’t re-generate, and we certainly don’t have extras for the Super Hornet.
> 
> Many real experts were never consulted, and 240 were forced to sign lifetime non-disclosure agreements, which hides the truth. The Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer should take an interest.
> 
> Competitions don’t take five years, and to satisfy everyone, we need to start one immediately. Denmark did one quickly, and Canada already has a (now suppressed) options analysis that points to the F-35. As in the past, the F-35 will win any competition not rigged against it.
> 
> The Super Hornet is a fine aircraft for its roles and time, but we need a fighter for projected threats into the 2050s. The Super Hornet also has a thorny safety issue in its oxygen system, which has resulted in 297 incidents and permanent grounding for some aircrews.
> 
> One argument that doesn’t stand up is that the F-35 doesn’t work. Its operational development continues and in every exercise where F-35 participates, its effectiveness is very evident. In our own primary aim of air sovereignty, the F-35’s clean configuration will allow it to conduct higher-altitude intercepts that the Super Hornet cannot.
> 
> Another argument that doesn’t stand up is cost. The latest cost for the F-35A is $8.5 billion US for 90 aircraft, or $94.6 million per aircraft. But as predicted, that cost will continue to decrease and in 2020, when we should start receiving our aircraft, it will be about $85 Million. The F-35 is cheaper than the Super Hornet.
> 
> The Super Hornet will not be interim. Even if the F-35 were to win a competition, we would suddenly realize that we can’t afford two small fleets, due to duplication of everything. That will apply to the Super Hornet and CF-18, and assuredly to the Super Hornet and F-35. The Aussies are doing it, but we are not them, and we would be stuck buying more Super Hornets.
> 
> Canadian aerospace industries, jobs and the economy will also be losers on our current path. We will lose out on billions in contracts and be out of step with future technology. This will be an industry-killing Avro Arrow redux and/or a costly Sea King redux.
> 
> We cannot afford to continue on the current path for many reasons: Canadian sovereignty and security, taxpayers, technical, personnel, moral, commonality with allies and Canadian industry. I have received virtually unanimous support for my position, most importantly from members of the RCAF at all rank levels.
> 
> _Lt.-Col. (Retired) Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD is a former RCAF CF-18 Squadron Commander and member of Parliament._


----------



## jmt18325

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Complete and utter BS. This post shows just how ignorant you actually are about any of this. Do you know what Redflag is? Here, go and read this book (which was on the CSAF reading list this year), and learn a bit before coming and talking about this.
> 
> What excuse are you going to give at the end of this year when its over Syria? What would you say to the USMC pilots who are currently flying the F-35Bs in a cold war type environment against Chinese forces.... are you really going to tell them that their experiences "don't count." I guess the F-15 was never "combat ready" until the Gulf War because it never saw combat, yet was at nearly 20 years of Red Flags... and showed what it was capable of there.
> 
> If you're going to troll, do it somewhere else please.



When the F-35 is used in combat over Syria to actually attack something, that will certainly be a milestone (even though we're not buying that one).  The rest is generally fluff meant to support a top early operational date.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So as I understand it, the main issue with pilot/airframe tech retention is being based in Cold lake for most of their career, correct? Can the squadrons be relocated and Cold Lake used as training area, pilots, ground crew and aircraft rotate out of?


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> So as I understand it, the main issue with pilot/airframe tech retention is being based in Cold lake for most of their career, correct? Can the squadrons be relocated and Cold Lake used as training area, pilots, ground crew and aircraft rotate out of?



Pretty much what the Aussies do, minus one Sqn in Tindal, Northern Territory...but that was more of a political move as they were moved from Malaysia.  Their fighter squadrons are based near their cities and if they need more than the local training area, they deploy there.

The major problem trying to (re?) follow the Aussies and base the fighters in less remote areas is the infrastructure needed.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile USN makes a purchase, Super Hornets are single-seaters;  overall unit price comes to about US $57M so must be without engines (bought separately from GE):



> Pentagon Contract Announcement
> (Source: US Department of Defense; issued Feb 27, 2017)
> 
> The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded a $678,679,386 fixed-price, incentive-firm target contract for the procurement of seven Lot 40 EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits and five F/A-18E aircraft.
> 
> Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (43 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (20 percent); Bethpage, New York (15 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (2 percent); Mesa, Arizona (1 percent); Torrance, California (1 percent); Ontario, Canada (1 percent); Greenlawn, New York (1 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1 percent); Irvine, California (1 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (1 percent); and various locations within the U.S. (13 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2019.
> 
> Fiscal 2016 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $678,679,386 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1.
> 
> The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-17-C-0003).
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/181516/boeing-wins-%24679m-for-seven-ea_18g-growlers%2C-five-f_18es.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

Relocated where, and at what cost?

This would require construction of new bases, with new runways, hangars, and all of the other infrastructure, and land appropriated, and ...

I've not been to Comox for a long time, but I presume that little, if anything, is left of 409 Squadron's old Voodoo facilities, and the local population might not be terribly appreciative of the additional sounds of freedom. Edmonton had a nice runway, once, and facilities for 435 Squadron's Hercs.

Existing airports of suitable size are generally busy enough and lack additional space, but some might be possible - there'd still be a sizeable cost for the necessary infrastructure, though.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Pretty much what the Aussies do, minus one Sqn in Tindal, Northern Territory...but that was more of a political move as they were moved from Malaysia.  Their fighter squadrons are based near their cities and if they need more than the local training area, they deploy there.
> 
> The major problem trying to (re?) follow the Aussies and base the fighters in less remote areas is the infrastructure needed.



Well..... [ ......Sadly we tore down or sold all the infrastructure in St Hubert, Ottawa, Chatham, Summerside, Downsview, Borden, Edmonton, Comox, Abbotsford, and so many other bases across the country.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Loachman said:
			
		

> Relocated where, and at what cost?
> 
> Existing airports of suitable size are generally busy enough and lack additional space, but some might be possible - there'd still be a sizeable cost for the necessary infrastructure, though.



How about a nice place, near one of Canada's largest city, two 3.7 km long runways, barely used at about 15% capacity right now? It's called Mirabel international airport. Still in the middle of farm land with good all around clear area (no noise complaint). Live in Laval and it's 30 minutes to the base while your significant others can work anywhere in Laval/Montreal area with a 45 mins to 60 mins commute (by transit) and even shorter by car if not working right downtown.

WIN-WIN.


----------



## SupersonicMax

So you are suggesting our two fighter bases be in Quebec?


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So you are suggesting our two fighter bases be in Quebec?



Well, Abbottsford Airport can definitely hold CF-18s...


----------



## MilEME09

Penhold is remote enough, longest runway is only 1600m though so that would need to be fixed.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, Abbottsford Airport can definitely hold CF-18s...



So can Victoria's airport, I assume.


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So can Victoria's airport, I assume.



As could Calgary, or any other major airport in Canada.


----------



## NavyShooter

Shearwater?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Pat bay is 2km runway, which likely limits the stores they can use , another one of the issues is a bunker for weapon stores. There is just enough room for some new hangers at Pat Bay or Abbotsford, you could station a squadron there and in Comox, the Pat Bay group could use the existing support services at CFB Esquimalt, keep the munitions and some ready aircraft at Comox, cycling pilots and ground crew through or post some of the ground crew there, use off base accommodation as much as possible in both places. The Bluehairs will whine, but the businesses will likely be happy.   

Mind you Whideby Island has 2.3km runways and in Google Earth has 51xF-18 and 14xP-3's in an area smaller than CFB Comox


----------



## RDBZ

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Pretty much what the Aussies do, minus one Sqn in Tindal, Northern Territory...but that was more of a political move as they were moved from Malaysia.  Their fighter squadrons are based near their cities and if they need more than the local training area, they deploy there.
> 
> The major problem trying to (re?) follow the Aussies and base the fighters in less remote areas is the infrastructure needed.



Tindal was built at Katherine NT as it was assessed as more secure than coastal Darwin, and because flying is less affected by the monsoon than is the case at any coastal location across northern Australia.


----------



## Quirky

Colin P said:
			
		

> So as I understand it, the main issue with pilot/airframe tech retention is being based in Cold lake for most of their career, correct? Can the squadrons be relocated and Cold Lake used as training area, pilots, ground crew and aircraft rotate out of?



Speaking from first hand experience, I can tell you from a techs point of view that Cold Lake's biggest issue will always be location. You are three hours away from civilization, you have no life after work and winters are brutal. Meanwhile, PLD $ amount is just a token joke and PMQ costs are still way more than they should be (not that it affects me anymore). Our Airbus or any civilian charter rarely lands on base during the winter months because we have no deicing capability, forcing a 4 hour bus ride to YEG. Canada's largest fighter base that's under frost and winter 7-8 months of the year can't deice airplanes. Unreal. 

Cold lake is just a generally horrible place to be posted and I already see how the newer generation of techs will just leave after a few years or remuster just to be posted out. Being stuck there for a minimum of ten years isn't worth it. 

The fighter squadrons are bleeding qualified and experienced techs, buying Super Hornets won't fix the problem. They'll just land in cold lake and be parked inside the hangar with no one to maintain them. It's happening now with our current jets, they sit on jacks for weeks and weeks because no one is left to fix them.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So you are suggesting our two fighter bases be in Quebec?



I was merely suggesting to Loachman that there was at least one airport with sufficient facilities that was not overly busy contrary to his assertion, nothing else.

However, and you are one the SME on this, let me know whether the following would be workable and help with retention for the fighter community:

What if all of the fighter force was located in a single facility, at Mirabel, permanently, but with  "six-packs" rotating to one or two other facilities in Canada (such as Cold Lake, Comox, Bagotville or Goose Bay) for one month deployment, with everyone getting two such deployments a year? The whole community would be able to  establish a good living for themselves around the North side of Montreal, with their dependants able to find stable employment and schooling, up to and inclusive of University. Proximity to 25 CF Supply Depot would mean IORs could be obtained in a few hours, by car, truck or even helicopter if need be. Similarly, locating near 55% of the aerospace industrial base of Canada would make many other things simpler. Combine that with the night life, theatre, shows, movies, musical venues and festivals together with sports and other activities found only in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, on the one hand, and the most affordable cost of housing for cities over 500,000 in Canada.

What do you say? Could it be done? Would it help with retention?

P.s. You could leave "jet" training in the prairies as it is run by contractors and they don't seem to have problems finding personnel.


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> As could Calgary, or any other major airport in Canada.



My suggestion is use Saskatoon, they have the room at the airport and it's still close enough to utilize the CLAWR. The city is large enough and has all the facilities and resources for anyone to live a normal life outside of work.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Boeing vs the retired generals on Super Hornet vs F-35:



> Boeing strikes back at former air force commanders
> 
> Boeing is firing back at a group of former Canadian air force commanders who are asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to reconsider a plan to buy Super Hornet aircraft as an interim measure for Canada’s fighter jet capability gap.
> 
> The former commanders released an open letter to Trudeau last week, arguing in favour of scrapping the plan to buy 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim measure while the government seeks a long-term replacement for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fleet of CF-188 Hornets.
> 
> “While we have great respect for those generals’ service to Canada, unfortunately the criticisms spelled out in the letter don’t hold up to scrutiny,” said Boeing in a statement released to Skies on Feb. 27
> 
> “Additionally, the generals’ proposed solution, while appealing on first thought, is not a practical way of solving the capability gap today and does nothing to ensure the RCAF has the equipment needed to fulfill its missions in the future.”
> 
> Boeing responded to four claims in the open letter, including the idea that Canada should seriously examine buying legacy Hornets. The letter claimed both the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force will have surplus F-18s that are “very close in configuration” to Canada’s own.
> 
> But Boeing said neither the U.S. nor Australia has surplus F/A-18s to sell to Canada.
> 
> “The United States Navy, which flies F/A-18s, is facing a major strike fighter shortage,” said Boeing.
> 
> “The problem is so bad that in the United States, that the Defense Department has taken to museums to find spare parts needed to repair its current legacy F-18 fleet,” the company added, citing a report in the Breaking Defense online magazine.
> 
> “Like Canada’s CF-18s, American legacy Hornets are approaching the end of the airframe’s designed lifespan and the cost to keep them flying is multiplying. Given that fact, and the fact that the U.S. Navy’s version of the F-35 won’t be combat ready for several more years, the U.S. Navy is looking to purchase new Super Hornets, which the U.S. plans to fly well into the 2040s.”
> 
> Boeing added that Australia’s legacy F/A-18 fleet isn’t an option, saying the country faced a capability gap similar to what Canada faces today. The country purchased 24 Super Hornets [actually to replace F-111s not legacy Hornets] to ensure Australia’s air combat capability edge is maintained until the full introduction into service of the planned F-35A Lightning II, said Boeing.
> 
> “Even if used Hornets were available, they would only compound the 50 per cent availability rate of the RCAF CF-18 fleet,” said Boeing.
> 
> The company also disputed a claim about similarities between the Super Hornet and existing CF-188s. The former air force commanders said it is a “different airplane, requiring its own training system for pilots and technicians, as well as new flight simulators, logistic support and maintenance organizations specific to the Super Hornet.”
> 
> Boeing said the Super Hornet was designed specifically to ensure an easy transition from the legacy Hornet.
> 
> “The Super Hornet, while a completely new, highly survivable aircraft, was designed to have common maintenance procedures with the legacy Hornet,” said Boeing. “It takes just 120 hours for Classic Hornet maintainers and one month for aircrews to transition to Super Hornets, including ground strike and weapons training.”
> 
> _Boeing also disputed a claim that the RCAF would have to draw personnel from the existing CF-188 fighter fleet to help bring into service a new and more complex fleet of fighter aircraft. The former air force commanders said it would be necessary to recruit, train and qualify several hundred new technicians and dozens of pilots.
> 
> “The RCAF could easily deploy CF-18s from one of its squadrons to the other three to ensure operational availability while freeing existing personnel and assets to support Super Hornets,” said Boeing_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The company’s final criticism was of the idea that buying, operating and supporting an interim fleet of Super Hornets would be an expensive proposition.
> 
> “Everyone agrees that the Royal Canadian Air Force needs a modern fighter fleet to ensure Canada can defend its borders and meet its NORAD and NATO treaty obligations,” said Boeing, adding the current CF-188 fleet was introduced into RCAF inventory starting in 1982 and was scheduled to be retired in 2006.
> 
> “Given the age of the planes and the lack of spare parts, keeping these plans [sic] flying is increasingly expensive and time-consuming,” said Boeing. “Purchasing legacy Hornets, if they were available, might appear cheaper in the short term but the maintenance costs and required modifications for these jets would be much higher than that of new F/A-18 Super Hornets. Ultimately Canadian taxpayers would see that the idea of acquiring legacy Hornets would be a much more expensive proposition than the generals’ letter claims.”
> 
> Boeing said the addition of F/A-18 Super Hornets to the Canadian fleet will automatically and immediately increase fighter availability, as well as the capability of the entire fleet through buddy tanking, advanced sensors and data-sharing capabilities.
> 
> “The Super Hornet, with its designed-in stealth, premiere AESA [active electronically scanned array] radar, and multi-role capabilities, will bring the latest generation of technologies to the RCAF,” Boeing concluded.
> 
> “By any measure, the interim buy is a cost effective and smart way to ensure the RCAF can meet Canada’s commitments.”
> https://www.skiesmag.com/news/boeing-strikes-back-former-air-force-commanders/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:
			
		

> The fighter squadrons are bleeding qualified and experienced techs, buying Super Hornets won't fix the problem. They'll just land in cold lake and be parked inside the hangar with no one to maintain them. It's happening now with our current jets, they sit on jacks for weeks and weeks because no one is left to fix them.



I talked to a AVS tech who was on his QL5 in borden a couple years back, he told me that a Civilian company was offering him big bank to jump ship and join them once he had his qualifications. Cold lake or a nice six figure salary with a good company? wonder which one most techs would pick? The CaF, and by extension the RCAF isn't competitive, or maybe it would better to say they lack the incentives to have members stay, especially in tech trades.


----------



## Loachman

Quirky said:
			
		

> Speaking from first hand experience, I can tell you from a techs point of view that Cold Lake's biggest issue will always be location. You are three hours away from civilization, you have no life after work and winters are brutal. Meanwhile, PLD $ amount is just a token joke and PMQ costs are still way more than they should be (not that it affects me anymore). Our Airbus or any civilian charter rarely lands on base during the winter months because we have no deicing capability, forcing a 4 hour bus ride to YEG. Canada's largest fighter base that's under frost and winter 7-8 months of the year can't deice airplanes. Unreal.
> 
> Cold lake is just a generally horrible place to be posted and I already see how the newer generation of techs will just leave after a few years or remuster just to be posted out. Being stuck there for a minimum of ten years isn't worth it.
> 
> The fighter squadrons are bleeding qualified and experienced techs, buying Super Hornets won't fix the problem. They'll just land in cold lake and be parked inside the hangar with no one to maintain them. It's happening now with our current jets, they sit on jacks for weeks and weeks because no one is left to fix them.



Cue jmt18325 "You don't know the plan, you're just guessing" ...


----------



## jmt18325

I actually found his post to be very informative.


----------



## Loachman

So you're not _completely_ predictable, then - yet.

Yes, it was informative - especially the bits about "parked" and not enough people.

Somebody should have mentioned those earlier.


----------



## GR66

The remoteness of Cold Lake (and CFB's in general) I've seen mentioned in numerous threads.  Obviously the expense to relocate much of the CF to more urban (or near-urban) locations would be huge, but would it solve some long-term, nagging issues that prevent the CF from better connecting with the public and better being able to retain (expensive) trained personnel, and possibly even better perform some of its functions?

Governments, especially this Liberal government have pushed infrastructure spending as a way to kick-start a sluggish economy.  If you're going to spend federal money on infrastructure then this at least would be one potential use that could have a lasting positive effect.

Besides the money for the infrastructure itself and the cost of transiting troops to/from the major training areas, what are the other negatives?

(feel free to move to another thread if too much of derail)


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> So you're not _completely_ predictable, then - yet.



I'm always glad when people take such an interest in my well being.



> Yes, it was informative - especially the bits about "parked" and not enough people.



It says to me we should base the new jets in Bagotville.  Or, make a new base altogether.


----------



## SupersonicMax

How would you magically create new qualified technicians in YBG?!


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How would you magically create new qualified technicians in YBG?!



It sounds like it would be less of a challenge to have people live there.  The alternative would be to create a new fighter base somewhere line Trenton, Winnipeg, Halifax, etc.


----------



## Quirky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It sounds like it would be less of a challenge to have people live there.  The alternative would be to create a new fighter base somewhere line Trenton, Winnipeg, Halifax, etc.



English speaking people don't want to live in baggotville - the home of the 40 year old Cpl with 20 years experience on the jet. They don't have the retention problems cold lake has.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Getting people to live there is a problem you have AFTER you post them there.  When there is no body to fill those positions, this is irrelevant.


----------



## YZT580

If you are looking for a base within a couple of hours of a major city you could do far worse than YYB.  The hole is still available and housing is not too expensive.  It has a 10,000 ft runway, the alert hangers are still there and it is only a 4 hour drive to Toronto.  Lots of activities both summer and winter.  The airport is far enough out from the city that noise isn't a problem and northern Ontario provides lots of room for training.  Major disadvantage (Wynne)


----------



## SupersonicMax

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If you are looking for a base within a couple of hours of a major city you could do far worse than YYB.  The hole is still available and housing is not too expensive.  It has a 10,000 ft runway, the alert hangers are still there and it is only a 4 hour drive to Toronto.  Lots of activities both summer and winter.  The airport is far enough out from the city that noise isn't a problem and northern Ontario provides lots of room for training.  Major disadvantage (Wynne)



Not much different than Cold Lake and Edmonton.  Not much gained by using North Bay.


----------



## observor 69

Quirky said:
			
		

> English speaking people don't want to live in baggotville - the home of the 40 year old Cpl with 20 years experience on the jet. They don't have the retention problems cold lake has.



I'm one of those English speakers. Been there done that as an AVS tech many years ago. An Anglo family pays a high price, lack of job and education opportunity. Also remote from relatives. The Parc des Laurentide used to be a real obstacle to travel to the outside world in the winter.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

How about Dundurn, Saskatchewan? It is owned by the RCAF; has about 50,000 acres in which to build an airfield; it is out in the country but still only 25kms from Saskatoon and the ammo supply is right next door.

Easy flying distance to both CLAWR and Wainwright.

What is not to like?


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How about Dundurn, Saskatchewan? It is owned by the RCAF; has about 50,000 acres in which to build an airfield; it is out in the country but still only 25kms from Saskatoon and the ammo supply is right next door.
> 
> Easy flying distance to both CLAWR and Wainwright.
> 
> What is not to like?



You should be in real estate.   ;D


----------



## Bearpaw

I think SeaKingTacco has hit it right on the head!  I used Google Maps to look around a bit and came to exactly the same conclusion.
Just to the south of the ammunition depot there is a large area that looks suitable for long runways,....

Bearpaw


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How about Dundurn, Saskatchewan? It is owned by the RCAF; has about 50,000 acres in which to build an airfield; it is out in the country but still only 25kms from Saskatoon and the ammo supply is right next door.
> 
> Easy flying distance to both CLAWR and Wainwright.
> 
> What is not to like?


----------



## Quirky

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> I think SeaKingTacco has hit it right on the head!  I used Google Maps to look around a bit and came to exactly the same conclusion.
> Just to the south of the ammunition depot there is a large area that looks suitable for long runways,....
> 
> Bearpaw



There is no reason to build a completely new base from scratch. We should utilize exsisting infrastructure at civilian airports and build around them. The Americans do it really well, for example Anchorage and Portland.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ok then, scratch Dundurn- Saskatoon, Regina or Moose Jaw.

Moose Jaw would have the advantage in that a lot of pilots would get Geo-stability on their posting...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Quirky said:
			
		

> There is no reason to build a completely new base from scratch. We should utilize exsisting infrastructure at civilian airports and build around them. The Americans do it really well, for example Anchorage and Portland.



They also have the advantage of being more secure than our current establishments which may as well not even have security.


----------



## suffolkowner

The turn this thread has taken is fascinating but I wonder how well it would go over in Ottawa or how much support there would be for such an endeavor both in military and civilian corridors. It seems like to big a task for Ottawa to handle. 
When was the last time a newish infrastructure program of this scale was undertaken? 
Still, have we narrowed down the field of possible locations?
Is this really the answer to the retention issues?


----------



## Quirky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> They also have the advantage of being more secure than our current establishments which may as well not even have security.



Then why not rotate troops from Army units to handle base security. I don't think there will be a shortage of volunteers from wainwright or shilo to guard airplanes in Air Force bases. 



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The turn this thread has taken is fascinating but I wonder how well it would go over in Ottawa or how much support there would be for such an endeavor both in military and civilian corridors. It seems like to big a task for Ottawa to handle.
> When was the last time a newish infrastructure program of this scale was undertaken?
> Still, have we narrowed down the field of possible locations?
> Is this really the answer to the retention issues?



IMHO yes it is. You can lower PMQ rates and raise PLD but people will still be miserable living in remote areas for over a decade. Look at Yellowknife, people love it there because they know it's a four year posting and you will be so far ahead financially when you leave with NLA. 

Now is the perfect time to relocate, all the infrastructure needs replacing anyway, why not use another existing airfield to build new hangars and support buildings. I know it's a pipedream and will never happen however. Things will only get worse with retention in the future without a major change. I hate to say it, but the squadrons need to fail before someone wakes up.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Quirky said:
			
		

> Then why not rotate troops from Army units to handle base security. I don't think there will be a shortage of volunteers from wainwright or shilo to guard airplanes in Air Force bases.
> 
> IMHO yes it is. You can lower PMQ rates and raise PLD but people will still be miserable living in remote areas for over a decade. Look at Yellowknife, people love it there because they know it's a four year posting and you will be so far ahead financially when you leave with NLA.
> 
> Now is the perfect time to relocate, all the infrastructure needs replacing anyway, why not use another existing airfield to build new hangars and support buildings. I know it's a pipedream and will never happen however. Things will only get worse with retention in the future without a major change. I hate to say it, but the squadrons need to fail before someone wakes up.



The territories are a diff beast entirely.  You've got an education and are willing to live there, guaranteed to get a good job, either in the resource extraction or working for the territorial govt.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start of Public Services and Procurement Canada webpage, further links at original:



> Replacing and supplementing Canada’s CF-18 fleet
> 
> The Government of Canada committed to replacing Canada’s fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft through an open and transparent competition. Until a permanent replacement arrives, we are exploring supplementing our existing fleet with 18 Super Hornet aircraft.
> 
> Consult this web page often to stay informed about the competition to permanently replace our fighter fleet and the possible purchase of interim Super Hornet aircraft.
> On this page
> 
> Permanent replacement of the current fleet
> Exploring an interim solution
> ...
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/snac-nfps/CF-18-eng.html



Looks like FMS contract for Super Hornets might be done by 2018, Boeing in catbird's seat for negotiating industrial benefits since we're already committed.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Well thats great that it is going quickly, however how long to we wait for those air frames? 3 years? 5 years? I'd rather us hold the compitition, declare a winner, and have a new fleet start delivery in 5 years or so.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Wonder what the costs will be, nature of the industrial offsets.  Any two-seater Fs?  CP story:



> Liberals take next step toward buying Super Hornets, hope for deal by year's end
> 
> The Liberal government has taken the next step towards buying 18 Super Hornet fighter jets on an interim basis, a purchase it hopes to make official by year's end.
> 
> The government sent a letter to the U.S. government today outlining exactly what it needs in the warplanes, when it needs them, and what type of economic benefits Canada expects in return.
> 
> Aerospace giant Boeing will use those requirements to come up with a formal proposal to Canada by the fall, with the government hoping for a formal contract by the end of 2017 or early 2018.
> 
> Any agreement must also be approved by the U.S. Congress.
> 
> The government announced in November its plans to augment Canada's aging CF-18 fleet with the Hornets until a full competition to replace the CF-18s could be held in 2019.
> 
> But a number of retired military officers have called for an immediate competition, saying an interim fighter fleet will be more expensive and hurt the air force in the long run.
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-take-next-step-toward-buying-super-hornets-hope-for-deal-by-year-s-end-1.3324442



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't news release--wants 100% offsets:



> Government of Canada Announces Next Steps in Potential Procurement of Interim Fighter Capability
> _Submission of Letter of Request to United States Government_
> 
> OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - March 14, 2017) - Government of Canada
> 
> A modern fighter jet fleet is essential for defending Canada and Canadian sovereignty, especially in our northern skies.
> 
> Canada has been exploring the potential acquisition of new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the current fleet until an open and transparent competition can be completed to replace Canada's legacy CF-18 fleet. Over the course of the last few months, Government of Canada officials have been meeting with United States (U.S.) government officials, and with Boeing, on a regular basis to discuss meeting this interim need.
> 
> Yesterday, the Government of Canada took another important step toward the potential acquisition of an interim fleet. In a Letter of Request submitted to the U.S. government, Canada outlined its requirements on capabilities, schedule and economic benefits for 18 Super Hornet aircraft.
> 
> Canada has confirmed to the U.S. government its commitment to applying its Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy on this potential acquisition, which requires suppliers to make investments in Canada equal to 100% of their contract value. This policy will provide Canadian companies with opportunities to directly participate in this procurement, develop Canadian-based suppliers, support innovation through research and development, grow export opportunities for Canadian firms, and create jobs for middle-class Canadians.
> 
> Following receipt of this letter, the U.S. Department of Defense will engage Boeing and other suppliers to develop an official proposal. This process includes the U.S. government's notification to its Congress about the potential sale of Super Hornets to Canada.
> 
> As early as fall 2017, Canada expects to receive a response from the U.S. government. The proposal will be reviewed to determine if the U.S. government can provide the interim solution at a cost, schedule, level of capability and economic value acceptable to Canada. If this process is successful, Canada could enter into a formal agreement with the U.S. government for the interim aircraft and associated elements of in-service support as early as the end of 2017 or the beginning of 2018.
> 
> In parallel, Canada will also undertake formal discussions with potential suppliers regarding economic benefits for Canadian industry to meet the requirements of the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy. This will ensure that the potential procurement of interim aircraft will help grow Canada's aerospace and defence sector, create high-value jobs and support Canadian innovation.
> 
> The Government of Canada will continue to provide updates and keep Canadians informed of its progress as it moves forward on replacing and supplementing Canada's fighter aircraft...
> 
> Contact Information
> 
> Annie Trepanier
> Office of the Honourable Judy M. Foote
> 819-997-5421
> 
> Media Relations
> Public Services and Procurement Canada
> 819-420-5501
> media@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
> 
> Jordan Owens
> Office of the Minister of National Defence
> 613-996-3100
> 
> Media Relations
> Department of National Defence
> 613-996-2353
> Toll-free: 1-866-377-0811
> mlo-blm@forces.gc.ca
> 
> Nilani Logeswaran
> Office of the Minister of Innovation,
> Science and Economic Development
> 343-291-2500
> 
> Media Relations
> Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
> 343-291-1777
> ic.mediarelations-mediasrelations.ic@canada.ca
> http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/government-canada-announces-next-steps-potential-procurement-interim-fighter-capability-2202856.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

100% and that is why we cant have nice things

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Loachman

With any luck, that will scuttle this nonsense.


----------



## jmt18325

Boeing will have no trouble doing that, considering they have operations here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Canada

I agree though, it would be far better for us to get nothing for a decade or so.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I would love it if LM stepped up with a public release that they'd be willing to provide the 100% IRB, as well.

Something for the media to chew on....

"So, how come you're not putting this up for bid again?"


 :warstory:


----------



## PuckChaser

Considering how much of the F-35 contracts have already gone to Canadian companies, I'm willing to bet they're very near or at the threshold. They've exported production to Israel and I believe Australia, wouldn't cause much heartache if they offered to do the final assembly in Canada to cover off the remaining offset. Boeing has an established SH line and would have to export all or nothing, unless it offered to build some other aircraft here.


----------



## George Wallace

Meanwhile:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Liberals put Super Hornet purchase plan in writing
> *Ottawa says deal to include requirement for Boeing to invest 100% of the contract value in Canada*
> By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Mar 14, 2017 8:05 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 14, 2017 8:05 PM ET
> 
> The Trudeau government has formally asked Washington to facilitate the sole-source purchase of a handful of Super Hornet jet fighters for the air force.
> 
> Public Works and Procurement Services, in a statement, said a letter of request was submitted to the U.S. Department of Defence on Monday that outlined Canada's requirements, capabilities, schedule and expected economic benefits.
> 
> The Liberal government has been quietly negotiating the deal to buy 18 of the jets since early in the year after announcing last fall that the military needed an interim set of fighters until the entire fleet of aging CF-18s is retired.
> 
> Since the Liberals have chosen to buy through the U.S. government, rather than a commercial deal, federal officials say they've made it clear to Washington that they intend to invoke the "Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy."
> 
> That means suppliers will be expected to make investments in Canadian businesses equal to 100 per cent of the of the contract value.
> It's an attempt to ensure that aerospace companies in this country can participate in the procurement.
> 
> "This will ensure that the potential procurement of interim aircraft will help grow Canada's aerospace and defence sector, create high-value jobs and support Canadian innovation," the statement said.
> 
> Under the rules of foreign military sales, the benefits will have to be negotiated.
> 
> Earlier this winter, Boeing officials said the company was prepared to deliver an offset equal to the purchase price the U.S. navy pays, roughly $85 million ($65 million US) per aircraft.
> 
> It's now up to the Pentagon to negotiate with Boeing and come up with an official proposal for Canada.
> 
> The deal will also have to be approved by the U.S. Congress.
> 
> The statement says it will be the fall of this year before Canadian officials can review the proposal and potential costs.
> 
> "We will assess whether an interim Super Hornet fleet purchase will help ensure Canada remains a credible and dependable ally for many years to come," Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said in a statement on Tuesday.
> 
> *Up to $7B price tag*
> 
> One set of internal estimates at National Defence, shared with CBC News by anonymous sources in January, suggested the price tag for taxpayers could run between $5 billion and $7 billion over the lifetime of the aircraft.
> 
> Boeing officials, in an interview at that time, suggested a contract would take up to year to negotiate, but that Canada had already signalled it would like to see the first aircraft arrive in 2019, which would coincide with the next election.
> 
> Given that the company already has contracts from the U.S. navy and Kuwait, Boeing's vice-president of the FA-18 program, Dan Gillian, said the company is looking at how production of Canadian jets can be slotted alongside existing orders.
> 
> Additionally, the Liberal government will have to negotiate an in-service support contract and consider buying training simulators for both pilots and perhaps mechanics.



More on LINK.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Fun With Maths:

If the "life cycle cost" of 18 interim F-18F for , basically a 15 years gap, is 5 to 7 b$, what is the equivalent cost for 65 aircrafts over a full period of double that duration (still shorter than the 35 years of the PBO report on the F-35)?

Well, guess what: It would be between 36 and 50 b$, which is more than the forecasted 25 to 40 b$ for the F-35 that led to its cancellation by the Conservatives and the irrational decision to not even consider the F-35 by the Trudeau Liberals.


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Fun With Maths:
> 
> If the "life cycle cost" of 18 interim F-18F for , basically a 15 years gap, is 5 to 7 b$, what is the equivalent cost for 65 aircrafts over a full period of double that duration (still shorter than the 35 years of the PBO report on the F-35)?
> 
> Well, guess what: It would be between 36 and 50 b$, which is more than the forecasted 25 to 40 b$ for the F-35 that led to its cancellation by the Conservatives and the irrational decision to not even consider the F-35 by the Trudeau Liberals.



Now I *know* you said this tongue-in-cheek, but when has "rational" ever come up when politics gets involved in military procurement?


----------



## MilEME09

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Now I *know* you said this tongue-in-cheek, but when has "rational" ever come up when politics gets involved in military procurement?



somewhere between September 1 1939, and August 14 1945?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Boeing has dropped the price a bit so that will help, I know we are struggling now manpower wise, but that is fixable if there is a will, but if we are going to do this, lets get about 30 and then get 50 F-35. That would give us 80 modern fighters. Buying 18 is just dumb.


----------



## a_majoor

While this is about the Eagle, for Super Hornets or even Advanced Super Hornets to be more than marginally useful in a modern air war context, they will have to be fitted out as bomb and missile trucks for the controlling (i.e. USAF or NATO or even Japanese and Korean, depending on the theater) F-35's. The stealthy weapons pod for the F-18 might go some way to making this a viable option for the Super Hornet:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25656/eagle-2040c-next-generation-f-15/



> *The Next Generation F-15 Is Packed With Missiles*
> Eagle 2040C carries up to sixteen air-to-air missiles and sports a slick new paint job.
> By Kyle Mizokami
> Mar 13, 2017
> 
> A proposed upgrade for the F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter now has a slick promotional video to show it off. The so-called Advanced Eagle, or F-15 2040C, would team up with fighters like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to take on numerically superior fleets of enemy aircraft.
> 
> The U.S. Air Force has traditionally relied on a mixture of larger, more expensive air superiority fighters and lighter, cheaper multi-role fighters to establish air supremacy. The F-15 Eagle and later the F-22 Raptor were designed with one job in mind: air-to-air combat. Unfortunately the best doesn't come cheap. The high cost of the F-22, combined with the end of the Cold War, an economic downturn, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, forced the Pentagon to trim its orignal buy of 750 Raptor fighters to a mere 187.
> 
> An emphasis on stealth and staying off enemy radar means the F-22 and F-35 must rely on internal weapons and fuel to get the job done. The F-22 Raptor carries up to six AMRAAM medium range air-to-air missiles and the F-35 up to four. While both planes can carry additional missiles and fuel on their wings, doing so ruins their carefully shaped profiles, increasing their radar signatures. External stores also increase aerodynamic drag, lowering flight performance.
> 
> The relatively small number of F-22s in service makes it more likely the F-22 would be outnumbered in any future fight. But there are hundreds of F-15s still in service. Boeing's solution: Make the F-15 a missile truck with more than a dozen AMRAAM missiles. The Advanced Eagle 2040C upgrade would be most useful applied to F-15s updated to the so-called "Golden Eagle" standard, which fits a new AN/APG-63(V)3 active synthetically scanned array (AESA) air-to-air radar to the fighters.
> 
> In one possible air-to-air combat scenario, Advanced Eagles would operate with their newer counterparts to rapidly identify and take down larger enemy air fleets. The easier-to-detect and more vulnerable F-15s would hang back, quickly darting forward to launch their missiles at targets identified by F-22s and F-35s. Once their missiles are exhausted the F-15s would turn and head home and the F-22s and F-35s would then use their own built-in armament to continue the fight.
> 
> The Advanced Eagle upgrade consists of four so-called "quad pack" hardpoints on the wings, each capable of carrying four AMRAAM missiles for a total of 16. The upgrade also increases the F-15's range with conformal fuel tanks, fuel storage reservoirs that are attached to the body of the aircraft to lower drag.
> 
> Probably the most important upgrade is the Talon HATE sensor and communications pod. Currently in testing, Talon HATE allows the F-15 to receive data from F-22s without the enemy picking up on the transmissions. Designed in the 1990s, the F-22 Raptor can only share data with other Raptors via the Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL). In addition to being an infra-red search and track sensor, Talon HATE allows an aircraft equipped with it tap into the IFDL and receive Raptor sensor data. The pilot can see incoming data, along with that from other sources, via a new central touchscreen cockpit display.
> 
> F-22s and F-15s are already training to operate together with impressive results. In recent exercises held at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, four F-22s operating alongside four F-15s have achieved a kill ratio of 41 to 1 against 14 simulated enemy aircraft. (Enemy aircraft were allowed to respawn during the exercise.) Upgrading the Eagles to Advanced Eagle status would likely keep the dynamic duo viable into the near future.
> 
> The upgraded F-15s would also be useful in taking on less technically advanced air forces. The North Korean Air Force, for example, is numerically large but technologically inferior. Advanced Eagles would do well against such an opponent, freeing up F-22s and F-35s to operate against complex North Korean air defenses or operate in other theaters deterring more powerful potential adversaries.
> 
> The Advanced Eagle upgrade would also be useful for other countries that fly the F-15, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Japan. The Japanese F-15J would particularly benefit from a larger missile capability, as the Chinese Air Force rapidly grows in numbers and technology. Japan scrambled fighters 944 times in 2016 to intercept foreign aircraft nearing its airspace, twice as often as in previous years, and recently began to double the number of F-15s sent on intercept missions. Advanced Eagles would allow the Japanese to fly sortie fewer planes, reducing operating costs and wear on already aging airframes.


----------



## dimsum

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While this is about the Eagle, for Super Hornets or even Advanced Super Hornets to be more than marginally useful in a modern air war context, they will have to be fitted out as bomb and missile trucks for the controlling (i.e. USAF or NATO or even Japanese and Korean, depending on the theater) F-35's. The stealthy weapons pod for the F-18 might go some way to making this a viable option for the Super Hornet:
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25656/eagle-2040c-next-generation-f-15/



I've said this before and I'll say it again; if being a missile truck and staying (relatively) far behind friendly air cover is the goal, then a P-3 or similarly large (size and endurance) platform would be better than an F-15 or SH that still has to AAR every couple of hours.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Missile truck as in AAMs?

Nice try but no.


----------



## George Wallace

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Missile truck as in AAMs?



Why not?  It is not as if this has not been done before, with even larger vehicles than the current missiles we have;







The concept is 'sound', don't you think; or is it the 'jet jockey' in you thinking that their job may become redundant?


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Missile truck as in AAMs?
> 
> Nice try but no.



No, air-to-surface.  Maybe HARMs to supplement Growlers/Prowlers.  Obviously something like a P-3 won't be tangling with fighters.

If we're going to spitball, maybe have one of those larger platforms be a C2 node for UCAVs as well.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The original Missileer, none built:



> The Douglas F6D Missileer
> http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2015/10/the-douglas-f6d-missileer.html








Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

The issue I have with current ideas like using a B-52 as an arsenal plane is the thing is much bigger, has a very obvious signature and is far too slow to keep up with the stealth F-22 and F-35's roaming ahead to target (as well, a missile launched at low speeds has a much shorter range).

Using Super Hornets or rebuilt F-15's (especially Strike Eagles with their enormous conformal tanks) in this role provides a platform with similar flight characteristics to the targeting aircraft, is more robust (losing one Eagle does not deny the use of the extra munitions, while losing a B-52 negates the entire arsenal plane + targeteer package), and if the package is being overwhelmed by superior numbers, you still have a force of full fledged fighters to deal with it.

It would also be interesting to see the missile trucks outfitted with ultra long range missiles like the Chinese missiles reported to have 300 mile ranges, nothing like being able to reply in turn. Of course Strike Eagles also have the ability to carry large amounts of ground attack munitions, so if they are part of the "bomb truck" package, the enemy will be in for a pretty exciting time. (for some values of exciting).


----------



## GR66

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> It would also be interesting to see the missile trucks outfitted with ultra long range missiles like the Chinese missiles reported to have 300 mile ranges, nothing like being able to reply in turn. Of course Strike Eagles also have the ability to carry large amounts of ground attack munitions, so if they are part of the "bomb truck" package, the enemy will be in for a pretty exciting time. (for some values of exciting).



A long range bomb truck with long range missiles would fit in very well with what I think should be a primary role for the RCAF in a war with Russia, which would be to take out their bombers before they can launch on the ships bringing the all important US reinforcements to Europe.  They would also fill the role of taking out Russian bombers at long distance before they can launch their missiles on North America for those that see that as the primary threat/role.

Either way though, we'd need something far forward to do the detecting for us so that we could detect the targets to launch at.  The F-35 might be the best current platform, but does it really have the operational range required to negate the huge range of Russian missiles?  

Personally I'd prefer to have our own F-35's do the detecting rather than relying on another nation to select our targets for us, so that would suggest a mixed fleet with all the negatives that comes with.  It also suggests that we (the West) really need to invest more in developing longer range missiles for our aircraft.


----------



## HB_Pencil

GR66 said:
			
		

> A long range bomb truck with long range missiles would fit in very well with what I think should be a primary role for the RCAF in a war with Russia, which would be to take out their bombers before they can launch on the ships bringing the all important US reinforcements to Europe.  They would also fill the role of taking out Russian bombers at long distance before they can launch their missiles on North America for those that see that as the primary threat/role.
> 
> Either way though, we'd need something far forward to do the detecting for us so that we could detect the targets to launch at.  The F-35 might be the best current platform, but does it really have the operational range required to negate the huge range of Russian missiles?
> 
> Personally I'd prefer to have our own F-35's do the detecting rather than relying on another nation to select our targets for us, so that would suggest a mixed fleet with all the negatives that comes with.  It also suggests that we (the West) really need to invest more in developing longer range missiles for our aircraft.



The operational radius with 4500 lbs internal ordinance (basically two 2000lbs JDAMs and 2 -120s) is 625 Nautical miles... with lets say 1000lbs (4 Aim-120s) it would be closer to 700nm. 

Also remember that with sensor fusion, the detection and tracking ability of the F-35 is significantly improved over other aircraft. On something like the F/A-18E with a federated system you're basically limited to the detection range of any particular sensor. With F-35, the data from all the different onboard and off board sensors is brought together to detect and track... so a potential target what would be undetectable for any one sensor on a 4th gen, is detectable because intermittent data from multiple sensors can create a track on the F-35. 

I've said this before, but you can basically do the work of 3 or 4 aircraft with one F-35. You don't get 20-1 kill ratios in Red Flag for no reason.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lengthy piece--Liberals clearly ballsing things up, but blame for senior officers too then and now?



> ‘Interim’ fighter aircraft purchase
> _Stroke of genius or sorry drama?_
> http://defence.frontline.online/article/2017/1/6609-%E2%80%98Interim%E2%80%99-fighter-aircraft-purchase



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Boeing will have _no trouble doing that_, considering they have operations here:



By "_no trouble doing that_", you mean after Boeing has provided all the ITBs for the C-17s and CH-147Fs?  Off hand, do you know how much Boeing is on the hook for, for those other programs and how that compares to their Canadian operations?  Just wondering...

Regards
G2G

_edit: editorial_


----------



## MarkOttawa

USN wants 24 more Super Hornets, looks like line going for some time (DoD doc at link):



> 2017 Supplemental Funding Request Invests In Aircraft Procurement; May Be Too Late For Some Maintenance Needs
> 
> ...the Navy’s portion of the supplemental spending bill devotes $5.8 billion to support mid- to long-term readiness through acquisition of 24 F/A18-E/F Super Hornets, six more P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, two more MV-22 Ospreys, and other planes and munitions...
> https://news.usni.org/2017/03/16/24661



Note p. 9: Super Hornet cost about US$ 100M each--24 for dollars 2,320M; five extra USAF F-35As for dollars 596M.  Whatever basis for those figures.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Another question for the flying guys, is there enough aircraft, maintainers, fuel for you to get your required flight time per year? I know there used to be a shortage of flight hours for the number of pilots that wanted to fly.


----------



## SupersonicMax

It depends on the Squadron and how healthy their maintenance departments are.  In my 6 years in Bagtown, including 2 at Wing Ops (technically staff), my lowest year was 140 hours, highest was 340 hours and average was 200 hours.  Minimim currency requirements are 140 hours a year (national and NATO minimums for combat readiness).  140 is not a lot.  There is no way you can maintain any sort of proficiency in all our mission sets with that. 200-225 hours seems to be the magic number between decent proficiency and not being extremely busy.

In terms if availability of flying hours, in my experience, we always end up having enough even when the initial allocation is below what would be required.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Wonder if gov. will go after Block III Super Hornet for RCAF if sold to USN:



> Boeing’s Block III Super Hornet ‘High End’ Complement To F-35: [acting Navy Secretary Sean] Stackley
> http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/boeings-block-iii-super-hornet-high-end-complement-to-f-35-stackley/
> 
> SAS 2017: Boeing Unveils F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III with New Capabilities
> http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2017/sea-air-space-2017-show-daily-news/5075-sas-2017-boeing-unveils-f-a-18e-f-super-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Has that reached IOC?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Block III configuration hasn't flown as far as one knows--Boeing probably want's something close to guaranteed buy by USN.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Ohhh!  So the Hornet is still in development after 39 years.  And they still haven't finalized design or code?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Ohhh!  So the Hornet is still in development after 39 years.  And they still haven't finalized design or code?



Any different than the LAV 3 "upgrade"?   :warstory:


----------



## Kirkhill

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Any different than the LAV 3 "upgrade"?   :warstory:



No.  And my snarky point is that all weapons systems constantly evolve and are capable of being upgraded.  That includes Hornets, LAVs, Leos (Leopard 2A4M CAN and Leopard 2A6M CAN), Abrams and M1069s. (Typo)

The difference with the F35, in my understanding, is the degree to which the ability to modify and upgrade the aircraft is built into the system.

The Hornet entered US service in A/B variants in 1983/84.  It went into block upgrade in 1987, 3 or 4 years later, to the C/D standard to correct deficiencies, including structural ones and to incorporate new systems.  In 1992 it got a new engine.  In 1995 someone discovered the scale-up button on Auto-CAD and the E/F variant was born.  It has constantly been recertified for new weapons, radars, sensors.  

The Hornet/SuperHornet/SecretSquirrelHornet evolution is an example of the traditional method of aircraft development that sees aircraft "grow like Topsy" until they can't fly anymore.

The F35?  Well, these days when I buy a computer I buy some plug-ins with it and add some older compatible plug ins but I have no idea what plug ins I will have on board by the time the blue screen of death shows up for the last time.  I have no idea when I will finish developing that system or what it will look like.  And in the meantime it does most things well enough that I manage to make a living from it despite people constantly sending me patches.

Snark ends.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this post,



> ...
> Note p. 9: Super Hornet cost about US$ 100M each--24 for dollars 2,320M...
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1480554.html#msg1480554



USN cost still looks around US$ 100M each all in--no bargain for RCAF:



> U.S. Navy Wants 130 More Super Hornets Over Next Five Years
> 
> The U.S. Navy wants to buy 130 additional Super Hornets over the next five years at a price of $13.6 billion...
> http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/us-navy-wants-130-more-super-hornets-over-next-five-years



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

And again, that's not really something that we can know, given that we don't know the costing method used.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm sorry, all, but _I think_ this _Super Hornet_ thing has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft or "capability gaps." It _appears to me_ that this is all (and only) about kicking the expensive CF-18 replacement problem as far down the road as possible. This government has an agenda ~ a green, _feminist_ and sunny ways agenda ~ that does not include national defence and, especially, does not include making hard choices about procurement. This, an interim buy of available, "off the shelf" aircraft, has silenced the media and accomplished the aim: defence is "off the table." And, given the controversial lifetime gag orders, we may never know the full story.


----------



## jmt18325

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, all, but _I think_ this _Super Hornet_ thing has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft or "capability gaps." It _appears to me_ that this is all (and only) about kicking the expensive CF-18 replacement problem as far down the road as possible.



All of the rest of your post is political fluff, but this I agree with.  This is exactly why the SH is being purchased.  It's the same reason that the Conservatives decided to further upgrade the CF-18 instead of just buying the Super Hornet like they said they would.


----------



## sandyson

F 35's now at 94.6 million US. That's at a batch of a hundred but what the heck. We should find something to do with the extras.
Le Pentagone veut une ristourne de 5% sur le F-35.  http://fr.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idFRKBN17C23E-OFRBS


----------



## PuckChaser

F-35 keeps dropping in price, while SH keeps climbing in order to attempt to match capabilities of the F-35.


----------



## jmt18325

It would be nice to be able to have a like comparison where we could see exactly what it costed in each case.


----------



## Flavus101

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It would be nice to be able to have a like comparison where we could see exactly what it costed in each case.



Not even the buyer knows that information.  ;D


----------



## McG

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Wonder if gov. will go after Block III Super Hornet for RCAF if sold to USN:


No.  They will not buy an aircraft that is under development to avoid buying an aircraft that is under development.  They know how wide open that would leave them to attack by even the ignorant ... not to mention the legal attack that would incite from team F-35.  No.  We will get whatever is in production and coming off the lines.


----------



## McG

Moving along ....

With the evolving events in Syria, would the F35 be more desirable if we wanted to go back into that theatre or would we be content sending F18 while a grumpier Russia defenda the skies for Syria's air ops?


----------



## MilEME09

I would not give our boys good odds if they are against a S-300 battery or two. Or a 400 for that matter

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Loachman

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  They will not buy an aircraft that is under development to avoid buying an aircraft that is under development.



Oh, no? Place your bets, please - this is a Liberal government that made a campaign promise not to buy F35. A Super Hornet is, in their eyes, a Super Hornet, regardless of any distinction between variants with that name.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> They know how wide open that would leave them to attack by even the ignorant ... not to mention the legal attack that would incite from team F-35.



Do they? Do they really care? They just picked the least suitable of two SAR aircraft, which fails to perform to required standards and may - _*should*_ - be challenged in court.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> We will get whatever is in production and coming off the lines.



Which may well be the pricey version by then. Boeing's production line will be driven by USN requirements.


----------



## McG

Boeing has indicated it is at least a year away from doing a low rate initial production of two block III Advanced Super Hornets.  If the USN drives production in this direction, they will consume the line of production as it ramps-up. This aircraft will not be ready for when our government wants its interim fighters.  This aircraft can compete against the F35 when some future government runs a competition.


----------



## kev994

Loachman said:
			
		

> A Super Hornet is, in their eyes, a Super Hornet,


I would go further to say a Super Hornet is a Hornet as far as they are concerned.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Worth keeping in mind: whatever our acquisition cost for (non-Super) Super Hornets there is unlikely to be any serious cost saving, if any at all, per unit over the F-35A. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

Loachman said:
			
		

> Do they? Do they really care? They just picked the least suitable of two SAR aircraft, which fails to perform to required standards and may - _*should*_ - be challenged in court.



Do you think the Liberals had that much influence on the FWSAR? I was inclined to give that to the previous gov't?


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Do you think the Liberals had that much influence on the FWSAR? I was inclined to give that to the previous gov't?



I was under the impression that everything was basically done by the time the Liberals got there.  The specs were drawn out, the selection committee was made up, and the fairness monitor was in place.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Very likely F-35A win in Belgium (interoperability with Netherlands' F-35As)--meanwhile RCAF?



> Boeing withdraws from Belgium's F-16 fighter replacement competition
> 
> The US-based aircraft manufacturer Boeing announced this morning [April 19] that it will not compete for Beligum's F-16 fighter jets replacement program. Boeing was supposed to answer the RfGP issued last month with its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
> 
> "Boeing informed the Belgian government that it will not participate in its bidders conference today, nor respond to the request for proposals for a new fighter aircraft," (the "Request for governmental Proposal", RfGP), sent last month by the Belgian Ministry of Defense to five state agencies - two American and three European - each representing a type of aircraft, the US company said in a statement to the Belgian news agency Belga.
> 
> "We regret that after reviewing the request we do not see an opportunity to compete on a truly level playing field with the [...] F/A-18 Super Hornet." the company added, describing the aircraft as "extremely capable" for its cost effectiveness.
> 
> Belgium approved in last December the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros.
> 
> Only four platforms are still competing: Lockheed Martin’s F-35A stealth fighter, the Rafale F3R from Dassault Aviation, the Eurofighter Typhoon proposed by the eponym European consortium, and the JAS 39E/F Gripen manufactured by the Swedish company Saab.
> http://airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2017/april/3408-boeing-withdraws-from-belgium-s-f-16-fighter-replacement-competition.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Very likely F-35A win in Belgium (interoperability with Netherlands' F-35As)--meanwhile RCAF?



> Boeing withdraws from Belgium's F-16 fighter replacement competition
> 
> The US-based aircraft manufacturer Boeing announced this morning [April 19] that it will not compete for Beligum's F-16 fighter jets replacement program. Boeing was supposed to answer the RfGP issued last month with its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
> 
> "Boeing informed the Belgian government that it will not participate in its bidders conference today, nor respond to the request for proposals for a new fighter aircraft," (the "Request for governmental Proposal", RfGP), sent last month by the Belgian Ministry of Defense to five state agencies - two American and three European - each representing a type of aircraft, the US company said in a statement to the Belgian news agency Belga.
> 
> "We regret that after reviewing the request we do not see an opportunity to compete on a truly level playing field with the [...] F/A-18 Super Hornet." the company added, describing the aircraft as "extremely capable" for its cost effectiveness.
> 
> Belgium approved in last December the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros.
> 
> Only four platforms are still competing: Lockheed Martin’s F-35A stealth fighter, the Rafale F3R from Dassault Aviation, the Eurofighter Typhoon proposed by the eponym European consortium, and the JAS 39E/F Gripen manufactured by the Swedish company Saab.
> http://airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2017/april/3408-boeing-withdraws-from-belgium-s-f-16-fighter-replacement-competition.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Very likely F-35A win in Belgium (interoperability with Netherlands' F-35As)--meanwhile RCAF?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Boeing couldn't find anyone stupid enough besides us to buy the damn thing.


----------



## YZT580

Boeing didn't come looking for us, Trudeau and company went to them begging to make a deal.  No sales pitch required


----------



## a_majoor

Well, that's not too promising for training. OTOH, we could lease the entire RCAF inventory of F-18s to the USAF, Navy or Marines to operate as adversary forces. They might even be willing to pay for maintenance so they can have a large enough adversary fleet....

http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20170418-F35.html



> *F-35 Needs More Potent Adversary Services*
> 
> ARLINGTON, Va. — The F-35 Lightning II strike fighter is easily able to counter the adversary services aircraft thrown at it in numbers, said an official of an adversary services contractor, who added that the industry is facing challenges in coming up with a realistic threat aircraft for training for high-end combat.
> 
> “Nothing gets close to these things [the F-35s]” said Jeffrey Parker, a former Air Force fighter pilot and chief executive of ATAC LLC, a Textron company that provides opposing aircraft for U.S. fighter squadrons and electronic threat simulation against Navy strike groups. “I’ve flown against the [Marine] F-35Bs down at [Marine Corps Air Station] Beaufort [S.C.] It’s an impressive airplane. Even in the hands of students, it’s a very capable fighter.”
> 
> Parker also said that increased adversary services are needed by the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to reduce the fatigue-life toll on use of the services’ own front-line fighters and their limited flight hours in the adversary role.
> 
> The Navy “has a shortage of readiness training, so they’re reaching out to industry to try to solve that problem,” Parker said. “They’re using too much ‘gray air’ [warfighting aircraft].”
> 
> He said each adversary aircraft that flies 250 hours a year is the equivalent of freeing an F/A-18 Super Hornet for fleet use for a year. Ten ATAC aircraft in use for 250 hours each can extend the lives of 10 Super Hornets per year.
> 
> The Navy has three squadrons of dedicated adversary aircraft with third-generation F-5 or fourth-generation F/A-18 fighters and the Marine Corps fields one squadron of F-5s. The Navy’s Topgun school also uses F/A-18 and F-16 adversary aircraft. The Air Force operates two adversary F-16 squadrons. Companies like ATAC use foreign-built aircraft such as the supersonic F-21 Kfir and slower Hawker Hunter to supplement with adversary services.
> 
> “The Navy squadrons are hurting on aircraft,” Parker said. “They don’t have enough. They’re also trying to upgrade their training from third-generation aircraft like F-5s to fourth-generation aircraft like F/A-18s and F-16s.
> 
> “The aircraft shortages in training are made worse by the F-35 fifth-generation aircraft, which you need a lot of ‘bad guys’ for,” he said.
> 
> Parker told Seapower that more fourth-generation fighters are needed to meet the increasing demand for adversary services, but that “not enough fourth-gen aircraft in the world are available to industry. Nobody can provide it all, nor can all of us [the adversary companies] provide it together, at least in the next five years or so.”
> 
> Because of restrictions in U.S. law, the adversary contractors cannot purchase or lease fourth-generation fighters from the U.S. aircraft in desert storage. As such, they go to foreign nations like Israel for retired jets to bring to the United States.
> 
> The Navy has issued a draft Request for Proposals for fourth-generation adversary services for the Naval Aviation Warfighting Center at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev., looking for F-16- or SU-27-like capability with an upgraded radar.
> 
> “There’s only one category of radar [that can meet specifications] — an AESA [electronically scanned array radar],” he said.
> 
> For cost reasons, Parker said, single-engine jets are needed, rather than two-engine aircraft.
> The ability of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 to track and engage large numbers of aircraft means that large numbers of adversary aircraft are needed to provide a realistic scenario for training the pilots. For example, the Air Force stations a number of T-38 supersonic trainers at Langley Air Force Base, Va., to provide enough bogeys to challenge the F-22s based there.
> 
> “The Raptor is such an uneven fight, that if you send out two Raptors against anything else, there’s no challenge, no work for the pilots to do. For a ‘two-ship’ they want 12 bandits.
> 
> “What we see going on is a maturation of the industry” he said. “By going to the fourth-generation level, the Navy is acknowledging that these programs are going to be around and integrated at the highest levels, because now they have radar; pulling 9 gs [nine times the force of gravity] at the merge; [and] helmet off-boresight capability.”


----------



## RaceAddict

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Boeing didn't come looking for us, Trudeau and company went to them begging to make a deal.



And now Boeing is lobbying the Trump administration to impose a 126% trade tariff on aircraft imports to effectively kill the CSeries sale to Delta. Since our government now has a stake in the success of the CSeries, it would be a little bit of a conflict of interest (I can't think of the actual economics term) to go ahead with a purchase from a company that is selling you a product with one hand while trying to stab you in the back with the other. :


----------



## jmt18325

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> And now Boeing is lobbying the Trump administration to impose a 126% trade tariff on aircraft imports to effectively kill the CSeries sale to Delta. Since our government now has a stake in the success of the CSeries, it would be a little bit of a conflict of interest (I can't think of the actual economics term) to go ahead with a purchase from a company that is selling you a product with one hand while trying to stab you in the back with the other. :



It's just business.


----------



## NavyShooter

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's just business.



It's just politics.


----------



## MilEME09

And as this site's members predicted.



> *Canada threatens to scrap Boeing contracts amid Bombardier pricing row*
> 
> 
> Canada suggested on Thursday it could scrap plans to buy Boeing fighter jets if the United States backed Boeing’s claims that Canadian plane maker Bombardier dumped jetliners in the U.S. market.
> 
> “Canada is reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing,” Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a statement released late on Thursday.
> 
> Canada “strongly disagrees” with the U.S. Commerce Department decision to investigate Boeing’s claims that Bombardier sold planes below cost in the United States and benefited unfairly from Canadian government subsidies, the statement added.
> 
> The remarks came after the U.S. Commerce Department launched an investigation into Boeing’s claims, and pointed to the potential for rising trade tension between the two countries. Boeing and Canada are in talks over the purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighters this year or in early 2018.
> 
> President Donald Trump has called for a stronger stance on trade with his “America First” policy that got a boost on Thursday when Commerce formally announced its intent to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.
> 
> The Commerce probe in Boeing’s case, which was expected, parallels a probe by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) into Boeing’s allegations that Bombardier sold 75 CSeries planes to Delta Air Lines last year at a price well below cost. Bombardier has rejected the allegations and the two sides clashed at an ITC hearing on Thursday on whether the companies’ competing plane models are even comparable.
> 
> “While assuring the case is decided strictly on a full and fair assessment of the facts, we will do everything in our power to stand up for American companies and their workers,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement.
> “Isn’t much competition”
> 
> The Commerce investigation was announced as USITC staff heard arguments on Thursday from representatives for Boeing, Bombardier and Delta Air Lines Inc, which has sided with Bombardier against Boeing.
> 
> The former head of Boeing’s commercial aircraft unit told the panel that government subsidies for Bombardier allowed the Canadian company to sell small, 100- to 150-seat jet liners at prices Boeing could not match.
> 
> “It is untenable for us to continue competing with government subsidized competitors” Boeing Vice Chairman Raymond L. Conner said. “Bombardier is very close to forcing us out of (the 100- to 150-seat market) altogether.”
> 
> Bombardier representative Peter Lichtenbaum countered that Boeing’s claims were overblown.
> 
> “Boeing has not suffered any lost sales or lost revenues due to competition with Bombardier,” he told the panel. “There just isn’t much competition between Bombardier’s CSeries and Boeing’s products.”
> 
> Delta agreed last year to buy up to 75 Bombardier CSeries planes, a deal worth an estimated $5.6 billion based on the list price of about $71.8 million.
> 
> How U.S. regulators decide the dispute will have a significant impact on the market for small, regional jetliners in North America and globally, and on U.S.-Canadian relations.
> 
> The CSeries is critical to Bombardier’s future. If the United States finds that Canadian subsidies for Bombardier have harmed Boeing and imposes duties, demand for the CSeries in the United States could suffer and airlines could pay more.
> 
> The disagreement between the two planemakers also adds frost to an increasingly chilly U.S.-Canadian trade relationship, along with disputes over Canadian softwood lumber and U.S. milk protein products.
> 
> Commerce said that if the investigations determine that CSeries planes were dumped in the U.S. market or unfairly subsidized, it would collect duties equal to the value of the benefits. Those duties would increase the cost of the Bombardier planes ordered by Delta.
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/3463536/canada-boeing-fighter-jets-bombardier-dumping/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook


----------



## SeaKingTacco

If the Liberals actually saw this coming last year and put the Super Hornet order down so as to have a bargaining chip (anticipatory), I am willing to give them credit for playing a deeper level of chess than I had given them credit for.

Well played.


----------



## Loachman

Do you really think that they are that smart...?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> Do you really think that they are that smart...?


How this unfolds will help tell us that ...

This, from the U.S. Commerce info-machine, for the record ...


> Today (18 May 2017), U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the initiation of  new antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations to determine whether imports of 100- to 150-seat civil aircraft (civil aircraft) from Canada are being unfairly dumped in the United States, and whether Canadian producers are receiving alleged unfair subsidies.
> 
> The investigations were initiated following a petition filed by The Boeing Company on April 27 seeking relief of planned imports of Canadian civil aircraft.
> 
> “The U.S. market is the most open in the world, but we must take action if  our rules are being broken” said Secretary Ross. “While assuring the case is decided strictly on a full and fair assessment of the facts, we will do everything in our power to stand up for American companies and their workers.”
> 
> If the Commerce Department determines that Canadian civil aircraft are being dumped into the U.S. market, and/or receiving unfair government subsidies -- and the U.S. International Trade Commission determines that dumped and/or unfairly subsidized Canadian imports of civil aircraft into the United States are causing harm to the U.S. industry -- then the Commerce Department will impose duties on those imports in the amount of the dumping and/or unfair subsidization found to exist.
> 
> Although Canadian civil aircraft subject to these investigations have not yet been imported into the United States, an April 2016 press release announcing the sale of Canadian civil aircraft to a U.S. airline valued the order to be in excess of $5 billion.
> 
> The estimated dumping margin alleged by the petitioner is 79.82 percent and the unfair subsidies are estimated to be 79.41.  Commerce has initiated an investigation into 14 alleged subsidy programs.
> 
> Click HERE  for a fact sheet on this trade case ***.
> 
> Next Steps:
> 
> During the Commerce Department investigations into whether Canadian civil aircraft are being dumped and subsidized, the U.S. International Trade Commission will conduct its own investigations into whether the U.S. industry and its workforce are being harmed by such imports.  The ITC will make its preliminary determinations on or before June 12.  If the ITC preliminarily determines that there is threat of injury then the Commerce Department investigations will continue, with a preliminary countervailing duty determination in July 2017, followed by a preliminary antidumping determination in October 2017, unless these deadlines are extended.
> 
> If the Commerce Department preliminarily determines that dumping or subsidization is occurring, then it will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to start collecting cash deposits from all U.S. companies importing the subject civil aircraft from Canada.
> 
> Final determinations by the Commerce Department in these cases are scheduled for October 2017 for the countervailing duty investigation, and December 2017 for the antidumping duty investigation, but those dates may be extended.  If either the Commerce Department does not find that products are being dumped or unfairly subsidized, or the U.S. International Trade Commission does not find in its final determination there is harm to the U.S. industry, then the investigations will be terminated and no duties will be applied.
> 
> ---
> 
> From January 20, 2017, through May 16, 2017, Commerce has initiated 44 antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.  Commerce currently maintains 390 antidumping and countervailing duty orders which provide relief to American companies and industries impacted by unfair trade.
> 
> Foreign companies that price their products in the U.S. market below the cost of production or below prices in their home markets are subject to “antidumping” (AD) duties.
> 
> Companies that receive unfair subsidies from their governments in the form of grants, loans, equity infusions, tax breaks and production inputs are subject to “countervailing duties” (CVD) aimed at directly countering those subsidies.


... as well as our info-machine's statement:


> The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement:
> 
> “The aerospace industries of Canada and the United States are highly integrated and support good, middle class jobs on both sides of the border.
> 
> “We strongly disagree with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s decision to initiate anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations into imports of Canadian large civil aircraft.
> 
> “Boeing’s petition is clearly aimed at blocking Bombardier’s new aircraft, the CSeries, from entering the U.S. market. Boeing admits it does not compete with exports of the CS100 aircraft, so it is all the more difficult to see these allegations as legitimate, particularly with the dominance of the Boeing 737 family in the U.S. market.
> 
> “Furthermore, many of the CSeries suppliers are based in the United States. Components for the CSeries are supplied by American companies, directly supporting high-paying jobs in many U.S. states, including Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Washington, New York, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Colorado.
> 
> “Canada is reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing.
> 
> “Our government will defend the interests of Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace industry, and our aerospace workers.”


*** - U.S Commerce info-machine Fact Sheet attached.


----------



## Loachman

How will we meet this alleged "fighter capability gap" if the decision goes against Bombardier, then? Obviously, that is of lesser importance to Liberals than Bombardier sales. What if Lockheed Martin offers a better deal than Boeing now?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

This all just got interesting. Obviously the commercial aviation and military sides of Boeing don't talk to each other....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> How will we meet this alleged "fighter capability gap" if the decision goes against Bombardier, then? Obviously, that is of lesser importance to Liberals than Bombardier sales. What if Lockheed Martin offers a better deal than Boeing now?



Arm the C-series with MG's and a gunsight, plus a cool paint job and snazzy video presentation full of buzzwords.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This all just got interesting. Obviously the commercial aviation and military sides of Boeing don't talk to each other....



Nope.  But I think the real issue here is that Boeing is afraid that if the CSeries proves commercially successful, it may lead to development of 200-250 seats versions that would then compete directly with their 737 series. After all, this has been Bombardier's strategy from way back when. They evolved the Challenger into the Regional Jet, then the Regional Jet into the CSeries, so what's to keep them evolving even further? I can almost feel Airbus chomping at the bit to join Boing if they could to "protect" their A320 sales.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The new 737 class is just going into service, that is worth far more to them than possibly 16 fighter jets by a country that can't make up it's mind.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This all just got interesting. Obviously the commercial aviation and military sides of Boeing don't talk to each other....




I once heard an anecdotal story from a large electronics multinational executive that had acquired a specialized component provider years prior, and one of the multinational's divisions was still buying specialized components from another component provider years after the acquisition.  The corporate-level executive advised the division leadership, and they responded with, "Oh, we hadn 't heard about that.  I guess we'll start internally procuring [acquired internal division]'s from now on."  Without giving me exact numbers, the executive recounted to me that the internal loss to paying margins to a competitor was on the order of "a LOT of zeroes!"

Left hand, I'd like you to meet Right hand. ;D

That's all to say I too would not be overly surprised that corporate divisions had not necessarily cross-talked (or even cared?) about implications to the overall Company effort.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nope.  But I think the real issue here is that Boeing is afraid that if the CSeries proves commercially successful, it may lead to development of 200-250 seats versions that would then compete directly with their 737 series. After all, this has been Bombardier's strategy from way back when. They evolved the Challenger into the Regional Jet, then the Regional Jet into the CSeries, so what's to keep them evolving even further? I can almost feel Airbus chomping at the bit to join Boing if they could to "protect" their A320 sales.



Yup. Airbus is already at the cusp of punishing Boeing with the success of the A320NEO.  Boeing is dragging its feet on new narrow-body development.  There is only so long that the -37 horse can be ridden.  Canadian Super Hornets for Boeing is more than just 18 more of a limited production run...if nothing other than corporate pride, it's a bit of a dig at the folks whose YF-35 beat their YF-32.

This is definitely a op: moment, to be sure!

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Canadian Super Hornets for Boeing is more than just 18 more of a limited production run...if nothing other than corporate pride, it's a bit of a dig at the folks whose YF-35 beat their YF-32.



It's another sale that can be used to convince other buyers.  It's a long term revenue stream for ISS.  It's a larger installed base.  It's continued contacts and inside access to future defence procurement in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I once heard an anecdotal story from a large electronics multinational executive that had acquired a specialized component provider years prior, and one of the multinational's divisions was still buying specialized components from another component provider years after the acquisition.  The corporate-level executive advised the division leadership, and they responded with, "Oh, we hadn 't heard about that.  I guess we'll start internally procuring [acquired internal division]'s from now on."  Without giving me exact numbers, the executive recounted to me that the internal loss to paying margins to a competitor was on the order of "a LOT of zeroes!"
> 
> Left hand, I'd like you to meet Right hand. ;D
> 
> That's all to say I too would not be overly surprised that corporate divisions had not necessarily cross-talked (or even cared?) about implications to the overall Company effort.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



G2G

I can go you one up on that G2G.  I worked for a company that actively acquired complementary companies to be able to put joint projects together.  In that same company my division was buying competitors's components (various reasons: quality, market demand, support) while a "sister" supplier was selling components we needed to competitors at lower prices than they were selling to us.

Please. Do not expect order (as opposed to chaos) in the commercial world.  

Plans never survive the next management meeting.


----------



## Kirkhill

> ....The only partner nation that appears to be wavering in its commitment to buying the aircraft is Canada. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party have shown interest in purchasing Super Hornets as Ottawa seeks to recapitalize its fleet.
> 
> “They’ve made this a political football,” Darling said. “I wouldn’t preclude the Trudeau government from going forward with another batch of F/A-18s. … We’ll have to see how it sorts out.”
> 
> Over is hopeful that Canada will stay in the fold.
> 
> “They remain a partner in good standing in the F-35 program,” he said. “They’re continuing to pay their bills and they absolutely, we understand, intend to evaluate the F-35 as one of the potential airplanes in that transparent competition” for new fighters.
> 
> The industrial benefits of being an F-35 customer are major incentives for foreign partners to stay committed to the program. About 20 percent of the supply chain is international, Over noted.
> ....



http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/5/19/aiming-high-f-35-exports-set-to-climb


----------



## The Bread Guy

And from the "keeping one foot in each camp" file ...


> Canada has quietly paid another $30 million toward development of the F-35 — money that could become insurance in the trade dispute between U.S. aerospace firm Boeing and Canadian rival Bombardier.
> 
> The annual payment was made to the U.S. military at the end of April, the Department of National Defence says, and will keep Canada at the table as one of nine partners in the fighter jet project for the next year.
> 
> Canada has paid US$373 million into the program since 1997, National Defence spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande said in an email.
> 
> Staying in the program has advantages, as partners can compete for billions of dollars worth of contracts associated with the building and maintaining F-35. They also get a discount when purchasing the plane.
> 
> That latter point wasn't considered much of a benefit when Canada paid its annual instalment last year, as the Liberals had promised during the 2015 election not to buy the stealth fighter.
> 
> The government instead went out of its way last July to highlight the potential benefits to Canada's aerospace industry when explaining why it had decided to stick with the program.
> 
> Those industrial benefits continue to accrue, Lamirande said, with Canadian companies having secured US$926 million in F-35-related contracts over the last 20 years — including US$114 million in the last year alone.
> 
> But the trade dispute between Boeing, which builds Super Hornet fighter jets, the F-35's main competitor, and Montreal-based Bombardier casts the decision to stick with the stealth-fighter program in a new light ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest in the fracas ...


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan used a major speech Wednesday to the defence industry to blast American firm Boeing for picking a trade spat with Bombardier.
> 
> Sajjan said Canada is disappointed by the "unfounded" action by one of its major partners in the defence industry and he delivered that message to hundreds at a breakfast speech at a major trade show for military contractors.
> 
> Boeing has petitioned the U.S. Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission to investigate subsidies for Bombardier's CSeries aircraft that it says have allowed the Canadian company to export planes at well below cost.
> 
> Sajjan said Boeing is not behaving like a "trusted partner" and the government wants the company to withdraw the complaint.
> 
> He repeated the Canadian government's thinly veiled retaliation threat to scrap the planned purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets from the Boeing.
> 
> "A productive relationship between industry and government is crucial," the minister said.
> 
> "That is why our government — and I stress this — our government is disappointed in the action of one of our leading industry partners.
> 
> "We strongly disagree with the decision of the United States Commerce Department to initiate a trade remedy case in response to Boeing's petition against Bombardier."
> 
> Sajjan also said the defence policy review that he will unveil next week will be linked to the government's broader innovation agenda.
> 
> He said the military wants to help foster a partnership with the defence industry that allows for the development of cutting-edge equipment for Canadian soldiers ...


----------



## MarkOttawa

End of piece from Conference of Defence Associations Institute:



> Davies on the New Fighter Acquisition: “Oh! What a tangled web we weave…”
> ...
> *How Does it All Add Up?*
> 
> It is difficult, if not impossible, to see any strategic coherence in the handling of this file at any point up until now – or to see the process as anything but a series of lurches from decision to decision with little thought about what comes next and what the end state is intended to be.  How else can we explain how a political promise to save substantial funds from the fighter program mutated into a policy imperative to spend substantially more on a larger fighter capability?
> 
> Fortunately, the government has an opportunity to reset the narrative and finally articulate a rational approach to fighter replacement in the context of the forthcoming release of its defence policy.  It is to be hoped that it does so because the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian public need their governments to make and communicate rational decisions based on objective and sound analysis.  It is also in the government’s own self-interest to do so, having campaigned on a core promise to bring back transparent, evidence-based decision-making.  To get out of the tangled web that has been created around the CF-18 replacement it will need to begin walking that talk – and soon.
> 
> _Charles Davies is a retired CAF officer and a Fellow of the CDA Institute.  He has written extensively on defence procurement, defence policy, defence management, and other related issues._
> http://cdainstitute.ca/davies-on-the-new-fighter-acquisition-oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave/



Good flipping luck with that "rational approach".

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Our defense policy has been more or less ill-rational or sucking on the hind tit of others since 1867, why should I expect different now?


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Our defense policy has been more or less ill-rational or sucking on the hind tit of others since 1867, why should I expect different now?



Arguably we were kicked out of the nest......


----------



## GK .Dundas

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Arguably we were kicked out of the nest......


 So that's the explanation  we had deprived childhood and were also thrown out of the house .


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile USN wants 10 extra Super Hornets:



> US Navy Sends Congress $5.3B Wishlist of Planes, Ships and More
> 
> The 48-item ‘unfunded priorities list’ arrived a week after the service’s $172 billion budget request for 2018.
> 
> The U.S. Navy is asking Congress to consider providing an extra $5.3 billion for planes, ships, missiles, and dozens of smaller projects that did not make it into the 2018 budget request sent to lawmakers last week.
> 
> Notable items on this year’s edition of the “unfunded priorities list” include 1_0 F/A-18 Super Hornets ($739 million)_ [emphasis added, only US$ 74M each?], six P-8 Poseidon subhunting planes ($1 billion), four F-35C Joint Strike Fighters ($540 million), five Ship-to-Shore Connector hovercraft ($312 million), and four CMV-22 Ospreys ($392 million), according to a copy of the list obtained by Defense One. Those four items account for about $2.7 billion, half of the total request...



With likely continuing USN buys under Trump maybe 18 for RCAF not that big a deal for Boeing now--Bombardier CSeries threat bigger concern.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> So that's the explanation  we had deprived childhood and were also thrown out of the house .



The Brits couldn't be bothered covering the bill for protection.  The French tossed the Quebecers away for a couple of beaches in the Caribbean.


----------



## ModlrMike

Weapon firing, weapon stops:

More doubt cast over Super Hornet sale as Liberals break contact with Boeing
'Not the most opportune time to share this good news story,' Boeing says as it cancels partners announcement

The tit-for-tat trade spat between the Liberal government and Boeing over the future of the Super Hornet fighter jet purchase escalated Thursday with an acknowledgement that federal officials have been instructed to break off contact with the U.S. aerospace giant.

More from CBC here


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Waiting to hear of a new sole-sourcing negotiation with Dassault to commence soon.


----------



## GAP

With Trump urging companies to come back to the US...Canada has a lot to lose if Boeing pull up stakes....There is little incentive for them to stay


----------



## The Bread Guy

And ...


> Boeing Co on Thursday scrapped an announcement about the fighter jets it hopes to sell to Canada, a day after the country's defense minister objected to the firm's behavior in a trade dispute against Canadian planemaker Bombardier Inc
> 
> "Due to the current climate, today is not the most opportune time to share this good news story," Boeing spokesman Scott Day said in a statement issued at an Ottawa defense show.
> 
> While he did not specifically refer to the trade dispute, his comments appeared to be a reference to growing tensions between Ottawa and the U.S airplane manufacturer ...


----------



## MilEME09

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Waiting to hear of a new sole-sourcing negotiation with Dassault to commence soon.



I've been rooting for Dassault for years now (or atleast it feels like years) as Dassault Aviation is the only one to offer a full technology transfer. It will be much easier to keep our planes running if we can build the parts if we want to.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I've been rooting for Dassault for years now (or atleast it feels like years) as Dassault Aviation is the only one to offer a full technology transfer. It will be much easier to keep our planes running if we can build the parts if we want to.



In a way, it's the next logical step.

Boeing really hosed the Liberals on the sole-sourcing of the Superhornet, while it appears Macron & Trudeau have hit if off very well. 

The fact that Trudeau could end up rewarding the company that Boeing tried to injure would be icing on the cake.


----------



## a_majoor

At this rate, all competing aircraft will drop out of competition as they either become obsolete, leave service or have their assembly lines shut down.

The RCAF should start making plans for the 6th Gen fighter, since that should be ready by the time *we* are able to make a decision to replace the Hornet.....


----------



## MarkOttawa

See this post on growing Russian ALCM and SLCM threat to North America--its capability for the NORAD mission defending against this is the one key basis on which the new RCAF fighter should be judged:
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/124171/post-1490715.html#msg1490715

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> At this rate, all competing aircraft will drop out of competition as they either become obsolete, leave service or have their assembly lines shut down.



You forgot one.  It just ain't worth the aggravation.


----------



## AlexanderM

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I've been rooting for Dassault for years now (or atleast it feels like years) as Dassault Aviation is the only one to offer a full technology transfer. It will be much easier to keep our planes running if we can build the parts if we want to.


I'm just being bad.  >

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/2014/09/fighter-jet-fight-club-f-35-vs-rafale.html


----------



## a_majoor

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> See this post on growing Russian ALCM and SLCM threat to North America--its capability for the NORAD mission defending against this is the one key basis on which the new RCAF fighter should be judged:
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/124171/post-1490715.html#msg1490715
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Given the rapid development of laser weapons (laser "pods" with high energy weapons are scheduled for testing in 2018 on Air Force fighters), the best way to fight such a threat might be a 737 mounting a pair of laser pods, sensors and extra fuel. The very long cruise time over the arctic and both coasts of an airliner sized aircraft would be a huge advantage in this role as well.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ah, an arsenal aircraft for air defence, not ALCM etc. attack on an enemy.  BTW a smart and knowledgeable friend suggests what RCAF needs for NORAD might be something like big mother Tu-28 Fiddler equivalent:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=357






More:
http://www.airvectors.net/avtu128.html





[/img]

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## NavyShooter

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given the rapid development of laser weapons (laser "pods" with high energy weapons are scheduled for testing in 2018 on Air Force fighters), the best way to fight such a threat might be a 737 mounting a pair of laser pods, sensors and extra fuel. The very long cruise time over the arctic and both coasts of an airliner sized aircraft would be a huge advantage in this role as well.



Or, how about instead of a 737 we get a C-series?

 >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given the rapid development of laser weapons (laser "pods" with high energy weapons are scheduled for testing in 2018 on Air Force fighters), the best way to fight such a threat might be a 737 mounting a pair of laser pods, sensors and extra fuel. The very long cruise time over the arctic and both coasts of an airliner sized aircraft would be a huge advantage in this role as well.



Replace and expand your LRPA fleet;  they are the ones who are going to be doing your ASW/ASuW stuff.  We're multi-mission as it is, might as well give us the kit for the maritime battlespace.

In the interim, make them fit on the wing hardpoints on the Aurora (because it is going to be around for a while....).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Or, how about instead of a 737 we get a C-series?
> 
> >


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good reason why Boeing not so concerned about Super Hornet sale to RCAF, willingness to take on Bombardier over CSeries:



> Super Hornets see boost in new US budget request
> 26 May
> 
> President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would add funding to buy up to 74 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets through 2022, or 60 more than planned in previous budget forecasts.
> 
> The Navy is requesting 14 Super Hornets in Fiscal 2018 to mitigate the service’s strike fighter shortfall, officials said this week. In addition, Trump’s budget proposal inserts new plans to procure 23 more F/A-18E/Fs in FY2019, 14 in FY2020, 14 in FY2021 and 15 in FY2022. The recent request not only includes funding for new Super Hornets, but also advanced procurement dollars to address advanced capabilities.
> 
> While Boeing celebrated the intended purchase of new F/A-18E/Fs as a sign that the Trump administration would commit to funding Super Hornets year after year, the status of the five-year funding plan is not settled...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/super-hornets-see-boost-in-new-us-budget-request-437672/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ah, an arsenal aircraft for air defence, not ALCM etc. attack on an enemy.  BTW a smart and knowledgeable friend suggests what RCAF needs for NORAD might be something like big mother Tu-28 Fiddler equivalent:
> http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=357
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More:
> http://www.airvectors.net/avtu128.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/img]
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Sadly, the only candidate that fits the bill for us if we don't do an airliner conversion would either be the B-1 (already quite old) or get in on the B-21 line and buy 10 or more as arsenal planes (carrying a laser battery for long range and fill the other bomb bay with long range AAM's like the Meteor).

Since that isn't going to happen, we should look at long term needs and economies of scale. Buying 737's airframes in large numbers could provide for getting P-8's, Laser air defence aircraft and replacing the Airbuses with huge long term logistical savings and reducing the unit cost per aircraft as well in the initial buy. This could get us to the 2040's or 2050's with judicious upgrades and maintenance (after that point, air combat will probably have changed beyond all recognition anyway).


----------



## AlexanderM

I imagine this has been posted somewhere already. Calls for 88 fighter jets after open competition.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-sajjan-garneau-defence-policy-1.4149473


----------



## SupersonicMax

88 sounds a lot like 18 interim and 70 future...


----------



## a_majoor

Given the extreme backloading of spending and the political opposition within the Liberal party for defense spending in general, the real number is closer to "0" for the conceivable future.....


----------



## jmt18325

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given the extreme backloading of spending and the political opposition within the Liberal party for defense spending in general, the real number is closer to "0" for the conceivable future.....



Backloading is a relative term.  There is now based on this plan $1.5B more this year than there was a few days ago.


----------



## AlexanderM

Do we have a budget number for the 88 jets? Is it still $9B?


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Do we have a budget number for the 88 jets? Is it still $9B?



$15-19B


----------



## AlexanderM

If the $15-19B replaces the previous $9B budget for initial purchase, including upgrades to airfields, maintenance facilities, etc, but not operating budget, then that would be a more realistic figure. It would allow us to purchase a more advanced version of the Super Hornet, or F-35's, or Rafales should the Liberals decide we can no longer work with the Americans.


----------



## Journeyman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> ......should the Liberals decide we can no longer work with the Americans.


  :rofl:


----------



## AlexanderM

Ya, let's wait and see how NFTA negotiations work out before we laugh too hard.


----------



## Loachman

Sadly, the "interim" fighter issue does not seem to have gone away as it should have:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/canada-pushing-ahead-with-stopgap-fighter-plan-rules-out-lease/articleshow/59074415.cms

Canada pushing ahead with stopgap fighter plan, rules out lease

Reuters | Jun 9, 2017, 09.15 PM IST

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA, June 9 (Reuters) - Canada is pressing ahead with plans to buy an interim fleet of 18 fighters, the country's top soldier told Reuters, speaking amid tensions with the United States that could derail a proposed deal with Boeing Co.

General Jonathan Vance, chief of the defense staff general, said the armed forces needed the jets as a stopgap measure while Canada prepares a competition to buy a fleet of 88 new planes, a process scheduled to take five years.

"There is a capability gap," he said in an interview late on Thursday. "There is a gap, and it needs to be filled."

Canada's fleet of 77 CF-18s, some of which are almost 40 years old, is coming to the end of its operational life.

Ottawa said last year it wanted to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornets as an interim measure but has since threatened to scrap the plan unless the U.S. company drops an anti-dumping challenge against Canadian planemaker Bombardier Inc.

Vance declined to comment on the dispute.

Critics say it makes little sense to buy fighters that might be only used for a short period. Vance dismissed the idea of leasing the fleet.

"One cannot lease fighters," he said.

Should Canada decide not to acquire the Boeing planes as a stopgap measure, it could order from Lockheed Martin Corp , Dassault Aviation SA or Airbus SE.

Depending on Canada's choice for the permanent fleet, this could result in the Royal Canadian Air Force operating two different kinds of modern jets at the same time, a prospect that did not worry Vance.

"Why is it so odd that the RCAF would be operating two fleets?" he said. "We used to operate three, four fleets."

Canada says the 88 new planes must be interoperable with those used by allies such as the United States. The importance of working seamlessly with the Americans means Canada is likely to buy U.S. jets for the permanent fleet, people familiar with the matter have previously told Reuters.

Vance said this was not a fair assumption.

Canada on Wednesday announced a major increase in defense spending after Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said the nation would have to play a larger global role as the United States retreats.

Vance said Canada's close military ties with the United States would remain intact.

"Our relationship is incredibly tight, necessarily so and usefully so," he said, "and it stays that way." (Reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Denny Thomas and Lisa Von Ahn)

(This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to.)


----------



## Kirkhill

"One cannot lease fighters," he said.

"F-16 Lease Deal Approved
(Source : New Zealand Ministry of Defence)


The Ministry of Defence has been given approval to sign a lease agreement with the United States for 28 F-16A/B strike aircraft, the Minister of Defence Max Bradford announced today. 
; The Ministry has negotiated two five-year leases with the US Government costing NZ$124.8 million (excluding GST) for the entire fleet of 28 aircraft, with an option to buy them at the end of the 10-year lease period, or at any time in between. These costs are the same as those announced last December when Cabinet approved the 'lease in principle.'"

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/515/f_16-lease-deal-approved.html




> Italy to extend Lockheed Martin F-16 lease deal
> 
> 31 OCTOBER, 2008 SOURCE: FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL BY: PINO MODOLA -
> Italy's defence ministry is negotiating an 18-month extension to a lease contract for about half of its F-16ADF fighters, say Lockheed Martin officials.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/italy-to-extend-lockheed-martin-f-16-lease-deal-318148/


http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/01/05/slovak-defense-ministry-eyes-gripen-lease-deal-after-election/78307514/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-contracted-for-gripen-lease-extension-in-czech-republic-4467566
http://aviationweek.com/defense/hungary-extends-gripen-lease-2026

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/02/bae-to-offer-eurofighter-lease-to-malaysia/

Facts.....peculiar things.

And are fighters any more at risk than tanks?  Both from wear and tear and combat?

https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/04/03/canada_to_lease_tanks_for_afghanistan_source.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/171810/dutch-army-soldiers-serve-in-leased-german-tanks.html

Or RPAS's?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-contracts-for-heron-uavs-05024/




Maybe, somebody with a spare 1999 UKP available, could buy this report.

https://www.visiongain.com/Report/1688/Military-Leasing-Market-Report-2016-2026

"MILITARY LEASING MARKET REPORT 2016-2026
Global Analysis & Forecasts for Naval Vessels (Destroyers, Tankers, Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) & Other), Manned Aircraft (Fighters, Bombers, Logistics, Carriers, Refuelling & Other.), Ground Platforms (Combat, Transportation, Logistics, Communications Platforms & Other), Unmanned Systems (UAVs, UGVs, UMVs) & Other Markets: Opportunities for Leading Defence & Civilian Companies"


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I hope he gets publicly blasted for that lease comment - that's a bald faced lie and he knows it.


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I hope he gets publicly blasted for that lease comment - that's a bald faced lie and he knows it.



Maybe he doesn't know it (therein its not a lie).  He's an army guy answering a question that he probably wasn't prepared for.  I wouldn't be surprised that his corporate knowledge doesn't exactly extend the minutia of international fighter leasing prospects. Perhaps he should have just said that is currently not an option we are looking at, or that there are currently no fighters available for lease etc...

But yah he should be questioned in the press about that.  Or perhaps all the pressure should be on the gov't to come up with a legitimate solution if interim fighters are appropriate.  Used F-18's from one of the countries switching over to F-35's could be looked at (Australia for example).


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> Maybe he doesn't know it (therein its not a lie).  He's an army guy answering a question that he probably wasn't prepared for.  I wouldn't be surprised that his corporate knowledge doesn't exactly extend the minutia of international fighter leasing prospects. Perhaps he should have just said that is currently not an option we are looking at, or that there are currently no fighters available for lease etc...
> 
> But yah he should be questioned in the press about that.  Or perhaps all the pressure should be on the gov't to come up with a legitimate solution if interim fighters are appropriate.  Used F-18's from one of the countries switching over to F-35's could be looked at (Australia for example).



I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.  As you say, commerce is not his first calling.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:
			
		

> Maybe he doesn't know it (therein its not a lie).  He's an army guy answering a question that he probably wasn't prepared for.  I wouldn't be surprised that his corporate knowledge doesn't exactly extend the minutia of international fighter leasing prospects. Perhaps he should have just said that is currently not an option we are looking at, or that there are currently no fighters available for lease etc...
> 
> But yah he should be questioned in the press about that.  Or perhaps all the pressure should be on the gov't to come up with a legitimate solution if interim fighters are appropriate.  Used F-18's from one of the countries switching over to F-35's could be looked at (Australia for example).



Yeah let's not hold him to too high a standard, right?  He should be intimately familiar with this file. I think it more likely he's just towing the line.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I hope he gets publicly blasted for that lease comment - that's a bald faced lie and he knows it.


Is the CDS lying?  I'm comfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt, but only he knows what he knows & doesn't know vs. what he says.  That said ...


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... commerce is not his first calling.





			
				Underway said:
			
		

> ... He's an army guy answering a question that he probably wasn't prepared for ...


He may not sign the contracts, but he's no longer just "an army guy" -- he's _"the senior serving military advisor to the Government of Canada"_, so I'm going to go on a limb and say he should know about _all_ the files he has to advise on, army files or not.

Looked at another way, what if the Minister or PM said the same thing?  _They're_ not subject matter experts about procurement either, right?


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Is the CDS lying?  I'm comfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt, but only he knows what he knows & doesn't know vs. what he says.  ...



A point of view that is broadly applicable - north and south of the border.


----------



## Quirky

I'm so glad that our entire leadership, CDS included, is so well versed in this matter. I'm starting to think a pack of baboons would handle this better.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:
			
		

> I'm so glad that our entire leadership, CDS included, is so well versed in this matter. I'm starting to think a pack of baboons would handle this better.



Welcome to the leadership promote and post created, the CDS may be a political appointment but I think he should independent from the government, not their lap dog. Maybe the CDS should be appointed by the standing committee on national defense, and can only be dismissed by a 2/3 majority vote on the committee.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Now from MND's mouth--maybe "interim" F-35As!



> Canada looking at all options for new fighter jet: Sajjan
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he's looking at all options when it comes to finding 18 fighter jets to bridge Canada into a new fleet to replace its aging CF-18 Hornets.
> 
> Sajjan announced last fall that Canada was entering talks to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornets to cover a "capability gap" created when the government changed how it counts the number of planes the country needs to fill its NATO and NORAD obligations.
> 
> But Boeing this spring initiated a U.S. Commerce Department complaint against Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier, leading Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland to say in an open letter that Canada is reconsidering its Boeing procurement.
> 
> The trade dispute has raised questions about how the government will handle its fighter jet procurement.
> 
> In an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period, _Sajjan wouldn't rule out purchasing Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jets as an interim solution, in addition to considering it among the possibilities to fully replace the current fleet_ [emphasis added].
> 
> "Right now we are looking at many different options," Sajjan said.
> 
> "Keep in mind this all just happened. It does take time to … be able to develop some various options," he added.
> 
> "We are committed to making sure that we have this capability gap filled."
> 
> Tom Lawson, Canada's former chief of the defence staff, says the fact the government's new defence policy review said very little about fighter jets suggests "a retrenchment on a wrongheaded policy." The policy review said Canada would increase the number of jets it will buy, from 65 to 88.
> 
> "There really is no one except the government that believes that 18 interim fighters will be useful to Canada, let alone the RCAF [Royal Canadian Air Force],” Lawson told Solomon.
> 
> "This conflict that's going on with Boeing right now regarding the Bombardier issue provides them an opportunity to gracefully step back from that and go right to the competition [for the permanent fighter jet]."..
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-looking-at-all-options-for-new-fighter-jet-sajjan-1.3452019



Like bunch of chickens running around with heads cut off, frozen like deer in headlights...whatever simile.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

> ;D  Lease the next 6 F35As off of the production line and operate them out of PAX Eglin  ;D >


----------



## SupersonicMax

Pax is not an operational base and they operate F-35B/C there.  No As.


----------



## Quirky

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Now from MND's mouth--maybe "interim" F-35As!
> 
> Like bunch of chickens running around with heads cut off, frozen like deer in headlights...whatever simile.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



aka next governments problem, they are just in it for the pensions. Too chicken crap to make a decision. 

Time for our guys to start scuttling our jets into the tundra.


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Now from MND's mouth--maybe "interim" F-35As!



That would make me giggle like a schoolgirl at the irony of it all.


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Pax is not an operational base and they operate F-35B/C there.  No As.



Seen Max.  Since corrected to Eglin.   But, on further thought, how about Hill in Utah?  I believe it is flying operational F35As.  And they recently did a Forward Deployment to Mountain Home.  Cold Lake isn't too far away....

http://www.mountainhome.af.mil/News/Features/Article/810587/f-35s-test-combat-readiness/


----------



## McG

Let's get Bs for the interim, and then As for final replacement.  Then we can stick with the plan of buying 18 just to replace them.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The final irony would be to buy 18 interim F-35s and 70 final Super Hornets . Nothing would surprise me anymore!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Odds on RCAF getting any of these?



> U.S. Navy Approves Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet Upgrades
> _The Navy's flagship carrier-based fighter is getting a major tune-up. _
> 
> The U.S. Navy has decided to fund Boeing's fighter division to upgrade the service's F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets to the "Block III" configuration. The most recent budget request from the U.S. Navy allocates $264.9 million over the next five years to upgrade the Super Hornet fleet with more advanced avionics and sensor capabilities, according to Aviation Week. _The first Block III Super Hornets are slated to enter service in 2019_ [emphasis added]. The program is designed to keep the Navy's primary carrier-based fighter relevant deep into the 21st century.
> 
> Boeing originally suggested upgrading the Super Hornet fleet to Block III back in 2008. Recent pressure from the White House to look into an advanced Super Hornet, a large defense budget from the new administration, and rising international tensions have led the Navy to approve the upgrade.
> 
> The new configuration will improve the heads-up display and computing capabilities of the Super Hornet, while also modestly upgrading the stealth and radar cross section. The multirole fighter will receive "advanced network architecture" in the form of a new computer called the Distributed Targeting Processor Network (DTPN). A large new display in the cockpit will help pilots monitor the additional information they receive. New Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) will also improve the Super Hornet's information pipeline so more data can be transmitted to and from the jet.
> 
> The improvements to stealth include possible low-observable coating, and new Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) are planned to replace the Super Hornet's current external fuel tanks. The CFTs will improve radar cross section slightly, but they are primarily intended to reduce aerodynamic drag. The Navy is also planning a long-range infrared sensor for the Super Hornet for early threat detection.
> 
> The electronic warfare variant of the F/A-18, called the EA-18G Growler, will also be receiving some of the avionics upgrades. Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager, told Aviation Week that stealth is not a priority, and the avionics improvements will give the Super Hornet "a balanced approach to survivability, including electronic warfare and self-protection."
> 
> The primary goal of the upgrade is to make the Super Hornet play nicely with the Navy's incoming F-35C. The carrier variant of the F-35 is the last of the F-35s to enter service, as it has not reached initial operating capability (IOC) like the Marine and Air Force jets have. When the Navy starts flying the fifth-generation fighters, their air coverage will have a lot more incoming data to share and analyze with various aircraft...
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26833/us-navy-approves-boeings-f-1-8/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Since the USAF/LM was going to advance Canada 4 LRIP -35A, to be replaced by full production 35As later, until then-PM Harper got his face in a know and shut the plan down (which I think even he regrets), 18 interims delivered 'tomorrow' doesn't seem so much of a stretch.  The closer and closer 35s come to their full-rate production price that either matches, or may even beat the SH's cost, the more likely Boeing is to lose out on the opportunity.  Perhaps Boeing Corporate really doesn't mind losing the $7-9B of quick cash? ???

Definitely a op: issue.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

> When the Navy starts flying the fifth-generation fighters, their air coverage will have a lot more incoming data to share and analyze with various aircraft...



This raises a point that has been niggling me for a while:

How do the F35s and the CP140s compare in terms of data gathering?  Or for that matter JUSTAS-RPAS-MALES-Reapers?

The Brits characterize their "multi-role aircraft" and thus you get GRs (Ground - Reconnaissance) and FRSs (Fighter - Reconnaissance - Strike), amongst other stuff.

If using that classification system might it not be fair to describe the F35s as some type of R = Reconnaissance aircraft? Reconnaissance is about the business of gathering data, usually in a contested environment, usually staying as stealthy as possible so as to avoid the fight, usually directing the movement of forces to the target and observing the effect on the target, only shooting if forced to defend or if a timely high value target appears.  It seems to me that that reasonably describes the utility of the F35.  It permits all of that while only putting one "observer" at risk.

How does that compare with the CP-140 when used as a Long Range Patrol Aircraft as opposed to its original role as an Anti Submarine Warfare aircraft?  The Nimrod was characterized as an MR or an MRA (Maritime Reconnaissance or Maritime Reconnaissance and Attack). The Sentinel is strictly an R (Reconnaissance).

To me it is arguable that the F35, derided in Canada because its stealth permits "First Strike" options, actually is the ideal Situational Awareness platform that would permit Canada to "observe" actions in contested environments, while minimizing both the number of "observers" at risk and the risk to the "observers", and permitting the "observer", when authorized, to intervene directly with threats.

GRs = Harrier GR1, GR3, GR5, GR7 and GR9  vice the Harrier FGA (Fighter Ground Attack equivalent to an CF-188 description)
       = Jaguar GR1 and GR3
       = Tornado GR1 and GR4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_aircraft_designation_systems

It seems to me that the/an argument for "stealth" attributes arises from the ability to effectively reconnoitre in any environment to improve situational awareness by getting eyes close to the target.

A Layered Approach to Situational Awareness might look something like:

Sig Int from CSCE (Listening Posts?)
Cyber Int from ???? TBA ????  (Observation Posts?)
Standing Patrols of Satellites orbiting
Standing Patrols of MALE UAVs that can be directed to targets of interest while loitering in the vicinity.
Fighting Patrols of LRPAs that launch when a target of interest is discovered and requires a lingering presence to coordinate activities
Reconnaissance sorties of GRs/FSRs as alternatives to the LRPAs but that have the capability to Interdict air (ASMs), ground and maritime targets with stowed and available munitions.

With the added benefit of being able to loiter longer and closer to contested air space.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Hmm--more on F-35A front and RCAF:



> Liberals face tough questions on Afghanistan, interim fighter jets
> ...
> The Canadian Press has learned that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan met with the head of Lockheed Martin, the U.S. defence giant behind the F-35 stealth fighter, in Singapore earlier this month.
> 
> Word of Sajjan's meeting with Lockheed president Marillyn Hewson came as the minister told
> 
> 's Question Period that the government is looking at "different options" for addressing a critical shortage of fighter jets.
> 
> ...Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department that Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier had sold its CSeries jet liners at an unfair discount with help from the federal government.
> 
> The Liberals have since threatened to scrap the Super Hornet plan because of the dispute, which took another turn Friday when the U.S. International Trade Commission said it would continue investigating.
> 
> Sajjan's spokeswoman Jordan Owens confirmed the minister met with Hewson at a defence summit in Singapore at the beginning of June, but could not immediately comment on the discussion.
> 
> However, a Lockheed official speaking on background said Hewson told Sajjan that her company was ready and eager to deliver F-35s on an urgent basis if required...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1476878-liberals-face-tough-questions-on-afghanistan-interim-fighter-jets



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

on a urgent basis if required? sounds like to me we could work out a deal to sorta bump the line and maybe lease a couple F-35's coming off the line from the US, to be replaced by our own once they come off the line down the road.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> ...sounds like to me we could work out a deal to sorta bump the line and maybe lease a couple F-35's coming off the line from the US, to be replaced by our own once they come off the line down the road.



There was a deal in the past, I'm sure some folks have already refreshed the numbers.  (and refreshed Lt.Gen. Bogdan's powerpoint deck that identified the 4 LRIP F-35s to Canada, to now look at 18 FRP [full-rate production] aircraft)



> JSF Program Office Looks At Canada F-35 Swap
> 
> *Nov 7, 2014 - Bill Sweetman, AWIN First*
> 
> A radical fast-track plan to jump-start Canada’s stalled effort to buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is revealed in a briefing document obtained by Aviation Week.
> 
> The Oct. 27 brief from JSF Program Executive Office director USAF Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan to Air Force secretary Deborah James calls for Canada to receive four F-35s next year, by diverting them from U.S. Air Force low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 7 orders. Canada would then buy four Lot 9 aircraft that would be delivered to the Air Force in 2017. According to the briefing, Canada would sign a letter of intent within days — "mid-November" — and Congress would be notified by the end of November.
> 
> Neither the JSF Program Office nor the Canadian Department of National Defense responded to repeated inquiries about the planned deal this week. The legal basis for such an exchange, absent an urgent operational need, is uncertain. The proposed LRIP 9 replacement aircraft are not on contract, and as far as is known, negotiations for them have not started.
> 
> According to the briefing, the Air Force has said it can spare four aircraft — budgeted at more than $160 million each — but with "no flex left" in the schedule for the aircraft to achieve initial operational capability. Aircraft availability is already a risk factor in meeting the objective initial operational capability date of August 2016.
> 
> Canada is a founding partner in the JSF program, with one of the largest near-term export orders. Its plan to buy 65 F-35As has been controversial since 2010, when prime minister Stephen Harper’s government attempted to bypass Canadian law that states that all major government acquisitions must be competed. The government asserted that the F-35 was the only aircraft that could meet Canadian requirements, but was forced to back down after Canada’s auditor-general reported in 2012 that the project’s costs had not been presented correctly and the air force’s "statement of requirements" had been compiled after the decision to make a sole-source procurement had been made.
> 
> The program to acquire new fighters has been supervised since 2012 by a special secretariat within Canada’s public works department. The most recent development was the announcement at the end of September of a plan to extend the life of Canada’s Boeing Hornet fleet to 2025. This was seen as confirming that Harper’s team had accepted the need to defer the JSF decision past the next general election, which is due no later than October 2015.
> 
> According to one Canadian industry observer close to the fighter program, the F-35 swap proposal is being pushed by Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office. "It would be a huge game changer," the source says, and another observer, former procurement official Alan Williams, calls it "explosive." The industry source is dubious that it can happen as scheduled: "The decision to go with the F-35 has not been made. This requires three key ministers to sign off and that hasn’t happened yet." A Harper attempt to lock Canada into the F-35 program before the election would risk an electoral backlash, sources say. "The fighter file is simply toxic right now," the industry observer says.
> 
> The swap proposal may be linked to program office and Lockheed Martin attempts in recent weeks to revive the concept of a multi-year, multi-nation block buy, first raised in 2007. Both would accelerate export sales, which are needed to support increased production rates and enable lower prices. According to the industry source, Canada’s fighter secretariat concluded in September that the JSF acquisition could not be completed within the nation’s CAN$9 billion ceiling unless the decision was delayed, pushing more of the 65 aircraft into full-rate production years. Lockheed Martin has promised much lower prices for aircraft delivered in 2019 and beyond.



op:


----------



## AlexanderM

Budgeted at over $160 million dollars each, which would be USD, so over $200M Cdn each!!


----------



## CBH99

$200M each is bloody expensive...

But then again, we can't even design an already designed patrol vessel for less than that    >


Not a bad move on behalf of Lockheed though.  Provide 4 aircraft on a leased basis to a country that is holding a jet replacement competition soon, in the hopes of giving yourself a leg-up when it comes time for the actual competition.  Especially now that both Boeing and Lockheed seem to have taken a shove backwards from the Liberals, each seem to be revamping their thinking since the current government came in and changed the dynamics of relations with both companies.

(Campaign promise not to buy the F-35, and then recently the trade spat with Boeing)


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Budgeted at over $160 million dollars each, which would be USD, so over $200M Cdn each!!



https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

an LRIP Block 7 price, and currently $94.6M for LRIP Block 10, and getting lower every day...may POTUS 45 will ask L-M to give them to us for free as a good faith reward for increasing defence spending by 70%?


Regards
G2G


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I really hope the Liberals surprise us and when asked about the apparent change in policy simply reply:  "Yes our policy is changing as our situation has changed.  We're now doing our best due diligence in the best interests of our armed forces and all Canadians."  

It's a perfectly rational and defensible position to take....


M.


----------



## Kirkhill

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I really hope the Liberals surprise us and when asked about the apparent change in policy simply reply:  "Yes our policy is changing as our situation has changed.  We're now doing our best due diligence in the best interests of our armed forces and all Canadians."
> 
> It's a perfectly rational and defensible position to take....
> 
> 
> M.



And they should be commended if they decide to take that position.


----------



## Loachman

Yes.













But I still won't vote for them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

1) One was asked to answer this questionnaire and did:



> Overwhelming majority of defence thought leaders reject Ottawa’s Super Hornet fighter jet proposal: MLI paper by David McDonough and Brian Lee Crowley
> http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/overwhelming-majority-of-defence-thought-leaders-reject-ottawas-super-hornet-fighter-jet-proposal-mli-paper-by-david-mcdonough-and-brian-lee-crowley/



2) Good flipping grief:



> Feds set to meet with fighter jet firms amid Super Hornet questions
> 
> Federal officials are expected to sit down with representatives from different fighter jet makers in Paris next week, as uncertainty swirls over the Trudeau government's plan to buy "interim" Super Hornets.
> 
> The meetings on the sidelines of the prestigious Paris Air Show are being billed as the first step towards the eventual launch of a competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet with 88 new fighters.
> 
> That is how many warplanes the Liberals' new defence policy calls for Canada to buy, an increase from the 65 previously promised by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper.
> 
> The policy estimates the cost at between $15 billion and $19 billion, up from the $9 billion previously budgeted by the Tories.
> 
> But while much of the attention will be on the competition, which the government says it will launch in 2019, the companies are also expected to pitch their own ability to sell Canada "interim" jets if needed.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on Monday said the government was still reviewing its decision to buy 18 "interim" Super Hornets from U.S. aerospace firm Boeing.
> 
> The Liberals previously said they needed the Super Hornets to address a critical shortage of fighter jets, referred to as a "capability gap," until the full competition to replace the CF-18s could be run.
> 
> The government said at the time that the Super Hornet was the only aircraft that met its immediate requirements, including being compatible with U.S. fighters and not in development.
> 
> But that was before Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department about Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier, sparking a trade dispute and threats from the Liberals to kill the Super Hornet deal.
> 
> The plan to purchase an interim fighter jet has been unpopular with retired military officers and defence officials as well as analysts, who have instead called for the competition to start now rather than in 2019.
> 
> A survey of 75 such experts conducted by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and released on Tuesday found that the vast majority didn't believe there was a capability gap, and opposed the plan to buy interim jets.
> 
> But _a senior government official told The Canadian Press that the Liberals have no intention of backing away from their plan to buy an interim fighter — even if it means going with a different jet_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Sources say the government has not actually approached any of Boeing's competitors about stepping into the breach if the Liberals decide to scrap the Super Hornet deal.
> 
> But the _Paris meetings offer an opportunity for U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin, French firm Dassault, Swedish company Saab, and European consortium Eurofighter to make their best pitches on the issue_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Each has indicated that it is prepared to provide interim fighter jets upon request.
> 
> The government's delegation will be led by Maj.-Gen. Alain Pelletier, head of National Defence's fighter program, and Lisa Campbell, who oversees military procurement at the federal procurement department...
> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/06/13/feds-set-to-meet-with-fighter-jet-firms-amid-super-hornet-questions-3/#.WUBPPsa1vwo



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

A new Minister of Defense appointment could give the Liberals the political freedom to change direction on the interim purchase.

Crossing fingers....


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile, on the Boeing side of the house:




> Boeing to restructure defense, space unit
> 
> Boeing Co (BA.N) said on Tuesday it would restructure its defense, space and security (BDS) division into smaller units and cut about 50 executive positions, as the world's largest plane maker seeks to make its business more responsive to customers.
> 
> The business, which accounted for nearly a third of the company's total revenue in 2016, will be divided into seven units, instead of the present five. All will report to BDS Chief Executive Leanne Caret.
> 
> The executives to be cut represent a layer of middle management in between senior officials and each individual business unit.
> 
> Caret told Reuters the restructuring will make the business faster and help Boeing better anticipate the needs of defense customers.
> 
> "Customers have "a desire to move fast, and we need to be part of the solution," she said.
> 
> Boeing's defense arm sells a variety of military equipment including jet fighters, missiles and unmanned underwater vehicles to the United States and its allies.
> 
> Boeing's military aircraft business, part of the BDS unit, will be rearranged into three smaller segments: autonomous systems, strike surveillance and mobility, and vertical lift.
> 
> Autonomous systems, led by Chris Raymond, will comprise Boeing's subsidiaries Liquid Robotics, which makes the Wave Glider ocean surface robot, and Insitu unmanned aerial vehicles, among other businesses.
> 
> The strike surveillance and mobility business, led by Shelley Lavender, will include the F-15 and F/A-18 fighters and P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.
> 
> Boeing's AH-6i, AH-64 Apache, and CH-47 Chinook helicopters will become part of the new vertical lift segment, led by David Koopersmith.
> 
> ALSO IN BUSINESS NEWS
> 
> Weak U.S. retail sales, consumer prices put spotlight on Fed
> Dow hits record high at open; Fed in focus
> Boeing said its network and space systems business, also part of the BDS unit, will be reconstituted as space and missile systems. The business will be led by Jim Chilton.
> 
> The business makes satellites and other space and intelligence systems, and includes its joint venture operation with Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) - United Launch Alliance.
> 
> The development, global operations, and phantom works segments will remain largely unchanged within the BDS unit, the company said.
> 
> Boeing is aggressively building its services businesses to capture new revenue and lift profit margins from high single digits to mid-teens by 2020.
> 
> Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg established a services business unit earlier this year that combines commercial aircraft and defense services.
> 
> (Reporting by Mike Stone in Washington and Ankit Ajmera in Bengaluru; Editing by Arun Koyyur and Matthew Lewis)



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-restructuring-defense-idUSKBN1942R5

New dance partners.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note initial Super Hornet cost for US Navy about US$ 90 million each:



> Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years
> 
> The Navy intends to buy at least 80 more Boeing F/A-18E-F Super Hornets over the next five years to address its fighter shortfall, a change from its previous on-the-books plan to zero out the aircraft program beginning next year, service officials said in congressional testimony today.
> 
> The Navy’s written testimony to the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee notes the “Fiscal Year 2018 President’s Budget requests $1.25 billion in [the Navy’s aircraft procurement account] for 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft” and that, “with the support of Congress, we will also procure a minimum of 80 additional Super Hornets across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and continue modernization plans to address continuing warfighter demand for advanced tactical aircraft. These additional procurements begin to mitigate the decline in [the Department of the Navy’s] strike fighter inventory and enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to extend their service life.”
> 
> Though the services typically include in their budget requests a five-year projection of spending plans, this year Pentagon officials told reporters during the budget rollout that any out-year numbers were speculative and in many cases simply maintained current program levels. They said an ongoing defense strategy review would inform future year needs and render any current projections moot – and the Navy, as a result, took the FYDP projections out of its budget highlights book but not from its more detailed justification documents.
> 
> “The (defense) secretary has not spent any time at all looking at anything beyond FY ’18,” John Roth, performing the duties of under secretary of defense, comptroller, told reporters during the budget rollout.
> “You will not see a growth in force structure. You will not see a growth in the shipbuilding plan. You will not see a robust modernization program in the so-called current FYDP. And so therefore I caution anybody from trying to make any comparisons. And I’m actually of the school that it really doesn’t provide anything that’s particularly insightful.”
> 
> However, the Navy’s testimony today confirms the plans within its aviation procurement justification documents – that the service wants to buy 14 in 2018 for $1.25 billion , 23 in 2019 for $1.95 billion, 14 in 2020 for $1.35 billion and 14 in 2021 for $1.27 billion and 15 in 2022 for $1.28 billion.
> 
> In contrast, the FY 2017 budget request included 14 aircraft in 2018, as was requested last month, and then zero for the rest of the years of the FYDP [more follows on F-35B, F-35C]...
> https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/navy-intends-to-buy-80-more-super-hornets-in-fydp-to-ease-fighter-shortfall



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years


Would the articles on what the USN wants be more appropriately posted in a USN thread on the US forces board?  This is the RCAF's Next Generation Fighter discussion, not the discussion on all things loosely related to all potential replacement candidates.


----------



## Loachman

I think that it's relevant here, especially for cost-comparison purposes.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> I think that it's relevant here, especially for cost-comparison purposes.



It's really not possible to make cost comparisons with what we would pay.  I suppose it's useful for comparing the price that the US pays for different frames.


----------



## MarkOttawa

One can compare what USN pays for Super Hornets with what USAF pays for F-35As to get good idea of comparative base acquisition pricing of the aircraft, quite relevant to RCAF.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's really not possible to make cost comparisons with what we would pay.  I suppose it's useful for comparing the price that the US pays for different frames.



The packages would be completely different, yes. The USN is most likely buying little other than aircraft and parts. We'd need much more than that (not that we _*need*_ this purely-political purchase at all).

The links on Bourque Newswatch www.bourque.org are entitled  "If US Navy can buy 80 Super Hornets for $7.1 Billion .." "WHY WOULD TRUDEAU PAY $10 BILLION FOR JUST 18 SUPER HORNETS ?"

That should cause some media and public discussion


----------



## Kirkhill

Based on the info from these two articles 

https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/navy-intends-to-buy-80-more-super-hornets-in-fydp-to-ease-fighter-shortfall
https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

And applying a 1.33 CAD/USD exchange rate I come to the following

F18 E 

2018 119 MCAD
2019 113 MCAD
2020 128 MCAD
2021 121 MCAD
2022 113 MCAD

F35A  

LRIP 10 126 MCAD
2019 Goal 113 MCAD

As I understand it both aircraft numbers are based on unit flyaway costs with engines and equipment (presumably minus weapons and stores).


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: Thanks.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bearpaw

C.P.:

Do those figures include the latest software upgrade charges?

Bearpaw


----------



## kev994

Super Hornet apparently has a foreign sales tax for us, F35 does not.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> C.P.:
> 
> Do those figures include the latest software upgrade charges?
> 
> Bearpaw



Can't honestly say.  Any references in the articles cited?


----------



## Kirkhill

More on Boeing's restructuring, and the corollaries across the defence industry, by Sandra Erwin  http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/15/boeing_defense_shake-up_signals_broader_shifts_in_industry_111592.html



> “A company like Boeing is in a difficult spot,” Mahoney says. Its defense business is heavily reliant on traditional military hardware like fighter jets and satellites. It now has to figure out how to position itself for a future when wars are fought with vastly different tools, Mahoney observes. “We are changing from the old model of large-scale invasions and occupations to virtual war waged constantly.”



How's Kodak doing these days?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile, from the CDS (via CBC) ...


> The chief of the defence staff says he is keeping the F-35 fighter jet on the table as suitable option to bolster the air force's fleet, despite the Liberals' campaign promise not to buy the jet.
> 
> "The most critical thing for me, as I look to the long term health and capacity of the institution, is that very important commitment to an open competition with no barriers to that competition," Gen. Jonathan Vance, told Chris Hall, host of CBC Radio's The House.
> 
> (...)
> 
> The defence plan calls for a "fighter fleet that is capable, upgradeable, resilient and interoperable with our allies and partners to ensure Canada continues to meet its Norad and NATO commitments."
> 
> When asked if the open competition would include Lockheed Martin's F-35, Vance said it does.
> 
> "It includes all of the planes. It includes the Super Hornet, the F-35 , all of the planes. That's a good thing so we can actually see what planes are going to provide us the operational advantage that we need as we defend Canada and operate globally," he said ...


----------



## AlexanderM

If this is true, in terms of cost, then there shouldn't be any problem for us to make a purchase at either $95M USD or the quoted $85M USD. Our new fighter budget can easily handle these numbers. I take it, should we go ahead, we will still order the version capable of carrying 6 internal missiles, and would expect to eventually be able to carry the Meteor missile.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/19/news/companies/lockheed-martin-f35-fighter-jet-deal/index.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gosh!  Finland to issue RFP for new fighter to replace Hornets next year:



> Competitors jockey for Finland fighter deal
> 
> In a significant move, Finland’s Finance Ministry has included a provision to pay for the first tranche of the proposed new fighter acquisition from debt incurred from 2018 to 2019. It's a decision that has spurred competitors' marketing to kick into overdrive.
> 
> The government plans to fund the first tranche, payment expected by 2021, from loans totaling €3.6 billion (U.S. $4 billion).
> 
> "We are confident the operating and maintenance costs of the fighters we are buying can be covered from within the annual defense budgets going forward," said Petteri Orpo, Finland’s finance minister.
> 
> Five international bidding groups, including Boeing (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet), Lockheed Martin (F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter), BAE Systems (Eurofighter Typhoon), Saab (Gripen E) and Dassault Aviation (Rafale), will battle for the HX FPP contract. Depending on the aircraft type selected by Finland, the value of the contract is expected to be worth between €7 billion (U.S. $7.8 billion) and €10 billion (U.S. $11.2 billion).
> 
> The next stage in the HX FPP will see Finland's Defence project office issue requests for proposals to the governments of the five aircraft manufacturers. The RFPs will be sent out to competing manufacturers during the second quarter of 2018. In a forward-looking request, the MoD will ask all five manufacturers to demonstrate how the capabilities of their specific fighter aircraft offerings can be augmented by other aircraft types, including unmanned platforms like surveillance and weaponized drones.
> 
> "The Finnish Air Force (FAF) of tomorrow will need to be stronger and more adaptable. We are looking for a full range of options that will reflect possible future changes in air defense," said Jussi Niinistö, Finland’s defense minister.
> 
> The _FAF is on course to replace its existing fleet of an estimated 60 operational multi-role Boeing F/A-18 Hornets by 2025_ [emphasis added, cf. RCAF]...
> http://www.defensenews.com/articles/competitors-jockey-for-finland-fighter-deal



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> If this is true, in terms of cost, then there shouldn't be any problem for us to make a purchase at either $95M USD or the quoted $85M USD. Our new fighter budget can easily handle these numbers.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/19/news/companies/lockheed-martin-f35-fighter-jet-deal/index.html



Buying a fighter jet in Canada would require a decision to be made, something our politicians and leadership can't do. We can't provide proper boots for our feet so how the hell can they decide on jets. Our procurement process is a circus of epic proportions, our allies will be flying their F35s come 2020 and we will still be just talking about it.

Meanwhile at the CDS' office....


----------



## AlexanderM

I was more refering to the fact that with the new budget and the most recent price quote we can now afford to purchase the F-35 should we choose to. We could also purchase F-35 interim fighters at those numbers. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Trump we needed a political solution to get military spending in Canada up to where it should be and with the 70% increase in defence spending we are now getting somewhere. I think it's entirely possible that the poitics of the situation may yet lead us back to the F-35, especially with numbers like the ones linked to above. We just need to let the political process continue.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Gosh!  Finland to issue RFP for new fighter to replace Hornets next year:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Even more radical ..... a clear statement of financing.  The Finns will borrow money to buy the planes today and then pay back the loan over time.

Why does nobody else do stuff like that?  I mean with thinking like that you could buy all sorts of stuff - planes, ships, bridges, houses, cars.

Sarcasm off.  I actually really like this because it clarifies budgeting - it clearly defines the purpose of borrowing, as opposed to borrowing for general revenues, and it clearly defines a payment plan.

Finland's books are in very good condition, even by northern European standards.   We could consider some emulation.


----------



## a_majoor

F-35 demonstration pilot promises to crush previous impressions of the F-35 with his performance at the Paris Air show:

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/f-35-demo-pilot-paris-performance-will-crush-years-misinformation



> *F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation'*
> Jun 18, 2017 Lara Seligman | ShowNews
> 
> Not as agile as the Super Hornet nor as fast as the Typhoon? Don’t you believe it, says Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn. He will put the F-35A through its paces at Le Bourget this week, proving that the aircraft is more maneuverable than any he has flown, he says, including Boeing’s F/A-18, the Eurofighter, and his own company’s F-16 Viper.
> 
> “After 10 years since first flight, with our first opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities and the maneuverability of the F-35, we are going to crush years of misinformation about what this aircraft is capable of doing,” Flynn said in an interview with Aviation Week.
> 
> The F-35’s maneuverability is all the more impressive because, unlike the F-16s that perform at air shows, the Joint Strike Fighter flying the demonstration this week is fully combat-ready. Flynn’s F-35A will move easily through complex aerial maneuvers loaded with everything it needs to go to war.
> 
> “All of those airplanes that do air shows—the Hornet, Viper—they are all slicked off without all the external stores,” Flynn said. “They are a party trick at an air show, versus a combat-configured F-22 or F-35.”
> 
> The flight demonstration is carefully scripted to highlight the kinematic capabilities of the F-35A, particularly its slow-speed handling qualities, said Flynn. He will start with an afterburner takeoff, almost immediately pointing his nose to the sky and letting the aircraft climb away essentially vertically. This impressive move is unique to the F-22 and the F-35, he said.
> 
> 
> Billie Flynn aims to silence the skeptics with complex F-35A demo flights at the Paris Air Show.
> 
> Next, Flynn will reverse back in front of the crowd, and perform a “square loop” to show the aircraft’s instantaneous pitch capability and high angle-of-attack (AOA) maneuverability. Then he will turn around, reverse back in front of the crowd, and perform a slow-speed, high-AOA pass. Afterward, he will light the afterburner and fly straight up into the sky once again.
> 
> From there, Flynn will pull up vertically in front of the crowd and execute a maximum AOA “power loop,” where the aircraft flips on its back—another signature Raptor move. Then he will initiate a spiral at 50 degrees AOA, called a “pedal turn,” which he says will be the most impressive part of the entire routine.
> 
> After reversing again in front of the crowd, the last move is a maximum-G, 360-deg. turn, which highlights the maximum-rate, minimum-radius-turn capability of the aircraft, Flynn said. The F-35 in its current 3i configuration is limited to 7g; when the fighter gets its full war-fighting capability with the final 3F software, it will be able to pull 9gs.
> 
> “This aircraft down low in this environment is an absolute monster,” said Flynn. ”It is more powerful, it is more aggressive than any of us, including those of us that fly the F-35, would have imagined before we began this flight-demo process.”
> 
> The high show does not include the F-35 opening its weapon-bay doors, as the F-22 does during its airshow routine. The low show, which the F-35 will perform if there is inclement weather or cloud ceiling, includes opening the weapon-bay doors, according to Lockheed spokesman Mark Johnson.
> 
> Lockheed’s F-35 airshow profile has been in the works for well over a year, according to Flynn. The team has conducted over 800 simulator runs to evaluate the profile, and Flynn began practicing in the aircraft at the company’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas, about a month ago.
> 
> The company has developed air show routines for all three F-35 variants—the U.S. Navy F-35C carrier variant and the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B vertical-takeoff-and-landing variant as well—but this year Flynn is focused on the U.S. Air Force F-35A version.
> 
> Flynn had to modify the routine to accommodate airspace restrictions unique to the Paris show, he said. Flying is limited laterally and vertically because of Le Bourget’s proximity to both to the city of Paris and Charles De Gaulle Airport. Flynn is also limited by time—he only has 6 min. for the routine at Le Bourget, where at most air shows he would have 10 min.
> 
> “We focused on the ‘wow’ factor and left out the elements of a routine that would be part of a non-Paris-type profile,” Flynn said. “You have to live inside very tight restrictive boundaries, but it still permits us to put on a show that I believe will squelch the critics once and for all.”
> 
> So how will the F-35 demonstration compare to the Raptor’s always-impressive routine? It’s very similar, Flynn said.
> 
> “We all love what the Raptor can do. I would say the F-35 and the F-22 both put on demonstrations that are unique to our fifth-gen maneuverability,” said Flynn. “But don’t forget, that’s not how we dominate—we dominate because of stealth and sensor fusion.”
> 
> The two F-35As from Hill AFB, Utah, arrived at Le Bourget Airport June 13 and will be maintained on-site by Air Force maintainers and security personnel. One aircraft will be flying, and one will be on static display.



The "against" arguments continue to weaken. All I will say is the longer we delay the less relevant we will become in the future, and acting as bomb and missile "trucks" for foreign flight leaders in F-35's to direct takes away any illusions of Canada's independent ability to act or even place our own "national caveats" on actions (when a USAF, RAF or Danish flight leader is roaming ahead and designating targets, do you really think the Canadian pilot gets to question what is being shot at?)


----------



## Rifleman62

*F-35 Aerial Demonstration Debut at 2017 Paris Air Show*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NdwZAeXhI

And:
*
Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Performs Validation Flight at Paris Air Show 2017 – AINtv Express*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFa44zqfF3k

Published on Jun 16, 2017
Before the opening of the 2017 Paris Air Show, Lockheed Martin senior experimental test pilot Billie Flynn must validate the F-35A Lightning II flying display for show officials, providing an early opportunity to see it in action. This is the F-35A model, which is flown by the United States Air Force, and it is the first time it has appeared at the Paris Air Show. Last year, the STOVL-capable F-35B variant made its international


----------



## AlexanderM

It didn't seem to need much runway for the takeoff, so the length of runway is for landing? The F-35 does need a rather long runway compared to some other fighter jets, yes??


----------



## Quirky

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> It didn't seem to need much runway for the takeoff, so the length of runway is for landing? The F-35 does need a rather long runway compared to some other fighter jets, yes??



No it doesn't. It was probably initially at airshow weight - minimal fuel load and nothing else, just like all the other airshow performers. Even our CF18 demo aircraft isn't fully fuelled for its show making the takeoff shorter. Give it three jugs and a few thousand lbs worth of ammunition then it takes a lot more runway for rotation.


----------



## AlexanderM

Quirky said:
			
		

> No it doesn't. It was probably initially at airshow weight - minimal fuel load and nothing else, just like all the other airshow performers. Even our CF18 demo aircraft isn't fully fuelled for its show making the takeoff shorter. Give it three jugs and a few thousand lbs worth of ammunition then it takes a lot more runway for rotation.


If you read the article above, it refutes what your saying, not the same configuration as the other air show performers. The reason I brought it up was that modifications to our airfields was a requirement to operate the F-35 and I recall that lengthening the runways was one of the requirements. 

I'm now thinking that it is likely in the event that the aircraft is carrying a full compliment of external weapons and fuel which would only occur when stealth is not required.

From above:

The F-35’s maneuverability is all the more impressive because, unlike the F-16s that perform at air shows, the Joint Strike Fighter flying the demonstration this week is fully combat-ready. Flynn’s F-35A will move easily through complex aerial maneuvers loaded with everything it needs to go to war.

“All of those airplanes that do air shows—the Hornet, Viper—they are all slicked off without all the external stores,” Flynn said. “They are a party trick at an air show, versus a combat-configured F-22 or F-35.”


----------



## a_majoor

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> It didn't seem to need much runway for the takeoff, so the length of runway is for landing? The F-35 does need a rather long runway compared to some other fighter jets, yes??



Full afterburner takeoffs should not take a lot of runway. It might be terminology, but using afterburners and doing a vertical zoom climb was pioneered back in the 80's by F-15 and F-16 pilots. The aircraft had power to weight ratios over unity with afterburner, allowing them to accelerate in vertical climbs.....

I'm not clear if the F-35 has a greater than usual landing run compared to similarly sized fighters, but the Paris Airshow demonstration had the plane with a full loadout so was landing heavier than what may be normal.


----------



## AlexanderM

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Full afterburner takeoffs should not take a lot of runway. It might be terminology, but using afterburners and doing a vertical zoom climb was pioneered back in the 80's by F-15 and F-16 pilots. The aircraft had power to weight ratios over unity with afterburner, allowing them to accelerate in vertical climbs.....
> 
> I'm not clear if the F-35 has a greater than usual landing run compared to similarly sized fighters, but the Paris Airshow demonstration had the plane with a full loadout so was landing heavier than what may be normal.


I'm now thinking that the extra runway length is likely only required when it carries a full external load, as it can carry quite a bit of external weapons and fuel. I imagine that we would normally use the aircraft with internal weapons and fuel only so it wouldn't normally require more runway, it's just that we would need it just in case.


----------



## Loachman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> the length of runway is for landing?



I am not quite sure what your question is.

More runway is generally required for landing, compared to take-off.

One can generally begin one's take-off run at or near the threshold of a runway, but the touchdown zone is generally between 500 and 1000 feet down the runway.

A jet engine is more powerful than brakes. An aircraft will accelerate more quickly than it can decelerate, hence the landing roll will be longer.

Tailhooks and drogue chutes can be used to shorten the landing roll, but I do not believe that F35A has either.

Some information regarding runways and markings can be found at http://code7700.com/aim_point_vs_touchdown_point.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway


----------



## AlexanderM

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am not quite sure what your question is.
> 
> More runway is generally required for landing, compared to take-off.
> 
> One can generally begin one's take-off run at or near the threshold of a runway, but the touchdown zone is generally between 500 and 1000 feet down the runway.
> 
> A jet engine is more powerful than brakes. An aircraft will accelerate more quickly than it can decelerate, hence the landing roll will be longer.
> 
> Tailhooks and drogue chutes can be used to shorten the landing roll, but I do not believe that F35A has either.
> 
> Some information regarding runways and markings can be found at http://code7700.com/aim_point_vs_touchdown_point.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway


Your obviously not quite sure what my question is. In order to operate the F-35 I remember that in the original $9B budget there was money to lengthen some of our airfields, so when I saw how quickly the F-35 got up in the air I thought, it doesn't look like it needs much runway, so why do we need to lenghten some airfields? That is all.


----------



## YeomanScrap

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am not quite sure what your question is.
> 
> More runway is generally required for landing, compared to take-off.
> 
> One can generally begin one's take-off run at or near the threshold of a runway, but the touchdown zone is generally between 500 and 1000 feet down the runway.
> 
> A jet engine is more powerful than brakes. An aircraft will accelerate more quickly than it can decelerate, hence the landing roll will be longer.
> 
> Tailhooks and drogue chutes can be used to shorten the landing roll, but I do not believe that F35A has either.
> 
> Some information regarding runways and markings can be found at http://code7700.com/aim_point_vs_touchdown_point.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway



F-35A has a dinky Air Force hook. Wouldn't want to use it every landing.



			
				AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Your obviously not quite sure what my question is. In order to operate the F-35 I remember that in the original $9B budget there was money to lengthen some of our airfields, so when I saw how quickly the F-35 got up in the air I thought, it doesn't look like it needs much runway, so why do we need to lenghten some airfields? That is all.



Building off Loachman's explanation:

It's landing with a load. The F-35 can carry a hell of a lot more than the Hornet (empty weight 29,000lb vs. 23,000lb, but MTOW 70,000lb vs. 52,000lb), and trying to bring that back at 160kts is a tonne of kinetic energy. Said tonne of energy has to be carried away by 2 brakes for which weight and size are far more important than performance. This takes time and runway length.

Now, regarding the actual budget: Maybe the crosswind rwy at Bagotville? It's the only one I can think that's a bit tight (if you can call a full nautical mile tight). The main runways at CYOD and CYBG are 10,000ft. or more. The other option is a political hatchet job. Always a possibility with the F-35.


----------



## jmt18325

I thought the runways that may have needed lengthening were Inuvik and Rankin Inlet?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_NORAD_Region_Forward_Operating_Locations

Edit: Based on that possibly Yellowknife as well - Iqaluit would seem to be fine, and Goose Bay (not an official FOB, but used as a forward operating location) would definitely be fine.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Some F-35As will have drag chute:



> Dutch join Norwegians on F-35 brake chute development
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dutch-join-norwegians-on-f-35-brake-chute-developmen-432109/



Canada had shown interest:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norway-set-to-receive-first-drag-chute-equipped-f-35-402965/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Round and round they go (note other manufacturers):



> Liberal ministers meet Lockheed Martin at Paris Air Show, snub Boeing
> 
> The Trudeau government appears to have given aerospace giant Boeing the cold shoulder in Paris -- the latest sign that the Liberal government's plan to buy Super Hornet fighter jets could be on the rocks.
> 
> Three cabinet ministers are in the French capital this week to promote Canada's aerospace sector and meet various companies at the Paris Air Show, one of the largest such exhibitions in the world.
> 
> Those meetings included discussions with Lockheed Martin, which is hoping its F-35 stealth fighter will replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s whenever a competition is launched. _Meetings between Canadian officials and three other fighter-jet makers -- French firm Dassault, Sweden's Saab and European consortium Eurofighter -- were also scheduled_ [emphasis added].
> 
> But in separate interviews, Transport Minister Marc Garneau and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains said there were no plans to sit down with Boeing officials.
> 
> Bains specifically cited Boeing's complaints to the U.S. Commerce Department about Canadian rival Bombardier as the reason for the snub.
> 
> "We think that approach makes no sense, and we've been very clear about the fact that we reject those allegations that they're making," Bains said by telephone.
> 
> "Hence that is why we didn't engage with Boeing at this stage."
> 
> Boeing also had its invitation to a reception hosted by Canadian Ambassador to France Lawrence Cannon rescinded, said one source who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter...
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-ministers-meet-lockheed-martin-at-paris-air-show-snub-boeing-1.3466645



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I thought the runways that may have needed lengthening were Inuvik and Rankin Inlet?



They need lengthening regardless of what aircraft we operate, unless of course Arctic Sovereignty isn't a priority anymore. The strips at Inuvik and Rankin are tiny.


----------



## suffolkowner

I don't think there's anyway that runway improvements were included in the $9B/65=$138. I think this has been discussed at length here before but I don't think the F-35 actually needs 10,000 ft of runway, there's a healthy safety margin in there


----------



## George Wallace

Looking at this, and fearing that someone in the Government may have seen it as well, I fear that the Good Idea Faerie may find this the least expensive way to purchase enough F-35's to replace all our fighter fleets and still have money to spare.  For your viewing pleasure, the possible future of the RCAF fighter element:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhzoH17yf3o

 >


----------



## Spencer100

This that how the Iranians did it with their own homegrown "5th gen stealth" fighter?  

If it can work for them..........


----------



## AlexanderM

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't think there's anyway that runway improvements were included in the $9B/65=$138. I think this has been discussed at length here before but I don't think the F-35 actually needs 10,000 ft of runway, there's a healthy safety margin in there


The minimum is 8,000 ft, 10,000 is preferred. I don't believe any of the forward operating bases have the required minimum and it was included in the original budget.

Here is the source.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page

Here is the quote.

Infrastructure: New construction as well as upgrades to existing infrastructure is required for two Main Operating Bases, in Bagotville, Quebec and Cold Lake, Alberta and for the five Forward Operating Locations in Inuvik and Yellowknife in the North West Territories; Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet in Nunavut; and Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador. A preliminary cost estimate to potentially accommodate an F-35A fleet has been developed based on a number of planning assumptions related to operational concepts in Canada and the current understanding of facility requirements published by the F-35 Joint Program Office.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Runways is one of the many infrastructure issues that need to be resolved.


----------



## suffolkowner

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The minimum is 8,000 ft, 10,000 is preferred. I don't believe any of the forward operating bases have the required minimum and it was included in the original budget.
> 
> Here is the source.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page
> 
> Here is the quote.
> 
> Infrastructure: New construction as well as upgrades to existing infrastructure is required for two Main Operating Bases, in Bagotville, Quebec and Cold Lake, Alberta and for the five Forward Operating Locations in Inuvik and Yellowknife in the North West Territories; Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet in Nunavut; and Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador. A preliminary cost estimate to potentially accommodate an F-35A fleet has been developed based on a number of planning assumptions related to operational concepts in Canada and the current understanding of facility requirements published by the F-35 Joint Program Office.



I don't doubt that the infrastructure needs to be done just that it can be done within a $9B budget. Hangers will probably need to be insulated and fireproofed and adding 2000-4000 ft of runway to inuvik and rankin inlet is not going to be cheap. I believe the 10000 ft is to give enough room to abandon a take off attempt.  

18 interim F-35's would be an interesting development in this whole saga, I wonder how serious the Liberals are about their Boeing feelings and what it means for the CP-140 and CC-150 replacement?


----------



## Quirky

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't doubt that the infrastructure needs to be done just that it can be done within a $9B budget. Hangers will probably need to be insulated and fireproofed and adding 2000-4000 ft of runway to inuvik and rankin inlet is not going to be cheap. I believe the 10000 ft is to give enough room to abandon a take off attempt.



What they should do is stop with this Cold Lake and Bagotville non sense. New hangars and infrastructure needs to be build, might as well start fresh at YEG and Mirabel, hell all our parts depots are there anyway. Retention problems fixed.


----------



## jmt18325

Quirky said:
			
		

> What they should do is stop with this Cold Lake and Bagotville non sense. New hangars and infrastructure needs to be build, might as well start fresh at YEG and Mirabel, hell all our parts depots are there anyway. Retention problems fixed.



That's a great idea, actually.


----------



## Good2Golf

Quirky said:
			
		

> What they should do is stop with this Cold Lake and Bagotville non sense. New hangars and infrastructure needs to be build, might as well start fresh at YEG and Mirabel, hell all our parts depots are there anyway. Retention problems fixed.



Until they're driven out of the big cities like the city folk did to the Sabres in Downsview...

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't doubt that the infrastructure needs to be done just that it can be done within a $9B budget. Hangers will probably need to be insulated and fireproofed and adding 2000-4000 ft of runway to inuvik and rankin inlet is not going to be cheap. I believe the 10000 ft is to give enough room to abandon a take off attempt.
> 
> 18 interim F-35's would be an interesting development in this whole saga, I wonder how serious the Liberals are about their Boeing feelings and what it means for the CP-140 and CC-150 replacement?



I think the Liberals are very serious about Boeing.  As for the CP-140: Swordfish or Sea Herc.  For the CC- 150: Voyager.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ... for the CP-140: Swordfish ....










Good choice.

Proven track record.  Low maintenance.  Low infrastructure requirement.  Short field capable.  Good all round vision.

Always liked the Stringbag.


----------



## Kirkhill

I presume this is the one you were talking about.






http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf


----------



## jmt18325

That was the one.


----------



## MarkOttawa

On the other hand the Stringbag with radar for ASW--note U-boats sunk at end at link:
http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/swordfish.htm



>



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

Plus if you do it right you could receive the VC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

In February 1942, the shortcomings of the Swordfish were starkly demonstrated during a German naval fleet movement known as the Channel Dash. Six Swordfish led by Lieutenant Commander Eugene Esmonde sortied from Manston to intercept the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as they traversed the English Channel towards Germany.[20] When the Swordfish formation arrived and commenced an initial attack run coming astern of the ships, the Swordfish were intercepted by roughly 15 Messerschmitt Bf 109 monoplane fighter aircraft; the aerial battle was extremely one-sided, quickly resulting in the loss of all Swordfish while no damage was achieved upon the ships themselves.[20] The lack of fighter cover was a contributing factor for the heavy losses experienced; only ten of eighty-four promised fighters were available. Thirteen of the eighteen Swordfish crew involved were killed; Esmonde, who had previously led an attack on Bismarck, was awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously


----------



## MarkOttawa

Going very off topic but compare with the equally suicidal results of the USN Douglas Devastator (TBD) torpedo bombers (monoplane) at Midway:



> The Unknown Battle of Midway: The Destruction of the American Torpedo Squadrons
> https://www.amazon.ca/Battle-Midway-Destruction-American-Squadrons/dp/030010989X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1492736134&sr=1-10



More on the aircraft:
http://www.aviation-history.com/douglas/tbd.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I presume this is the one you were talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf


Gotta think the Liberals would like this being based on the Global 6000.


----------



## jmt18325

That was why I said it.  The Sea Herc is an outside possibility if Boeing really is blacklisted.


----------



## Kirkhill

The more I look at that Swordfish (the Saab-Bombardier effort) I find I can't stop wondering if they couldn't have hung some more stuff from it.

There is still some clean wing surface, and I think a dorsal turret would add something to the overall impression....


----------



## AlexanderM

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The more I look at that Swordfish (the Saab-Bombardier effort) I find I can't stop wondering if they couldn't have hung some more stuff from it.


The Global 7000 and 8000 are in development and would be larger. Would mean more range and likely more room.


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The Global 7000 and 8000 are in development and would be larger. Would mean more range and likely more room.



The 7000 has 12 feet in length on the 6000.  The 8000 is only about 3 feet longer than the 6000.  The 7000 may be the best choice for a platform.  Of course, much of the design work has already been done using the 6000.


----------



## Kirkhill

Back on topic



> ...À quand la décision? Pas avant le début de la prochaine décennie, nous a dit Marc Garneau, le ministre fédéral des Transports, qui siège au comité de sélection du remplaçant du CF-18. Donc, après les prochaines élections fédérales.....



So,  this thread has got another three years to run....

And the odds of Rafale?





> Peu probable



http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1040761/redorer-limage-du-f-35-au-bourget

Radio Canada via DoDBuzz via RealClearDefense

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/06/21/lockheed-exec-confident-canada-will-pick-f-35-block-buy-eyed/

I don't think much of Radio Canada or CBC on their technical reporting ..... but I tend not to bet against their political reports.   Especially when they are parroting the government.


----------



## MarkOttawa

FUBAR, _en anglais_--F-35A in "interim" mix now?:



> Liberals limiting options for stopgap fighter jet deal
> _Minister hopes trade dispute resolved quickly so 'we can get back to business' on Super Hornet purchase_
> 
> Talks with the Pentagon about filling the Canadian air force's short-term need for jet fighters remain on track, said Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> Those negotiations for a so-called "interim capability" continue despite the Liberal government making a very public display at the Paris Air Show this week of snubbing Boeing executives.
> 
> The U.S. aerospace giant's commercial trade complaint against Montreal-based Bombardier has thrown the military contract into limbo.
> 
> Boeing wants trade regulators in Washington to investigate subsidies for Bombardier's CSeries aircraft, claiming they allow the Canadian company to export planes at well below cost.
> 
> The Liberals had intended to purchase 18 Super Hornet fighters — at a potential total program cost of between $5 billion and $7 billion — from Boeing. The deal was supposed to be a stopgap until the government can finalize the purchase of 88 permanent replacements for the aging CF-18 fleet.
> 
> More doubt over Super Hornet sale as Liberals break contact with Boeing
> Sajjan blasts Boeing over trade spat with Bombardier
> Boeing says complaint aims to prevent larger CSeries
> 
> After Boeing filed the trade complaint earlier this year, the government broke off contact with the U.S. company and said it was reviewing the "interim" fighter deal. It heightened the rhetoric last month, saying the aircraft maker was no longer the "trusted partner" it had been.
> 
> Sajjan said that, regardless of the trade dispute, the urgent requirement for fighters has not gone away and must be filled somehow.
> 
> "We're still continuing our discussions with the U.S. government, making sure that we fill this capability gap," Sajjan said.
> Other options?
> 
> If Boeing has been frozen out, what is the Liberal government talking about with the Pentagon?
> 
> Sajjan said there are "other options," but refused to explain what they might be.
> 
> There are limited choices for a government-to-government purchase with the U.S. if the Super Hornet has been excluded.
> 
> During a recent trip to Singapore, Sajjan met with the CEO of Lockheed Martin, which is eager to sell Canada its advanced, but often maligned, F-35 — a plane the Liberals promised not to buy during the last election.
> 
> A _defence industry source with knowledge of the file said Lockheed Martin has sent a letter to the Liberal government, expressing interest in providing its jets as the "interim solution_ [emphasis added]."..
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-super-hornets-pentagon-1.4171638



With Super Hornet production for USN looking pretty assured for next few years (plus Kuwait order) our gov't has little leverage to get Boeing to cave in on Bombardier--18 fighters not that much money compared to trying effectively to kill CSeries:



> Navy’s Planned 80 Super Hornet Buy Could Grow After New Pentagon Strategy Review
> https://news.usni.org/2017/06/15/navys-planned-80-super-hornet-order-grow-strategy-review-washington-d-c-total-80-super-hornets-navy-set-buy-next-five-years-grow-based



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Try before you buy?  Rent-to-own?  FUBAR indeed.


----------



## a_majoor

Back in the real world, it looks like Lockheed-Martin has the capacity to build F-35s at a higher rate. With sufficient funding, it may be possible to get an order in with the Marines and "split the difference" by treating it as one big production run and getting economies of scale for anyone ordering the F-35B model. I'm not clear if the F-35A assembly lines have room like this, but once again, a consortium of buyers could potentially get together, demand a single long "run" and reap some economies of scale for themselves as well.

Indeed, the only buyer who won "not" benefit from this is the IDF, who's model is evidently significantly different from the standard F-35A.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/21/marine-corps-official-service-needs-f-35s-faster



> *Marine Corps Wants F-35Bs Delivered Faster*
> 6/21/2017
> By Yasmin Tadjdeh
> 
> PARIS — The Marine Corps, which plans to purchase hundreds of F-35 joint strike fighters, wants them to be delivered quicker, the service's deputy commandant for aviation said June 20 at the Paris Air Show.
> 
> “We could use airplanes faster,” said Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, who will be retiring in a few weeks. “We’re flying some of the oldest tactical aircraft — the strike fighters — in the naval inventory.”
> 
> The Marine Corps plans to purchase 420 F-35s, of which 353 will be the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant and 67 F-35 carrier variants, he said during a briefing at the show, which is being held at Le Bourget Airport. These will replace aging aircraft such as the F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B II Harrier.
> 
> Both systems are reaching the end of their service lives, he said. The average age of the Hornet is 26 years, he added.
> 
> In a perfect world Lockheed Martin would produce 37 F-35Bs per year, Davis said. However, budgetary issues make that unlikely even though the company has said it could support such a number.
> 
> “Bottom line, with the budgets the way … [they are] right now, we can’t recapitalize everything. I’m recapitalizing F-35s, CH-53Ks, C-130s, H-1s, V-22s all at the same time,” he said.
> 
> The procurement of the V-22 Osprey is winding down, which will assist with the F-35 ramp-up, he said. Additional funding from Congress would help boost the F-35 numbers. “We would be very appreciative of anything we can get … from our elected leadership,” he added.
> 
> Next year, the Marine Corps will have the money to purchase 20 F-35Bs, he said. While the aircraft will be in high demand, 420 platforms are enough to meet the service’s requirements, he said. “It has been 420 for some time, and we intend to stay at 420 F-35s,” he added.
> 
> The F-35 will provide a marked increased in capability for the Marine Corps, Davis noted.
> 
> “Operationally, the F-35 is giving us tremendous capability in every realm — air-to-air, air-to-ground strike. ... It is the most capable airplane that we’ve ever fielded," he said.
> 
> “We’re just scratching the surface of what we can do with this airplane,” he added. “It gives us that ability to land on a small ship, land on a forward operating base [and] basically extend the reach, depth and breadth and agility of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force.”
> 
> So far, the Marine Corps has stood up two F-35B squadrons — VMFA-121 and VMFA-211. Both will be deployed alongside Marine expeditionary units within a year, he said. “They are ready for worldwide global tasking for contingency operations now — and if need be — ready to go deploy and fight,” he said.
> 
> The next five squadrons will be converted F-18 squadrons, with four becoming F-35B squadrons and one being an F-35C, the Navy's carrier variant, he added.
> 
> The F-35B is also an important platform for the United Kingdom, which is a joint strike fighter program partner nation, said Rear Adm. Keith Blount, assistant chief of naval staff for aviation, amphibious capability and carriers for the Royal Navy.
> 
> The fighter will be flown off the nation’s new aircraft carriers, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales, he said. The Queen Elizabeth could be deployed this month, with the Prince of Wales following in 18 months.
> 
> “We believe the QE to be a true fifth-gen carrier built from the keel up to accommodate fifth-gen fighter aircraft, and we’re very proud to say that the F-35B will be the aircraft of choice,” he said.
> 
> The STOVL variant is ideal for the types of missions the nation flies, he added.
> 
> “The opportunities and potential of this airframe are almost endless. So we see ourselves right at the very forefront of jet aircraft and carrier strike capability by blending the Queen Elizabeth-class with the F-35,” he said.


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for IDF:



> Israeli F-35s to be declared operational in December
> 
> The Israel Air Force (IAF) will declare its Lockheed Martin F-35A jets fully operational in December, a military source has told Jane's.
> 
> The operational status will apply to the five F-35s already delivered to the IAF as well as all future jets on their arrival. Israel has ordered 50 jets to equip two full squadrons, with final deliveries expected in 2022.
> http://www.janes.com/article/71646/israeli-f-35s-to-be-declared-operational-in-december#.WUwKucSph3k.twitter



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I presume this is the one you were talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf



I'd think more highly of solutions like that if they paid attention to the aerodynamics. Everything should be fitted in a "canoe" under the fuselage, and weapons should be fitted in something like the pod demonstrated by the Advanced Super Hornet concept. This should assist in issues like range and manoeuvrability, not to mention making the aircraft marginally more stealthy than one with all kinds of "stuff" hanging off it.


----------



## AlexanderM

After watching video of the demonstration of the Rafale at the Paris Air Show, have to say, does it ever look quick and agile, even in comparision with the F-35 demonstration. I now fully expect we will purchase the F-35 and it will be able to fire before it's seen, especially once the meteor missile is available, but I still like the Rafale.


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'd think more highly of solutions like that if they paid attention to the aerodynamics. Everything should be fitted in a "canoe" under the fuselage, and weapons should be fitted in something like the pod demonstrated by the Advanced Super Hornet concept. This should assist in issues like range and manoeuvrability, not to mention making the aircraft marginally more stealthy than one with all kinds of "stuff" hanging off it.


Yeah, the company only employs aerospace engineers to design these things.  Those guys know nothing about aerodynamics.


----------



## Kirkhill

Back to the trace...

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/german-officials-meet-with-lockheed-to-talk-f-35-at-paris-air-show




> German officials meet with Lockheed to talk F-35 at Paris Air Show
> By: Valerie Insinna, June 23, 2017
> 
> LE BOURGET, France — During the Paris Air Show this week, German government officials met with Lockheed Martin to talk about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a source connected to the program told Defense News.
> 
> It is not uncommon for potential customers — including Germany — to engage with the defense industry on a number of platforms or technologies, nor does the meeting indicate a significant step forward in the process of selling the F-35 to Germany, the source said.
> 
> However, the air show marked the first time the German government and Lockheed had ever discussed the F-35 specifically, albeit in an unclassified setting, he said.
> 
> In May, Germany sent a written request to the U.S. military for a classified briefing on the F-35, Reuters reported that month. No program of record has been approved by the German government, which intends to evaluate other fighter jets on the market to replace its fleet of fourth-generation Panavia Tornadoes. However, the apparent interest in the F-35 was somewhat surprising, given Germany’s participation in the Eurofighter Typhoon program built with the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain.
> 
> The U.S. Defense Department has agreed to support Germany’s request for a briefing, said F-35 Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova, who was not aware whether the discussion would include classified data. Preparations for a meeting are moving forward, but a date has not yet been set.
> 
> In an interview with Defense News at the Paris Air Show, Orlando Carvalho, head of Lockheed’s aeronautics business, said the company is ready to support the U.S. government if it decides to press on with a classified briefing to Germany.
> 
> “We’ve seen the interest that the German Air Force has, but right now that’s in government-to-government channels in terms of their interest in getting a briefing,” he said. “As we always do, we’ll provide support to our government, to the JPO, if in fact they go forward with providing a briefing to Germany, but none of that has been worked out yet in terms of how that’s going to be done.”
> 
> If a classified briefing is authorized, Carvalho said the company hopes to hold more in-depth talks about the fifth-generation capabilities that differentiate the F-35 from fourth-generation fighter jets.
> 
> “It’s not just about the signature, it’s about the avionics capability, the mission-system capability, the surveillance capability, ISR, etc. It’s about the ability to communicate on board [and] off board with other platforms,” he said.
> 
> Lockheed has thus far secured orders from 11 countries for the F-35. Finland and Belgium are also potential European sales opportunities for the aircraft, Lockheed's F-35 program manager, Jeff Babione, said in a Monday briefing.



Buy American - boost NATO - decrease trade surplus 

Where does that leave our government?

Finland is an independent.  But Belgium, with Luxembourg, is a charter supporter of, if not the key link in, the Franco-German pact.


----------



## MarkOttawa

US House closer to giving USN quite a few more new Super Hornets for FY 2018 (starts Oct. 1 2017, note also F-35 increase across services):



> HASC Would Add 5 Ships, $3 Billion in Aircraft Procurement to Navy’s 2018 Plans
> ...
> The bill would also authorize the Navy to buy 22 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, compared to the Navy’s request for 14...For the Defense Department as a whole, the bill authorizes 87 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, compared to the request for 70 across the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force...
> 
> The House Appropriations defense subcommittee also released its 2018 bill this week and had many plus-ups for the Navy too, including...funding for 24 Super Hornets...
> https://news.usni.org/2017/06/26/hasc-would-add-5-ships-3-billion-in-aircraft-procurement-to-navys-2018-plans



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I think this whole thing is going from "Anything but the F-35" to "Anything but the Super Hornet."  

Very interested to see how this all plays out....

The pessimist in me is expecting that after the much celebrated "interim buy", the Liberals will recognize the short-term optics advantage of doing a single bid for the larger fleet, and defer the spend so their budget deficit/surplus situation looks better over the next few years.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Has the Rafel been cleared to carry US weapons? That might be a major factor in whether it's a contender and would affect the price?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P.: Not yet it seems according to Dassault:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-full-range-of-advanced-weapons/







But see this:



> ...
> Rafale can carry payloads of more than 9t on 14 hardpoints for the air force version, with 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons includes: Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100 air-to-ground missiles and Exocet / AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles...
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

If we purchased F-35's and the Rafale, could the F-35's not use our stock of missiles, so they would be used? Also, the sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM are not compatible? I expect they would both use the Meteor missile at some point.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm totally out of my lane here, but a few questions to ponder re: the US-weapons concern:
1.  What is the value of our current inventory?  As is "Do we have enough value locked up in inventories to make this a concern?"
2.  How out of date is it?  As in "Are the versions of weapons we have in that inventory becoming obsolete?"
3.  How much of our inventory is approaching its shelf life and will need to be replaced within the decade anyway?

Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## a_majoor

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Colin P.: Not yet it seems according to Dassault:
> https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-full-range-of-advanced-weapons/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But see this:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The picture immediately shows the issue with any Gen 4 aircraft: the huge exposed weapons load which would make the aircraft quite visible. If the manufacturers could create the equivalent of the stealth weapons pod concept that was demonstrated with the Advanced Super Hornet concept (and I include the F-35 in this), then that would go a long way to making their Gen 4 and 5 aircraft more viable in a high threat environment (in the case of the F-35, it could carry a much larger weapons load and still retain much of its low observable signature).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Apparently though it's been a struggle to ensure that heat buildup or temperature differentials in the enclosed F35 weapons bay does not effect the weapons carried within. Also you give up capacity for that benefit. Seems like everything else, you give up one thing for another. It may be that people arguing for the mixed fleet might be right, the F35 might become the airborne version of a recce squadron and the Gen 4.5 aircraft become the hammer. You may not wish for your F35 to launch, so it can maintain greater concealment.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Apparently though it's been a struggle to ensure that heat buildup or temperature differentials in the enclosed F35 weapons bay does not effect the weapons carried within. Also you give up capacity for that benefit. Seems like everything else, you give up one thing for another. It may be that people arguing for the mixed fleet might be right, the F35 might become the airborne version of a recce squadron and the Gen 4.5 aircraft become the hammer. You may not wish for your F35 to launch, so it can maintain greater concealment.


I don't see a problem, as long as we have both. I'm now thinking we either end up with 88 F-35's or a combination of F-35's and either Super Hornets or the Rafale. It's my understanding that both the Rafale and the Typhoon have excellent defensive systems and from what I have read both seem to be capable of supercruise, at least that is the claim and that is with missiles. The Rafale will soon have a more powerful engine, equal to the Typhoon and a HUD. If the Meteor missile turns out to be as good as advertised, with it's ramjet engine it will track down targets at over 1 km per second, with a range of 100-300 kms, although the range does vary depending on several factors. If we had fast jets with those missiles and invisible F-35's to help direct fire it doesn't sound too bad.

I don't think the Liberals can do much until NFTA gets done and I'm wondering what "America First" is going to think of canadian companies being able to bid on US defence contracts. Then if they want that changed we get back our right to design and build our own jet fighters, in which case assembling the Rafale in Canada might not be a bad first step and still buy some F-35's to keep us in that program as a partner nation for the duration. I realize this likely won't happen but until NFTA is done I will be a bit nervous.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

An interesting take on the subject, sub components for the F35 and limited production of the Rafale, likely using Bombardier lines. From a Geopolitical perspective it might be healthy to be somewhat independent of US tech, while still having access to their market, now combine that with jumping into the Aussie-French sub deal and we might see a new defense relationship form between Canada and France. (dreams of Mistrals.....)


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> An interesting take on the subject, sub components for the F35 and limited production of the Rafale, likely using Bombardier lines. From a Geopolitical perspective it might be healthy to be somewhat independent of US tech, while still having access to their market, now combine that with jumping into the Aussie-French sub deal and we might see a new defense relationship form between Canada and France. (dreams of Mistrals.....)


It bothers me that Canada could ever pay a foreign buyers tax on anything that comes out of the North American Defence Industry as we gave up our right to develop and build our own fighter jets to become a part of that industry, so we are not a foreign buyer. Now is a good time to redefine the playing field, just as we step up defence spending, either we are a full partner or should we look at reclaiming a seperate Canadian Defence Industry in which we can start building fighters again.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Apparently though it's been a struggle to ensure that heat buildup or temperature differentials in the enclosed F35 weapons bay does not effect the weapons carried within. Also you give up capacity for that benefit. Seems like everything else, you give up one thing for another. *It may be that people arguing for the mixed fleet might be right, the F35 might become the airborne version of a recce squadron and the Gen 4.5 aircraft become the hammer. You may not wish for your F35 to launch, so it can maintain greater concealment.*




Just thinking here Colin.  I get the advantage of having the F35 used as recce squadron - stay in low observable mode, weapons concealed, carrying for self-defence and for the ability to prosecute high value targets all the while keeping eyes on target and coordinating other forces.

I am not sure though, that that validates the necessity of a mixed fleet.  If you want to pile rounds on target and are not concerned about stealth then couldn't you just send in more F35s in the second wave but with rounds hanging from external hard points, just like the Rafales, Typhoons and SuperHornets?    I believe that the F35 would also have the advantage on the egress in that, after launching and getting out of Dodge, its signature would drop making it easier to leave and perhaps encouraging the pilots to push in a bit closer to the target knowing that their odds of leaving after launch are better.

Meanwhile you have the benefits of commonality for training and logistics.

Or were you perhaps thinking of the merits of a mixed fleet of F35Bs and F35As?  A future buy of 64 F35As with an immediate interim buy of 24 F35Bs wouldn't seem out of place.

I can see the merits of using a legacy fleet in conjunction with the F35s in recce mode, if you already have a legacy fleet and want to get full value for the available flight hours remaining, but I am not sure about the advantage of spending similar money on air frames to get less benefit and also having to spend more money to duplicate training and logistics facilities.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Doesn't the "B" model have significantly reduced range due to the lift fan taking the place of internal fuel?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris a quick peek at wiki indicates the Rafale has 14 hardpoints for weapons and the F35 has 10 external/internal. SH has 11 hardpoints and F15 can carry 16 weapons. 

So for the scenario I spoke of, it seems on the surface a combo of the F35 and F15 would be optimal, followed by the Rafale and then SH. Of course there is more to the mix, but from sheer numbers of possible weapons to bear in an area that seems to be the mix.


----------



## Loachman

None of that justifies the cost of acquiring and maintaining two separate fleets.

It's not just two bunches of aircraft, it's also twice as many simulators, sets of tools, sets of spare parts, sets of publications, and training streams and all for no additional operational value.

For what purpose would we want F35B? We can just have notional F35Bs for our notional Mistrals.

We just need a government that makes "evidence-based decisions" to realize/admit that F35 is superior to its competition for operational, commonality, cost, and industrial offsets reasons.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's depends on the total costs, if we can have 80+ fighters of 2 types plus supporting elements as mentioned as opposed to 65 of one type for the same costs, then it's worth it. Going by Wiki the cost difference between the Rafale and F35 is approx. 6 million. If you bought 40 Rafale and Forty F-35's, the savings up front would be 240 million. That is of course depending if both of those costs represent the same thing, a flyaway complete aircraft. Would 240 million cover the necessary duplication? That is a good question.

Then there is the Geo-political and trade elements to consider. Such a combo might allow us to produce parts and support for both aircraft lines and customers, meaning a lot of opportunities for future sub component contracting. I suspect the Rafale will be the fighter of choice for those not wanting or eligible for the F-35. Dassualt has hinted at allowing a significant amount of the production in Canada, the politicians will see that money being spent here as money that generates jobs, taxes and votes, making each dollar spent here more valuable. With the split fleet, we would still retain the F-35 contracts. I could see this option be very politically attractive.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> That's depends on the total costs, if we can have 80+ fighters of 2 types plus supporting elements as mentioned as opposed to 65 of one type for the same costs, then it's worth it. Going by Wiki the cost difference between the Rafale and F35 is approx. 6 million. If you bought 40 Rafale and Forty F-35's, the savings up front would be 240 million. That is of course depending if both of those costs represent the same thing, a flyaway complete aircraft. *Would 240 million cover the necessary duplication?* That is a good question.
> 
> Then there is the Geo-political and trade elements to consider. Such a combo might allow us to produce parts and support for both aircraft lines and customers, meaning a lot of opportunities for future sub component contracting. I suspect the Rafale will be the fighter of choice for those not wanting or eligible for the F-35. Dassualt has hinted at allowing a significant amount of the production in Canada, the politicians will see that money being spent here as money that generates jobs, taxes and votes, making each dollar spent here more valuable. With the split fleet, we would still retain the F-35 contracts. I could see this option be very politically attractive.


The cost of duplication would be far more than $240M, but the cost of 88 jets even at $150M Cdn each, which is high, is $13.2B and our budget is $15-19B so I would think we have enough room. I'm all for a fleet of 88 F-35's but we need to see what the playing field is going to look like once NFTA is redone, in that if we have to change our approach or thinking in some way we need to know before we move ahead. I just feel uneasy about Trumps "America First".


----------



## Loachman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Would 240 million cover the necessary duplication? That is a good question.



Even if the costs are accurate, I'd say "no", especially considering upgrades over the lifetime of the machines.

What about deployments? That's a smaller pool of each machine, aircrew, and groundcrew to rotate. That generally means one or two more spare machines, more parts, more people, and that adds more drag over lengthy ops.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Such a combo might allow us to produce parts and support for both aircraft lines and customers, meaning a lot of opportunities for future sub component contracting.



For how many Rafales around the planet, compared to how many F35s?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Dassualt has hinted at allowing a significant amount of the production in Canada, the politicians will see that money being spent here as money that generates jobs, taxes and votes, making each dollar spent here more valuable.



I envision another LSVW factory, for some reason.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I could see this option be very politically attractive.



I do not care for political attractiveness.

I care about operational effectiveness.

A mixed fleet, especially with part of that mix having reduced capability and survivability compared to the other, is not operationally effective.

We are a small organization. Keep it simple.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The reality is that the military people don't get the final say, at the end of the day it will be a political decision. The best the military can do is to accurately show the pros and cons of each option and hope the decision makers can understand them. Let’s say if 50% of the Rafale cost is spent in Canada, as opposed to say 25% of an F-35, then combined with a lower initial purchase price, a mixed fleet takes on a politically attractive aspect when you consider that a portion of those in Canada costs are returned to government through taxes. The Liberals seem to have worked themselves into a corner as to stating that 65 aircraft is not enough (finally I agree with JT), but they don’t want them to be F-35’s. But at the same time they want to keep access to the F-35 contracting stream, which means buying F-35’s. I can see politically a mixed fleet being more attractive despite any potential higher long term costs. You can bet Dassult will play this angle and will be sure to locate any potential factory in a vote rich area of political importance and if tied to Bombardier, the government might find giving them money to assemble fighters is more politically expedient than just shoveling money at them as we currently do.


----------



## Kirkhill

Why F35B's ?

Because I like them.  I liked the P1127, the Kestrel, the Harrier and the Sea Harrier.  They were neat. Just like the SRN1 was neat.

I don't like the Rafale.  For reasons that would probably get me disbarred.

The F35B does have shorter legs.  On the other hand it can be based further forward. And it can land on any flat surface. 

But, it will never happen.  

And its all good.


Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## QV

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... at the end of the day it will be a political decision....



That is the problem right there.  It should be a government decision, politics should not influence negatively the effective defence of our country. 

The senior staff in the CAF should be resigning in protest/falling on their sword over the fighter jet replacement debacle and the navy ship debacle.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> The reality is that the military people don't get the final say, at the end of the day it will be a political decision. The best the military can do is to accurately show the pros and cons of each option and hope the decision makers can understand them.


So, in professional military discourse we should discuss the military factors of a required decision/action?  We should understand (and maybe even appreciate) the political factors, but in the end advise on what are Canada's capability requirements and not what the manufacturing offsets might be for constituency X?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Pretty much, the military brass should have a good understanding how political and economic decisions will influence a major defense procurement, but at the end of the day it's not their job to point out those issues, as there are people on the Civil Service side and political staff to do so.


----------



## Kirkhill

Who gets to argue that operational considerations are less important than employment and taxes?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The people who get the most access to the decision makers and those that control that access.


----------



## a_majoor

Because of our history and political culture, having Generals and Admirals "falling on their swords" in protest of political decisions simply means that there are openings for the sorts of people who will _not_ fall on their swords, or even enthusiastically support the political decisions.

I challenge anyone to name any Admirals or Generals who resigned over policy without looking up Google (I admit I can think of one instance, but can't think of the name w/o Google), and more importantly, name a time the resignation brought about a rethink of policy? I suspect even a person with as high a public profile as Rick Hillier resigning over policy would not make a change, and there was only one of him (an entire team of officers with General Hillier's public profile _might_ have done the trick, but maybe not).


----------



## SupersonicMax

VAdm Norman?


----------



## MarkOttawa

RCAF head says Liberal fighter procurement plans just fine--but where will those pesky pilots and techs come from?



> Liberals taking ‘prudent amount of time’ with fighter jet competition: RCAF commander
> 
> The head of the Royal Canadian Air Force has refuted suggestions, including from more than a dozen of his predecessors, that the Trudeau government is needlessly dragging its feet on new fighter jets.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood instead said the Liberals are taking “a prudent amount of time,” as choosing Canada’s next fighter is a big decision – especially since it will likely be in use for decades.
> 
> “Fighter operations, there is a lot to chew on,” Hood said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
> 
> “The timelines the government and the minister have articulated will let them be absolutely sure that they’re making the right choice for a final fighter that will probably be flying when I’m going to the grave.”
> 
> The Liberals’ new defence policy includes a promise to replace Canada’s 76 aging CF-18s with 88 new warplanes, which is an increase from the 65 previously promised by the Harper Conservatives.
> 
> The policy estimates the new fighters will cost between $15-billion and $19-billion, up from the $9-billion previously budgeted by the Tories.
> 
> The Liberals say the extra fighter jets are required to meet a new policy, adopted in September, that increased the number of warplanes that must always be ready for operations.
> 
> But fighter-jet companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which make the F-35 and Super Hornet, respectively, won’t be asked to submit formal bids until next year at the earliest.
> 
> That is despite many defence experts, including 13 retired Air Force commanders in February, saying a competition to replace the CF-18 fleet can and should be launched immediately.
> 
> They say doing so would negate the need for 18 “interim” Super Hornets, which would save taxpayer dollars and keep from diverting personnel and resources away from other areas of the Air Force.
> 
> But Hood played down those concerns, saying that he’ll have no trouble operating an interim fighter fleet if “I’m given the resources and the priority that I need.”
> 
> That doesn’t mean there won’t be challenges in growing the size of Canada’s fighter fleet, he admitted, notably in terms of having enough pilots and technicians to fly and fix the new jets.
> 
> The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that while airlines are currently on a hiring binge, Hood said, the Air Force can’t ramp up the number of pilots it puts through flight school each year.
> 
> “We brought in a pilot-training system in the early 2000s that had a maximum capacity to deliver about 115 pilots a year. With attrition going up, I’d probably want to produce 140 this year, but I can’t.”
> 
> However, Hood is hoping planned changes to the training regime and new initiatives such as recruiting potential technicians directly out of community college will help grow his ranks...
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-taking-prudent-amount-of-time-with-fighter-jet-competition-rcaf-commander/article35569122/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> VAdm Norman?



I think he was more "pushed" then "fell".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> RCAF head says Liberal fighter procurement plans just fine--but where will those pesky pilots and techs come from?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The general says it right there: he can do it "*IF* I’m given the resources and the priority that I need"

Of course, considering the past, making such a statement is delusional (which would make him a good politician  ;D). Proof that he is delusional: his final statement that Hillier's decade of darkness in the 90's was mostly on the back of the Air Force, when in fact, at that time, the Air Force had barely broken in its new CF-188, the patrol planes were only ten years old (at the beginning), and they got to replace, early in the decade, their old Boeing 707 with the Airbus'. As the Navy was in pretty good shape during the 90's, clearly the decade of darkness was mostly on the back of the Army.


----------



## Quirky

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> RCAF head says Liberal fighter procurement plans just fine--but where will those pesky pilots and techs come from?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



As long as they keep the fighter bases in remote, shit town (Cold Lake anyway) locations, there will always be a huge retention rate.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:
			
		

> As long as they keep the fighter bases in remote, shit town (Cold Lake anyway) locations, there will always be a huge retention rate.



Can the flying station be separated from the maintenance base?  Say, for example, the maintenance being done in Edmonton and Mirabel with Bagotville and Cold Lake being used as FOLs?   And could Reservist Airline Pilots be prevailed upon to a greater extent?  Putting in time while working around their day-job schedule?


----------



## Loachman

That seems hugely sensible to me, but I hold no confidence that it would ever happen.


----------



## jmt18325

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The general says it right there: he can do it "*IF* I’m given the resources and the priority that I need"



There is supposed to be $600M for this year's budget in the fall economic update.  Apparently that is supposed to mostly go towards personnel resourcing.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Can the flying station be separated from the maintenance base?  Say, for example, the maintenance being done in Edmonton and Mirabel with Bagotville and Cold Lake being used as FOLs?   And could Reservist Airline Pilots be prevailed upon to a greater extent?  Putting in time while working around their day-job schedule?



You need a core of maintainers at the base where the jets are operating from (either deployed or posted). I doubt being on TD 1/2 the year would be more popular choice...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

true, but having more popular postings will help, if your doomed to spend 3/4 of your career in a place your spouse hates as say 1/4 of it, things become more bearably


----------



## OldSolduer

By the time the RCAF gets a fighter they need to order one more for the pedestal....cause it will be history


----------



## dimsum

Deleted.


----------



## Ostrozac

Colin P said:
			
		

> true, but having more popular postings will help, if your doomed to spend 3/4 of your career in a place your spouse hates as say 1/4 of it, things become more bearably



I'm not so sure about that. I've seen suggestions that the bases that have the historically highest release rates are Ottawa, Edmonton and Halifax. City living alone doesn't seem to be a magic bullet for retention problems. It would be a shame to move the fighter force complete to Toronto and have them all immediately move over to the civilian aviation industry.


----------



## FSTO

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Because of our history and political culture, having Generals and Admirals "falling on their swords" in protest of political decisions simply means that there are openings for the sorts of people who will _not_ fall on their swords, or even enthusiastically support the political decisions.
> 
> I challenge anyone to name any Admirals or Generals who resigned over policy without looking up Google (I admit I can think of one instance, but can't think of the name w/o Google), and more importantly, name a time the resignation brought about a rethink of policy? I suspect even a person with as high a public profile as Rick Hillier resigning over policy would not make a change, and there was only one of him (an entire team of officers with General Hillier's public profile _might_ have done the trick, but maybe not).


Rear Admiral Landymore
http://readyayeready.com/biographies/Bill-Landymore.php


----------



## Quirky

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that. I've seen suggestions that the bases that have the historically highest release rates are *Ottawa, Edmonton and Halifax*. City living alone doesn't seem to be a magic bullet for retention problems. It would be a shame to move the fighter force complete to Toronto and have them all immediately move over to the civilian aviation industry.



So NDHQ, the Army and Navy? How are the release rates for a major city Air force posting like Winnipeg I wonder. Or a place like Comox or Shearwater? I don't hear about how those places are hurting for people. If the fighters moved to Toronto and all the tech/pilots released to the civilian world, then it's an internal issue the CF needs to fix. This is a volunteer force and there is nothing stopping people from leaving for a better quality of life. 



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> true, but having more popular postings will help, if your doomed to spend 3/4 of your career in a place your spouse hates as say 1/4 of it, things become more bearably



There is no point making Cold Lake a FOL for Edmonton as they are a 5 min flight apart, it'll be an alternate at best.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:
			
		

> There is no point making Cold Lake a FOL for Edmonton as they are a 5 min flight apart, it'll be an alternate at best.



To this non-pilot's (but frequent flyer) eye it looks like about 15 minutes from Nisku to Cold Lake (250 km at cruise of 1000 km/h) and maybe 20 minutes from Mirabel to Bagotville (325 km).

Is that really what all this agony is about?  A quarter of an hour?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that. I've seen suggestions that the bases that have the historically highest release rates are Ottawa, Edmonton and Halifax. City living alone doesn't seem to be a magic bullet for retention problems. It would be a shame to move the fighter force complete to Toronto and have them all immediately move over to the civilian aviation industry.



That release rate may be an effect caused by career managers moving people near their retirement/release to those bases for non-operational jobs. Just as cities with major hospitals show up as a cluster for various types of death from diseases, because people go there for treatment. If the data showed that people in high tempo operations were requesting releases early, then that might indicate issues.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well just found a source of "interim fighters" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-eurofighter-idUSKBN19S0ZN?il=0


----------



## a_majoor

Makes far more sense for current users of the Typhoon to build up their existing fleet than for us to buy an incomparable microfleet. Maybe the RAF is the best possible customer to take the orphaned fleet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Logic, common sense, bah , the shiny toy, cheap and economic trade with Austria will win out....... [


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Makes far more sense for current users of the Typhoon to build up their existing fleet than for us to buy an incomparable microfleet. Maybe the RAF is the best possible customer to take the orphaned fleet.





> Towards the end of the cold war, Britain and three other European countries agreed to develop a new aircraft – initially called the Eurofighter, now the Typhoon – to engage in dogfights with Soviet pilots over the plains of northern Europe.
> 
> This month, Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, praised RAF Typhoon pilots for intercepting unidentified aircraft in incidents said to be reminiscent of the cold war. What he did not mention is that 30 years after it was conceived and despite some £20bn spent on the project, the Typhoon is unable to engage the enemy said by David Cameron to pose the biggest threat to Britain’s security. And it will not be able to do so until 2019 at the earliest.
> 
> Because the Typhoons are not yet equipped with the latest Brimstone “fire and forget” missiles, the smartest weapon and most accurate in the RAF’s armoury, British air strikes against Islamic State (Isis) fighters have been left to 30-year-old Tornado jets.
> 
> Typhoons are undergoing wind tunnel and aerodynamic tests before they can be fitted with missiles to the underside of their wings.
> 
> *The (UK) government, meanwhile, has been trying to get some of its money back by selling Typhoons abroad*. In February, after years of tough negotiations, the British manufacturer of the Typhoon, BAE Systems, agreed price escalation terms relating to a multibillion-pound deal to sell 72 aircraft to Saudi Arabia.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/26/putin-raf-typhoon-aircraft-russia

The UK government bought more aircraft than the RAF wanted/needed/could afford to keep British workers employed with the intention of selling off the surplus.  The RAF won't be buying back any Typhoons.  Nor will Germany.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two likely RCAF contenders now out of Belgian F-16 replacement competition:



> Saab withdraws from Belgium's F-16 fighter replacement competition
> 
> Sweden today [July 10] declined to propose Saab's Gripen E fighter jet for the Belgian Air Force's Air Combat Capability (ACCAp) program, which intends to replace the BAF aging fleet of F-16 fighter jets, the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) announced today.
> 
> "In their Request for Government Proposal, Belgium is also seeking extensive operational support from the delivering nation. This would require a Swedish foreign policy and political mandate that does not exist today. Therefore Sweden and the FMV choose not to submit an answer to the Belgian request," the FMV said.
> 
> "The procurement is ongoing and FMV will not comment further," the Agency added.
> 
> In April, Boeing first decided not to compete for Belgium's F-16 fighter jets replacement program. Boeing was supposed to answer the RfGP issued in March with its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
> 
> Belgium approved in last December the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros.
> 
> Only three platforms are still competing: Lockheed Martin’s F-35A stealth fighter, the Rafale F3R from Dassault Aviation, and the Eurofighter Typhoon proposed by the eponym European consortium.
> http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2017/july/3611-saab-withdraws-from-belgium-s-f-16-fighter-replacement-competition.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on Belgian fighter competition, 34 planes (note nuke role at end):



> Gripen Withdrawn From Belgian Fighter Contest
> 
> Belgium’s short list for its future fighter has shrunk to three after the Swedish government withdrew Saab’s new-generation Gripen from the tender.
> 
> Swedish defense materiel organization FMV, which would facilitate any Gripen sale, said in a July 10 statement that while the aircraft meets all the operational requirements in Belgium’s request for proposals, Sweden itself could not meet Brussel’s need for “extensive operational support.”
> 
> “This would require a Swedish foreign policy and political mandate that does not exist today,” the FMV said.
> The agency added that it would not submit answers to the Belgian request for proposals.
> 
> The Gripen becomes the second aircraft to exit the Belgian tender. In mid-April, Boeing said it was withdrawing the F/A-18 Super Hornet because the competition was not a “truly level playing field”—a hint that Belgium’s requirement is skewed in favor of the Lockheed Martin F-35, a type already purchased by neighbors the Netherlands and the other European Participating Air Forces, which, like Belgium, flew the F-16.
> 
> With the Gripen and Super Hornet out, just the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 are left.
> 
> Belgium wants to purchase 34 new fighters to replace the existing 54-strong F-16 fleet, and is budgeting €3.59 billion ($3.858 billion) for the procurement, the government announced March 17. A fleet of 34 will meet Belgium’s requirement to have _six fighters available for expeditionary operations_ [emphasis added].
> 
> It has long been suggested that _Belgium likely will favor the F-35 to maintain commonality with the Netherlands, with which it works closely on international operations and a joint quick-reaction alert air policing mission_ [emphasis added--NORAD?]. The Benelux sky initiative, launched this year, allows a Belgian F-16 to be scrambled to deal with an issue in Dutch airspace, and vice versa.
> 
> _Brussels also wants to continue its involvement in NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreements, which likely would demand the use of a U.S.-produced aircraft to carry the weapon_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Under a dual-key arrangement, an unknown number of U.S.-owned B61 nuclear bombs are housed at Kleine Brogel air base and would be flown in the event of a conflict by Belgian F-16s.
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/gripen-withdrawn-belgian-fighter-contest



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

No country other than CAN/US are part of NORAD.  European countries operate under NATO Air Policing, a similar but different arrangement.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

@ SupersonicMax....

Any thoughts on how this is all going to play out?

It feels like Boeing has fumbled the ball with the Bombardier sanctions to the point it will now be "Anything but the SuperHornet.", which re-opens the door to the F-35, as well as potentially the Rafale if Trudean & Macron continue their love-fest.


M.


----------



## Rifleman62

Canada will probably end up with an orphan fleet of fighters unless Trudeau et al grow up. Possibly recent events @ $10.5M will smarten them up.


----------



## MilEME09

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> It feels like Boeing has fumbled the ball with the Bombardier sanctions to the point it will now be "Anything but the SuperHornet.", which re-opens the door to the F-35, as well as potentially the Rafale if Trudean & Macron continue their love-fest.



Harper was pretty buddy buddy with France too, we almost got a Mistral if it wasn't for the bureaucrats, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with more French designed kit in the future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Van Doo's have a link to French naval infantry as I recall, they might have become our " Le Marines"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnies_Franches_de_la_Marine


----------



## SupersonicMax

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> @ SupersonicMax....
> 
> Any thoughts on how this is all going to play out?
> 
> It feels like Boeing has fumbled the ball with the Bombardier sanctions to the point it will now be "Anything but the SuperHornet.", which re-opens the door to the F-35, as well as potentially the Rafale if Trudean & Macron continue their love-fest.
> 
> 
> M.



Gut feeling:  Government announced we'll buy a total of 88 fighters.  That sounds a lot like 18 interim (Super Hornet) and 70 future (JSF).  Again, just a gut feeling.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I appreciate your gut feeling.  It's far more valuable than anything I bring to the table in this discussion.

Thank SSM.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Gut feeling:  Government announced we'll buy a total of 88 fighters.  That sounds a lot like 18 interim (Super Hornet) and 70 future (JSF).  Again, just a gut feeling.



The Super Hornet is about 99% dead as long as Boeing doesn't kill their compliant against Bombardier, IMO.


----------



## Loachman

While I hope so, I have much less confidence in that than you have.

Unless you have insider information.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> While I hope so, I have much less confidence in that than you have.
> 
> Unless you have insider information.



I do not - just reading the public statements.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's to much of a political hot potato for now


----------



## Loachman

I wouldn't put too much any stock in anything that Liberals say publicly, especially the son of "I won't introduce wage and price controls".


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> I wouldn't put too much any stock in anything that Liberals say publicly, especially the son of "I won't introduce wage and price controls".



A son is not his father.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> A son is not his father.



I suspect the father had more control over the party than the son does, the son will go along with what the powerbrokers of the party want.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> A son is not his father.



Nor completely opposite.


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> A son is not his father.


That's because Fidel is his father! 😳


----------



## MarkOttawa

"Interim" fighter tick-tock--meanwhile LockMart says F-35A could do the job:



> Questions about fighter replacement loom large as Boeing benefits plan arrives
> _'The clock is ticking mighty fast,' says defence analyst about plan to buy interim jet fighters by 2019_
> By Murray Brewster
> 
> A proposal outlining the industrial benefits Boeing is prepared to deliver to Canadian companies in exchange for a sole-source interim fighter jet contract will land on desks at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada on Wednesday.
> 
> The pitch is being made even though the Liberal government has suspended discussions with the U.S. aerospace giant over a separate trade complaint and is reviewing the military purchase, which Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has claimed is urgent.
> 
> The proposal deadline renews concerns about the Liberal government's plan to replace the air force's aging fleet of CF-18s on both an interim basis and a long-term plan.
> 
> Buying 18 advanced Super Hornet fighters was described as necessary last fall in order for the air force to meet all of its obligations under both Norad and NATO simultaneously.
> 
> Ottawa reconsiders Boeing purchase over Bombardier accusations
> Sajjan blasts Boeing over trade spat with Bombardier
> 
> The government told Boeing last fall that it wanted delivery of the first jet by 2019.
> 
> "If that is the case, the clock is ticking mighty fast," said Dave Perry, a Canadian Global Affairs Institute analyst who tracks defence procurements.​
> 
> The government intended to purchase the Super Hornets as a stopgap until it could organize a full-blown competition to buy 88 advanced jet fighters on a permanent basis.
> 
> Perry said the falling out with Boeing has broader implications than just the interim purchase.
> 
> "I cannot see how this is not negatively impacting progress on the competition," he said...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/super-hornet-purchase-1.4235916



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Further to Murray Brewster's article, Lockheed Martin has delivered an official proposal to provide 18 F-35As as the interim fighter, and they did it around the time that Boeing had to deliver their proposal. Unfortunately the MSM hasn't caught up yet, as this places the Liberals in an absolute political nightmare of their own creation. If LM loses, they can challenge the procedure in court and likely drag first delivery of any Super Hornet past the 2019 (key year, its an election year and exactly why the Liberals chose it). The Liberals have already campaigned on not buying the F-35, so if the LM proposal is better value then they have to go back hat in hand reneging on a key election promise. If they do nothing and punt the decision until after 2019, they leave the RCAF in a "capability gap" that they created to justify the SH "interim" (read: sole source) purchase.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Further to Murray Brewster's article, Lockheed Martin has delivered an official proposal to provide 18 F-35As as the interim fighter, and they did it around the time that Boeing had to deliver their proposal. Unfortunately the MSM hasn't caught up yet, as this places the Liberals in an absolute political nightmare of their own creation. If LM loses, they can challenge the procedure in court and likely drag first delivery of any Super Hornet past the 2019 (key year, its an election year and exactly why the Liberals chose it). The Liberals have already campaigned on not buying the F-35, so if the LM proposal is better value then they have to go back hat in hand reneging on a key election promise. If they do nothing and punt the decision until after 2019, they leave the RCAF in a "capability gap" that they created to justify the SH "interim" (read: sole source) purchase.



So...obviously COA 3 will be picked, the "capability gap" will happen and the Liberals can say "see - we told you so!"   >


----------



## PuckChaser

The CFO of DND knows how much 18 Super Hornets will cost us, but can't say anything because there's no decision made. So much for open and transparent, the public should know the cost (remember the junk "full life cycle cost" the Liberals wants for the F-35 from the Tories) before a decision is made.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-know-cost-of-interim-super-hornets-but-won-t-say-1.3570581

The public estimates in the article peg acquisition for just the aircraft at $111M CAD each, with several billion to pay for maintaince/etc. That basically eats the entire $9B CAD designated for the CF-188 replacement project, to buy 18 aircraft.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Actually the original $9B was over-all initial acquisition costs only, not in-service costs--see for those:



> ...
> Total personnel, operating, and maintenance costs 	16,140
> Total 20-year costs 	25,120
> http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html#ex6



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

CFO knows what has been estimated.  Until all the dirty work has been done he does not know what the actual will be.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good grief for this big linkage hint--sure looks like Liberals are trying to find way out of stupid "interim" fighter decision-not buying 18 Boeing SuperHornets will put no NAFTA pressure on US:



> Interim fighter jet purchase remains in limbo as Liberals deal with NAFTA talks
> _No timeline on a decision for stopgap to replace CF-18s in wake of Boeing lawsuit, says Carla Qualtrough_
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carla-qualtrough-cf-18s-boeing-1.4272575



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Boeing still playing hardball:



> Boeing rejects Ottawa’s call to drop Bombardier trade complaint
> 
> Boeing Co. is refusing to back down from its trade complaint against Bombardier Inc., warning the federal government that Canada's aerospace industry will be one of the main victims if the U.S.-based giant is frozen out of future military contracts.
> 
> In an interview from his company's offices in Ottawa, Boeing International president Marc Allen said the priority is fighting back against illegal subsidies and ensuring the global aerospace industry operates by a clear and common set of rules.
> 
> "We recognize the Canadian government might be upset with us. We don't intend to upset anybody, but we plainly have to do what we believe is right," Mr. Allen said. "If we don't have a [level playing field], we all lose."
> 
> He added the company is willing to live with the consequences of its trade complaint, including any impact on Canada's planned purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets manufactured by the U.S.-based manufacturer.
> 
> Federal officials refused to comment on the dispute with Boeing last week. Bombardier has publicly rejected allegations of dumping or illegal subsidies and is fighting the matter in front of the ITC.
> 
> In mid-May, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland responded to the trade complaint by announcing a review of all military procurements related to Boeing.
> 
> "Our government will defend the interests of Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace industry and our aerospace workers," she said.
> 
> However, Mr. Allen said the federal government should not forget that Boeing does $4-billion a year of business in Canada, raising the stakes in the public battle.
> 
> "If Canada kicks Boeing out, I think that will be deeply unfortunate for us both. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome," he said...
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/boeing-rejects-ottawas-call-to-drop-bombardier-complaint/article36161663/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

Honestly, I hate to say it at the risk of sounding non-patriotic...or pessimistic...

BUT...I don't really blame Boeing.

18 Super Hornets that may have been bought, possibly, at some point - is pretty much water off the duck's back.  It doesn't affect their current orders with the US Navy, and those orders just keep pouring in every single fiscal year.  Not to mention recent sales to Kuwait & other M/E customers.

So the threat of us possibly not potentially buying a whopping 18 of them??  Not much of a risk to Boeing's business plans.

**6 to 8 months ago, this idea wasn't even on the table anyway.  So why would Boeing really care?**


That being said, Bombardier is a heavily subsidized company that - like Irving - does nothing to earn itself a step up.  

They had YEARS to modify one of their existing aircraft to meet the SAR Replacement - add a rear ramp, sensors & avionics, modify parts of a design to get it to fly faster/slower, etc etc.   Did they?  Nope.  Didn't even try, knowing full well there was a project coming down the pipe for just that kind of aircraft for YEARS.  

And that is just one example of many we can all think of.

Earn your bailouts.


----------



## Loachman

I'd like to thank Boeing for not caving.

They've likely saved this Country from a grievous political error.


----------



## McG

Loachman said:
			
		

> I'd like to thank Boeing for not caving.
> 
> They've likely saved this Country from a grievous political error.


Is that the one where we buy an interim fighter, or where the taxpayers forever finance a private company?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MCG said:
			
		

> Is that the one where we buy an interim fighter, or where the taxpayers forever finance a private company?



Yes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Had the deal been for 40+ fighters, Boeing might be singing a different tune, but not for 18 and without a firm contract.


----------



## jmt18325

Apparently, we're now looking at used F-18s, according to the Globe.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good flipping political grief--and leaking:



> Ottawa seeks second-hand jets from Australia amid Boeing, Bombardier dispute
> 
> The Canadian government is looking into buying second-hand fighter jets in Australia – instead of a new fleet of 18 Super Hornets – as it tries to force Boeing Co. to drop its trade dispute against Bombardier Inc., sources said.
> 
> Federal officials said the government is refusing to sign a planned multibillion-dollar contract for Super Hornets as long as Boeing pursues its complaint against Bombardier at the International Trade Commission in the United States.
> 
> A final decision to pull the plug on the Super Hornet contract has not been made, but tensions with Boeing are quickly escalating and the government is looking at all options to increase the pressure on the firm, the officials said.
> 
> A Canadian delegation travelled to Australia last month to see whether second-hand F/A-18 fighter jets, which are being placed on the market by the country's military, could fit Canada's needs for an "interim" fleet.
> 
> In addition, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called Eric Greitens, the Governor of Missouri, where Boeing's Super Hornets are assembled, to highlight the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs that are now in play...
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-seeks-second-hand-jets-from-australia-amid-boeing-bombardier-dispute/article36178184/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Old hornets is a far better option, but still allows replacement to get punted by 2 successive governments. Should also demonstrate that our procurement is so dumb that there's never a margin for losses of aircraft/trucks to replace them mid-life.


----------



## Loachman

Just admit to the stupidity of the election promise and order F35s FFS.

It's not like this is the first stupid election promise to be broken.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> Just admit to the stupidity of the election promise and order F35s FFS.
> 
> It's not like this is the first stupid election promise to be broken.



At this point, with the further development of the F-35, I'm inclined to agree.

On the other hand, I truly believe we need more aircraft than we have.  If we can get useable F-18s soon, it's a good option in the interim.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

This whole saga cannot possibly get any dumber...


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This whole saga cannot possibly get any dumber...



Great.  Now you did it, SKT.  Someone's going to try and _Viam Inveniemus_...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Having lived through a good portion of the MHP saga, I am daring the universe to top that with this project.


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Having lived through a good portion of the MHP saga, I am daring the universe to top that with this project.



Viking Air is a Canadian aerospace company who own the type certificate for the CL215.  How hard would it be to adapt that airframe to the air superiority role?

"Just because it shouldn't be done doesn't mean it won't be done."


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I like the way you think....

Have you considered a career at PSPC?


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I truly believe we need more aircraft than we have.  If we can get useable F-18s soon, it's a good option in the interim.



And from which manufacturer do we buy the Pilots and Techs?

We cannot produce and retain enough now.

We are also capped by PYs, so, what do we cut to free enough?

These questions have been raised, here, by a few of us.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> And from which manufacturer do we buy the Pilots and Techs?
> 
> These questions have been raised, here, by a few of us.



Definitely questions.  I'm in favour of more frames for a simple reason.  If you manage it right, 88 should give you 100% availability of the 48 active fighters on a day to day basis.  Used frames make a lot of sense as it simplifies it all.  It may not result in more aircraft overall in the squadrons, but it would mean that the entire squadron could be active (provided that there are actually enough pilots for even that on a day to day basis - there isn't right now from what I hear in this forum).


----------



## SupersonicMax

If your maintainers cannot keep 8 aircraft serviceable with 14, they won't be able to make 8 with 20.  Maintenance can only work on so many aircraft at once.  They have a finite capacity.  If you want more aircraft on the line, you need more techs.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If your maintainers cannot keep 8 aircraft serviceable with 14, they won't be able to make 8 with 20.  Maintenance can only work on so many aircraft at once.  They have a finite capacity.  If you want more aircraft on the line, you need more techs.



Well, theoretically, there's supposed to be more money coming this fall for that kind of thing - we'll have to see if it actually materializes.


----------



## McG

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Well, theoretically, there's supposed to be more money coming this fall for that kind of thing - we'll have to see if it actually materializes.


More money does not pay for more people when the organization is already straining against the established personnel cap.


----------



## jmt18325

MCG said:
			
		

> More money does not pay for more people when the organization is already straining against the established personnel cap.



Not my area of expertise - you would hope they'd have some kind of plan to go with this.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> More money does not pay for more people when the organization is already straining against the established personnel cap.



it also doesn't help when techs are being approached by private industry and offered much higher wages for their skills. Once met a avionics tech in Borden, after his QL5 he was leaving the CF to take a 6 figure salary at a private firm that recruited him.


----------



## OTR1

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This whole saga cannot possibly get any dumber...


Oh, just give the powers-that-be a chance............

Once upon a time I thought nothing - repeat, nothing - would top the USAF tanker project for weapons-grade dumbity, but I hereby happily concede that I was just a tad premature in that judgment.


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Not my area of expertise - you would hope they'd have some kind of plan to go with this.



A PLAN! A you freakin serious? This whole interim buy was a back of the napkin crayon drawing right from the start. Mainly because the liberals at the time were in 3rd place and thought they had a couple of elections to go before getting back in. Now they are caught in a web of their own making.

I would have more respect for our political "leaders" if they would just admit that sometimes they come up with a dumb arse plan and it should be shelved once reality hit them in the face.

This whole "dispute" is likely their way to delay things until after the next election.


----------



## jmt18325

FSTO said:
			
		

> A PLAN! A you freakin serious? This whole interim buy was a back of the napkin crayon drawing right from the start. Mainly because the liberals at the time were in 3rd place and thought they had a couple of elections to go before getting back in. Now they are caught in a web of their own making.



To be fair, I don't believe the interim buy was ever part of the election platform.


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> To be fair, I don't believe the interim buy was ever part of the election platform.



You are right, they were going to use the money "saved" by not purchasing the F35 to finance the NSP.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2448348-new-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.html#document/p8

"We will make investing in the Royal Canadian Navy a top priority.
By purchasing *more affordable alternatives to the F-35s*, we will be able to invest
in strengthening our Navy, while also meeting the commitments that were made
as part of the National Shipbuilding and Procurement Strategy. Unlike Stephen
Harper, we will have the funds that we need to build promised icebreakers,
supply ships, arctic and offshore patrol ships, surface combatants, and other
resources required by the Navy.
These investments will ensure that the Royal Canadian Navy is able to operate as
a true blue-water maritime force, while also growing our economy and creating
jobs."

Why nobody in the opposition or media called out the Liberals on this whopper is beyond me.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile some in Canadian aerospace push back--now what about firms with F-35 contracts (or seeking them)?



> Canadian firms prod Trudeau to approve Super Hornet deal
> 
> Ten Canadian-based aerospace companies are calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to stop blocking the purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets, arguing they stand to suffer from the government's unwavering support of Bombardier Inc. in a trade dispute with Boeing Co.
> 
> "Prime Minister, we ask for your co-operation as we work with Boeing to keep our collective growth and innovation story unfolding here in Canada. Our partnership is deep and enduring, but it needs your engagement," said the letter sent on Tuesday by senior executives from firms such as Héroux-Devtek, L-3 MAS, CAE and GE Canada.
> 
> The letter, which calls on the government to advance "aerospace for all of Canada," is the most recent development in an increasingly bitter dispute between the Canadian government and Boeing. Ottawa is holding the Super Hornet contract as its main bargaining chip in its fight on behalf of Quebec-based Bombardier, while members of the "Boeing team in Canada" want to convince the government that its strategy will actually hurt Canada's aerospace industry as a whole.
> 
> "There is a bright opportunity in front of us that can be harvested, in a successful and mutually beneficial win for Canada, our Canadian companies, and Boeing," said the letter sent to Mr. Trudeau, his two key aides, Katie Telford and Gerald Butts, and five federal ministers...
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-firms-prod-trudeau-to-approve-super-hornet-deal/article36184326/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, It's even more of  a whopper.

jmt is right: the interim purchase was never part of the platform. That's because the interim purchase was conceived after the election as a ruse to avoid the other promise - of holding a proper competition for the CF-18 replacement *that would not include the F-35*.

Breaking this later promise was necessary because they found out, after the election (but any person even remotely knowledgeable would have known before), that the imbecilic, ignorant and irrational statement of their leader that the F-35 doesn't work, and his indirect but equally Imbecilic/irrational/ignorant statement that the F-35 is too expensive, turned out to be false. The F-35 is not only perfectly capable, now, to fulfill the requirements of Canada, but is also able to do so at a price that is not much different than the price of any alternative airplane. Even better: if the F-35 was let in any proper competition, it would beat the other entries, likely cold.

But that wouldn't do: it would expose Trudeau as the ignorant person he is in matters of defence. And it would break a major promise (fair competition - no F-35).

So unilaterally, without consulting the actual expert in defence, i.e. the CDS and the Comd RCAF, they concocted (probably with the help of sympathetic civil servants in the department) the idea of "creating a crisis" as solution: Change the policy on fighter employment so as to create an otherwise non existent "gap", then claim the gap must be closed NOW! Close it with a sole-source purchase justified by the "urgency" and therefore with something other than F-35 - then use that whole kaflafla to claim that you can only hold the proper competition for replacement in a few years (i.e. after the next election). This last point is complete bull, as all the requirements for the replacement have been known for years, and a proper competition can be held right now (and could have been held a year ago) and the selection could be made within a year. But it would have to include the F-35 if the government doesn't want to be sued, and the F-35 would likely win both on capability and price, as it has done everywhere else.

Then Boeing comes up with this useless lawsuit against Bombardier (I say useless because Bombardier products do not even compete with Boeing's, and Bombardier was willing to enter into an agreement with Boeing agreeing to not compete with Boeing's larger models after the C-Series take off), and the Liberals are screwed.

Well they are screwed because they chose to play gutter politics with national defence. Everybody does it in Canada: Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Here the Liberals lost badly, by their own making. But the poor schmo who always loses is the guy/gal at the sharp end when his/her life is at stake. 

BTW: Is it just me or has our "bad-ass" minister of defence all but disappeared from the face of the planet in the last eight months - after being in such prominence during the first year of the Trudeau government  ???

P.S:  18 Super-hornets is insignificant to Boeing. It's the equivalent to the revenue of selling six Boeing 777 or 787, something Boeing can do in couple of weeks. The real cost to Boeing is in the profit margins: While Boeing claims "improper" subsidies for Bombardier, they certainly don't want to have to disclose that they, themselves, have been indirectly subsidized by the US government for years through inflated prices and, in particular R&D financing, of "military" planes as a way to keep the cost of development of new civilian airplanes down and improve competitiveness.

The world of aeronautical production is completely subsidized everywhere in the world. It's not a "level" playing field where everyone competes on competence/efficiency alone. In fact, no industry in the "free-market" economies is unsubsidized somehow these days. All corporations want the government to 'butt-out" when they are raking money hand over fist, then come crying if they don't get the subsidies they want or when things go sour. There's always a province, state or country out there willing to give them more of the taxpayer's money.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

QFTFT.


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This last point is complete bull, as all the requirements for the replacement have been known for years, and a proper competition can be held right now (and could have been held a year ago) and the selection could be made within a year.



I am still awaiting a definition for this "competition" from somebody in either government, media, or commentariat. The term is meaningless, mere empty words, and cliche.

What is currently _*not*_ known about each of the options? Are we missing some key data that is crucial to making a proper and rational decision? If so, _*what*_?


----------



## Quirky

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If your maintainers cannot keep 8 aircraft serviceable with 14, they won't be able to make 8 with 20.  Maintenance can only work on so many aircraft at once.  They have a finite capacity.  If you want more aircraft on the line, you need more techs.



Our biggest issue right now is finding parts, they didn't bother finding contractors to fix the ones we have now. Another issue is the parts we have now are not stored at the bases the jets are. There is usually a two day wait for something to be shipped in by military postal service that's only 300km away. More techs won't fix the issue of old airplanes, both will just sit there waiting for a part to come from some depot that's not anywhere near an Air Force base.


----------



## McG

Quirky said:
			
		

> Our biggest issue right now is finding parts, they didn't bother finding contractors to fix the ones we have now. Another issue is the parts we have now are not stored at the bases the jets are. There is usually a two day wait for something to be shipped in by military postal service that's only 300km away. More techs won't fix the issue of old airplanes, both will just sit there waiting for a part to come from some depot that's not anywhere near an Air Force base.


With only two CFSDs, you probably should not expect they will both be picked-up and dropped at Cold Lake and Baggotville respectively.  If local stock-outs are regularly occurring on items that are available in the system, then you should look to adjust local scaling.  If stock-outs are occurring because LCMMs cannot keep the shelves filled with enough of items to cover their expected use, then it will not matter how close you are to the depot.


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-globe-and-mail-bc-edition/20170907/281797104147277

interesting article, as the rest of the industry turns on the government


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MilEME: Don't confuse ten companies, some not even amongst the largest, in the aeronautical industry as "the rest of the industry" when there are hundreds of companies, just around Montreal, that are in that industry.


----------



## Loachman

Those companies in Quebec that already have F35-related contracts have differing opinions from those that have not.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That's right Coachman: Those with contracts for the F-35 don't particularly look favourably on Boeing getting a contract for "interim" Super-Hornets.

Though I must say I was surprised to see Heroux-Devtek in there since they do landing gears for both F-18's and F-35's.


----------



## dapaterson

Have to look to the future: more lucrative to chase the JSF business.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile French gov't offers big industrial deal on Rafale to Belgium in order to counter F-35--harbinger for Canada (Bombardier)?

1) France offers Belgium warplanes, military deal
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-belgium-rafale/france-offers-belgium-warplanes-military-deal-idUKKCN1BI22Z

2) From Dassault itself--"comprehensive partnership offer made by the French Authorities to the Belgian Government":
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/09/07/1114241/0/en/Dassault-Aviation-Rafale-for-the-replacement-of-the-F-16s-of-the-Air-Component-of-the-Belgian-Defense.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

MCG said:
			
		

> With only two CFSDs, you probably should not expect they will both be picked-up and dropped at Cold Lake and Baggotville respectively.  If local stock-outs are regularly occurring on items that are available in the system, then you should look to adjust local scaling.  If stock-outs are occurring because LCMMs cannot keep the shelves filled with enough of items to cover their expected use, then it will not matter how close you are to the depot.



I'm not a scale adjuster nor is it my job - or do I care for that matter. All too often the answer I get is "we have none on base but X amount in depot, it'll be about a week". Ok excellent I'll just go home because the supply system didn't reorder stock. Beyond that, there are simply no parts left to order for whatever reason. I'm not about to call up the LCMM and ask him why I can't get a part.


----------



## McG

Quirky said:
			
		

> I'm not a scale adjuster nor is it my job - or do I care for that matter. All too often the answer I get is "we have none on base but X amount in depot, it'll be about a week". Ok excellent I'll just go home because the supply system didn't reorder stock. Beyond that, there are simply no parts left to order for whatever reason. I'm not about to call up the LCMM and ask him why I can't get a part.


Understand that your earlier complaint was that you did not get the responsiveness you want because the depot was not parked on your base.  By your very statements here, it can be seen that you have taken a perspective too shallow to have reached the conclusion that you previously arrived at.  I would also suggest that if you do not care that scaling may be wrong (regardless of it maybe not being your job) and a local cause of your frustrations, then you don't really care that parts are not available in a timely way.  The Depot's geography is not something that can be changed; scaling is.


----------



## MilEME09

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile French gov't offers big industrial deal on Rafale to Belgium in order to counter F-35--harbinger for Canada (Bombardier)?
> 
> 1) France offers Belgium warplanes, military deal
> https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-belgium-rafale/france-offers-belgium-warplanes-military-deal-idUKKCN1BI22Z
> 
> 2) From Dassault itself--"comprehensive partnership offer made by the French Authorities to the Belgian Government":
> https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/09/07/1114241/0/en/Dassault-Aviation-Rafale-for-the-replacement-of-the-F-16s-of-the-Air-Component-of-the-Belgian-Defense.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Wonder if it's as good of a deal as the full technology transfer offer they gave us?


----------



## Quirky

MCG said:
			
		

> Understand that your earlier complaint was that you did not get the responsiveness you want because the depot was not parked on your base.  By your very statements here, it can be seen that you have taken a perspective too shallow to have reached the conclusion that you previously arrived at.  I would also suggest that if you do not care that scaling may be wrong (regardless of it maybe not being your job) and a local cause of your frustrations, then you don't really care that parts are not available in a timely way.  The Depot's geography is not something that can be changed; scaling is.



Having parts in depots at locations where jets aren't based at is a good way to keep them grounded, needlessly. It's like having our navy on both coasts and the ships part in depots in Winnipeg. If we want new shiney airplanes, and keep them flying, this nonsense needs to end.


----------



## MilEME09

I agree, places like 7 CFSD work fine for the army, but like you pointed out, not so much for the other branches. Having depots for the branches sounds like a good idea to have parts closer to those that use them, however do we have the capacity to even do so? and from a logistical point of view does it make sense?


----------



## McG

There are two main depot for all of the CAF.  They are not placed to the benefit of any particular branch.  Whining that that one is not parked in your back yard (which you cannot influence) while declaring you don't care about local scaling (which, at worst, can be influenced by someone that you can influence) is a sure sign that you do not really care.  There will never be a CFAD for every base with a unit that believes itself to be the centre of everything.  It is not the purpose of the depots to be everywhere.  But, if a unit cannot do its job because it does not keep an adequate maintenance load, then that is a local failing to sort out scaling.


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I agree, places like 7 CFSD work fine for the army, but like you pointed out, not so much for the other branches. Having depots for the branches sounds like a good idea to have parts closer to those that use them, however do we have the capacity to even do so? and from a logistical point of view does it make sense?



So we quadruple the overhead for spare parts storage? Even if we make RCAF depots in Cold Lake and Bagotville, do we just screw Trenton for parts? Or all the Tac Hel sqns? What about Comox and Shearwater? More depots means more buildings, heating, power, PYs. Its not efficient even if you have to wait an extra day for something to get shipped. I'm sure if it was an urgent operational requirement it would be overnighted to you, or likely there would be some stock on the shelves.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we quadruple the overhead for spare parts storage? Even if we make RCAF depots in Cold Lake and Bagotville, do we just screw Trenton for parts? Or all the Tac Hel sqns? What about Comox and Shearwater? More depots means more buildings, heating, power, PYs. Its not efficient even if you have to wait an extra day for something to get shipped. I'm sure if it was an urgent operational requirement it would be overnighted to you, or likely there would be some stock on the shelves.



Now being an army PRes tech I don't deal with local scaling at all, who has control over local scaling? I'm used to everything being one for one exchange which I'm sure is annoying for aircraft parts.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we quadruple the overhead for spare parts storage? Even if we make RCAF depots in Cold Lake and Bagotville, do we just screw Trenton for parts? Or all the Tac Hel sqns? What about Comox and Shearwater? More depots means more buildings, heating, power, PYs. Its not efficient even if you have to wait an extra day for something to get shipped. I'm sure if it was an urgent operational requirement it would be overnighted to you, or likely there would be some stock on the shelves.



Really?  Cause last time we HPR'd something from Edmonton, it took a week! 

Another issue with joint depots is that given the complexity of aircraft parts and their airwhorthiness status, many time we receive parts that, while are technically in good order, are not airwhorthy.  In theater, we had to re-order a generator (I think it was a generator but it is irrelevant) 3 times because its 2nd line inspections had expired.

To me, the solution would be to have all parts for different fleets managed at different bases.  Your base has 3xGriffon/90?  You get 3.3% of all possibie parts on that base.  As inventory decreases on each base, you re-allocate as required.   A bit more overhead but you re-allocate the depot personnel to each base supply sections.  This way, parts are there when you need them.  Fixing the local scale is next to impossible.  We tried it on our 3 fleets and it was denied because "the system is already responsive enough."  We may get our parts in the alloted times however, it is still too slow and mire often than not, the parts need to be re-ordered because they are not airwhorthy.  This aspect is not captured in the Supply QM process as the second order is treated as a different order.  If it comes within the alloted time, it's not something that will be noted.  Yet, we lost mire than twice the time on a repair waiting for the same part.


----------



## Loachman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we quadruple the overhead for spare parts storage? Even if we make RCAF depots in Cold Lake and Bagotville, do we just screw Trenton for parts? Or all the Tac Hel sqns? What about Comox and Shearwater? More depots means more buildings, heating, power, PYs. Its not efficient even if you have to wait an extra day for something to get shipped. I'm sure if it was an urgent operational requirement it would be overnighted to you, or likely there would be some stock on the shelves.



There are two CF18 bases. Only two. Split all CF18 parts between those two locations. They can balance between themselves and be far more efficient than a centralized depot that is not, by nature (and I do not fault them for lack of specific interests) as responsive.

Trenton has no interest in CF18 parts. There are no other bases operating C17s or C130Js, however, so, if parts for those are not stocked exclusively in Trenton rather than a CFSD, correct that.

Increasingly, though, parts are supplied by manufacturers.

Griffon parts come through the Bell supply system. Commonly-used parts are stocked at Squadrons already, in accordance with historical usage rates.

Don't be too confident that "urgent operational requirement (it) would be overnighted to you". Even manufacturers' supply systems are not always that responsive for various reasons.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> SeaKingTacco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This whole saga cannot possibly get any dumber...
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Now you did it, SKT.  Someone's going to try and _Viam Inveniemus_...
Click to expand...

Hold my beer  ;D ...


> Three retired air force generals say buying used fighter jets from Australia is a much better plan for Canada than purchasing new Super Hornets from Boeing.
> 
> Tom Lawson, Andre Deschamps and Kenneth Pennie say Australia's old F-18s will need modifications to operate alongside Canada's CF-18s, but that would cost a lot less than brand-new Super Hornets ...


----------



## a_majoor

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Great.  Now you did it, SKT.  Someone's going to try and _Viam Inveniemus_...
> Hold my beer  ;D ...



At least it is a _plan_, not a political cluster f**k as politicians try to kick the can down the road from making another thoughtless campaign promise....


----------



## Loachman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Three retired air force generals say buying used fighter jets from Australia is a much better plan for Canada than purchasing new Super Hornets from Boeing.



Unless they come with used Pilots and Techs and parts from Australia, they will just remain parked along with the ones that we already have awaiting parts and work. More empty, broken, lonely jets.

It is still not worth the money and wasted effort, just to solve a non-existent (other than Liberal pride) problem.


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:
			
		

> Unless they come with used Pilots and Techs and parts from Australia, they will just remain parked along with the ones that we already have awaiting parts and work. More empty, broken, lonely jets.
> 
> It is still not worth the money and wasted effort, just to solve a non-existent (other than Liberal pride) problem.



So we'll Canadian-ize an Australian-ized American product.  That can't possibly go wrong.


----------



## GAP

Think subs.    :facepalm:


----------



## MilEME09

GAP said:
			
		

> Think subs.    :facepalm:



not to mention the climate those planes would be flying, and resting in would be completely different from Australia. Their birds were built in the mid eighties till 1990, with more operational squadrons then us, and probably flying more. I'd like to see the flying hours on those airframes before we tell if it is even remotely a good idea.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Final two paras on new Belgian fighter sound rather too much like Canada:



> ...
> _France did not submit an offer to the Belgian fighter competition, and instead offered a wide-ranging, government-to-government partnership based on the Rafale, and including a substantial offsets and training package._
> 
> France’s decision to make a last-minute, unsolicited offer to Belgium of a strategic partnership based on the Rafale combat aircraft is a gamble, pushing the issue into the political arena and away from purely technical considerations.
> 
> Although the Belgian government tried to ensure a fair competition by dealing with governments, instead of directly with the bidding companies, its Request for Government Proposals could not hide the fact that operational requirements were written by its air force, where many consider the F-35 a desirable aircraft despite its long history of ballooning costs and technical problems.
> 
> Politicians generally tend to trust their military, and so support their recommendations because they do not have the knowledge to double-guess them or to realize whether specs were slanted.
> 
> This pro-F-35 slant is the reason for Boeing’s withdrawal from the Belgian competition, while Sweden pulled out in June because it was not prepared to support Belgian fighters on foreign operations.
> 
> Slanted requirements are also the reason Dassault did not compete the Rafale in Denmark, where the competition was so partial that Boeing is now suing the Danish government.
> 
> The real question: go Dutch or go French?
> 
> But whether the Belgian competition is fair or not is beside the point. From the outset, the only question is whether Belgium wants its air force to go Dutch or French.
> 
> Over the past decade or two, Belgium has merged its navy with that of The Netherlands, its northern neighbor, and the two have recently launched a joint naval shipbuilding program.
> 
> As for the army, Belgium in June chose to buy the same new-generation armored vehicles that France is developing under the Scorpion program, and said it would invest billions of euros to buy and operate them in close cooperation with the French army.
> 
> Now, decision-time has arrived for its air force.
> 
> Belgium currently operates F-16s like the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, with which it acquired them in a joint buy; all three have already opted for the F-35.
> 
> If Belgium wants its air force to closely cooperate or more closely integrate with France’s Armée de l’air, it will buy the Rafale. This would give it access to French airspace, training, joint operations, as well as allowing Belgium to share in the definition of the next variant of Rafale. Its aerospace industry would also gain access to the Rafale supply chain, and possibly more.
> 
> If it wants to go Dutch – and half of Belgium speaks Dutch, while the other half speaks French – then it will choose the F-35, and prolong their relationship they have on the F-16...
> 
> *Politics trumps capabilities*
> 
> But, whichever aircraft wins, the sad fact is that Belgium’s final decision will be barely influenced by operational aspects, and even less by whether the aircraft it buys is suited to its needs and capabilities.
> 
> So, why bother to hold long, expensive and bothersome competitions at all?
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/186610/belgian-fighter-competition%3A-three-down%2C-two-to-go%3F.html



Let's ask Bombardier, eh?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Have you checked out the ads at Defense-Aerospace?

Leonardo.  Dassault.  Rafale. Airbus.  MBDA.

Strangely I have never seen a pro- F35 article from that source.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook--fully realize Defence-Aerospace.com is strongly slanted against F-35--but this article is not exactly pro-Rafale (part of reason I used it).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we quadruple the overhead for spare parts storage? Even if we make RCAF depots in Cold Lake and Bagotville, do we just screw Trenton for parts? Or all the Tac Hel sqns? What about Comox and Shearwater? More depots means more buildings, heating, power, PYs. Its not efficient even if you have to wait an extra day for something to get shipped. I'm sure if it was an urgent operational requirement it would be overnighted to you, or likely there would be some stock on the shelves.



Just to add to SSM and Loachmens valid points;  sometimes we go out the door very quickly and with a travel claim to conduct ops.  We usually take a list of spare parts with us, some on the plane and some on a follow-on plane like a Herc.  If a critical part for the Acoustics system, radios, RADAR, etc aren't available as spares locally when we go, and then we break XXXXkms from home, now you are looking at a major delay on ops because the local bins didn't have what we needed when we went out the door.  I've seen aircraft grounded and missions delayed or cancelled because of something as simple as a $3 light bulb while waiting for the 'spares' to arrive at our location.

Sometimes when a plane breaks and we need stuff quick, we do whats called an MRP (Mobile Repair Party) with another one of our 140s.  That takes more planes off the ramp for lines of tasking..which could then delay a critical training flight for a course, make techs scramble to get another Standby tail ready, burns hours off the planes, burns gas, and takes a handful of crew away with the MRP plane.

From the crew level I exist at, I'd like to believe it would be easier, cheaper and most importantly, operationally focused to have bigger bins with more spare parts at the place the planes and crews are flying out of normally, so the maint crews following us out the door with or behind us have the stuff they need to add to their kits.

How quick can it be?  A recent one...folks got phone calls at 5am.  They were wheels in the well by 9am.  Not much time to HPR anything that day...


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chris Pook--fully realize Defence-Aerospace.com is strongly slanted against F-35--but this article is not exactly pro-Rafale (part of reason I used it).
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-the-liberals-money-wasting-defence-shirking-politically-craven-jet-circus-gets-even-worse#comments-area

NP View: The Liberals' money-wasting, defence-shirking, politically craven jet circus gets worse

Politics, pandering and pork for a Quebec company is more important to this government than fielding a proper air force

National Post View September 8, 2017 4:09 PM EDT

Even by the abysmally low standard of Canadian military-procurement programs, the ongoing effort to replace Canada’s fleet of aging CF-18 fighter-bombers is still a thing to behold. The latest revelation, that Canada is considering buying used F-18 jets from Australia to supplement our frontline squadrons, is yet another demonstration of how unserious Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is about providing our men and women in uniform the equipment they need to do their job.

The CF-18s need replacing; no one disputes that. The aircraft have been modernized repeatedly and remain capable of combat operations, but the airframes are nearing 40 years old, and the basic F-18 design is older still. There is a limit to how much a 40-plus-year-old jet can be upgraded. The aircraft are nearing the point where metal fatigue will preclude the kind of high-stress manoeuvres that battle requires them to make. The previous Conservative government had announced plans to purchase 65 advanced F-35 stealth fighters to replace them. The F-35 program has been a debacle, and 65 jets was too small a fleet for a country with Canada’s needs. But it was, at least, a plan - a plan the Liberals not only opposed, but campaigned against. They pledged in the last federal election to cancel the purchase and said they would never buy a single F-35.

The problem with that pledge is the Liberals also promised a full and open competition to select Canada’s next fighter. Shortly after winning that election, the Liberals seemed to have suddenly realized that a competition can be neither full nor open once you’ve pre-emptively ruled out a major and serious contender. Further compounding the Liberals’ difficulty is the fact that the F-35 - despite its execrable development process and the prime minister’s breezy dismissal that this particular advanced fighter “does not work” - has finally begun to enter service with the United States and some of Canada’s closest other allies. More integration work is needed, but the plane is formidable, and is not appreciably more expensive (over the full life cycle of any jet fleet) than other options.

This is not an endorsement of the F-35. But the facts are clear: the plane at least warrants close and fair consideration. The Liberals, though, seem dead set against that, and are going to increasingly bizarre lengths to avoid making the only logical decision: an open competition that includes the F-35. First, they proposed an interim purchase of a small fleet of F-18 Super Hornets, a more modern and advanced jet than the similarly named CF-18 Hornets we already operate. The case for this interim fleet has never been satisfactorily made; if Canada is short jets, as the government maintains (and we have no trouble believing), then the proper course of action is to proceed with the full and final fleet replacement without delay. An interim purchase, at great expense, will only suck up precious dollars and postpone the urgently needed final replacement.

Incompetence is securely at the controls. The government’s indecision and Canada’s broken military procurement system have delayed the execution of this terrible plan. And now there’s another wrinkle: the Super Hornets are built by Boeing, and Boeing is involved in a trade dispute with Ottawa’s favourite subsidized aerospace pet, Bombardier. The Liberals are applying pressure on Boeing by dangling the prospect of abandoning the interim jet order in favour of used Australian jets. (The Australians, we note, don’t need their F-18s anymore because they’re switching to F-35s, that fighter plane the prime minister insists doesn’t work and won’t consider for Canada.)

There’s nothing new about utter ineptitude in matters of Canadian military procurement. The Conservatives were also terrible, and both parties have long traditions of living down to Canada’s traditionally low standards. But the wheeling and dealing on display here is still a marvel. The primary duty of any government is to secure the safety and security of the country, including by properly equipping an appropriately sized military. There’s also the moral duty of any Canadian government to take proper care of those citizens who wear our uniform and serve as this country’s first line of defence. Somewhere in there, governments also owe taxpayers a duty to not wantonly burn piles of public money for political reasons while attempting a military-procurement process.

The Liberals are clearly signalling via their actions, however, that honouring nonsensical campaign promises, avoiding embarrassing flip-flops, and pressuring a U.S. aircraft manufacturer that’s in a dispute with a Canadian industry darling, all come first. Politics, pandering, and pork for a Quebec conglomerate are more important to this government than fielding a proper air force. Don’t take our word for it. Just watch the Liberals in action.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Ever get the feeling somebody at the National Post is reading this forum?  ;D


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Ever get the feeling somebody at the National Post is reading this forum?  ;D



I wonder. But then any person with the IQ of a slug can see that this fighter program is an epic fail.

Now the Minister has finally come out of hiding! 

(its behind a paywall, but those of you on the DWAN can see it for free)
http://www.hilltimes.com/2017/09/11/new-defence-policy-lays-sustainable-fully-costed-plan-meet-ambitious-goals-military-sajjan/118180?
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the Liberal government has outdone its predecessors by producing the country's first 'fully funded' defence policy to provide sustainable, long-term funding for the Canadian Armed Forces.

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :-\ :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Loachman

I'm getting everything but the main text - just a big, blank patch where it should be.


----------



## Journeyman

Loachman said:
			
		

> I'm getting everything but the main text - just a big, blank patch where it should be.


 Yep, the blank bit is the detail where the "fully-costed and sustainable" magically happens.


----------



## MilEME09

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yep, the blank bit is the detail where the "fully-costed and sustainable" magically happens.



same place where the budget balances it self


----------



## Rifleman62

> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the Liberal government has outdone its predecessors by producing the country's first 'fully funded' defence policy to provide sustainable, long-term funding for the Canadian Armed Forces.



Producing is not the same as executing/implementing. Right now, IMHO, it's just another Lieliberal lie.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will we buy?

1) Bombardier dispute:

Boeing walked away from talks with Trudeau government: [Canadian] ambassador
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/boeing-walked-away-from-talks-with-trudeau-government-ambassador-1.3585908

2) Note eight dual-seaters and cost:



> Government of Canada – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft with Support
> 
> WASHINGTON, Sep. 12, 2017 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Canada of _ten (10) F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines_ [emphasis added]; eight (8) F414-GE-400 engine spares; twenty (20) AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars; twenty (20) M61A2 20MM gun systems; twenty-eight (28) AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets; fifteen (15) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods; twenty (20) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems–Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS); thirty (30) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); twenty-eight (28) AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems; one hundred thirty (130) LAU-127E/A and or F/A Guided Missile Launchers; twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting System (DTS); twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting Processor (DTP); one hundred (100) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Missiles; thirty (30) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); eight (8) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Special Air Training Missiles (NATM); twenty (20) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Guidance Units; sixteen (16) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II CATM Guidance Units.  Also included in this sale are AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG); AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems; AN/ARC-210 Communication System; AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponder; AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); AN/PYQ-10C Simple Key Loader (SKL); Data Transfer Unit (DTU); Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation; KIV-78 Duel Channel Encryptor, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF); CADS/PADS; Instrument Landing System (ILS); Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE); High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR); Launchers (LAU-115D/A, LAU-116B/A, LAU-118A); flight test services; site survey; aircraft ferry; auxiliary fuel tanks; aircraft spares; containers; storage and preservation; transportation; aircrew and maintenance training; training aids and equipment, devices and spares and repair parts; weapon system support and test equipment; technical data Engineering Change Proposals; technical publications and documentation; software; avionics software support; software development/integration; system integration and testing; U.S. Government and contractor engineering technical and logistics support; Repair of Repairable (RoR); repair and return warranties; other technical assistance and support equipment; and other related elements of logistics and program support.  The _estimated total case value is $5.23 billion_ [!!! emphasis added].  The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on September 11, 2017.
> 
> This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally which has been, and continues to be, a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability.  The acquisition of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, associated weapons and capability will allow for greater interoperability with U.S. forces, providing benefits for training and possible future coalition operations in support of shared regional security objectives.
> 
> The proposed sale of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft will improve Canada’s capability to meet current and future warfare threats and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure.  _Canada will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces_ ]really? emphasis added].
> 
> The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.
> 
> The principal contractors will be:  Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO; Northrop Grumman, Los Angeles, CA; Raytheon, El Segundo, CA; General Electric, Lynn, MA; and Raytheon Missile Systems Company, Tucson, AZ.  The Government of Canada has advised that it will negotiate offset agreements with key U.S. contractors.
> 
> Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Canada on and intermittent basis over the life of the case to support delivery of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and weapons and to provide supply support management, inventory control and equipment familiarization.
> 
> There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
> 
> This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
> 
> All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.
> http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/government-canada-fa-18ef-super-hornet-aircraft-support



3) _Globe and Mail_ story:



> U.S. approves sale of 18 Super Hornet jets to Canada for $6.4-billion
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-approves-sale-of-18-super-hornet-jets-to-canada-for-64-billion/article36238437/



That's $355M each all-in, folks!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Compare with Kuwait's 40 Super Hornet approval, eight dual seat, plus stuff--C$12.3B or about $300M each:



> The Government of Kuwait – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft with Support
> 
> The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Kuwait for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft with support, equipment, and training. The estimated cost is $10.1 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on November 17, 2016.
> 
> The Government of Kuwait has requested to purchase thirty-two (32) F/A-18E aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) F/A-18F aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) spare F414-GE-400 engines and twenty-four (24) engine modules; forty-one (41) AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radars; forty-four (44) M61A2 20mm Gun Systems; forty-five (45) AN/ALR-67(V)3 Radar Warning Receivers; two hundred and forty (240) LAU-127E/A Guided Missile Launchers; forty-five (45) AN/ALE-47 Airborne Countermeasures Dispenser Systems; twelve (12) AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Advanced Targeting Pods; forty-eight (48) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); forty-five (45) AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Counter-Measures Systems; forty-five (45) AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys; forty-eight (48) Link-16 Systems; eight (8) Conformal Fuel Tanks; and fourteen (14) AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Systems. Also included in the sale are ARC-210 radio (aircraft); Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems; AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG); Launchers (LAU- 115D/A, LAU-116B/A, LAU-l 18A); Command Launch Computer (CLC) for Air to Ground Missile 88 (AGM-88); ANAV/MAGR GPS Navigation; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); aircraft spares; Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE); support equipment; aircrew/maintenance training; contractor engineering technical service; logistics technical services; engineering technical services; other technical assistance; contractor logistics support; flight test services; storage and preservation; aircraft ferry; Repair of Repairable (RoR); support systems and associated logistics; training aides and devices; spares; technical data Engineering Change Proposals; avionics software support; software; technical publications; engineering and program support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering; technical and logistic support services. The estimated total program cost is $10.1 billion.
> 
> This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a Major Non-NATO Ally that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political and economic progress in the Middle East. Kuwait is a strategic partner in maintaining stability in the region. The acquisition of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft will allow for greater interoperability with U.S. forces, providing benefits for training and possible future coalition operations in support of shared regional security objectives.
> 
> The proposed sale of the F/A- l8E/F Super Hornet aircraft will improve Kuwait's capability to meet current and future warfare threats. Kuwait will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft will supplement and eventually replace the Kuwait Air Force's aging fighter aircraft. Kuwait will have no difficulty absorbing this aircraft into its armed forces.
> The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
> 
> The prime contractors will be The Boeing Company, St. Louis, Missouri; Northrop Grumman in Los Angeles, California; Raytheon Company in El Segundo, California; and General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts. Offsets agreements associated with this proposed sale are expected; however, specific agreements are undetermined and will be defined during negotiations between the purchaser and contractor. Kuwait requires contractors to satisfy an offset obligation equal to 35 percent of the main contract purchase price for any sale of defense articles in excess of three million Kuwait Dinar, (approximately $10 million USD).
> 
> Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Kuwait on an intermittent basis over the life of the case to support delivery of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and provide support and equipment familiarization.
> 
> There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
> 
> This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
> 
> All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.
> http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/government-kuwait-fa-18ef-super-hornet-aircraft-support



Any SMEs want to compare Kuwaiti stuff with RCAF's in initial acquisition?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Because it is the stupidest thing to do with the money, but will ensure the Liberals can keep their even stupider campaign promise of NO F35, we will likely buy.  

It's never actually been about getting the best aircraft after all ...


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Any SMEs want to compare Kuwaiti stuff with RCAF's in initial acquisition?



Not a SME but to help the discussion here's a list of the differences between the 2 quotes (not numbers, but specific equipment included in one but not the other):

Canada


twenty (20) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems–Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS); 
twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting System (DTS); 
twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting Processor (DTP); 
one hundred (100) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Missiles; 
thirty (30) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); 
eight (8) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Special Air Training Missiles (NATM); 
twenty (20) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Guidance Units; 
sixteen (16) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II CATM Guidance Units.  
AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems; 
KIV-78 Duel Channel Encryptor, 
AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponder; 
AN/PYQ-10C Simple Key Loader (SKL); 
Data Transfer Unit (DTU); 
CADS/PADS; Instrument Landing System (ILS); 
High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR); 

Kuwait


forty-eight (48) Link-16 Systems; 
eight (8) Conformal Fuel Tanks; and 
fourteen (14) AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Systems. 
Command Launch Computer (CLC) for Air to Ground Missile 88 (AGM-88); 

The piece I can speak to is the MIDS-JTRS, which is a Type 1 radio information system like Link-16, but a more modern standard. The NSA would never let Kuwait get its hands on that, and anything that is Type 1 is also not cheap.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Even if you have the same equipment, software can make a huge difference in capabilities.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile ...


> *Super Hornet deal still up in the air despite green light in Washington*
> _Price tag of $6.3B would buy 18 fighter jets, equipment, electronics and training_
> By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Sep 12, 2017 5:16 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 12, 2017 6:36 PM ET
> 
> ... It is uncertain whether the Liberal government will actually proceed with the sole-source purchase in light of its ongoing trade dispute with Boeing, which has been getting wider and more rancorous in the last few weeks ... Boeing would not comment on Tuesday's decision, other than to say it is encouraged by U.S. government support for the proposed sale ...


*More @ link*


----------



## dimsum

Max (and others),

If the F is designed to have a WSO in the back and not as a trainer, what do you think is the reasoning behind 10 Es and 8 Fs?  It seems to me that we're splitting our already-small fleet of 18 into 2 sub-fleets.


----------



## AlexanderM

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile ...*More @ link*


I hope we don't make this deal.

Concerning the Boeing complaint, just wanted to point out that over 50% of the parts for the C Series aircraft are made in the good old USA and these are US government numbers.

http://trade.gov/topmarkets/pdf/Aircraft_Parts_Top_Markets_Report.pdf

There are three primary overseas manufacturers of
large civil aircraft and regional jets: Airbus (based in
Europe), Bombardier (based in Canada) and Embraer
(based in Brazil). According to various reports, the
U.S. content of parts used in the production of these
manufacturers’ aircraft is significant: about 40
percent for Airbus, *53 percent for the Bombardier
“CSeries” jetline*r, and 70 percent for Embraer
regional jets.

So, as the aircraft does not compete with Boeing, and with Bombardier being willing to agree not to build anything bigger, are they not shooting themselves in the foot?


----------



## MarkOttawa

AlexanderM:



> ...as the aircraft does not compete with Boeing, and with Bombardier being willing to agree not to build anything bigger...



Not sure what Bombardier will do.  That is the heart of the matter--Boeing wants to kill the whole CSeries but in particular a further stretch; that's worth a lot more to them than 18 Super Hornets, esp. as production for USN looks pretty sure for few more years (likely improved Block III):



> ...
> Boeing alleges that Bombardier is using highly distortive pricing to eliminate the 737 MAX 7 from the 100 to 150-seat single aisle market, which will allow the Quebec company to bring in a CS500 — a medium single-aisle jet that would compete with Boeing’s 737-800 and MAX 8...
> http://business.financialpost.com/transportation/investigation-into-boeing-petition-against-bombardier-expected-to-move-forward-trade-experts



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> AlexanderM:
> 
> Not sure what Bombardier will do.  That is the heart of the matter--Boeing wants to kill the whole CSeries but in particular a further stretch; that's worth a lot more to them than 18 Super Hornets, esp. as production for USN looks pretty sure for few more years (likely improved Block III):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


It isn't just an issue of the 18 Super Hornets. Canadian commercial carriers purchase Boeing jets, then Airbus purchases 40% of its parts from the USA, and Bombardier purchases 53% of its parts from the USA, all to maintain an open market. All of those purchases and all of that production combine to support high paying jobs in the US. Now along comes the protectionist US government and Boeing knows they are going to get support in tipping the playing field in their favor, so away we go. It then becomes a political issue in which the government must consider its response and must determine if NFTA can continue to work in such a climate. Very difficult to make a trade agreement work when Trump has so clearly demonstrated that he feels absolutely no need to play by any rules.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Max (and others),
> 
> If the F is designed to have a WSO in the back and not as a trainer, what do you think is the reasoning behind 10 Es and 8 Fs?  It seems to me that we're splitting our already-small fleet of 18 into 2 sub-fleets.



They are not missionized backseats.  They have flight controls in the back.  I think the WSO idea was scrapped.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Well, that is a head scratcher. Why would we propose to buy that many duals in a fleet of only 18?


----------



## Loachman

Gender equality?

It's 2017?

To give all of the extra fighter pilots an extra chance to fly?

Who knows, with this government?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I'll put my tinfoil hat on at this point:

Obviously, the only reason to get duals that are not missionized in the back is as trainers.

Eight trainers out of eighteen airframes is way out of whack.

Tinfoil: The Libs have already decided that the Rhino is going to win the competition when they get to it, so eight trainers for eighty-eight planes is about right for ratio. They just decided to get the trainers first. 

Now that's just me talking out of my ar**, but why so many trainer otherwise? Now, that's something for a smart journalist with contacts in the department/government to investigate.


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I'll put my tinfoil hat on at this point:
> 
> Obviously, the only reason to get duals that are not missionized in the back is as trainers.
> 
> Eight trainers out of eighteen airframes is way out of whack.
> 
> Tinfoil: The Libs have already decided that the Rhino is going to win the competition when they get to it, so eight trainers for eighty-eight planes is about right for ratio. They just decided to get the trainers first.
> 
> Now that's just me talking out of my ar**, but why so many trainer otherwise? Now, that's something for a smart journalist with contacts in the department/government to investigate.



What does the USN and RAAF do for training SH Pilots and WSOs?  Obviously you can't fit 2 WSOs (instructor and student) in one plane, and as far as I understand the Ds and Fs aren't designed as training aircraft.


----------



## MarkOttawa

In fact earlier contract included seven EA-18G Growlers (see end)--pretty sure engines not included in cost for these Block IIs, in any event not comparable to all-in acquisition cost announced for RCAF:



> Boeing to manufacture additional F/A-18s for U.S. Navy
> _The $676.6 million modification to an existing contract is for the production of F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter aircraft._
> 
> Boeing Co. has received a $676.6 million modification to an existing contract for the production of F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter aircraft for the U.S. Navy.
> 
> The modification, announced Wednesday [Sept. 13] by the Department of Defense, provides for the manufacture of six lot 41 F/A-18E and eight F/A-18F fighter jets. The production run is expected to be completed by February 2019...
> https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/09/14/Boeing-to-manufacture-additional-FA-18s-for-US-Navy/2971505406579/



This contract:
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1309998/

Earlier one:
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1096345/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

What's a Rhino? Sounds like a pretty ungainly name for a plane.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Warthog? Jug? BUFF? Aardvark? Whale?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Warthog? Jug? BUFF? Aardvark? Whale?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I get in now....I think. Mind you, I'm infantry or at least was when I was in. I'm a bit slow.


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Warthog? Jug? BUFF? Aardvark? Whale?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Don't forget the Double Ugly.  

Here's a list (probably pretty dated) of nicknames, and not just English ones.  Must be fun being in a "Lieutenant Eater".

Edit:  Added list - http://web.mit.edu/btyung/www/nickname.html


----------



## Loachman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Don't forget the Double Ugly.
> 
> Here's a list



Where's a list?


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:
			
		

> Where's a list?



Oops.  Added list.


----------



## Journeyman

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Mind you, I'm *infantry* or at least was when I was in.


And always you shall be!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> What's a Rhino? Sounds like a pretty ungainly name for a plane.



Nickname Rhino came because the E/F models have a longer nose than the earlier F-18's and, on the top, have a distinct antenna sticking up, which is a bit like a rhinoceros horn for location. See the picture below.

Additionally, Hamish, it was important to have a nickname/codeword that was radically different than "Hornet" to avoid confusion during traps. You see, on an aircraft carrier, the arresting wires are tensioned differently for each type of aircraft, to account for their landing weight, and basically the resulting kinetic energy to be absorbed. A Rhino is bigger and heavier than a standard F-18 and thus requires higher basic tension on the wires. If the tower calls down to wire control that the next trap is a Super-hornet and wire control doesn't quite get the first part or isn't paying attention, they can get confused and think a regular Hornet is coming, put the wrong tension on and get a disaster (the Super-hornet, at regular Hornet setting would trap and stretch further forward). To avoid that, the E/F's get a completely different name. No confusion possible when the call comes down "next trap, Rhino!"


----------



## Rifleman62

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/liberals-need-to-end-the-farce-over-fighter-jets/article36281581/

OPINION

*Liberals need to end the farce over fighter jets*

RICHARD SHIMOOKA AND DAVID MCDONOUGH - CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL - SEPTEMBER 17, 2017

Richard Shimooka is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute's Centre for Advancing Canada's Interests Abroad. David McDonough is deputy editor at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for the Study of Security and Development.

On Sept. 12, the U.S. government responded to Canada's inquiry on the pricing for 18 Super Hornets. The price tag came back at $6.4-billion. If the sale goes through, it may end up being one of the most wasteful fiascos ever undertaken by a Canadian government. It strips away the Liberals' election claim about managing the defence file better than the Conservatives, while illustrating extreme mismanagement.

So, what do we actually get for $6.4-billion? In addition to the 18 aircraft, the offer includes the ancillary equipment required to operate the aircraft and support from the manufacturers.

The total cost is surprisingly high, especially given the projected cost of replacing the existing CF-18 fleet with 65 F-35s. According to the Department of National Defence's 2014 figures, which remain roughly accurate today, acquiring 65 F-35s with ancillary equipment and support comes to roughly $9-billion. To lend further credibility to these numbers, the Danish government's 2016 assessment showed that acquiring 27 F-35s would cost approximately $3.7-billion.

What accounts for this massive disparity? The first is production scale. Boeing can produce a maximum 36 Super Hornets a year, while Lockheed Martin will produce 90 F-35s next year, and more than 150 in the year after that. This difference results in greater economies of scale, and a lower cost. The F/A-18s also require additional sensors and pods and adapters that come standard with the F-35.

Moreover, the United States charges Canada for the development of the Super Hornet and administering the contract. Those fees are waived for the F-35, as Canada has already invested approximately $455-million to be part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Finally, the Super Hornet would require modifications to make them suitable for Canadian use. Far from being an easy transition, this will only further drive up the cost. With the F-35, Canada had many of those modifications incorporated into the design as a member of the JSF program.

All of these issues, which resulted in the Conservative government's decision in 2010 to bypass the Super Hornet and instead select the F-35, are well-known to senior defence officials. However, this reality did not suit the incoming Liberal government, which made an election promise to exclude the F-35 from any future competition. Of course, that course of action would be illegal. Their decision to then pursue a fleet of interim Super Hornets was based on the dubious claim that they required an aircraft "not in development."

The irony is that in order to make the Super Hornet work for Canada, it requires significant additional development: more so than the F-35 (which concludes its development program this year). Nevertheless, the advice of senior defence officials has clearly been ignored. This was the entire point of a gag order, which sought to muzzle the officials so they could not speak out about the looming boondoggle.

The interim buy comes with added issues, such as extending the life of the current CF-18 fleet until its replacement comes online, sometime in the late 2020s. The last such upgrade undertaken in the 2000s came to around $3-billion, which provides a rough benchmark. This brings the total cost of this misadventure to over $9-billion – or more than the projected cost of replacing the CF-18s outright with 65 F-35s.

Canada will soldier on with a hopelessly obsolete fighter fleet, and still need to spend an additional $9-billion or more procuring its actual replacement, delayed by nearly 15 years. This is the cost to the taxpayers of defending a poorly conceived election promise not to purchase the F-35. There is no military or financial reason for this, except to defend the vanity of this government. Taxpayers should not accept this level of mismanagement.

The Liberals need to immediately cancel the interim buy and pursue a permanent fighter replacement competition. It's about time they put an end to this farce, sooner rather than later.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Hammer down, good excuse to ditch Super Hornet:



> ...
> "We won't do business with a company that's trying to sue us," Trudeau said of Canada's potential purchase of Boeing fighter jets...



Full Boeing, Bombardier and UK PM meeting story:



> Justin Trudeau, Theresa May pledge co-operation on Boeing, post-Brexit trade
> _Canada-EU trade deal can form the basis for a transition after U.K. leaves EU, prime ministers suggest_
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-theresa-may-meeting-1.4294515



Meanwhile note italicized bit at end of quote in story about ATR turboprops vs Bombardier Q400:



> ATR Scores Sales In Key U.S., Indian And Chinese Markets
> 
> ATR CEO Christian Scherer describes himself as an “aviation romantic.” The “creative” (i.e., tortuous) ways some recent sales have been won have thus probably pushed him to his limits. But the deals were in key markets, so Scherer can rest more assured that the future is bright for his company’s regional turboprops. The new contracts illustrate the ongoing cultural change at ATR.
> 
> ATR says it holds a 75% share of the regional turboprop market...
> 
> ...“_I want us to be there [in China] before a Chinese investor takes over Bombardier,” Scherer adds_ [emphasis added]...
> http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/atr-scores-sales-key-us-indian-and-chinese-markets



Much earlier via _AvWeek_:



> Would Any Canadian Government Let Chicoms Buy Bombardier?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/mark-collins-would-any-canadian-government-let-chicoms-buy-bombardier/
> 
> Bombardier Really Bombing? Chicom Combardier?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/bombardier-really-bombing-chicom-combardier/



Apologies for off-topicness but all Bombardier.

Mark
Ottaa


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Hammer down, good excuse to ditch Super Hornet:



And to save face. The only problem is now they have an invented capability gap and no aircraft to fill it, except for the F-35 bid.


----------



## kev994

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And to save face. The only problem is now they have an invented capability gap and no aircraft to fill it, except for the F-35 bid.


Perfect, let's get on with it.


----------



## Dale Denton

I wonder if the Eurofighter is back on the table? Austria is trying to offload its fleet around 2020, why not grab those and sell them to a European/middle eastern (maybe not KSA) country when the permanent fleet arrives?


----------



## HB_Pencil

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I wonder if the Eurofighter is back on the table? Austria is trying to offload its fleet around 2020, why not grab those and sell them to a European/middle eastern (maybe not KSA) country when the permanent fleet arrives?



You do realize that those aircraft are basically seen as junk at this stage, and EADS is being sued by the Austrian government for fraud and corruption relating to their sale? I mean what government would saddle its forces with substandard equipment when it had better, cheaper options available.... 

oh wait.


----------



## Loachman

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> why not grab those



Why not be honest and recognize the superiority of the F35 and "grab" some of those?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lunacy:



> Air force eyes resale value of Super Hornets even before deal is done
> _Super Hornet resale considerations add to the 'silliness of the enterprise,' analyst says_
> 
> If Canada ever buys Boeing Super Hornet jet fighters, it would be better off with the two-seat variant because they would fetch a better price on the resale market, military planners told the commander of the air force earlier this year.
> 
> An internal defence department analysis, obtained by CBC News, also spells out clearly that the 18 warplanes Canada hoped to buy would not be kept once a permanent replacement is purchased for the existing fleet of CF-18s.
> 
> The Liberal government has been decidedly opaque on that point since announcing last year it was exploring a sole-source deal.
> 
> But the documents, dated Jan. 26, 2017, leave no doubt what would happen to the jets.
> 
> "Canada would be required to dispose of the Super Hornets once the permanent fighter replacement fleet was acquired for the RCAF," said the analysis. "Initial information suggest that the resale value of the two-seat FA-18F aircraft would be higher than that of the single-seat FA-18E model."
> 
> Past attempts to pin down Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on the question of how long the air force would fly the Super Hornets was met with a vague response: "The interim fleet is there for the interim period."
> 
> Even though they would be more expensive to purchase, dual-seat Super Hornets would provide the air force "with greater flexibility," particularly in complex bombing missions, the documents said...
> 
> Defence analyst Dave Perry said he was surprised that resale value would be a consideration.
> 
> "We're not collecting used cars," he said. "This is just adding to the silliness of the enterprise."
> 
> Sajjan has insisted the jets are necessary because there is a "capability gap" in which the air force cannot meet both its Norad and NATO commitments simultaneously.
> 
> There is, of course, the larger political dimension.
> 
> The deal has been "under review" since Boeing launched its trade complaint against Quebec-based Bombardier...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/super-hornet-jet-fighters-sales-1.4297528



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Heaven help me--one of rare times I agree with the very progressive (ex-NDP candidate--smart and knowledgeable but often misleading) professor:



> Beating up on Boeing is bad for Canada
> MICHAEL BYERS
> 
> Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia
> 
> Justin Trudeau has been far from conciliatory in his dispute with Boeing. "We won't do business with a company that is busy trying to sue us and put our aerospace workers out of business," the Prime Minister said at a press conference on Monday.
> 
> Mr. Trudeau might sound tough and principled, but he's playing domestic politics – to the detriment of Canada's wider interests in a rule-based system of international trade.
> 
> Politically motivated support for Montreal-based Bombardier is a Canadian tradition. In 2001, the Jean Chrétien government gave the company a $1.7-billion low-interest loan to help secure an order from Air Wisconsin.
> 
> I remember having coffee with a retired Liberal cabinet minister the day after the loan was announced. I expressed surprise that the government would act in a manner that so clearly violated World Trade Organization rules.
> 
> "The PM doesn't care about the WTO," the ex-minister replied. "This is about jobs and votes."
> 
> Brazil promptly challenged the loan on behalf of its national airplane manufacturer Embraer. The WTO confirmed that Canada had acted illegally and authorized Brazil to impose $247-million (U.S.) in retaliatory trade sanctions. As a result, not only did Canadian taxpayers fund the loan to Bombardier; Canadian exporters paid a hefty fine on top of the subsidy.
> 
> Fast forward to 2015, when the Quebec government provided Bombardier with an emergency bailout of $1-billion (U.S.). It was cast as an investment, with the province receiving a 49.5 per cent stake in a new limited partnership created specifically for the manufacturing of C Series planes.
> 
> However, given the precarious nature of Bombardier's finances, it is unlikely that any commercial investor would have spent $1-billion without insisting on acquiring control of the company.
> 
> The Trudeau government knew that Quebec had violated international trade law. This explains why it took 16 months to come up with a different mechanism for providing federal support for Bombardier, via a $372.5-million loan for "research and development."
> 
> Yet at the international level, the federal government is also answerable for the actions of provincial governments.
> 
> Brazil has already initiated another WTO complaint, arguing – again on behalf of Embraer – that Quebec's 2015 "investment" is an illegal subsidy.
> 
> Boeing, for its part, has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial body that advises the U.S. Congress on trade matters. If the International Trade Commission finds that Quebec subsidized Bombardier, Congress will likely adopt trade sanctions. And then, Canada could file a complaint against the U.S. with the WTO.
> 
> These dispute-settlement processes are rigorous and objective. This is something that successive Canadian governments have valued, because free trade requires the apolitical application of rules.
> 
> Mr. Trudeau, by trying to strong-arm Boeing, is undermining these processes and Canada's long-term interest in an international legal system that protects countries and companies against arbitrary and unfounded actions.
> 
> He is also contradicting himself. It was the Trudeau government that fought to keep third-party dispute settlement in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union. It is the Trudeau government that is resisting the efforts of U.S. negotiators to remove third-party dispute settlement from NAFTA. Yet in the Boeing case, Mr. Trudeau wants to pre-empt third-party dispute settlement through economic coercion.
> 
> Aggravating matters, Mr. Trudeau has dragged military procurement into a dispute over commercial trade and investment. Yet military procurement has always been treated separately from other economic matters. It is not subject to trade and investment treaties precisely because of the critical importance of military equipment to national security.
> 
> By conflating a military procurement with a commercial trade dispute, Mr. Trudeau is damaging Canada's reputation as a reliable procurement partner. This will complicate and further delay procurements that are necessary for the protection of Canadians at home as well as the ability of our soldiers, sailors and pilots to contribute to missions abroad.
> 
> The procurement of fighter jets is a case in point. The Trudeau government says there is a "capability gap," since our CF-18s are three decades old. Yet by linking the dispute over Bombardier with the "interim" purchase of 18 Super Hornets, Mr. Trudeau is extending the capability gap that his own government identified.
> 
> Beating up on Boeing is bad for Canada. If Mr. Trudeau wants to defend Quebec and Bombardier, he should do so at the WTO, and not on TV.
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/beating-up-on-boeing-is-bad-for-canada/article36322185/



Earlier on the prof:



> The Canadian Forces, or, The Byers Disarmament Plan
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/mark-collins-the-canadian-forces-or-the-byers-disarmament-plan/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

I'm thinking that Boeing only took action because they believe the protectionist US government would listen, and they were right, after all the mantra is "America First".  It's my understanding that between Air Canada and Westjet, there are currently orders for something in the range of 120+ new Boeing airliners. In fact Air Canada alone has contracts and options to purchase over 100 of the 737 Max with deliveries begining this year. And it's also my understanding that 53% of the parts for every Bombardier C Series Jet sold anywhere in the world are sourced from the USA, and this likey is the case with every other Bombardier jet. I only say this because I've seen it said in a few sources that we need to be careful about how we deal with Boeing, but the point is, it goes both ways.

I don't want us to do anything substantial until these trade issues are resolved and we see how far America First goes. If the playing field needs to be rearranged we are going to need our money then, not before. Also, what trade resolution process would replace the current one, anyone know? No way we want to put that in the hands of America First. Also, $6+B for 18 Super Hornets, are you joking?? I'm currently of the opinion that we may not come to an agreement on NFTA, so then what? We do need to be careful, but in a larger context.

 :2c:


----------



## CBH99

Well that $6B does include a lot of other stuff, not just the jets.  Engines, spare engines, radars, missiles, training missiles, communication systems, etc etc....but I don't disagree with you in the slightest.  $6B for an "interim" solution is pretty absurd, for many reasons that have already been expressed quite clearly throughout these forums by people far more qualified to comment than I.

Is there a reason why WestJet & Air Canada have so many orders for the 737 Max, and not the C-Series?  Are there any current large orders for the C-Series?

Just thinking of the Canadian public is pumping tons of money into Bombardier for the C-Series, perhaps Canadian companies should be purchasing the jet.  Or is there a huge difference between C-Series & 737 Max that makes the Boeing product more attractive to airlines?


----------



## AlexanderM

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Well that $6B does include a lot of other stuff, not just the jets.  Engines, spare engines, radars, missiles, training missiles, communication systems, etc etc....but I don't disagree with you in the slightest.  $6B for an "interim" solution is pretty absurd, for many reasons that have already been expressed quite clearly throughout these forums by people far more qualified to comment than I.
> 
> Is there a reason why WestJet & Air Canada have so many orders for the 737 Max, and not the C-Series?  Are there any current large orders for the C-Series?
> 
> Just thinking of the Canadian public is pumping tons of money into Bombardier for the C-Series, perhaps Canadian companies should be purchasing the jet.  Or is there a huge difference between C-Series & 737 Max that makes the Boeing product more attractive to airlines?


There currently are 360 orders for the C series, including Air Canada. The 737 Max is a bit bigger, it's just an issue of what the airlines need for specific routes, the C Series is better for the smaller routes.

http://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bombardiercom/supporting-documents/BA/Bombardier-Aerospace-20170630-C-Series-Program-Status-en.pdf


----------



## dapaterson

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Is there a reason why WestJet & Air Canada have so many orders for the 737 Max, and not the C-Series?  Are there any current large orders for the C-Series?
> 
> Just thinking of the Canadian public is pumping tons of money into Bombardier for the C-Series, perhaps Canadian companies should be purchasing the jet.  Or is there a huge difference between C-Series & 737 Max that makes the Boeing product more attractive to airlines?



WJ already has tooling, spares and training for the 737 family, those are significant obstacles for a new vendor to overcome.  Remember, they were built around a single platform (the 737); they are not going to move to another.  Just adding 767s for trans-Atlantic flights has been a huge challenge.

AC has orders in for up to 75 C-series aircraft (http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/newsList/details.bombardier-commercialaircraft-20160628-air-canada-firm-c-series-.bombardiercom.html).


----------



## MarkOttawa

LockMart wants Trudeau to cut to the chase (note Canadian content at end):



> Lockheed-Martin urges federal government to consider offers for full fighter-jet replacement
> 
> The manufacturer of the F-35 stealth fighter aircraft is urging the federal government to skip its increasingly complicated plans to purchase an interim fleet of rival jets and open up tenders for the full replacement of Canada's CF-18s.
> 
> The head of the F-35 Lightning II program said that Lockheed-Martin Corp. could start delivering a full fleet of new jets as quickly as Boeing Co. can produce an interim fleet of 18 Super Hornets for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The interim purchase, which was announced by Ottawa late last year and is now valued at $6.4-billion, would be a stopgap for the Canadian military before the full $19-billion replacement in the next decade.
> 
> "We can get F-35s in country just as fast as they can get new Super Hornets, it's that simple," Lockheed-Martin executive vice-president Jeff Babione said in an interview on Wednesday. "We have the airplane, we can deliver it in a manner that meets your timing, and going to a competition more quickly will get you the capability that ultimately, we think, the Canadian government needs."
> 
> His comments were made as Ottawa and Boeing are embroiled in a heightening war of words over a trade dispute involving Canadian-based Bombardier Inc. in front of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
> 
> Boeing is refusing to drop its trade complaint against the Canadian-based aerospace company over allegations of illegal subsidies and dumping in relation to a money-losing sale to Delta Air Lines last year, while Ottawa has retaliated by stalling on its planned procurement of Super Hornets.
> 
> Federal ministers have publicly lashed out at Boeing for failing to act as a "trusted" or "valued" partner with the Canadian government in the dispute. This week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the company of trying to kill thousands of jobs in the Canadian aerospace sector with its complaint. A decision in this dispute is expected next week.
> 
> The Liberals have also feuded with Lockheed-Martin in the past, with the party promising in the previous election that it would not buy the F-35s that had been favoured by the previous Conservative government.
> 
> However, Mr. Babione said the Canadian government can count on Lockheed-Martin for the planned purchase of a full fleet of 88 fighter jets, pointing out his company has already delivered more than 240 F-35s around the world.
> 
> "This is an opportunity to reassure the Canadian government that as a trusted partner, Lockheed-Martin is here to help them with their fighter shortfall," he said.
> 
> A key decision for the government will be whether it will resume discussions on the acquisition of the Super Hornets if and when the trade dispute is eventually resolved. Ottawa has already said it is looking at other options, including the acquisition of second-hand fighter jets in Australia.
> 
> "We continue to look for options on an interim solution because our Forces need to have the equipment that they're supposed to have to fulfill their responsibilities and to serve their country, and we're going to continue to do that," Mr. Trudeau told reporters on Tuesday.
> 
> Based in Fort Worth, Tex., Mr. Babione was in Ottawa to hold meetings at the bureaucratic level with officials from the departments of Innovation and Defence, in addition to meeting suppliers in the Canadian aerospace industry.
> 
> As it stands, _there is approximately $3.1-million in Canadian content in each F-35, or just less than 3 per cent of its fly-away cost. With more than 3,000 aircraft expected to be sold around the world for the duration of the F-35 program, Lockheed-Martin is promising huge benefits for Canadian suppliers if the federal government continues to participate in the program_ [emphasis added]...
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lockheed-martin-urges-federal-government-to-consider-offers-for-full-fighter-jet-replacement/article36337691/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

I think it was The Department of Public Works, correct me if I'm wrong, that came out with that report back when the Conservatives were in power that the actual cost of the F-35 would potentially be over $40B. If they could come out with a new or revised report saying, we now have more information, we now know the aircraft works and can be purchased for $85-$95 million USD per aircraft, and have a better idea of the operating costs, then the Liberals could say, based on this updated information we can now say it is the right aircraft for Canada. They just need to find the right way to frame a change in policy so they can purchase the aircraft. They could also frame it against that ridiculously expensive Super Hornet deal, no way they can say the Super Hornet is cheaper after seeing those numbers.

If we could purchase the aircraft for $120 Cdn per then 88 aircraft fits nicely within our $19B budget, as long as we don't see a repeat of the Super Hornet deal in which all of the other items increase the cost by double or triple. And yes, I know those other items cost money but they do not double or triple the cost of an aircraft.


----------



## Rifleman62

The irony is purchasing used F-18's from Australia who are replacing their fleet with F-35's.

Years ago the question was asked (and answered) here who/where would our F-35 pilots be trained. If we send our pilots to Luke AFB where all the F-35 pilots are trained it could save money. Other nations do so. 

Where would we train the Super Hornet pilots and backseaters? What cost?

IMHO doubt the current government will do the logical and purchase F-35's.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The irony is purchasing used F-18's from Australia who are replacing their fleet with F-35's.
> 
> Years ago the question was asked (and answered) here who/where would our F-35 pilots be trained. If we send our pilots to Luke AFB where all the F-35 pilots are trained it could save money. Other nations do so.
> 
> Where would we train the Super Hornet pilots and backseaters? What cost?
> 
> IMHO doubt the current government will do the logical and purchase F-35's.



Initially China Lake. Will eventually be transferred to Cold Lake.


----------



## Dale Denton

> Based in Fort Worth, Tex., Mr. Babione was in Ottawa to hold meetings at the bureaucratic level with officials from the departments of Innovation and Defence, in addition to meeting suppliers in the Canadian aerospace industry.



Correct me if im wrong, but this tells me a 2 things,

- Gov't is looking at LM, suggesting that we may drop Boeing for either the interim or the permanent fleet
- Gov't is trying to scare Boeing by showing they are looking elsewhere, like when we sent people to the UK to look at Helicopters when the Sikorsky deal was in the pooper.


----------



## SupersonicMax

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Initially China Lake. Will eventually be transferred to Cold Lake.



There is no training at China Lake.  OTU is in Lemore or Oceana.


----------



## HB_Pencil

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There is no training at China Lake.  OTU is in Lemore or Oceana.



Oh shit, you're right, sorry. Brain fart there... I was thinking about something else.


----------



## PuckChaser

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Correct me if im wrong, but this tells me a 2 things,
> 
> - Gov't is looking at LM, suggesting that we may drop Boeing for either the interim or the permanent fleet
> - Gov't is trying to scare Boeing by showing they are looking elsewhere, like when we sent people to the UK to look at Helicopters when the Sikorsky deal was in the pooper.



Despite the Liberals saying they won't buy the F-35, they recently paid our membership renewal in the program. Meetings could be nothing more than regular updates on that front.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Trudeau is adored by his fans.

If he reverses course he won't lose a single vote from his core.  

I also think he has laid significant ground work as to why the Boeing deal won't fly, so if he changes plans I don't think it hurts him at all.


----------



## MarkOttawa

_Quelle surprise_!  Note RCAF Super Hornet deal no longer that important for Boeing:

Boeing defense CEO: 'We're not going to back down' on trade dispute with Bombardier

    "This commercial trade dispute is very important to us. We're not going to back down from it," says Leanne Caret, CEO of Boeing's defense, space and security unit.
    A potential defense sale is worth about $5 billion, but Canada is refusing to go through with the deal while Boeing is suing Bombardier.

The trade dispute between Boeing and Canadian rival Bombardier is heating up — and Boeing intends to stand its ground.

"This commercial trade dispute is very important to us. We're not going to back down from it," said Leanne Caret, CEO of Boeing's defense, space and security business, in an exclusive interview with CNBC. "I hope that it doesn't impact our defense sale, but we're willing to deal with whatever the outcome is."

That potential defense sale is worth about $5 billion. Last week the U.S. State Department notified Congress of its intent to sell 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets to Canada, in a deal that's been cooking since last year.

Boeing still aims to get a deal done.

"We have continued to reach out to the Canadian government. We believe national defense discussions are separate from commercial trade disputes," added Caret, who's led Boeing's defense, space and security unit for 18 months. "I think here is an opportunity for us to continue to offer the [Super Hornet] aircraft, but I also think they're going to need to make their decision."

More will be revealed next week, when the U.S. Commerce Department issues its initial ruling on Sept. 26.

Meantime, it highlights a big reversal for Boeing: that the fighter business is once again taking flight. _Even if Canada does scrap its $5 billion deal, the company's legacy F-18 and F-15 production lines are welcoming renewed interest under the Trump administration.

"We're honored and thrilled that not only the Navy but others have seen benefits of the F/A-18 and continue to see strong demand for it. We have continued international pull on our F-15s_ [emphasis added]," said Caret. "But I have to share, when I was the CFO [of Boeing Defense, Space & Security] I was in middle of making disclosures that we may be looking at a line shutdown at some point in the future, so it was really nice to be involved in being able to strike that statement going forward."..
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/boeing-defense-ceo-were-not-going-to-back-down-on-trade-dispute-with-bombardier.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

One wonders if Swedes are having any chats with Bombardier and provincial and federal politicians:



> Saab sweetens the pot for Gripen international buyers, doubling sales forecast
> 
> Saab reinforced the value of its industrial-partnership offerings in hopes of landing more international sales of the JAS Gripen-E.
> 
> The structure of investment packages will comprise “local” production guarantees in client countries as standard.
> 
> In support of this strategy, and a more ambitious globalized export push, Saab will also strengthen its sales and marketing presence in South America, Europe and Asia. The Gripen-E export project will also be more closely integrated in to the Swedish government’s military trade protocols and programs infrastructure.
> 
> Saab had originally projected potential unit sales of between 150 and 200 for the Gripen-E over the next 15 years. This forecast is now regarded as conservative, with the company hoping for unit sales of between 300 to 500 units over 15 to 20 years.
> 
> Local production guarantees on the Gripen-E, coupled with generous technology transfer arrangements, will form the backbone of Saab’s future packaged industrial-investment offers to prospective clients going forward.
> 
> “Much of our success is built on strategic partnerships. Our partners, whether they are in Brazil or India, want to benefit from part of the business. They want to have the fighter aircraft they order built in their own country,” said Jonas Hjelm, the Head of Saab’s Business Area Aeronautics.
> 
> Flight test activities continue on the under-development Gripen-E. Saab plans to deliver the first Gripen-E aircraft to Brazil and Sweden in 2019, Hjelm said.
> 
> The employment by Saab of “super-charged” industrial-backed bids is both “tactical and necessary” to achieve the group’s ambitious export targets, said Karl Neuer, a Brussels-based industry analyst.
> https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/09/22/saab-sweetens-the-pot-for-gripen-international-buyers-doubling-sales-forecast/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-odd-merger-of-bombardier-and-the-canadian-government

Andrew Coyne: The odd merger of Bombardier and the Canadian government

It is increasingly clear amid the current Bombardier- Boeing dispute that the federal government, at least, views itself and Bombardier as being one and the same

Perhaps I have been wrong about Bombardier.

Until this week I had been patiently explaining to readers that the company was not, as its annual reports might suggest, in the aerospace and mass transit business. It is, I suggested, in the subsidy business. Governments, federal and provincial, periodically offer it subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in return for which Bombardier agrees to take them.

That is to say, it supplies governments with the incalculable benefits that come from “rescuing” Bombardier, and thus saving jobs, advancing high-tech, defending Canada, defending Quebec, and other things politicians like to be seen doing.

Mind you, Bombardier is not always such an easy sell. In the most recent such episode, the company publicly disavowed any need for the $375-million “repayable loan” the federal government was pressing upon it, only relenting after the feds agreed not to attach any conditions to the money. (This was on top of the US$1 billion Bombardier had earlier secured from the government of Quebec. Which was on top of a US$1.5-billion payment from the province’s pension plan, the Caisse de Dépôt, in return for a one-third stake in Bombardier’s train business. Which was on top of a $350-million “loan” a previous federal government had granted the company in 2008. Which was on top of a total of more than $2 billion in assistance in the decades before that.)

But all of this presupposes some sort of ordinary business relationship, as between two parties at arms’ length. Whereas it is increasingly clear the federal government, at least, views itself and Bombardier as being one and the same.

This was perhaps most explicit in the prime minister’s announcement earlier this week that the government would refuse to buy military jets from Boeing, though it had earlier said it would, on the grounds that “we don’t do business with a company that’s busy trying to sue us.”

Boeing, of course, is doing no such thing. The suit it has brought before the U.S. International Trade Commission is not against the government of Canada, but Bombardier. It was not Boeing that mistook the interests of the citizens of Canada for those of a private company, or that subordinated a critical military procurement decision to the outcome of a private trade dispute. It was the government of Canada that did that.

That the original decision - to purchase 18 Super Hornet jet fighters from Boeing as an “interim” replacement for the air force’s aging fleet of CF-18s, rather than proceed straight to a permanent replacement - is almost universally regarded as folly is beside the point. It was the Liberal government that insisted the purchase could not wait, having discovered a critical “capability gap” unknown to every independent military expert. It is therefore by its own account placing the security of the country and the safety of its military personnel at risk, in the service of a crude effort to blackmail Boeing into dropping its suit against Bombardier.

That Boeing has a perfect right to seek the protection of its own country’s trade laws; that Canada would be the first to cry foul if the situations were reversed; that Boeing, a global company with annual revenues nearly six times the Canadian defence budget, shows no signs of caving to this amateurish extortion attempt: all these are of secondary importance.

So is the indisputable fact that Bombardier has benefited from massive amounts in government subsidy, not only with regard to the sale of 75 CSeries passenger jets to Delta Air Lines that is the subject of Boeing’s complaint, but on many occasions - as Boeing has done.

No, what is most striking about the current dispute is how completely the government of Canada has come to identify with a single, family-controlled business. Either it is unaware of how odd this looks, or it does not care.

Of course, this was always true to an extent, if not so bluntly stated. The decision to subsidize Bombardier in the first place meant elevating the interests of a single firm above those of the taxpayer, first, and of the economy, second, via the diversion of capital and labour into a money-losing aerospace manufacturer that might otherwise have been put to more efficient use.

But the goings-on in recent days, with a preliminary decision from the U.S. Commerce Department expected next week, have exceeded all prior standards of corporatism.

Not content with threatening Boeing directly, the prime minister also publicly enlisted Bombardier’s stablemates in the Canadian aerospace sector, no less dependent on government’s goodwill, to put pressure on it. Then there was the even odder spectacle of Bombardier’s union, headed by the Liberals’ new best friend, Jerry Dias, downing tools for a day - though how this was supposed to hurt Boeing’s interests, or advance Bombardier’s, eludes understanding.

There is a strange fever in the air, a hint of the inexplicable, as if not all were quite what it seemed: as if Bombardier were not merely a failing plane-maker and the government not really the government. We must conclude there has been some sort of merger behind the scenes, or perhaps a takeover.

Two possibilities present themselves. Either Bombardier is no longer a private company but an arm of the government. Or - as seems equally plausible - the government of Canada at some point became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bombardier.

If the latter, this would put those periodic government payments to Bombardier in a whole new light: not so much a subsidy, it seems, as a dividend.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Loachman: _Ottawa Citizen_ print headline for Coyne piece was "The People's Republic of Bombardier"  ;D

Mark


----------



## Loachman

Snicker...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bye bye RCAF Super Hornets--what now?  An immediate competition for the full (whatever that is) new fighter buy?  Used RAAF Hornets?  ¿Quién sabe? with this gov't:



> In [preliminary] Boeing victory, Commerce Dept. slaps massive tariff on rival small jets from Bombardier
> http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/bombardier-boeing/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

The fighters will buy themselves and we shall all live sunny ways.

Anyway, this is excellent news from the fighter acquisition and Liberal fumbling perspectives.


----------



## FSTO

This entire fiasco is of the Liberals own making. I'm enormously pleased they have done this to themselves but enormously disappointed that the CAF will suffer the consequences.


----------



## Loachman

"Consequences"?

A better chance of getting the best aircraft instead of a politically-driven runner-up?

I _like_ those consequences.


----------



## YZT580

Unless they decide that the entire US govt. is ganging up and then you will end up with eurofighter or the Gripen.  The Gripen is a good aircraft but it is not suitable for our needs, same with Eurofighter.  Worse, they will punt the entire issue into the distant future and purchase cases of duct tape to maintain our current fleet.


----------



## FSTO

Loachman said:
			
		

> "Consequences"?
> 
> A better chance of getting the best aircraft instead of a politically-driven runner-up?
> 
> I _like_ those consequences.



I meant that they'll black-ball Boeing on all sorts of potential platforms, (P8, Harpoon, Chinook, just off the top of my head)


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Unless they decide that the entire US govt. is ganging up and then you will end up with eurofighter or the Gripen.  The Gripen is a good aircraft but it is not suitable for our needs, same with Eurofighter.  Worse, they will punt the entire issue into the distant future and purchase cases of duct tape to maintain our current fleet.



I'm still hoping for the Rafale in this situation, the full technology transfer is a good offer.


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I'm still hoping for the Rafale in this situation, the full technology transfer is a good offer.



Didn't the proposal by Dassault also include assembly of the Rafales at the Bombardier plant in Montreal? Whatever the merits of the fighter, that sounds like a politically astute offer.


----------



## Rifleman62

FSTO said:
			
		

> I meant that they'll black-ball Boeing on all sorts of potential platforms, (P8, Harpoon, Chinook, just off the top of my head)



Surely you don't think this government is glib and vindictive?


----------



## MilEME09

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Didn't the proposal by Dassault also include assembly of the Rafales at the Bombardier plant in Montreal? Whatever the merits of the fighter, that sounds like a politically astute offer.



I forgot that part, yep we are getting rafales for sure now, The latest F3R upgrade is being put fleet wide next year, and the French air force is expected to fly the Rafale past 2040. though with the tech transfer that won't matter much as we could in theory contract out the manufacturing of spare parts.


----------



## AlexanderM

There is also a possible engine upgrade which I would like to see, giving it the same power as the Typhoon. Here is the F3R upgrade information.

http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=1366

Engine upgrade.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/15614/Safran_Plans_Engine_Upgrade_For_Dassault_Rafale_Fighter_Jet#.WcvPzNOPLcc


----------



## HB_Pencil

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I'm still hoping for the Rafale in this situation, the full technology transfer is a good offer.



Why? so we can pay 125+ million flyaway, for a capability that is less interoperable in NORAD, and has the same, if not more limitations than the Super Hornet? And to get basically 20 year old technology, when we're already working with the JSF program, which gives us access to cutting edge technology in a way that is complementary to our industrial strengths. 

Any interim buy is a bad idea. It doesn't matter who it is, even if it is the F-35. We need a complete, orderly replacement of the fleet.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Why is it not okay for Trudeau to make a linkage between defence procurement and the subsidy issue, when the UK (which buys a hell of a lot more kit from Boeing than Canada ever will) does exactly the same thing on this very issue: "This is not the behaviour we expect from Boeing and it could indeed jeopardise our future relationship with them," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told reporters in Belfast. "Boeing has significant defence contracts with us and still expects to win further contracts. Boeing wants and we want a long-term partnership but that has to be two-way."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing-bombardier-1.4309000


----------



## AlexanderM

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Why is it not okay for Trudeau to make a linkage between defence procurement and the subsidy issue, when the UK (which buys a hell of a lot more kit from Boeing than Canada ever will) does exactly the same thing on this very issue: "This is not the behaviour we expect from Boeing and it could indeed jeopardise our future relationship with them," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told reporters in Belfast. "Boeing has significant defence contracts with us and still expects to win further contracts. Boeing wants and we want a long-term partnership but that has to be two-way."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing-bombardier-1.4309000


It is ok for him to do so as there is a larger trade issue here. I think it's great that this involves the UK, who make part of the C Series, as they can throw their weight into the dispute.

They may not know it but here is the US end game.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/trade-softwood-dairy-japan-europe-china-mexico-1.4085031


----------



## HB_Pencil

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Why is it not okay for Trudeau to make a linkage between defence procurement and the subsidy issue, when the UK (which buys a hell of a lot more kit from Boeing than Canada ever will) does exactly the same thing on this very issue: "This is not the behaviour we expect from Boeing and it could indeed jeopardise our future relationship with them," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told reporters in Belfast. "Boeing has significant defence contracts with us and still expects to win further contracts. Boeing wants and we want a long-term partnership but that has to be two-way."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing-bombardier-1.4309000



That's incorrect. Our aerospace/defence industry is far more exposed to Boeing than the UK, who is highly integrated into Airbus. This isn't just about the Former Shorts facilities in Belfast for the Tories/DUP coalition... its also about supporting Airbus who have been penalized by the same system, and attacking Boeing.  For Canada, 60% of our industry is tier two and below producer.... and a majority of that eventually integrates into a Boeing product. So spiting Boeing has serious consequences for the rump of our aviation industry... which may also harm them too. In that regard this is really dangerous stuff for all parties involved. 

Defence procurement itself shouldn't be hostage for this. The justification for the interim buy is there is an urgent requirement that means the usual defence procurement process cannot deliver it. In terms of process, this allowed them to pursue the acquisition without a competition or an ACAN (which LM would likely challenge, and win). That we would now cancel a purchase due to unrelated industrial concerns completely undermines that justification. In a way its a tactical victory for the RCAF which did not want this purchase at all, but at the same time its because of a massively flawed strategic process: Procurements are being run on short term political calculations, which is directly corroding the capacity of the Canadian Armed Forces. Just because the Brits are intimating they are doing the same thing doesn't make it better... because they've got the very same problems we do and its an embarrassment for their government.


----------



## AlexanderM

They had on the news tonight that since 2000 Boeing has received $70B in US gov't subsidies, by far the most of any aircraft manufacturer.


----------



## a_majoor

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> There is also a possible engine upgrade which I would like to see, giving it the same power as the Typhoon. Here is the F3R upgrade information.
> 
> http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=1366
> 
> Engine upgrade.
> 
> http://www.defenseworld.net/news/15614/Safran_Plans_Engine_Upgrade_For_Dassault_Rafale_Fighter_Jet#.WcvPzNOPLcc



The USAF is working on Adaptive Cycle Engines for the F-35 and projected 6th Generation fighters, so it isn't just a one way street:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/improved-jet-engines-are-key-to-longer-range-sixth-gen-fighter-and-improved-f35.html


----------



## AlexanderM

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The USAF is working on Adaptive Cycle Engines for the F-35 and projected 6th Generation fighters, so it isn't just a one way street:
> https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/improved-jet-engines-are-key-to-longer-range-sixth-gen-fighter-and-improved-f35.html


When they come out with those 6th generation fighters they will be bloody expensive and will they even be available, thinking of the F-22, which has never been available for sale outside the US. Having a new engine for the F-35 is great to extend range somewhat but the aircraft isn't designed for supercruise so it doesn't help with that. I'm still all for buying the F-35 but when we see the actual quote for the purchase if it looks at all like the Super Hornet quote we just saw then we may have no choice but to look at other options. I have big concerns regarding the Trump agenda.


----------



## nic32

Do our pilots sometimes fly other country jets? For example, CF-18 pilots that go on training in the USA and for some reason (like one of our plane is broken) they fly a USA F18?

If that is the case and we end up with the Rafale, we lost this kind possibility except for the few countries that have it like France?!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

nic32 said:
			
		

> Do our pilots sometimes fly other country jets? For example, CF-18 pilots that go on training in the USA and for some reason (like one of our plane is broken) they fly a USA F18?



Yes.


----------



## Loachman

Other than on a formal exchange or something similar?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Loachman said:
			
		

> Other than on a formal exchange or something similar?



Well, not just "for an exercise".  They'd have to do a OTU, etc, would be my  :2c:, same as when exchange folks come to our neck of the woods.  We have USN P-3 Pilots on Sqn, they still go thru MOAT.


----------



## SupersonicMax

nic32 said:
			
		

> Do our pilots sometimes fly other country jets? For example, CF-18 pilots that go on training in the USA and for some reason (like one of our plane is broken) they fly a USA F18?
> 
> If that is the case and we end up with the Rafale, we lost this kind possibility except for the few countries that have it like France?!



Nope, can't do that just because our jet is broken.  There are a host of issues (differences in Type/Model/Series, security, training, etc) that cannot be overcome just because our jets are broken.

Having said that, we do get to fly in their aircraft for familiarization.  I have flown in the Mirage 2000D/N, F-16D, F-15E, T-38C, T-6B, F/A-18F, all front seat.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Nope, can't do that just because our jet is broken.  There are a host of issues (differences in Type/Model/Series, security, training, etc) that cannot be overcome just because our jets are broken.
> 
> Having said that, we do get to fly in their aircraft for familiarization.  I have flown in the Mirage 2000D/N, F-16D, F-15E, T-38C, T-6B, F/A-18F, all front seat.



Assuming if there was an exchange posting, though, wouldn't fighter drivers do the OTU at the HN and then be good to go?  I've had skippers from the RAAF, USN, etc who do our MOAT and then go on Sqn as ACs and LRPCCs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

If France offers Bombardier-build Rafale--from a friend:



> Memo to Dassault: Paint the ****er white and write "Arrow II" on the nose



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

The MND indicates that we may still buy super hornets from Boeing despite the tough talk and recent 220% tariffs.  And we have also looked at the potential for used Kuwaiti hornets.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-super-hornets-pentagon-1.4311860


----------



## MilEME09

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If France offers Bombardier-build Rafale--from a friend:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I would be okay with this, or even bring back any of the old names, Canuck II would be a nice fit if this became the first fighter jet built in Canada in a long time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

This idea is so stupid on every level (fiscally, militarily) that, naturally, it will be the one chosen by this government.


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This idea is so stupid on every level (fiscally, militarily) that, naturally, it will be the one chosen by this government.



Are you talking our currently Hypothetical Rafale deal or the entire super hornet/ capability gap fiasco?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The whole thing is a fiasco, but the Rafale angle is the stupidest.

On top of it all, it would take us out of the F35 consortium. How do you suppose all those aerospace subcontractors in Canada who are not Bombardier and who currently get F35 business would enjoy watching Bombardier get propped up again?

I am sure that would be awesome for national unity...


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> On top of it all, it would take us out of the F35 consortium. How do you suppose all those aerospace subcontractors in Canada who are not Bombardier and who currently get F35 business would enjoy watching Bombardier get propped up again?



Come on, SKT, it's only what? $670M of contracts to date, with future billions on the hook?

_On verra!_

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, the "parts" work is where I think Canada and Bombardier can really get back at Boeing.

50% of the C-Series are made by US parts companies or at Bombardier plants for their executive jets production. The labour laws for compensation of laid off employees in the US are a lot weaker than in Canada.

So all that Bombardier has to do is say "Right, you want to put 220% tariff on my airplanes, I am closing my parts work in the US, laying g off everybody, and repatriating them to Canadian aeronautical firms in Canada. Similarly, I am moving the whole of my business jets work to Ontario".

When the various US states (and it's not Washington state) start to lose all these great jobs, they'll put pressure on the US government.


----------



## Cloud Cover

How about a 220% offset increase in hydro rates for juice sold from Quebec to NY. Oh, wait, no.   Ontario buys electricity back from the US. :


----------



## NavyShooter

Jobs....moving back to Ontario....?  

Hah!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile the Luftwaffe is looking for a new fighter too  and faster than we are, it seems:



> Germany asks for Boeing fighter data as weighs order options
> 
> Germany has asked the U.S. military for classified data on two Boeing fighter jets as it looks to replace its ageing Tornado warplanes from 2025, giving a boost to the U.S. company locked in a trade dispute with Canada and Britain.
> 
> A letter sent by the German defence ministry's planning division, reviewed by Reuters, said it had identified Boeing's F-15 and F/A-18E/F fighters as potential candidates to replace the Tornado jets, which entered service in 1981.
> 
> A classified briefing is expected to take place in mid-November, following a similar briefing provided by U.S. officials about the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet in July.
> 
> The ministry has said it is also seeking information from European aerospace giant Airbus, which builds the Eurofighter Typhoon along with Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Leonardo.
> 
> The development is a boost for Boeing at a time when it is under fire from Canada and Britain after its complaint prompted the United States to impose a preliminary 220-percent duty on CSeries jets built by Bombardier.
> 
> Boeing said it was working with the U.S. government to provide the information that Germany had requested.
> 
> Germany, due to decide in mid-2018 about how to replace the Tornado planes, announced plans in July to build a European fighter jet together with France [would that go ahead if F-35A is selected?]. But the new jet is unlikely to be available by 2025, when Germany's fleet of Tornado fighters are slated to start going out of service.
> 
> Sources familiar with the process said Germany was pursuing a two-pronged approach under which it would buy an existing fighter to replace the Tornado, while working with France on a new European jet to replace its Eurofighters at a later point.
> 
> Analysts said the Tornado replacement order could be worth tens of billions of dollars, although Germany is still reviewing how many jets to buy and at what pace.
> 
> The letter said a formal request for information about the pricing and availability of all three U.S. fighter jets was being compiled and would be issued by the end of the month.
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-asks-boeing-fighter-data-112454088.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

Aaaaand, on a lighter note, via Duffle Blog:  _*"F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed"*_  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Aaaaand, on a lighter note, via Duffle Blog:  _*"F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed"*_  ;D



Self-Awareness.  Something many pilots, apparently, have yet to achieve.

[cheers]


----------



## Rifleman62

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/im-a-retired-u-s-naval-aviator-im-concerned-about-governments-delay-in-ensuring-rcaf-capability

Special to National Post - October 5, 2017

*I'm a retired U.S. Naval Aviator. I'm concerned about government's delay in ensuring RCAF capability*
_Admiral Gortney: Some have called for the purchase of used legacy Hornets to address the RCAF's capability gap. This could pose problems down the road_


When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reopened the competition to select a fighter to replace the CF-18, two questions were raised from that decision, one with long-term implications, and one with immediate consequences. The first: when will the modernization of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fighter force be complete? The second: what will the RCAF do to mitigate the so-called capability gap (Canada’s current fleet is more than 30 years old, and down from 138 to 77 aircraft) to have a certain number of the most capable fighter jets mission-ready at all times and to ensure the capacity to address all the missions asked of it between now and complete modernization? I would like to address the second question.

I’m a retired U.S. Naval Aviator with almost 40 years of service. I commanded at every level in the U.S. Navy: Strike Fighter Squadrons, Air Wings, Carrier Strike Groups, and Fleets. I started flying the F-18A in 1983, and stopped flying the F/A-18E/F just before I made my third star off the flight decks of the USS Harry S Truman in the Arabian Gulf. After flying F/A-18’s for 25 years and continuing to command them for another eight years, I’ve been called a Hornet Admiral. I know Hornets and Super Hornets and have relied on them for decades. _*Today, I consult for industry, including Boeing.*_ I do so because I believe in the importance of competition in the defense industrial base. Competition balances industry’s need to provide profit to their shareholders, while delivering both the best capability to the warfighter and value to the taxpayer.

_My largest concern is the delay in capability of the RCAF_

As the debate unfolds in Canada over the modernization of its fighter jet fleet, my largest concern is the continued delay in both capacity and capability of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I am also appalled at the vast amount of misinformation in the media over the issue. As just one example, some “experts” have suggested the Super Hornet can’t perform the Defence of Canada/North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) mission in the harsh Canadian climate, against the rapidly evolving Russian bomber/long range cruise missile threat. Let me assure you that that is not true.

Today’s Super Hornet — which the U.S. Navy is flying — is not yesterday’s Hornet, which the RCAF is currently flying. The Super Hornet is not a “big” Hornet. It is a completely different fighter, with completely different sensors and sensor fusion, with much smaller signatures, with much better active defensive measures. It carries more fuel and has more weapon stations. It just happens to look a little like a legacy Hornet and has “hornet” in its name.

Is the Super Hornet an F-35? No, and it is not meant to be. It is built and modernized to complement the rest of the U.S. Navy’s weapons system, which the F-35C will be a part of too. The Super Hornet is interoperable with all variants of the F-35 and will fly alongside them for years to come. Furthermore, the U.S. Navy will continue to modernize both the Super Hornet and F-35C for the next 30 plus years, keeping both aircraft modern and lethal.  

_The Super Hornet is a completely different fighter from the Hornet_

Why am I talking about U.S. Naval aviation while discussing the RCAF? The answer is simple. Both forces have the same missions, and operate in very similar threat environments. Both are required to surveil and defend a vast amount of battle space, and engage hostile fighters, bombers, and small radar cross-section cruise missiles in extremely harsh conditions.

In other words, the NORAD mission requires fighters with the ability to fly great distances and stay on station for a long time, with the right amount of signature reduction, integrated active defensive measures, Active Electronically Scanned Array radars, long-range infrared systems, and weapons.

For other missions, both the RCAF and U.S. Navy operate with international air forces to support combined and coalition joint operations.  No air force fights alone—not the U.S. Navy, not the U.S. Air Force, and certainly not the RCAF. No one air force owns the compilation of capabilities required to succeed in today’s—and tomorrow’s—threat environments. In the U.S. Armed Forces, that capability resides in the air arm of all four services—the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy. They fight as a team. The RCAF is also a critical part of that team.

_Purchasing legacy Hornets could pose many problems down the road
_
Some people—including representatives of the Canadian government and other public and private citizens—have called for the potential purchase of used legacy Hornets to address these needs. This could pose many problems down the road. First, it is increasingly hard to find spare parts for F/A-18A/B/C/D models around the world, and the cost to keep them flying continues to grow. Already military maintainers have been forced to cannibalize some jets to keep others in the air. And there are only so many times the lives of the current aircraft can be extended before putting the safety of pilots at risk. Second, these used legacy Hornets will still not provide the modernized fighter capability that the RCAF desperately needs to complete its mission. More fundamentally, legacy Hornets are rapidly losing their ability to counter the rapidly evolving Russian threat. For these reasons, the U.S. Navy is accelerating the retirement of its legacy Hornets, and replacing them with new and even more advanced Super Hornets.

Finding the right balance of survivability, blended stealth capabilities, self-protection, weapons capacity, and range at an affordable cost is the key to fighter aviation in any country. Additionally, as every commander will tell you, it is not the aircraft but the aviator that is the critical component of a fighter, and Canadian fighter pilots are the best I have commanded and flown with. _*But complex fighter jets are not heirlooms to be handed down from father to grandson.*_ High-speed flight and repeated takeoffs and landings take a heavy toll, and technology marches forward bringing new and necessary capabilities to outpace and defeat current and future threats.

The modernization of Canadian Air Force Fighters must not be further delayed. Canadian aviators desperately need more capable fighters, today—not in the next decade. One solution to help alleviate this urgent need is to expedite the implementation of the Interim Fighter Capability Project, and integrate 18 new Super Hornet aircraft into the RCAF fighter fleet until the long-term solution is implemented.                                                                                                                     

National Post                                                                                                          

_Admiral Bill Gortney culminated his 39 years of commissioned service as Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and Commander, United States Northern Command._


----------



## AlexanderM

I wonder if he showed that to Boeing before its release, I'm sure they were very pleased.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well from my reading here, it seems Boeing is doing us no favours cost wise on this potential purchase and as much as I would like to see a mixed fleet of 80 fighters, the purchase price of the SH does not appear to offer any savings now over the F-35.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well from my reading here, it seems Boeing is doing us no favours cost wise on this potential purchase and as much as I would like to see a mixed fleet of 80 fighters, the purchase price of the SH does not appear to offer any savings now over the F-35.


$6.4B for 18 fighters, $355M per aircraft, no way that's going to fly. Making a deal like that could cost the Liberals the next election. It would be great if L-M would just submit a quote for the 88 F-35's, even at $95M USD per aircraft it would be a great deal in comparison.


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> $6.4B for 18 fighters, $355M per aircraft, no way that's going to fly. Making a deal like that could cost the Liberals the next election. It would be great if L-M would just submit a quote for the 88 F-35's, even at $95M USD per aircraft it would be a great deal in comparison.



It wouldn't be $95M for a comparable suite of capabilities.  Not even close.  It would be in the same ballpark.


----------



## AlexanderM

One should provide a source for such a claim.


----------



## Spencer100

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/186776/canada-charged-six-times-as-much-as-us-navy-for-super-hornets.html

Here is the link


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> One should provide a source for such a claim.



You first?


----------



## AlexanderM

I do believe this information had previously been quoted in this thread.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-approves-sale-of-18-super-hornet-jets-to-canada-for-64-billion/article36238437/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Will we buy?
> 
> 1) Bombardier dispute:
> 
> Boeing walked away from talks with Trudeau government: [Canadian] ambassador
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/boeing-walked-away-from-talks-with-trudeau-government-ambassador-1.3585908
> 
> 2) Note eight dual-seaters and cost:
> 
> 3) _Globe and Mail_ story:
> 
> That's $355M each all-in, folks!
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


As in right here. It was item 3 the Globe and Mail story.


----------



## AlexanderM

We also have this report of an F-35 sale getting close, to 11 nations, $37B+ for 440 aircraft, that's under $100M each. The question is what else is added to the cost, we need to see the full quotes to know, it can't be based on an opinion.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-paris-f35/exclusive-lockheed-nears-37-billion-plus-deal-to-sell-f-35-jet-to-11-countries-idUSKBN1990S8


----------



## AlexanderM

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/186776/canada-charged-six-times-as-much-as-us-navy-for-super-hornets.html
> 
> Here is the link


Thank you for this. They are making assumptions about the F-35 pricing, but if this does prove to be true we need to know as soon as possible. I don't know that they can simply inflate the pricing to partner nations, as we are supposed to be partners in the program, but they can make the price look attractive and then hit us with substantial additional costs, this is why we need to get a look at a proper quote. If this is going to become policy, with America First simply jacking up the price of all military equipment to Canada, then we are going to have to look at other options. JT is going to Washington next week to discuss trade and economic ties and I have a feeling he is going to be looking for some answers. 

This is a quote from the above article.

_The US government has offered Canada a batch of Super Hornet fighters at a price that is six times higher than the US Navy is paying for the same aircraft, analysis of official US documents reveals. _


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> We also have this report of an F-35 sale getting close, to 11 nations, $37B+ for 440 aircraft, that's under $100M each. The question is what else is added to the cost, we need to see the full quotes to know, it can't be based on an opinion.
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-paris-f35/exclusive-lockheed-nears-37-billion-plus-deal-to-sell-f-35-jet-to-11-countries-idUSKBN1990S8



That's for the air frame.  The potential deal with Boeing is for more than air frames.


----------



## AlexanderM

Here is the source.

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/02/charted-heres-how-cost-each-version-f-35-changing/135451/

Here is the quote.

*These figures reflect the flyaway cost of each plane: the price of the airframe, engine, electronics, and other associated costs *— basically, the amount it takes to purchase and assemble the parts.

There are other ways to calculate the “true” cost of an F-35. You can include all the design and development work that took the aircraft from idea to production model, or throw in maintenance, planned upgrades, and long-term operating costs.

For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin — would simply tout the cost of the airframe itself, sans engine and other fees that added tens of millions of dollars to the cost of each plane.

For the past four years, the F-35 program office began releasing figures that they say are a more accurate representation of the true cost, a value that* includes the airframe, engine and other fees*.


----------



## AlexanderM

They had a rep from Boeing on the news the other week, he said that Boeing spends $3B a year in Canada, and sure enough that's what they spend and it supports 17k jobs in Canada. He specifically made this point in case Canada decides to kick them out over the dispute.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2016-10-13-Boeing-Provides-More-than-US-3-Billion-Annual-Economic-Benefit-in-Canada

So then I come across this which states that Bombardier spends $2.4B a year in the USA and it supports 22.7k jobs in the USA.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-us-impact/bombardier-spends-2-4-billion-a-year-on-aerospace-in-u-s-document-idUSKBN1CA2N6

Here I thought this would favor Boeing but not really, the Canadian company supports more jobs in the US then they support here. So kicking them out might not be as big a deal as I thought.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The industries on both sides of the border are more linked than they would like to think, MTU in Vancouver is the service provider for a good chunk of the engines being used on both sides , including the USAF.


----------



## Rifleman62

Since Canada's National Charity (CNC) is involved with the replacement issue:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-cseries-boeing-1.4343262

*U.S. hits Bombardier with 79.82% preliminary duty on CSeries aircraft* -CBC News - Oct 06, 2017 8:41 AM ET 
_Montreal-based airplane maker says it's confident penalties will be overturned_

The U.S. Commerce Department hit Bombardier Friday with more duties on its CSeries commercial jet.

The department said it will impose a 79.82 per cent preliminary anti-dumping duty against the Montreal-based company's 100- to 150-seat civilian aircraft.

The U.S. government move follows last week's decision to slap preliminary countervailing tariffs of nearly 220 per cent on Bombardier, bringing the total duties imposed by the U.S. on the CSeries to *almost 300 per cent*.

Boeing, the petitioner in the case, has argued that the Canadian government unfairly subsidizes Bombardier in the construction of the CSeries commercial jets. Boeing launched its appeal to the U.S. government in April, several months after Bombardier announced the sale of up to 125 CSeries jets to Delta Airlines.

The duties being imposed by the U.S. won't be collected until Bombardier begins delivering the aircraft to Delta, which is expected in the spring.

"This determination confirms that, as Boeing alleged in its petition, Bombardier dumped its aircraft into the U.S. market at absurdly low prices," Boeing said Friday.

 "These duties are the consequence of a conscious decision by Bombardier to violate trade law and dump their CSeries aircraft to secure a sale," Boeing said. "This dumping in our home market was not a situation Boeing could ignore, and we're now simply asking for laws already on the books to be enforced."

In announcing the latest duties, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the United States is committed "to free, fair and reciprocal trade with Canada, but this is not our idea of a properly functioning trading relationship."

"We will continue to verify the accuracy of this decision, while doing everything in our power to stand up for American companies and their workers."

The U.S. government says a final decision on the anti-dumping duties related to Bombardier is scheduled for Dec. 19, 2017.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oh dear, maybe used RAAF Hornets after all:



> Exploring options to supplement Canada’s CF-18 fleet
> Statements
> 
> From Public Services and Procurement Canada
> 
> For immediate release
> 
> October 9, 2017, Ottawa – Public Services and Procurement Canada
> 
> Canada is building a more agile, better-equipped military, while ensuring the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. Getting our women and men in uniform the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect Canadians, is a priority.
> 
> In November 2016, the Government of Canada announced a plan to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fighter jet fleet. The Canada’s Defence Policy: Strong, Secure, Engaged, released in June 2017, reaffirmed the government’s commitment to invest appropriately in Canada’s military. Preparatory work for the competition is already underway. Until an open and transparent competition can be completed to replace Canada’s legacy CF-18 fleet, Canada is exploring options to supplement the current CF-18 fleet and address an existing fighter capability gap.
> 
> In late August 2017, Canada began discussions with the Australian Government to assess the potential purchase of F/A-18 fighter aircraft and associated parts they plan to sell. _On September 29, 2017, Canada submitted an Expression of Interest, formally marking Canada’s interest in the Australian equipment. Canada expects to receive a response by the end of this year_ [emphasis added] that will provide details regarding the availability and cost of the aircraft and associated parts that Canada is considering.
> 
> Separate _discussions with Boeing related to the interim purchase of Super Hornet aircraft remain suspended_ [emphasis added]. The Government of Canada continues to engage with the U.S. Government as it explores all options moving forward.
> 
> The Government of Canada will continue to provide updates and keep Canadians informed of its progress as it moves forward on replacing and supplementing Canada’s fighter aircraft.
> https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/10/exploring_optionstosupplementcanadascf-18fleet.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

In the purity of the "resolve the capability gap for best value" effort, this is the best answer.  Canada and the Aussies have long collaborated on CF-188 & F/A-18 flight loading analysis and life-cycle management beyond the US Navy's original flight usage spectrum - going as far as to create a 'Frankenhornet' (spliced halves of Cdn and Aus 18s) to run through a strain rig to analyze and optimize the aircraft's capability and sustainability.

If you want to see how far they went, read this report  on the Joint AUSCAN IFOSTP (International Follow-On Structural Test Program) results. (ref: http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2002/PAPERS/6.PDF)

Regards

G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

Best? Or least worst?

Between the two fleets how many flying hours could they scrape together?


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Best? Or least worst?
> 
> Between the two fleets how many flying hours could they scrape together?



"Alex, I'll take 'Least Worst' options for $1000..."

...and...

It depends how much FLE (fatigue life expended) is left on the Aussie aircraft.  The closer an aircraft gets towards 1.0 FLE, the less time it has before it's 'pushing up daisies'.  Not sure where the Aussie 'Classic Hornets' are in that regard.

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## FSTO

Is this COA still a thing? I would hazard to guess that the Liberals have kicked the entire replacement plan to post 2019.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Public Relations= polishing a turd to make it look better  https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/10/exploring_optionstosupplementcanadascf-18fleet.html

Exploring options to supplement Canada’s CF-18 fleet
Statements

From Public Services and Procurement Canada

For immediate release

October 9, 2017, Ottawa – Public Services and Procurement Canada

Canada is building a more agile, better-equipped military, while ensuring the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. Getting our women and men in uniform the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect Canadians, is a priority.

In November 2016, the Government of Canada announced a plan to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fighter jet fleet. The Canada’s Defence Policy: Strong, Secure, Engaged, released in June 2017, reaffirmed the government’s commitment to invest appropriately in Canada’s military. Preparatory work for the competition is already underway. Until an open and transparent competition can be completed to replace Canada’s legacy CF-18 fleet, Canada is exploring options to supplement the current CF-18 fleet and address an existing fighter capability gap.

In late August 2017, Canada began discussions with the Australian Government to assess the potential purchase of F/A-18 fighter aircraft and associated parts they plan to sell. On September 29, 2017, Canada submitted an Expression of Interest, formally marking Canada’s interest in the Australian equipment. Canada expects to receive a response by the end of this year that will provide details regarding the availability and cost of the aircraft and associated parts that Canada is considering.

Separate discussions with Boeing related to the interim purchase of Super Hornet aircraft remain suspended. The Government of Canada continues to engage with the U.S. Government as it explores all options moving forward.

The Government of Canada will continue to provide updates and keep Canadians informed of its progress as it moves forward on replacing and supplementing Canada’s fighter aircraft.


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Public Relations= polishing a turd to make it look better  https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/10/exploring_optionstosupplementcanadascf-18fleet.html
> 
> Exploring options to supplement Canada’s CF-18 fleet
> Statements
> 
> From Public Services and Procurement Canada
> 
> For immediate release
> 
> October 9, 2017, Ottawa – Public Services and Procurement Canada
> 
> Canada is building a more agile, better-equipped military, while ensuring the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. Getting our women and men in uniform the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect Canadians, is a priority.
> 
> In November 2016, the Government of Canada announced a plan to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fighter jet fleet. The Canada’s Defence Policy: Strong, Secure, Engaged, released in June 2017, reaffirmed the government’s commitment to invest appropriately in Canada’s military. Preparatory work for the competition is already underway. Until an open and transparent competition can be completed to replace Canada’s legacy CF-18 fleet, Canada is exploring options to supplement the current CF-18 fleet and address an existing fighter capability gap.
> 
> In late August 2017, Canada began discussions with the Australian Government to assess the potential purchase of F/A-18 fighter aircraft and associated parts they plan to sell. On September 29, 2017, Canada submitted an Expression of Interest, formally marking Canada’s interest in the Australian equipment. Canada expects to receive a response by the end of this year that will provide details regarding the availability and cost of the aircraft and associated parts that Canada is considering.
> 
> Separate discussions with Boeing related to the interim purchase of Super Hornet aircraft remain suspended. The Government of Canada continues to engage with the U.S. Government as it explores all options moving forward.
> 
> The Government of Canada will continue to provide updates and keep Canadians informed of its progress as it moves forward on replacing and supplementing Canada’s fighter aircraft.



Five paragraphs of nothing. A growing trait of this "Canada's Open Government is Back"


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Does this surprise anyone?  Canada and Canadians don’t care about the military beyond The Snowbirds and Remembrance Day parades.  Our government will care in the way of spending only as much as Joe and Jane Taxpayer does. 

We need new fighters, new MPAs, and new FWSAR.  We are getting old fighters and the least capable cheapest FWSAR.  But free wifi on public transit (voters care about important shit like that).


----------



## McG

Moving forward with an RAAF used fighter purchase:   http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/australian-fa-18-fighter-jets-boeing-1.4349023

If we buy these, do we not still go back to Boeing for the supply of parts to keep them flying?  And, are there IP rights that would still see us pay Boeing for the development/implementation of the modification package that brings RAAF hornets to RCAF specifications?


----------



## Quirky

I really hope there are huge pilot shortages because of this non sense. Who in their right mind would want to join the RCAF and fly 40 year old buckets of crap. I wouldn't step foot in one and I've been on this thing for over a decade.


----------



## Rifleman62

Shouldn't this whole thread be moved to "The WTF News Files" thread?


----------



## MilEME09

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Shouldn't this whole thread be moved to "The WTF News Files" thread?



Or an episode of Ripley's believe it or not?


----------



## Altair

Overall, this is great news.

One has to imagine the liberals would have made it so that whenever there is a open competition, the F35 wouldn't win, and they would go with a north american jet, thus SH by default.

Now, with them on the record as saying no F35 (although that could change) and in a trade dispute with Boeing, that leaves the Saab NG Gripen, the Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale.

I would be ok with any of those 3, amateurs preference in my case, being the Saab.

Saab also said it would build their fighters in canada, which would help...guess who, bombardier.


----------



## AlexanderM

In my mind the only way it won't be the F-35 is if we see a Super Hornet type quote in which the cost is highly elevated, but if we see the proper, clean quote that we should see as an F-35 partner, we will buy the aircraft. I'm thinking JT just wants to push this into the next mandate where he won't campaign on not buying the F-35. If we do see a Super Hornet type quote then I expect we will purchase the Rafale, assembled in Canada with full technology transfer. Or a smaller number of F-35's combined with the Rafale. I don't think people should get overly fixated on this interim thing.


----------



## Altair

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> In my mind the only way it won't be the F-35 is if we see a Super Hornet type quote in which the cost is highly elevated, but if we see the proper, clean quote that we should see as an F-35 partner, we will buy the aircraft. I'm thinking JT just wants to push this into the next mandate where he won't campaign on not buying the F-35. If we do see a Super Hornet type quote then I expect we will purchase the Rafale, assembled in Canada with full technology transfer. Or a smaller number of F-35's combined with the Rafale. I don't think people should get overly fixated on this interim thing.


I thought the Rafale didn't use the same armaments as the CF 18s? 

Eurofighter and Gripen do.


----------



## Rifleman62

And equipping the Cdn Military with what fits the Liberal agenda, and not with the material needed to defend Canada, which is an obligation of a National Government, continues.


----------



## MilEME09

Altair said:
			
		

> I thought the Rafale didn't use the same armaments as the CF 18s?
> 
> Eurofighter and Gripen do.



It doesn't (though it does use the paveway family) however a full tech transfer would allow us to convert


----------



## Altair

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And equipping the Cdn Military with what fits the Liberal agenda, and not with the material needed to defend Canada, which is an obligation of a National Government, continues.


They got elected way it they wouldn't buy the f35.

They literally said it at rallies and stood across the country.

They said it during the debates.

Canadians said, "sure" and elected the liberals. So Canadians either said sure, or weren't put off enough by not buying the f35 to not vote for them.

Either way, it's political, Canadians elected them while that was one of their campaign promises.

Get over it. You might not like it but the will of the people and all that.


----------



## Altair

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> It doesn't (though it does use the paveway family) however a full tech transfer would allow us to convert


sounds costly.


----------



## MarkOttawa

There's this Bombardier solution at _la Presse_:







The company's current "Specialized Aircraft":
http://www.bombardier.com/en/aerospace/specialized-aircraft.html

Earlier Missileer:





https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1401

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Altair said:
			
		

> I thought the Rafale didn't use the same armaments as the CF 18s?
> 
> Eurofighter and Gripen do.



What I can find
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-full-range-of-advanced-weapons/

There is another source out there that states it is NATO Stanag 2910/1553 compliant and has already used US weapons.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> They got elected way it they wouldn't buy the f35.
> 
> They literally said it at rallies and stood across the country.
> 
> They said it during the debates.
> 
> Canadians said, "sure" and elected the liberals. So Canadians either said sure, or weren't put off enough by not buying the f35 to not vote for them.
> 
> Either way, it's political, Canadians elected them while that was one of their campaign promises.
> 
> Get over it. You might not like it but the will of the people and all that.



:nod:

Exactly!

Just as they did in the past, promising to cancel NAFTA and eliminate GST.  Promises made during an election.


----------



## FSTO

Altair said:
			
		

> They got elected way it they wouldn't buy the f35.
> 
> They literally said it at rallies and stood across the country.
> 
> They said it during the debates.
> 
> Canadians said, "sure" and elected the liberals. So Canadians either said sure, or weren't put off enough by not buying the f35 to not vote for them.
> 
> Either way, it's political, Canadians elected them while that was one of their campaign promises.
> 
> Get over it. You might not like it but the will of the people and all that.



I take that you don't know of Jean Chretian.


----------



## Altair

FSTO said:
			
		

> I take that you don't know of Jean Chretian.


i take it that you think I liked jean Chretian.

I did not.

So taken that Jean and Justin are not the same people (same way people are telling me Steven and Andrew are not the same person) what does jean have to do with anything going on today?


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Just as they did in the past, promising to cancel NAFTA and eliminate GST.  Promises made during an election.


past=/=present.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Collective I mean the Liberal Party does not change that much Jean was right their guiding the young one on the path.....


----------



## Loachman

Change the figurehead, but leave the hull and sails intact, and HMCS Liberal is pretty much the same pirate ship before and after.


----------



## Kirkhill

The world is replete with institutions and people.

Institutions outlast people.  The Liberal Party is an institution.  Just like the Church, families and cities.


----------



## Altair

Loachman said:
			
		

> Change the figurehead, but leave the hull and sails intact, and HMCS Liberal is pretty much the same pirate ship before and after.


that's a horrible way to look at things. It's why we get people who would vote for a cat as long as it was a conservative and a dog as long as it is a liberal.

It allows parties to take certain voting blocks for granted. It's why some people will never give another party the benefit of the doubt.

I judge each party on what they are doing today as opposed to what they did months past. If I just assume every conservative party will be like the party of Harper I will never vote for them for the rest of my days.

If I assumed every liberal party of Quebec was like jean Charest I would never vote for them again.

Ten, twenty years from the fact, that seems a little bit ridiculous.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Liberal party had a chance to renew itself, but didn't a bit like a Phoenix that only smouldered a bit, your left with some new bits tacked onto the same old carcass.


----------



## HB_Pencil

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> In my mind the only way it won't be the F-35 is if we see a Super Hornet type quote in which the cost is highly elevated, but if we see the proper, clean quote that we should see as an F-35 partner, we will buy the aircraft. I'm thinking JT just wants to push this into the next mandate where he won't campaign on not buying the F-35.



We got that.... we've had that for seven years. The Next Generation Fighter's costing from 2010-2014 is still accurate, if not higher than what it actually is because of several cost reduction efforts like the upcoming batch buy. 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page

It kinda makes me laugh they keep this page up, given their previous scrubbing efforts. 



BTW, the Australian Hornets are the best of a bunch of bad interim purchase options. I'd rather see them than anything else in this case, even the F-35. We need to do an entire fleet renewal, or nothing at all.


----------



## Altair

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Liberal party had a chance to renew itself, but didn't a bit like a Phoenix that only smouldered a bit, your left with some new bits tacked onto the same old carcass.


what party has completely renewed itself?


----------



## FSTO

Altair said:
			
		

> what party has completely renewed itself?



None, they have their core beliefs, their core repository of lore. 
If you think that Jean Chretien's legacy has not influenced Justin then you are quite naive.


----------



## Altair

FSTO said:
			
		

> None, they have their core beliefs, their core repository of lore.
> If you think that Jean Chretien's legacy has not influenced Justin then you are quite naive.


So should I not vote conservative because Harper influenced Sheer?


----------



## FSTO

Altair said:
			
		

> So should I not vote conservative because Harper influenced Sheer?



You can vote for whomever you want. I am pointing out to you that the Liberal Party of Canada (since Louis St Laurent term as PM) has never had the best interests of Canada in mind when it comes to its National and International Defence of Canada.


----------



## AlexanderM

Canada and US may enter new Free Trade Agreement without Mexico.

I know some of you feel that this should not affect military orders but I feel we have to get this worked out before moving forward. Canada gave up its own defence industry to join the North American Defence Industry and we need to know what America First means in that relationship. The Bombardier situation and that Super Hornet quote are a bad sign so if that is going to continue we may have to reestablish the Canadain Defence Industry. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-washington-trump-ways-and-means-1.4349528


----------



## Altair

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Canada and US may enter new Free Trade Agreement without Mexico.
> 
> I know some of you feel that this should not affect military orders but I feel we have to get this worked out before moving forward. Canada gave up its own defence industry to join the North American Defence Industry and we need to know what America First means in that relationship. The Bombardier situation and that Super Hornet quote are a bad sign so if that is going to continue we may have to reestablish the Canadain Defence Industry.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-washington-trump-ways-and-means-1.4349528


Things keep getting better. Canada should have it's own defense industry


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think it shows just how ignorant president Trump is (and I would say, also, our own PM).

The Canada / US Free Trade Agreement is still valid, operational and ongoing as is. The NAFTA has, as one of its fully agreed term by all three parties, that, so long as it (NAFTA) remains in force, the Canada / US Free Trade Agreement's clauses are suspended.

Kill NAFTA and, without any requirement for negotiations or any new agreement, voila! The Canada /US FTA automatically is in full force and applies again.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Things keep getting better. Canada should have it's own defense industry



You can't build a defense industry when you get replacements every 30 years. To think that we'd actually come out ahead with a Saab or Dassault offer of technology transfer is laughable. We'd buy 90 jets for double the price of foreign production and then immediately shut the lines down and lay off all the workers. The new defense "policy" didn't say we were going to buy jets every X years to keep the fleet going, we're going to do what we always do, 1 off purchase every 3 years, and hope nothing breaks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we want to send a message, then pursue French/European jets. Send a team to learn to fly and fix the Rafale and talk about having some here for evaluation as an interim fighter.


----------



## MarkOttawa

FSTO:



> Liberal Party of Canada (since Louis St Laurent term as PM) has never had the best interests of Canada in mind when it comes to its National and International Defence of Canada



Not so under Mike Pearson--in mid-sixties Canadian services had some 120,000 personnel from population one-third today's.  Pearson accepted dual-key nukes from US for CF-100 and BOMARCs for NORAD, and for CF-104 and Army Honest John short-range missiles in Europe for NATO.

Rot set win with PET who halved NATO presence in West Germany.

Edit: Brain-cramp oops! Thanks to Ostrozac below for correction:



> The CF-100 Canuck was conventionally armed with machine guns and rockets, albeit an interesting aircraft in its own right. It was the CF-101 Voodoo that brought the joys of nuclear weapons to RCAF fighter squadrons throughout Canada (as you stated, a program overseen by Mike Pearson).



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> FSTO:
> 
> Not so under Mike Pearson--in mid-sixties Canadian services had some 120,000 personnel from population one-third today's.  Pearson accepted dual-key nukes from US for CF-100 and BOMARCs for NORAD, and for CF-104 and Army Honest John short-range missiles in Europe for NATO.
> 
> Rot set win with PET who halved NATO presence in West Germany.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Pearson will always be tainted (to me) for his acquiescence of Paul Hellyer's destructive unification policy.


----------



## Ostrozac

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Pearson accepted dual-key nukes from US for CF-100



The CF-100 Canuck was conventionally armed with machine guns and rockets, albeit an interesting aircraft in its own right. It was the CF-101 Voodoo that brought the joys of nuclear weapons to RCAF fighter squadrons throughout Canada (as you stated, a program overseen by Mike Pearson).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if we had kept the Arrow, would those nukes have fit the weapons bay?


----------



## Ostrozac

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder if we had kept the Arrow, would those nukes have fit the weapons bay?



Yes. The CF-105 Arrow could carry a mixed load of conventional AIM-4 Falcon and nuclear AIR-2 Genie (the same nuclear rocket we used on the CF-101 Voodoo).

http://www.avroland.ca/al-cf105-interceptor-rex.html


----------



## Loachman

Altair said:
			
		

> Things keep getting better. Canada should have it's own defense industry



It has.

We do not build everything that we operate, however - nor do our southern cousins. Perhaps the Russians and Chinese do, but they are exceptions.

We export(ed) to and rebuild LAVs for the US Army and Marine Corps, and C7s and C8s to other NATO countries, and already build parts for F35 - and those contracts will likely bring in more income over the lifetime of the aircraft than setting up production facilities for any of the other (lower-performing) contenders. If Bombardier's C-Series aircraft sell well, there will not likely be a lot of spare floor space or sufficiently-skilled workers. We built a whole factory to produce LSVWs, and mothballed it once production had ceased.

Arrow failed because of its cost and lack of export sales. Arrow II would do just as well.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can't build a defense industry when you get replacements every 30 years. To think that we'd actually come out ahead with a Saab or Dassault offer of technology transfer is laughable. We'd buy 90 jets for double the price of foreign production and then immediately shut the lines down and lay off all the workers. The new defense "policy" didn't say we were going to buy jets every X years to keep the fleet going, we're going to do what we always do, 1 off purchase every 3 years, and hope nothing breaks.


you are right.

Would be better for Canadian aerospace to partner with the Europeans.

Maybe a Saab/bombardier fighter aircraft for example.

No way does a Canadian fighter program survive on its own.


----------



## MilEME09

Loachman said:
			
		

> Arrow failed because of its cost and lack of export sales. Arrow II would do just as well.



The French wanted the engine for the Mirage, the british were considering it, and even remote circles of the US military were consider the engine for it's own aircraft, I hardly call that a lack of sales for an aircraft that didnt go to mass production.


----------



## Loachman

Altair said:
			
		

> Would be better for Canadian aerospace to partner with the Europeans.



Why?

We are already a partner in the F35 programme, which will produce far more aircraft.


----------



## Rifleman62

Ask an Expert: 

Does the US Government have to approve the resale of Australian F-18's to Canada? All US arms sales must be approved, technology transfers etc. When the Australia purchased the Hornets was there a clause for eventual disposal?

If the US has to approve the proposed purchase, the US may refuse for a variety of reasons one of which is they want Cdn interoperability wrt NORAD, want more US jobs, etc.


----------



## PuckChaser

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ask an Expert:
> 
> Does the US Government have to approve the resale of Australian F-18's to Canada? All US arms sales must be approved, technology transfers etc. When the Australia purchased the Hornets was there a clause for eventual disposal?
> 
> If the US has to approve the proposed purchase, the US may refuse for a variety of reasons one of which is they want Cdn interoperability wrt NORAD, want more US jobs, etc.



That's a great question, they likely would have to approve an ITAR transfer. We can't even bring US-built radios back to US repair facilities without a MOU from the State Department.


----------



## MarkOttawa

USAF F-106, mainstay of its and ANG NORAD role until 1980s, first flew at end of 1956, well before Arrow:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=158

Arrow first flew on March 25, 1958; meanwhile next-generation F4H Phantom II flew just over two months later:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=680
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_1.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> past=/=present.



 :boring:

Chretien at least got on with major peacekeeping missions.   Tic toc.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> Chretien at least got on with major peacekeeping missions.   Tic toc.



Some, not all


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's a great question, they likely would have to approve an ITAR transfer. We can't even bring US-built radios back to US repair facilities without a MOU from the State Department.



ITAR is the best thing the US ever did for the Chinese defense industry, restrict sales , but the Chinese still get most of the tech and reverse engineer it and then sell it to those buyers who don't want the ITAR headache. ITAR alone is a good enough reason to consider other aircraft at least for the Interim aircraft.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Some, not all



If by "some" you mean Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, then sure..."some."


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> ITAR is the best thing the US ever did for the Chinese defense industry, restrict sales , but the Chinese still get most of the tech and reverse engineer it and then sell it to those buyers who don't want the ITAR headache. ITAR alone is a good enough reason to consider other aircraft at least for the Interim aircraft.



Just imagine I much faster our supply system would be without ITAR and other bureaucracy thrown in by the states.

G2G: Yes and if those missions had issues, look at Bosnia, Medac was brushed under the rug for years.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If by "some" you mean Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, then sure..."some."



To be clear, G2G, lets take them one by one:

(1) Haiti: Which one are you talking about? There has been a UN mission or another in there since forever  :moose: In any event, most are police missions and none of them is "peacekeeping" but rather support to civil authorities missions. The first one, UNMIH, started before Chretien was elected, saw Mulroney agree to participate. UNSMIH, UNTMIH and MIPONUH occurred under Chretien, but they were just a continuation of the original mission. In any event the sole interest of Canadian politicians in those missions were three seats in eastern Montreal ridings with large Haitina population.

(2) Bosnia: UNPROFOR started a year before Chretien's election: Again it is a Mulroney mandate.

(3) Kosovo: UNMIK started in 1999, so under Chretien, but it was originally a civilian support mission and only turned into more and a military one in 2008 with Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Afghanistan: The only UN mission involving Afghanistan is UNGOMAP from 1988 to 1990, so not Chretien. KFOR is a NATO mission even if it has been instituted at the behest of the UN, and we must remember that Chretien agreed to field troops in KFOR against the advice of the Ottawa brass, for the sole purpose of being in a position to refuse to participate in the US operation to find weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ.


----------



## dapaterson

Indeed, I remember a number of upset field engineers; when the SSM was issued for service in Europe, their unique bar got lost in the noise.


----------



## OTR1

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Does the US Government have to approve the resale of Australian F-18's to Canada?


Yes.


----------



## Underway

OTR1 said:
			
		

> Yes.



Reference please.


----------



## dapaterson

US law places restrictions on resale / re-export of American technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Export_Control_Act


----------



## Rifleman62

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ask an Expert:
> 
> Does the US Government have to approve the resale of Australian F-18's to Canada? All US arms sales must be approved, technology transfers etc. When the Australia purchased the Hornets was there a clause for eventual disposal?
> 
> If the US has to approve the proposed purchase, the US may refuse for a variety of reasons one of which is they want Cdn interoperability wrt NORAD, want more US jobs, etc.



If I was betting, I would say the US will tell Canada it's the F-35 for interoperability, or at very least least the SH as it means more American employment. I hope the US tells this government that they cannot have the Oz F-18's.


----------



## MilEME09

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If I was betting, I would say the US will tell Canada it's the F-35 for interoperability, or at very least least the SH as it means more American employment. I hope the US tells this government that they cannot have the Oz F-18's.



I Agree, simply because it would help kill this stupid interim buy


----------



## observor 69

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If I was betting, I would say the US  Trump administration will tell Canada it's the F-35 for interoperability, or at very least least the SH as it means more American employment. I hope the US Trump administration tells this government that they cannot have the Oz F-18's.



I think most of us agree with your comment. It's just the thought of the "Bully in Chief" doing the talking/dictating.
Something along the lines of how Trump is bullying his way through the NAFTA negotiations.


----------



## a_majoor

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> I think most of us agree with your comment. It's just the thought of the "Bully in Chief" doing the talking/dictating.
> Something along the lines of how Trump is bullying his way through the NAFTA negotiations.



People really need to read "The Art of the Deal". Things become so much clearer once you understand where the President is operating from. What surprises me is the book was published in the 1980's, President Trump has been a public personality for decades and people _still_ seem completely clueless as to where he's coming from.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Because people want to keep their ideas and not pollute them with questions and other thoughts, so they stay in the herd.


----------



## Trumpeter42

Just like the Chretien government did with the helicopters, Trudeau  campaigned on not only 'no F-35', but on buying the F-18E SH instead. No he's in, and has to do something to not lose face over what he campaigned on, and not violate fair competition rules in procurements ... how to do that?

1- Invent an 'Interim Fighter Requirement' emergency that didn't exist before.
2- Sole source the SH for the interim buy, which he can do now because it's an immediate requirement
3- Promise a fair competition soon, not soon enough so the interim purchase isn't 'needed'
4- When the 'fair competition' happens, the SH will be the most reasonable choice because hey, we already operate them and have all the support/training in place. And Canada doesn't need stealth strike fighters anyways.

Of course, many people in the opposition, military, and public see through this 'plan', but it's too late to back out now.... until Boeing starts this stupid trade dispute. That solves the SH choice for the interim buy, but not the interim buy itself. Since they said that's so important, they still need to go through with it. So they have to go through the motions. Hopefully, no deal will be found that's right for this 'interim requirement' and they just accelerate the main competition to get the RCAF a new plane.

My take on the large competition is this: Decide first if we want a stealth strike fighter or not. If we do, then start the F-35 purchase now because it's the only horse in that race. Perhaps get a few on an early order to meet this 'interim requirement'. If we don't want a stealth strike fighter, then state that and have a competition between the SH and the 3 European options.  

Of course... this government still can't say that they're going to buy the F-35. At least not yet.


----------



## Altair

Trumpeter42 said:
			
		

> Just like the Chretien government did with the helicopters, Trudeau  campaigned on not only 'no F-35', but on buying the F-18E SH instead.



Did he mention the super hornet during the campaign? I thought that that was only mentioned after they took power, when they manufactured the fighter capacity gap?





> No he's in, and has to do something to not lose face over what he campaigned on, and not violate fair competition rules in procurements ... how to do that?
> 
> 1- Invent an 'Interim Fighter Requirement' emergency that didn't exist before.
> 2- Sole source the SH for the interim buy, which he can do now because it's an immediate requirement
> 3- Promise a fair competition soon, not soon enough so the interim purchase isn't 'needed'
> 4- When the 'fair competition' happens, the SH will be the most reasonable choice because hey, we already operate them and have all the support/training in place. And Canada doesn't need stealth strike fighters anyways.
> 
> Of course, many people in the opposition, military, and public see through this 'plan', but it's too late to back out now.... until Boeing starts this stupid trade dispute. That solves the SH choice for the interim buy, but not the interim buy itself. Since they said that's so important, they still need to go through with it. So they have to go through the motions. Hopefully, no deal will be found that's right for this 'interim requirement' and they just accelerate the main competition to get the RCAF a new plane.
> 
> My take on the large competition is this: Decide first if we want a stealth strike fighter or not. If we do, then start the F-35 purchase now because it's the only horse in that race. Perhaps get a few on an early order to meet this 'interim requirement'. If we don't want a stealth strike fighter, then state that and have a competition between the SH and the 3 European options.


 The dispute with Boeing has scrapped the super hornet as a option I think. If Canada goes non stealth, it will just be the three european options.





> Of course... this government still can't say that they're going to buy the F-35. At least not yet.


Not yet.


----------



## Trumpeter42

Altair said:
			
		

> Did he mention the super hornet during the campaign? I thought that that was only mentioned after they took power, when they manufactured the fighter capacity gap? The dispute with Boeing has scrapped the super hornet as a option I think. If Canada goes non stealth, it will just be the three european options.Not yet.



While they didn't make the SH part of the election promise to not buy the F-35, when bringing up the premise that a fair competition would point to a better fighter for Canada's budget/needs, the example they always referred to was the SH. When you combine that with their new plan to sole source the SH for the invented interim buy, it's pretty clear what their intention was all along.

I think the only thing that might rescue the SH is if Boeing wakes up and withdraws the dumping case... Which they seem to be unwilling to do to rescue the potential fighter deal. If they win the dumping case, then no SH. If they lose the dumping case, I think still no SH as the bad blood will still be there.


----------



## Altair

Trumpeter42 said:
			
		

> While they didn't make the SH part of the election promise to not buy the F-35, when bringing up the premise that a fair competition would point to a better fighter for Canada's budget/needs, the example they always referred to was the SH. When you combine that with their new plan to sole source the SH for the invented interim buy, it's pretty clear what their intention was all along.
> 
> I think the only thing that might rescue the SH is if Boeing wakes up and withdraws the dumping case... Which they seem to be unwilling to do to rescue the potential fighter deal. If they win the dumping case, then no SH. If they lose the dumping case, I think still no SH as the bad blood will still be there.


They wont dump the case. There is far more money to be made on the civilian aircraft than the military aircraft to Canada.

They will fight it because Bombardier is edging up to them with their C series jets. not the C100, which was sold to delta, but the C300 and C500 are going to be awfully close to the seat count of their mid sized planes. They wont concede market share there, after effectively conceding the Jumbo jet market to Airbus.


----------



## YZT580

They didn't concede the jumbo market, they gave it to Airbus on a platter.  The development of the B747-400 was simply to ensure that they had competition in that zone without spending a lot of scarce development money: the 787 was the aircraft they had their money on and in.  Boeing's analysis indicated that the day of the jumbo was over.  People didn't want hub and spoke with the sitting around in terminals that was involved but wanted to get to destination and most destinations couldn't and still don't support super-large aircraft.  They were right too.  There are fewer A380 and B747 combined than there were B747 at the peak of their popularity.  Like 300 fewer.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And see:



> OPINION: Is A380 fleet overtaking 747 a hollow victory?
> 
> News that the Airbus A380 fleet now exceeds that of the Boeing 747 will have been met with mixed emotions in Seattle.
> 
> The decline of the original “queen of the skies” – as a passenger airliner at least – relative to its nemesis is not a milestone that Boeing will have been savouring. But the circumstances in which it has happened certainly vindicate the US manufacturer’s long-held pessimism about the size of the ultra-large airliner (ULA) market.
> 
> When Airbus launched the A380 in 2000 as a game-changing double-decker to usurp the 747, the jumbo passenger fleet totalled around 740 aircraft, but production of the passenger 747-400 was already in decline.
> 
> Based on its assessment of market dynamics, Boeing told Airbus it needed its eyes tested if it truly believed there was sufficient market to invest in the launch of an all-new ULA. Airbus was convinced that congestion and infrastructure constraints would force the sector to shift upwards to cater for growth.
> 
> By the time the A380 made its service debut in 2007, the 747 passenger fleet had declined to 550 units. Even Airbus must be disappointed that it has taken the A380 10 years to overhaul its rival – especially given how slow sales of the 747-8I airliner version have been. With the entire “big-jet” A380/747 passenger fleet now standing at a little over 400 aircraft, the market has indeed shifted – but the wrong way for Airbus...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-is-a380-fleet-overtaking-747-a-hollow-victo-442160/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Altair

YZT580 said:
			
		

> They didn't concede the jumbo market, they gave it to Airbus on a platter.  The development of the B747-400 was simply to ensure that they had competition in that zone without spending a lot of scarce development money: the 787 was the aircraft they had their money on and in.  Boeing's analysis indicated that the day of the jumbo was over.  People didn't want hub and spoke with the sitting around in terminals that was involved but wanted to get to destination and most destinations couldn't and still don't support super-large aircraft.  They were right too.  There are fewer A380 and B747 combined than there were B747 at the peak of their popularity.  Like 300 fewer.


pretty much. It's the reason they are willing to sacrifice the potential sale of super hornets to Canada, because of the c300 and c500 end up competing with their last area of market dominance that's going to cost them a lot more in the long run than they get back from selling aircraft to canada.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Altair, actually no "market dominance"--big problem for Boeing is that so far the Airbus A320neo family is beating Boeing's 737 MAX.  So C300, and maybe C500, most unwelcome for Boeing in this segment:



> With the share of firm orders for re-engined single-aisle aircraft still tilted heavily in Airbus's favour, Boeing has come to the Paris air show intent on showcasing the slow-selling 737 Max 9 and launching the largest version of the 737 yet, the Max 10.
> 
> Less than two months from its debut flight, the first 737 Max 9 flew across the Atlantic to appear in the static display at Le Bourget. Not far away in the static park, Airbus is displaying its A321neo, the aircraft that provoked Boeing to launch a new and even larger version of the 50-year-old single-aisle with the proposed 737 Max 10X.
> 
> Boeing's predicament in the single-aisle orders battle is clear. As of the end of May, Airbus has amassed a firm order backlog of 5,054 A320neo-family aircraft compared with Boeing's tally of 3,714 for the 737 Max family...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-boeings-le-bourget-springboard-for-737-max-1-437888/



More:
http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-10-paris-air-show-airbus-2017-6

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Altair, actually no "market dominance"--big problem for Boeing is that so far the Airbus A320neo family is beating Boeing's 737 MAX.  So C300, and maybe C500, most unwelcome for Boeing in this segment:



Airbus nailed it with the 321NEO, and Boeing saw it coming and convinced themselves it wasn't going to amount to anything, even though Boeing-loyal narrow-body operators were begging...pleading...for years...for a re-winged 757.  Boeing flipped a coin, it landed with the "stretch the 737" side facing up, and the "re-wing the 757" facing down.  They shouldn't have left it to a coin - Boeing has only themselves to blame for that debacle. :nod:

:2c:

G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Altair said:
			
		

> They wont dump the case. There is far more money to be made on the civilian aircraft than the military aircraft to Canada.
> 
> They will fight it because Bombardier is edging up to them with their C series jets. not the C100, which was sold to delta, but the C300 and C500 are going to be awfully close to the seat count of their mid sized planes. They wont concede market share there, after effectively conceding the Jumbo jet market to Airbus.



It is my understanding that the military and civilian divisions of Boeing barely speak to each other- they might as well be separate companies. It is not surprising that one side of Boeing would make a business decision that makes life difficult for other divisions.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is my understanding that the military and civilian divisions of Boeing barely speak to each other- they might as well be separate companies. It is not surprising that one side of Boeing would make a business decision that makes life difficult for other divisions.



They talked.  CEO of Boeing Defense and Space Leanne Caret is on record as saying they're (Defense) in line with their Commercial colleagues.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/boeing-defense-ceo-were-not-going-to-back-down-on-trade-dispute-with-bombardier.html


> "This commercial trade dispute is very important to us. We're not going to back down from it," said Leanne Caret, CEO of Boeing's defense, space and security business, in an exclusive interview with CNBC. "I hope that it doesn't impact our defense sale, but we're willing to deal with whatever the outcome is."


----------



## Rifleman62

With all the negatives listed below, sounds like this government for sure will offer to purchase the Australian C-18's (subject to US approval)!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-australia-fighter-jets-1.4354326

*Plan to buy used fighter jets from Australia far from straightforward, experts say* - Murray Brewster, CBC News - Oct 16, 2017
_'If the government of the U.S. didn't want the aircraft to be sold, it would be very difficult to get them'_

Canada's plan to shop for used Australian fighter jets rather than buy new Boeing Super Hornets may backfire, according to defence experts, because the U.S. government will ultimately have a say on whether a deal proceeds.

Even though the FA-18 Hornets are nearly three decades old, require regular corrosion maintenance and are nearing obsolescence, their proposed resale would still require Washington's approval because they are advanced warplanes, originally manufactured in the U.S., a former Royal Australian Air Force officer told CBC News.

"I imagine all of it is going for a fair bargain price," said Peter Layton, a fellow at Griffith University in South East Queensland, Australia, who was a reserve force group captain.

Few customers exist for Australia's used warplanes, and selling to Canada would be an easier sale than most, because the Pentagon would not require all sensitive technology to be stripped out of the aircraft.

But in the context of Canada's current tit-for-tat aerospace trade dispute with the U.S., another defence expert said no one should expect the Trump administration to do Canada any favours in light of the heated rhetoric surrounding Boeing.

"There's a lot of things they could do just within the executive authority to simply be unhelpful," said Dave Perry, an analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "I don't know how far they can go, but if the government of the United States didn't want the aircraft to be sold, it would be very difficult to get them."

_Corrosion complaints_

Australia's defence materiel group produced a scathing report in 2012 noting that the country's FA-18s were rapidly running out of airframe life and required bigger and bigger slices of the maintenance budget.

"The incidence of discovery of airframe corrosion in the Hornet fleet is increasing, and the annual cost of corrosion‐related repairs has increased significantly," said the report, which Layton said was considered "too critical" by the defence establishment.

The Trudeau government has been using the threat of buying used FA-18s from Australia as a bargaining chip in its wider trade dispute with Washington.

On the eve of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump last week, Public Services and Procurement revealed the Liberal government had sent a letter to Australia expressing interest in buying some of its old fighters.

The department had been talking with Chicago-based Boeing about buying 18 new Super Hornets, but those negotiations were suspended after the giant U.S. aircraft-maker filed a trade complaint against Bombardier over passenger jet sales.

The U.S. Commerce Department intends to impose nearly 300 per cent tariff and anti-dumping duties on the Montreal-based manufacturer's CSeries jet.

Trudeau said Canada no longer has an intention of doing business with Boeing.

_Limited to uncontested airspace_

The used Australian jets are approximately the same age and configuration as Canada's CF-18s, which the Liberals insist must be supplemented if the air force is to meet its Norad and NATO commitments at the same time.

How well those Australian jets would solve that problem is an open question.

Layton said Canada would likely get only five to seven years' service out of each warplane.

Advances in both fighter jet development and anti-aircraft defences among potential enemies and adversaries mean that Canada's air force, in a just a few years, would be limited to low-intensity conflicts in uncontested skies.

"I think beyond 2020, under most circumstances, you would be very cautious about deploying the aircraft into airspace where it would be likely to meet an opponent that has modern fighter aircraft," said Layton, who has written extensively about air combat issues.

"And by 2025, operating in contested airspace will be very dangerous with the classic Hornet fleet as it is now."

Canada's Liberal government said its moves are intended only as a stopgap until it can replace the entire fleet of CF-18s.

_Full competition?_

Last spring, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan promised that open competition would be launched in the immediate aftermath of the new defence policy review, which was released in June.

Public Services and Procurement would only say "preparatory work" for that tender is still underway.

Perry, the defence analyst, said no one has been able to convincingly explain why it is on the back burner.

"I don't understand why moving ahead with the competition isn't the best overall solution," he said. "You would avoid any of the difficulties of introducing an interim fleet."

Perry has long been a critic of the notion of a stopgap fleet, but recently noted that buying used was better than buying new Super Hornets. 

Although the Australian FA-18s are almost identical to the CF-18s, there are some differences, notably in software, air-to-surface weapons and the life-extension work that has been carried out on them.

Only 10 fighters in the Australian fleet have received the kind of extensive airframe reinforcement that Canada paid for in its jets.

"I could conceive of your air force using them as an expensive training aircraft," said Layton.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The 2012 Oz audit:



> Management of Australia's Air Combat Capability — F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet Fleet Upgrades and Sustainment
> https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-australias-air-combat-capability-%E2%80%94-fa-18-hornet-and-super-hornet



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Airbus pitching cooperation with Bombardier on Eurofighter for our competition--same maybe from Dassault with Rafale (note Indian Air Force deal):



> Airbus open to further Bombardier cooperation as it eyes Canadian fighter jet deal
> _Airbus could cooperate further with Bombardier beyond a recent venture in the CSeries, if its fighter jet is permitted to compete in a Canadian military procurement_
> 
> Airbus SE could cooperate further with Bombardier Inc beyond a recent venture in the CSeries jets, if its fighter jet is permitted to compete in a Canadian military procurement, and its partners agree, an executive said on Wednesday.
> 
> Canada said last year it will launch an open competition to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets and a request for proposal for the open competition is expected in 2019.
> 
> Dirk Hoke, chief executive of Airbus Defence and Space, said the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet could be an option for further collaboration with Bombardier, although he did not specify further.
> 
> “We will definitely also look at additional potential further cooperation with Bombardier beyond just the CSeries,” Hoke told Reuters on the sidelines of an Ottawa aerospace conference, adding that he was “very optimistic and positive about us entering this competition.”..
> http://business.financialpost.com/transportation/airlines/airbus-open-to-further-bombardier-cooperation-as-it-eyes-canadian-fighter-jet-deal



Indian angle:



> After 36 jets, Rafale to push for Make In India
> http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/oct/17/after-36-jets-rafale-to-push-for-make-in-india-1676772.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

Should we not buy American, I'd be all in for the Rafale but understand that Typhoon would make a good political choice with Airbus and Bombardier, etc.


----------



## Rifleman62

" .....a good political choice....." What more can the taxpayers of Canada ask for?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Should we not buy American, I'd be all in for the Rafale but understand that Typhoon would make a good political choice with Airbus and Bombardier, etc.



The Spanish put their Typhoons to the test recently https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/typhoons-hit-the-target


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Spanish put their Typhoons to the test recently https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/typhoons-hit-the-target


I do think the Typhoon is an excellent aircraft but it does not have Active Cancellation technology and I don't believe it can target aircraft directly behind it. What it does have is the bigger radar verses all the advantages Rafale will have after the current upgrades are complete, which includes the ability to disappear from radar.


----------



## MarkOttawa

On ne peut qu'espérer--title not exactly accurate given F-35 only one possibility (unless?):



> DUBAI: Canada expects fifth-generation fighter contract by 2021
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force expects to release a new request for proposals for its fifth-generation fighter competition by 2019 with a contract award by 2021, the RCAF’s commander says this week.
> 
> In June, Canada proposed 88 new fighters for the RCAF , an increase from the previous government’s plan to purchase 65 jets to replace the aging CF-18 fleet, but did not outline a timeline for the RFP.
> 
> Canada launched an open competition for the CF-18 replacement last summer following a campaign promise from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party to step away from the controversial Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The government is considering all options, including the F-35, although a Boeing F/A-18 acquisition appears unlikely in the wake of the airframer's commercial dispute with Bombardier.
> 
> RCAF commander Lt Gen Michael Hood would not comment directly on whether Boeing’s Super Hornet is still under consideration in the competition. This autumn the government announced it had suspended direct engagement with Boeing.
> 
> “I would say my personal relationship is limited to the support of our ongoing Boeing products and those normal day-to-day discussions we would have with them,” Hood tells FlightGlobal at the annual Dubai International Air Chiefs Conference.
> 
> Meanwhile, Canada is considering options for an interim CF-18 replacement. The government had previously proposed buying 18 new Super Hornets, but the commercial dispute has pushed the government to change course and examine Canada’s used Boeing F/A-18A/B Hornets. Last month, Canada submitted a formal declaration known as an expression of interest to Australia. Canada operates a similar Hornet configuration and both the CF-18s and Australian F/A-18A/Bs began operating within a few years of each other. Canada also bought the intellectual property on the jet and already uses L-3 for F/A-18 sustainment, Hood adds.
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-canada-expects-fifth-generation-fighter-cont-443137/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

And from _Defense News_, headline a bit misleading I think:



> Canadian air chief looks to speed up up fighter buy
> 
> ...U.S. defense experts worry that Canada could be driven into the arms of a European fighter manufacturer, thus eroding Canada’s long tradition of flying U.S. jets — a move that increases the militaries’ interoperability.
> 
> However, Hood stated that interoperability with the United States continues to be “the most important thing to me as command of the Royal Canadian Air Force.”
> 
> “Every step less of interoperability is one step less of effectiveness, so interoperability is right at the top of the list beside operational advantage,” he said. “I want the young men and women that are going to be flying fighters into harm’s way to have an operational advantage, and that will be key to me in the competition that’s coming.”
> 
> That need for interoperability with the U.S. Air Force does not diminish the chances of European fighters, he added.
> https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dubai-air-show/2017/11/11/canadian-air-chief-the-sooner-the-better-on-fighter-acquisition/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So they're still forging ahead with the 'interim fighter' purchase even after moving up the new RFP for the larger replacement program?

That seems odd....

Bargaining chip in NAFTA Negotiations?


----------



## quadrapiper

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Bargaining chip in NAFTA Negotiations?


Some sort of maintenance of full interoperability measure if the bulk of the fleet goes to a non-US source?


----------



## MarkOttawa

RAF pipes up on interoperability:



> DUBAI: RAF talks up Typhoon interoperability with F-35
> 
> As interest in fifth-generation fighters builds in the UAE, a top Royal Air Force officer explained at the show how the Eurofighter Typhoon is already demonstrating how a non-stealthy fighter can integrate with the Lockheed Martin F-35 in contested airspace.
> 
> The Typhoon is already equipped to send and receive data with the F-35s on Link 16, a NATO-standard datalink. But Link-16 uses an omnidirectional antenna that is not compatible with the radio – Harris's Multi-function Advanced Data Link (MADL) – that the F-35 uses to communicate with other F-35s while in stealth mode inside contested airspace.
> 
> But the Typhoon has already demonstrated the capability to transmit and receive data with the F-35 in training flights and exercises in the USA, says Air Vice-Marshall Gerry Mayhew, air officer commanding for the RAF’s No 1 Group.
> 
> “This is not something we’re dreaming of. This is something we’re doing,” Mayhew says. “We’re already operating fourth- and fifth-gen fighters in exercises in training. This is also using new systems as well as the Link 16 systems.”
> 
> Asked to elaborate on the new systems that allow the Typhoon to transmit and receive data with F-35s flying in communications stealth mode, Mayhew declined, saying he could not talk about the technology.
> 
> But the public record offers clues about the solution that is referred to by Mayhew. Last February, Northrop Grumman announced that the RAF held an event in the Mojave desert in California called Exercise High Rider.
> 
> The exercise included an demonstration called Babel Fish III. An F-35 transmitted data from MADL to a Northrop-designed airborne gateway system, which translated the message into a waveform that could be interpreted by the Link 16 radio on board an RAF GR.4 Tornado.
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-raf-talks-up-typhoon-interoperability-with-f-443219/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

For Sunday Nov. 19.  WETA is Washington D.C. public television--DNTV done by _DefenseNews_.  Tweet:
https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/931875460283273216



> @defense_news
> 
> The commander of Canada's Air Force joins Defense News Weekly to discuss his country’s search for a new fighter aircraft, tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. on WETA. #DNTV
> 8:23 AM - 18 Nov 2017



Video should be put up at _Defense News_ TV webpage:
defensenews.com/video/dntv/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

New RCAF fightger--Airbus head says Canada owes them one for Bombardier CSeries:



> The Enders game for Bombardier
> 
> _Airbus CEO Tom Enders explains his company jumping at the chance to take over the C Series project – and what future role Canada could have _
> ...
> This partnership "is good for Canada, it's good for us...It also opens new opportunities for Bombardier, as it taps into Airbus's global supply chain, and the Canadian government as it seeks to modernize the military...
> 
> Airbus has made Canada its fifth home country, ranking it alongside Airbus co-founders France, Germany, Spain and Britain.
> 
> For Mr. Enders, that designation carries real meaning and expectation. "You expect your home country to at least take a very fair view of your own industry, and if that industry's competitive with what it's offering for your needs, that you favour your industry. That is what home country is about," he says.
> 
> It's a not-too-subtle message to Canadian politicians that Airbus expects to be considered whenever the government thinks about buying airplanes, jet fighters, military transport planes or even satellites.
> 
> Already, Airbus is preparing plans to submit a proposal for its Typhoon fighter jet now that the Canadian government has signalled it won't buy fighters from Boeing as long as the trade dispute continues. "There is a broad array of topics where I think we can engage," he says. "I'm sure we can do more if the will on both sides is there, and on the Airbus side, clearly that is the case."...
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/why-airbus-ceo-tom-enders-decided-to-take-over-bombardiers-cseries/article37019891/



Over to you, Justin and Quebec.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the Liberals win the next election and I won't say that is a sure bet, then they will have to do something and I expect the RCAF is going to given the best fighter that politics can buy.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> If the Liberals win the next election and I won't say that is a sure bet, then they will have to do something and I expect the RCAF is going to given the best fighter that politics can buy.


There is no question this is going to be driven by politics. I'm thinking that because Boeing forced our hand in the Bombardier/Airbus merger that there will now be no reconciliation with Boeing, as that ship has sailed. So now it's an issue of will it be the F-35 or will it be the Rafale or the Typhoon? It now looks like NAFTA talks have stalled over auto parts, etc and the problem there is that Trump is like a dog who can't give up a bone and I just don't see an agreement coming and this will likely cause us to step back from the US. So then if we have to chose between the Rafale and Typhoon one would hope we get to pick the best fighter for Canada but the politics will have to be sorted out. 

At the moment the politics favor the Typhoon because of Airbus, but doesn't Airbus get access to very desirable technology from Bombardier? So if this is the case and if France made the Spectra/Active Cancellation technology available for the new fighter they are going to develop perhaps something could be worked out. Also, Canada could give Airbus an exclusive on the Canadian commercial carrier market. I'm thinking there's very likely a deal to be made there.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Irving can't build airplanes, can they?   rly:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

don't....give them ideas....... :tsktsk:


----------



## MarkOttawa

RCAF head LGEN Hood on Defense News TV Nov. 19 at 04:20 on new fighter(s)--doesn't say anything new or very interesting:
https://www.defensenews.com/video/2017/11/19/defense-news-weekly-full-episode-november-19-2017/

Same stuff but with less detail than at this earlier story:
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dubai-air-show/2017/11/11/canadian-air-chief-the-sooner-the-better-on-fighter-acquisition/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Irving can't build airplanes, can they?   rly:



Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you today’s winner of the Internet.

Take a bow, Cdn Blackshirt.


----------



## NavyShooter

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you today’s winner of the Internet.
> 
> Take a bow, Cdn Blackshirt.



Cue Irving pairing up with IMP aerospace in Halifax and with Bell-Textron to start a production line of Scorpion jets.

The wrong airplane completely, but it'd be a made in Canada solution with domestic production offsets, and would be a huge sop to the east coast who voted all red....


----------



## Rifleman62

Y'all to cynical. The Defence of Canada and it's citizens is too important to be determined by politics of the LPC. Think of all the women who could be endangered. The PM is a feminist; he wouldn't do that.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Thucydides said:
			
		

> President Trump has been a public personality for decades and he _still_ seems completely clueless as to where he's coming from.



There. Fixed that for you.  :trainwreck:


----------



## GK .Dundas

I give you the CF5 of the 21st century only less useful the the CF was . :RstTrky:  


			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Cue Irving pairing up with IMP aerospace in Halifax and with Bell-Textron to start a production line of Scorpion jets.
> 
> The wrong airplane completely, but it'd be a made in Canada solution with domestic production offsets, and would be a huge sop to the east coast who voted all red....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was having a discussion with my friend at MTU, based on that I expect the USAF to have a high un-serviceable rate for aircraft that use commercial engines as the new US based provider is not up to speed. Now I am reading that LockHeed is struggling to provide enough spare parts for the current F-35 fleet and for construction. Since it's not easy to switch suppliers of these types of parts, I suspect that even if Canada choose a non-F35 fighter that Lockheed could not afford for quite some time to make good it's threat of cancelling Canadian based contracts related to the aircraft.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Unconfirmed report from CNBC that Canada is planning on buying used Australian F-18s.



> Canada scraps plan to buy 18 new Boeing fighter jets: Report
> 
> Canada is scrapping a plan to buy 18 new Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets amid a deepening dispute with the U.S. aerospace company, three sources say three sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. The Liberal government will announce next week it intends to buy a used fleet of older Australia F-18 jets, the same kind of plane Canada currently operates, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation.



 Article Link


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Are we going to buy second hand pilots and techs from Australia to operate them also?
 :facepalm:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Full Reuters story:



> Canada scraps plan to buy Boeing fighters amid trade dispute: sources
> David Ljunggren
> 
> Canada is scrapping a plan to buy 18 Boeing Co (BA.N) Super Hornet fighter jets amid a deepening dispute with the U.S. aerospace company, three sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday [Dec. 5].
> 
> Instead, the Liberal government will announce next week it intends to acquire a used fleet of older Australia F-18 jets, the same kind of plane Canada currently operates, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation.
> 
> The move underlines Ottawa’s anger at a decision by Boeing to launch a trade challenge against Canadian planemaker Bombardier Inc (BBDb.TO), which the U.S. giant accuses of dumping airliners on the domestic American market.
> 
> It also casts into question the future of Boeing’s military sales in Canada. Boeing says its commercial and defense operations in Canada support more than 17,000 Canadian jobs.
> 
> Canada and Mexico are currently locked into increasingly acrimonious negotiations with the United States over the NAFTA trade pact, which President Donald Trump says has not done enough to protect U.S. jobs.
> 
> The Liberal Party of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau initially said in late 2016 it wanted the Boeing jets as a stopgap measure until it could launch a competition for a permanent fleet to replace Canada’s ageing CF-18 jets.
> 
> But as relations with Boeing deteriorated, Ottawa slammed the firm for not acting as a trusted partner and began looking at the Australian jets.
> 
> Two of the sources said Australian military officials had been in Ottawa late last month for talks.
> 
> One source said that by buying the Australian fleet, Canada would save money as well as avoid the need to train its pilots on a new aircraft or spend money on a new supply chain.
> 
> Officials had previously said that if the purchase went ahead, some of the Australian aircraft would be used for spare parts.
> 
> The offices of Public Works Minister Carla Qualtrough and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, who share responsibility for military procurement, both declined to comment.
> 
> Boeing declined to comment. The Australian mission in Ottawa was not immediately available for comment.
> 
> Canada is due to officially announce the requirements for its new fighter fleet in early 2019, kicking off an open competition.
> 
> One potential contender is Lockheed Martin Corp’s (LMT.N) F-35 fighter, which Trudeau initially said he would not buy because it was too expensive. The government has since softened its line, saying the plane would be allowed to compete.
> 
> _Additional reporting by Leah Schnurr in Ottawa and Allison Lampert in Montreal..._
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-boeing-fighterjets/canada-scraps-plan-to-buy-boeing-fighters-amid-trade-dispute-sources-idUSKBN1DZ2W2



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are we going to buy second hand pilots and techs from Australia to operate them also?
> :facepalm:



Seems fair - they poach Canadians pretty regularly  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Seems fair - they poach Canadians pretty regularly  :nod:



I'm sure that'll work.  Who wouldn't want to trade Aussie beachfront bases for Cold Lake and Bagotville?   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Does RAAF Butterworth have free pancakes?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And what happens when the US congress refuses to permit the sale of the Aussie F-18s to Canada?

You know-ITAR and all that.

This just gets dumber and dumber.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Does RAAF Butterworth have free pancakes?



It's in Penang, Malaysia.  Food is amazing (been to Penang, not Butterworth).  

The map is a little misleading.  Learmonth, Scherger and Curtin are bare bases, like our FOLs in the north.  Woomera is a testing range.  The map also makes it seem like the bases are close to each other, when in reality there is 600km between Edinburgh (north of Adelaide) and Woomera.  Tindal (the RAAF fighter base in the north) and Darwin is about 300km, so not that far removed from Cold Lake to Edmonton.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And what happens when the US congress refuses to permit the sale of the Aussie F-18s to Canada?
> 
> You know-ITAR and all that.
> 
> This just gets dumber and dumber.



Aussies "operationally deploy" some RAAF F/A-18s to Cool Pool and Bag Town for an "extended exercise"... :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And what happens when the US congress refuses to permit the sale of the Aussie F-18s to Canada?
> 
> You know-ITAR and all that.
> 
> This just gets dumber and dumber.



Don't inject that kind of fore thought and intellect into this knee jerk reaction.


----------



## Rifleman62

Roll on the next election so we can get rid of Trudeau and the rest of the idiots.


----------



## OTR1

Excerpt from follow-up report in Australian Aviation site (credible) follows.

BTW Butterworth ceased to be a RAAF base quite some years years ago, although dets still swing through, and whatnot. Very little RAAF kit and kaboodle there, and most of the few pers around are HVA folks. Won't be used for F-35 dets. Oh yeah, Dimsum is 100 per cent correct re the food (and beer) in Penang - it just can't be beat.  8)

Tindal proves that a fellow doesn't have to die to get to hell........


+++ The Australian angle continues to gain momentum, with Canadian officials reportedly visiting RAAF Williamtown in August to inspect the RAAF aircraft, and Australian officials visiting Ottawa in November for further discussions. But with the RAAF’s first F-35 squadron unlikely to achieve initial operational capability at Williamtown before 2020 and subsequent squadrons at one-year intervals through to 2023, the availability of RAAF classic Hornets in significant numbers before 2021 is uncertain.

If bought by Canada, the former RAAF aircraft would be absorbed into the Canadian fleet quite easily – either as a source of spares or to spread the budgeted flying hours over a larger fleet – as both fleets completed similar upgrade programs in the past decade resulting in common sensor and avionics capabilities which are still operationally relevant. But with both countries’ Hornet airframes built in the 1980s, the youngest airframe available will be nearly 35 years old by the time any transfer of RAAF Hornets to Canada could occur. Canada once operated a fleet of 138 CF-18s, but through attrition and force downsizing, now operates fewer than 80 aircraft.

The Reuters report claims that by buying ex-RAAF Hornets, Canada would save money by avoiding the need to absorb a new training and sustainment system. But any savings will likely be offset to a large degree by the maintenance burden of operating 30+ year old airframes. Further, while the RAAF jets may extend the operational life of the Canadian fleet, the need to replace these aircraft within a decade still remains. +++


Whole article here - http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/12/canada-to-buy-australian-hornets-scrap-super-hornet-deal-report/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes but it moves the decision point into another election cycle, therefore no longer the problem for this current government.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is unconscionable--and by 2026 construction of absurdly costly new RCN CSCs supposed to be well under way--where will money come from for new fighters?



> Feds planning to push back delivery date for new fighter jets: sources
> 
> Industry sources say the Trudeau government is preparing to push back the expected delivery date of a new fighter jet to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet.
> 
> The Liberals said last year that they planned to start receiving new fighters in about five years, or around 2021, at which point the 30-year-old CF-18s would start being phased out.
> 
> But several sources tell The Canadian Press that defence officials don't expect the first new plane to be delivered for another eight years, which would put the time frame around 2026.
> 
> The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, would not speculate on why the delivery schedule was being changed.
> 
> But the decision could have major financial implications if it _means having to sink even more money into the CF-18s than the hundreds of millions already set aside to keep them flying into the next decade_ [and for used RAAF Hornets too!--emphasis added].
> 
> Some are also wondering whether the Liberals, who had promised to launch a formal fighter-jet competition before the 2019 election, now plan to hold off until after Canadians go to the polls.
> 
> News of the expected delay comes as the government is moving ahead on the purchase of used fighter jets from Australia instead of brand-new Super Hornets from Boeing to temporarily bolster Canada's CF-18 fleet.
> 
> ...the used jets are 30 years old -- the same vintage as the CF-18s -- and will need significant upgrades to continue flying into the next decade...
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-planning-to-push-back-delivery-date-for-new-fighter-jets-sources-1.3709684



Utter lunacy stemming from political cowardice and almost utter disregard for the military.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

My apologies if this was covered already but how would the additional Australian Aircraft be deployed?

Are they adding a new squadron?

Or adding airframes to existing squadrons?


Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## MarkOttawa

If first new RCAF fighters might now not be delivered until 2026 ( https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1512082.html#msg1512082 ) will Eurofighter (or Super Hornet) still be in production to deliver then?



> Canada's swipe at Boeing jets could open way for European rivals
> 
> Canada’s decision to shun Boeing Co (BA.N) jets could open the way for European rivals seeking to supply new fighters, assuming the government can sort out major procurement challenges, three sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
> 
> Canada is scrapping a plan to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornet planes and will instead opt for a second-hand fleet of Australian jets, sources told Reuters on Tuesday.
> 
> Boeing’s future military sales in Canada are in question after the U.S. defense firm launched a trade challenge against Canadian planemaker Bombardier Inc (BBDb.TO).
> 
> But - in what the sources said was a worst-case scenario - a government angry at Boeing and unconvinced by other U.S. options may end up facing off against a Canadian air force that dislikes the idea of a European jet.
> 
> “This is a real mess,” said one person familiar with official procurement policy...
> 
> Canadian defense sources say the air force - seeking to maintain close ties with its U.S. counterpart - has long preferred a U.S. jet, which would narrow the race to the Super Hornet or Lockheed Martin Corp’s (LMT.N) F-35 stealth fighter.
> 
> But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not a fan of the F-35 and the Boeing spat means officials are prepared to look at rivals such as the Eurofighter Typhoon (AIR.PA) (BAES.L) (LDOF.MI) and Dassault Aviation SA’s (AVMD.PA) Rafale jet, say the sources, who asked to remain anonymous given the sensitivity of the situation...
> 
> If Canada went for the Typhoon or the Rafale, it would have to decide whether to use U.S. weapons or buy European armaments systems and integrate them with those used by U.S. forces.
> 
> An added complication is that the United States and Canada belong to an elite intelligence-sharing network and it is unclear if they would allow Europeans to access sensitive data.
> 
> One defense expert noted that Britain, Germany and Italy intend to operate both the F-35 and the Eurofighter, evidence that Canada could buy the European jet and still operate with U.S. air force F-35s.
> 
> Although Canada will extend the lifespan of some CF-18s to 2025 to cover the introduction of the new fighters, Canadian Global Affairs Institute defense analyst David Perry on Wednesday predicted Ottawa would keep the old planes in service for longer than planned and drag out the competition.
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-boeing-fighterjets-future/canadas-swipe-at-boeing-jets-could-open-way-for-european-rivals-idUSKBN1E02T0



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Read as Canada buy's Australian spare parts, while continuing to dither on actual replacement


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes but it moves the decision point into another election cycle, therefore no longer the problem for this current government.



Funny you should mention a delay.



> Feds planning to push back delivery date for new fighter jets: sources
> By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press — Dec 6 2017
> 
> OTTAWA — The Royal Canadian Air Force may have to keep its aging CF-18s airborne even longer than already expected after industry sources warned Wednesday that the Trudeau government is planning to push back the delivery date for its new fleet of fighters.
> 
> Word of the likely delay comes with the government moving ahead with the purchase of used fighter jets from Australia as a temporary stopgap alongside its existing CF-18s, rather than the original plan of buying brand new Super Hornets from U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co.
> 
> But the government is also wrestling with how best to sell Canadians on the idea of used jets, mindful of the disaster that followed the purchase of second-hand British submarines in the 1990s.
> 
> The Liberal government said last year that it planned to start receiving new fighter jets in about five years, or around 2021, at which point the phase-out of CF-18s was scheduled to begin.
> 
> But several sources told The Canadian Press on Wednesday that defence officials now don't expect the first of 88 new fighters to be delivered for another eight years, putting the new time frame around 2026.
> 
> The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, would not speculate on why the delivery schedule was being changed.
> 
> But the decision could have major financial implications if it means having to sink even more money into the CF-18s to keep them in service longer than planned.
> 
> National Defence had already planned to spend up to $500 million to keep its 76 CF-18s flying to 2025, but previous estimates have said extending past that date would be very expensive.
> 
> Some are also wondering whether the Liberals, who promised to launch a formal fighter-jet competition to replace the CF-18s before the 2019 election, now plan to hold off until after Canadians go to the polls.
> 
> Retired military officers and defence experts alike say a competition, which latest estimates say would be worth up to $19 billion, could be launched right away, and urged the Liberals to take that step, rather than waiting several more years.
> 
> "If they had launched a competition last year, we could already be getting on with it," said Alan Williams, who previously served as head of military procurement at the Department of National Defence.
> 
> "Even today, it could be started."
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan would not comment Wednesday on when the competition would be launched, saying only that it would be announced "at the appropriate time."
> 
> In the meantime, government and industry sources say the Liberals have settled on buying Australia's used jets from Australia. The original plan to buy 18 Super Hornets, at an estimated cost of $6 billion, was scuttled after Boeing triggered a bitter trade dispute with Montreal-based rival Bombardier earlier this year.
> 
> The Australian plan does have its advantages. The aircraft will almost certainly be cheaper than the Super Hornets, and easier to incorporate into Canada's existing fleet, since they are nearly identical to the CF-18, and won't require new training or infrastructure.
> 
> But the Australian jets are 30 years old — the same vintage as the CF-18s — and sources say the government is concerned about resurrecting memories of the four second-hand subs Canada bought from the U.K. One of those vessels, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire while crossing the Atlantic in 2004, killing a naval officer and injuring nine other sailors.
> 
> Billions of dollars have also been sunk into the vessels over the years to address a multitude of technical problems, which has kept them docked more often than they have been at sea.
> 
> During question period Wednesday, Conservative MP Tony Clement called on the Liberals to abandon the "rusted out" Australian "bucket of bolts" and hold an immediate competition to replace the CF-18s.
> 
> The Australian planes come with another built-in advantage, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute: Canada has long since learned how to keep them in service.
> 
> "We've proven to be very good, out of necessity, at keeping them flying for quite some period of time, whereas the Upholder class of submarines were totally unique. Canada hadn't operated them," Perry said.
> 
> "But at the end of the day, when you're buying heavily used, 30-year-old aircraft, you're buying heavily used 30-year-old aircraft."
> 
> — Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter
> 
> Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press



 Article Link


----------



## MarkOttawa

New RCAF fighter procurement, or, CharlieFoxtrot to the max--guilty men on both sides.  Stephen Harper's nine-plus years' government (2006-2015) got nothing; now Justin Trudeau's may take eleven years for first plane, so two decades!?! Two world wars times two. Good flipping Canadian political grief.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Problem is, they didn't have to start the program from scratch. They could have just run a competition that they promised to do, less than 2 years into their mandate and had a contract awarded prior to the election. Instead, we restarted a glacial military procurement system and may end up with only 1 or 2 bidders. Super Hornet line is on life support, along with other older aircraft.  Who knows if Typhoon will even be available 8 years from now, F35 is going to kill that program off too.


----------



## BurnDoctor

Pure idiocy. That is all.


----------



## OldSolduer

BurnDoctor said:
			
		

> Pure idiocy. That is all.



It’s worse than that. It’s a PET legacy.  To Destroy the Canadian military was an intended aim of PET and now JT is seeing his dear father’s plan through. 
I fear it is too late to stop him and his brethren.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I fear it is too late to stop him and his brethren.



This might be the 'quiet reality' to some of us who are getting grey up top.  I've heard a few "well, at least I'll have my pension" comments in the past few years...


----------



## a_majoor

Another reason for the Liberals to avoid the F-35: it could conceivably be part pf a Ballistic Missile Defense system (full article requires subscription):

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35s-could-shoot-down-north-korean-missiles?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20171205_AW-05_735&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000002349694&utm_campaign=12864&utm_medium=email&elq2=ab4ce1445a3340aaaaafbcb1b5452bac



> *F-35s Could Shoot Down North Korean Missiles*
> Dec 4, 2017 James Drew | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
> 
> Most of North Korea's missile sites are within range of Lockheed Martin F-35s that are equipped with the Raytheon AIM-120 Amraam: U.S. Air Force
> 
> Imagine if seconds after North Korea’s Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile lifted off on Nov. 28, a Lockheed Martin F-35 armed with four Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) engaged the missile and destroyed ...



Maybe not as sexy as a 747 armed with a megawatt laser, but certainly more practical.


----------



## Quirky

Not sure what's more idiotic, the Canadian procurement system or the pilots who keep signing up to fly these rust buckets. Who in their right mind would want to fly a fighter jet older than they are. I refuse to fly back seat.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More--note "list of pre-qualified bidders":



> Liberals set to announce fighter jet competition, purchase of used Aussie jets next week
> _Conservatives describe Australian fighter jet purchase akin to buying a 'bucket of bolts'_
> 
> The Liberal government intends to announce the "launch" of its long-awaited competition to replace the air force's aging CF-18s next week — at the same time it unveils a plan to buy used Australian jet fighters as stop-gap measure, CBC News has learned.
> 
> Multiple government and industry sources say what the public will see is the first step "in a long road" toward the issuing of a formal tender in early 2019 and the eventual acquisition of brand new warplanes by the mid-2020s.
> 
> Significantly, from a political perspective, the government is considering ripping a page out of its recent warship-building playbook and establishing a list of pre-qualified bidders, said a source familiar with the file, but who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
> 
> A final decision on whether to take that step has not been made, but it would potentially give the Liberals ongoing leverage in nasty trade disputes, like the one between Boeing and Bombardier...
> 
> Getting the full competition underway would please the commander of the air force, who, in a sit-down interview with CBC News on Wednesday, said the sooner it gets underway, the better.
> 
> "Can we do it faster? That would be the challenge I would give my colleagues across government," said Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood.
> 
> "I'm ready to take it on faster, but I also recognize the government's process requirements for an open and transparent competition. They've stated it very publicly and I am supportive of their view to take that way. I just want it to go faster."...
> 
> Next week's announcement is not only expected to lay out the process for acquiring new jets, but set down a framework for consultation with both "industry and foreign governments."
> 
> That is a crucial aspect because of the sometimes bruising backroom battles that went on over the navy's $60 billion frigate replacement program. Federal procurement officials on that file were surprised to find foreign governments balking at sharing top secret schematics for weapons systems...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/australia-fighter-jets-competition-1.4436680



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Pre-qualified bidders?

There are only five corporations in the world that build these things !!!!

And we all know who they are and what product they sell. 

Talk about fiddling with process just to drag your feet and avoid breaking stupid promises you made in ignorance during an election cycle.


----------



## Rifleman62

Me:





> The Defence of Canada and it's citizens is too important to be determined by politics of the LPC.



If it's citizens care (until it's too late).

If the fighter procurement/cannibalization of used A/C 30+ years old gets more farcical, if that is even possible, why doesn't someone responsible to execute the Defence of Canada call the government out?

Eye in the Sky: 


> This might be the 'quiet reality' to some of us who are getting grey up top.  I've heard a few "well, at least I'll have my pension" comments in the past few years...



There is always hope the US will shitcan the Aus deal.


----------



## MilEME09

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> There is always hope the US will shitcan the Aus deal.



I hope to god they do, it will force them to run the competition


----------



## ringo

If Australia moves towards an all F35 fleet, Canada could buy used Australian Super Hornets 24 F and 12 G models in RAAF service.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I hope to god they do, it will force them to run the competition



Nothing will force them to run anything if they don't want to. They'll simply find another excuse scheme, with the assistance of civil servants just too happy to help the Libs and who will never have to face an armed enemy in their whole life.

And don't count on the Canadian population to pressure them : As we all know the population is generally ignorant, and blissfully so, of Canadian Defence matter and couldn't care less.

The Federal government gets more pressure on matters of defence from our allies than from the whole electorate combined.


----------



## observor 69

Quirky said:
			
		

> Not sure what's more idiotic, the Canadian procurement system or the pilots who keep signing up to fly these rust buckets. Who in their right mind would want to fly fighter jet older than they are. I refuse to fly back seat.



I'll take it.  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

OGBD you’ve said it well. We’ve seen government change the rules several times when they don’t get the answer they want.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Keep in mind that new RCAF fighter, er, studies have already been done--first under the Conservatives and then under the Liberals:

1) Conservatives:



> F-35: Canadian Fighter Review Ends, Danish One Starts
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/mark-collins-f-35-canadian-fighter-review-ends-danish-one-starts




Danes have already selected F-35; selection was lengthy process overall but eventual competition took some two years; it appears Liberals only intend to start ours in 2019 after next election.  _Quelle surprise_:
https://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/f-35-wins-denmark-competition-trounces-super-hornet-eurofighter/

2) Liberals:



> New RCAF Fighter: Consult, Consult, Consult (with industry)–Why Not Just Compete?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/mark-collins-new-rcaf-fighter-consult-consult-consult-with-industry-why-not-just-compete/



This forever fighter farce, first under Harper and now under Trudeau, really does suggest Canada is not a serious country.  What our allies and friends must think knows only God.  Does the tolerance of our GoFos have any limits?  One understands a motivation not to make things even worse for the CAF by keeping essentially mum in the face of the political ....show, but how much worse do things need to get (cf. shipbuilding, Africa peacekeeping nonsense, whatever)?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like some serious work preparing for eventual competition may start fairly soon:



> Boeing ready to throw in towel on Canadian interim fighter purchase
> 
> ...the Liberal government intends next week to announce the beginning of the competition to replace the entire existing fleet of CF-18s.
> 
> Earlier this week sources told CBC News the expected announcement will lay out a roadmap towards the planned tender call in 2019.
> 
> Significantly, the government is expected to use that period to not only consult with industry but develop a list of pre-qualified bidders.
> 
> Aside from weeding out companies that clearly don't meet the criteria, such a list could also be used as leverage on the trade front...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/superhornet-sale-dead-1.4439612



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note ref. at end to pilots leaving RCAF:



> Liberal Plan For Interim Jets Tackles 'Capability Gap' That Doesn't Exist: Experts
> _Feds accused of buying "bucket of bolts" from Australia._
> 
> The federal government is expected to announce Tuesday that it will delay the launch of an open competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fighter jets and purchase second-hand 30-year-old Australian aircraft instead in an effort to fix a capability gap that industry observers describe as "fictional."
> 
> "It is absolutely, totally, nonsensical," Alan Williams, the former assistant deputy minister (materiel) for national defence, told HuffPost Canada of the Liberal government's impending announcement.
> 
> "There is no need to have interim jets. There is no need to waste billions of dollars, no need to train people on different platforms," he said. "Even if you admit there is a gap — which I don't think anyone seriously believes — the way to go about resolving it is exactly the opposite of what they are doing."
> 'You are not reinventing the wheel'
> 
> The fastest way to fix the problem is through a competition, he said.
> 
> "Everything is out there. You are not reinventing the wheel. There is no reason why they can't start that within a month, if they want to."
> 
> ...25 months after forming government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's ministers are suggesting an open competition won't occur until 2019.
> 
> "They could have announced they would run a competition two years ago," Williams said, "and be well done with it."..
> 
> While the Grits have promised to buy 88 brand fighter aircraft, Sajjan told reporters more planes are needed to address an "interim capability gap."
> 
> That gap is the number of jets required to fulfil Canada's NATO and NORAD commitments simultaneously. The National Defence Department won't say what missions might be compromised if new jets aren't purchased and for decades successive governments have managed the risk believing it was unlikely all those aircraft would be needed at the same time.
> 
> "For reasons of operational security, the RCAF cannot comment further on how it manages the employment of its CF-18 fleet," Daniel Le Bouthillier, the head of media relations at DND, told HuffPost Canada.
> 
> The high-end of Canada's NATO obligation is a promise to have six jets ready to fly in short order, said David Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. The NORAD commitment is classified. "It would be the worst case scenario — literally, the Russians are coming," Perry said...
> 
> [But serving Air Force major said this in 2006:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...In NORAD, the Canadian Forces are committed to provide 36 fighters for air sovereignty and homeland security.  In addition to this Canada is committed to provide six or more fighters to the United Nations and/or NATO at any given time, should the need arise...
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1466311.html#msg1466311
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now the numbers have been deleted at end p. 36 and start p. 37 in the only version of the piece I can now find on the web!!!
> 
> _Latest edit: see footnote 5 (for NORAD figure of 36--"Various unclassified briefings conducted
> at 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters  – Winnipeg, Manitoba"; would be no footnote unless it was for numbers as no need to document the overall, as opposed to specific, NORAD commitment_
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/doc/roberds-eng.pdf ]
> 
> Al Stephenson, a retired colonel with 35 years experience flying fighter aircraft, also believes there is no gap.
> 
> "This capability gap is a figment of their imagination," he said.
> 
> "The funny thing is they have dismissed the experts saying there is a capability gap and now they are creating one in order to delay the competition," Stephenson told HuffPost.
> 
> He is concerned that the government's timeline for an open competition will be five years, and extend past two elections — "which is nonsense."..
> 
> _A competition might also entice pilots to stay in the air force longer, he said. A steady number leave each year to join the airline industry or take lucrative jobs as private pilots in the Middle East_ [emphasis added], he said...
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12/12/liberal-plan-for-interim-jets-tackles-capability-gap-that-doesnt-exist-experts_a_23304661/
Click to expand...


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

There is zero information on pilots leaving the RCAF in that article - no discussion of attrition rates, and how they compare to historical norms, or to the rest of the CAF, or to others in the same demographic circumstances.  Just an offhand comment about some pilots leaving.


----------



## FSTO

So the current government invents a capability gap for the RCAF to hold off the procurement of a much needed new fighter, while the clear and present capability gap that has existed in the RCN (AOR's) is blithely dismissed (by a former Navy man) as not important. And people wonder why we deride the military commitments of our successive governments.


And no, 1 AOR on one coast does not diminish the need for another i-AOR!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two "Policy Updates" at Canadian Global Affairs Institute (note background of author of first, quoted near end of this post just above https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1512759.html#msg1512759 ):



> Gaming the CF-18 Fighter Replacement: The Politicizing of a Military Procurement
> ...
> *About the Author*
> 
> Col Al Stephenson (Ret’d) is an aviation consultant and a 35-year veteran of the Canadian Forces. Stephenson’s knowledge of NORAD and NATO follows from his experience as a CF-18 pilot and staff officer at all levels of command. He holds a PhD from Carleton University and is also a CGAI Fellow.
> http://www.cgai.ca/gaming_the_cf_18_fighter_replacement_the_politicizing_of_a_military_procurement





> Canada Looks to the Past for Fighter Fix while Allies Fly in the 21st Century
> by Matthew Fisher
> http://www.cgai.ca/canada_looks_to_the_past_for_fighter_fix_while_allies_fly_in_the_21st_century



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

It seems a bit unreal for any standing air force to claim that they have all they need to perform the assigned missions? OTOH, why say no to a larger fleet of a/c.  And since when is a Canadian government in the past 50 years (or more) ever been serious about getting serious. What a joke. The next step will be the tax payers federation stepping in attempting to get an injunction preventing the government prerogative to waste money in farcical issues likes this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

https://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-armed-forces/statement-from-the-chief-of-the-defence-staff/2184356095124914/

Earlier this year, as part of the Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy, the government outlined its commitment to the future of the Canadian Armed Forces. The policy also dictated what the government would require from us in turn - the sustained, concurrent employment of military forces in defence of Canada and North America.

When it comes to fighter jets, the policy is unequivocal. It requires the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to generate sufficient mission-ready aircraft to meet our domestic and international obligations - including both NATO and NORAD commitments - simultaneously. What is also unequivocal is that the RCAF cannot concurrently meet those obligations without some form of supplemental fighter capability. 

The most critical thing for me as I look to the long-term health and capacity of the RCAF is the commitment made in the defence policy, and reaffirmed by the government today, to procure advanced fighter jets. Industry engagement is the first step in that process, and I am satisfied to see that step being taken.

To help address the RCAF's near-term needs, the government has announced its intent to acquire 18 Australian F-18s to augment our current fighter fleet. This is a natural fit; the Australian jets are functionally equivalent to our own CF-18s and, once converted to Canadian specifications, will provide an easy transition for our pilots, technicians, and ground crew.

I am fully confident that this supplemental capability will help the RCAF meet our domestic and international obligations until a replacement fighter is chosen and acquired. 

Jonathan H Vance
General
Chief of the Defence Staff
---------------------------------------------------

 The first few comments seem to suggest 'people aren't buying it' 

Personally I've heard more than a few comments regarding how 'in step' the CDS is with _The Apple Dumpling Gang _and how it is _too_ much in step.  On this issue and others...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

New fighter-jet competition to have 'economic interest' requirement


OTTAWA -- The Trudeau government is kicking off its latest bid to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets -- and adding a new requirement to the procurement process by assessing a company's overall impact on the Canadian economy.

The government is launching a full competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s with 88 new fighters by as early as 2025, a move that comes in the midst of an ongoing trade dispute with U.S. aerospace giant Boeing.

"Applications will be rigorously assessed on cost, technical requirements and economic benefit," Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough told a news conference Tuesday.

"Our government feels it is important to maximize economic impacts; as such, the evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders on Canada's economic interests. This new assessment is an incentive for bidders to contribute positively to Canada's economy.

"Bidders responsible for harming Canada's economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage compared to bidders who aren't engaged in detrimental behaviour."

Boeing has been eager to submit its Super Hornet to compete for the contract, which is valued at up to $19 billion and expected to start delivering jets in 2025. But the new stipulation could well have an impact on Boeing if its trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier is still alive and ends up being deemed harmful to Canada's economic interests.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the government settled on the number of 88 fighters even though the previous Conservative government had only planned to buy 65 new planes, an effort that never got off the ground.

"After extensive consultations and careful analysis as part of the defence policy review, it was clear that a full fleet of 88 planes are required to fully meet our Norad and NATO obligations simultaneously," he said.

"Our government will not risk-manage our national defence commitments."

The Liberals are also officially abandoning a plan to buy 18 Super Hornets to temporarily boost Canada's CF-18 fleet, saying they plan instead to buy 18 second-hand fighter jets from Australia.

"We have received an offer for sale of F-18 aircraft from the government of Australia, which we intend to pursue, and we have received an offer of Super Hornets from the U.S. government, which we intend to let expire," Qualtrough said.

Officials briefing reporters on background say that while details are still being worked out, the used Australian jets will cost significantly less than Super Hornets and can be put into action two years faster.

Since Canada already flies a version of the same fighter jet, "the supply chain and maintenance lines required to support these aircraft are already in place," Sajjan said.


----------



## McG

To be fair,  'economic interest' is not a new requirement.  It is in almost every big CAF procurement. Maybe this will start public debate about the extent to which this "requirement" actually influences Canadian tax payers getting the best capability for the value of their defence dollars ... but probably we will not see this conversation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> The Trudeau government is kicking off its latest bid to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets -- and adding a new requirement to the procurement process by assessing a company's overall impact on the Canadian economy.
> 
> "Our government feels it is important to maximize economic impacts; as such, the evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders on Canada's economic interests. This new assessment is an incentive for bidders to contribute positively to Canada's economy.
> 
> "Bidders responsible for harming Canada's economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage compared to bidders who aren't engaged in detrimental behaviour."



I am (somewhat) aware of the IRB Policy, but the article suggest there will be something in addition to this with this 'new requirement' highlighted above.  Am I misreading, or are they actually just referring to something that already exists that is being sold as 'new'?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think this must be only further "politicking" because the rule is already a dollar for dollar economic benefit impact requirement and I just can't see how they could possibly ask for more economic impact than a 100% local purchase within Canada would generate without running afoul of international trade rules.

But I suggest it is not beyond the Libs to use already existing rules applied as a matter of fact, but little known to Canadians, and wrap them up in red Christmas bows to roll them out as if they just came out with the idea as a great new benefit to Canadians.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So cynical in one so young.... 

Actually the stated criteria really plays to Lockheeds hands as they can point to guaranteed Canadian content and to long term contracts to provide components for the worldwide fleet. Boeing has a bit of skin in the game already with any existing contracts. The C-series stuff will be old news by then. The Europeans will have to scramble to create potential partnerships to lay the groundwork.


----------



## suffolkowner

FSTO said:
			
		

> So the current government invents a capability gap for the RCAF to hold off the procurement of a much needed new fighter, while the clear and present capability gap that has existed in the RCN (AOR's) is blithely dismissed (by a former Navy man) as not important. And people wonder why we deride the military commitments of our successive governments.
> 
> 
> And no, 1 AOR on one coast does not diminish the need for another i-AOR!



I think both the fighter capability gap and AOR gap just represent how far the military will go to stay in line with the government of the day


----------



## Rifleman62

> "Bidders responsible for harming Canada's economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage compared to bidders who aren't engaged in detrimental behaviour."



At the risk of being slammed, that statement shows how infantile PM Trudeau and his advisors are.

I agree with ColinP that it will probably assist Lockheed. 





> The C-series stuff will be old news by then.


 Probably 20+ years old by the time the first new RCAF aircraft is delivered.

I have no idea how West Jet/AC  lease/buy their aircraft. Do they get financial assistance from the Government of Canada by way of loans, loan guarantees, subsidized lease rates? If so there could be problems for them re Boeing and a vindictive LPC.

Would a new government speed up the process of acquiring new aircraft? I hope the Oz F-18's like the cold. :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Eurofighter should still be in position to be able to compete with a 2025 first delivery date (Airbus working with Bombardier? just drool at the economic benefits and hang the cost):



> Qatari Order Extends Eurofighter Production To 2024
> http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/qatari-order-extends-eurofighter-production-2024



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is zero information on pilots leaving the RCAF in that article - no discussion of attrition rates, and how they compare to historical norms, or to the rest of the CAF, or to others in the same demographic circumstances.  Just an offhand comment about some pilots leaving.



Because it is not in the article doesn't mean it's not real.  The exodus is real and the reason people leave is a because of the compounding effect of multiple bad decisions: the 3-year mandatory service after completing an OTU (even if you were previously qualified on-type), the realization that flying something new will not happen in our time, the lack of recognition, financial strain on families due to having to move out of a housing market that took a dive, etc...

We have lost a lot of experience in the Fighter Force this year: mostly high 1000s to mid 2000s hours guys and gals with the highest level of qualification they can get.  But you need not worry, we'll replace them by brand new guys out of the OTU!

Rant off


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-canadas-incurable-case-of-fighter-jet-lag/article37309723/

*Globe editorial: Canada’s incurable case of fighter-jet lag* - 12 Dec 17

At this point in Canadian history, it has become a real challenge to put one's faith in Ottawa's ability to purchase modern fighter jets.

Our air force has an aging fleet of CF-18s purchased in the 1980s, and of which about 80 are still operational. That may or may not be adequate for fulfilling all of our military obligations, depending on whom you ask.

The Conservative government of Stephen Harper wanted to replace the CF-18s with 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs, but its sole-source procurement process was so botched that the cost ballooned from $9-billion to $45-billion, and Ottawa had to start over again.

The Trudeau government came to power with the promise of a new and better competitive bidding process. It also said it would fill interim operational gaps by purchasing 18 Boeing Super Hornets, a sole-source contract worth $6.4-billion.

Then, in April, Boeing launched a (so far) successful trade dispute against Bombardier. So Ottawa said on Tuesday that it is cancelling the Hornet deal in retaliation and instead will buy used F-18s from Australia for at least $500-million.

The government also said it will formally launch its bidding process in 2019, with the goal of awarding a contract in 2022 and getting planes delivered by 2025. One caveat: The contract will not go to a company "that is responsible for harm to Canada's economic interest" [cough cough Boeing].

So that's where we are. If the Conservatives hadn't made a mess of things, we'd have brand new fighter jets in the air by now. Instead, our aging fleet will be bolstered by Australian leftovers – not necessarily a bad thing, but far from ideal. We'll finally get new planes in 2025, nine years after the last new ones were supposed to have been uncrated.

That's the theory, anyway. With a four-year timeline for finalizing a contract, anything can happen. A new government could scrap the plan. Or our over-politicized procurement process could again go off the rails and we could end up buying more planes off the international used-jet sales lot.

History tells us that it is impossible to know how this will turn out, which makes it impossible to evaluate the government's new plan. The most that can be said is that Ottawa didn't do anything particularly dumb on Tuesday. It's a start.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-canadas-incurable-case-of-fighter-jet-lag/article37309723/
> 
> *Globe editorial: Canada’s incurable case of fighter-jet lag* - 12 Dec 17
> 
> At this point in Canadian history, it has become a real challenge to put one's faith in Ottawa's ability to purchase modern fighter jets.
> 
> Our air force has an aging fleet of CF-18s purchased in the 1980s, and of which about 80 are still operational. That may or may not be adequate for fulfilling all of our military obligations, depending on whom you ask.
> 
> The Conservative government of Stephen Harper wanted to replace the CF-18s with 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs, but its sole-source procurement process was so botched that *the cost ballooned from $9-billion to $45-billion*, and Ottawa had to start over again.
> 
> The Trudeau government came to power with the promise of a new and better competitive bidding process. It also said it would fill interim operational gaps by purchasing 18 Boeing Super Hornets, *a sole-source contract worth $6.4-billion*.
> 
> Then, in April, Boeing launched a (so far) successful trade dispute against Bombardier. So Ottawa said on Tuesday that it is cancelling the Hornet deal in retaliation and instead will buy used F-18s from Australia for *at least $500-million*.
> 
> The government also said it will formally launch its bidding process in 2019, with the goal of awarding a contract in 2022 and getting planes delivered by 2025. One caveat: The contract will not go to a company "that is responsible for harm to Canada's economic interest" [cough cough Boeing].
> 
> So that's where we are. If the Conservatives hadn't made a mess of things, we'd have brand new fighter jets in the air by now. Instead, our aging fleet will be bolstered by Australian leftovers – not necessarily a bad thing, but far from ideal. We'll finally get new planes in 2025, nine years after the last new ones were supposed to have been uncrated.
> 
> That's the theory, anyway. With a four-year timeline for finalizing a contract, anything can happen. A new government could scrap the plan. Or our over-politicized procurement process could again go off the rails and we could end up buying more planes off the international used-jet sales lot.
> 
> History tells us that it is impossible to know how this will turn out, which makes it impossible to evaluate the government's new plan. The most that can be said is that Ottawa didn't do anything particularly dumb on Tuesday. It's a start.



And decades later our betters in the media still can't figure out how to evaluate a cost......  :facepalm:

We are back to the era of John Wilkes and his pamphlets.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We have lost a lot of experience in the Fighter Force this year: mostly high 1000s to mid 2000s hours guys and gals with the highest level of qualification they can get.  But you need not worry, we'll replace them by brand new guys out of the OTU!
> 
> Rant off



That isn't just in the fighter force, and not just with Pilots either.  It's a crap sandwich all around in all fleets, and all (aircrew) trades.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Funny, and not funny at the same time...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So trying to find the silver lining....

As twisted as this whole process has been, the one positive is at the end the RCAF will end up with 23 more replacement fighters than would have been procured had the original Harper plan moved ahead?

88 vs 65?   ???


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't be counting any chickens till they are in front of you. So what are the chances they would base fighters out of Comox again if they got some operational airframes?


----------



## Journeyman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> So trying to find the silver lining....


I believe the expression you're looking for is, "clutching at straws."    :nod:


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> what are the chances they would base fighters out of Comox again if they got some operational airframes?



 :rofl:

Aside from the occasional QRA?


----------



## Loachman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> So trying to find the silver lining....
> 
> As twisted as this whole process has been, the one positive is at the end the RCAF will end up with 23 more replacement fighters than would have been procured had the original Harper plan moved ahead?
> 
> 88 vs 65?   ???



Balanced by the growing shortage of Pilots to fly them and Techs to maintain them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Aside from the occasional QRA?



yea I am a dreamer, I also expect that having postings to places like Comox might actually help convince people to stay in....


----------



## Quirky

Colin P said:
			
		

> yea I am a dreamer, I also expect that having postings to places like Comox might actually help convince people to stay in....



Not necessarily Comox but civilisation. I'd gladly stay in the fighter world the length of my TOS if it wasn't at shit posting locations.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I don't mind a shitty location but I'll only OT to pilot if I get an F35. None of that Australian F18 noise.


----------



## angus555

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'll only OT to pilot if I get an F35.



You make the process sound so leisurely.


----------



## dimsum

angus555 said:
			
		

> You make the process sound so leisurely.



I'm gonna put it out there and suggest that Jarnhamar is being facetious.


----------



## angus555

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm gonna put it out there and suggest that Jarnhamar is being facetious.



Yes it was good, but for extra points it needed a Top Gun reference. :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

European options -  service support


"the *French Air Force* on the whole is in a disastrous state, with *56 per cent of all its aircraft unfit to fly *at any given moment..."

"Britain’s *Royal Air Force*, whose aircraft have been in constant use for many years in Afghanistan and Iraq, was criticised earlier this year when it was revealed that on average *one in three of its multi-role Typhoon fighters and Tornado combat jets was unfit to fly*."

"just *one or two A400M *turboprop transport planes out of a total *of twelve* are ready to take to the air."

"The *Rafale*, which is seen as one of the best multi-purpose fighter jets in the world, scores a respectable *49 per cent availability*."

"The aim is to avoid the case of the* Tiger helicopter*, whose maintenance is currently split between so many different firms or military offices that it requires *more than 30 separate contracts.*"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chris,

You make it sound like anyone in government is actually interested in things like availability or operational effectiveness.

Really, it is all about industrial offsets and regional benefits.


----------



## FSTO

Why are they putting in ANOTHER layer of BS on our already overloaded procurement system. But its such a great idea that they don't even know what it means yet? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/procurement-canada-economic-clause-1.4450439

The lawyers will love it though!!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> European options -  service support
> 
> 
> "the *French Air Force* on the whole is in a disastrous state, with *56 per cent of all its aircraft unfit to fly *at any given moment..."
> 
> "Britain’s *Royal Air Force*, whose aircraft have been in constant use for many years in Afghanistan and Iraq, was criticised earlier this year when it was revealed that on average *one in three of its multi-role Typhoon fighters and Tornado combat jets was unfit to fly*."
> 
> "just *one or two A400M *turboprop transport planes out of a total *of twelve* are ready to take to the air."
> 
> "The *Rafale*, which is seen as one of the best multi-purpose fighter jets in the world, scores a respectable *49 per cent availability*."
> 
> "The aim is to avoid the case of the* Tiger helicopter*, whose maintenance is currently split between so many different firms or military offices that it requires *more than 30 separate contracts.*"
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/



The A400M is a classic example of trying to build an all singing, all dancing piece of military hardware that tries to do everything but ends up doing nothing well.

The Euros wanted a plane that could do tactical and strategic airlift all in one.  Bigger than a Herc but smaller than a Globemaster.  Consider it validation for maintaining a mixed fleet of tactical and strategic airlift.

It also showed the downsides of consortiums that contain unreliable partners.  Airbus has openly criticized the different governments involved due to their unrealistic expectations and flip-floppery over plane numbers.  

I think it will be a good aircraft when it is finally FOC but, like our cyclone process, it's painful to get there.

I think we should be wary of buying anything from countries that work 30 hour work weeks and seem more interesting in sucking on olives and munching on cheese.

Partnerships with the Americans is a must IMO.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Chris,
> 
> You make it sound like anyone in government is actually interested in things like availability or operational effectiveness.
> 
> Really, it is all about industrial offsets and regional benefits.



Trudat.  But it is too depressing not to keep trying....


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Found this on YouTube. Déjà vue all over again. 

https://youtu.be/kTk-Z0Th_SA


----------



## Cloud Cover

Great find. Good thing we never did "... dirty our hands in the international arms industry."  :


----------



## Edward Campbell

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Found this on YouTube. Déjà vue all over again.
> 
> https://youtu.be/kTk-Z0Th_SA




Whoever wrote "_*inflation and the weak dollar*_"into her script actually understood something ... and, therefore, probably never rose higher in the CBC or got a job anywhere in government.


----------



## Downhiller229

Quite on point... didn't someone say that history is bound to repeat itself at some point?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That was almost...eerie...to watch.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-jets-and-vets

*MACKAY: Jets and vets* - Toronto Sun - 31 Dec 17


Over two years ago in the general election, the Trudeau Liberals promised a great deal for Canada’s military and for veterans.

A new era of open, transparent procurement was promised to replace the aging CF-18 fighter jet fleet. That included a solemn vow to not buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter, committed to by the previous Conservative government, because said breathlessly by the PM at the time” the plane doesn’t work and won’t work.” Yet, currently six countries have taken delivery of over 300 F-35s and another six have committed to do so.

The previous $9-billion deal for 65 F-35s announced by the Harper Government in 2012 was savaged by opposition, media and ultimately cratered by the auditor general, who used an entirely new metric of life cycle costing over a much extended period of 45 years to inflate the number and spook the public.

Canada would be taking delivery of those aircraft next year had it proceeded.

Recently, in a do-over announcement of a process that will add years and involve the outlay of $19-billion (not using life cycle costing) to purchase the permanent replacement for the CF-18 fleet, a new caveat was added.

The new, open and transparent process for selecting the winning replacement jet may not….wait for it… include Boeing this time. Here we go again.

The proposed 88 new jets delivered sometime post-2025, will not be purchased from a company causing “economic harm” to Canada (read: Bombardier) or which can’t be viewed as a “trusted partner.”

Curiously, just a few months ago, Canada had pretty well sealed a deal to purchase 18 “interim” Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. That was before the Trudeau government hit the brakes on the purchase because of a trade dispute between Boeing and Bombardier, saying that it wouldn’t go through, as Boeing could no longer be considered a “trusted partner.”

Bombardier has, in the meantime, inked an agreement with Airbus to build at least part of the C-Series at the Alabama Airbus plant, while the dumping case against Bombardier is proceeding. Not sure, given how much taxpayer money has flowed to Bombardier recently, that we have emerged on the winning side of this transaction, but I digress.

The Federal government will now reverse its announcement of just a few months ago to buy 18 new Super Hornets from Boeing and, instead, buy used Boeing F-18 Hornets from Australia, relying on a made up capability gap, which no one in the Royal Canadian Air Force really believes to be true.

Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood, commander of the RCAF, testified to the fact there was none before a parliamentary committee a year ago. The former Chief of the Defence Staff General Tom Lawson, said he would prefer to get on with the process for a permanent replacement now and forego the interim process.

Photo Caption - I left in as the dates are interesting. _Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence speaks to the military and media as he announces Canada will be acquiring the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lighting II Friday July 16, 2010 in Ottawa. Next to Minister MacKay is Minster Tony Clement. The government of Canada will buy 65 of these Joint Strike fighters and they are expected to be delivered in 2016._

The defence minister, contradicting the general on the gap and himself said recently, that “we don’t need to buy used equipment, we need new aircraft.”

All this clatter provides a convenient out and a solution to a problem created by Liberal double-speak in the last campaign. After two years trying to square the circle of two contradictory promises — an “open” competition and one which excludes the best aircraft, the F-35 stealth fighter, Australia provided an opportune solution to the self-inflicted wound and unnecessary answer to the non-existent capability gap — surplus F-18 fighters that Australia is replacing with the F-35 stealth fighters, the same ones that our PM claims don’t work. All very confusing.

And all very troubling to RCAF pilots, technicians and their families. Which is why so many are leaving the service.

These politically motivated decisions and delays will indeed lead to a capability gap, a real one with souring costs. The Liberal credibility gap between what they say and do leaves the Forces without vital equipment.

This is all to familiar as it is eerily similar to the political mangling of the EH101 contract by the Chretien Liberals after the 1993 election. No “Cadillac helicopters,” he proclaimed for our brave pilots and crew performing courageous lifesaving acts of rescue over the frigid oceans on our coasts.

That clanger cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars in cancellation fees with the fleet still not fully replaced and ongoing wrangling with the ensuing winner (Sikorski) of the new re-styled contract. And then, there were the used submarines bought in that same era and the saga that followed. There is a troubling pattern of behaviour with Liberals and defence.

A similar sad story line applies to promises made to veterans in relation to abandoning litigation involving disability payments and the reintroduction of lifelong pensions for disabled members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The original change was engineered by the previous Liberal Government in 2005. The return to the old system of lifelong pensions has been delayed again, leaving many veterans skeptical of what is coming — perhaps just adding a few dollars to the lump sum disability payment and then spreading that money out over the rest of the veteran’s life, based on actuarial tables.

A simple cost-effective and timely solution to helping disabled veterans with livable pensions, would be to forego the $500 million plus upgrades about to be forked out to Australia for 18 aging F-18 fighters, and just take the pool of money saved and fund disabled veterans.

Add the fact that, with an immediate fighter replacement competition, the RCAF would have its permanent replacement much sooner than 2025. This would surely receive the support of Canadian taxpayers and be viewed as a far more principled path forward. This entirely unprincipled and politically motivated gong show should be a non-starter.

Hopefully, in the New Year, the House of Commons Defence Committee can examine this mess and explore sensible solutions (i.e. an immediate competition which will very likely be won by the F-35, just as it has won every other competition.)

Then, get on with the actual implementation and fulfil our commitments to our citizens and our allies.

Peter MacKay is a former Conservative national defence minister.


----------



## tomydoom

Kids I


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Altair

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-jets-and-vets
> 
> *MACKAY: Jets and vets* - Toronto Sun - 31 Dec 17
> 
> 
> Over two years ago in the general election, the Trudeau Liberals promised a great deal for Canada’s military and for veterans.
> 
> A new era of open, transparent procurement was promised to replace the aging CF-18 fighter jet fleet. That included a solemn vow to not buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter, committed to by the previous Conservative government, because said breathlessly by the PM at the time” the plane doesn’t work and won’t work.” Yet, currently six countries have taken delivery of over 300 F-35s and another six have committed to do so.
> 
> The previous $9-billion deal for 65 F-35s announced by the Harper Government in 2012 was savaged by opposition, media and ultimately cratered by the auditor general, who used an entirely new metric of life cycle costing over a much extended period of 45 years to inflate the number and spook the public.
> 
> Canada would be taking delivery of those aircraft next year had it proceeded.
> 
> Recently, in a do-over announcement of a process that will add years and involve the outlay of $19-billion (not using life cycle costing) to purchase the permanent replacement for the CF-18 fleet, a new caveat was added.
> 
> The new, open and transparent process for selecting the winning replacement jet may not….wait for it… include Boeing this time. Here we go again.
> 
> The proposed 88 new jets delivered sometime post-2025, will not be purchased from a company causing “economic harm” to Canada (read: Bombardier) or which can’t be viewed as a “trusted partner.”
> 
> Curiously, just a few months ago, Canada had pretty well sealed a deal to purchase 18 “interim” Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. That was before the Trudeau government hit the brakes on the purchase because of a trade dispute between Boeing and Bombardier, saying that it wouldn’t go through, as Boeing could no longer be considered a “trusted partner.”
> 
> Bombardier has, in the meantime, inked an agreement with Airbus to build at least part of the C-Series at the Alabama Airbus plant, while the dumping case against Bombardier is proceeding. Not sure, given how much taxpayer money has flowed to Bombardier recently, that we have emerged on the winning side of this transaction, but I digress.
> 
> The Federal government will now reverse its announcement of just a few months ago to buy 18 new Super Hornets from Boeing and, instead, buy used Boeing F-18 Hornets from Australia, relying on a made up capability gap, which no one in the Royal Canadian Air Force really believes to be true.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood, commander of the RCAF, testified to the fact there was none before a parliamentary committee a year ago. The former Chief of the Defence Staff General Tom Lawson, said he would prefer to get on with the process for a permanent replacement now and forego the interim process.
> 
> Photo Caption - I left in as the dates are interesting. _Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence speaks to the military and media as he announces Canada will be acquiring the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lighting II Friday July 16, 2010 in Ottawa. Next to Minister MacKay is Minster Tony Clement. The government of Canada will buy 65 of these Joint Strike fighters and they are expected to be delivered in 2016._
> 
> The defence minister, contradicting the general on the gap and himself said recently, that “we don’t need to buy used equipment, we need new aircraft.”
> 
> All this clatter provides a convenient out and a solution to a problem created by Liberal double-speak in the last campaign. After two years trying to square the circle of two contradictory promises — an “open” competition and one which excludes the best aircraft, the F-35 stealth fighter, Australia provided an opportune solution to the self-inflicted wound and unnecessary answer to the non-existent capability gap — surplus F-18 fighters that Australia is replacing with the F-35 stealth fighters, the same ones that our PM claims don’t work. All very confusing.
> 
> And all very troubling to RCAF pilots, technicians and their families. Which is why so many are leaving the service.
> 
> These politically motivated decisions and delays will indeed lead to a capability gap, a real one with souring costs. The Liberal credibility gap between what they say and do leaves the Forces without vital equipment.
> 
> This is all to familiar as it is eerily similar to the political mangling of the EH101 contract by the Chretien Liberals after the 1993 election. No “Cadillac helicopters,” he proclaimed for our brave pilots and crew performing courageous lifesaving acts of rescue over the frigid oceans on our coasts.
> 
> That clanger cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars in cancellation fees with the fleet still not fully replaced and ongoing wrangling with the ensuing winner (Sikorski) of the new re-styled contract. And then, there were the used submarines bought in that same era and the saga that followed. There is a troubling pattern of behaviour with Liberals and defence.
> 
> A similar sad story line applies to promises made to veterans in relation to abandoning litigation involving disability payments and the reintroduction of lifelong pensions for disabled members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The original change was engineered by the previous Liberal Government in 2005. The return to the old system of lifelong pensions has been delayed again, leaving many veterans skeptical of what is coming — perhaps just adding a few dollars to the lump sum disability payment and then spreading that money out over the rest of the veteran’s life, based on actuarial tables.
> 
> A simple cost-effective and timely solution to helping disabled veterans with livable pensions, would be to forego the $500 million plus upgrades about to be forked out to Australia for 18 aging F-18 fighters, and just take the pool of money saved and fund disabled veterans.
> 
> Add the fact that, with an immediate fighter replacement competition, the RCAF would have its permanent replacement much sooner than 2025. This would surely receive the support of Canadian taxpayers and be viewed as a far more principled path forward. This entirely unprincipled and politically motivated gong show should be a non-starter.
> 
> Hopefully, in the New Year, the House of Commons Defence Committee can examine this mess and explore sensible solutions (i.e. an immediate competition which will very likely be won by the F-35, just as it has won every other competition.)
> 
> Then, get on with the actual implementation and fulfil our commitments to our citizens and our allies.
> 
> Peter MacKay is a former Conservative national defence minister.


Mackay acts like he wasn't part of a political party that voted to support the change in life long disability payments and a government that continued to fight vets in court over reinstating life long disability payments.


----------



## FSTO

Altair said:
			
		

> Mackay acts like he wasn't part of a political party that voted to support the change in life long disability payments and a government that continued to fight vets in court over reinstating life long disability payments.



Let us all remember that all parties supported that NVC. And government lawyers are the one advising the former and current government to fight the veterans in court. 
Nobody's hands are clean in the entire procurement cluster be it ships, subs, helicopters and now fighter jets. The current one has all the makings of a failure of epic proportions. When you think of Canada, that is saying something.


----------



## a_majoor

At the current rate of activity, the RCAF will be buying block 20 or 30 F-35s. We will have the advantage of being able to look at the operational lessons learned of several air forces and the general user lessons learned from about a dozen air forces by that point.....


----------



## YZT580

Not likely.  More chance that we will be buying F35 (used) from the Polish airforce as they will be retiring them to purchase newer aircraft.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Ref Mackay....

Sounds like someone wants to have another crack in the political arena  8)


----------



## Altair

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Ref Mackay....
> 
> Sounds like someone wants to have another crack in the political arena  8)


He's waiting for the knives to come out after Scheer loses to Trudeau.


----------



## daftandbarmy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Not likely.  More chance that we will be buying F35 (used) from the Polish airforce as they will be retiring them to purchase newer aircraft.



Or our ancient generation air superiority fleet will be swept from the skies by a 5th generation equipped opposition and we'll be facing Dunkirk Part II, or an equivalent rat trap, somewhere on the globe. 

Which is never good news for the combat arms, but that's OK because we're young, dumb and full of .... beans


----------



## Underway

Altair said:
			
		

> He's waiting for the knives to come out after Scheer loses to Trudeau.



Yep.  Also his wife is  getting involved again in the political arena since the lack of "progressive" support for Iranian democracy protestors (as she IIRC is either 1st or 2nd gen Canadian by way of Iran).  Their kid must be older and a bit more self sufficient.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or our ancient generation air superiority fleet will be swept from the skies by a 5th generation equipped opposition and we'll be facing Dunkirk Part II, or an equivalent rat trap, somewhere on the globe.
> 
> Which is never good news for the combat arms, but that's OK because we're young, dumb and full of .... beans



Don't worry the US will save us, like they will when NK launches a nuke at us.


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:
			
		

> Don't worry the US will save us, like they will when NK launches a nuke at us.



More likely they'll intercept over Canada, and leave us with the cleanup.


On the plus side, if the debris lands at Jane & Finch...


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More likely they'll intercept over Canada, and leave us with the cleanup.
> 
> 
> On the plus side, if the debris lands at Jane & Finch...



Easy now tiger.  Your inference is troubling.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More likely they'll intercept over Canada, and leave us with the cleanup.
> 
> ...



I thought that was the game plan all along?  The Pinetree line was just over the 49th.  Mid Canada pushed the Kill Zone back north of 60 while the DEW and North Warning Lines made the Arctic Archipelago the dumping ground.

If Canada ever settles the North it is going to mess up the defense strategy right proper!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Piece by Alan Stephenson (fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, holds a PhD from Carleton University and is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces with 3,600 fighter hours flying third generation CF-104 Starfighters and fourth generation CF-18 Hornets):



> Australian Fighter purchase is about saving face
> 
> Having created a farce of their own design by insisting Canada needed the sole-source purchase of Super Hornets, the government continues to dig itself deeper. The Trudeau government is willing to squander precious defence dollars on purchasing used fighters for partisan purposes. With its announcement in early December to buy used Australian F-18s, Canadians are still confused regarding the so-called ‘gap’ that these fighters are needed to fill.
> 
> When challenged, DND states that “for reasons of operational security the RCAF cannot comment further.” This is overt obfuscation and Minister Sajjan refuses to provide any reasonable explanation for the singular increase in force-readiness that he has demanded of the CF-18 fleet to meet all contingencies simultaneously. Has there been any change in the geostrategic environment to trigger this new requirement? No – no other allied nation has followed suit. Has the Minister increased the readiness of any other Canadian military fleet? No – all other readiness levels remain normal.
> 
> When the Super Hornet interim buy was announced, it immediately drew overwhelming criticism due to its lack of transparency and evidence. In order to support this decision, Minister Sajjan made use of alternative facts to create a capability gap that the government alleged demanded this drastic interim measure. Until that point, the Commander of the RCAF was confident the CF-18s would meet operational needs until 2025 before the government “changed the policy with the number of aircraft I have to have”.
> 
> Despite the negative assessment of most academics and experts to the government’s plan – including 13 former RCAF commanders who publicly stated that an interim purchase was not necessary at all – the government was determined to move ahead. That was until the Super Hornet’s manufacturer, Boeing, successfully petitioned the US Commerce Department to impose a countervailing duty on Bombardier’s C-series aircraft. Once Boeing’s complaint was negated by a deal between Airbus and Bombardier, the government walked away from the US government-approved purchase of Super Hornets with mock indignation. What happened to the capability gap that was so imminent as to require the $7B sole-source purchase of Super Hornets?
> 
> From their stated budget and competition timelines, it is evident that the government never intended to provide the funding for the full fighter replacement in the near-term. The evidence also points to the unsettling realization that the government was willing to use the fighter force as a ‘sacrificial lamb’ in the Bombardier/Boeing dispute, and intended to draw $7B from the fiscal framework of the permanent replacement for the CF-18s to support this veiled intercession. Despite all the evidence against the Super Hornet purchase, it was the pawn being offered by government as an incentive to Boeing to leave Bombardier alone. In effect, a federal subsidy in disguise.
> 
> The debate over the CF-18 replacement has never been about filling a military need. It has been all about fulfilling misguided political promises and solving the government’s parochial socio-economic issues over defence requirements.  The evidence leads to the conclusion that the government has been deliberately distorting analysis to firstly favour the purchase of Super Hornets and secondly to further delay the promised competition.
> 
> Three key actions provide evidence of the government’s deliberate manipulation of the process: (1) the parliamentary defence committee’s report that intentionally shaped the Super Hornet purchase plan; (2) Minister Sajjan’s alternative facts that created the capability gap; and (3) the immediate reversal of the Super Hornet purchase once it became known Boeing could not be bought. Although the government may have wanted to “invest in new planes”, Minister Sajjan’s response to questions on 12 December, saying that the Australian “option wasn’t available at the time” is yet another bold-faced … terminological inexactitude.
> 
> As the former RCAF Commanders pointed out in their open letter to the Prime Minister, purchasing legacy Hornets made the most sense “if your government feels compelled to acquire additional fighters for the interim.” This followed their “serious misgivings about the use of a ‘capability gap’ as the basis for your interim plan.” Given the military would normally quietly procure used equipment for sustainment purposes, the announcement of the Australian fighter purchase was all about the government saving face at taxpayers’ expense regarding the fictitious gap, while the reference to ‘economic harm’ was a puerile attempt to deflect the issue from a case of government manipulation of the procurement process to one of economic indignation.
> 
> An interim purchase was never needed; only judicious decision-making, free from politicization by government decision-makers. Continuing this course by unnecessarily spending money on used fighters and not moving quickly to competition will only exacerbate this sad comedy, with increased loss of government credibility and integrity.
> http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3836-CGAI-CGAI/9005



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

Disgusting. As I have asked before: why doesn't the Comd and CCWO (plus a couple of other Generals) of the RCAF resign? 

Someone please tell me why it is so important to continue serve at the top when this crap is going on? IMHO, I would not be impressed with the example being shown.


----------



## Quirky

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Disgusting. As I have asked before: why doesn't the Comd and CCWO (plus a couple of other Generals) of the RCAF resign?
> 
> Someone please tell me why it is so important to continue serve at the top when this crap is going on? IMHO, I would not be impressed with the example being shown.



You don’t get promoted and make it to the top without being “yes men”. Do more with less is our leaderships moto.


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:
			
		

> You don’t get promoted and make it to the top without being “yes men”. Do more with less is our leaderships moto.



I'm not trying to be an apologist here, but "do more with less" seems like everyone's motto.  Americans, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis...they all say the same.  Of course, "more" and "less" are relative.

As for resigning to prove a point, realistically what would that achieve (except "ending on a high note") unless everyone in the organization does the same thing?  Would it not be better to stay and try to change things from the inside as far as one can do so?  

Sometimes my cynicism drops ever-so-slightly and I dare to think that the leadership isn't concerned primarily about screwing the rest of us over.


----------



## MarkOttawa

But then think of those who afterwards get jobs with LockMart etc. :

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

Quirky: 





> You don’t get promoted and make it to the top without being “yes men”. Do more with less is our leaderships moto.



Of course we all know when you get way up in the food chain, to get higher, to get the ORMM in the grade of Commander, Meritorious Service Cross, you have to go with the flow. I have personal experience dealing with the then VCDS and another General with the Reserve Force Pension Plan in the years prior to implementation. Neither lifted a finger. Nothing.

What happened to looking after your troops and promoting their welfare? Allowing troops to not be properly equipped, whether it be  with boots or fighter aircraft? Is that not promoting their welfare? By welfare I mean being able to fight and win with a reasonable chance of living through it.


Dimsum: 





> As for resigning to prove a point, realistically what would that achieve (except "ending on a high note") unless everyone in the organization does the same thing?  Would it not be better to stay and try to change things from the inside as far as one can do so?



Not a stab at you. You know, I have heard that rinky dink excuse FOREVER, and what has changed?  It seem the inside is always being changed by Senior Officers/Generals who feel they should stay, for the benefit of the troops, as only they can make things better. Results?

There is always someone waiting for the next promotion, or General Officer scroll presented by the Governor General, followed by cocktails. Thus the incumbent is easily replaced.

If several senior people quit, possibly it would be noticed. Maybe we would not be saddled with used F-18's with no replacement until probably 2030 ish.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Quirky:
> Of course we all know when you get way up in the food chain, to get higher, to get the ORMM in the grade of Commander, Meritorious Service Cross, you have to go with the flow. I have personal experience dealing with the then VCDS and another General with the Reserve Force Pension Plan in the years prior to implementation. Neither lifted a finger. Nothing.
> 
> What happened to looking after your troops and promoting their welfare? Allowing troops to not be properly equipped, whether it be  with boots or fighter aircraft? Is that not promoting their welfare? By welfare I mean being able to fight and win with a reasonable chance of living through it.
> 
> 
> Dimsum:
> Not a stab at you. You know, I have heard that rinky dink excuse FOREVER, and what has changed?  It seem the inside is always being changed by Senior Officers/Generals who feel they should stay, for the benefit of the troops, as only they can make things better. Results?
> 
> There is always someone waiting for the next promotion, or General Officer scroll presented by the Governor General, followed by cocktails. Thus the incumbent is easily replaced.
> 
> If several senior people quit, possibly it would be noticed. Maybe we would not be saddled with used F-18's with no replacement until probably 2030 ish.



The last time there was a mass retirement of senior pers was during unification and it accomplished the same thing one would today. The reality is that there's always someone else waiting in the wings.


----------



## angus555

Turkey condemns U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish force, labels it ‘army of terror’

If we're getting into the business of repainting aircraft insignia, there might soon be a batch of undelivered F-35's sitting around.

There was talk of blocking delivery of Turkish F-35's a few months ago, even before the Turks committed to buying the Russian S-400's. Never heard anything since. :waiting:


----------



## MilEME09

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> Turkey condemns U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish force, labels it ‘army of terror’
> 
> If we're getting into the business of repainting aircraft insignia, there might soon be a batch of undelivered F-35's sitting around.
> 
> There was talk of blocking delivery of Turkish F-35's a few months ago, even before the Turks committed to buying the Russian S-400's. Never heard anything since. :waiting:



Sounds like a situation similar to when the US offered us F-14's that were meant for Iran after the whole iran-contra affair.


----------



## QV

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The last time there was a mass retirement of senior pers was during unification and it accomplished the same thing one would today. The reality is that there's always someone else waiting in the wings.



So stand for nothing then.


----------



## Rifleman62

And nothing changes.


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Sounds like a situation similar to when the US offered us F-14's that were meant for Iran after the whole iran-contra affair.



The Imperial Iranian Air Force took possession of their entire order of 80 F-14 Tomcats prior to the fall of the Shah. You may be thinking of the Iranian order for the F-16 Falcon, which ended up being diverted to Israel, right about the same time that the F-16 lost the fighter replacement competition to the F/A-18 Hornet. But that was long before Iran-Contra.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It's actually a mix, so to speak, of both of your versions, Ostrazac and MilEME.

Canada started the replacement of its fighter jets competition towards the end of 1977, by 1978, it had short listed the F-16 and the F-18. The F-14's, though they would have been preferred, were excluded from the final short list  because they were too expansive. But the final competition was still to come, in 1979-80.

By that time, the Shah's regime had just recently taken possession of its 80 brand new F-14. Comes the revolution, end of 78- beginning of 79. As a result, the Americans pronounced an immediate and irrevocable embargo on all military equipment to Iran, including spare parts, software update, etc. for the F-14. So Canada, who still had diplomatic relations at that time, tried to negotiate with the Iran revolutionary government for the purchase of the 80 new F-14, but the negotiations did not lead to anything before the Embassy role in the escape of American diplomats became news and Canada had to close its own embassy there.

In any events, that is how close we came to flying F-14's.  ;D


----------



## Ostrozac

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's actually a mix, so to speak, of both of your versions, Ostrazac and MilEME.



Fascinating stuff! Thanks for that.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

QV said:
			
		

> So stand for nothing then.



Or affect change from within. It doesnt have to be all or nothing. The belief that retirement will change any government's mind on anything is childish.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's actually a mix, so to speak, of both of your versions, Ostrazac and MilEME.
> 
> Canada started the replacement of its fighter jets competition towards the end of 1977, by 1978, it had short listed the F-16 and the F-18. The F-14's, though they would have been preferred, were excluded from the final short list  because they were too expansive. But the final competition was still to come, in 1979-80.
> 
> By that time, the Shah's regime had just recently taken possession of its 80 brand new F-14. Comes the revolution, end of 78- beginning of 79. As a result, the Americans pronounced an immediate and irrevocable embargo on all military equipment to Iran, including spare parts, software update, etc. for the F-14. So Canada, who still had diplomatic relations at that time, tried to negotiate with the Iran revolutionary government for the purchase of the 80 new F-14, but the negotiations did not lead to anything before the Embassy role in the escape of American diplomats became news and Canada had to close its own embassy there.
> 
> In any events, that is how close we came to flying F-14's.  ;D



Actually I thought the deal-killer was when PM Joe Clark (remember him??) stated Canada would move its embassy to Jerusalem.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Full paper is excellent:



> New MLI Paper: Amateur Hour: The Interim Super Hornet Saga and the Perils of Prioritizing Politics over Defence
> 
> On Dec. 12, 2017 the Liberal government announced the end of the Super Hornet interim purchase, instead acquiring 18 used Australian F/A-18As. It is imperative that we take stock and understand how and why the interim Super Hornet buy was allowed to proceed in the first place, MLI Senior Fellow Richard Shimooka stated today.
> 
> MLI's latest study, _Amateur Hour: The Interim Super Hornet Saga and the Perils of Prioritizing Politics Over Defence_,
> https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLICommentary_Shimooka_Jan2018_webreadyF.pdf
> 
> reveals the hidden history behind the interim Super Hornet purchase. The findings are notable. The process was steeped in politics from the very beginning.
> 
> "The government ignored expert views in National Defence, and opted to invent an urgent capability gap in order to rationalize an ill-conceived solution," said Shimooka. "And even that solution, interim Super Hornets, would have done little to achieve its goals – costing billions in the process."
> 
> It also ignores the dangers of operating such an aircraft in high-threat environments, such as near Russia's advanced air defence systems in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. As one pilot told Shimooka "“in a shooting war, we’d be dead within seconds of wheels up."
> 
> The standard narrative is that the government decided against the interim Super Hornet owing to the spat with Boeing over Bombardier. But that is only part of the story. What was _likely equally important were further revelations about the cost of the Super Hornets from the US. Its contents must have come as a shock to the political leadership, which was convinced the cost of the Super Hornet was far lower than the F-35_ [emphasis added].
> 
> "This could have been one of the most disastrous defence procurements in Canadian history,"By its own numbers, the Liberal government would have committed $5.7 billion dollars to alleviate the ‘capability gap’ for a single year, and that is only in the very best case scenario, since the personnel crisis made even such an outcome impossible.”
> 
> The _growing shortage in RCAF personnel to fly these planes would make operating two fleets largely impossible_ [emphasis added--lots more on this in paper itself]. Even with the demise of the interim Super Hornet purchase, the end result is troubling - no new permanent replacement until 2025, "a full 15 years after the original decision to procure the F-35 was made."
> https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/new-mli-paper-amateur-hour-interim-super-hornet-saga-perils-prioritizing-politics-defence/



Flipping fighter farce.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile, note deadline:



> Boeing still evaluating whether to bid for Canadian fighter contract
> 
> Boeing has yet to decide whether to compete for a contract worth $12-14.5 billion to replace Canada’s tactical fighter fleet. The airframer once had the deal in its pocket before Ottawa terminated plans to buy the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet after Boeing filed a trade complaint against Bombardier last May.
> 
> In a possible sign that the company could forego submitting a bid, Boeing chose to skip a one-day information session for potential bidders on 22 January that was hosted by Canadian agency managing the Future Fighter Capability acquisition programme.
> 
> Boeing confirmed the absence and says it remains convinced that the Super Hornet is the best option for the Royal Canadian Air Force, although the airframer has not decided whether to offer the aircraft yet.
> 
> “We continue to believe that the Super Hornet is the low-risk, low-cost approach that has all the advanced capabilities the Royal Canadian Air Force needs now and well into the future,” Boeing says.
> 
> “We will evaluate our participation in Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) after the Government of Canada outlines the FFCP procurement approach, requirements and evaluation criteria,” Boeing adds.
> 
> US government officials attended the information session hosted by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), the Canadian government’s acquisition arm, Boeing says.
> 
> Boeing may face a deadline in two weeks to make a decision. Attendance at the information session was not mandatory, but _PSPC has requested that all potential bidders respond by 9 February to an invitation to join a Suppliers List. Only companies that respond to the invitation will be informed and allowed to participate in all future steps of the FFCP acquisition process_ [emphasis added], the PSPC says.
> 
> The indecision by Boeing reflects a staggering turn-around in the company’s fortunes in Ottawa since last year...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-still-evaluating-whether-to-bid-for-canadian-445135/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

How has his whole fighter procurement gong show affected pilot training and recruiting? I can’t imagine too many coming out of flight school in Moose Jaw wanting to pick fast jets after all this. Flying ancient fighters against modern Russian defences isn’t exactly confidence inspiring.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Quirky--see pp. 8, 9 of full MLI report linked to above.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Something to look forward to--CP story:



> Auditor general to issue new fighter jet report in the fall
> 
> Six years after his explosive report on the F-35 derailed the Harper government’s plan to buy the controversial stealth aircraft, federal auditor general Michael Ferguson is diving back into the fighter-jet file.
> 
> Ferguson’s staff have been going over internal government records for several months, though the _auditor general’s office won’t reveal exactly what aspects of the program are under the microscope_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The final report is scheduled for release in the fall.
> 
> Ferguson’s last report on fighter jets in April 2012 was a bombshell which found senior defence officials twisted rules, downplayed problems and withheld information about the Harper government’s plan to replace Canada’s CF-18s with F-35s.
> 
> The report forced the Harper government to suspend the project pending a complete review, which eventually pegged the full cost of buying and operating the F-35s at more than $45 billion.
> 
> Six years later, Canada still has not chosen a new fighter jet to replace the aging CF-18s.
> 
> The Trudeau government announced a plan last November to buy used fighter jets from Australia, while pushing back the expected delivery of new planes until at least 2025.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Whatever one thinks of this piece, it's a pity almost no similar analysis of defence requirements ever appears in Canada (further links at original):



> Contested Skies: Australia’s Uncertain Air Superiority Future
> 
> *By Dr Peter Layton*
> 
> In war, there’s a constant to and fro. At times defence dominates, at other times offence. Technologies arise and fall. Disruption rules. This is noticeably so in today’s arcane world of air superiority. While much investment has gone into the ADF’s air superiority capabilities—with more coming with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—the operational environment is not standing still.
> 
> The skies are increasingly contested. Emerging threats are making Australia’s tanker, and AEW&C (airborne early warning and control) aircraft more vulnerable and advanced surface-to-air missiles, stealth-fighter technology, long-range ballistic and cruise missiles and even hobbyist drones are proliferating. The US Air Force (USAF) recently studied what all this means in practice and determined that its ‘projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against [the expected] array of potential adversary capabilities’. If the USAF’s force structure is becoming stretched so, surely, is ours.
> 
> Some warn that the 2030 date may mislead, asserting that ‘Integrated Air Defence Systems covering areas in the Western Pacific … may now be able to deny access to all but the stealthiest of aircraft’. The ‘stealthiest of aircraft’ refers to the flying wing B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and forthcoming B-21 Raiders. It seems that F-35s with their vertical tails have some vulnerabilities to emerging multiband digital radars. A RAND study echoes these concerns about current and growing air-superiority shortcomings.
> 
> Even so, 2030 isn’t far away in defence terms. It is only seven years after Australia’s F-35 fleet will have—hopefully—reached final (or full) operational status. That is not long in the planned 25- to 30-year life of the aircraft.
> 
> Australia has committed to its major air superiority investments, which makes them a good starting point to discuss the strategic impacts of known and emerging changes in the air superiority operational environment. In my new paper published by ASPI titled Contested Skies, I use current air superiority force structure plans to develop three practical strategic options to address these changes.
> 
> Two of these options require modifying the current plans. That may worry some, but strategic ‘ends’ can’t be determined independently of the capability ‘means’. The two are interdependent. When the means are fixed, it makes sense to discuss alternative ‘ways’ that might reasonably bring strategic ends into alignment.
> 
> The three options are...
> 
> _Dr Peter Layton is a Visiting Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University. He has extensive defence experience including teaching grand strategy at the Eisenhower College, US National Defence University. He has a doctorate from the University of New South Wales on the subject of grand strategy and undertook a Fellowship at the European University Institute. His research interests include grand strategy, national security policies particularly relating to middle powers, defence force structure concepts, and armed non-state actors._
> https://balloonstodrones.com/2018/02/06/contested-skies-australias-uncertain-air-superiority-future/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

From the same article:

The USAF study mentioned earlier foresees the F-35 losing its strike role at the end of the next decade and then becoming an air defence fighter—taking the ‘strike’ out of ‘Joint Strike Fighter’.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Something to look forward to--CP story:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I hope the Auditor-General does a 40 year life cycle review on the cost of maintaining an Air Combat Capability employing the same assets that we have today.

Then tell me that the F35 is too pricey.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It seems like the plan to purchase used F-18s from down under is being pushed to the right.  Not surprising.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/aussie-fighter-jets-1.4530875


----------



## PuckChaser

First full replacements are supposed to be delivered 2025. That means we'll get less than 4 years of service out of the "interim" jets after they undergo huge overhauls that'll probably take at least a year and a few hundred million bucks. 

 :facepalm:


----------



## kev994

Hey, this has never been about logic, it's about getting through the next election. 

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser

kev994 said:
			
		

> Hey, this has never been about logic, it's about getting through the next election.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk



Problem is, they lose all the political cred if they can't deliver a physical aircraft before the election. If its delayed beyond Summer 2019, it turns into a political negative as the Liberals couldn't get an aircraft to fill a "capability gap" in under 4 years.

Meanwhile, the Tories filled real capability gaps with Chinooks, C-17s, Leopard tanks, EROC vehicles, and RG31s. The Leos and Chinooks were even leased prior to purchase, spending extra money to ensure the equipment got where it was needed.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

As you know, this was never about filling a capability gap.


----------



## Journeyman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Problem is, they lose all the political cred if they can't deliver a physical aircraft before the election.


Do you believe that Canadian voters will care?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Tweet by AvWeek reporter following fighters, based on Pentagon's FY 2019 (starts Oct. 1 2018) budget proposal.  Now over to Congress actually to spend money.  At any rate looks like SH will still be in production whenever we decide to buy new RCAF fighter and cost per plane should not be going up (might come down) vs. F-35A:
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/963200051026780160



> Lara Seligman‏Verified account @laraseligman
> 
> In a major windfall for @BoeingDefense, Navy is planning to buy 110 additional F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets over the next five years, including 24 in FY19. This is a significant boost from last year’s budget blueprint, which laid out a plan to buy 80 Super Hornets from FY18-22



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, the Tories filled real capability gaps with Chinooks, C-17s, Leopard tanks, EROC vehicles, and RG31s. The Leos and Chinooks were even leased prior to purchase, spending extra money to ensure the equipment got where it was needed.


Paul Martin bought the fleet of RG-31. That contract was signed after the 2005 election but before power was actually handed over. Same for the battery of new howitzers delivered to TF 1-06 ... except that contract may have been signed earlier.


----------



## Old Sweat

MCG said:
			
		

> Same for the battery of new howitzers delivered to TF 1-06 ... except that contract may have been signed earlier.



This buy was done through FMS, I believe, in the summer of 2005 after the CCA got permission from the Commandant of the USMC to take six howitzers from their production run. But good on the Liberals for doing it, and it probably set a record for a weapon system acquisition as it was measured in months, not years. First live firing was in Shilo in early December 2005 and first live rounds in anger went down range in Afghanistan in February 2006. (I'm working on a history of the Canadian gunners in Afghanistan, so I have had a look at the purchase.)

It was the first operational firing of the M777, a first for Canadian gunners.


----------



## Loachman

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Do you believe that Canadian voters will care?



In isolation, no. As another in a growing series of Liberal fumbles - and this being an expensive and completely useless one - it might help tip the balance.


----------



## Journeyman

Loachman said:
			
		

> In isolation, no. As another in a growing series of Liberal fumbles - and this being an expensive and completely useless one - it might help tip the balance.


 :rofl:   <--- sorry, typo.  I _meant_  to say, I sure hope you shop at Costco;  clutching at straws by the case is probably cheaper.  :nod:


In the Venn diagram of Canadian political reality, there is no overlap between fighter a/c acquisition and voter support for PMJT.  At least with ship-building, there are some vocal shipyards that _may_  have some influence.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Making Super Hornet a bit more super:



> US Navy funds CFTs for Super Hornet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) is awarding Boeing a $219,600,000 contract for non-recurring efforts associated with Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 6503 for the design, development, test and integration of the conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) for the Super Hornet.  Work will be completed in July 2022.
> 
> The Navy first said it would fund a number of the Advanced Super Hornet (ASH) capabilities under the Block III upgrade in June last year.
> 
> The concept for modernizing the ‘Rhino’ includes the CFTs, large area cockpit displays, a powerful new computer processor and a superfast digital network.
> 
> The Navy wants the CFTs, the Elbit 10 x 19-inch cockpit displays, the new computer, Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N) and ultra-fast high-band connectivity referred to as Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT).
> 
> These capabilities, combined with other already-scheduled items such as radar enhancements, improvements to the aircraft’s defensive suite, and an infrared search and tracking (IRST) pod, will help ensure the Super Hornet remains a credible element of the carrier air wing for decades to come.
> http://www.combataircraft.net/2018/02/15/us-navy-funds-cfts-for-super-hornet/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Fabius

Did Boeing meet the 9 Feb deadline for the suppliers list?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Apparently Boeing still in--might upgraded Super Hornet help chances?



> Boeing stays in race to supply Canada with fighter jets: sources
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-boeing-fighterjets/boeing-stays-in-race-to-supply-canada-with-fighter-jets-sources-idUSKCN1FZ2M9



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RaceAddict

Dorsal CFTs are hideous.  :not-again:


----------



## a_majoor

But that is the only place to put them on the next blocks of F-35s.


----------



## dimsum

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> Dorsal CFTs are hideous.  :not-again:



I'm sure those engineers think of what looks best as the primary focus for stuff like that, instead of things like "aerodynamics" or "increased fuel capacity".


----------



## Canuck_55555

I'm thinking Canada may go with European fighters (Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon) but there is a chance we may go with the American made jets (F-35, F-16 Viper, Super Hornet)
What are your thoughts on the topic?


----------



## George Wallace

We have a very long thread on just this discussion.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Canuck_55555 said:
			
		

> I'm thinking Canada may go with European fighters (Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon) but there is a chance we may go with the American made jets (F-35, F-16 Viper, Super Hornet)
> What are your thoughts on the topic?



Avro Arrow 2 or weaponized Sr71


----------



## winnipegoo7

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Avro Arrow 2 or weaponized Sr71



Super Sopwith Camel?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Let's just settle on a P&W Canada PT6-powered turbo Brewster Buffalo:
http://www.aviation-history.com/brewster/f2a.htm
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2010/10/disastrous-flop-that-was-brewster-f2a.html






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

Mosquito II.


----------



## angus555

RCAF "Fighter Kite"


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Avro Arrow 2 or weaponized Sr71




Sopwith Camel for me. Even dogs can fly those....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> RCAF "Fighter Kite"



That's not a Kite. This is a Kite!


----------



## angus555

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's not a Kite. This is a Kite!



I guess we'll just have to wait 5 years to see which kite wins the procurement competition.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about 4th vs. 5th gen kites. There has already been lengthy debate here.  ;D


----------



## RaceAddict

Who's currently offloading their old kites to buy new kites?


----------



## CBH99

Everybody, but in this case I'm guessing your thinking of the Australians?


----------



## YZT580

Good question.  by the time this competition gets out the door there should be some mid-life F35's on the market.


----------



## MarkOttawa

All five possibilities still in RCAF fighter farce:



> Boeing applies to stay in race to supply Canada with fighter jets despite trade dispute
> _Deal to replace Canada's fighter jets worth up to $19B_
> 
> Boeing Co, which is locked in a trade dispute with the Canadian government, has applied to stay in the race to supply Canada with 88 new fighter jets, the government said on Thursday.
> 
> Boeing is one of five potential contenders to supply the jets, including U.S. rival Lockheed Martin Corp.
> 
> Canada is due to release the exact specifications for the jets next year and officials say the deal is worth between $15
> billion and $19 billion.
> 
> U.S. trade agency rejected Bombardier duties as CSeries sales did not hurt Boeing
> 
> Arrival of used Aussie fighters pushed back to summer 2019 or later
> 
> Reuters revealed last week that the U.S. aerospace giant, which angered Canada by launching a trade challenge against planemaker Bombardier Inc, would remain in the race.
> 
> None of the potential contenders is obliged to put forward their jets in the competition.
> 
> The government said the firms eligible to take part are:
> 
> Lockheed-Martin, which makes the F-35 stealth fighter
> Boeing, which makes the F-18 Super Hornet
> Airbus, which makes the Eurofighter
> Saab AB, which makes the Gripen
> Dassault Aviation, which makes the Rafale
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-eligable-fighter-jet-bid-1.4547265



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RaceAddict

Another ECS failure in a Growler this time:



> A U.S. Navy EA-18G Growler recently made it back to base after suffering a terrifying mid-air mishap, which left its two-person crew flying blind and frostbitten after the aircraft’s environment control system failed, in part thanks to a pair of high-tech wrist watches.  The incident occurred just over a year after the canopy on another one of the electronic warfare planes exploded in a bizarre over-pressurization incident and as the service continues to struggle to find exactly what’s causing persistent reports of “hypoxia-like” symptoms across the F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and Growler fleets.
> 
> Defense News was first to report this new incident, which occurred approximately 60 miles south of Seattle, Washington. The EA-18G, assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9), was flying at approximately 25,000 feet on a mission from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, between Seattle and Vancouver BC, when the cockpit temperature plummeted to -30 degrees Fahrenheit.
> 
> The broken environmental control system (ECS) also let in a fine mist of liquid, which then froze, coating the inside of the canopy and vital flight instruments in an opaque sheen of ice. The ECS consists of a number of sub-components that are supposed to work together to manage oxygen flow to the crew, as well as cockpit pressure and temperature.
> 
> Despite using up all of their emergency oxygen supply, the crew was able to wend its way its way back to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island with help from air traffic controllers on the ground and their smart watches. In July 2017, Navy Hornet, Super Hornet, and Growler pilots each got a $450 Garmin Fenix 3 wristwatch, which can measure air pressure and altitude and display an individual’s course heading.
> 
> The service issued the watches in order to provide a backup alert mechanism in case the ECS' on-board oxygen generation system, or OBOGS, malfunctioned and cockpit pressure dropped to unsafe levels and the aircraft's built-in safety mechanisms and warning systems also failed. The Navy had not publicly stated that it could serve as a improvised navigational aid in an emergency.



Complete article: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18762/freezing-navy-ea-18g-crew-in-ice-filled-cockpit-navigated-home-using-their-smart-watches


----------



## Good2Golf

What?!?    You mean to say that Breitling didn’t save the day? 


 ;D


----------



## Quirky

with a frozen canopy i'd expect them to pop the hatch and fly AV style.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on USN's semi-Super Super Hornet (China much in mind):



> Super Hornets and Growlers to get bigger fuel tanks
> 
> The Navy is set to equip its Super Hornet and Growler fleet with bigger fuel tanks in the coming years, a development that will allow the jets to fly farther and provide additional capability in a changing world.
> 
> Boeing will receive $219.6 million for work on the F/A-18 E/F variants, as well as the EA-18G, according to a Pentagon announcement earlier this month.
> 
> The new conformal fuel tanks can hold 515 gallons of fuel in a low-drag configuration, an increase from the current tank’s 480-gallon capacity, according to officials with Naval Air Systems Command, or NAVAIR.
> 
> While existing fuel tanks are mounted under the wing, the new tanks will sit on top of the wing, on either side of the aircraft dorsal, according to NAVAIR.
> 
> In a conformal array, the fuel tanks hug the profile of the jet, increasing aerodynamics while freeing up space below the wings for weapons.
> 
> Super Hornets will start coming off the production line with the new tanks in FY2021, while upgrades of existing jets will commence in FY2023, according to NAVAIR.
> 
> Although new fuel tanks on a jet may seem like an innocuous development, the move reflects the military’s renewed focus on preparing for conventional warfare, and the fact that it may need to battle a rival military in the not-too-distant future.
> 
> Equipping the Super Hornet and Growler with larger fuel tanks means the carriers they launch off can float farther out at sea, out of range of increasingly formidable weapons systems in the hands of potential rival forces.
> 
> The Navy’s ability to steam or fly where it pleases has gone largely unchallenged in recent decades.
> 
> But these days, the ascendant Chinese military has developed a so-called “carrier killer” missile, and the Russian forces have been rebuilt since the country’s post-Cold War nadir.
> 
> Long-range weapons, anti-ship missiles and other technologies are proliferating around the globe, challenging the international order that is predicated on U.S. military might.
> 
> Such developments led to a recently released National Defense Strategy that identifies “great power competitors” as the major challenge facing the Pentagon...
> https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/02/27/super-hornets-and-growlers-to-get-bigger-fuel-tanks/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Such a capability--if actually developed--would seem very useful for RCAF in NORAD mission:



> This Upgrade Will Make the Super Hornet Deadlier Than Ever
> 
> In the Navy’s recent budget request, the Navy finally funded the design an acquisition of conformal fuel tanks for the Super Hornet. With the potential to extend the range of the Hornet with a low drag external fuel tank, the tanks can either expand the range of a Super Hornet or free up two high capacity weapons stations by replacing the two external tanks currently used on almost every flight. One option would help to restore a long-range interception role that has been missing from the Navy since the retirement of the Tomcat in the 2000s. With four capacity weapons stations available on the Super Hornet, the SM-6 Dual I SAM could be modified to serve as a long-range air to air missile, much like the Standard SM-1 was modified to serve as an anti-radiation during the Vietnam War.
> 
> Since the retirement of the Tomcat from carrier decks in 2006, the Navy has lacked an interceptor with the ability to engage targets capable of carrying long-range cruise missiles. With the death of the Soviet Naval Bomber Force at the end of the Cold War, there has not been a country capable of operating more than a handful of cruise missile carrying bombers. In the past few years, the threat scope has changed dramatically, as Soviet operations have expanded, and the Chinese bomber force has been modernized with the introduction of the Badger H-6K. The Navy does not have an interceptor capable of shooting the archer before he shoots his arrows. A Super Hornet with three external fuel tanks and a full air intercept load of 6 AIM-120D has rather limited effective combat radius of around 400 miles. As a result, the maximum engagement range of the Super Hornet/AIM-120D combination less than Tomcat/Phoenix combination from the 1990s.
> 
> The Navy currently has two products in development that can address this new long-range cruise missile threat: The Block III Super Hornet with conformal fuel tanks and the SM-6 Dual II missile. The Block III Super Hornet in development will include conformal fuel tanks that will allow the Block III Hornet to have an increased combat radius while freeing up the high capacity weapons stations 4 and 8. A Block III Hornet with the conformal fuel tanks will be able to carry 4 SM-6 Dual II missiles and 6 AIM-120D missiles along with a single external fuel tank on weapons station 6 to a combat radius of 510 miles.
> 
> The SM-6 Dual II missile currently in development by the Navy is capable of engaging both air and surface targets out to a range of 130 miles when launched from the surface. The missile is about 15 feet in length and 1,800 pounds, and so can be accommodated on four weapons stations of the Super Hornet, weapons stations 3, 4, 8, and 9. In a Block II Super Hornet, weapons stations 4, 6, and 8 are normally occupied by external fuel tanks, but on a Block III Hornet, with weapons stations 4 and 8 freed, an SM-6 can be carried on the 4 stations mentioned earlier.
> 
> The process of qualifying the SM-6 Dual I to be carried on a Super Hornet should not be needlessly complex...
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/upgrade-will-make-the-super-hornet-deadlier-ever-24699



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

Certifyinf any kind of new weapon on a platform is a complex task.  It's a lot more than "does it fit".


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The article seems to paint the new missile as a Super Hornet attribute, but if the Navy adopts it, would they not also integrate it into the F-35?


----------



## AlexanderM

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The article seems to paint the new missile as a Super Hornet attribute, but if the Navy adopts it, would they not also integrate it into the F-35?


As far as I know the F-35 is supposed to at some point use the Meteor missile which I suspect would be a better option.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/meteor-integration-f-35-takes-significant-step-forward/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Too big for F-35 to carry internally, wonder whether wing hard-points could accommodate it either.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

RCAF's fighter farce in context--pity our media mention so little what others, esp. NATO allies, are doing:



> RCAF becoming the poor stepsister of even smaller militaries
> 
> "In spite of their small size and heavy commitment to social welfare programs Scandinavian countries are already in the process of replacing their 1980s era fighter fleets."
> 
> As the Trudeau Liberals continue to dither and drag their feet on buying a new fighter jet, Canadians may indeed end up being lulled into a new normal of short-term, half-measures and improvisation.
> 
> But before we become too comfortable, we need to be ready to brace for a future of shame and shunning as our antiquated 1980s-era jets, which may have to remain operational until 2032, attempt to fly with the more modern air forces of our allies.
> 
> The allies in question are not the United States, nor Great Britain and France. Instead the true test of political pride will be when we realize just how much smaller NATO and other allied countries have outdone us when it comes to updating their fighter fleets.
> 
> From Austria to Australia, Netherlands to Kuwait, smaller nations are in the process of taking on newer, more advanced fighters. With combined operations being the new norm, these fleets of modern fighter aircraft will inevitably make our once proud Royal Canadian Air Force the modern aerial combat version of the sword wielding mounted cavalry in mechanized warfare.
> 
> Canadians had good reason to halt and reassess the planned purchase of 65 F-35 Lightning in 2012. The Harper Conservatives were clearly trying to deceive Canadians as to the full cost of the program. But at the same time Canadians need to take note that smaller NATO allies are currently moving ahead with their own acquisitions of recently developed fighter aircraft — whether it be the F-35 Lightning, the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3A, or the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen NG. And many are completing their acquisitions at a speed and resolve that would turn the hopelessly dawdling Canadian military procurement process on its head.
> 
> In spite of their small size and heavy commitment to social welfare programs Scandinavian countries are already in the process of replacing their 1980s era fighter fleets. Denmark and Norway are already phasing out their F-16s with new orders of 27 and 55 F-35 Lightning respectively coming into operation.
> 
> Also leading Canada on the procurement front is the Netherlands, which is already taking delivery of 37 F-35s. Belgium is close to confirming its purchase of 34 F-35. Tiny, neutral Austria already has 15 relatively new Eurofighter typhoons in its inventory acquired in 2003 of which it plans to replace by 2020. Italy will be acquiring both the F-35 Lightning and Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3A with 90 and 21 respectively of these new aircraft that are now coming online.
> 
> Even Australia has decided to purchase 72 F-35s, which is seven more than Harper Conservatives originally planned and failed to buy. Meanwhile they are selling their older F-18 fighter jets to us Canadians giving us a chance to save some face in the years to come...
> 
> Certainly this new reality may be perfectly fine if we truly think that we no longer stand to benefit as a nation by being able to do our share and project our air defence capability at a comparable and compatible level to even the much smaller and less populous nations of Europe, Asia or Africa. Yet if that is the case Canada shouldn’t delude itself into thinking that it stands to play anything other than the most token role in future military conflicts.
> 
> To demand anything more on our part would be an insult to the soon to be more technologically-advanced, war-ready airforces of Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Kuwait, and Australia.
> 
> _Robert Smol served in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 20 years joining as a Private in the infantry and retiring as a Captain in the Intelligence Branch. He holds a Master of Arts in War Studies from the Royal Military College as well as degrees from McGill and Queen’s University._
> https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/05/rcaf-becoming-poor-stepsister-even-smaller-militaries/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

Hopefully, as a NAFTA negotiation point, Trump will tell Canada that it must contribute a modern fighter to NORAD (and NATO) and in the interest of NA trade, the F-35 *is *your choice.


----------



## MarkOttawa

'Twould seem way is now clear for Block III SH bid for RCAF, if enough goodies--and (any) gov't can tout "stealthy":



> Boeing won’t appeal Bombardier CSeries ruling
> http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/boeing-won-t-appeal-bombardier-cseries-ruling
> 
> Boeing’s Next-Gen Super Hornet Will Be (Sort Of) Stealthy
> 
> President Donald Trump was ridiculed on Twitter after pronouncing during a visit to Boeing’s St. Louis facility that the company’s new F/A-18 Super Hornet will be equipped with the “latest and the greatest stealth, and a lot of things on that plane that people don’t even know about.”
> 
> But it turns out Trump was on to something. Boeing is about to kick off an exhaustive effort to transition the U.S. Navy’s carrier air wing to the “Block III” Super Hornet, a next-generation version of the strike fighter complete with new sensors, extended range, a more powerful computer and, yes, enhanced stealth coating.
> 
> These changes will allow the Super Hornet to fly alongside the Lockheed Martin F-35C carrier variant as the backbone of the Navy’s carrier air wing into the 2040s and beyond, says Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager.
> 
> Block III Super Hornet will get enhanced stealth coating
> 
> New aircraft will begin rolling off the production line in 2020
> 
> Trump previewed the new and improved fighter during a March 14 visit to the St. Louis facility, which has been building F/A-18s, first the A-D Hornet and later the E/F Super Hornet, since 1978.
> 
> Gillian confirms that an improved low-observable (LO) coating will be one of five key characteristics of the Block III Super Hornet. The fighter is already “a very stealth airplane today”—he says, declining to elaborate—but there are new coatings engineers can apply on different surfaces of the aircraft to make it even more survivable, he says.
> 
> The F/A-18 was not designed specifically to be stealthy and lacks many of the fundamental stealth characteristics baked into Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and F-22 airframes. But there are other ways to enhance stealth, such as adding LO coating and radar-absorbent material improvements in certain locations on the airframe. A few simple changes “can buy us just a little bit of performance that’s low-cost and easy to go do,” Gillian says.
> 
> The souped-up aircraft the Navy has agreed to buy looks very different from Boeing’s original 2013 proposal for an “Advanced Super Hornet,” which focused on stealth. Boeing engineers found they needed to make design compromises to significantly reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section—for instance, by restricting payload, Gillian told Aviation Week in 2017 (AW&ST Feb. 20-March 5, 2017, p. 17).
> 
> This drove Boeing to drop certain features of the 2013 proposal, such as an enclosed weapons pod and internal infrared search-and-track (IRST) sensor, from the newest package.
> 
> The Navy will begin procuring the Block III Super Hornet in fiscal 2019 with a 24-aircraft buy, the first of which will come off the production line in 2020. Over the next five years, the Navy proposes buying 110 additional Super Hornets, _including a three-year procurement_ [emphasis added, "block buy"], which is a significant boost from last year’s budget request...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-s-next-gen-super-hornet-will-be-sort-stealthy



Likely continued significant production should also keep costs down.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

And no doubt the RCAF won’t have to buy those dirty Harper F35s........


----------



## childs56

Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet? 
Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.


----------



## DonaldMcL

CTD said:
			
		

> Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
> Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
> These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.



Stealth isn't "required" at this moment in time, but you can't predict the future. It's also no longer an "addon" feature. It's included in the price of the jet and doesn't add anymore cost.

Sure you can still get manual windows in your vehicle, but you wouldn't say no to power windows if they were included for free, would you?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CTD said:
			
		

> Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
> Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
> These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.



Please explain, in detail, these "weaknesses and strengths".


----------



## Rifleman62

If we had stealth aircraft how could we whip them out and brag "Canada's' back."


----------



## GR66

CTD said:
			
		

> Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?



So the enemy doesn't detect our aircraft and destroy them?


----------



## observor 69

President Trump explains "stealth aircraft."

More recently, the President strayed into the F-35 realm when talking about relief efforts with Puerto Rican officials while visiting the storm ravaged island, and just as in this latest instance, for some reason he brought the program up while addressing the U.S. Coast Guard, stating: 

"Amazing job, and amazing job. So amazing that we're ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. Do you like the F-35? I said how does it do it in fights, and how do they do in fights with the F-35. He says we do very well, you can't see it. Literally you can't see. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see right? But that's an expensive plane you can't see. And as you probably heard we cut the price very substantially, something other administrations would never have done, that I can tell you."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16375/trump-just-provided-more-evidence-that-he-thinks-the-f-35-is-actually-invisible


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Sure you can still get manual windows in your vehicle, but you wouldn't say no to power windows if they were included for free, would you?



Actually, Bob, I do specifically ask for manual windows on my cars.

Doesn't matter how easy it is to reach for the little window breaking tool they sell at Auto parts dealership, if you fall through the water, you are always able to roll down a manual window and escape - not so with electrical windows. And I do drive a lot near waterways.

For people who don't know about fighter planes, asking why we need stealth is not a bad question to ask for  Canadians. Perhaps it would be easier to explain that the feature we are seeking in the next generation fighter is the situational awareness and fusion of information that its onboard systems provide - not the "stealth" per se, which comes as the complement to the capabilities. Then, they realize they are asking the wrong question when getting stuck at the stealth issue.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> President Trump explains "stealth aircraft."
> 
> More recently, the President strayed into the F-35 realm when talking about relief efforts with Puerto Rican officials while visiting the storm ravaged island, and just as in this latest instance, for some reason he brought the program up while addressing the U.S. Coast Guard, stating:
> 
> "Amazing job, and amazing job. So amazing that we're ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. Do you like the F-35? I said how does it do it in fights, and how do they do in fights with the F-35. He says we do very well, you can't see it. Literally you can't see. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see right? But that's an expensive plane you can't see. And as you probably heard we cut the price very substantially, something other administrations would never have done, that I can tell you."
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16375/trump-just-provided-more-evidence-that-he-thinks-the-f-35-is-actually-invisible



This is the F-35 video that he was shown to explain stealth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSqCJ-UGYns


----------



## childs56

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Please explain, in detail, these "weaknesses and strengths".



I am having a hard time finding the article from the US Navy in regards to operating the Super Hornet along with the F35. It kind of follows this line of thinking. 
http://natoassociation.ca/the-case-for-a-rcaf-mixed-fighter-fleet/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Bob, I do specifically ask for manual windows on my cars.
> 
> Doesn't matter how easy it is to reach for the little window breaking tool they sell at Auto parts dealership, if you fall through the water, you are always able to roll down a manual window and escape - not so with electrical windows. And I do drive a lot near waterways.
> 
> For people who don't know about fighter planes, asking why we need stealth is not a bad question to ask for  Canadians. Perhaps it would be easier to explain that the feature we are seeking in the next generation fighter is the situational awareness and fusion of information that its onboard systems provide - not the "stealth" per se, which comes as the complement to the capabilities. Then, they realize they are asking the wrong question when getting stuck at the stealth issue.



Off topic, they fired 40 vehicles into a lake, all the electronics continued to work. If the water is deeper than 20', it is likely the vehicle will invert.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on Block III Super Hornet, existing airframes modifications section:



> US Navy plans to modify 45 more Super Hornets
> 
> The US Navy plans to modify 45 more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in the next two years to increase the aircraft’s service life and capabilities, the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announced on 27 March.
> 
> The potential contract will cover modifications to up to 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2019 and a maximum of 30 aircraft in FY2020, NAVAIR says. The modifications are designed to extend the fighter’s airframe life from 6,000-9,000h, adding up to 10 years of service.
> 
> Boeing will also convert existing Block II Super Hornets to a new Block III configuration starting in the early 2020s. This conversion will include adding an enhanced network capability, a longer range thanks to internal conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system, reduced radar signature and an enhanced communication system. Such updates are designed to keep the type effective in combat until at least into the early 2030s [one presumes those are older aircraft, not recent ones and continuing new-builds]...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-plans-to-modify-45-more-super-hornets-447133/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Altair

Colin P said:
			
		

> Off topic, they fired 40 vehicles into a lake, all the electronics continued to work. If the water is deeper than 20', it is likely the vehicle will invert.


Great,  unless you are dealing with the ignition switch problem GM was having,  in which case all your electronics go kaput.


----------



## McG

CTD said:
			
		

> Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
> Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
> These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.


You seem to be assuming that a "fleet of stealth" and a "fleet of conventional" would have complimentary strengths and weaknesses.  You also seem to be assuming that a "fleet of conventional" would be sufficiently inexpensive up front so as to cancel out the inefficiencies in life cycle costs for maintaining multiple fighter fleets.  I am not sure either assumption is correct.


----------



## Loachman

CTD said:
			
		

> Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?



Because there will not be a secondary jet. There will be an _only_ jet. Extra costs of operating mixed fleets have been discussed here before.

Because stealth improves survivability in combat. The _only_ jet must remain competitive for several decades.

And stealth is only one advantage - fully distributed and integrated sensors plus networking are probably even more important.


----------



## HB_Pencil

CTD said:
			
		

> Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
> Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
> These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.



So a few considerations. 

So when you say stealth jet, I'm just going to say F-35: I assume you're making a number of assumptions which are just not accurate to the actual situation.

First: the real "cost" of the F-35 is its avionics - the airframe for 5th Gen fighters is about 15~20% of the aircraft's total cost. (see page 72)                                        

Second: The F-35 is cheaper to purchase than all other options (especially the Block III F/A-18E), and are roughly about the same to maintain and operate over the expected lifetime. Remember, 18 Block II Shornets cost $6.4 billion. 65 F-35s come to about $9 Billion. 

Thirdly: The capability advantage of the F-35 means you need less aircraft to do the same job. Right from the get go, Canada wouldn't have to buy dedicated twin seat training aircraft with the F-35: operational squadron aircraft would be rotated in on an as-needed basis. If, for example, Canada was to face an ACLM threat in the north, you would need three to four times as many "conventional" fighters as a pair or more F-35s could cover. (this article is supposed to be about "next generation" fighters, but its really about the F-35. also this article talks about line squadron aircraft being used in training. ) 

Fourthly: there is no cost savings with a dual fleet. DRDC did a report that rubbished that idea. We don't even have the personnel to operate one fleet now with its pipeline. Two will utterly break the system. 

Finally, (and somewhat controversially), I would argue that "conventional" aircraft are reaching technical obsolescence much like the pre-dreadnought prior to 1907.. If you look at how DoD is looking at future warfare, with fleets of autonomous and manned vehicles playing a complementary role, having an aircraft that is not a networked part of that fleet is basically just wasted money. 

I hope that clarifies things.


----------



## childs56

Finally, (and somewhat controversially), I would argue that "conventional" aircraft are reaching technical obsolescence much like the pre-dreadnought prior to 1907.. If you look at how DoD is looking at future warfare, with fleets of autonomous and manned vehicles playing a complementary role, having an aircraft that is not a networked part of that fleet is basically just wasted money. 

I hope that clarifies things.
[/quote]

Second: The F-35 is cheaper to purchase than all other options (especially the Block III F/A-18E), and are roughly about the same to maintain and operate over the expected lifetime. Remember, 18 Block II Shornets cost $6.4 billion. 65 F-35s come to about $9 Billion.

Your telling me that a SH costs $355,000,000 each. While the F35 Costs $138,000,000 each? I think when you post up total cost it should include what is in the purchase package. Other wise it looks more dramatic then it really is. 

Thirdly: The capability advantage of the F-35 means you need less aircraft to do the same job. Right from the get go, Canada wouldn't have to buy dedicated twin seat training aircraft with the F-35: operational squadron aircraft would be rotated in on an as-needed basis. If, for example, Canada was to face an ACLM threat in the north, you would need three to four times as many "conventional" fighters as a pair or more F-35s could cover. (this article is supposed to be about "next generation" fighters, but its really about the F-35. also this article talks about line squadron aircraft being used in training. ) 

When you say you need less Aircraft to do the same job. Hour for hour those jets still fly and they collect hours on their airframe. If you have fewer jets that means fewer airframes to cycle airframe hours. So your smaller fleet will require to fly more hours to perform the same job. When you want a platform for the next 30 or so years you need to buy a system in place that can provide the numbers for attrition, life cycle and future threat. 
Hour for hour the F35 costs around $28,000hr to operate, the SH D model is around $13,000hr to operate. (operating budget is going to shrink even more with less platforms, because that is how the Government works) 

When you say you need less Airframes to do the same job. Does that mean instead of deploying 6 Jets to Iraq, and 6 to Norad, 6 to Unkraine. We can get away with deploying only 2 Airframes per deployment? Does that take into consideration multiple missions on multiple targets in multiple target areas not close together. (knowing the Government they would try to cut cut cut). 

As I have said in a earlier post the US Navy and the Airforce will be operating a mixed fleet well into the next 30 years. Simply put one fleet does not provide for all levels of service. Even the US Airforce under ideal conditions will be using the F22 along with the F35 together, (if they ever get them to communicate together). In the larger picture both if these Aircraft will compliment each other. Both have their abilities. Both built for a specific aspect of future warfare. 

 Fourthly: there is no cost savings with a dual fleet. DRDC did a report that rubbished that idea. We don't even have the personnel to operate one fleet now with its pipeline. Two will utterly break the system. 

The Cost savings of running a dual fleet is not really known as a savings. It is known as a force multiplier. Not any one platform will suit every mission. Many countries are banking on the F35 to be a miracle jet be all end all. In reality they are sacrificing some function over others. Does the F35 have the future ability to be everything we want it to be. Of course, but at what cost. Financially and operationally. 


Here is how I would do the program. 2 options. 
buy the 65 F35. Send them to Bagotville. They become the advanced Fighter Deployment Center for Operations. 
Buy 100 SH or other Gen 4+ Post them in Cold Lake, Used for Training, low entensity deployments. NORAD, UN missions. , 6 in Comox, 6 in Yellowknife. 6 Iraq, 6 Ukraine 12 in Bagotville for training. The rest In Cold lake for Training and Deployment. 

Or Go 160 F35 Split between the two Bases and deployed as needed around the World, Domestically. At any time you can expect 50% of your aircraft to be down. Sign an agreement to buy an initial 60, Deliver over two years or sooner. Then sign a contract to build the other 100 over a 5 year time frame. This way your getting the Airframes coming out over the up fitt stages. By the time you have your last Jets out the door  your first production will be good for their upgrade to the newest. 

Or buy 65 now of any platform. Run the living snot out of the and have nothing in 20 years. Hopefully you have an option to buy a 6 gen a some point.


----------



## CBH99

While I agree "in theory" to your idea CTD, the reality is we are never going to operate 160 fighters.  Period.  

We don't have the pilots, and operating what would essentially be twice our current fighter force & then some, we just wouldn't have the manpower, pilots, etc etc to do so.  Not as things currently stand.


I think a big difference between the US and almost any other country, that people fail to consider, is that the US Congress routinely funds aircraft purchases above & beyond what the US services are even asking for.  Just recently, US Congress authorized the US Navy to acquire something like 10 or 14 more Super Hornets than what they were even asking for, as part of their Unfunded Priorities list.  

So here we have a situation where the US Navy funds the purchase of X number of aircraft.  They then go to Congress with a list of things they want, but didn't originally budget for - which, for this example, is say 10 additional aircraft.  Congress then says "Here's 24 aircraft instead of just the 10 additional ones you wanted."


No other military on the planet has the luxury of a government giving them MORE than what they ask for, on a regular basis.  And as such, they can consistently bring out new 'blocks' of aircraft off the production line, then upgrade their oldest to the newest standard - as you suggest.  Much easier to do if you have a consistent influx of new machines, which nobody else really does.


----------



## GR66

Out of my lane, so not going to talk about specifics but when people talk about the impossibility of a mixed fleet or that we can never have "X" number of fighters the arguments seem to be locked into the assumption that we're stuck with the existing structure of the CF.  

No doubt a mixed fleet has more overhead and support costs than a single fleet and more aircraft cost more than fewer aircraft and sure the current training system can't pump out enough people to handle that.  But do the advantages of a mixed fleet...maybe a 2nd aircraft with greater payload that can take advantage of the F-35's stealth and sensor ability...or simply not having all our eggs in a single basket in case an enemy finds a way to neutralize some of the advantages of the F-35...make it worthwhile looking at ways to make a mixed fleet work?

Would the overall military benefits to Canada of having a mixed fleet of say 130 aircraft (# pulled out of my ass) be worth finding those costs elsewhere?  Is it worth the cost of giving up a Reg Force Infantry Battalion for example?  A Regiment?  Reserve Force "Armoured" units?  Some other capability?

I'm not suggesting any one of those things or even saying that yes we should have a mixed fleet but like so many of the discussions here the problem comes down to the government (any government) not having the political balls to do a REAL review of Canada's defence requirements.  

We have X number of fighters now...how many can we afford to buy and still do roughly the same stuff without breaking anything else?  What kind of defence strategy is that?  The government isn't willing to declare clear role for the CF and the CF leadership isn't willing to stick its neck out and say here's what we need to be able to do the things we've typically been asked to do or in our opinion we need to be prepared to be able to do.  

Sorry...end of rant.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

For us civvies (as it's hard to have this discussion  without current deployment context) what's the approximate distribution of Cf188's per base now?


----------



## suffolkowner

are not all our CF-18's based at Bagotville and Cold Lake?


----------



## dimsum

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> are not all our CF-18's based at Bagotville and Cold Lake?



Yes.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yes.



I thought we had aircraft effectively based at Trenton, Comox, Gander, etc. as well?  Even if the squadron administration's are still centralized in Cold Lake and Bagotville?

My point being if we do deployments to those.bases, we should account for those requirements  in the planning stages when looking at aircraft numbers required.


----------



## dimsum

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I thought we had aircraft effectively based at Trenton, Comox, Gander, etc. as well?  Even if the squadron administration's are still centralized in Cold Lake and Bagotville?
> 
> My point being if we do deployments to those.bases, we should account for those requirements  in the planning stages when looking at aircraft numbers required.



Those places occasionally get the odd Hornet passing through, but not "based" in the sense you're talking about.


----------



## Quirky

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I thought we had aircraft effectively based at Trenton, Comox, Gander, etc. as well?



That would bring up moral and improve attrition rates substantially, something the government is strongly against.


----------



## MarkOttawa

No problem with Super Hornet--upgraded--being around for our (whenever finished) competition:



> Boeing Super Hornet program gets second life through future sales and upgrades
> 
> Boeing is expecting an important delivery this week: the arrival of the first Super Hornet slated to undergo a service life extension at the company’s production line in St. Louis, Missouri.
> 
> The work will kick off a decade long “service life modification” effort that will increase the lifespan of the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F aircraft from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours, but also transform them into the newest Block III configuration, said Dan Gillian, Boeing’s program manager for the Super Hornet and Growler.
> 
> The SLM effort, coupled with future Super Hornet procurement spelled out in the fiscal 2019 budget, has given the F/A-18E/F program a second life. Earlier this decade, it was thought that Super Hornet production could end as early as 2016 or 2017.
> 
> Now the situation has changed entirely.
> 
> "We feel good through the end of 2025 at our current production rate of two per month, and there are lots of opportunities to extend beyond that, perhaps to increase the rate,” Gillian told Defense News in an interview.
> 
> That new business translates into a massive windfall for Boeing.
> 
> The Navy intends to spend about $9.2 billion to procure 110 Block III Super Hornets from FY19-FY23, budget documents show. Those jets will roll off Boeing’s production line in 2020 with a 9,000-hour service life, conformal fuel tanks that increase its range, a new cockpit, an enhanced network architecture and signature management improvements that include a reapplication of its stealthy coating.
> 
> And although Boeing is not disclosing the projected value of the SLM and Block III retrofit efforts, they will probably net Boeing a hefty sum by the time they are completed in the late 2020s.
> 
> ...very effective lobbying campaign by Boeing, which was supported by lawmakers in Congress. Navy leaders have grappled with a fighter jet shortage for years, but they kept requests for additional Super Hornets out of their budget requests due to fiscal limitations...
> 
> Every carrier air wing will have at least one squadron comprised of Block III Super Hornets by 2024. A second squadron is slated to arrive in 2027 or 2028, depending on when aircraft are induced...
> https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/04/boeing-super-hornet-program-gets-second-life-through-future-sales-and-upgrades/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

interesting foot note,

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/streetwise/article-bidding-heats-up-for-bombardier-downsview-site/

confirmed on their facebook page Bourdeau Industries has made a bid for Bombardier's downsview site, for all that have forgotten they want to build a updated and modern version of the avro arrow. Apparently they are the only group wanting to keep the site for aerospace industry, and have secured financing. If they secure the site, and at the rate the government is stalling they might actually have an aircraft by the time we launch the competition.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LOL that would be ironic  8)


----------



## Spencer100

I wonder what this aircraft is.  Is it just a F-35+ and this is marketing talk?


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/192654/lockheed-to-offer-japan-new-hybrid-fighter-based-on-f_22%2C-f_35-technologies.html


----------



## winnipegoo7

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> interesting foot note,
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/streetwise/article-bidding-heats-up-for-bombardier-downsview-site/
> 
> confirmed on their facebook page Bourdeau Industries has made a bid for Bombardier's downsview site, for all that have forgotten they want to build a updated and modern version of the avro arrow. Apparently they are the only group wanting to keep the site for aerospace industry, and have secured financing. If they secure the site, and at the rate the government is stalling they might actually have an aircraft by the time we launch the competition.



Isn't the "new Avro Arrow" thing just a joke??

According to the Walrus:


> Bourdeau Industries Ltd. has no experience building airplanes, no paid employees, and no office aside from Bourdeau’s home in suburban Ottawa.



https://thewalrus.ca/air-apparent/

And according to Company Check - Bourdeau's (former??) UK based company has a networth of - £898,021.00 (that's negative; aka deeply in debt).

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/04877569/BOURDEAU-INDUSTRIES-LTD/companies-house-data


----------



## PuckChaser

The whole recreate the Avro Arrow is a joke, not just the "company" involved.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The whole recreate the Avro Arrow is a joke, not just the "company" involved.



And didn't we have another thread about this a few years ago?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bets on whether Finnish air force or RCAF gets new fighter first (note Finns' number, almost what Conservatives planned):



> Finland invites bids to supply 64 fighter jets
> 
> Finland invited bids on Friday [April 27] to supply 64 multi-role fighter aircraft to replace its ageing fleet of F/A-18 Hornet jets, due to be phased out from 2025.
> 
> The deal is expected to cost 7-10 billion euros ($9-12 billion). Possible candidates include Saab’s Gripen, Dassault’s Rafale, Boeing’s Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and the Eurofighter, a joint project by Airbus, BAE and Leonardo.
> 
> ...performance of the jets would be the main criterion and Finland was committed to thorough talks with all plane makers.
> 
> U.S. President Donald Trump suggested last year that Finland had already chosen Hornets, made by U.S. group Boeing, but Finland denied that.
> 
> Helsinki is asking manufacturers to provide price quotations for the new jets by early 2019, and _plans to make the final decision in 2021_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Finland shares a 1,340km (833 miles) border and a difficult history with Russia. It has compulsory military service for all men and is one of six members of the European Union that have not also joined NATO.
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-jets/finland-invites-bids-to-supply-64-fighter-jets-idUSKBN1HY27V



As for Canada:



> Future Fighter Industry Day Statements[January 22, 2018]
> ...
> *Lisa Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Defence and Marine Procurement Branch, Public Services and Procurement Canada*
> ...
> Following negotiations and selection of the best-value solution to meet Canada’s future fighter capability requirements, contract award is anticipated in 2021/2022, and delivery of the first replacement aircraft is planned for 2025...
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/snac-nfps/remarques-remarks-eng.html



Sigh.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

Are't you getting the F-35 ? Thats next generation Due to its stealth characteristics.You wont get that in an EU fighter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The whole recreate the Avro Arrow is a joke, not just the "company" involved.



These guys may be flying their Arrow before we make up our minds http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-avro-arrow-model-flight-museum-1.4049398


----------



## MarkOttawa

What might this mean--excuse for delay? Company's connections?



> Commerce Decisions Awarded Contract to Support DND’s Future Fighter Capability Project
> 
> Commerce Decisions, a QinetiQ company, has secured a strategically important contract with the Government of Canada to support the competitive procurement process to replace Canada’s fighter fleet with 88 advanced jets.
> 
> As outlined in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada will purchase the fighter aircraft to contribute to the safety and security of Canadians and to meet Canada’s international obligations. A modern fighter jet fleet is essential for defending Canada and Canadian sovereignty and to contribute to its NORAD and NATO commitments, now and in the future. The acquisition will include associated equipment, weapons, and sustainment set-up and services to ensure a Canadian Fighter capability that leverages Canadian industry capabilities and contributes to economic growth and jobs.
> 
> Commerce Decisions, in conjunction with QinetiQ Ltd and QinetiQ Group Canada Ltd has been awarded the contract via Department for National Defence’s (DND) TSPS Supply Arrangement (Task and Solutions Professional Services) following a competitive bidding process. The Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) is being run by DND, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), and Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED); Commerce Decisions will support the development of the Bid Evaluation Plan for the competitive procurement process, as well as support PSPC in its oversight role of the Bid Evaluation process. The work includes support in preparing the evaluation strategy, methodology, and associated criteria & weightings, leading to the production of bid evaluation guidelines and plans.
> 
> In meeting the needs of the client, Commerce Decisions will deliver its proven methodologies – including Structured Criteria Development (SCD) and Real Value for Money (RVfM); and will deploy its most experienced principal procurement consultants to ensure a rigorous, evidence-based and robustly designed and delivered assessment schema for this programme...
> http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2513



Company is British:
https://cd.qinetiq.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Commerce Decisions Awarded Contract to Support DND’s Future Fighter Capability Project


Ah, but look at all the money saved, since we'll _obviously_  be cutting those senior RCAF, DND/ADM(Mat), PSPC, etc fighter acquisition positions now made redundant.  Kind of like the legislative staff cuts, which I'm sure will be announced momentarily, from giving elected Parliamentarians' firearms decisions to the RCMP.

One may suspect that there's a trend to divest any decision-making that may hurt a voting block's feelings, while focusing on special interest sound-bytes & pork-barrelling opportunities (ie - do _nothing_  substantive until after the next election).   :nod:

/cynicism


----------



## Cloud Cover

Wasn't that the plan  after the last election (delaying while spending and studying). It seems to be working....


----------



## Uzlu

> Exclusive: Canada Could Make It Harder for U.S. to Win Fighter Bid - Sources
> 
> OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada is discussing changes to a multibillion-dollar fighter jet procurement process that could make it harder for a U.S. company to win the order as trade relations between the neighbors sour, two sources with direct knowledge of the discussions said.
> 
> Canada is considering whether to penalize companies from countries that have caused it economic damage, the sources said on Wednesday. While a final decision is not expected before next year and the threat could be posturing, the move shows how the Trump administration's trade disputes are spilling over into other areas.
> 
> A spokeswoman for federal Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough - who has overall responsibility for major purchases of military equipment - declined to comment. Sources declined to be identified as the discussions are confidential.
> 
> Boeing Co's F-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter were among the favorites to capture the contract to supply 88 planes, worth between C$15 billion ($11.3 billion) and C$19 billion.
> 
> Defense sources have long said the Canadian air force would prefer an American-built jet, citing the importance of operating easily with U.S. armed forces.
> 
> But a change in procurement terms would give more of a chance to European suppliers: Airbus SE , which makes the Eurofighter; Saab AB , which makes the Gripen; and Dassault Aviation , which makes the Rafale.
> 
> Defense sources, however, say the European jets are likely to become obsolete by around 2040, at which point they could no longer incorporate the latest technologies.
> 
> Canada has been trying unsuccessfully for almost a decade to buy replacements for its aging F-18 fighters, some of which are 40 years old. The former Conservative administration said in 2010 it would buy 65 F-35 jets but later scrapped the decision, triggering years of delays and reviews.
> 
> Ottawa has already said bids will be evaluated in part by examining whether firms competing for the order have caused any past economic damage to Canada. Officials said at the time this was aimed at Boeing, which last year launched a trade challenge against Canadian planemaker Bombardier Inc .
> 
> Government officials are now discussing whether Canada should also consider economic damage caused by governments, a clear reference to worsening relations with Washington, said the sources.
> 
> "Politically it's hard to spend billions of dollars on contracts with a country that's hurting you," said one of the sources, who asked to remain anonymous given the extreme sensitivity of the situation.
> 
> However, the sources emphasized that the discussions are at an early stage and Ottawa could eventually decide to drop the proposed language.
> 
> Canada - which is due to release the exact specifications for the jets next year - has not yet finished work on the clause referring to economic damage caused by a single firm.
> 
> U.S. President Donald Trump last month slapped tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, prompting Canada to announce its own retaliatory measures. Trump has also threatened tariffs on Canadian autos, which could badly hurt the economy.
> 
> Ottawa froze talks with Boeing about the fighter jet contest but after the company's trade challenge against Bombardier failed, Canadian officials made clear the firm would not be discriminated against if it chose to bid.


https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2018-06-21/exclusive-canada-could-make-it-harder-for-us-to-win-fighter-bid-sources


----------



## Kirkhill

"Canada has been trying unsuccessfully for almost a decade to buy replacements for its aging F-18 fighters, some of which are 40 years old. The former Conservative administration said in 2010 it would buy 65 F-35 jets but later scrapped the decision, triggering years of delays and reviews."

Yup. Absolutely. All the Conservatives' fault......


----------



## Quirky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Yup. Absolutely. All the Conservatives' fault......



They are both idiots.


----------



## OldSolduer

At this rate the CF 18s will be eligible for CPP and OAS if and when they are retired....


----------



## Good2Golf

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> At this rate the CF 18s will be eligible for CPP and OAS if and when they are retired....



;D  #chuckleofthefay


----------



## MarkOttawa

Matthew Fisher tweets:
https://twitter.com/mfisheroverseas/status/1009914586475220994



> Matthew Fisher
> ‏@mfisheroverseas
> 
> Stupid, but quite possible with this govt. Only last week solid Lib source said fighter jet buy would be totally fair. US retaliation against CDN aerospace/defence industries would be ferocious/create extreme interoperability issues with US in NORAD/NATO



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We should change the title.

Something like The RCAF's Clapped Out Previous Generation Used CF-18 Addition.


----------



## YZT580

And all totally avoidable.  Tariffs were due to our serving as a conduit for cheap chinese steel into the U.S. via Canadian ports to avoid U.S. tariffs on it. Trudeau's refused to stop the procedure for fear of causing anxiety to the Chinese.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

YZT580 said:
			
		

> And all totally avoidable.  Tariffs were due to our serving as a conduit for cheap chinese steel into the U.S. via Canadian ports to avoid U.S. tariffs on it. Trudeau's refused to stop the procedure for fear of causing anxiety to the Chinese.



You just exploded a bunch of heads here. Trump is evil and Trudeau is a saint, or so some would have you believe.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:
			
		

> And all totally avoidable.  Tariffs were due to our serving as a conduit for cheap chinese steel into the U.S. via Canadian ports to avoid U.S. tariffs on it. *Trudeau's refused to stop the procedure* for fear of causing anxiety to the Chinese.



So if you say it, it must be true?

Canada targets dumped steel from countries like China

What? March 2018? Before Trump’s pre-G7 launch of the steel tariffs? Craziness!

Only head’s exploding are people making up their own convenient alternate facts or those supporting them, and getting caught in their bombast.

:yawn:

G2G


----------



## QV

.


----------



## YZT580

Check the date.  Our taking the dumping seriously only took place a few days before Trump imposed the tariffs.  The Americans got tired of waiting for some form of action since this has been going on for a long period of time.  Ironic that we have allowed cheap Chinese steel to weaken our own industry to the extent that most of the major mills in Hamilton are either closed, closing, or have reduced staff by the thousands but our action leader only took action when forced to make a showing by Trump.


----------



## Good2Golf

Changing your story from “taking no action” to “not taking action fast enough.”

Got it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Basically the Liberals took no real action until the Tariff threat forced them to. They tried to play both sides of the coin and were called on it. 

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/montreal-gazette/20180327/282097752254033


----------



## Good2Golf

So now it’s “took no real action”...somewhere between “took no action” and “didn’t take action fast enough.” 

Got it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As you know, governments love to be seen doing "something" even if it's really nothing of substance. The Liberals are masters of this, being far better lairs than the PC/CPC ever were. JT and company thought they could squeak through pleasing Xi and not getting strafed by DT. Their weak dodge did not work.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> As you know, governments love to be seen doing "something" even if it's really nothing of substance. The Liberals are masters of this, being far better lairs than the PC/CPC ever were. JT and company thought they could squeak through pleasing Xi and not getting strafed by DT. Their weak dodge did not work.



RE; seen to be doing something...absolutely! :nod:

That said, Cons have had their moment, and tying back to the thread a wee bit, Harper still deserves a smack for letting his mis-assessed belief that he actually had a chance in 2015 get in the way of signing off the JSF acquisition.  :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

More from a US site, lots of further links:



> Canada May Make It Much Harder For U.S. To Win Its Hornet Replacement Fighter Contract
> _With a chill spreading over historically toasty U.S.-Canada relations, Ottawa may penalize the U.S. by making its fighters less competitive. _
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21690/canada-might-make-it-much-harder-for-u-s-to-win-its-hornet-replacement-fighter-contract



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

There may be a chill now between the current US/Cdn gov't, but by the time were actually ready to get a replacement, who knows who the gov'ts will be in twenty years. :nod:


----------



## thunderchild

Buy a mixed fleet of European nato qualified fighters, EF-2000 tranch 3 and Gripen E/F.   The majority of our deployments are in the Middle East or Europe proper let’s shorten our supply lines.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on this consulting contract--might there be a BAE Systems angle 
 in background (Eurofighter, Type 26 for RCN)?



> U.K. firm's Ottawa offices to help feds find new fighter jets
> 
> Commerce Decisions, a U.K.-based company with offices in Ottawa, has secured a contract with the federal government to support the procurement process for 88 advanced fighter jets, replacing Canada’s current fleet.
> 
> The contract, worth up to $2 million, is under the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP), which is run by DND, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), and Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED). The acquisition of the actual planes is worth up to $19 billion and will include associated equipment, weapons, and other services, according to a press release.
> 
> Commerce Decisions will draw on team members from across its operations to create an assessment plan for the fighter jet procurement program.This includes supporting the development of an evaluation plan for the competitive procurement process in preparing an evaluation strategy, methodology and criteria. According to the press release, the procurement of modern fighter jets is “essential” for Canada’s contribution to its NORAD and NATO commitments, as well as for the defence of Canada and its sovereignty globally.
> 
> According to DND, the development of evaluation criteria is key to ensuring the procurement of the right equipment at the right price. The contract with Commerce Decisions is independent from the identification of suppliers for the fighter aircraft fleet...
> 
> Commerce Decisions works with clients to build assessment schemes, including in the defence sector where it has worked extensively on U.K. MOD acquisitions as well as internationally, according to the press release.
> 
> This isn’t the first time Commerce Decisions has been tasked with a large defence contract by the Canadian government. _In 2015, the company was awarded a contract to facilitate the delivery of assessment criteria for warship designers and combat systems integrators for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project_ [emphasis added]...
> http://www.obj.ca/article/uk-firms-ottawa-offices-help-feds-find-new-fighter-jets



Commerce Decisions news release:
https://cd.qinetiq.com/news/commerce-decisions-awarded-contract-to-support-dnd%E2%80%99s-future-fighter-capability-project/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Qinetic (parent of Commerce Decisions):



> We have been supporting the procurement and operation of the UK’s fleet of Typhoon fighter jets for over 25 years and the high-tech F-35 stealth, multi-role jets for over 10 years. We manage this through the supply of advice, tools and training.



https://www.qinetiq.com/What-we-do/Air/Aircraft-Mission-Systems


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> RE; seen to be doing something...absolutely! :nod:
> 
> That said, Cons have had their moment, and tying back to the thread a wee bit, Harper still deserves a smack for letting his mis-assessed belief that he actually had a chance in 2015 get in the way of signing off the JSF acquisition.  :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



He had a good chance if he ran a short and focused election campaign (and actually relaxed the message control crap) in which case we would have had 2 Mistrals along with the Astreix and possibly her sister ship under conversion. As for the F35, I suspect it would still be in discussion phase, I think that Trump would not have the same issues with Harper as he does with JT, in fact I would expect Harper to string along the F-35 purchase as part of NAFTA talks. So I would have expected a announcement on F-35s after a NAFTA deal was done.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Swiss re-do fighter competition--note schedule compared to that for RCAF:



> Switzerland kicks off fighter jet competition
> 
> Switzerland on Friday kicked off a multibillion-franc competition to replace its ageing fleet of F-5 fighter jets, and older model F/A-18 fighters, inviting five European and U.S. weapons makers to submit bids by January.
> 
> The Swiss defence ministry asked for bids from European aerospace group Airbus, France’s Dassault and Sweden’s Saab, as well as Boeing and Lockheed Martin from the United States.
> 
> Under its Air2030 programme, Switzerland is seeking to procure new combat aircraft and ground-based air defenses in a programme valued at up to 8 billion Swiss francs ($8.08 billion)...
> 
> In November, it said it wants the new planes to be delivered by 2025...
> 
> For Switzerland, the Eurofighter will square off against Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed’s F-35, the only contender that offers radar-evading stealth capabilities.
> 
> Switzerland had initially chosen the Saab Gripen E fighter but had to cancel that order after a 2014 referendum rejected the choice.
> 
> The Swiss procurement agency said it was asking the firms to submit pricing for 30 or 40 planes, including logistics and guided missiles, as well as an assessment of the number of aircraft necessary to fulfil the Swiss Air Force’s needs.
> 
> The manufacturers have until January 2019 to submit an offer, after which the planes will undergo tests and a second tender round will be opened, with an eye to finishing its assessment by the end of 2020. ($1 = 0.9895 Swiss francs)...
> https://www.reuters.com/article/swiss-airforce/switzerland-kicks-off-fighter-jet-competition-idUSL8N1U242W



For RCAF:



> ...
> Project Approval (Implementation) 	2021-22
> Contract Award 	2021-22
> Delivery First Aircraft 	Mid 2020s
> Initial Operational Capability 	Mid 2020s
> Delivery Final Aircraft 	Mid 2020s
> Full Operational Capability 	Early 2030s
> ...
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2018-status-report-transformational-crown-projects.page#futurefightercapability



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Buy a mixed fleet of European nato qualified fighters, EF-2000 tranch 3 and Gripen E/F.   The majority of our deployments are in the Middle East or Europe proper let’s shorten our supply lines.



NORAD mission?


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> NORAD mission?



Pffft.  Everyone knows that the media doesn't care about "normal" missions, or "normies"...


----------



## MarkOttawa

No mention of RCAF:



> Royal Air Force Receives Most Capable Typhoons Yet
> 
> As Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF) begins receiving the most capable Eurofighter Typhoons yet, the four-nation program is gearing up for a wave of potential new sales.
> 
> So far, the RAF has received 26 Eurofighter Typhoons kitted out with the initial elements of the Project Centurion upgrade package, enabling the Typhoon to take on the vast majority of the missions performed by the Panavia Tornado GR4 which is being phased out of service at the end of March next year.
> 
> The first elements of Centurion were actually quietly introduced onto the RAF Typhoons in January 2017, explained Air Commodore Linc Taylor, the RAF’s senior responsible officer for delivering UK air combat capability, speaking at the Royal International Air Tattoo on July 13. These initial upgrades were a “wrap up” of some systems on the aircraft that had not been updated for several years. This was subsequently followed by the integration of the Phase 2 Enhancements (P2E) package which enables the use of the MBDA Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile and an initial Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile capability.
> 
> “This is the greatest changes in the software of the aircraft,” said Taylor, “It significantly enhances the bread and butter of the aircraft, and the way pilot interacts with the human-machine interface.”
> 
> Then, BAE is planning to install the P3E package, which will enable the use of the Brimstone air-to-ground missile by the end of the year.
> 
> “The Typhoon is going to be the backbone of the RAF’s combat mass for at least another 20 years…my intent is to accelerate on Typhoon, now that the aircraft is relatively mature, we should be able to do things faster.”
> 
> In the future, Britain is planning to integrate the Spear 3 network-enabled lightweight missile, which will also equip the F-35 as well as the Leonardo Britecloud active decoy recently declared operational on the Tornado. Britain is also funding the development of a more advanced version of the Euroradar Captor E active-electronically-scanned array, or so-called e-scan radar. While Kuwait will be the first customer of the Captor-E in the European Common Radar System Mk.1 configuration, Britain wants the Mk.2 or Radar 2 configuration which is expected to add an electronic attack capability.
> 
> The _Eurofighter consortium sees a potential for another 300 Typhoon orders_ [emphasis added] in the coming years. In March, the Saudi government signed a letter of intent with the UK to purchase as many as 48 Typhoons to supplement the 72 aircraft the Kingdom had already taken delivery. The UK is also leading campaigns to sell the Typhoon into Belgium and Finland. Belgium is expected to make a selection decision in the coming weeks. _Perhaps the largest opportunity lies in Germany where the aircraft is being proposed as a replacement for the Panavia Tornado and will have to take up many of the German air force Tornado missions including the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses and the nuclear strike role with the B61 weapon, which Berlin has access to under a dual-key arrangement with the U.S_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Airbus is also proposing upgrades for the Eurofighter’s Eurojet EJ200 engine and using its growth potential to boost thrust by up to 15% in some flight profiles, as well as make improvements to fuel consumption.
> 
> “_We are going to have this jet around until 2040_ [emphasis added] … it is going to evolve and develop, and these will be technologies that enable us to move into the future fighter domain,” said Dave Armstrong, director of European and International business for BAE's Air division.
> 
> The RAF had planned on retiring its Tranche 1 Typhoons in favor of holding onto Tranche 2 and 3 jets, however the Strategic Defense and Security Review of 2015, called for the expansion of the UK’s combat aircraft fleets, and the _creation of up to three new Typhoon squadrons and retaining the Tranche 1 jets until 2030_ [emphasis added]. The UK declared that it would reform 12 Sqdn, until recently a Tornado unit, as the fifth Typhoon front-line squadron. The unit would also have a role in training Qatar Emiri Air Force pilots as that air arm gears up to operate 24 Typhoons from 2022. Then, in the run-up to the Farnborough Airshow, the Royal Air Force Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier announced that the RAF’s seventh Typhoon unit would be 9 Sqdn, reforming at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland.
> http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-airshow-2018/royal-air-force-receives-most-capable-typhoons-yet-0



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> No mention of RCAF:



Because we have no idea what we're doing yet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because we have no idea what we're doing yet.



Wasn't that the plan, to 'not know' so we don't actually do anything?

Or...wait...something something...operational capability gap that must be addressed...


----------



## Kirkhill

Of Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tempests.....



> *UK unveils new Tempest fighter jet model*
> 16 July 2018
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A model of the UK's planned new fighter jet, the Tempest, has been unveiled at the Farnborough Air Show.
> *
> The UK's Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, said the jet could be *used with either pilots or as a drone*.
> 
> The craft will *eventually replace the existing Typhoon* fighter jet. It will be developed and built by BAE Systems, engine maker Rolls-Royce, Italy's Leonardo and missiles expert MBDA.
> 
> Mr Williamson said the UK would be investing £2bn in the new project.
> 
> *The hope is to see it flying by 2035*.
> 
> Mr Williamson said the programme was aimed at ensuring the UK's continued leadership in fighter technology and control of air space in future combat: "We have been a world leader in the combat air sector for a century, with an enviable array of skills and technology, and this strategy makes clear that we are determined to make sure it stays that way."
> 
> He added that the UK, currently excluded from the latest fighter programme underway between France and Germany, was not against forming a partnership with other nations: "It shows our allies that we are open to working together to protect the skies in an increasingly threatening future - and this concept model is just a glimpse into what the future could look like."
> 
> 'Direction of travel'
> 
> According to BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale, the Tempest looks remarkably similar to the current generation of stealth jets, including the US developed-F 35.
> 
> Its sleek lines are designed to be hard to detect by radar, but unlike the current generation of jets it could also operate as a drone without a pilot.
> 
> It would also be the first British-designed jet to carry laser directed energy weapons capable of shooting down aircraft and missiles.
> 
> Aeropace giant Airbus welcomed the new jet programme: "Airbus welcomes the UK's commitment of funding for the future fighter project. We look forward to continuing collaborative discussions with all relevant European players."
> 
> Earlier, the chief executive of BAE Systems, Charles Woodburn, told the BBC's Today programme that the new jet would be some time in coming.
> 
> "We already have the Typhoon platform which forms the absolute bedrock of European air defence and that'll be in service for decades to come," he said.
> 
> He added that the inner workings of the new craft would start life within the Typhoon.
> 
> "*The important thing about the new concept is that it will illustrate a direction of travel and many of those technologies that will be embodied in that will first see their service through the Typhoon*.
> 
> "For example, upgrades on the avionics, upgrades in the weapons systems, upgrades in the radar will be deployed through the Typhoon and will be deployed there and then."



https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44848294


----------



## MarkOttawa

If USAF goes ahead with new-build F-15Xs as replacement for C/Ds, worth considering for RCAF esp. with NORAD mission in mind? Note cost (extracts from longish piece):



> Exclusive: Unmasking The F-15X, Boeing's F-15C/D Eagle Replacement Fighter
> _Boeing and the USAF have been in talks for a year and a half about replacing the aging F-15C/D with a brand new advanced Eagle derivative, the F-15X._
> 
> Last week, the aerospace-defense community was overwhelmingly intrigued by a report from Defenseone.com that said Boeing was pitching a new variant of its 45-year-old F-15 Eagle line of fighters to the United States Air Force. Still, next to nothing is known about this initiative, including where it came from and what it entails exactly. Although it has been framed as a Boeing solicitation to the USAF, the opposite is actually true—the USAF began the discussion over a year and a half ago. Since then, ongoing talks have been kept incredibly hush-hush, along with the details of the aircraft involved—until now.
> 
> According to sources familiar with the discussions, The War Zone has learned about the F-15X's origins, its intended capabilities and features, and where it would fit inside the USAF's tactical airpower ecosystem.
> 
> The F-15X came out of a quiet USAF inquiry to Boeing and Lockheed Martin about fielding an aircraft that could seamlessly plug into their existing air combat infrastructure as part of better-defined high-low capability mix strategy—one intended to specifically help counter the service's shrinking force structure.
> 
> The airframe would have to be cost-effective both in terms of operation and acquisition, very low-risk, and most of all, it would need to be non-disruptive to the larger F-35 procurement initiative. If anything else, it had to be seen as complementary to the F-35, not as an alternative to it...
> 
> As time moved on, it became clear that the F-35 might not be the USAF's one-size-fits-all solution some thought it would be. This is not a mark against the F-35, but just the reality that the USAF has tactical air power needs that don't necessitate or even benefit from the F-35's unique and costly capabilities.
> 
> ...Our sources describe the aircraft as a single seat variant of the latest F-15 advanced Strike Eagle derivative—the F-15QA destined for Qatar—but it will also integrate many of the features and upgrades that the USAF intends (or intended as it may be) to include on its nearly four-decade-old F-15C/D fleet. And no, the aircraft is not a repackaging of the semi-stealthy F-15 Silent Eagle concept that Boeing floated nearly a decade ago. The F-15X features no low-observable enhancements of any kind.
> 
> The F-15X configuration is impressive as it includes a flat-panel glass cockpit, JHMCS II helmet mounted display (HMD), revised internal wing structure, fly-by-wire controls, APG-82 AESA radar, activation of outer wing stations one and nine, advanced mission computer, low-profile heads-up display, updated radio and satellite communications, the highly advanced Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) electronic warfare and electronic surveillance suite, Legion Pod-mounted infrared search and track system (IRST) and the list goes on.
> 
> With the help of the company's new AMBER missile carrying racks, the _F-15X will be able to carry a whopping 22 air-to-air missiles during a single sortie_ [emphasis added--NORAD?]. Alternatively, it could fly with eight air-to-air missiles and 28 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), or up to seven 2,000lb bombs and eight air-to-air missiles...
> 
> What the F-15X doesn't include is a high price. The War Zone has learned that _Boeing intends to deliver the F-15X at a flyaway cost well below that of an F-35A—which runs about $95M per copy_ [emphasis added]. And this is not just some attempt to grab business and then deliver an aircraft that costs way more than promised. Our sources tell us that Boeing is willing to put their money where their mouth is via offering the F-15X under a fixed priced contract.
> 
> ...the jet is intended t directly replace the USAF's entire F-15C/D fleet. It would have no impact on the existing F-15E Strike Eagle fleet or its planned upgrade pathway that is underway now.
> 
> Currently, the F-15C/D force is largely arrayed along America's maritime borders, with five Air National Guard units flying the type. A squadron at RAF Lakenheath in England and two squadrons at Kadena Air Base in Japan round out the full front-line force...
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

F-15X could be the flying bomb truck the F-35 is meant to lead into battle. The article is also incorrect, the next batch of F-35As in 2019 are approx $85M USD flyaway, and dropping.


----------



## CBH99

Curious to hear from some experienced AF guys or SME on the idea.

On the surface, it seems like a solid & potentially better option -- to my non-expert ears.

The known platform of the F-15, upgraded to the max with new radar, EW equipment, and the ability to haul big payloads.  Plus a flyaway cost similar to an F-35, perhaps even less than.  20,000hrs on the airframe before a SLEP is required?  That's pretty amazing!

I don't buy the whole "We can ONLY to NORAD with Stealth!" argument.  And if the RCAF ever gets serious about an anti-ballistic missile mission, the F-15X could carry an ballistic missile killing payload.  


Interested in thoughts on the matter.  (Although I know we've discussed this in length on multiple threads before...)


----------



## PuckChaser

Its built by Boeing, and we're in a pissing match with Boeing right now. Until that changes, I doubt the F-15X or the Super Hornet will even be allowed to bid.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its built by Boeing, and we're in a pissing match with Boeing right now. Until that changes, I doubt the F-15X or the Super Hornet will even be allowed to bid.



Dash-8s with a side-mounted C9 for the win!


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Dash-8s with a side-mounted C9 Browning for the win!



There you go, Big Guy!


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> There you go, Big Guy!



Don't be ridiculous.  After Toronto, there's gonna be a handgun ban.


----------



## FSTO

If the results of this survey is true, we could go out and buy everything we need right off the US factory floor and nobody in Canada would give two hoots.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-is-off-the-radar-of-most-canadians-dnd-poll-1.4754083

Most Canadians seem only vaguely aware they have a military and are decidedly confused — or uncertain — about what it does, according to new research conducted for National Defence.

The biennial report, carried out this year by Earnscliffe Strategy Group, found that while general and specific knowledge was low, appreciation for individuals who serve was high.

The report, dated July 4, examined what sort of public perception remained following the release of the Liberal government's marquee defence policy last year.

The findings stand in abrupt contrast to surveys over the last decade, where the Afghan war seared awareness of the military into the public consciousness.

The inconspicuous profile is a significant challenge for a military that is attempting to increase the size of the regular and reserve forces.

"Awareness of and familiarity with the [Canadian Armed Forces] was generally very low; virtually non-existent among those in the younger age group," said the research report, which included focus groups and a telephone survey conducted last winter and spring.

"Indeed, few had recently seen, read or heard anything about the [Canadian Armed Forces]."

Only 26 per cent say they had some awareness of what the military had been doing in the last year and less than half — 42 per cent — described themselves as "somewhat familiar" with the Forces.

Peacekeeping still top of mind
Presentation of the research comes just a week after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced increased commitments to NATO missions in Latvia and Iraq.

The report found recognition that there were troops overseas, but an ill-defined notion of where they were and what they were doing.

"Most participants had a hard time conjuring up where they thought Canada was currently active internationally, though some brought up involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, peacekeeping missions in Africa and disaster relief in Haiti," said the report.

The impression Canadians were involved in peacekeeping was also deeply embedded, even though the number of soldiers assigned to UN missions was — until just very recently — at an all-time low. Up to 250 aircrew and soldiers for a helicopter detachment supporting the UN peacekeeping force in Mali will be fully in place later this summer.

The survey portion found 90 per cent of those asked believed Canadian troops should be conducting disaster assistance on the world stage, followed closely at 85 per cent by those who believe in conducting peace support missions.


Members of the Canadian Forces move their luggage before taking off from CFB Trenton on July 5. The soldiers are heading to Mali for Operation Presence to support the United Nations peace mission. (Lars Hagberg/Canadian Press)
During the Afghan war, participants in previous surveys bemoaned how the combat mission in Kandahar had changed the character of the Canadian military, and they pined for a return to the day of peacekeeping.

At home, the majority of people see the military's mission as combating terrorism, but beyond that they're not quite sure what the military should be doing.

Domestic role unclear
"Participants were hard-pressed to volunteer what roles they believed the [Canadian Armed Forces] plays domestically," said the report.

There was, in fact, confusion among focus group respondents about the military's role in the Arctic, a policy the previous Conservative government held dear.

"Many were surprised to learn about the [Canadian Armed Forces]'s role in patrolling the Arctic and there was some uncertainty about the importance of this role, particularly among the younger participants," said the research report. "They tended to think of the CAF's role in the Arctic as being about protecting the environment, while the older group was more aware of the territorial 'dispute' with Russia, Denmark, and the U.S."

The research is disturbing but not surprising to Rob Huebert, a political science professor at the University of Calgary and a senior research fellow with the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

He said it's troubling because the world has become more unstable, and by the Liberal government's own admission Canada cannot depend any longer on the United States to defend it.

The findings of the survey and the focus groups, Huebert said, show fundamental lack of understanding about the role of the military in the world, and that does not bode well for recruiting and for society in general.

'Memories are short'
It should have been entirely expected and cannot necessarily be addressed by ad campaigns and community outreach, he said. 

"We haven't had anything in your face since Afghanistan," he said. "Memories are short."

Aside from the absence of a high-profile conflict, Huebert said, provincial education systems have focused on culture rather than conflict when teaching history.


Canadian Special Forces troops launch into a mission from a base in Erbil, Iraq, on Nov. 14, 2016. (Murray Brewster/CBC)
"Many educators are uncomfortable with the idea of getting up and saying we need a military where individuals are trained to — if necessary — kill others," he said.

The federal political culture for decades has also contributed to a collective amnesia.

"Ultimately, the horrible thing about all of this is that we've had the luxury of always depending upon the Americans to take care of anything that is really nasty. So, therefore, we can pretend the military is there as a warm and fuzzy thing," Huebert said.

The current government's focus on the so-called softer aspects of defence — peacekeeping and gender equality — could backfire if a serious conflict erupts, he said.

'Demilitarizing our military'
"The Liberal have been very successful in demilitarizing our military," said Huebert. "We have men and women in harm's way in Ukraine and in Latvia, and if they blow up I think you're going to have an awful lot of shocked Canadians because they'd be saying, 'I thought our military was all about the environment and peacekeeping.'"

A spokesman for National Defence said the report helps inform the department's recruiting strategy, and much of that effort is being channelled through digital platforms.

"These platforms typically include both social media and traditional websites," said Dan Le Bouthillier in a statement.

"In addition, DND and the CAF have multiple social media channels that are used to amplify the recruitment message and support the online advertising campaign."

The report, which cost $144,650.55 including taxes, was based on focus groups held in four cities during February, with two groups (18- to 34-year-olds and 35- to 65-year-olds) in each city.

Quantitative results were based on a telephone survey of 1,524 Canadians conducted between April 30 and May 21 by the polling firm Léger, with the weighted results considered accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus 2.53 per cent.

Clarifications
This story has been updated from a previous version that referred to the military report as "bi-annual." In fact, the report is biennial, released every two years.
Jul 20, 2018 11:36 AM ET


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two tweets of mine:

1) https://twitter.com/Mark3Ds/status/1022266744558288897



> @Mark3Ds
> 
> If #USAF does buy substantial number of new-build #F15X, better late than never for #F15 and #RCAF? Around for decades, we'd be fully interoperable, decent price, great for #NORAD--the #CF15 Loonie? @RCAF_ARC



2) https://twitter.com/Mark3Ds/status/1022270062491836416



> @Mark3Ds
> 
> Last time Canada actually selected new fighter--1978 "Although a favorite of the Canadian military, the McDonnell Douglas #F15 was ruled out because it was too expensive" #RCAF
> https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/canada/cf-18.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

Apocrypha states that the twin engine requirement in '78 was inserted to force the F-15 as the choice, lest someone opt for the F-16...

Lesson (hopefully) learned: Be careful what machinations you engage in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My vague understanding is the new F-15 can carry that large payload for a much greater range than a similar payload on the F-35, which would not be very stealthy in that configuration.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile RCAF awaits 25 used RAAF Hornets:



> USS Carl Vinson flies last legacy Hornets during RIMPAC drills
> 
> This month’s Rim of the Pacific exercise in Hawaii will mark the end of the line for the Navy’s “Baby Hornets.”
> 
> Ten F/A-18C multirole supersonic combat jets on the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier will be traded for newer, larger F/A-18E Super Hornets in January, said Lt. Kevin Frattin, the “senior-junior” officer for Strike Fighter Squadron 34 out of Virginia Beach, Va.
> 
> “You’re not going to see a Hornet on an aircraft carrier, at least with U.S. Navy painted on it, ever again,” he said during a tour of the carrier on Saturday [July 21]...
> 
> The legacy Hornet, which some claim is nimbler and more agile than its replacement, will be missed by pilots, Frattin said.
> 
> “It’s a lot of fun to fly,” he said. “For some things we could do, we were the only ones who could do it.”..
> https://www.stripes.com/news/uss-carl-vinson-flies-last-legacy-hornets-during-rimpac-drills-1.539180



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

Possibly Trump will not allow the authority to be given. After all he currently doesn't like Trudeau. The Financial Post article also suggested the US/CA trade war may not be settled until after our next election.


----------



## CBH99

If he was so petty as to refuse to allow the Australians to sell to the Canadians aging jets that are almost 40yrs old, he'd be doing both countries a disservice.  He'd be robbing the Australians of the sale to Canada, and signalling to Canada he's willing to allow petty trade squabbles to limit Canada's ability to contribute to NORAD & NATO.

He'd also be signalling to both countries that he doesn't respect nor recognize their ability to do business with each other.

I'm not saying he wouldn't do the above - quite the contrary.  I don't expect logical decisions to be made, unfortunately.  I'm sure he would step in & prevent it from happening, then turn around & complain that Canada isn't doing enough.


HOWEVER... it would also be a heavy blow to American companies winning in our CF-18 replacement project.  And surely his advisors - whom I have 0 confidence in - would have enough foresight to know this.


----------



## GR66

CBH99 said:
			
		

> If he was so petty as to refuse to allow the Australians to sell to the Canadians aging jets that are almost 40yrs old, he'd be doing both countries a disservice.  He'd be robbing the Australians of the sale to Canada, and signalling to Canada he's willing to allow petty trade squabbles to limit Canada's ability to contribute to NORAD & NATO.
> 
> He'd also be signalling to both countries that he doesn't respect nor recognize their ability to do business with each other.
> 
> I'm not saying he wouldn't do the above - quite the contrary.  I don't expect logical decisions to be made, unfortunately.  I'm sure he would step in & prevent it from happening, then turn around & complain that Canada isn't doing enough.
> 
> 
> HOWEVER... it would also be a heavy blow to American companies winning in our CF-18 replacement project.  And surely his advisors - whom I have 0 confidence in - would have enough foresight to know this.



Not a Trump fan and also don't think that the US government should prevent the deal, but with regard to the highlighted part I think they'd have more than a fair argument that our buying 40 year old, used aircraft is actually shirking our responsibility to contribute to NORAD & NATO, rather than limiting our ability.  

Both NORAD & NATO are MUTUAL defence treaties and let's be honest, we're not doing our fair share to contribute to either.  The Aussie Hornet buy rather than working to fix that problem actually doubles down on our position and thumbs our noses at those members who are making fair contributions.  We can't do that and not expect hard feelings at the minimum.  And Trump has shown that he seldom limits his displeasure to hard feelings.  Many Canadians may complain, but often you reap what you sow.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Author goofs on number of qualified possible bidders, in fact five:



> Canada asks fighter bidders for sustainment information
> 
> As Canada formulates requirements for a future fighter to replace Boeing CF-18 Hornets, the government is now asking six potential bidders for information about their capabilities to maintain the new fleet.
> 
> A letter of interest sent to bidders on 23 July broadens the Canadian government’s year-long series of engagements with industry suppliers.
> 
> The letter asks the six potential bidders to provide feedback on how the government plans to divide the sustainment responsibilities between industry and the Department of National Defence.
> 
> “Please indicate any barriers or challenges that you would need to address to allow you to undertake this work for a future fighter fleet,” the letter states.
> 
> Sustainment practices among the six potential bidders vary widely. Lockheed Martin’s F-35A, for example, consolidates sustainment planning and support in a central hub, feeding data and parts to several regional depots stationed among the global partners. Other potential bidders, including the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen, offer services ranging from turn-key maintenance support to varying levels of direct and indirect support.
> 
> All six potential bidders signed on to the official Supplier’s List in February. Their presence on the list allows the suppliers to continue engaging with the Canadian government about the acquisition, but does not commit them to submit a bid.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force plans to award a contract in 2021 or 2022 for 88 new fighters, with deliveries scheduled from 2025 to 2031...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-asks-fighter-bidders-for-sustainment-informat-450707/



See from gov't in April 2018, note "Notice of Solicitation":



> Future Fighter Capability Project engages five supplier teams
> https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2018/04/12306



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

GR66 said:
			
		

> Not a Trump fan and also don't think that the US government should prevent the deal, but with regard to the highlighted part I think they'd have more than a fair argument that our buying 40 year old, used aircraft is actually shirking our responsibility to contribute to NORAD & NATO, rather than limiting our ability.
> 
> Both NORAD & NATO are MUTUAL defense treaties and let's be honest, we're not doing our fair share to contribute to either.  The Aussie Hornet buy rather than working to fix that problem actually doubles down on our position and thumbs our noses at those members who are making fair contributions.  We can't do that and not expect hard feelings at the minimum.  And Trump has shown that he seldom limits his displeasure to hard feelings.  Many Canadians may complain, but often you reap what you sow.




Not disagreeing with you at all on either your NORAD or NATO points.  And you are correct, they would have a more than fair argument that buying older & used aircraft is actually us diminishing our capacity rather than building it, even if it is just a stop-gap until a replacement project is finished.

Questions though...what COULD we realistically do to contribute more to either, without a real & tangible threat that we are mission focused on?  (aka Afghanistan)

NORAD - we have radar capabilities & fighter capabilities to respond to unauthorized airspace entries.  We have satellite imagery to cover overlap that, which contributes to us being able to see ship traffic, etc.  What more COULD and SHOULD we do in regards to NORAD?

NATO - considering NATO isn't facing an immediate war along it's border, what more can we do to show we are committed to the alliance?  We are currently deployed to Mali to support UN operations there, leading the mission in Iraq with 4 additional Griffons being deployed there also, leading the battle-group & contributing 540 personnel the operation in Latvia, have trainers in Ukraine, regularly have ships sailing throughout European waters, Persian Gulf, off the coast of Africa, CF-18's deployed to help police Baltic states & Iceland, etc.

What more COULD and SHOULD a country of our size contribute to NATO operations during peacetime, like we are in now?  (Honest, open questions - curious to hear replies from the folks here)


----------



## Rifleman62

CBH99:





> If he was so petty as to refuse to allow the Australians to sell to the Canadians aging jets that are almost 40yrs old, he'd be doing both countries a disservice.  He'd be robbing the Australians of the sale to Canada, and signalling to Canada he's willing to allow petty trade squabbles to limit Canada's ability to contribute to NORAD & NATO.
> 
> He'd also be signalling to both countries that he doesn't respect nor recognize their ability to do business with each other.



Disagree. IMHO, Trump respects the Aussies wrt Australia's contributions to their own countries defence and strong presence in the Pacific to assist with the threat from China. Not so much Canada and Trudeau who Trump feels back stabbed him after the G7. Trump may say no used F-18's, time to step up to the plate wrt defence spending, NORAD/NATO, and you do that by purchasing F-35's which helps with US employment/trade. etc.

In other news:

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/federal-auditor-general-to-dive-into-contentious-fighter-jet-capability-gap?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

*Federal auditor general to dive into contentious fighter-jet 'capability gap'* - 26 Jul 18

Extract: Those included plans to “examine the current and expected fighter-jet capability gap; and to look at how the RCAF plans to maintain its readiness levels to meet Canada’s obligations as it transitions to a new fighter fleet.” An attached presentation added that the audit was important to assure the Defence Department was meeting its mandate to protect Canadians and allied countries. It also planned to delve into the impact of extending the lives of Canada’s 76 CF-18s, which are nearly 40 years old, and the cost of maintaining and operating a fighter fleet.

and:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/john-ivison-auditors-f35-lightning-to-strike-twice-and-this-time-the-liberals-may-get-burned

*John Ivison: Auditor's F35 lightning to strike twice — and this time the Liberals may get burned* - 27 Jul 18
_Harjit Sajjan and Jonathan Vance are going to enjoy a dish of cold revenge, a full two years after their claims that the country faced an urgent shortage of fighter jets_


----------



## suffolkowner

If you look at NATO excluding the US there is about 1900 fighters for $20 trillion in GDP and $310 billion in defence expenditures. That works out to 150(GDP)/100(DE) fighters for Canada.

If you look at the RCAF's availability and sustainability numbers that works out to 65 aircraft for the 36 required by NORAD. 88 aircraft would/should allow the 36 aircraft for the NORAD commitment with two expeditionary 6 packs simultaneously. Some of the earlier F-35 literature had Canada down for 80 aircraft, effectively replacing what we have now, while limiting us to the 36 NORAD and one 6 pack simultaneously. The above numbers would of course be subject to real world experiences with availability and sustainability. 

It could be assumed that the F-35 might be below those numbers initially on introduction while maintenance skills/knowledge are being developed and that our current F-18's might struggle to meet those objectives at the end of their lives  :dunno:

I've posted this before but here is one of James Hasik's earlier takes on how/wher US fighter fleet numbers came from/are going

http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2013/04/how-the-us-may-buy-at-most-750-f-35s.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

IDF to get new F-15s vice more F-35s?



> Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, IAI, Compete for Israeli Air Force’s Huge Procurement Program
> ...
> The IAF purchases will include a fighter squadron, a transport helicopter squadron, a cargo squadron, and six refueling planes. And the winners will be decided very soon.
> 
> ...it appears that the big winner in this unusually large procurement plan will be Boeing, both in fighter jets and of refueling planes.
> 
> Israel Hayom reported Sunday that the Israeli Air Force is currently in negotiations with Boeing regarding a deal with a potential value of up to $11 billion, the IAF’s largest-ever acquisition, to include a squadron of F-15 jets with upgraded stealth features, a squadron of transport helicopters and KC-46 tanker aircraft.
> 
> All the purchase will be funded with the annual $3.8 billion in US military aid, over the next ten years. The F-15s acquisition would mark the first Boeing fighter jet purchase by the IAF in 20 years. Over the past two decades, Israel has bought 100 F-16s and 50 F-35s from Lockheed Martin...
> http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/lockheed-martin-boeing-airbus-iai-compete-for-israeli-air-forces-huge-procurement-program/2018/07/30/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> IDF to get new F-15s vice more F-35s?



Where in the article does it say they're cutting F-35 purchases to fund F-15s?


----------



## MarkOttawa

PuckChaser:

Not "cutting" F-35 buy, rather looking to buy new F-15s instead of more/more F-35s.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> PuckChaser:
> 
> Not "cutting" F-35 buy, rather looking to buy new F-15s instead of more/more F-35s.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



It doesn't say that either, just said any purchases come out of the $3.8B USD per year pot of military aid money. They've already bought 50, planned purchases are 75.


----------



## YZT580

The Israelis already operate both the Eagle and the Strike eagle and they have been very successful with them.  If they are now buying new-build F15s it is because they have identified weaknesses in the F35 performance and are taking steps to work around the limitations.  Potentially the F-35 will choreograph the activities whilst remaining silent and refraining from taking a shot (except in self-defense) to ensure that they remain hidden.  The F-15's will do the actual killing until such time as air superiority is assured.  At least that is the way I see it.


----------



## CBH99

Kind of relates to the F-15X concept, in which even the USAF is realizing it might be better to replace/supplement the F-15 fleet with upgraded new build aircraft than put all the cards in one basket.

Not knocking the F-35 at all.  But it's a tool for the toolbelt, not the only tool in the belt.


----------



## RDBZ

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The Israelis already operate both the Eagle and the Strike eagle and they have been very successful with them.  If they are now buying new-build F15s it is because they have identified weaknesses in the F35 performance and are taking steps to work around the limitations.  Potentially the F-35 will choreograph the activities whilst remaining silent and refraining from taking a shot (except in self-defense) to ensure that they remain hidden.  The F-15's will do the actual killing until such time as air superiority is assured.  At least that is the way I see it.



That action might not be necessarily be driven by shortfalls in the F-35's abilities though.  It's quite likely far easier to integrate Israeli systems and avionics into the F-15, particularly when the F-35s stealth and integration are not needed for most missions.  Add to that a greater level of local control over maintenance and sustainment issues and programs.


----------



## a_majoor

One other aspect which should be considered is the F-15, particularly the Strike Eagle, is a much bigger plane with a larger loadout of weapons. The F-35 can go in and deliver a pinpoint, precision strike, while some versions of the F-15 have been demonstrated with up to 16 AAM's, and the Strike Eagle can carry a huge load of bombs and guided missiles. In many ways a team of F-35's and F-15's would replicate the USAF's idea of having "arsenal planes" to carry weapons which the fifth generation fighters target, only instead of a lumbering B-52, the arsenal is carried by an aircraft which is itself a full up fighter.

The only way to be even "better" would be to investigate a modified F-35. Some proposals have been floated to lengthen the fuselage and replace the wings with a much larger "delta" type wing, similar in effect to the F-16XL project from the 1990's. This would create an aircraft with a much larger payload concealed inside the stealth fuselage. Of course this was only a proposal and I doubt that it has been followed up very vigorously, but it is an example of what may be possible with the right funding and conditions.


----------



## MilEME09

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One other aspect which should be considered is the F-15, particularly the Strike Eagle, is a much bigger plane with a larger loadout of weapons. The F-35 can go in and deliver a pinpoint, precision strike, while some versions of the F-15 have been demonstrated with up to 16 AAM's, and the Strike Eagle can carry a huge load of bombs and guided missiles. In many ways a team of F-35's and F-15's would replicate the USAF's idea of having "arsenal planes" to carry weapons which the fifth generation fighters target, only instead of a lumbering B-52, the arsenal is carried by an aircraft which is itself a full up fighter.
> 
> The only way to be even "better" would be to investigate a modified F-35. Some proposals have been floated to lengthen the fuselage and replace the wings with a much larger "delta" type wing, similar in effect to the F-16XL project from the 1990's. This would create an aircraft with a much larger payload concealed inside the stealth fuselage. Of course this was only a proposal and I doubt that it has been followed up very vigorously, but it is an example of what may be possible with the right funding and conditions.



Essentially use the 35's to hit radar, Air defense, etc in the first wave, followed up by massive strikes by F-15's? would make sense to me, wave 1 sneaks in, wave 2 dominates the now open air space.


----------



## Dale Denton

Agreed, a smart, cheap, and simple way of maintaining/building capability, increasing airframes, and replacing an older AC at the same time. No need for a stealthy F-35 when theres nothing to hide from, why not send in a cheap, safe, and familiar bomb truck? This project also doesn't step on any big-ticket projects already in the running (aside from Light Attack, A-10 replacements).

Speaking of which, would it make sense to up-gun one of these (or more ammunition storage) and turn it into an A-10 'lite'.


----------



## YZT580

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Agreed, a smart, cheap, and simple way of maintaining/building capability, increasing airframes, and replacing an older AC at the same time. No need for a stealthy F-35 when theres nothing to hide from, why not send in a cheap, safe, and familiar bomb truck? This project also doesn't step on any big-ticket projects already in the running (aside from Light Attack, A-10 replacements).
> 
> Speaking of which, would it make sense to up-gun one of these (or more ammunition storage) and turn it into an A-10 'lite'.


Not rugged enough to get down and dirty.  OK for stand-off, in fact, superior to the A-10 in that mode but...  Besides, they cost too much to risk in the ground environment.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I thinknit has more do to with protecting technology (in the sense that if it is downed, the enemy has access to that technology) rather than not being ruggerized enough. 

If I was someone on the ground, I’d be far more afraid of hearing jet noise but not seeing them than seeing a jet down low.

The one thing differenciating the A-10 from othet fighters is that it is their primary role and 90% of their training revolves around CAS.  That’s why they are better at it than most other platforms.


----------



## OldSolduer

Ive been reading this and similar threads for at least five years now and Canada is no closer to procuring a new fighter than they were then. In a few respects IMO we are further away.

It’s time someone of importance told the GoC that they better get their collective heads out of their posteriors and get moving on this.


----------



## Good2Golf

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Ive been reading this and similar threads for at least five years now and Canada is no closer to procuring a new fighter than they were then. In a few respects IMO we are further away.
> 
> It’s time someone of importance told the GoC that they better get their collective heads out of their posteriors and get moving on this.



Unless of course, the GoC is "on orders" from the Corner Office...


Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nothing will happen till a couple of more planes thunder into the ground with the pilots or our allies tear us a new one for failure to show up.


----------



## OldSolduer

Call me crazy but I think JT et al would like it if we purchased nothing. More $ for social programs.....


----------



## NavyShooter

I also suspect that he has not a care in the world for our pilots, nor our allies.

Now, what would happen if the CC150 fleet was no longer available to fly him around in comfort?  (Assuming that's what he uses?)


----------



## OldSolduer

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I also suspect that he has not a care in the world for our pilots, nor our allies.
> 
> Now, what would happen if the CC150 fleet was no longer available to fly him around in comfort?  (Assuming that's what he uses?)


No doubt he’d never let that happen.


----------



## Journeyman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I thinknit has more do to with protecting technology (in the sense that if it is downed, the enemy has access to that technology) rather than not being ruggerized enough.


This sounds sensible, but staying in my lane, I cannot comment.


However....


> If I was someone on the ground, I’d be far more afraid of hearing jet noise but not seeing them than seeing a jet down low.


???  You _do_  know that Wonder Woman's 'invisible jet' isn't an F-35, right?  Being more difficult to detect on radar does not make it any more or less difficult to acquire visually than any other jet.




> The one thing differenciating the A-10 from othet fighters is that it is their primary role and 90% of their training revolves around CAS.  That’s why they are better at it than most other platforms.


I would argue that its increased armour (defensive strength) and awesome gun system (offensive strength), compared to most other aircraft, is what makes them better than most other platforms at CAS;  being designed and tasked specifically for CAS, I would hope that that's where they emphasize their training!  Spending 90% of ones' time training at CAS in a B-52, F-35, or Sopwith Camel isn't going to make them better than an A-10.


----------



## Karel Doorman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I thinknit has more do to with protecting technology (in the sense that if it is downed, the enemy has access to that technology) rather than not being ruggerized enough.
> 
> If I was someone on the ground, I’d be far more afraid of hearing jet noise but not seeing them than seeing a jet down low.
> 
> The one thing differenciating the A-10 from othet fighters is that it is their primary role and 90% of their training revolves around CAS.  That’s why they are better at it than most other platforms.



Tell that to the Taliban and ISIS,they hear the Warthog commin and see it and run like hell.

They are better at CAS because the whole plane is designed with that task in mind,simple.

-can take far more punishment then any other plane
-have far greater firepower(GAU-8),wich is quite effective for interventions where the enemy is ,let's say 100 yards in front of you then a bomb)
-Can loiter far longer then any other jet(which is quite important doing CAS)
-etc,etc
Offcourse they train 90%of the time for this specific job,as said it's what the A-10 is designed for,would be stupid to train for air to air combat,et,etc.

just my opinion,ok I'll go back in my corner now,lol


----------



## SupersonicMax

Journeyman said:
			
		

> However....???  You _do_  know that Wonder Woman's 'invisible jet' isn't an F-35, right?  Being more difficult to detect on radar does not make it any more or less difficult to acquire visually than any other jet.



Yup.  Jet noise propagates far, further than you can easily spot an aircraft from.  Hearing close to 24/7 jet noise overhead, not knowing if there is a weapon coming your way is what would scare me in the long run.  Agreed that in the instant, the A-10 (or, to be honest, any jet) diving my way would also be terrifying.  But it would be short lived, the moment of the attack.



> I would argue that its increased armour (defensive strength) and awesome gun system (offensive strength), compared to most other aircraft, is what makes them better than most other platforms at CAS;  being designed and tasked specifically for CAS, I would hope that that's where they emphasize their training!  Spending 90% of ones' time training at CAS in a B-52, F-35, or Sopwith Camel isn't going to make them better than an A-10.



You don't need armour if you're not going to execute primarily down low.  And I would argue that the offensive weapons of today's world (SDB, Dual-mode weapons, LCD, combinations thereof, etc) diminish the need for a gun (and the F-35 does have a 25mm gun in case it needs to use it).  I would be really curious to know, since Afghanistan, how many CAS attacks were conducted with the gun vs other weapons.  Persistence perhaps is the one thing the A-10 has over other platforms, but man is it slow, I remember taking off shortly before them from the same base for them to relieve my formation at the end of my VUL.  Hard to re-task them very far without a significant wait.  It also limits GCAS and XCAS' agility.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quite so, SupersonicMAx.

I'll always remember, a few years ago, a couple of CF-18 from Bagotville playing intruders against the Vermont Air National Guard. My wife kept looking up at the direction from which the jet noise was coming from, no matter how many times I tried to point out to her the actual planes, 45 degrees away from the noise source.  ;D


----------



## GR66

Reading E.R. Campbell's very interesting thoughts on what he feels the Canadian military should look like on his always informative blog (https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/ - see "My Plan (1), (2) and (3)) got me thinking about the contentious Liberal "fighter capability gap".

While I totally agree that the Liberal government has put forward this gap for purely political reasons, I think that those of us that are in favour of a more robust military for Canada have missed an opportunity by criticizing the partisan political rationale behind the concept of the gap rather than latching on to the underlying truth behind the gap.

The fact is that if Canada ever finds itself in a situation where NATO is threatened in Europe and has to meet our NATO fighter commitment then by definition Canada and the US as key members of NATO will be under threat too.  What military sense does it make to decrease our ability to defend North America because Europe is under threat (or vice versa) because we don't have enough aircraft to defend both at once?  That would be like taking the lock off your back door to secure your front door because you hear robbers outside your house.

I would go further to suggest that our total fighter requirement should be expanded beyond meeting both our NATO and NORAD commitments simultaneously, but that we should also be able to provide an expeditionary force outside NATO at the same time.  Who's to say we're not going to already have a mission in place elsewhere in the world when a crisis hits NATO/NORAD?  Should we assume that in a crisis we will have to pull back from our existing commitments in order to defend NATO/NORAD?

The Liberals put forward the idea of the fighter capability gap for purely political reasons.  True.  But we should all jump on that opening in order to make it clear to all Canadians that it is actually true (and even less fighters than are really required).  Then we can hold the government's feet to the fire (whatever government is in power when the replacement fighters are actually purchased) to ensure that whatever aircraft is selected that they actually purchase enough to do what we need them to do.

 :2c:


----------



## Infanteer

So help me with the math on this one, and in generalities to avoid lurching into OPSEC matters of force posture and readiness.  If political requirement is "contribute to NORAD" and "contribute to NATO" and "maintain ability to project a fighter/attack force abroad for other missions" then what is the math.

Is the basic unit of action the Fighter Squadron?  Or is it a half-squadron?

What's the basic readiness cycle?  I know the RCAF manages this differently with shorter tours.  Is it six-months with rotating crews for a Squadron?

Finally, how much is reasonable to commit in political and operational terms.  How much would be considered "sharing the load?"

Is the answer two squadrons on NORAD duties, two squadrons on NATO duties, and two squadrons on Expeditionary duties/backstop the other two, plus a training squadron?

Can you sustain these numbers indefinitely?  Or is the ability to handle all three (NORAD/NATO/Expeditionary) only possible in "surge capacity" (one year and then only NORAD can be covered, or something like that).

When we have discussions on what a "back of the napkin Air Force" should look like (and these are good and entertaining exercises for the learning value) these are the questions that first come to mind.


----------



## GR66

By my understanding the only firm commitment that Canada has to provide fighters is 36 available fighters for NORAD.  There is no firm commitment for Canada to provide any fighters for NATO but I don't think it would be unreasonable to plan to be able to provide a "six pack" for deterrence missions in support of our allies.  Similarly I don't think it would be unreasonable for Canada to have the ability to provide another six aircraft for non-NATO missions.  I also don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that we should be able to meet our firm NORAD obligations without having to draw back any NATO/non-NATO deployments that we have in place at the time.

So while we don't have any treaty requirement to have 48 x fighter aircraft available at any given time (36 x NORAD, 6 x NATO, 6 x other deployments) I think it would be a reasonable expectation for a middle power to be able to provide that many aircraft.

I guess then it's a matter then of looking at the availability rates of any given type of aircraft to determine how many we'd need to meet these requirements.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

On top of the fighter requirement is the ASW/maritime patrol commitments, Air transport (where we are looking quite good, thank you Harper) and the rotary aircraft, where we have some modern capacity and some deficiencies in another) the fighter question has to keep in mind these commitments as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'd suggest we have more demand than we can supply in the both MPA and Transport fleets...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MPA for sure, but I suspect if you grew the transport fleet, the demand would grow was well. I suspect it's in better shape than it has been since the late 60's.


----------



## PuckChaser

We're running Globemasters almost around the clock to support operations on 3 continents. I've seen constant delays due to mechanical failure likely because we're running them into the ground.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wished we had bought more, even if we kept them in the Nevada storage facility for a bit. Anyways veering off-topic.


----------



## cf100mk5

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23770/u-s-oks-canadas-purchase-of-25-second-hand-australian-f-a-18-hornets


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dassault looks like pulling Rafale out:



> French firm Dassault pulls out of fighter-jet competition: Sources
> 
> The long effort to replace Canada's aging fighter jets took another surprise twist on Tuesday, as multiple sources revealed that French fighter-jet maker Dassault is pulling out of the multibillion-dollar competition.
> 
> The decision comes just over a week after the federal government published the military's requirements for a replacement for Canada's CF-18s as well as a draft process by which a winning supplier will be chosen.
> 
> Dassault had repeatedly pitched its Rafale aircraft to Canada over the years as successive governments in Ottawa have wrestled with selecting a new fighter jet. Dassault's pitch included significant promises, including that it would assemble the planes in Canada.
> 
> But sources tell The Canadian Press that _Dassault's decision to withdraw was related to the fact France is not a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, which counts the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada as members_ [emphasis added--Saab Gripen E maybe more US compatable?]. The five members have very specific requirements for how their equipment works together.
> 
> The French government, which had been closely working with Dassault as the most recent iteration of Canada's fighter-replacement program has inched along over the past year, was preparing to notify Ottawa of the company's withdrawal.
> 
> The move leaves four companies — U.S. aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing, European competitor Airbus and Swedish firm Saab — competing for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada's 76 CF-18s with 88 new fighters.
> 
> A contract isn't expected to be awarded until 2021 or 2022, with delivery of the first new aircraft slated for 2025. In the meantime, the government is planning to upgrade its CF-18s and buy 25 used fighters from Australia as a stopgap.
> 
> Dassault faced several significant challenges in meeting Canada's requirements for a new fighter, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and while they weren't insurmountable, they would have cost time and money.
> 
> Those challenges included meeting those Five-Eyes intelligence-sharing requirements, which Perry said put Dassault at a distinct disadvantage in the competition when compared to Lockheed Martin, Boeing and, to a certain degree, Airbus.
> 
> "For any of the non-American companies, solving the Five-Eyes interoperability issues is going to be challenging," he said, noting that the U.S. in particular is very sensitive about data-sharing.
> 
> "And it costs companies a lot of money to mount and pursue bids. So if they think at this point in time that it's not a realistic prospect, then pulling out is pretty understandable."
> 
> That could explain why Dassault never established a strong presence in Canada during the many years when it was trying to sell the Rafale as a replacement for the CF-18, he added.
> 
> The CF-18s are about 35 years old. Canada's attempts to buy a new fighter jet have dragged on for nearly a decade after the previous Conservative government announced in 2010 that Canada would buy 65 F-35s without a competition, with the first to be delivered in 2015.
> 
> But the Tories pushed the reset button in 2012 after the auditor general raised questions about the program and National Defence revealed the jets would cost $46 billion over their lifetimes.
> 
> After campaigning on a promise not to buy the F-35s, the Trudeau Liberals announced in November 2016 they would take their time with a competition to replace the CF-18s, and buy 18 "interim" Boeing Super Hornets without a competition because Canada needed more fighter jets badly.
> 
> But then Boeing’s trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier saw the Liberals scrap their plan to buy Super Hornets and instead begin talks to buy 18 used fighter jets from Australia. A contract for those used planes is expected in the coming weeks.
> 
> The formal competition to replace the CF-18s is scheduled to begin next spring.
> 
> Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
> https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/11/06/french-firm-dassault-pulls-out-of-fighter-jet-competition-sources-2/#.W-JEQ_ZRcqT



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

Mark - from your emphasis about the fact that Rafale is out b/c of 5 Eyes, then Gripen should be out as well since it's not even from a NATO country.


----------



## PuckChaser

Just need to get rid of Gripen and we'll be able to buy an aircraft on an established assembly line instead of some stupid technology transfer deal that'll cost billions.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dimsum--note my italicized comment that perhaps--others would know much more than I--that Gripen E may be more US-compatible. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

This may have had something to do with it as well.

Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and the UK will all now be flying F35s.  As will Italy.

Germany would as well if it weren't stuck providing Napoleon with the horse to ride.  

As it stands Dassault doesn't really have a viable market - and Canada's 65-83 would not change that.



> Belgium's purchase of US-made F35 jets 'against European interests', Macron says





> Latest update : 2018-10-26
> 
> French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday criticised Belgium's decision to buy US-made F-35 fighter jets instead of European planes, saying that "strategically it goes against European interests".
> The Belgian government announced Thursday that it would replace a fleet of ageing F-16 jets with the F-35 made by Lockheed Martin, rejecting rival offers to buy Eurofighter Typhoons or Rafales from the French group Dassault.
> 
> "The decision was linked to a Belgian procedure and the country's political constraints, but strategically it goes against European interests," Macron told journalists during a visit to Bratislava.
> 
> "Europe won't be strong unless it is truly sovereign and knows how to protect itself," he said, citing a need to develop "a genuine European defence capacity".



https://www.france24.com/en/20181026-france-belgium-aviation-macron-purchase-usa-f35-jets-eurofighter

France still wants Europe to march to Napoleon's drum.


----------



## vonGarvin

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Germany would as well if it weren't stuck providing Napoleon with the horse to ride.


:rofl:


----------



## OldSolduer

And Dassault has pulled out of the competition now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think it's unfortunate that the Rafale is out, I think it would have up the bar and forced the US companies to sharpen their pencils a bit more.


----------



## STONEY

I am surprised that more do not refuse to spend millions putting together a bid that has little or no chance of being successful trying to deal with Canadian
bureaucrats.  There is only 1 possibly 2 that stand a chance of a successful bid but stranger things have happened after all the Army is getting Mack trucks when no
 other western Army's or allies have them.


----------



## CBH99

It's unfortunate Dassault pulled the Rafale out - great aircraft, and definitely worth being in the competition even if not the winner.  Twin engined for all of those who care, good range, highly advanced, a very generous IRB package offered, full technology transfer, and manufactured in Canada.  What the hell else could they have done, really??

If the 5 Eyes argument is the real reason why, it would have been preferable to see SAAB pull out.  I've seen Gripens up close, and they are SMALL airplanes - which while I'm totally out of my lane here, I'm thinking we would need something more rugged & greater range given the huge distances the RCAF patrols.  


I agree with STONEY.  Until a Government of Canada says "We are running a competition, these are the requirements, and we will be announcing a winner on Date X" - I wouldn't even bother putting together a bid.  Millions spent on PR, lobbying, marketing, trade shows, industry consultations, and actually partnering with local businesses in Canada to make the bid more attractive - only to have the government change it's mine...AGAIN...REPEATEDLY...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Auditor General's damning report, note personnel shortages, will still be unable to fill NORAD/NATO "capability gap", plus fighters' ever-less capable over time:

1) (Brief) Report 3—Canada’s Fighter Force—National Defence
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att__e_43225.html

2) (Full) Report 3—Canada’s Fighter Force—National Defence
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201811_03_e_43201.html#hd4a

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

Maybe they Best Buy Sopwith Camels. What a circus 🎪


----------



## MarkOttawa

Early news stories:



> Canada’s jets don’t meet international obligations: Auditor-General
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadas-jets-dont-meet-international-obligations-auditor-general/
> 
> Auditor general trashes Liberal plan to keep CF-18s flying until 2032
> _Fighter pilots, technicians are in short supply for Canada's fighter jets_
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ag-cf-18s-1.4912813



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

F-35 keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. New contract awarded to Lockheed Martin worth $22.7B USD for 255 aircraft (all variants).

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/11/19/lockheed-martin-lands-255-jet-fighter-order-worth.aspx



> In a mammoth deal announced Wednesday, the Pentagon awarded Lockheed a contract to sell 255 new F-35 fighter jets for $22.7 billion -- $89 million per plane averaged across all three models. These will include:
> 
> 64 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing fighters for the U.S. Air Force.
> 26 short takeoff/vertical landing F-35Bs for the U.S. Marine Corps.
> 16 carrier-variant F-35Cs for the U.S. Navy.
> 131 F-35As and 18 F-35 Bs to be delivered to U.S. allies abroad.
> ...
> Speaking of savings, though, you may be wondering: If Lockheed Martin charged $89 million for an F-35A two months ago, and if this week's $22.7 billion deal also works out to *$89 million per plane*, then where are the savings?
> 
> The answer is a bit complex. For one thing, in the September contract, $89 million referred to  the "F-35A unit price including aircraft, engine, and fee." That's how a deal that actually averaged "$81.6 million" per plane ended up costing the Pentagon $89 million, $107.7 million, and $115.5 million, respectively, for individual F-35 variants.



For reference, $89M USD is $117.94M CAD at today's exchange rate. With $9B CAD, we can buy roughly 75 aircraft (not including parts, training, etc), and the flyaway price keeps falling as production ramps up. There's also no FMS surcharge on F-35 (unless the Trump administration has changed that).


----------



## MarkOttawa

Video of MND Sajjan defending government's handling of CF-18 fleet, replacement after AG's report:
https://youtu.be/nE_blpZ4xic

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Video of MND Sajjan defending government's handling of CF-18 fleet, replacement after AG's report:
> https://youtu.be/nE_blpZ4xic
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Warning:  This video will exceed your annual saccharine dosage allowance after five seconds.  Proceed with caution.


----------



## observor 69

I thought with his background we would be getting something different.
Nope, just another politician.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even if he wanted to, he is still constrained by his fellow members in Cabinet and must play along. I get a feeling that his sense of loyalty to his party is to strong.


----------



## FSTO

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> I thought with his background we would be getting something different.
> Nope, just another politician.



I think that any former member of the military is a poor choice for Defence Minister. Try as they might, all of us in the CAF are shaped by our respective tribes and it takes quite a strong person to assume that god like view that the Minister requires to manage this department. 

The current minister loses all credibility with me when he barely gets into his talking points and he is blaming the former government.
If I had the chance my first question to him would have been "Why hasn't the competition for a replacement aircraft started yet? You are at year 3 of your mandate, what's the hold-up?"


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

> The current minister loses all credibility with me when he barely gets into his talking points and he is blaming the former government.


A couple of points:

At least he's allowed to once again speak on behalf of the Department;  there was a time when he wasn't allowed to speak unless he had Marc Garneau standing within arms' reach.  Of course, at that time, there was talk that he would be moved in the next Cabinet shuffle... before it was reaffirmed that the ruling government views Defence as a meaningless Cabinet position, so he was left in location.  I guess he's learned not to stray from the approved text.  

Which suggests that "blame previous government" *was* the extent of his assigned talking points.  Maybe that shouldn't be surprising, given that that seems to be the extent of 'informed discussion' within several governments, as well as with some discussants here.


----------



## Dale Denton

I remember thinking Leslie was a shoe-in for MND when this gov't won. 

How would he have been any different, or would he have pushed through his reorganization re:top heavy?

Its a shame current MND doesn't want to call out his own gov't for the sake of his former coworkers. He had the credibility to make positive changes, but perhaps PMO didnt want to listen to him. But in that case he should have spoken out and been a better CAF representative, now his background might as well have been in finance by the way he sounds. Did they 'beat' the initiative/passion for change out of him?

How would have a MND with a civilian-only background done anything more party-friendly?


----------



## OldSolduer

I think Mr. Campbell is the man to ask. He knows how the system works much better than I. I will venture a guess on why Leslie is not the MND: too many former officers who don’t particularly care for him. That’s my view and it could be incorrect.


----------



## Old Sweat

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I think Mr. Campbell is the man to ask. He knows how the system works much better than I. I will venture a guess on why Leslie is not the MND: too many former officers who don’t particularly care for him. That’s my view and it could be incorrect.



Two other possible reasons:

a. Leslie was likely to be difficult to push around; and/or

b. He might have been perceived as a potential leadership rival to JT, and therefore somebody to be kept out of the spotlight.


----------



## Quirky

If the fighter fleet is bleeding techs and pilots and the replacement was announced tomorrow, who would they send to train on the new platform? You'd have to severely cut back on flying ops on the current fleet to make the transition.


----------



## Cloud Cover

hmm. Leslie might have been a leadership rival to JT if he had remained in the army and staged a coup, Canadian style ( sorry ‘bout that), but otherwise the competition is not even close.  The libs would not have won the last election without JT, and I don’t see how they are going to lose the next one with or without an airforce. As stated above, MND is a meaningless cabinet position, and has been 50 years. I’m surprised the AG spends so much time studying the military ... almost seems like Parliament wants him to waste his time and energy studying airplanes on paper.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Quirky said:
			
		

> If the fighter fleet is bleeding techs and pilots and the replacement was announced tomorrow, who would they send to train on the new platform? You'd have to severely cut back on flying ops on the current fleet to make the transition.



New aircraft, in production, with established training regimes for pilots, ground crew and a defined delivery date, would likely help reduce the personal loss.


----------



## blacktriangle

Disclaimer: I've met the MND, but I don't vote for his party.

Honestly, what would you have him do? Speak out against his bosses? Fall on his sword? I sure don't see any senior military officers doing that (maybe aside from VAdm Norman) despite the state the CAF is in...


----------



## Quirky

Colin P said:
			
		

> New aircraft, in production, with established training regimes for pilots, ground crew and a defined delivery date, would likely help reduce the personal loss.



If they asked me to go back into the fighter fleet with a new F35 to work on I’d say absolutely. When they tell me I’d be going back to Cold Lake I’d tell them to find someone else. Everyone under the age of 30 who doesn’t love killing forest animals hates it there. You can’t just dangle a shiny new carrot in front of their noses and expect them to start walking.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

standingdown said:
			
		

> Disclaimer: I've met the MND, but I don't vote for his party.
> 
> Honestly, what would you have him do? Speak out against his bosses? Fall on his sword? I sure don't see any senior military officers doing that (maybe aside from VAdm Norman) despite the state the CAF is in...



Yep and why would they?  Way too much invested in the game at this point to piss it all away for most likely nothing.

VAdm Norman was a hard charger who appears to have wanted to do right and all that has gotten him is a fat legal bill and a tarnished reputation.

He is probably blacklisted as well from securing future employment with or for the GoC or any organization in any way connected to the political elite in this country.  You know, those nice cushy "consulting" jobs all the retired Generals and Admirals take when they retire?

It's like that Green Day song:  "Nice Guys Finish Last"


----------



## PuckChaser

standingdown said:
			
		

> Disclaimer: I've met the MND, but I don't vote for his party.
> 
> Honestly, what would you have him do? Speak out against his bosses? Fall on his sword? I sure don't see any senior military officers doing that (maybe aside from VAdm Norman) despite the state the CAF is in...



Concur completely. Once someone hangs up the uniform and runs for a political party (or waits till they win an election then hangs up their uniform in this case), we need to stop considering them out for the best interests of the CAF until they prove it. There's many examples on either sides of the House where those ex-CAF politicians forgot where they came from and just toe the party line. No different than current CAF senior leaders (VAdm Norman excluded); everyone knows who butters their bread.


----------



## Kirkhill

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Two other possible reasons:
> 
> a. Leslie was likely to be difficult to push around; and/or
> 
> b. He might have been perceived as a potential leadership rival to JT, and therefore somebody to be kept out of the spotlight.



Nudder possibility.

Leslie was smarter than allowed and decided that he wanted nothing to do with Defence - for all the reasons referenced above in this thread.  It is a no win situation for anybody with time in.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Matthew Fisher quotes a (brave) serving RCAF officer:



> RCAF’s pilot shortage being felt in Romania
> ...
> Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, Romania – The first Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) pilot to have intercepted a frontline Russian fighter jet in nearly half a century has laid out the stark challenges facing those who lead Canada’s fighter jet community. As the auditor general concluded in a blistering report published this week, the country has lost so many experienced pilots and technicians that it can no longer defend Canadian air space and carry out NATO missions in Europe.
> 
> “My burden as a squadron commander is that I can’t fix the losses quickly enough,” said Lt.-Col. Timothy Woods, who is in charge of Air Task Force Romania. The task force has deployed five jets to the Black Sea port of Constanța for four months, from 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron in Bagotville, Quebec.
> 
> “The metric for an experienced pilot is 500 to 750 hours on a CF-18. Some pick up faster than others. It usually takes about four years on squadron. And it takes three to four years to get to squadron. So, it takes seven to eight years to get an experienced pilot.
> 
> “The thing we are most worried about is losing our core experienced fighter pilots to train the next generation. That number has been whittled down. It is a cause for concern.”
> 
> Wood flew one of two CF-18s that scrambled to intercept a pair of formidable Russian SU-27 Flankers over the Black Sea in October. The Flankers had approached Romanian air space after launching from a base in Russian-occupied Crimea. The highly maneuverable Russian air superiority fighters turned back after the Canadian Hornets came within 500 metres of them.
> 
> While the RCAF has often intercepted Russian long-range bombers flying near the margins of Canadian air space in the high Arctic and along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, it very seldom interacts with Russian fighter jets because they are based in Europe and have a much shorter range.
> 
> “Their two airplanes were armed to the teeth. I could see the air-to-air missiles,” Woods said during an interview conducted late last month. “They waved to us. We waved to them. He gave the thumbs-up. I gave the thumbs-up. I gave him a salute and left.
> 
> “I would characterize it as a very professional interaction. Whatever the geopolitical situation might be, we both acknowledged that we had a job to do and got on with it. It was not until I was really close that I realized that it was a Flanker. It was very large, much larger than a F-18.”
> 
> Ironically, Woods, who as commander is usually involved in administrative matters and planning, was on alert to scramble “because of the loss of so many experienced pilots. I am having to fly more to help with that. I am having to fly about twice a week. The kids are flying four or five times a week.”
> 
> Canada’s acute fighter jet pilot and technician shortage was a hot topic in Romania as it has been at bases back in Canada.
> 
> “I have no plans to release though this is something that is definitely discussed among the pilots,” said a captain who only has 600 hours on the CF-18. “One-quarter of our pilots – 23 of them – released last year. Most of those who are leaving are mid-level to senior pilots. They are the ones who are the trainers, so finding enough trainers is hard. It is a major problem.”
> 
> The young pilot, who did not wish to be identified, said that many of those who have left the RCAF have been hired as instructors by air forces in the Middle East. Others are flying private or commercial airliners.
> 
> In a paradox that was not lost on anyone in Romania, some Canadian pilots have been considering whether to join the Royal Australian Air Force because it would give them a chance to fly highly advanced F-35 fighter jets. To fill what the government has claimed is a capability gap, Ottawa decided last fall to spend $500 million to buy 25 RAAF Hornets that the Australians were getting rid of because Canberra had decided to buy the much more capable F-35. Canada has dithered for years over how to replace its Hornets.
> 
> “Is that affecting releases? I’d say yes,” said the pilot, who was several years younger than the jet that he flew...
> https://www.cgai.ca/rcafs_pilot_shortage_being_felt_in_romania



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

I'm glad to hear someone of rank speaking out about issues, and putting the matter really in perspective.  

Can they throw VAdm. Norman under the bus?  Yes.  But only once or twice.  

If enough people with rank start coming forwards & saying "Hey, we can't afford to keep kicking the can down the road.  Make a decision & clean up the mess." - you can't slander/libel _*all *_of them, especially when the theme is the same.



I'm always surprised to hear how outspoken USAF officers can be about personnel & aircraft issues, especially in articles on The War Zone, War Is Boring, etc.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'm always surprised to hear how outspoken USAF officers can be about personnel & aircraft issues, especially in articles on The War Zone, War Is Boring, etc.



Sure, but are they saying the same to their CoC or just venting?


----------



## CBH99

Fair point.

Most of the articles I've read on TWZ, War Is Boring, etc etc - tend to be pretty well informed by currently serving, or recently retired, ranking members with the experience to back up what they are saying.  Some of the articles are about airframe issues, while others tend to be about the general culture of their organization in certain aspects or problems with senior leadership.  

While I definitely agree you do have a point Dimsum, and some of them may just be venting -- it still surprises me that they are ALLOWED to be that publicly outspoken, and write articles for various media outlets while still serving.  


I'm glad the commander of ATF Romania spoke up about some of the challenges he's facing, even if he didn't go into "why" those problems exist.


----------



## Underway

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Two other possible reasons:
> 
> a. Leslie was likely to be difficult to push around; and/or
> 
> b. He might have been perceived as a potential leadership rival to JT, and therefore somebody to be kept out of the spotlight.



Real answer is Leslie didn't tick enough boxes.

The current MND is from a community, religion and province that will/may/need to deliver votes to the Liberals.  Leslie is not.


----------



## OldSolduer

Underway said:
			
		

> Real answer is Leslie didn't tick enough boxes.
> 
> The current MND is from a community, religion and province that will/may/need to deliver votes to the Liberals.  Leslie is not.



I think we have the truth here.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Underway said:
			
		

> Real answer is Leslie didn't tick enough boxes.
> 
> The current MND is from a community, religion and province that will/may/need to deliver votes to the Liberals.  Leslie is not.



You may remember on these very threads circa 2015 the vast majority of people on this site expressing a dis-interest in seeing Leslie as MND fir a variety of reasons, notably his transformation plan. I am still glad he wasn't chosen- he had a lit of axes to grind and transformation would have gutted the CAF. That's not to say the current MND is a great choice however, rather that Leslie wasnt a great choice either.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Sure, but are they saying the same to their CoC or just venting?



Trust me, the CoC knows very well.


----------



## FSTO

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Trust me, the CoC knows very well.


And the media seems to have finally clued in.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2018/11/24/fighter-jet-delays-fuelling-exodus-of-pilots-from-air-force-insiders-say.html

"Flying a 30-year-old jet holds less appeal for pilots who are no longer prepared to sacrifice quality of life and are instead quitting for airline careers, where demand for experienced personnel is sky-high." (more at the link)


----------



## SupersonicMax

I think the key message is that we cannot train ourselves out of it: we need to retain experience first.  We are becoming critically short of experience (ie: pilots qualified to teach wingmen how to become leads) to the point that almost only Majors and LCols are qualified to do so.

We’ve been told for years now that steps are being taken to address retention yet we haven’t seen anythting concrete, other than the “sticks” (restricted release after doing a refresher for example) but definately no “carrots”.  People are getting tired of empty promises and COs can’t answer questions like “Why should I stay?” anymore with any credibility.


----------



## observor 69

"They say several factors are at play in the exodus of pilots. These include exasperation over the delayed purchase of replacement jets that are now not expected for a decade or more, as well as a desire for better quality of life away from the two main fighter bases in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que."

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2018/11/24/fighter-jet-delays-fuelling-exodus-of-pilots-from-air-force-insiders-say.html

Some of this might also contribute to a lack of aircraft technicians.


----------



## Journeyman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Trust me, the CoC knows very well.


Which begs the question, is there any link between "knowing" and effectively "acting"? 

Most of the issues cited aren't new dissatisfiers, and neither hand-wringing nor (surprisingly) making badge and uniform changes has seemed to address personnel shortages.  There should always be a paragraph titled "So What?" -- is the knowledgeable CoC making any substantive changes?

Edit:  posted while question was being answered, but I'll leave it because the CoC needs to be questioned periodically on this topic, it seems


[Maybe this series of posts would be more suitable in the "RCAF aircrew shortage" thread...]


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think the key message is that we cannot train ourselves out of it: we need to retain experience first.  We are becoming critically short of experience (ie: pilots qualified to teach wingmen how to become leads) to the point that almost only Majors and LCols are qualified to do so.
> 
> We’ve been told for years now that steps are being taken to address retention yet we haven’t seen anythting concrete, other than the “sticks” (restricted release after doing a refresher for example) but definately no “carrots”.  People are getting tired of empty promises and COs can’t answer questions like “Why should I stay?” anymore with any credibility.



Max,

The Maritime Helicopter Community identifies with what the fighter force is going through, right now.

The decade following Chretien's decision to cancel the EH-101 program in 1993 cost us some of our best people, who quit in disgust. There are still echoes of that exodus (for example, we have almost nobody at flag officer rank with MH experience, today) and it is making the tramsition to Cyclone extremely difficult because we are jumping two full generations of aircraft technology in one shot.

3 and 4 Wing are entering a dark period. It will be interesting to see if we can even meet our basic treaty/sovereignty obligations by the end 2019, or if the whole capability just collapses.

Good luck.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Which begs the question, is there any link between "knowing" and effectively "acting"?
> 
> Most of the issues cited aren't new dissatisfiers, and neither hand-wringing nor (surprisingly) making badge and uniform changes has seemed to address personnel shortages.  There should always be a paragraph titled "So What?" -- is the knowledgeable CoC making any substantive changes?
> 
> 
> [Maybe this series of posts would be more suitable in the "RCAF aircrew shortage" thread...]



The “so what” has been articulated and quantified, and supported by leadership.  Not sure at what level it went up to but I can tell you with certainty that the Strat level is aware.


----------



## Journeyman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The “so what” has been articulated and quantified, and supported by leadership.  Not sure at what level it went up to but I can tell you with certainty that the Strat level is aware.


So, "knowing" is well established;  responses under "effective action"...not so much.  Thank you.  [Not intended as a pissing contest with you!  Just trying to get a more complete picture]

As an outsider, it _seems_  as though the military and civilian leadership in all of this are concurring that "yep, this is a problem... someone should do something.... someday."  I have to say then, I really can't blame those who are bailing.


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:
			
		

> As an outsider, it _seems_  as though the military and civilian leadership in all of this are concurring that "yep, this is a problem... someone should do something.... someday."  I have to say then, I really can't blame those who are bailing.



We're a victim of our own success, really.  

Unlike Australia, no one has tried to attack Canada directly aside from a few stray shots in the west coast and one in the St. Lawrence, and we're too close to the US for the threat of "when will the Americans come?" to really play a factor in politics.  Although, with the changing generation, I wouldn't be surprised if Australians forget that sooner rather than later.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Underway said:
			
		

> Real answer is Leslie didn't tick enough boxes.
> 
> The current MND is from a community, religion and province that will/may/need to deliver votes to the Liberals.  Leslie is not.



No, or at least that's a secondary issue at best. Leslie is/was a loose cannon. He's said things that has made others question his absolute loyalty to the party, while his last years in DND also raise questions about his competence and relationship with other uniformed individuals. I'm not sure where that stands today, but he was not their first choice for his own actions. 

Sajjan on the other hand is utterly pliable, especially as a 1st year MP; he's highly constrained by his minders that have been parachuted in from the PMO. He's also a useful fall guy for a lot of these issues, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him be shuffled out in the next ten months. 



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The “so what” has been articulated and quantified, and supported by leadership.  Not sure at what level it went up to but I can tell you with certainty that the Strat level is aware.



The Former Comd RCAF knew and refused to see the problem, but he was in a highly difficult position: he was waging a backroom guerrilla war with the political leadership at the same time. I suspect that he didn't want to be fighting multiple fronts at one time and chose to ignore the massive warning signs. The leadership has been effectively cut off at the knees and everybody knows it internally. Norman's case is the most visible sign of that, but there's other examples abound. The current comd was very aware and actively worked on the issue upon entering into office, which has gained further impetus with the OAG. They've been looking at some of the USAF's reforms over the past few years for ideas that Canada can implement. However  as you and a number of other people have pointed out, without a fix on the fighter file and some drastic overhauls on QoL side (including pay), its not going to do much. Also he's up against other real constraints: the government refusing to pay for anything. SSE is an utter joke: they only just approved the money for the RAAF Aircraft a few weeks ago (a year after it was agreed to), there's no plan or money for CF-18 upgrades, or getting any more pilots. 

I also feel that the general populace lack of care adds to this general dissatisfaction. There's been a fair bit of reporting on this for years, yet its only now getting a modicum of attention, which will soon be forgotten in the Christmas crush. Probably the only realistic impetus for change can only come when the US comes and says enough is enough and imposes some serious conditions on Canada for its declining fighter capability. Unfortunately they have their own problems to deal with as well.


----------



## Quirky

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> "They say several factors are at play in the exodus of pilots. These include exasperation over the delayed purchase of replacement jets that are now not expected for a decade or more, as well as a desire for better quality of life away from the two main fighter bases in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que."
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2018/11/24/fighter-jet-delays-fuelling-exodus-of-pilots-from-air-force-insiders-say.html
> 
> Some of this might also contribute to a lack of aircraft technicians.



This past APS, from my unit alone, out of the techs posted in 3/4 are remustering and the other promoted to a desk job. The AVN trade in Cold lake is bleeding, like a faucet. I remember when they tried to fill the cold lake positions with second line techs from 3 Wing. There was a stack of releases and postings were cancelled. Cold lake just needs to die and the RCAF as a whole will be better off.


----------



## Good2Golf

The Government (and by logical association, Canadian society) will get what it wants, and the age of delightenment immediate interest/gratification will bear some ugly crops in the times to come.  Even two F-35s per (remaining) pilot may not be a sufficient attractor.   At the risk of repeating myself from this (or another thread, can’t recall at this point...) we’re trying to attract young aspiring pilots to something akin to a Spitfire still flying in the early 80’s, just transposed three and a half decades forward in time.  Sad.  Notwithstanding the current Government’s finagling to punt the ball past the next election’s gates, Harper needs a firm smack upside the head for not having showed the fortitude to make a command decision and help the RCAF at least put on some reasonable semblance of contemporary capability. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

The RCAF owns pilot training.  The RCAF has refused to fix pilot training for a generation.  Even common sense approaches like dividing the occupation into rotary and fixed wing occupations, and streamlining that training, have been refused by RCAF leadership. 

(A cynic would suggest that the pilot community has a vested interest in maintaining a pilot shortage, to justify increased pay for pilots).

There is no recruiting problem for pilots; last time I looked, there were sufficient pilots on the BTL/SUTL that we could stop recruiting pilots for five or six years and still have untrained pilots left in the system.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The RCAF owns pilot training.  The RCAF has refused to fix pilot training for a generation.  Even common sense approaches like dividing the occupation into rotary and fixed wing occupations, and streamlining that training, have been refused by RCAF leadership.
> 
> (A cynic would suggest that the pilot community has a vested interest in maintaining a pilot shortage, to justify increased pay for pilots).
> 
> There is no recruiting problem for pilots; last time I looked, there were sufficient pilots on the BTL/SUTL that we could stop recruiting pilots for five or six years and still have untrained pilots left in the system.



I know that this is your favourite hobby horse and I am no fan of NTFC either, but none of what you just said fixes throughput at 410 Sqn or retention on the 4 gun squadrons. Anecdotally, I am hearing that fighters are near the bottom of everyones choicea, as each class graduates Moose Jaw. Nobody wants to fly obsolete kit and live in Bagotville and or Cold Lake while doing so.

There in no magic wand to make fighter pilots that won't get them killed in their first fight. Best case, it is a 6-9 year process.

Buy a new fighter. Maybe looking at basing options at the same time, since all of the infrastructure has to be re-capitalized, regardless of what is purchased. That is about all that is left on the table.

The cynic in me says that there are those in government that actually cheer on the collapse of the fighter force.  More money for social programs, right?


----------



## HB_Pencil

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The RCAF owns pilot training.  The RCAF has refused to fix pilot training for a generation.  Even common sense approaches like dividing the occupation into rotary and fixed wing occupations, and streamlining that training, have been refused by RCAF leadership.
> 
> (A cynic would suggest that the pilot community has a vested interest in maintaining a pilot shortage, to justify increased pay for pilots).
> 
> There is no recruiting problem for pilots; last time I looked, there were sufficient pilots on the BTL/SUTL that we could stop recruiting pilots for five or six years and still have untrained pilots left in the system.



I'd not lay the blame completely on the RCAF here on the choice of system: they've been under financial pressures to find efficiencies for the past 20 years, constrained by a political desire to keep the current contractual arrangements. The extension of the contract last year to 2024, despite its obvious limitations of the system is evidence of that. 

The problem in this case (Tac fighters) is that it is not on the recruitment side, although the constraints of the pipeline in the past did contribute to this problem. No system can handle the shock of losing 15% of its population in one year, and averaging over 10% for three, thats unprecedented and what the OAG report and others are talking about.  Sure you'd love the system to be more flexible, but its not a cause here; the issue is with the experienced individuals leaving. Meizinger spoke last week how they can't absorb new pilots because of the releases and they will have to slow down the pipeline. Furthermore there's anecdotal evidence that new pilots are starting to avoid tac fighters and go to other aircraft because of all of this. 

Edit: what SeaKingTacco said, but much more eloquently than I.


----------



## Good2Golf

...after some say the Government of the day in the mid-90’s directed the RCAF to transition its training to alternative service delivery provided primarily by........and what could go wrong with this idea.......Bombardier.  Pretty much all else that followed was a lesson in “what happens when you give up primary control over processes critical to your organization’s efficient and effective operation?” 

*sigh*

:not-again:


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The cynic in me says that there are those in government that actually cheer on the collapse of the fighter force.  More money for social programs, right?



The cynic in me thinks we should go full Kiwi and collapse the fighter force, just to see the politicians' mouths drop and the scrambling afterwards.  

COA 1:  They actually follow through, we close Cold Lake and Bagotville, let the US run NORAD air defence
COA 2:  They get scared, miraculously find new money and listen to the issues, we get new stuff and/or new bases
COA 3:  They get scared, miraculously find new money, don't listen to the issues, all fighter pilots leave, rolling into COA 1.

:stirpot:

*ETA:  Tankers get re-rolled back to SAR or Transport.


----------



## Quirky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> COA 1:  They actually follow through, we close Cold Lake and Bagotville, let the US run NORAD air defence
> COA 2:  They get scared, miraculously find new money and listen to the issues, we get new stuff and/or new bases
> COA 3:  They get scared, miraculously find new money, don't listen to the issues, all fighter pilots leave, rolling into COA 1.



The US already has a quicker response time to our own West and North coasts. At least 3 Wing is strategically placed, Cold lake is good for the range and nothing more.


----------



## dapaterson

The RCAF owns pilot training and employment.  If pilots are upset about both, the RCAF needs to do some deep soul searching.  (Finally putting in a decent Comd RCAF for the first time in years is a very positive first step).  A long hard gaze in the mirror by the RCAF is long overdue.  And perhaps then some deliberate efforts to fix the elements under their own control.  

Or continue with past practice where past Comds RCAF complained about people spending too much time flying and deliberately worked to move pilots who wanted to fly away from flying positions, then wonder why things went wrong...


Do not read into the contact extension any external problems the RCAF could not solve, but rather senior RCAF leadership not planning ahead to address the looming end of the contract.  Not political influence, but RCAF indifference and a "Oh shit!  Is that running out?" panic reaction.


----------



## dapaterson

Re: Fighter Force.  My back of the envelope solution is to consolidate everyone in Mirabel, and deploy a six pack (or whatever size group is needed) to Cold Lake and Bagotville for 2-3 months at a time on a rotational basis.  Voila.  A single base, located in the area of a major metropolitan area with services available in both official languages.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The cynic in me thinks we should go full Kiwi and collapse the fighter force, just to see the politicians' mouths drop and the scrambling afterwards.
> 
> COA 1:  They actually follow through, we close Cold Lake and Bagotville, let the US run NORAD air defence
> COA 2:  They get scared, miraculously find new money and listen to the issues, we get new stuff and/or new bases
> COA 3:  They get scared, miraculously find new money, don't listen to the issues, all fighter pilots leave, rolling into COA 1.
> 
> :stirpot:
> 
> *ETA:  Tankers get re-rolled back to SAR or Transport.



I think the best COA would be to collapse the Army, and use the funds for new aircraft and submarines.


----------



## BurmaShave

We're sending fewer people jets right now, cause 410 needs YFR to train instructors. The problem there is not with NFTC. We're also only sending IPs and ENJJPT grads on the fighter course, trying to keep the quality as high as possible (so, Ph III grads either go to ENJJPT or instruct for a tour, not direct 410). Despite this, we still have more people who want jets than are getting it (based on my anecdotal evidence of _literally being here_). Antique aircraft, 3 year instructor tour, Cold Lake...people still want that. It's keeping them once they get there that's the problem.


----------



## FSTO

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I think the best COA would be to collapse the Army, and use the funds for new aircraft and submarines.


Wasn’t the savings from a non F35 purchase to go to the RCN? 😂


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Re: Fighter Force.  My back of the envelope solution is to consolidate everyone in Mirabel, and deploy a six pack (or whatever size group is needed) to Cold Lake and Bagotville for 2-3 months at a time on a rotational basis.  Voila.  A single base, located in the area of a major metropolitan area with services available in both official languages.



There is merit in this idea of locating all four gun sqns on a single base like Mirabel. Although, given the hue and cry over a simple frickin pipeline through Montreal, I can just imagine the environmental objections over this idea. Still, it would make the QoL issues much more manageable.

Not sure that fixes the obsolete fighters, issue....


----------



## observor 69

Fighter jet delays fuelling exodus of pilots from Air Force, insiders say
By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITHOttawa Bureau
Sat., Nov. 24, 2018

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2018/11/24/fighter-jet-delays-fuelling-exodus-of-pilots-from-air-force-insiders-say.html

"In response to the auditor general findings, Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger, commander of the RCAF, said the Air Force is taking steps to help retain aircrews, including measures to improve the quality of life along with changes to how the Air Force trains its pilots to give it “greater flexibility to better meet future personnel demands.”


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

See the problem there, Baden Guy!

It's only now that Comd RCAF is "taking steps", and only "in response to the AG findings". Yet, Comd RCAF should have know for certain and for a long, long time about these problems.

My conclusion: If the AG hadn't reported on the problems, it would have been business as usual for the RCAF and no steps would have been taken.

And SKT, the Mirabel thingy and the pipeline are two different horse.

First, the pipeline would have gone a lot easier if the promoter of the project had been able to explain why they planned to cross the River five miles upstream from the City's water supply intake and what measures they had then taken to guarantee no accident from a project that really didn't benefit the City directly, other than just the general overall benefit from an important province in Canada being serviced, as that benefit was applicable to everyone else outside Alberta.

in the case of Mirabel, well, it is different. First, the airport still has a large exclusion zone around it (not as big as it used to be, but still), so the noise problems are probably the lesser you can get in Canada if you are going to be near an important city, including the fact that you are already North of the metropolitan area and therefore, going further North to train would put you over much less densely populated area (unlike, say, if you tried this near Toronto). Second, you are bringing economic development to the region - so direct benefit. Thirdly, it would locate the base near the heart of Canada's largest concentration of space/aeronautical industry, with the attendant benefits both to the industry and the military from any potential "cross-pollination".


----------



## Kirkhill

I've mentioned in the past that it is my belief that Canada traded participation in Norad for the Autopact in the 60s and the Canada US Free Trade Agreement in the 80s.  Effectively our limited investment in defence bought jobs at GM in Ontario and Quebec.

It is no secret that the current administration in Canada has had variable success in maintaining cordial relations with the current administration in the US on a variety of fronts, including both defence and trade.

The cynic in me wonders if there is a connection with your current problems and this story 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/gm-closing-all-operations-in-oshawa-ont-sources-1.4191935

Tangent to the Tangent - Unifor, the union at GM Oshawa, is the same union praising, defending and taking credit for the Liberals recent decision to support the media.

Funny old world.  Everything is linked to everything.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Re: Fighter Force.  My back of the envelope solution is to consolidate everyone in Mirabel, and deploy a six pack (or whatever size group is needed) to Cold Lake and Bagotville for 2-3 months at a time on a rotational basis.  Voila.  A single base, located in the area of a major metropolitan area with services available in both official languages.



So, on top of exercises away from their postal code, and deployments...they'd also do 3 months on TD (2 times a year?) at CL or BV.

Sorry, I don't see that as much of a QoL 'increase' that will make people sign the next TOS.  Better?  Perhaps in one way...now, their D HG & E is in the 'major metropolitan area', but they rarely are.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, on top of exercises away from their postal code, and deployments...they'd also do 3 months on TD (2 times a year?) at CL or BV.
> 
> Sorry, I don't see that as much of a QoL 'increase' that will make people sign the next TOS.  Better?  Perhaps in one way...now, their D HG & E is in the 'major metropolitan area', but they rarely are.



I'm thinking that the increase would be that their spouses have a steady location so s/he can get a good job, or something to that effect.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There is that, but I also think the "not really around much" because of ex's, deployments and the 3 month TDs...isn't trading a problem for a different one?   :dunno:


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There is that, but I also think the "not really around much" because of ex's, deployments and the 3 month TDs...isn't trading a problem for a different one?   :dunno:



I think the "not around much" will be a given, regardless of location.  

I mean this is all just spitballing, but I'd think the CL/BG time would be more of an extended QRA, not that the entire sqn is going.  It boils down to if you're going away anyway, would your spouse want to be in CL/BG and get posted, or be in Mirabel and not get posted unless Ottawa/Winnipeg?  

The RAAF does this with all of their fleets (except the Classic Hornets but not the Super Hornets) and it seems to work out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe.  I just know, if they are away as much as our fleet, I think "more time away" would create a different issue while it solved another issue.  It's been noted that they are short people (flyers and maint) right now, so the people at the Sqn's would be in that "QRA" rotation more often, and on exercise more often.  I think that would create a different issue.  Being away from home 6 months a year is "easier" than being away 9 months a year...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Maybe the way things are currently going the RCAF eventually goes the way of New Zealand--fighter/strike free force, with USAF paid to take over our NORDAD role, including bases here (if USAF could handle expanded responsibities).  Might that eventually fly with Canadian public opinion? After all, massive increase in RCAF's continental air defence role in Cold War was to provided defence against just such help.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe.  I just know, if they are away as much as our fleet, I think "more time away" would create a different issue while it solved another issue.  It's been noted that they are short people (flyers and maint) right now, so the people at the Sqn's would be in that "QRA" rotation more often, and on exercise more often.  I think that would create a different issue.  Being away from home 6 months a year is "easier" than being away 9 months a year...



What we need to do is move all the available people from day-walking shop jobs back into the gun squadrons. Contract out periodic maintenance, misc shops like tire bay, engine bay and the training squadron. We have plenty of qualified technicians they are just not being utilized properly. If you spread them around the 1st line units there will be plenty to have any sort of rotation you want without being away months at a time.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Government defends fighter farce:



> Commons committee questions DND over fighter capability
> 
> The first of 88 new advanced fighter jets will be in service by 2025 and the fleet will be operational by 2026, according to officials from the Department of National Defence (DND).
> 
> Facing a barrage of questions about the department’s ability to sustain the current fleet of 76 CF-188 Hornets through to their planned retirement in 2032, Jody Thomas, deputy minister of DND, assured members of the House Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Dec. 3 that the aircraft would begin phasing out much sooner.
> 
> “The first advanced fighter will arrive in 2025. And the number of mission-ready aircraft will increase quickly to address our NATO and NORAD commitments,” she said. “In fact, _we expect to achieve initial operating capability by 2026 with nine advanced fighters ready to fulfil the NORAD mission_ [emphasis added].”
> 
> While the 30-year-old Hornets will remain operational with the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) until 2032, “we will not be flying all of the CF-188s until 2032,” she emphasized. “We will only fly as many as we need to support the transition to the advanced fighter fleet.”
> 
> Thomas and other senior officials were called to appear before the Public Accounts committee in the wake of a harsh report from the Auditor General on DND’s risk management of the fighter aircraft fleet and the government’s decision to acquire 18 operational Boeing-built F/A-18A/B Hornets from Australia to bridge a so-called capability gap resulting from a change in policy.
> 
> In 2016, the newly elected Liberal government directed the department to ensure it had enough fighter aircraft available at all times to meet the highest NORAD alert level and Canada’s concurrent commitment to NATO. Previously, DND had placed a greater priority on meeting its NORAD obligation.
> 
> The Auditor’s report found that in order to meet the new operational requirement, the department determined it needed to increase the fighter fleet by 23 per cent, and the government launched an interim project to augment the fleet.
> 
> Initially, the Liberals sought to negotiate with the United States government for 18 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, but cancelled that following a commercial dispute between Boeing and Montreal-based Bombardier, instead opting for 18 Australian Hornets, and up to seven more for spare parts, of the same model and age as the RCAF fleet.
> 
> With the RCAF facing “a growing shortage of trained and experienced pilots and technicians,” the Auditor found that DND’s own analysis showed the interim plan would not help “meet the new operational requirement and would make the personnel shortage worse.”
> 
> In fact, although the government has earmarked almost $3 billion to extend the life of the CF-188s and acquire and upgrade interim aircraft, it failed to deal with the two “biggest obstacles to meeting the new operational requirement: a shortage of pilots and the declining combat capability of its aircraft,” the Auditor concluded.
> 
> In explaining the report to the committee, Jerome Berthelette, assistant auditor general, noted that the RCAF had only 64 per cent of the trained pilots needed to meet the government’s new requirement and “as of April 2018, 22 per cent of technician positions in CF-188 squadrons were vacant or filled by techs not yet fully qualified to do maintenance.”
> 
> Several committee members expressed surprise that modernization of the Hornet’s combat readiness had not been incorporated into the upgrade plan, an indication of the “political nature” of many of the decisions involving the fighter preplacement program, said David Christopherson, the New Democratic MP from Hamilton. He suggested the department had only focused on what was needed to keep the jets flying, and not on the combat systems, because the department had expected “a replacement to be in place” by now.
> 
> _Thomas said the Hornets and interim aircraft would be upgraded “to meet regulatory requirements” and an analysis was underway to assess “additional options to upgrade combat capability.” It is expected to be ready by spring 2019_ [emphasis added].
> 
> RCAF commander LGen Al Meinzinger said the analysis would “include looking at sensors, weapons, self-protection capabilities and … mission support.”
> 
> Among the more worrisome findings for the committee were the department’s plans to address the shortage of pilots and technicians. The Auditor noted that departures and the age of the jets was compounding a series of issues.  Fewer experienced technicians has meant the “average maintenance hours needed for every hour that a CF-188 flew increased from 21 to 24 [between 2014 and 2018].”
> 
> For pilots who are expected to fly 140 hours per year to maintain and develop new skills, “we found that in the 2017-18 fiscal year, 28 per cent of pilots flew fewer than the minimum 140 hours. According to National Defence, one reason for these fewer hours was the shortage of technicians to maintain the aircraft,” the said the Auditor.
> 
> Both Thomas and Meinzinger emphasized new strategies and programs in place or being developed to steadily improve retention and recruitment, but committee members questioned whether they would be sufficient to meet the need for pilots and technicians.
> 
> _Meinzinger highlighted the Fighter Capability Maintenance Renewal initiative, intended to add over 200 technicians to frontline squadrons, and a greater effort to encourage retiring or departing pilots to remain in service with the Reserves. He also noted a new air reserve occupation at the Wings intended to alleviate work that would normally be filled by active pilots, allowing “more pilots to fly at the squadron level.”
> 
> But he said it would take five to seven years to grow the Air Force enough to close much of the gap in experienced air crews_ [emphasis added].
> 
> “With the fighter renewal initiative, what will happen is, with the contracting of second line maintenance, we are going to be moving approximately 200 serving members forward into first line [maintenance],” explained Patrick Finn, assistant deputy minister of Materiel. “So you are going to see a significant increase in technicians on the flight line fixing aircraft, and we believe that is going to lead to more mission-ready aircraft for our pilots to fly.”..
> https://www.skiesmag.com/news/commons-committee-questions-dnd-over-fighter-capability/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

I don't take anything any Canadian government says at value, and not because I'm bitter or filled with apathy at the sheer lack of decisive leadership.

The Canadian political system is it's own worst nightmare.  Every few years, the party in power changes, and so do the people in the various committees.  So while I don't mean personal offense to the individual speaking, he doesn't have a clue what's going to be available and purchased by the 2026 timeframe.  Not a clue.  I doubt he could forecast what's going to be purchased by 2021.

Even with the defense committee having members of the various political parties in it's membership, it still doesn't seem to help all that much.



The real game changer would be doing things like Australia.  While not perfect, they do have support for their white paper from both of the major political parties.  They have a clear vision of what equipment they want, and what capabilities they want, and have done a great job of making that happen regardless of elections.  That's what needs to happen here.

Instead, we get "Well the military wasn't funded well by the previous government..."   REGARDLESS of what political party is in power.  Come up with a common agreement of what we want the military to look like, put aside the "labels" of Liberal or Conservative, get it together, and get it done.  Period.

Until that happens, it's just another guy flapping his gums at what he thinks MIGHT happen -- while he doesn't acknowledge that the new fighters probably won't be purchased while this party is in power either, so his timelines really don't mean jack s**t.


----------



## Journeyman

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Until that happens, it's just another guy flapping his gums at what he thinks MIGHT happen -- while he doesn't acknowledge that the new fighters probably won't be purchased while this party is in power either, so his timelines really don't mean jack s**t.


The Defence DMin, Jody Thomas, is a woman.  Don't worry, some pre-decided readers won't let a let a mere absence of factual awareness detract from some posts.   :boring:


----------



## CBH99

Not pre-decided by any means, and you are right - I did overlook that detail.  You are right, and I do apologize.  Point made.


However, gender doesn't change anything in my opinion in regards to the timeframe.  At the end of the day, this particular person won't be in their position long enough to guarantee the new jets will be available for NORAD in 2026.  

The only way that would happen is if both major political parties could agree on some defense issues, and proceed with projects regardless of what party floated the idea or signed the contract.  And in Canada, we don't have that type of bi-party support for key projects to keep things moving along after/between elections.  (My opinion, anyway)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this earlier post by CHB99,



> Kind of relates to the F-15X concept, in which even the USAF is realizing it might be better to replace/supplement the F-15 fleet with upgraded new build aircraft than put all the cards in one basket...
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1543125.html#msg1543125



this is interesting--if cost is US $100M each for 12 should come down quite a bit if bought in more quantity (along with existing foreign sales)--further links at original:



> USAF's Next Budget Request Will Include New F-15X Advanced Eagle Fighter Jets: Report
> _We revealed the existence of the F-15X concept last July and now it seems like it may become a line-item in the upcoming 2020 defense budget._
> 
> ast July, I broke a story about the existence of Boeing's F-15X Advanced Eagle concept, one that the plane-maker had been in discussions with the USAF about for many months. That aircraft would be procured to replace America's existing F-15C/D aircraft, the vast majority of which are operated by the Air National Guard. Since my expose, the USAF has officially remained somewhat flippant about the F-15X and its talks with Boeing, which isn't surprising, but according to a Bloomberg report, that is about to change dramatically very soon.
> 
> The F-15X airframe would be single seat, but it would incorporate decades of innovations that are being applied currently in the latest F-15 Strike Eagle derivatives being purchased by Saudi Arabia (F-15SA) and Qatar (F-15QA). With an _airframe life of a whopping 20,000 hours_ [emphasis added, would sure suit RCAF), and the latest sensors, flight control systems, and avionics, the F-15X would serve for many decades at an operating cost that Boeing claims will trounce that of the existing F-15C/D fleet—the youngest of which is now 32 years old—basically paying for the airframes with savings within about a decade.
> 
> Roxana Tiron of Bloomberg Government writes that the USAF will include "$1.2 billion for 12 Boeing F-15 X fighter aircraft" in its 2020 budget request that is due to be published in February. The story also notes that pressure to buy the F-15X is coming from the powers that be inside the Pentagon that are external to the USAF itself, which would explain the disconnect over potential procurement program with the service's top leadership:
> 
> "The decision to buy the newest kind of F-15 aircraft, so far only sold to U.S. allies, comes from the Pentagon’s top leadership, including with some prodding from Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, and not the Air Force, which would be flying the planes, the two people said. Shanahan, a former Boeing Co. executive, recused himself from any decisions related to Boeing when he was confirmed by the Senate."
> 
> You can read Tiron's report in its entirety here [ https://about.bgov.com/blog/pentagon-billion-new-boeing-fighters/ ].
> 
> Until the budget request is released, these things can always change. But this report would line up with what I have heard about the concept and how it has support from top officials at the Pentagon. We also don't know what the structure of the deal would look like, if it is just for a dozen F-15s or if it also includes additional items and services.
> 
> Our sources say that Boeing has been eager to package the F-15X with aggressive business terms in order to make the USAF an Eagle customer once again. This could include a low or even zero cost development of the new subtype, as well as guarantees on unit cost and even the price of elements of the aircraft's sustainment over time. Boeing has been ultra-aggressive with their aircraft bids as of late—a strategy that helped win them the UH-1 replacement tender, the Navy's MQ-25 Stingray tanker competition, and the prized T-X next generation Air Force jet trainer contract.
> 
> The idea behind the whole F-15X initiative is not to compete directly with the F-35, but to provide the USAF with a fiscally and operationally attractive "plug and play" _option for replacing the rapidly aging F-15C/D fleet comprised of roughly 235 aircraft_ [emphasis added]. These jets will need invasive and costly upgrades in the coming years in order to remain airworthy and relevant for front-line operations...
> 
> The reality is that for many tasks, including the homeland air sovereignty operations, the low-observable features of an F-35 are useless. There are many combat missions that actually benefit from a heavy fighter that can carry large stores over long ranges, as opposed to a stealth fighter with more limited payload and range capabilities. Israel seems to have come to this conclusion as well, incidentally. This is where the F-15X also comes into play for the USAF. Once again, read all about this aircraft and how it fits into the USAF's force structure in my past feature that unveiled it [ http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter ]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25636/usafs-next-budget-request-will-include-new-f-15x-advanced-eagle-fighter-jets-report



Certainly would seem a good fit for our NORAD mission, the RCAF's most crucial and important one.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If RCAF took over training again and made flight instructors military (maintainers could be mixed) that perhaps would give some stability in postings and remove a post service career that lures people away?


----------



## Quirky

Perhaps a F-15X would be an easier sell to the Canadian public, regardless of the higher price. It would be a proven airframe and twin-engined for those "long arctic patrols" that Canadians seem to think is a necessity. Not to mention the F-15 would win the beauty contest vs the F35 which is more important than actual capability in Canada. The fanbois would rejoice!


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin P said:
			
		

> If RCAF took over training again and made flight instructors military (maintainers could be mixed) that perhaps would give some stability in postings and remove a post service career that lures people away?



Instructors are military already.


----------



## CBH99

If Boeing delivers on it's promise to provide an airframe with 20,000 hours of service life - and reduced maintenance to the point that part of the fleet pays itself off due to drastically reduced maintenance...it might not be a bad choice.

I'm nowhere near an expert, and I would absolutely defer to someone like SupersonicMax on issues such as these.


But since NORAD tends to be our # 1 priority, and we don't deploy much more than a 6 pack outside of the country, and haven't been involved in any "Day 1" types of air operations for at least decades now... a state-of-the-art F15 with reduced maintenance, increased performance, and a long service life might not be a bad choice at all??

Does what we need it to do.  Perhaps an easier sell to the public.  And, because we can't seem to move ahead on any major purchases in a timely manner, buys us a bit of a safety margin a few decades from now with the increased airframe hours already built in?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Plus F-15X would have an awful lot of missiles to go after those Russkie arrows (and to carry more than small load F-35A has to go non-stealthy with external carriage, lots less dash speed--see 'Lockheed Touts Non-Existent "Beast Mode" F-35 Configuration With 16 Air-To-Air Missiles' http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17250/lockheed-touts-non-existent-beast-mode-f-35-configuration-with-16-air-to-air-missiles ):



> Boeing's Newest F-15 Packs More Than Two Dozen Missiles
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22355833/boeing-new-f-15x/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

The F-15E (or one of its upgraded versions) has always been my #1 choice.  Long legs, lots of weapons, good EA/EP.  Good for both NORAD and NATO.

I disagree wih your assessment that we aren’t a first day of the war kind of country.  We were there the first day in Kosovo and would have been in Libya and Iraq if we had been positionned closer sooner.  Having said this, this could be suitable with support from the US.


----------



## Baz

Um... built by Boeing.  Isn't Justin still mad at them?  I don't think Bombardier getting around Boeing by getting tself bought by Airbus has put Boeing back into the good books yet has it?
But, of course, business is business and politics is politics, so if it is a neat and tidy solution it will all be water under the bridge...


----------



## a_majoor

I would also be good with the F-15E Strike Eagle (or some upgraded derivative like the "Silent Eagle") for many of the same reasons upthread. One thing to consider is a large aircraft like the Strike Eagle could also carry several of the "Stealth" weapons pods demonstrated by the Advanced Super Hornet to gain advantages of stealth, and probably improve the overall performance by reducing drag.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Consider this about the F-15:



> McDonnell Aircraft formalized the concept for the F-15 in 1967 when the company was selected to enter the second phase of the U.S Air Force's FX competition...
> https://www.boeing.com/history/products/f-15-eagle.page



What else is still being manufactured and going (pretty strong) after FIFTY-ONE years? Ma Deuce springs to mind, C-130 too. Amazing but what does it say about military technology? Honest question. Some overall designs for certain uses just that good and not much further progress can be made at any reasonable cost?

Consider also the configuration of the jet airliner; this from 1952 (SIXTY-SIX years ago):



> "...
> Work proceeded quickly after the formal start of the project on May 20, 1952. The 367-80 mated a large cabin based on the dimensions of the C-97 with the 35-degree swept-wing design based on the wings of the B-47 and B-52..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/boeing-367-80-jet-transport



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

Think of the F-15E as the Super Hornet of the F-15 family and the upgraded F-15E (SG, SA, SE) as the Super Hornet of the F-15E family.  Different aircraft altogether.  It is two generation beyond the F-15A/B/C/D.


----------



## observor 69

I was in Bagotville in the 1970's when one of the hot off the press F-15's flew in. Over the top impressive, particularly for that point in aviation. Intakes covered to protect their secret design we were told. A beautiful aircraft with a large "Wow" factor.  :christmas happy:


----------



## Good2Golf

Boeing has 3 ‘Half Century+’ platforms: B-52, CH-47 and (cheating slightly, but it’ll make it comfortably in a couple years) F-15.  When a design approaches or represents a near-perfect functional solution, it tends to hang around. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Instructors are military already.



Thanks, so the aircraft are owned and maintained by the contractor, but the instructors are military?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Yes!


----------



## MilEME09

https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-air-force-plans-to-buy-newest-f-15-x-fighter-aircraft.html/amp

Looks like the US is investing in the F-15X, 20,000 flying hours on the airframe is pretty impressive, and the low cost, wonder if the F-15X might be the new Freedom Fighter? Low cost easy to maintain plane to sell to allies.


----------



## PuckChaser

How is it low cost? That purchase price is $100M USD for the USAF, and then allies would be paying a FMS surcharge between 7.5 and 15%. F35 is $85M USD with no FMS surcharge.

I'm willing to bet itll be offered to countries they dont trust with the classified info in the F35.


----------



## YZT580

I would think that $100m for a limited run of 12 would be quite cheap.  What happens to the price if you ordered say 85?


----------



## GR66

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How is it low cost? That purchase price is $100M USD for the USAF, and then allies would be paying a FMS surcharge between 7.5 and 15%. F35 is $85M USD with no FMS surcharge.
> 
> I'm willing to bet itll be offered to countries they dont trust with the classified info in the F35.



From the article:

"The F-15X is also set to be affordable, coming in at “well below” the $95 million cost of the F-35A. The newest Eagle would cost about $27,000 per hour to fly—again, well below the $45,000 an hour to fly the F-35A. Finally, Boeing claims that the F-15X will have a whopping 20,000-hour service life, enabling it to serve for decades. By comparison, the original F-15 was built to serve only 5,000 hours."


----------



## PuckChaser

The article is guessing at a price instead of using current pricing for both aircraft. That USAF order was $100M per aircraft, F-35A recent lot contract was $85M a plane. The F15X flying hour cost is an estimate, where current open source info has the F35A coming in at approx $35K USD per flying hour, not the unsubstantiated $45K from the article.


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter%3fsource=dam

While not qouting an official price, the article above goes onto more detail and states boeing is offering a fixed price contract.


----------



## YZT580

Could very well come in at the prices quoted.  Boeing has been getting very competitive lately with their pricing in all areas: civil and military.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This apparent Boeing pricing strategy could also apply to F-15X:



> Is Boeing’s ‘Eye-Watering’ T-X Bid A Game-Changer?
> 
> ...Boeing’s win of the U.S. Air Force’s T-X trainer also may mark a turning point for the business model at the company’s defense division.
> 
> Much as commercial aero engine companies moved years ago toward selling their powerplants below cost to secure marketshare, with the intent of making money later on aftermarket services, Boeing Defense may be headed in the same direction.
> 
> The relatively low-bid strategy for T-X...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-s-eye-watering-t-x-bid-game-changer



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Wonder if they may try to offer rhe f15x to the RCAF? would probably make it to the compitition


----------



## PuckChaser

You think we should entertain a Boeing bid after the tariffs they got issued in the CS300?


----------



## YZT580

From Trudeau's viewpoint it appears cheaper and it isn't the F35 so it is a win-win.  After all the voters have already forgotten about the CS300 since it is now a french airplane.


----------



## PuckChaser

Considering how far they're pushed the procurement, I doubt Trudeau will get a third term, especially with his second term in doubt.


----------



## dimsum

This has been making the social media rounds lately.

https://imgur.com/zKM5FxR


----------



## Quirky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> This has been making the social media rounds lately.
> 
> https://imgur.com/zKM5FxR



Don’t need to be a current/ex pilot to come to that conclusion. All the current press about lack of pilots, techs and the purchase of used jets being pure political bullshit has been fairly accurate.


----------



## Baz

A quick internet search says there are at least nine in storage, but they haven't had the aiframe life extension or systems update.  Given the content of that letter it isn't clear that the Aussie ones have either.  I wonder if we could of bought less to fill the "gap" and used some of our own?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Who posted the rant?  Fighter pilot?


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Who posted the rant?  Fighter pilot?



Not sure.  That screencap is literally all that I saw.


----------



## MarkOttawa

First part of article on F-35 and USAF, RAAF, RAF--also FCAS and Airbus; RCAF officer seems a tad optimistic:



> Recrafting the Fighter role
> 
> It’s clear that combat capabilities and operations are being recrafted across the globe and, as operational contexts change, the evolution of the role of fighters is at the center of that shift. This year’s International Fighter Conference held in Berlin provided a chance to focus on the role of fighters in the strategic shift from land wars to higher intensity operations. The baseline assumption for the conference can be simply put: air superiority can no longer be assumed, and needs to be created in contested environments.
> 
> Competitors like China and Russia are putting significant effort into shaping concepts of operations and modernizing force structures which will allow them to challenge the ability of liberal democracies to establish air superiority and to dominate future crises...
> 
> *RCAF of the Future*
> ...
> The Canadian officer clearly embraced the core point of the conference, namely, the need to operate in a much different combat air environment. He underscored that the operational environment was becoming more lethal and complex, in which advanced fighters would need to be able to operate in an anti-access area denial surface-to-air missile environment, with cyber threats, contested control of the electro magnetic spectrum, and in the presence of the proliferation of technologically advanced equipment.
> 
> Canada faces a number of funding and commitment challenges to deal with the new strategic situation.
> 
> To operate in this environment with its allies and to contribute to NATO capability, as well as to defend Canada, the RCAF would clearly need an upgrade across the force, both the joint and the combat air force. This new force would consist of several new platforms, which clearly would need to operate in a teaming context such as described by both the F-35 and Airbus representatives.
> 
> The RCAF of the future is projected to consist of 88 new advanced fighter aircraft; a next generation multi-mission aircraft (CP-140 replacement); a next generation air-to-air tanker transport; new utility transport aircraft; a range of remotely piloted systems; and integrated space capabilities within the combat force (global satellite communications, surveillance of space and ISR).
> 
> Interestingly, this officer focused on a key challenge – one that is often overlooked, but where the RCAF can lead the way, not just for Canada but in terms of working with the British, the Americans and Pacific allies in terms of training for operations in the extended battlespace. He noted that the Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare Centre (CFAWC) is currently developing the RCAF way ahead related to exercises and training – with Live Virtual Constructive Training being key to this. And they are doing so in an intelligent fashion, starting with near term virtual add-ons to Exercise Maple Flag, and laying the foundation for a continuing transformation effort for training of Canadian and allied air forces.
> 
> He identified a number of opportunities that can be developed and leveraged by the RCAF. These included: Cold Lake Air Weapons Range project, the Future Lead-in Trainer project, the Future Fighter Capability Project, the Future Aircrew Training (FAcT) project (mentioned elsewhere in this edition), and leveraging the Distributed Mission Operations Centre.
> 
> In short, significant innovation will characterize the way ahead as peer competitors confront each other and adjust to each other’s capabilities and performance in combat. The decade of innovation ahead will clearly lay the foundation for the next.
> 
> _– Robbin Laird is a US Defense Analyst and frequent contributor to FrontLine Defence._
> https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/6/10980-Recrafting-the-Fighter-role



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile Russian and Chinese fighters/bombers face very few ground based Air Defenses, all our eggs are in one basket.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> First part of article on F-35 and USAF, RAAF, RAF--also FCAS and Airbus; RCAF officer seems a tad optimistic:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




"The power of an air force is terrific when there is nothing to oppose it."

Winston Churchill

 :nod:


----------



## EStrike101

Someone did a thesis on JAS39 for Canada 



> "Abstract
> Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau ordered 138 CF-18 fighter jets in 1980. As of September 2018, 76 modernized CF-18s remain in service. Over the past two decades, four different Prime Ministers have been involved in selecting a replacement for the CF-18. With a purchase price of over $16 billion and a potential total lifetime cost of over $40 billion, the CF-18 replacement will be the second most expensive military procurement in Canadian history. Not only will the CF-18 replacement program have to fight for funding against the general austerity and easy riding nature of Canadians, but it will also be running concurrently with the largest military procurement in Canadian history: The National Shipbuilding Strategy. This paper reviews the history of Canadian military procurement, with emphasis on the successful New Fighter Aircraft (NFA) program of the 1970s that selected the CF-18, and how those lessons should be applied to the CF-18 replacement. This paper argues that, absent the political will to provide considerably more than 1.15% of GDP in defence spending, the Canadian Forces can no longer afford to be a modern multipurpose force and should instead move to a Navy centric force structure. By reviewing how the CF-18 serves at home on the NORAD mission, in Europe on NATO air policing missions, and as part of coalition combat missions; the minimum requirements for the CF-18 replacement are identified. This paper recommends employing the NFA methodology to design a defence policy for easy riders. Such a defence policy will meet military objectives with best value, state-of-the-art technology that also offers full industrial offsets for Canadian industry. The best value solution to the CF-18 replacement is the least expensive jet in the competition: the Saab Gripen."



https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/109313?fbclid=IwAR1Wh0-PEUaATRyVOfWhXRWJSkgfOUYWyG7DI8y5ehxc53IEZynFZMLBkvg


I dont know how well it reflects fighter pilots thoughts here (that jas39 is the best option). Im an infantry guy, so not my cup of tea.


----------



## Downhiller229

EStrike101 said:
			
		

> Someone did a thesis on JAS39 for Canada
> 
> https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/109313?fbclid=IwAR1Wh0-PEUaATRyVOfWhXRWJSkgfOUYWyG7DI8y5ehxc53IEZynFZMLBkvg
> 
> 
> I dont know how well it reflects fighter pilots thoughts here (that jas39 is the best option). Im an infantry guy, so not my cup of tea.



I heard many people say buying the gripen would be the last straw. Straight to the release section. The F-35 can carry a fully loaded gripen


----------



## EStrike101

Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> I heard many people say buying the gripen would be the last straw. Straight to the release section. The F-35 can carry a fully loaded gripen



I am aware of F35 capability. Ive been trying to show people in BF4C page. This article is thesis is written by someone from that page.


----------



## OldSolduer

At this rate the CAF may as well contract the USAF to patrol our skies. This is scandalous and I’m growing more disgusted with this government daily.


----------



## Ludoc

Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> I heard many people say buying the gripen would be the last straw. Straight to the release section. The F-35 can carry a fully loaded gripen



Then you would have a two engine vehicle. Problem solved, we should by F-35s and Canadianize them by strapping Gripens to them.


----------



## Baz

The point of that article is that we can't afford both new ships and new fighters at the same time, correct?

In broad terms, we bought the CF-18s in the early 80s and the frigates in the late 80s.  So it should have been predicted we'd need to replace them in that order.

We were, sort of, on track to do just that; replace the fighters then the ships.  But then we decided to have a "fair and open" competition for the fighters.  Even though as part of a like minded group of nations we had already done that.  I was at Lock Mart in Palmdale while the fly-off was going on with Boeing (they were doing captive hover work)...

So we delayed the fighter acquisition and now it conflicts with the ships.  Being over simplistic, what happened to the money we "saved" by delaying (minus the $500ish million we have to give to the Aussies to close the "capability gap" even though it seems we don't have anyone to fly or fix those "new" jets)???

The cynic in me says this sudden realization of the overlapping procurements might be partially driven by some other agenda... (?)


----------



## Good2Golf

It doesn’t overlap substantively.  The money for both programs is paid in phases at key milestones that are not right on top of each other, and the balance owing repayment is distributed over decades in the Canadian Government’s “Fiscal Framework Accrual Space.”

The Professor does not have as much appreciation for how the GoC’s fiscal system works to support (or not) capital procurement as donsome very well-informed people like David Perry.  Perry qualifies well that programs cause pressure, but do not cause “one or the other” type situations.  The real monies being allocated for these programs pale in comparison to Federal monies being expended each year to Debt interest payment and “Payment to Individuals” (CPP, OAS &EI) in the same period.  

:yawn:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Cbbmtt

Overheard at work today that a tech got a 3 year posting with family to dismantle the cf-18's (I believe 8) and ship them back to Canada. I'm thinking the F35's aren't going to happen any time in my time in for the forces. Which is another 20 years lol.


----------



## Quirky

Cbbmtt said:
			
		

> Overheard at work today that a tech got a 3 year posting with family *to dismantle the cf-18's* (I believe 8) *and ship them back to Canada.* I'm thinking the F35's aren't going to happen any time in my time in for the forces. Which is another 20 years lol.



What.


----------



## dimsum

Cbbmtt said:
			
		

> Overheard at work today that a tech got a 3 year posting with family to dismantle the cf-18's (I believe 8) and ship them back to Canada. I'm thinking the F35's aren't going to happen any time in my time in for the forces. Which is another 20 years lol.



Plot twist - the posting is Tindal, the Cold Lake of Australia  :rofl:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Base_Tindal


----------



## PuckChaser

Quirky said:
			
		

> What.


Oh, you thought the aircraft we were buying are airworthy? Surprise.


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The Professor ….


 From his LinkedIn profile, it appears that he is unemployed ("Looking for new Opportunities'), having just graduated from Calgary's Master of Public Policy program.


...although he may have acquired some military insights as an Air Cadet 2Lt "2007 CFB Trenton 'Masters of the Felt' Crud Champion."   ;D


----------



## Dale Denton

Why are you going into the authors background???

I thought it was well written and provided a decent argument. Certainly did their research.

What's so wrong with the Grippen? Alittle older in some ways but I don't understand the hate.


----------



## RDBZ

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Oh, you thought the aircraft we were buying are airworthy? Surprise.



The deal includes seven (of 25 total) aircraft that are to be broken down and used for spares.   Might as well do that in Aus.


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Plot twist - the posting is Tindal, the Cold Lake of Australia  :rofl:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Base_Tindal



And in keeping with the spirit of that upside down and backwards country - it is neither cold nor does it have a lake.   

Corks might be required.


----------



## RDBZ

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And in keeping with the spirit of that upside down and backwards country - it is neither cold nor does it have a lake.
> 
> Corks might be required.



The only folk ever to be seen in Australia wearing hats with corks are foreign tourists. So yes, a hat like that will certainly let the locals know you’ve only just arrived in country...   ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Pshaw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh66yZj3qlk


----------



## RDBZ

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pshaw.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh66yZj3qlk



Yes, the Brit tourist in Aus; not a style you really want to copy....,,


----------



## dimsum

RDBZ said:
			
		

> The only folk ever to be seen in Australia wearing hats with corks are foreign tourists. So yes, a hat like that will certainly let the locals know you’ve only just arrived in country...   ;D



_Clearly_ the way to blend in is with a XXXX/VB/Coopers singlet, zinc nose, boardies and thongs.  

Thongs as in flip-flops, for the folks about to swan-dive into the gutter.


----------



## a_majoor

Meanwhile, in the real world, the arguments against the F-35 get thinner and thinner:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/31-air-force-pilots-reveal-why-they-love-f-35-stealth-fighter-40427

Of course I would actually advocate for the F-15X, not because I am some sort of dinosaur, but because the Eagle has one huge advantage over the "Panther"; long range. Canada needs to patrol the arctic and two long coastlines. We also have a history of force projection over continental distances, so having a fighter with long legs is very important. If the F-15X has or can be given the same sort of capabilities as the F-15E Strike Eagle, then we have a platform which can fulfill multiple roles for us (a Strike Eagle could carry weapons capable of striking ships at sea, such as a SDB that can glide over 100km to target, for example), plus in the new environment, a Strike Eagle can serve as the "arsenal aircraft" for Alliance F-35's slipping ahead to scout, identify and mark targets. Even if things go badly, the F-15 is still an actual fighter aircraft, so can fight its way in or out if necessary. Other mods to the Eagle platform include things like carrying 16 AAM's, so a few Eagles clearing a path for the rest of the force is also a possibility.

And future upgrades to the F-15X might even include the sort of sensor fusion technology which is the actual strong suit of the F-35.


----------



## Journeyman

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Why are you going into the authors background???


Have you ever checked the profile of a site member here?  (… and not just the ones who consistently make  "WTF?!!  :stars:" posts )  


There are all sorts of peripheral factors that can help consideration of a book or article.  Information about author's background can provide insight and/or context into their writing, which can aid _critical_  readers in more effectively judging the work. (critical, as in objective analysis and evaluation, not incessantly bitchin' )  The info may help understand the author's purpose in writing.  Does the author have a track-record of strong bias, such that 'unhelpful' facts are routinely ignored to strengthen their argument?  Despite apparently writing well in this instance, is the author competent in the subject (eg: see the clarifying comments on the government's fiscal system by Good2Golf  here )?  Is there anything interesting, unusual, or significant in when and how they grew up?  Is the particular school and/or professor's mentorship noteworthy in potentially affecting their writing?  What else has the author written, and how received?  Consider the audience of the author's writing.  Are there any significant external events influencing the timing and context of the writing?

I find this background material can be even more helpful if you're not a SME  (like me with fighter a/c acquisition -- which is also why I hesitate to post in topics where I don't really have a clue, but that's a separate rant).  Otherwise, if you do a lot of reading in a particular field or subject, you begin to recognize 'trends.'  For example, when I get a new book on one or two particular topics, one of the first things I do is check the author's bio (to help determine the stuff above);  then look at the bibliography, which can suggest if the author is informed by a particular 'school of thought.'


All this to say, while my military career has been pretty high-speed, I can also be a thorough and discerning info geek (anything worth doing is worth doing to excess  ;D );  considering the author is just another part of considering the publication.
It works for me.


----------



## Quirky

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course I would actually advocate for the F-15X, not because I am some sort of dinosaur, but because the Eagle has one huge advantage over the "Panther"; long range. Canada needs to patrol the arctic and two long coastlines. We also have a history of force projection over continental distances, so having a fighter with long legs is very important. If the F-15X has or can be given the same sort of capabilities as the F-15E Strike Eagle, then we have a platform which can fulfill multiple roles for us (a Strike Eagle could carry weapons capable of striking ships at sea, such as a SDB that can glide over 100km to target, for example), plus in the new environment, a Strike Eagle can serve as the "arsenal aircraft" for Alliance F-35's slipping ahead to scout, identify and mark targets. Even if things go badly, the F-15 is still an actual fighter aircraft, so can fight its way in or out if necessary. Other mods to the Eagle platform include things like carrying 16 AAM's, so a few Eagles clearing a path for the rest of the force is also a possibility.
> 
> And future upgrades to the F-15X might even include the sort of sensor fusion technology which is the actual strong suit of the F-35.



I hate to say this, but I'd take a posting back to Cold Lake just to get my hands on a F-15X.


----------



## Dale Denton

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Have you ever checked the profile of a site member here?  (… and not just the ones who consistently make  "WTF?!!  :stars:" posts )
> 
> 
> There are all sorts of peripheral factors that can help consideration of a book or article.  Information about author's background can provide insight and/or context into their writing, which can aid _critical_  readers in more effectively judging the work. (critical, as in objective analysis and evaluation, not incessantly bitchin' )  The info may help understand the author's purpose in writing.  Does the author have a track-record of strong bias, such that 'unhelpful' facts are routinely ignored to strengthen their argument?  Despite apparently writing well in this instance, is the author competent in the subject (eg: see the clarifying comments on the government's fiscal system by Good2Golf  here )?  Is there anything interesting, unusual, or significant in when and how they grew up?  Is the particular school and/or professor's mentorship noteworthy in potentially affecting their writing?  What else has the author written, and how received?  Consider the audience of the author's writing.  Are there any significant external events influencing the timing and context of the writing?
> 
> I find this background material can be even more helpful if you're not a SME  (like me with fighter a/c acquisition -- which is also why I hesitate to post in topics where I don't really have a clue, but that's a separate rant).  Otherwise, if you do a lot of reading in a particular field or subject, you begin to recognize 'trends.'  For example, when I get a new book on one or two particular topics, one of the first things I do is check the author's bio (to help determine the stuff above);  then look at the bibliography, which can suggest if the author is informed by a particular 'school of thought.'
> 
> 
> All this to say, while my military career has been pretty high-speed, I can also be a thorough and discerning info geek (anything worth doing is worth doing to excess  ;D );  considering the author is just another part of considering the publication.
> It works for me.



Understood, I do the same at times. Just seemed out of left field criticizing a students employment status. 

Can anyone weigh the pros and cons of the F-15X vs its (F-35) competitors?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Understood, I do the same at times. Just seemed out of left field criticizing a students employment status.
> 
> Can anyone weigh the pros and cons of the F-15X vs its (F-35) competitors?



Here's a few posts from our resident fighter SME:   

https://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1557393.html#msg1557393 

and 

https://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1557416.html#msg1557416


----------



## Good2Golf

And for those interested in understanding better how Canadian federal funds are planned, allocated and expenses for Defence purposes, a reference to Dr. Perry’s piece in the Canadian Global Affairs Institute archives makes for informative reading.  Perry remains one of the most well-informed academics regarding Canadian Government Defence budgeting and procurement:

The New Defence Policy Needs to Focus on Procurement, Not Prose

The general description of fiscal framework, accrual space, investment cash and Defence budgeting is approx. mid-way through the op-ed piece. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## MilEME09

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Other mods to the Eagle platform include things like carrying 16 AAM's, so a few Eagles clearing a path for the rest of the force is also a possibility.



Boeing has a new ordnance pod that jacks that number upto 24, combined with the F-15's endurance a six pack of F-15X's equipped for Air to air combat have enough missiles to take down the entire combat inventory of a small to medium sized country. If we don't purchase the F-35 we are probably out of the first strike game, however given China and Russia are claiming to have radars that can pick up the F-35, if those start getting sold to others, then I'd think payload would become important to take the fight to the enemy and keep them on their back foot. This is only my opinion however and I fully admit I only know as much as I read and have no experience working with fighter craft.


----------



## MarkOttawa

First day of war matters aside, does not the F-15X' very large missile load, range, and burst speed make it the best fit for the NORAD mission--the only one that is absolutely critical for RCAF and Canada (called defence against er, USAF, help, i.e. sovereignty)? For F-35As to do decent air defence role would they not have to carry external AAMs, so their stealth no longer relevant? 

Real question.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we went with purely modern F-15's, we could still contribute to both NORAD and expeditionary events. Against a near peer, the US/UK and other F35 operator push into the contested areas, with the F-15 loaded to the max coming in, with the F-35 targeting and the F-15's using up their payload and the F-35's taking out remaining aircraft/defenses.


----------



## a_majoor

Something like the weapons pod demonstrated by the Advanced Super Hornet could likely be developed for the F-35 as well, allowing it to carry more ordinance on the first day of the war.  

Of course if the actual job is clearing the skies, the F-22 should have a pod developed so it can slide in and use its stealth and air superiority advantages coupled to a much larger weapons load out. The F-15X arsenal plane's role in this could be to fill the sky with decoys like the MALD, giving the enemy a much more difficult time to figure out where the F-22s and other fighters are (assuming the claims for counter stealth radar are true: the Russians were said to have anti stealth radar as far back as the late 1980's, but this didn't stop the development of the F-22, F-35 or B-21).

And the RCAF could take the lead role with F-15X's in the _second_ day of the war, as enemy sensors, missiles and planes have been attritted, preserving the stealth aircraft for the highest priority targets.


----------



## Baz

If we wanted to be a player in the first day, we could give the Navy TLAMs...


----------



## a_majoor

Baz said:
			
		

> If we wanted to be a player in the first day, we could give the Navy TLAMs...



There you go, bringing logic to the argument again.....


----------



## Retired AF Guy

May be instead of going for the cream-of-the-cream of the fighter world, we could go for the latest version of the F-16 Block 70, which I understand incorporates some technology derived from the F-35/F-22. 



> Meet the F-16 Block 70
> 
> The F-16 Block 70 is unlike any fighter jet seen before. The Block 70 is the newest and most advanced F-16 production configuration, combining numerous capability and structural upgrades.
> 
> The Block 70 builds on its thousands of predecessors and proven combat experience, while also bringing new technology to the forefront. With improved radar systems, advanced weapons capabilities and enhanced battlespace awareness, the aircraft advances its strong, combat-proven legacy and goes beyond – to meet needs for tomorrow.
> 
> The F-16 Block 70 combines capability upgrades, most notably the advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar with a new avionics architecture, and structural upgrades to extend the structural life of the aircraft by more than 50 percent beyond that of previous production F-16 aircraft. F-16 Block 70 software takes advantage of technologies not available when earlier Block F-16s were developed and produced. Operational capabilities are enhanced through an advanced datalink, targeting pod and weapons; precision GPS navigation and the Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto GCAS).
> 
> Advanced Weapons
> 
> Lockheed Martin has more than 36 years of weapon integration experience with the F-16. No other organization can match this weapons integration experience. In concert with the U.S. Air Force and multiple F-16 Foreign Military Sales customers, Lockheed Martin has certified more than 3,300 carriage and release configurations for greater that 180 weapon and store types. Our experience as a weapon integrator has enabled the F-16 to be one of the most versatile multirole fighters ever.
> 
> Advanced AESA Radar
> 
> Northrop Grumman’s advanced APG-83 AESA radar delivers greater situational awareness, flexibility and quicker all-weather targeting. The APG-83 provides pilots with unprecedented target area detail and digital map displays that can be tailored with slew and zoom features. The APG-83 provides F-16s with 5th Generation fighter radar capabilities by leveraging hardware and software commonality with F-22 and F-35 AESA radars.
> 
> Enhanced Battlespace Awareness
> 
> Another key feature of the F-16 Block 70 configuration is the new Center Pedestal Display (CPD), which provides critical tactical imagery to pilots on a high-resolution 6”x 8” screen. The high-resolution display allows pilots to take full advantage of AESA and targeting pod data. The new CPD enables color moving maps, larger and easier to manage air-to-air Situation Displays, zoom functionality with the ability to switch information among displays, and a digital display of Flight Instrument Data. The CPD is also compatible with the Night Vision Imaging System.
> 
> Auto GCAS
> 
> The Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto GCAS) was purpose-built to prevent deadly crashes and has already saved the lives of seven pilots and six F-16s since the system entered service with the U.S. Air Force in late 2014. The Auto GCAS is designed to reduce incidents of what is known as controlled flight into terrain, or CFIT. According to U.S. Air Force statistics, CFIT incidents account for 26 percent of aircraft losses and a staggering 75 percent of all F-16 pilot fatalities.
> 
> The F-16 Auto GCAS system is currently being integrated into the U.S. Air Force’s F-16 fleet and the Air Force and Lockheed Martin plan to develop similar systems for the F-22 and F-35. Current plans call for fielding an Auto GCAS on the F-35 by 2019. The F-35 Joint Program Office estimates the Auto GCAS will prevent more than 26 ground collisions during the service of the F-35 fleet.



Article Link


----------



## MilEME09

What if we took a look at the US Air forces High low concept, and applied it at the strategic level in NORAD/NATO, USA being the high, and us being the low. A block 70 F-16 or a F-15X both look attractive if we are looking for an aircraft for that kind of role.


----------



## MarkOttawa

In the NORAD role that would mean giving USAF primary responsibility for defending within Canadian airspace and its approaches--Canadian politicians willing to accept that help?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## NavyShooter

Based on how they seem to treat the RCAF/CAF in general, I don't think any of them actually really care...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will Airbus threaten to close down Bombardier's A220 line at Mirabel if Eurofighter loses out? New non-union plant at Mobile, Alabama surely cheaper:



> Eurofighter Typhoon to bid to replace Canadian CF-18 fleet
> 
> Eurofighter intends to pitch its Typhoon aircraft to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of Boeing CF-18A/B Hornet fighters.
> 
> Eurofighter, a joint venture among Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo, was assumed to be one of the bidders in the competition to replace the RCAF’s fighter fleet with 88 advanced jets, but it hadn’t yet publicly acknowledged its desire to play for the contract. Simon Jacques, head of Airbus defense and space in Canada, said at a company event in Montreal that his firm intends to submit a proposal for the Typhoon.
> 
> “We are very engaged,” he says. “We want to propose the Typhoon, the most advanced new generation multi, swing-role fighter on the market today."
> 
> In October, RCAF issued a draft request for proposal to replace its aging CF-18A/B fleet. Ottawa listed five suppliers eligible to compete: Dassault Aviation, maker of the Rafale; Saab, maker of the JAS 39 Gripen; Airbus Defense – on behalf of the Eurofighter joint venture, maker of the Typhoon; Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-16 and F-35; and Boeing, maker of the F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle. Only those five will be allowed to submit proposals.
> 
> The RCAF plans to receive initial proposals from bidders between summer and winter 2019. A contract is anticipated to be awarded during the winter months of 2021-2022.
> 
> _Canada wants initial aircraft to be delivered in 2025, with initial operational capability achieved by 2026. The government wants all aircraft delivered by 2031 or 2032_ [emphasis added], at which time the CF-18 fleet will be retired.
> 
> Jacques says the _Eurofighter bid will include some sort of participation from Canadian manufacturers_ [emphasis added], though the type of involvement in the aircraft’s supply chain or extent was not specified.
> 
> "With our Canadian partners, it is going to be a Canadian solution and a good value for Canada," he says. "The RFP is coming out in mid of this year, right before the election."
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-typhoon-to-bid-to-replace-canadian-cf-18-455004/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Will Airbus threaten to close down Bombardier's A220 line at Mirabel if Eurofighter loses out?


Another possibility:





> Airbus open to a fighter plane assembly plant in Quebec ahead of federal bids
> 
> MIRABEL, Que. -- Airbus is not ruling out the possibility that Quebec will host a fighter plane assembly line and satellite construction plant if the European giant manages to win federal contracts in Canada.
> 
> Simon Jacques, head of Canadian operations for the multinational, mentioned the possibility Monday at a company event in Mirabel, an off-island Montreal suburb, where it manufactures A220 jetliners, previously known as the Bombardier C Series.
> 
> A call for tenders for 88 new fighter planes is expected from Ottawa before the start of the 2019 election campaign in a bid to replace the government's aging CF-18s. Airbus makes the Eurofighter Typhoon.
> 
> "Absolutely," Jacques said, when asked if the assembly line could be in Quebec. "We're evaluating our options."
> 
> Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Saab are all in the running alongside Airbus for the federal contract.
> 
> Jacques said the construction of a new assembly line, which would create numerous jobs, would not pose a logistical challenge given the extra space at the Mirabel plant.
> 
> He stressed the need for a "Canadian solution," given that the call for tenders would include local content requirements.
> 
> In 2016 Airbus landed its first major contract with Ottawa, which ordered 16 search and rescue aircraft under a $2.4-billion agreement, on top of a pledge for $2.3 billion in maintenance and after-sales service for 20 years. The first vehicle must be delivered by the end of 2019.
> 
> The CF-18s put into service in the 1980s were set to be phased out by 2020, but their replacement has turned into a drawn-out saga.
> 
> Six years ago, the Harper government abandoned its controversial plans to purchase untendered F-35 fighter jets to take the place of the aging fleet. The Trudeau government, which had subsequently decided to buy 18 Super Hornet aircraft from Boeing -- also without a tender -- cancelled that purchase in 2017 in the wake of a commercial dispute between Boeing and Bombardier over the C Series.
> 
> According to Jacques, Canada is "really committed" to "stimulating competition," which may open a door to a manufacturer other than the U.S.-based Boeing.
> 
> "I think it's important for Canada to have a different fleet from what is in the United States 1/8with Boeing 3/8," he said, calling the prospect "a good thing for NORAD 1/8North American Aerospace Defense Command 3/8."
> 
> Jacques suggested Canada could learn from the United Kingdom, which counts counts Airbus and Lockheed Martin aircraft among its fighter fleet.
> 
> Airbus executives also said the Netherlands-based company may turn to Quebec for satellite construction if its proposal is accepted up by Telesat Canada, a satellite operator.
> 
> The company had solicited offers from Airbus and the France-based Thales Group as part of an Internet service project tied to the launch of "between 300 and 500 satellites," Jacques said.
> 
> "This would change the situation in Quebec," he said, adding that the project would create about 200 new jobs.
> 
> Airbus said it is having ongoing discussions with various levels of government, including Quebec and Ottawa, to set up shop in the province if the multinational wins the contract.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/airbus-open-to-a-fighter-plane-assembly-plant-in-quebec-ahead-of-federal-bids-1.4253284


----------



## Rifleman62

Well that pretty much decides what aircraft the RCAF is going to get.

Was this how we got the Griffon; the company set up in Mirabel?

Bombardier set up an auto mfg assembly line paid for by the then Dept of Regional Industrial Expansion and/or the Dept of Regional Economic Expansion, we got the Iltis. Years later, a new paid for assembly line, and we got the MLVW.

Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Good2Golf

The Bell Helicopter plant was already in Mirabel many years before the Griffon contract.


----------



## PuckChaser

Eurofighter is $136M CAD per aircraft. Sounds like a great deal.... :facepalm:


----------



## Rifleman62

What was Bell manufacturing? Seems to me these companies pave the way for future Gov't purchases.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Eurofighter is $136M CAD per aircraft. Sounds like a great deal.... :facepalm:



Not being Lockheed or Boeing = Priceless


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not being Lockheed or Boeing = Priceless



Not if major repairs end up needing to be done in Europe.  That was one of the major contract issues with the Aussies when they got the Tiger ARH.  I mean there were other issues too, hence why they're trying to replace them 20 years after they bought them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Got to keep those Canadian jobs as long as possible--until we get Bombardier jobs at silly price for Eurofighter?



> Canada to keep paying for F-35 development during fighter-jet competition
> 
> A senior official at the Department of National Defence says Canada will remain a member of the F-35 stealth fighter program until the government knows which jet it plans to buy to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s.
> 
> That means Canada will continue to pay tens of millions of dollars over the next couple of years to help pay for development of the fighter jet even though it may end up buying something else.
> 
> DND’s head of procurement, Patrick Finn, says staying on as one of nine partner countries makes sense so Canada can compete for billions of dollars in contracts associated with the F-35...
> 
> The Trudeau Liberals are scheduled to launch a competition to pick a new fighter jet this spring, a winner won’t be identified for several more years [supposedly 2022 for contract award!!!].
> 
> Canada has so far invested roughly half-a-billion dollars in the F-35 over the past 20 years, even as successive federal governments have wrestled with whether to buy the plane or not.
> https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/canada-to-keep-paying-for-f-35-development-during-fighter-jet-competition



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## HB_Pencil

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Got to keep those Canadian jobs as long as possible--until we get Bombardier jobs at silly price for Eurofighter?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



No, this is potentially a huge development in the project... there was a lot of major uncertainty going on, and this may be the first piece of good news in awhile.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Got to keep those Canadian jobs as long as possible--until we get Bombardier jobs at silly price for Eurofighter?
> 
> 
> 
> Canada to keep paying for F-35 development during fighter-jet competition
> 
> A senior official at the Department of National Defence says Canada will remain a member of the F-35 stealth fighter program until the government knows which jet it plans to buy to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s.  ...
Click to expand...

Taking this story a step further here ...


> Canada is being forced to shoulder a bigger share of the costs of developing F-35 fighter jets even though it has not decided whether it will actually buy any.
> 
> Canada is one of nine partner countries in the F-35 project, each of which is required to cover a portion of the stealth fighter's multibillion-dollar development costs to stay at the table.
> 
> Each country pays based on the number of F-35s it's expecting to buy. Canada has pitched in more than half-a-billion dollars over the last 20 years, including $54 million last year.
> 
> But that amount was based on the Stephen Harper government's plan to buy 65 new fighter jets to replace Canada's aging CF-18s, which the Trudeau government has since officially increased to 88.
> 
> Even though Canada has not committed that those 88 jets will be F-35s, the Department of National Defence says that change means it will have to pay more to remain a partner — including about $72 million this year.
> 
> "Canada's costs under the F-35 (partnership agreement) are based on an intended fleet size," Defence Department spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said in an email.
> 
> "Canada changed its fleet size within the F-35 (agreement) from 65 to 88 aircraft to align with government decisions on the size of the intended permanent fighter fleet to be acquired through competition and the payment increased accordingly." ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LOL the irony....


----------



## daftandbarmy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Taking this story a step further here ...



Don't worry, the Trudeau spin doctors will be along in just a moment to make it sound like 'everything's going to be alright.'  

:facepalm:

“You know, that might be the answer – to act boastfully about something we ought to be ashamed of. That’s a trick that never seems to fail.” 

―  Joseph Heller,  Catch-22


----------



## suffolkowner

The original F-35 procurement numbers I saw had Canada ordering 80, so not that much of a difference. 65 was just the smallest number that could be gotten away with. I'm sure if our NORAD obligation was less than 36 our "order" would have been less than 65 as well


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile Finland (population 5.5 million, much less geography than Canada) is planning to buy 64 new fighters--from the usual suspects:



> Industry bids are in for Finland’s $13 billion fighter race
> 
> Finland’s HX-FP multirole fighter replacement program has advanced to the next stage as five aircraft manufacturers have tendered their proposals to the Finnish Defence Forces’ (FDF) Logistics Command office. The proposals include preliminary quotations on cost.
> 
> The air force plans to _retire its fleet of F/A-18 C/D Hornet jets between 2025 and 2029_ [emphasis added, roughly RCAF time frame too]. The HX-FP carries an estimated price tag of €11.4 billion, a cost that includes life cycle service and maintenance overheads on a fleet of 64 multirole aircraft.
> 
> The government received proposals from four countries, including the United States, Sweden, France and Britain.
> 
> The aircraft types covered in the proposals are Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin’s F-35, France’s Dassault Rafale, the British-made Eurofighter and the Swedish Saab Gripen. The Saab proposal includes both the single-seat Gripen E and the dual-seat Gripen F versions.
> 
> Request for Quotation (RFQ) documents were dispatched by the Logistics Command to the governments of France, the United States, Britain and Sweden in April 2018. The petitions were then forwarded to the five participating manufacturers. The deadline for acceptance of responses was Jan. 31, 2019.
> 
> The proposals received by the Logistics Command include information pertaining to technical systems requirements for operating a fleet of 64 aircraft, as well as support documentation dealing with training systems, essential maintenance tools, testing equipment, spare parts, weapons systems and sensors...
> 
> The proposal presented by Saab sets out the basis for a broad, long-term industrial cooperation between Finland and Sweden framed around any deal. The proposal covers the production of military aircraft in Finland. It also includes the transfer of maintenance, repair and overhaul capabilities to local industry in Finland. Moreover, Saab is proposing to establish a Gripen sustainment and development center in Finland.
> https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/02/01/industry-bids-are-in-for-finlands-13-billion-fighter-race/



Both Saab and Airbus to offer nice bribes for Bombardier in our competition?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

Meanwhile in Canada the GoC is kicking the effing can down the road. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Meanwhile in Canada the GoC is kicking the effing can down the road. 🤦‍♂️



Because that's what they always do.


----------



## dimsum

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Meanwhile in Canada the GoC is kicking the effing can down the road. 🤦‍♂️



Because we "can".  Finland is next to...well, you know.  They probably have defence as a pretty high priority given geography and history.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dimsum:



> Because we "can".  Finland is next to...well, you know.



Meanwhile we have that pesky 36-fighter commitment to NORAD vs an ever-improving Russkie bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, maybe sometime a stealth bomber) and ALCM threat--and what if those bombers can be escorted by refuelled fighters, e.g. MiG-31, later Su-57?



> NORAD to Face Escorted Cruise Missile-Carrying Russian Bombers?
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/mark-collins-norad-to-face-escorted-cruise-missile-carrying-russian-bombers/



Further links to other posts within the main post no longer work, but do if you cut and past the title into the search box at upper right.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Dimsum:
> 
> Meanwhile we have that pesky 36-fighter commitment to NORAD vs an ever-improving Russkie bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, maybe sometime a stealth bomber) and ALCM threat--and what if those bombers can be escorted by refuelled fighters, e.g. MiG-31, later Su-57?
> 
> Further links to other posts within the main post no longer work, but do if you cut and past the title into the search box at upper right.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why we need a robust fighter capability, but the Canadian public doesn't b/c of reasons we've gone into in multiple discussions.  I'm just saying that the Finns share a border with Russia and have been invaded before by them during WWII, so they know that they need a decent military.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fly in front of the with special containers dispensing Frozen Chickens  8)


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Fly in front of the with special containers dispensing Frozen Chickens  8)



Or 'Trudeau Parkas'. They could actually use them in Scandinavia...


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile - Down-under - the loyal wingman














> An unmanned combat air vehicle that is capable of some semi-autonomous missions and can operate in the loyal wingman role, where it is 'tethered' to and takes directions from a nearby manned platform via data-link, makes a lot of sense for Australia as it would boost their air combat capabilities without needing to buy additional high-cost fighters or train new aircrews. It also would also make all their fighter force more survivable and capable of adapting to hostile threats on the fly. In addition, it would also increase their fighter cadre's magazine capacity, sensor diversity, range. The drones themselves can also be networked together in a swarm, giving them greater capability than the sum of their parts.
> 
> These concepts can be manifested in distinct aircraft, or potentially blended together in a single airframe, albeit with some compromises. But still, they should be less expensive than a very stealthy, high-end, flying-wing UCAV that is built for semi-autonomous or even autonomous operations deep in enemy territory.
> 
> A full-on fighter-like UCAV is also possible, but due to cost and the investment Australia has already made in their growing fleet of F-35s, this seems doubtful at this time. Also, high kinetic performance would mean sacrificing stealth and range, something that makes little sense really. And we know by the features Boeing has shown that this aircraft is designed for fighter-like speed and maneuverability, not extreme stealthiness and long range.



http://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26656/boeing-will-unveil-this-loyal-wingman-combat-drone-for-australias-air-force-tomorrow

Muuummmyyyy!  Why can't we do neat stuff like this!  The Aussies get to do it!!!   :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(


----------



## Kirkhill

And just a reminder of what the F-35 can do with Manned "wingmen"



> Here’s how Col. Joshua Wood recalled the mission, providing a few details about the performance of the stealth aircraft in the latest exercise (that saw the participation of thirteen pilots in the squadron who had never flown the F-35 in Red Flag, including four who had just graduated pilot training):
> 
> “I’ve never seen anything like it before. This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.’”
> 
> The young pilot then “killed” the enemy aircraft and had three more kills in the hour-long mission.



https://theaviationist.com/2019/02/16/the-first-reports-of-how-the-f-35-strutted-its-stuff-in-dogfights-against-aggressors-at-red-flag-are-starting-to-emerge/


----------



## a_majoor

If I were to choose a UAV/UCAV as a partner for the RCAF I might consider the MQ25 "Stingray"

While designed as a tanker (and the RCAF could use tanker support), the large internal volume of the airframe suggests it could also be adapted for air surveillance, EW/ECM, and as an arsenal aircraft carrying lots of bombs or missiles. Farther in the future, the airframe could be fitted with a laser or an airborne railgun, allowing the aircraft to engage a multitude of targets from the ground to the edge of space.

One, large unmanned airframe could be used for a multitude of roles. supplementing many different RCAF airframes, and more airframes could be purchased at once and fitted out as surveillance aircraft for the Coast Guard, CBSA, Fisheries and Oceans etc., providing economies of scale.


----------



## Loachman

Are you volunteering?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> Are you volunteering?



That depends. How many pay sheets do I get to sign?


----------



## MilEME09

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/blast-past-why-new-f-15x-could-dominate-skies-46067

Article mentions the USAF is interested in the F-15X. That would make it more atteactive if their was multiple orders and a production line active for more then just us.


----------



## MilEME09

Lockmart has a new/old product on the way. Meet the F-21/F16V

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/it-has-f-22-and-f-35-dna-introducing-lockheed-martins-new-f-21-fighter-47822


----------



## The Bread Guy

More fodder for discussion ...

_*"Amid a feud with Turkey over the F-35, the US is thinking about selling it other European allies worried about Russia"*_


> The United States is considering expanding sales of Lockheed Martin Corp-made F-35 fighter jets to five new nations including Romania, Greece and Poland as European allies bulk up their defenses in the face of a strengthening Russia, a Pentagon official told Congress on Thursday.
> 
> In written testimony submitted to the US House of Representatives and seen by Reuters, Vice Adm. Mathias Winter — the head of the Pentagon's F-35 office — said that "future potential Foreign Military Sales customers include Singapore, Greece, Romania, Spain and Poland."
> 
> News of the new customers coincides with US tension with F-35 development partner Turkey over Ankara's plans to buy a Russian missile defense system.
> 
> Foreign military sales like those of the F-35 are considered government-to-government deals where the Pentagon acts as an intermediary between the defense contractor and a foreign government. Other US allies have been eyeing a purchase of the stealthy jet including Finland, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.
> 
> Winter's full written testimony, which will be made public as soon as Friday, said the United States would respond to all official requests for information about the jet ...


More @ link


----------



## daftandbarmy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> More fodder for discussion ...
> 
> _*"Amid a feud with Turkey over the F-35, the US is thinking about selling it other European allies worried about Russia"*_More @ link



Great. That will officially consign our air force to 3rd world status... oh, wait... 4th world


----------



## vonGarvin

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Great. That will officially consign our air force to 3rd world status... oh, wait... 4th world



I know what you mean, but technically incorrect
1st World is "the West"
2nd World is "the East", formerly the Soviet bloc, but today could include Russia, China, etc.
3rd World is the non-aligned world

I think the correct term would be 4th rate


----------



## kev994

But hey, we got beards and ribbons b


----------



## MarkOttawa

And when will see actual IOC for the planes? Second part of piece is basically pro-Gripen E propaganda but note part about Russian A2/AD:



> Canada's fighter jet tender competition (finally) takes off next month
> _Attempts to replace 3-decade-old CF-18s began in 2010, but have been mired in politics_
> 
> The politically charged competition to replace Canada's aging fleet of fighter jets will rocket forward at the end of May as the federal government releases a long-anticipated, full-fledged tender call.
> 
> There are four companies in the running: Saab of Sweden, Airbus Defence and Space out of Britain, and the American firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
> 
> Once the request for proposals is released, the _manufacturers will have until the end of the year to submit bids_ [emphasis added, i.e. after the election], defence and industry sources told CBC News.
> 
> It was the former Conservative government that kicked off the effort to replace the three-decade-old CF-18s in 2010, an attempt that was shot down in a dispute over the way the F-35 fighter was selected.
> 
> The program became mired in politics when the Liberals promised during the 2015 election campaign not to buy the stealth jet. A final decision will now have to wait until after this fall's election...
> 
> There has been a rigorous political and academic debate about whether Canada should choose a legacy design from the 1990s, such as the Gripen, or the recently introduced Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter.
> 
> The notion that stealth fighters are needed for conflicts with countries like Russia — countries that have advanced air defence systems — was partly dismissed by the Swedish Defence Research Agency in a recent report.
> 
> Russia's anti-access/areas-denial weapons (known as A2/AD) are not all they're cracked up to be, said the report released last month, which looked at the use of such systems in the Syria conflict.
> 
> "Much has in recent years been made of Russia's new capabilities and the impact they might have on the ability of NATO member states to reinforce or defend the vulnerable Baltic states in case of crisis or war," said the report.
> 
> "On closer inspection, however, Russia's capabilities are not quite as daunting, especially if potential countermeasures are factored in."
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/SOMNIA-1.5096811



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

I feel like they have all the information they need to do this in 6 months not 1 year


----------



## YZT580

It isn't Procurement, it is the manufacturers who have to have the time to put together an offer that is compliant with the requirements of the competition.  Once the previous procurement agreement was scuttled it was back to square one for everybody and that takes time.  Besides it takes the entire issue out of the election.


----------



## Kirkhill

Assuming the manufacturers are interested in investing the time, money and aggravation necessary to submit a bid for 60 to 80 aircraft to a country that has a track record of tearing up contracts.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Assuming the manufacturers are interested in investing the time, money and aggravation necessary to submit a bid for 60 to 80 aircraft to a country that has a track record of tearing up contracts.



Since we've contracted our AOR requirements previously to both Spain and Chile, why don't we just do the same with our NORAD and NATO obligations and pay the USAF to take over these responsibilities.  If it makes anyone happy, we can put our roundel on the planes..... 

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Assuming the manufacturers are interested in investing the time, money and aggravation necessary to submit a bid for 60 to 80 aircraft to a country that has a track record of tearing up contracts.



Time will tell but im willing to bet the RFP will be written in a way to not include the F35 or make some other craft seem the favourite


----------



## a_majoor

At the rate decision making is happening it may be more beneficial to go into the USAF's "6th Generation" fighter program. At least this way we will be getting fresh, new airframes...


----------



## blacktriangle

We will probably pick up used F-35 once everyone else switches to hypersonic UCAVs.


----------



## PuckChaser

Found a pretty in depth Reddit post breaking down the specs of each aircraft in the CAF's fighter replacement program. Keep in mind the Rafale has been pulled by Dassault, so those numbers are useless for the discussion:

https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/5fv9he/combat_radius_of_western_multirole_fighters/


----------



## Iron 1

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Found a pretty in depth Reddit post breaking down the specs of each aircraft in the CAF's fighter replacement program. Keep in mind the Rafale has been pulled by Dassault, so those numbers are useless for the discussion:
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/5fv9he/combat_radius_of_western_multirole_fighters/


And from a brief review of this data set it is pretty apparent that the SAAB machine is *essentially useless for our purposes.*
Which leads me to believe that it will probably be chosen...the recent CBC article seems to think it's the way to go.
But hey? Bombardier can build it in Cartierville. Don't let the door hit you on your arse on the way out Justin!
Woe Canada!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Everything you might want to know about earlier generation Gripens (from a biased source):



> Flying & Fighting in the Gripen: Interview with a Swedish Air Force pilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Lieutenant Mikael Grev flew the Saab JAS-39 Gripen fighter in the Swedish air force, including wartime missions over Libya. Here he describes flying and fighting in this potent bantam weight machine, training against the F-16 and F/A-18, and how it would have handled Russia’s infamous Su-27 ‘Flanker’..._
> https://hushkit.net/2019/04/15/flying-fighting-in-the-gripen-interview-with-a-swedish-air-force-pilot/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/canada/sweden

Canada is about 22 times bigger than Sweden.  It would run from the 49th to 60 and fit between Calgary and Medicine Hat.  About two or three times the size of Cold Lake.  

With the Russians coming from east of Medicine Hat.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Fuel was incompatible at a NATO base?  Sounds like a major deficiency for the Grippen...


----------



## suffolkowner

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Fuel was incompatible at a NATO base?  Sounds like a major deficiency for the Grippen...



I haven't read the article but I believe they were used to running JP1 and JP5 was available for the Libya campaign. Not sure what the difference is and how easy it is to switch. Strange though because is the Gripen not running the same engine as the Hornets?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Both JP8 and JP5 was available during OUP.  Sig, being a Navy base, probably stocks JP5. You can use different types of fuel but it is generally limited in how long you can use different fuel unless you change the fuel control unit to a different type of fuel (the 404s have that option).


----------



## Quirky

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Both JP8 and JP5 was available during OUP.  Sig, being a Navy base, probably stocks JP5. You can use different types of fuel but it is generally limited in how long you can use different fuel unless you change the fuel control unit to a different type of fuel (the 404s have that option).



If I remember correctly, there are no MFC adjustments required for JP8 to JP5 anymore. There are generally more issues changing MFC settings than just leaving it alone.


----------



## Good2Golf

JP8 or JP8+100?  I thought all aircraft using JP8 were using +100 these days, leaving straight JP8 to vehicles only?


----------



## PuckChaser

Looks like Gripen's only selling feature (technology transfer) has a competitor. LM is offering Japan access to the F35 software to sweeten the deal.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27601/lockheed-offers-japan-access-to-f-35-code-as-part-of-stealth-fighter-proposal-report


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

>



Hilarious!!


----------



## MarkOttawa

"...
Finn says officials won't have a real handle on when the first new fighters can be delivered until the winning company is picked and the two sides can hammer out the details..."

Translation: until the industrial benefits, whatever they are, are sorted out. F-35 problem: no such benefits permitted for program members, of which we are one.  FMS route and Canadian companies then lose any future contracts for a couple of thousand planes? What's a poor, dilatory, PM (who cares zip about defence) to do? And after the October election, whoever wins? 

FUBAR:



> Feds facing short runway on fighter jets amid new questions about schedule
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-facing-short-runway-on-fighter-jets-amid-new-questions-about-schedule-1.4396916



Finns and Swiss will have Hornet replacements in service long before RCAF:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/02/01/industry-bids-are-in-for-finlands-13-billion-fighter-race/

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-04-13/switzerland-starts-new-round-fighter-trials

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat

This Canadian Press story suggests that the plan for an open competition may violate the terms of our participation in the F35 program. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable this this superannuated soldier will comment on this.

OTTAWA — U.S. officials have warned the Trudeau government that its plan to hold an open competition to replace its aging CF-18s is incompatible with Canada's obligations as a member of the F-35 stealth-fighter program.

The warnings are in two letters sent to the government last year that were obtained by defence analyst Richard Shimooka and released in a report published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank.

The letters specifically take issue with the government's plan to have each fighter-jet maker commit to re-investing in Canada if its aircraft wins the upcoming competition aimed at buying 88 new planes for $19 billion.

While that is standard for most Canadian military procurements, the U.S. officials note that Canada agreed not to apply such a requirement when it signed on as one of nine F-35 partner countries in 2006.

Companies in those countries are instead allowed to compete for work associated with the plane, and the U.S. officials say imposing requirements as a condition to bid will mean the F-35 won't be entered in the race.

Canada has contributed roughly $500 million over the past 20 years toward developing the F-35, which now is expected to compete against three other aircraft to replace the CF-18s.


----------



## Uzlu

> the U.S. officials say imposing requirements as a condition to bid will mean the F-35 won’t be entered in the race.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawas-planned-competition-to-replace-aging-fighter-jets-is/

Trudeau probably wants it to play out like this.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Suspect Uzlu in right. ML Institute news release:



> Assessing the Damage from Canada’s Fighter Replacement Fiasco: New MLI Report
> 
> OTTAWA, ON (May 6, 2019):  In a hard-hitting new Macdonald-Laurier Institute report, MLI Senior Fellow Richard Shimooka takes a critical look at the government’s approach to replacing Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighters.  In the report, titled The Catastrophe: Assessing the Damage from Canada’s Fighter Replacement Fiasco, he argues that Ottawa’s performance on this file mirrors the SNC-Lavalin Scandal and the Mark Norman Affair.
> 
> “At their heart, these two incidents represent attempts by the Liberal government to circumvent established processes to meet their partisan interests,” Shimooka explains. “This description is just as apt for the fighter program.”
> 
> Canada is a participant in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program that has been developing the F-35s. These fighter jets were slotted to replace the RCAF’s aging CF-18s, but after the program was mired in political scandal under the previous government, the Liberal government changed plans.
> 
> “During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party promised not to buy the F-35 jets, but instead to use a competition to identify and subsequently purchase a lower-cost competitor… this decision proved to be impossible, unethical, and potentially illegal,” writes Shimooka.
> 
> From billions of dollars being wasted on a procurement process to fix a contrived capability gap to potentially threatening Canada’s defence relationship with the US, the report finds that political interests have consistently been put above Canada’s defence needs.
> 
> Shimooka argues that “the decisions made [regarding fighter jet replacement] were purely for reasons of political interest: not a single one could be claimed as being in the country’s national interest.”
> 
> The “fiasco,” as Shimooka describes it, has caught the attention of both Canada’s Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and senior US officials. According to documents never before seen by the public, the OAG had specifically cautioned the government against its chosen course of purchasing Australian Hornets as an interim measure in a draft report – and the final OAG report was heavily revised to obscure that recommendation.
> 
> Worse still, letters from US officials reveal that “resentment and distrust towards the government of Canada had grown, particularly within the US Air Force.” These letters, which again have not been made public until now, outline the significant strategic and economic benefits that have already been accrued from being part of the JSF Program. Yet they also contain an implicit (but clear) threat that Canada could be kicked out of the Program – if Ottawa continues with its current policy of trying to obtain guaranteed industrial benefits that, by their very nature, are not allowed under the JSF Program.
> 
> “There was a complete lack of logic of Canada’s policy, which seemed to ignore basic facts about membership in the JSF program, including clear advantages in cost and capability that the F-35 provided.”
> 
> Despite these persistent, high-level issues with the government’s chosen approach on the fighter jet replacement, the file has avoided serious public scrutiny. Shimooka finds that this happened in large part due to the successful gag orders levelled by the government.
> 
> “The government has also suppressed negative viewpoints within and outside the Department of National Defence, allegedly up to and including the deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet that highlighted why certain decisions should not be taken.”
> 
> Moving forward on the file may prove to be difficult; defence procurement woes have plagued Canada since Confederation, and the issues with the fighter jet replacement are deeper than just purchasing the right aircraft. Worse still, Shimooka says that the brunt of the burden of consistently poor decision-making in Ottawa will be borne by the RCAF itself.
> 
> “While the negative consequences are clear for Canada as a whole," Shimooka explains, "no community has felt the impact more than the RCAF. As a result of this government’s policies, its ability to conduct its most basic function, the defence of Canadian sovereignty and that of our allies, is diminishing rapidly.”
> 
> “It is a sad state of affairs.”
> https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/assessing-damage-canadas-fighter-replacement-fiasco-new-mli-report/



Full report here, US gov't letters at pp. 22-24 PDF:
http://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/20190502_MLI_COMMENTARY_Shimooka_FWeb.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Iron 1

Link to the MLI report... https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/assessing-damage-canadas-fighter-replacement-fiasco-new-mli-report/...this just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
There's not a lot in here that has not already been the subject of speculative discussion.
However?_ If _the author's (numerous and obviously not willing to go public) sources are to believed/taken at face value?

Suffice to say that this is a pretty damning attack against the Trudeau Government's four year cluster-hump with regards to the whole sorry mess.
The attached appendices (DoD and JSF/JPO replies to the "RFP" _demands_ issued by our current Government) provide black and white proof that we are digging our own grave as long as this _*prime minister*_ is ru(i?)(n?)ning our country... 

My two cents.
Well worth reading IMO.

Ron  

Edit by Loachman. Thou shalt not use the language that you did.


----------



## CBH99

Hopefully if/when a new Government is formed, this file would have been kicked down the road so many times we can pull an "Urgent Requirement" & just buy a plane with less self-created hassle than usual.  

Afghanistan did wonders for new Leopard 2's, C-130's, C-17's, Chinooks, etc etc.


In all fairness though, IRB has been a long standing requirement for doing business with the Government of Canada, regardless of what political party is in power.  

In regards to this particular file it may be in violation of the terms of our involvement in the project, but I truly doubt anybody at Procurement Canada connected those dots until it was brought to their attention by representatives of another government.  (Which in itself is concerning...)

At the end of the day, the Government (regardless of which party is in power) will have to balance the required IRB of a fighter contract with the amount of work possibly awarded with a JSF purchase.


----------



## MarkOttawa

So since Trudeau took power in 2015 no politicians or any bureaucrats have bothered to acquaint themselves with the contents of the 2006 F-35 MoU or even been briefed on it? Or, if so, failed to understand what it means for guaranteed offsets (none)? Then we are truly super stupid. See Section VII Industrial Participation:
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/JSF_PSFD_MOU_-_Update_4_2010.PDF

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

I hate to say this, as I don't want to sound flippant towards the current governing party...but I'm honestly leaning towards truly super stupid here Mark.  

I doubt someone who is informed of the details of the JSF participating clauses was party to the tenders being drafted.  I'm truly leaning towards truly stupid and/or oversight.  (Again, truly stupid.)


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99, IRBs (in the day, now ITBs for the last decade) were absolutely known and understood to not apply directly within the context of the original JSF sign-on by Canada in 2002.  Canadian high-tech has benefited greatly by the Program on the books since 2002, in an amount of industry revenues greater than the Government(s) successively have contributed to the program, or would have otherwise secured with a 100% IRB/offset program had such a contracting strategy (Direct Commercial Sale, or even FMS) been initiated by the Liberal Government back in 2002, when they committed Canada to participate in the JSF Program. They knew it was a program that would provide greater than unity return, even without buying the aircraft itself (although that was a reasonable expectation on the part of the Program).  The intent of participating in the JSF Program and larger (global) scale of industrial participation (being part of 2000+ aircraft supply chain for 30 years) was transformational (and fair credit to Chretien’s Government of the day) for Canadian aerospace industry, vice the transactional “what’s in it for me” approach of the government now, trying to wave the ‘protectors of our own industry’ flag now.  What we have now is the second round (Harper was first, shame on him then) of truly shameful dithering and can-kicking down the alley...shame on Trudeau now. 

Just remember, if we had kept the Spitfire flying from its initial in-service date (1939) with the RCAF for the same length of time that the CF-188 will fly (1982-2028+), the fabric, wood and metal Spitfire would have still been flying 46 years later...1985...three years AFTER the Hornet entered service.  

Sad state of affairs. :not-again:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

> “The government has also suppressed negative viewpoints within and outside the Department of National Defence, allegedly up to and including the deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet that highlighted why certain decisions should not be taken.”



Is it just me, or is this the most damning quote in the article?

The government doesn't just lie to public, it lies to itself?

Or is it just lying to the public?

What I mean is does the "deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet" occur before the Cabinet sees the Memos or does it occur after the Cabinet has seen them.  And who is doing the altering?


----------



## YZT580

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or is this the most damning quote in the article?
> 
> The government doesn't just lie to public, it lies to itself?
> 
> Or is it just lying to the public?
> 
> What I mean is does the "deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet" occur before the Cabinet sees the Memos or does it occur after the Cabinet has seen them.  And who is doing the altering?


Remember the accusation against Harper with his 'hidden agenda'?  The statement implies that someone or some group within the PMO has a hidden agenda and is deceiving the members of cabinet in order to achieve their goals and yes it is the most damning quote.  It isn't possible to make a value decision on any issue if certain facts are not available to the decision makers.  I don't believe it is the government lying to itself but rather a group within that is doing so.


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What I mean is does the "deletion of portions of Memos to Cabinet" occur before the Cabinet sees the Memos or does it occur after the Cabinet has seen them.  And who is doing the altering?



My understanding: It means that the options to be examined and developed within the MC changed from the first draft to the final product that would have been seen, reviewed and approved.

For example, if planning a party in a park in Ottawa, potential options are: buy beer in Ottawa; buy beer in Gatineau; or have no beer at all.  Before going final on the document, you may be directed that the "no beer at all" option is not to be considered.


----------



## OldSolduer

By the time that a jet fighter has been decided on Hyperspace will have been discovered. FFS this is effing retarded.


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For example, if planning a party in a park in Ottawa, potential options are: buy beer in Ottawa; buy beer in Gatineau; or have no beer at all.  Before going final on the document, you may be directed that the "no beer at all" option is not to be considered.


Gee, would that be a metaphor for "Lockheed Martin" is "no beer"?


----------



## Uzlu

> U.S. government again urges Canada to acquire American fighter jets, despite Pentagon threats
> 
> The American government is once again urging Canada to acquire U.S.-built fighter jets to replace its fleet of CF-18s, one day after it emerged the Pentagon recently threatened to pull the F-35 out of the $26-billion competition for new aircraft.
> 
> The contradictory messages from the U.S. government showcase how the Americans are trying to prevent a tendering process that would favour European manufacturers at the expense of either the Lockheed Martin F-35 or the Boeing Super Hornet.
> 
> The Canadian government is weeks away from launching a competition for 88 new fighter jets, with the two American firms set to enter into a competition against the Swedish Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is built by a consortium that includes Airbus.
> 
> In a statement on Tuesday, the American government called on Canada to make sure its fighter jets can operate alongside U.S. military aircraft around the world. The “crucial” point, according to the American government, is Canada’s participation in the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) that controls the Canadian and American airspace.
> 
> Only U.S.-built fighter jets currently operate in NORAD and European aircraft would face technological hurdles in gaining the ability to fully integrate into the bi-national military alliance.
> 
> “We continue to believe in the importance of NATO and NORAD interoperability as a crucial component of Canada’s acquisition of defence assets,” said Joseph Crook, a spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.
> 
> Mr. Crook added the American government remains “hopeful that U.S. firms are able to participate in open and transparent competition processes that can support Canada’s NATO and NORAD obligations, especially when it comes to co-operative engagement capabilities.”
> 
> On Monday, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published letters from American officials who warned their Canadian counterparts last year that the F-35 might be pulled from the competition unless Canada’s requirements for industrial benefits were modified.
> 
> The American government is concerned about Canada’s Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) policy, which requires the winner of the contract to invest the equivalent of the acquisition cost in Canada.
> 
> Built by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is a stealth aircraft developed by an international consortium of allied militaries under a program that specifically rejects the application of traditional industrial benefits. Canada has been a member of the program since 2006.
> 
> In an interview after a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said he has sought to reassure the Americans by pointing out that the Canadian government will focus mostly on technical capabilities in deciding which aircraft to purchase.
> 
> “First of all, the capabilities of the aircraft is the number one priority. Making sure we meet the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces – the Air Force in this particular case – is the number one priority. We will always make sure that will happen,” Mr. Sajjan said.
> 
> He added that obtaining benefits for the Canadian economy is also important, while suggesting the matter will have less importance in the final weighting of the bids.
> 
> “This obviously factors into the equation, but the capability requirements for the Canadian Armed Forces is always the number one priority,” he said.
> 
> In a speech laying out his foreign-affairs policy on Tuesday, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said he will seek to modernize the NORAD alliance if his party forms the next government, including through the purchase of fighter jets that can defend North America alongside the U.S. fleet.
> 
> “I will act to select a new fighter jet through an open competition and make sure the new jets are interoperable with our American allies,” Mr. Scheer said.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Mathias Winter of the U.S. Navy said in a letter last December that Canada has received US$1.3-billion in economic benefits from its participation in the F-35 program to this point.
> 
> “The F-35 supplier team will submit an F-35 offer only if (1) the ITB requirement is waived entirely and (2) there is no future ITB obligation arising from selecting the F-35,” Vice-Adm. Winter said in his letter.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-us-government-urges-canada-to-acquire-american-fighter-jets-in-2/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start of good piece (lots of further links) on F-35 benefits mess:



> Canada's CF-18 Replacement Competition Structure Seems To Have Already Disqualified The F-35
> _The country's requirements for its new fighter jet competition are at odds with its existing obligations to the Joint Strike Fighter program_.
> 
> Canada is hoping to finally issue its new request for bids on a contract to supply the Royal Canadian Air Force with 88 new fighter jets to replace that service’s aging CF-18A/B Hornets later this month. The county’s fighter jet replacement plans turned into a saga long ago that has now lasted more than a decade, but the new plan looks set to create even more problems and controversy. A specific requirement regarding industrial offsets in the request could force Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter out of the running from the start for the somewhat obtuse reason that Canada is already, technically, a member of that program.
> 
> The Canadian government issued a draft request for proposals in October 2018. The country subsequently “pre-qualified” four planes as potential competitors for the deal, worth approximately $14 billion. These were the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin's F-35, and the Saab Gripen.
> 
> As part of this pre-qualification process, Canadian authorities had reached out to the U.S. military’s F-35 Joint Program Office, which manages international cooperation on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) with Lockheed Martin, to clarify various points ahead of the competition. The main issue centers on the extent of Canada’s continued obligations under what is known as the JSF Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development Memorandum of Understanding.
> 
> To rewind quickly, Canada has been a member of the F-35 program from the very beginning, but initially only as a so-called “Level 3” industrial partner without a firm commitment to buy any actual aircraft. This helped Canadian firms secure dozens of contracts related to the Joint Strike Fighter’s development and production, which, to date, have been worth a combined total of more than $1.3 billion. It also means that Canadian companies remain eligible to bid on F-35-related contracts throughout the service life of the aircraft...
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27895/canada-wont-be-able-to-buy-the-f-35-because-they-are-already-a-f-35-program-partner-huh



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GR66

Never going to happen, but if I were King for the day I'd:

a) Revise the requirements for the replacement fighter program to be specifically tailored to the NORAD role with a purchase quantity of 65 aircraft (2 x squadrons of 24 with spares?):
- Long Range
- Supercruise capability???
- Large Air-to-Air weapon loadout
- Interoperability with our NORAD partner
- And just because it's bound to happen anyway...Industrial Offsets
- Take the winning bid based on an open and fair competition.

b) As part of the F-35 Consortium purchase 35 x F-35s (1 x squadron of 24 aircraft plus spares?) on a sole source contract for our Expeditionary requirements.
- Justification for the sole source would be the stealth capability and 5th Generation requirements that no other aircraft offer for operations in contested airspace.

The purchase of the F-35 would be through the Consortium so no additional industrial offsets required so Lockheed-Martin's objections on that point disappear.
The NORAD fighter purchase would follow the standard procurement process/mess and a fair competition could come up with a winner that can't complain about specs being tailored to the F-35.  
Boeing would be happy as likely one of their aircraft (Super Hornet or F-15X?) would likely win due to the NORAD partner interoperability requirement.  
That same requirement could limit the ability for Saab, Eurofighter (or Dassault if they chose to participate) to launch lawsuits if they lose the contest if they can't prove they meet the requirement.

[Fantasy/off]


----------



## YZT580

may  be fantasy but it is a good idea.  One size doesn't fit all, particularly with the distances in the north and the cost per hour of the F35.  Yes it would require 2 sets of spares and training but we've been there before F104 and F101 come to mind. Two jobs, two airplanes


----------



## HB_Pencil

GR66 said:
			
		

> Never going to happen, but if I were King for the day I'd:
> 
> a) Revise the requirements for the replacement fighter program to be specifically tailored to the NORAD role with a purchase quantity of 65 aircraft (2 x squadrons of 24 with spares?):
> - Long Range
> - Supercruise capability???
> - Large Air-to-Air weapon loadout
> - Interoperability with our NORAD partner
> - And just because it's bound to happen anyway...Industrial Offsets
> - Take the winning bid based on an open and fair competition.
> 
> b) As part of the F-35 Consortium purchase 35 x F-35s (1 x squadron of 24 aircraft plus spares?) on a sole source contract for our Expeditionary requirements.
> - Justification for the sole source would be the stealth capability and 5th Generation requirements that no other aircraft offer for operations in contested airspace.
> 
> The purchase of the F-35 would be through the Consortium so no additional industrial offsets required so Lockheed-Martin's objections on that point disappear.
> The NORAD fighter purchase would follow the standard procurement process/mess and a fair competition could come up with a winner that can't complain about specs being tailored to the F-35.
> Boeing would be happy as likely one of their aircraft (Super Hornet or F-15X?) would likely win due to the NORAD partner interoperability requirement.
> That same requirement could limit the ability for Saab, Eurofighter (or Dassault if they chose to participate) to launch lawsuits if they lose the contest if they can't prove they meet the requirement.
> 
> [Fantasy/off]



According to that suggestion, the F-35 would win competition A purely on capability and cost, even without the sunk cost advantages it would get from having B.


----------



## GR66

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> According to that suggestion, the F-35 would win competition A purely on capability and cost, even without the sunk cost advantages it would get from having B.



Perhaps, but if they determine things like long range and weapon load-out to be heavily weighted factors in the competition then the F-35 might not win.  Also, if industrial offsets were included in the bid then the F-35 wouldn't even be submitted based on what they are already saying about the current competition.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's actually a doable plan, although I suspect we end up with about 35 of each as the 30% markup on the non-F35 will bite. 2 aircraft types means more training, but the option to work/fly brand new aircraft might help recruitment and retention


----------



## Loachman

For anybody who skipped Reply 2485 of this thread at https://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1569208.html#msg1569208, I'd suggest having a read-through of the link, https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/5fv9he/combat_radius_of_western_multirole_fighters/, contained therein:

"In general, the performance of the F-35A is referred to whenever "the F-35" is discussed, because it will be by far the most produced variant. However, it's useful to compare it with the other F-35 variants.

"From all of these sources, a clear picture emerges: The Rafale has a somewhat longer air-to-air combat radius, at around 900 nm. The others (Super Hornet, Typhoon, F-35, Gripen E) *all* have an air-to-air combat radius of *around 750-800 nm*.

"However, there are two significant caveats to this. The first is the extent to which these "maximum range" configurations affect each fighter's maneuverability. *All fighters except for the F-35 rely on multiple external fuel tanks to reach those ranges.* These fuel tanks and their pylons add weight as well as additional drag. For example, for the Super Hornet, those 3 480-gallon external fuel tanks enable it to carry an additional 9792 lb of fuel to augment its 14,000 lb of internal fuel, but they weigh an additional 1143 lb for the tanks themselves and an additional 883 lb for the pylons according to the flight manual, so roughly 20% of the fuel weight. I don't know what the specs are for the other planes, so I will assume the fuel tanks make up 11% and the pylons make up 9% for the other planes. The Rafale carries 3 2000 L tanks, while the Typhoon carries 3 1000 L tanks, and the Gripen E carries 2 450 gal tanks and a 300 gal tank. Granted, some will say that the drop tanks can be dropped in the event of combat, however, this isn't standard procedure except in the event of an emergency, plus the pylons continue to stay on the plane (the tanks impart much more drag than the pylons though)."

See also the various range charts in that article. The "range advantage" is not what you think that it might be. Please tell me how you think that acquiring a mixed fleet, for all of the additional costs, is worthwhile, especially when doing so would also sacrifice the networking capabilities of F35.

We had mixed fleets in the past (CF5, CF101, and CF104). Each fleet had its own training Squadron (for aircrew and groundcrew) and parts stocks. There is no need to repeat that.

We were a much bigger CF back then, with way more aircraft in total, and way more fleets. We no longer have that budget.

Pick the best one, and "best" includes interoperability.

We've already paid into the F35 programme, and continue to do so. Canadian companies have seen, I believe, $1.3B worth of work to date, we've not bought a single one yet, and there are a couple more thousand yet to be built.

From https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html Canadian Industrial Participation in The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program:

"The IRB Policy is one of the primary ways in which the Government of Canada ensures that defence and security procurements generate high value-added business activity for Canadian industry. As such, the decision to sign the PSFD MOU and the resulting implications of limiting future options with respect to IRB Policy, should the Government of Canada ultimately acquire the F-35, were considered. *However, from an industrial participation standpoint, the Government of Canada had reason to believe that Canada's aerospace industry had – and still has – the strength to compete and benefit significantly from participation in the F-35 JSF Program*. Canada's aerospace industry is among the most mature internationally and ranks fifth in the world in terms of its size (and third within the F-35 JSF partnership). Approximately 80 percent of what it produces is exported and companies in Canada have well recognized niche strengths and are major players in their respective markets. Canada's proximity to the U.S. and long experience in working with U.S. suppliers were also seen as advantages to companies in Canada vis-à-vis companies in other F-35 JSF partner nations. Agreeing to sign the PSFD MOU therefore had two benefits from an industrial perspective:

"In the short-to medium-term, *it gave companies in Canada on-going access to valuable development and early production work on this new high-tech aircraft, even without a decision to acquire it*; and
"*It positioned companies in Canada for significant work on the production and sustainment of a global fleet of modern fighter aircraft, in the event that Canada did decide to acquire the F-35*."

and

"C. Canadian F-35 JSF Industrial Participation Results

"1. Contracts

"Companies in Canada have thus far participated in the design/development and early production phases of the F-35 JSF Program. *Seventy-two (72) companies in Canada have secured $438 million U.S. Dollars (USD) in contracts*; this represents signed and executed orders for work related to the planes ordered *as of June/July 2012* reporting. This is work across a range of aerospace subsectors, including airframe, propulsion, tooling, software and mission systems, *which would not have been available to our industry if Canada were not a partner in the F-35 JSF Program*. A selection of the companies in Canada involved in production of the F-35 JSF can be found in Annex A.

From https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/canada/documents/PwC_Economic_Impact_Study_of_Canada.pdf Lockheed Martin Study of Economic Impact in Canada April 2018:

"In 2002, Canada became one of the original nine program partners. Since then, *more than 110 Canadian suppliers have been involved, and the total value of contracts to these suppliers has exceeded $1 billion* (assumed to be USD - Loachman), which has supported the creation of $889 million in GDP and 9,500 jobs."

"F-35 Lightning II: Quick Facts
- Over 280 delivered worldwide
- 110 Canadian suppliers involved over the course of the program
- $2.3 million USD in Canadian components on every jet
- $889 million in Canadian GDP supported to date"

There are going to be some rightfully pissed-off companies if those contracts end for no other reason than Liberal votes.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Federal government looks to ease requirements for fighter-jet makers after U.S. complaints*
> 
> Ottawa will now allow bids that do not promise to re-invest into Canada
> 
> _Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press_
> 
> Posted: May 09, 2019
> 
> The federal government is planning to loosen its industrial requirements for fighter-jet makers in the $19-billion competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s.
> 
> The planned modification follows recent U.S. complaints that the previous criteria violated Canada's obligations as one of nine partner countries in the development of the F-35, one of the small handful of planes expected in the competition.
> 
> Yet the proposed change has sparked complaints from some of the companies whose planes will be competing against the F-35, who say the new approach goes too far in the other direction.
> 
> Canada has long required companies bidding on major defence contracts to commit to re-investing back into the country, with those unable to make such a contractual commitment seeing their bids tossed out.
> 
> But in a presentation to companies on Thursday, the government said it plans to allow bids missing such a commitment in the fighter-jet competition — they will be just docked points in the assessment.
> 
> The plan is intended to maximize the number of bids in the competition to buy 88 new jets while still aiming for the largest-possible economic spinoffs, a senior government official told The Canadian Press.
> 
> The U.S. had threatened not to enter the F-35 into the competition if the requirement wasn't changed, noting that under the partnership agreement signed in 2006, companies in each member country instead compete for work.
> 
> The threat was contained in a letter sent to the government from the head of the Pentagon's F-35 office in December and published in a report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank on Monday.
> 
> 
> *Industrial targets*
> 
> Canada has contributed roughly $500 million over the past 20 years toward developing the F-35, while Canadian companies have won nearly $1.5 billion in contracts associated with the stealth fighter. Canada will also be able to buy the plane for less than non-members.
> 
> The proposed new process will see the government evaluate bids on a scale, with 60 per cent of the points based on the plane's capability, 20 per cent on its full lifetime costs and the remaining 20 per cent on industrial benefits to Canada.
> 
> Bidders can still guarantee that they will re-invest back into Canada if their jet wins the competition and get all 20 points - which is the likely approach for Boeing's Super Hornet, Eurofighter's Typhoon and Saab's Gripen.
> 
> But those that can't make such a commitment will be asked to establish "industrial targets," lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them.
> 
> The government will study those plans and assign points based on risk. This is the likely approach for Lockheed Martin and the F-35, which the U.S. has said could provide Canadian companies with billions in work over the next 50 years.
> 
> The planned new approach has already stirred complaints from some of Lockheed Martin's competitors, who question why the F-35 should get points if the company can't guarantee re-investment back into Canada.
> 
> There are also concerns about how the government will decide how risky plans to achieve "industrial targets" actually are, with one industry source saying that question is entirely subjective.
> 
> Bidders were also told Thursday that the actual launch of the competition has been delayed until mid-July. Government officials had previously said they hoped the starting gun would be fired by the end of the month.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-rule-change-1.5130470

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-look-to-ease-requirements-for-fighter-jet-makers-after-u-s-complaints-1.4416420


----------



## GR66

In mentioning range I was more thinking of the F-15X as an option vs. the F-35 for the NORAD mission.  

As you can see from the article Loachman linked to it's hard to find apples to apples comparisons when it comes to aircraft ranges, but according to this article in The National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-15x-air-forces-next-super-fighter-or-waste-time-28492) the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.

As for multiple aircraft fleets, I absolutely won't argue with you on the high cost of going that route.  Where I may disagree is with the statement that we don't have the budget for it.  Of course you're correct if we keep our military spending priorities as they are now, which frankly result in a relatively weak air force, navy and army.  If we were however to re-prioritize our spending for example to focus on an air force something like I suggested, a navy something like we've been promised and pared down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies then _maybe _the money could be found to fund such an idea.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Boeing won’t pitch the F-15X.  They already have customers for it.


----------



## GR66

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Boeing won’t pitch the F-15X.  They already have customers for it.



You may be right, but I'd imagine they would rather pitch the F-15X and get the contract rather than not get any sales at all if they thought the competition requirements might favour something other than the Super Hornet.  

It's all just a mind game anyway because as I said at the start of my post...it's never going to happen anyway.


----------



## MilEME09

GR66 said:
			
		

> In mentioning range I was more thinking of the F-15X as an option vs. the F-35 for the NORAD mission.
> 
> As you can see from the article Loachman linked to it's hard to find apples to apples comparisons when it comes to aircraft ranges, but according to this article in The National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-15x-air-forces-next-super-fighter-or-waste-time-28492) the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.
> 
> As for multiple aircraft fleets, I absolutely won't argue with you on the high cost of going that route.  Where I may disagree is with the statement that we don't have the budget for it.  Of course you're correct if we keep our military spending priorities as they are now, which frankly result in a relatively weak air force, navy and army.  If we were however to re-prioritize our spending for example to focus on an air force something like I suggested, a navy something like we've been promised and pared down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies then _maybe _the money could be found to fund such an idea.




Or maybe if we didmt have 3 times the required generals and flag officers, wasted money on buttons, bows, patches, and didnt have dozens of project offices moving at snails pace justifying peoples jobs money could be found to be reinvested in all elements.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My guess is that if Trump gets re-elected, Canada is going to be told to poop or get off the pot in regards to the F-35, which means if we don't, those current contracts will be wound down and we will be excluded from them, unless something extraordinary happens.


----------



## Loachman

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> Canadian companies have won nearly $1.5 billion in contracts associated with the stealth fighter



Bingo!

I am hugely surprised by a Liberal attempt to do it right and acknowledge the money spent in Canada to date, but I don't know if an equitable method can be found to balance two different methods of calculating industrial benefits.

I anticipate legal challenges from all losing bidders no matter what.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> My guess is that if Trump gets re-elected, Canada is going to be told to poop or get off the pot in regards to the F-35, which means if we don't, those current contracts will be wound down and we will be excluded from them, unless something extraordinary happens.



Like if Trudeau gets the boot by a Conservative government?


----------



## Loachman

GR66 said:
			
		

> the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.



I would suspect with external fuel like the others.



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> pare(d) down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies



The Army is _*already*_ a smaller, under-equipped expeditionary force. It can't afford any more smallness and under-equippedness. Reforms to the Reserve structure, manning, and equipment have been promised as long as I remember, and I joined in 1973. If it can't be done in forty-six years, I can't see it being done in another or more. Governments always talk big and act small.


----------



## Loachman

Colin P said:
			
		

> My guess is that if Trump gets re-elected



"If"? Barring something catastrophic, it's almost guaranteed.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Loachman said:
			
		

> For anybody who skipped Reply 2485 of this thread at https://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1569208.html#msg1569208, I'd suggest having a read-through of the link, https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/5fv9he/combat_radius_of_western_multirole_fighters/, contained therein:
> 
> "In general, the performance of the F-35A is referred to whenever "the F-35" is discussed, because it will be by far the most produced variant. However, it's useful to compare it with the other F-35 variants.
> 
> "From all of these sources, a clear picture emerges: The Rafale has a somewhat longer air-to-air combat radius, at around 900 nm. The others (Super Hornet, Typhoon, F-35, Gripen E) *all* have an air-to-air combat radius of *around 750-800 nm*.
> 
> "However, there are two significant caveats to this. The first is the extent to which these "maximum range" configurations affect each fighter's maneuverability. *All fighters except for the F-35 rely on multiple external fuel tanks to reach those ranges.* These fuel tanks and their pylons add weight as well as additional drag. For example, for the Super Hornet, those 3 480-gallon external fuel tanks enable it to carry an additional 9792 lb of fuel to augment its 14,000 lb of internal fuel, but they weigh an additional 1143 lb for the tanks themselves and an additional 883 lb for the pylons according to the flight manual, so roughly 20% of the fuel weight. I don't know what the specs are for the other planes, so I will assume the fuel tanks make up 11% and the pylons make up 9% for the other planes. The Rafale carries 3 2000 L tanks, while the Typhoon carries 3 1000 L tanks, and the Gripen E carries 2 450 gal tanks and a 300 gal tank. Granted, some will say that the drop tanks can be dropped in the event of combat, however, this isn't standard procedure except in the event of an emergency, plus the pylons continue to stay on the plane (the tanks impart much more drag than the pylons though)."
> 
> See also the various range charts in that article. The "range advantage" is not what you think that it might be. Please tell me how you think that acquiring a mixed fleet, for all of the additional costs, is worthwhile, especially when doing so would also sacrifice the networking capabilities of F35.




So while I agree with your conclusion, the numbers cited by Vanshillar are incorrect. The Super Hornet, even with three tanks, does not outrange the F-35. the only way that this is plausibly possible is if you drop tanks in flight, which is not an option. A quick check of the NATOPS, which were leaked a few years ago can give you that number. Five tanks doesn't actually get you any further because of the drag imposed. 

Having spoken to previous members of the NGFC program about this very topic, in all functional respects the F-35 had the most range, and was the only one (with the possible exception of the Typhoon) that could meet what they described as the holy grail mission: the Cold Lake -> Inuvik -> Eielson Weather diversion flightplan. Public numbers on the Rafale and Gripen are not accurate, they do not have the range close to the other options. One likened their claims to being "outside the laws of physics." This was one of the reasons why they were eager to get the F-35 in the first place. Several of them had operated in the north for over a decade, and brought their person experiences to the table when designing the RFPs. They were unequivocal that no other plane was better suited to operate in the north than the F-35. Now the F-15 wasn't an option back then, but I don't think its superior range would tip the scales too much. One: while more fuel capacity is always welcome, anything above the Cold Lake/Eielson profile has less value. Second, the original RFP had the ability to take off and land in no-light conditions as a result of crashes in the 1990s: the F-35 has that ability, the F-15 does not. Thirdly, the drag chute option provides the RCAF a lot more options in the north for FOLs. 

Finally as you point out, the networking capabilities are exceptionally valuable. They found that two F-35s could search four times the area as a 4th Generation fighter can because of the sensor fusion system, particularly in the north. Any notational advantage another platform may have is obviated at that point.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Letting F-35A into the competition but making getting points tougher:



> Ottawa changes fighter-jet tender rules to address U.S. pressure over F-35
> 
> The federal government is opening up the acquisition process for its $26-billion contract for new fighter jets, responding to threats from the U.S. government that it would refuse to sell the stealth Lockheed Martin F-35 unless Ottawa scrapped its quota for aerospace spending.
> 
> The changes to the process were presented to potential bidders this week, after it emerged the U.S. government threatened to pull the F-35 from the competition if the requirement for industrial benefits was not modified.
> 
> Under the new process, Ottawa will no longer force all bidders to commit 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment on spending in Canada. Instead, manufacturers will lose points in the scoring system if they do not make this commitment, but they will still be allowed to remain in the competition, said federal and industry sources to whom The Globe and Mail granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
> 
> Before the changes were approved by the federal cabinet, the F-35 could have been automatically disqualified because the international consortium that builds the aircraft doesn’t allow for the provision of traditional industrial benefits. Instead, the F-35 program awards production contracts on a competitive basis in partner countries, without any formal guarantees of investments in those countries...
> 
> In the _first version of the draft RFP, the government assigned 60 per cent of the points for technological capabilities; 25 per cent for cost; and 15 per cent for industrial benefits.
> 
> Under the new process, the government has kept a value of 60 per cent for technical requirements, but gave a value of 20 per cent for cost and 20 per cent for industrial benefits_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The new 60-20-20 formula means that the package of industrial benefits will be given more weight in the final evaluation of the bids than what had been originally contemplated. As such, the government will be giving more points to companies that commit to spending the entire value of the program in Canada, while allowing companies that offer a different type of benefits package to remain in the race...
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-changes-fighter-jet-tender-rules-to-address-us-threats-over-f/



Is gov't basically saying to US/LockheedMartin: "You're scoring out of 80 points while others (Boeing, Airbus, Saab) are scoring out of 100? 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More, LM could get some of those benefits points--if US willing to go through the bother of competing when our gov't doing its best to stack the deck against F-35A:


> Canada looks to loosen requirements for fighter-jet makers in competition to replace CF-18s
> ...
> The proposed new process will see the government evaluate bids on a scale, with 60 per cent of the points based on the plane’s capability, 20 per cent on its full lifetime costs and the remaining 20 per cent on industrial benefits to Canada.
> 
> Bidders can still guarantee that they will re-invest back into Canada if their jet wins the competition and get all 20 points – which is the likely approach for Boeing’s Super Hornet, Eurofighter’s Typhoon and Saab’s Gripen.
> 
> But those that can’t make such a commitment will be asked to establish “industrial targets,” lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them.
> 
> The government will study those plans and assign points based on risk. This is the likely approach for Lockheed Martin and the F-35, which the U.S. has said could provide Canadian companies with billions in work over the next 50 years.
> 
> The planned new approach has already stirred complaints from some of Lockheed Martin’s competitors, who question why the F-35 should get points if the company can’t guarantee re-investment back into Canada...
> 
> But those that can’t make such a commitment will be asked to establish “industrial targets,” lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them.
> 
> The government will study those plans and assign points based on risk. This is the likely approach for Lockheed Martin and the F-35, which the U.S. has said could provide Canadian companies with billions in work over the next 50 years.
> 
> The planned new approach has already stirred complaints from some of Lockheed Martin’s competitors, who question why the F-35 should get points if the company can’t guarantee re-investment back into Canada.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5261380/canada-fighter-jet-requirements-cf-18/



FUBAR.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Letting F-35A into the competition but making getting points tougher:
> 
> Is gov't basically saying to US/LockheedMartin: "You're scoring out of 80 points while others (Boeing, Airbus, Saab) are scoring out of 100?



I had to read your comment a few times - I thought you had meant that LM would get their score out of 80 v 100, which would be advantageous to them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

No, that they would getting points out of a maximum of 80 whereas others would be getting from 100. Now looks like LM might have chance to get some of those benefits points--but will US even bid given F-35 program members no-offsets policy? Plus the time and energy dealing with a gov't that clearly is still hostile to the plane and trying to game the competition:
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1571296.html#msg1571296

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> will US even bid given F-35 program members no-offsets policy? Plus the time and energy dealing with a gov't that clearly is still hostile to the plane and trying to game the competition


I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are still interested in putting in a bid.  I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing appear not to have realised that the deck is stacked against them.  Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?  Trudeau’s ego is always more important than the Royal Canadian Air Force.


----------



## MTShaw

Uzlu said:
			
		

> I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are still interested in putting in a bid.  I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing appear not to have realised that the deck is stacked against them.  Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?  Trudeau’s ego is always more important than the Royal Canadian Air Force.



Or that Airbus did Canada as solid, and they will be rewarded. It’’s likely that MBDA will also benefit.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?



That's what we consultants do... in our world, it's called 'work'


----------



## MilEME09

I wonder, have F35s for Turkey started production yet? Given the current politucal spat maybe Lockmart will offer a Que jump and take Turkeys spot allowing for faster delivery


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like US, with quite some justification (indeed provocation from Justin's gov't) to play serious hard ball:


> New Canadian fighter jets will need U.S. certification: DND
> 
> American officials will need to certify the fighter jet Canada buys at the end of a multibillion-dollar procurement that’s started and stopped and started again for more than a decade, ensuring that it’s fit to plug into the U.S.’s highest-security intelligence systems.
> 
> But, says the Department of National Defence’s top procurement official, they will not get to decide which plane replaces Canadian military’s aging CF-18s.
> 
> “Ultimately when we select, when we are into the detailed design, at some point, yes, the U.S. will have a role to play in ultimate certification,” Patrick Finn, the Defence Department’s assistant deputy minister of materiel, told The Canadian Press.
> 
> “But the Americans won’t be sitting with us with the evaluation and doing that type of work. It will be us.”
> 
> Some industry sources are nonetheless worried the U.S. could use the certification requirement to block Canada from choosing a non-American plane, particularly given the Trump administration’s approach to trade.
> 
> The federal government this week laid out the latest iteration of its plan for the $19-billion competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s with 88 new fighters, which is expected to officially launch in July.
> 
> While much of the presentation delivered to fighter-jet makers focused on a loosening of industrial-benefit rules (that is, how much the winning bidder will be expected to spend on work and production in Canada), the government also revealed that companies will be asked to show how they plan to meet certain security requirements.
> 
> Specifically, companies will have until September to explain how they plan to ensure their aircraft can comply with the standards required for handling top-secret intelligence from two security networks in which Canada takes part, called “Five Eyes” and “Two Eyes.”
> 
> The “Five Eyes” network comprises Canada, the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. “Two Eyes” is just Canada and the U.S. and is essential for co-operating in the defence of North America.
> 
> Meeting those requirements will pose different challenges for the four plane models that are expected to square off to replace the CF-18s, with the U.S.-made Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing Super Hornet already fully compliant.
> 
> _The other two expected competitors, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen, will face a tougher time. The Typhoon, which is used by the British military, already meets Five-Eyes requirements, but neither it nor the Swedish-made Gripen meets the Two-Eyes standard_ [emphasis added].
> 
> A U.S. Embassy spokesperson in Ottawa emphasized the importance of technological connections between U.S. and Canadian forces on Friday.
> 
> “We look forward to hearing more about Canada’s plans for replacing its current CF-18 aircraft fleet with next-generation aircraft to meet Canada’s ongoing military commitments over the coming decades,” Joseph Crook said by email. “We continue to believe in the importance of NATO and NORAD interoperability as a crucial component of Canada’s acquisition of defence assets.”
> 
> Crook said the U.S. hopes its plane manufacturers will get to compete in a fair process.
> 
> Finn acknowledged in an interview Friday that both European contenders will have some work to do.
> 
> He revealed for the first time that U.S. certification will be required before new aircraft can plug into the two security networks, but he said that will be years away and have no bearing on which plane replaces the CF-18s. He said the Canadian military has in the past bought non-U.S. equipment that needed to be modified to meet American security requirements, such as radios and sensors for ships and drones.
> 
> However, industry sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because of a federal gag order on those involved in the fighter project, say there are fears the U.S. could use the security requirements to block Canada from buying a non-American plane.
> 
> Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said those concerns are completely justified given the Trump administration’s penchant for using whatever means necessary to get foreign countries to buy U.S. products [_I doubt this has anything specific to do with Trump--all sorts of people in US military and gov't must have had it up to..._].
> 
> “Ultimately, those aircraft have to plug into American systems, so the American government is going to have play some kind of role,” he said of whatever new fighter jet Canada buys.
> 
> “And the concern the Europeans have is whether or not that effectively gives the Americans a veto over us buying their aircraft.”
> 
> While unable to rule out the risk entirely, Finn said officials in Washington have consistently said they are open to Canada buying a non-U.S. plane as long as it can meet the security requirements.
> 
> “The consistent answer we’ve gotten back is: ‘As long as you meet the criteria, over to you. And we are not going to tell you that a third-party cannot bid. We are telling you obviously it will have to meet our standards and the approach.’ ”
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-new-canadian-fighter-jets-will-need-us-certification-dnd-2/



FUBAR.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

I am surprised ADM(Mat) came out and publically said the European contenders have “some work to do”.


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Letting F-35A into the competition but making getting points tougher:
> 
> Is gov't basically saying to US/LockheedMartin: "You're scoring out of 80 points while others (Boeing, Airbus, Saab) are scoring out of 100?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



That's not necessarily an accurate interpretation, Mark.  The case could be made that the value that Canadian aerospace industry gets from the overall share of JSF supply chain participation has _de facto_ ITB value...especially if, as it would seem to be by public record, results in more industry revenue than governmental monies provided through JSF MOU payments.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Iron 1

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That's not necessarily an accurate interpretation, Mark.  The case could be made that the value that Canadian aerospace industry gets from the overall share of JSF supply chain participation has _de facto_ ITB value...especially if, as it would seem to be by public record, results in more industry revenue than governmental monies provided through JSF MOU payments.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G


Agreed. The potential value over the entire life of the program is an intangible, but given the close integration of our native  industries (that are already well into the program at this point) and their geographic location (relative to the main assembly point), it would be academic to assume that we will see more than enough "offsets" over the life of the program.
Also? It's safe to assume that due to the above factors, there is a rather high probability that we may see a _substantial increase_ in sub-contracts awarded to the Canadian aviation industry...once we sign a purchase order.

Thoughts?


----------



## Good2Golf

Iron 1 said:
			
		

> Agreed. The potential value over the entire life of the program is an intangible, but given the close integration of our native  industries (that are already well into the program at this point) and their geographic location (relative to the main assembly point), it would be academic to assume that we will see more than enough "offsets" over the life of the program.
> Also? It's safe to assume that due to the above factors, there is a rather high probability that we may see a _substantial increase_ in sub-contracts awarded to the Canadian aviation industry...once we sign a purchase order.
> 
> Thoughts?



Possibly, particularly given concerns over current major suppliers like Turkey, as it appears to include significant elements of non-NATO defence technology into it's national security infrastructure (S-400 Air Defence, etc.)

For those wondering how Canadian industry could (continue to) benefit from ongoing participation and furthermore, investment (acquisition within) the JSF program, the overall framework of Industrial Technological Benefits (ITB) and elements of them, including determination of the Value Proposition (VP) of any particular program, and its alignment with Canadian industrial Key Industrial Capability (KIC) areas, is worth a quick read.  (Ref: ISED Canada - Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy: Value Proposition Guide - Rev. 31 May 2018).

The irony is that through signing on to the JSP Program as a (Tier 3) participating nation through a succession of MOUs and providing participation funding to the Program, the Government of Canada itself has created an  Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Management Plan consistent with its very own ITB/VP Policy, to which we know numerous companies in Canada's aerospace and defence electronics sectors are participating. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Uzlu said:
			
		

> I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are still interested in putting in a bid.  I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing appear not to have realised that the deck is stacked against them.  Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?  Trudeau’s ego is always more important than the Royal Canadian Air Force.



Lockheed would dearly like to keep Canada in the program as we provide reliable, high quality and nearby part supply with minimal transportation hassles. If Canada was suddenly kicked out and lost those contract, i suspect you see all sorts of part shortages for awhile and possibly higher prices (parts made with Canadian production costs will be lower than US due to currency exchange.


----------



## MarkOttawa

In the end getting a very capable for NORAD is all about "defence against help":



> The U.S. needs to be a key part of Canada’s next-gen jet procurement process
> 
> _Elinor Sloan, professor of international relations in the department of political science at Carleton University, is a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute._
> 
> For a bid to buy a plane designed to cut quickly through the skies, Ottawa’s pursuit of a future-generation fighter jet has been a long and torturous slog.
> 
> In 1997, Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, a U.S.-led initiative conceived as a new way for allies to work together to design, develop and produce a fifth-generation fighter aircraft. In 2006, Ottawa signed a formal memorandum of understanding that gave Canada and the other eight partner nations the exclusive right to compete for contracts to produce such aircraft and, since 2007, Canadian companies have won more than US$1.3-billion in defence contracts related to the Joint Strike Fighter. With a production line that will be operating at full capacity starting this year, and is expected to produce about 10 times as many aircraft as exist today over the next few decades, this number promises to grow substantially.
> 
> Meanwhile, Canada’s nearly 40-year-old fleet of fighter jets – the CF-18s – continues to age. In 2010, the Harper government shelved its plan to sole-source buy the Joint Strike Fighter to replace them after a public outcry and a damning auditor-general’s report that found significant weaknesses in the process used by the Department of National Defence.
> 
> Then, when the Liberals took office in 2015 and promised an open and fair competition to replace the CF-18s, it also banned the F-35 from bidding – two contradictory positions. The Trudeau government quietly dropped that ban last year, and pre-qualified four companies to bid on a contract worth at least $15-billion: Sweden’s Saab Gripen, Britain’s Airbus Eurofighter, the U.S.'s Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, and yes, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
> 
> According to letters released last week, though, the U.S. government threatened to pull the Lockheed Martin F-35 from consideration last year over Ottawa’s insistence that Canada receive industrial benefits from the winning bid. In response, Ottawa relaxed its requirement Thursday: where bidders once had to commit to spend 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment in Canada, bids will now only lose points in a three-category scoring system in the review process, instead.
> 
> With such exhausting twists and incompatible statements, it’s little surprise that it took three and a half years of the government’s four-year mandate just to get to the formal request-for-proposal stage.
> 
> But there is a way out of this morass: pursuing a back-to-basics focus on why we need this aircraft and what we need it to do.
> 
> To do so, we must focus the proposed jets’ promised technical capabilities, which are paramount, and rightly weighted the highest of that three-category scoring system. The second category is cost, which of course important to any government. The third is creating and sustaining a highly skilled work force within our own borders, a goal enshrined in Canada’s industrial trade benefits (ITB) policy, which requires a winning bid to guarantee it will make investments in Canada equal to the value of the contract. Each bid is scored by these three categories, weighed 60-20-20, respectively.
> 
> However, the Joint Strike Fighter program, which Canada has spent millions to join, does not fit neatly into the ITB policy. In those letters last year, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin pointed out that Canada’s ITB terms are inconsistent with – and indeed prohibited by – the memorandum of understanding Canada signed in 2006, which says partners cannot impose industrial compensation measures. The solution reached on Thursday allows that memorandum to be obeyed, but since Canada will still give higher grades to bids that follow its ITB policy, questions remain as to whether the playing field has really been levelled.
> 
> All this is important because of the growing competition between the major powers. Russian bombers and fighters, for example, are increasingly testing the boundaries of Canadian and U.S. airspace. More than ever, the focus needs to be interoperability with the U.S., working together on NORAD and helping NATO allies in Europe. As a flying command-and-control platform, rather than a mere fighter, Canada’s next-generation jet must work with the U.S.'s most sophisticated systems, and include a seamless and secure communications capability – that is a critical and non-negotiable criterion. Indeed, as DND has said, the United States will need to certify the winning jet meets Washington’s security standards.
> 
> Some may question the federal government’s decision to relax the ITB rules, and to grant this certification sign-off. But whatever Canada buys must be able to address threats to us and to our allies until well into the 2060s. Our relationship with the United States, both in terms of geopolitics and military technology, is crucial. Despite our trade tête-à-tête, the United States remains our most important strategic partner. _Canada can either take an active part in our own security or leave it to the United States_ [emphasis added].
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-us-needs-to-be-a-key-part-of-canadas-next-gen-jet-procurement/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

Say no more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadians-should-be-scandalized-by-the-liberals-fighter-jet-debacle

“Richard Shimooka: The government holds the security of its citizens in near-total disregard, and the public barely raises an eyebrow”


----------



## Spencer100

Boeing bidding F-18D Block III  

https://defence-blog.com/news/boeing-offered-super-hornet-block-iii-fighters-to-canada.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

And offering 100% benefits:



> Boeing Commits to 100 Per Cent Industrial and Technological Benefits (Itb) Obligation
> http://www.boeing.ca/media/news-releases/2019/may/boeing-commits-to-100-per-cent-itb-obligation.page



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Boeing bidding F-18D Block III
> 
> https://defence-blog.com/news/boeing-offered-super-hornet-block-iii-fighters-to-canada.html



So weird question but why is there no F-15? Or perhaps more importantly why was it never part of the conversation?  What makes the F-18 so much more obvious a choice over the F-15 (which is also in the Boeing inventory).


----------



## dapaterson

You'd have to ask Boeing why they would offer one platform over another in their inventory.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Underway said:
			
		

> So weird question but why is there no F-15? Or perhaps more importantly why was it never part of the conversation?  What makes the F-18 so much more obvious a choice over the F-15 (which is also in the Boeing inventory).



Boeing doesn’t need Canada’s business to keep the F-15X line open.  It does for the Super Hornet (especially Block 3).


----------



## MTShaw

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Boeing doesn’t need Canada’s business to keep the F-15X line open.  It does for the Super Hornet (especially Block 3).



That’s not true.  The US Navy is rebuilding block 2s and buying new Block 3s. It only has 10 orders thus far for it’s F-15ex.


----------



## MarkOttawa

I think the problem with the F-15EX is that the Super Hornet is one of four fighters that were "pre-qualified" by the gov't last year to enter the competition (Rafale also was in but Dassault pulled it).  Presumably the gov't would have to agree to do the same for the new Eagle. That would just slow things down yet again.



> Ottawa releases draft tender on purchase of new fighter jets
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airforce-cf18-fighter-jet-replacement-f35-1.4882570
> 
> European fighter-jet manufacturer pulls out of Canadian competition to replace CF-18s
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-european-fighter-jet-manufacturer-pulls-out-of-canadian-competition-to/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

MTShaw said:
			
		

> That’s not true.  The US Navy is rebuilding block 2s and buying new Block 3s. It only has 10 orders thus far for it’s F-15ex.



The F-15SA is considered F-15X.  What I told you came from people in the know (ie: Boeing).


----------



## MTShaw

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The F-15SA is considered F-15X.  What I told you came from people in the know (ie: Boeing).



Fair enough, good sir. Thanks for the info.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Fair enough, good sir. Thanks for the info.



Just some amplification.

Boeing secured $50B+ already in contracts for the F-15SA/QA/X and only $4B for the Super Hornet Block 3.  The money for Boeing isn’t with the US Armed Forces but with foreign governments.  They want and need to secure the Block 3 line.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Still need full House plus Senate, doubt there will be problems:



> F-15EX could be delivered as early as 2020: Boeing
> ...
> House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee [controlled by Democrats] included $986 million in a draft FY2020 budget for eight F-15EX aircraft to replace aging F-15C/Ds...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-15ex-could-be-delivered-as-early-as-2020-boeing-458168/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Harrigan

Of the main competitors (even including the F-15X), how do they stack up in terms of the need for new infrastructure, particularly in the north?  

I think that is an underreported issue with the whole new fighter project - most commentators focus on the cost of the aircraft and maintenance, and not the cost of new infrastructure necessary to operate them (possible longer runways, new FOLs, new AAR platforms, new security systems, etc).  I would imagine that some of the aircraft would fit into our existing sites better than others?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Of the main competitors (even including the F-15X), how do they stack up in terms of the need for new infrastructure, particularly in the north?
> 
> I think that is an underreported issue with the whole new fighter project - most commentators focus on the cost of the aircraft and maintenance, and not the cost of new infrastructure necessary to operate them (possible longer runways, new FOLs, new AAR platforms, new security systems, etc).  I would imagine that some of the aircraft would fit into our existing sites better than others?



My best guess is that the infrastructure bill is an approximate wash, regardless of the aircraft chosen. Others who have recently been to Cold Lake can probably attest that most everything there (building-wise) was built in the 1950s and is at the end of its life. The Physical security requirements will increase, dramatically.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Of the main competitors (even including the F-15X), how do they stack up in terms of the need for new infrastructure, particularly in the north?
> 
> I think that is an underreported issue with the whole new fighter project - most commentators focus on the cost of the aircraft and maintenance, and not the cost of new infrastructure necessary to operate them (possible longer runways, new FOLs, new AAR platforms, new security systems, etc).  I would imagine that some of the aircraft would fit into our existing sites better than others?



We had an extended discussion of this a page earlier.


----------



## suffolkowner

https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance-repair-overhaul/hangars-future-will-have-much-different-needs

https://sldinfo.com/2012/10/hangar-80-at-yuma-air-station-a-building-block-for-f-35-global-presence/

https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/focus-on-military-readiness-means-more-construction-work-on-military-bases

I didn't really see much up thread on the infrastructure costs but the above give some idea at the costs and differences in design requirements. I had a really good article that explained how the pits and electrical design integration worked from the aspect of the whole building down to the maintainer-I'll keep looking for it

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/defense/article/10943391/how-to-supply-power-and-air-for-the-f35

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2018/01/25/Harper-awarded-1279M-for-F-35-hangar-in-San-Diego/4311516892143/

https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2b1ed75-dc16-447a-a878-b8670edb674d&subId=254100


----------



## Quirky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My best guess is that the infrastructure bill is an approximate wash, regardless of the aircraft chosen. Others who have recently been to Cold Lake can probably attest that most everything there (building-wise) was built in the 1950s and is at the end of its life. The Physical security requirements will increase, dramatically.



Anyone still in cold lake can look through the main shared drive folder (can’t remember if it’s J or otherwise) and find the next gen fighter PowerPoint folder. In there it has proposed locations for new hangars and support infrastructure in both Cold lake and Bagotville. Both locations aren’t hurting for space to build new buildings.


----------



## MilEME09

I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?



At the current rate we’re going in obtaining a new fighter........I kinda doubt it


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?



Well by comparison the F35 hangar in Miramar broke ground in Mar 2018 and is scheduled to be completed by Jan 2020. So figure around two-three years for one in cold lake taking winter into account.


----------



## Uzlu

> However, application of the current Industrial and Technological Benefits policy and the measure of points awarded for the economic offset portion in the Request For Proposal appears to undermine the primacy of meeting military needs. Thus, leading to the spectre of the Liberal government’s promise that “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber” becoming a reality through other policy means.


https://www.cgai.ca/anatomy_of_a_buy_the_four_dimensions_of_procuring_a_future_fighter_for_canada#Executive


----------



## Uzlu

> Rival fighter-jet makers warn procurement rule change for F-35 will hurt Canada
> 
> OTTAWA — The Trudeau government's plan to loosen federal procurement rules for the F-35 stealth fighter is sparking public warnings from other fighter-jet makers that it will ultimately hurt Canada.
> 
> The Liberals revealed earlier this month that they plan to ease industrial requirements for aerospace companies in the $19-billion competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s with 88 new fighter jets.
> 
> The government would essentially lift a long-standing requirement that companies bidding on major defence contracts make contractual commitments to spending some of the proceeds on Canadian goods and labour or have their bids tossed out.
> 
> The proposal followed U.S. complaints the criteria violated an agreement Canada signed in 2006 to become one of nine partner countries in the development of the F-35, which is being built by Lockheed Martin.
> 
> Yet executives from two of Lockheed's rivals, Boeing and Saab, came out swinging against the plan on Wednesday, saying the previous policy has worked well — and that changing it could shortchange taxpayers and Canada's aerospace industry.
> 
> "You've got a policy that's been in place for decades and it's been very successful for Canadian industry," said Jim Barnes, director of business development in Canada for Boeing, which builds the Super Hornet fighter jet.
> 
> "So why would you deviate from a policy that's been so successful to accommodate a competitor?"
> 
> Those lost benefits to the industry could also damage the military's ability to operate whatever fighter jet wins the competition, said Patrick Palmer, executive vice-president of Swedish firm Saab, which builds the Gripen fighter.
> 
> "I am concerned both as a Saab executive and also as a Canadian taxpayer that the changes ... may not give Canada the best ability to support and sustain the equipment for the life that we need to be able to support it," he said.
> 
> The two, who spoke in separate briefings on the sidelines of the annual Cansec arms-trade show in Ottawa, stopped short of saying the government's proposal will unfairly tilt the upcoming competition in the F-35's favour.
> 
> But they did make clear that they had voiced their concerns to the government and were waiting to see how it responded — which could have an impact on whether their companies decide to bid.
> 
> "Our position right now is we're going to review the final (request for proposals) and we're going to make that determination," said Palmer. "We have not committed one way or the other."
> 
> Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains insisted during a lunchtime discussion at the Cansec show the government would be able to balance the military's requirements with the need for a fair competition while at the same time "maximizing economic benefits."
> 
> "These are the principles that have been guiding our decisions," he said.
> 
> U.S. officials had threatened not to enter the F-35 into the competition if the industrial-requirement rules weren't changed, noting that under the partnership agreement signed in 2006, companies in each member country instead compete for work.
> 
> The threat was contained in one of two letters sent to the government last year and published in a report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank earlier this month.
> 
> Canada has contributed more than $500 million over the past 20 years toward developing the F-35, while Canadian companies have won $1.5 billion in contracts associated with the plane. Canada will also be able to buy the plane for less than non-member countries.
> 
> Under the new process, bidders can still guarantee that they will re-invest back into Canada if their jet wins the competition and get full points — which is the likely approach for Boeing, Saab and Eurofighter, which build the Typhoon.
> 
> Those like Lockheed Martin that can't make such a commitment will be penalized and asked to establish "industrial targets," lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them.
> 
> The government has said it plans to launch the long-overdue formal competition to select Canada's next fighter jet in July, nearly four years after the Liberals were elected in 2015 on a promise to hold an immediate competition.
> 
> Companies are expected to submit their bids next winter, with a formal contract signed in 2022. The first plane won't arrive until at least 2025.


https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/05/29/rival-fighter-jet-makers-warn-procurement-rule-change-for-f-35-will-hurt-canada/#.XO-nsS0ZPUK



> A senior government official, speaking on background Wednesday, said the intention once the bids are in will be to narrow down the contenders to two before deciding on a winner.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-sajjan-july-1.5153959


----------



## FSTO

The Government is really kicking this can down the road!


----------



## Quirky

So what happens to the CF-18s, will they be sold off eventually or sent to sticks in small Canadian towns?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note offsets suggested by Airbus, Saab--want to bet Bombardier would not be involved?



> Airbus open to a fighter plane assembly plant in Quebec ahead of federal bids
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/airbus-open-to-a-fighter-plane-assembly-plant-in-quebec-ahead-of-federal-bids-1.4253284



And Saab says:



> ...
> Canadian participation could also include some production and assembly processes, but the full Gripen offer and its industrial participation element have yet to be finalised. Saab is, however, "in active dialogue with Canadian industry"...
> https://www.janes.com/article/88850/designed-for-the-future-cs19d1



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:
			
		

> So what happens to the CF-18s, will they be sold off eventually or sent to sticks in small Canadian towns?



Why not both?


----------



## Dale Denton

From CANSEC 2019.

Saab wants to build the Gripen in Quebec.
https://www.janes.com/article/88850/designed-for-the-future-cs19d1


Also:
*Hungary May Scrap Swedish Jet Deal for US F-35 Over War of Words - Report*


> Hungary is considering scrapping its lease agreement for Jas 39 Gripen and replacing the 14 Swedish fighter jets with US-made F-35, which may cost Sweden billions of kronor and thousands of job opportunities, the Swedish news outlet Fria Tider reported.
> 
> The bilateral lease agreement is now at stake over Sweden's "constant smear campaign" against the Hungarian government. Specifically, Hungary is considering replacing the lease agreement with a $1 billion deal with US firm Lockheed Martin. The choice is between the latest model of the F-16 or the fifth generation F-35. Sweden's future on the Hungarian defence market currently looks gloomy.




http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/203053/hungary-may-scrap-gripen-lease-over-war-of-words-_-report.html


I can see the political win here. If Saab won, they'd probably offer up a nice deal on those 14 Gripen's to us (for training, familiarity) until we got the line up and running in Quebec. The cost per airframe, etc.. would be irrelevant if they were built here, judging from our procurement history over the past few decades?

Wouldn't it be embarrasing for us if Hungary bought 5th Generation F-35s while we buy 4th-ish Gen Gripens though?


----------



## dimsum

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be embarrasing for us if Hungary bought 5th Generation F-35s while we buy 4th-ish Gen Gripens though?



I think "embarrassing" went out the window when we decided to scrap 5th-gen F-35s for 4th-gen Super Hornets, then nothing at all.


----------



## Iron 1

Or "less" than nothing. 
Which is the ridiculous "Capability Gap" rhetoric and the Liberal's answer of flushing $1B (on bagged airframes & spare parts from the RAAF) down the toilet (for the sake of "optics"), in support of the facade they created two years ago.

NUTS.
Grrrr.


----------



## Quirky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Why not both?



Strip them clean and send them off as Snowbird replacements? 



			
				LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I can see the political win here. If Saab won, they'd probably offer up a nice deal on those 14 Gripen's to us (for training, familiarity) until we got the line up and running in Quebec. The cost per airframe, etc.. would be irrelevant if they were built here, judging from our procurement history over the past few decades



Would create jobs, for a few years at least, then after they are built ("built" likely only means to "assemble" as the modules built elsewhere), bye bye. All these flashy "Built in Canada" headlines are just BS to entice the clueless majority Canadian public. Once they are *assembled* in Canada all the jobs will be gone the way of GM as the line shuts down. Compare that to the JSF program where Canadian companies have been building components for a decade now... https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation


----------



## YZT580

From Flight Global, perhaps a freudian slip?
Beyond Europe, Canada and Singapore are interested in buying the F-35. Singapore plans to buy four examples initially to test, with the option to buy eight more. Canada is one of the original nine partner nations in the Joint Strike Fighter development programme, but has dithered over buying the aircraft. Quebec is expected to release a request for proposals for 88 advanced fighters as part of its Future Fighter programme in mid-2019.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is nuts--rating the strike mission as 3.5 times more valuable than NORAD one, which is the only crucial, non-discretionary role of RCAF fighers:



> Canada puts premium on fighter jets’ ability to conduct attacks on foreign soil
> 
> The federal government’s plan to buy new fighter jets puts greater emphasis on the aircraft’s ability to conduct “strategic attacks” in foreign countries than their capacity to defend Canada and North America from enemy incursions, government documents show.
> 
> The _importance awarded to the new aircraft’s offensive and first-strike capabilities abroad, rather than their defensive capabilities in places such as the Arctic, is causing concerns among some companies_ [emphasis added] in the running for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada’s CF-18s, industry sources said.
> 
> In particular, some manufacturers have told the government they are worried the process will end up favouring the Lockheed-Martin F-35 at the expense of bids from the Boeing Super Hornet, Saab’s Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is built by a consortium led by Airbus. The industry sources who spoke about the matter were granted anonymity because federal rules prevent them from speaking publicly.
> 
> Federal officials said they are aware of the concerns from various aircraft manufacturers and that government experts are reviewing the evaluation grid. The government is planning to launch the competition for new fighter jets by the end of July.
> 
> “We are continuing to have discussions with the companies,” said Pat Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at National Defence.
> 
> He added that 80 per cent of the technical requirements are related to NORAD and NATO operations, while the rest are needed to be able to respond to government missions in hot spots around the world. “We’re in a good spot for a competition,” he said.
> 
> Canada’s defence policy, which was released in 2017, made it clear that the priority for the new fighter jets would be defending the country’s territory.
> 
> “The fighter aircraft fleet is a critical Canadian Armed Forces capability necessary to enforce Canada’s sovereignty, enable continental security, and contribute to international peace and stability,” the policy said.
> 
> David Perry, a military analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the acquisition process to this point gives the impression that foreign missions are more important than domestic ones.
> 
> “At the high level, the optics of the way it is presented aren’t very good at all,” he said.
> 
> The federal government’s assessment grid for the new fighter jets is based on an evaluation of all requirements worth a total of 100 points, with 60 points going to technical capabilities, 20 points to the acquisition and sustainment costs, and 20 points to the package of industrial benefits. The government has shared its draft evaluation grid with potential bidders, a copy of which was provided to The Globe and Mail.
> 
> Of the 60 points going to technical requirements, 31.5 points are based on the aircraft’s performance on six potential missions: conducting NORAD operations, intercepting a foreign aircraft carrying a cruise missile, carrying missions against maritime targets, detecting and attacking foreign aircraft such as enemy fighter jets, providing “close air support” in an attack against targets on foreign soil and participating in a “strategic attack” against a foreign country.
> 
> _The first two missions, which are seen to be domestic in nature, are worth a total of 3.5 points. By contrast, the mission worth the most points (12 out of 31.5, or nearly 40 per cent of the points in this category) is the one based on an aircraft’s ability to conduct a first-strike “strategic attack” in a foreign country_ [emphasis added], which is known to be a forte of the F-35.
> 
> The evaluation grid has led some companies to complain to the government that the process favoured the F-35 at the expense of their aircraft, industry and government sources said.
> 
> Following complaints from the American government, the federal government changed last month the way it will evaluate the 20 points related to industrial benefits. Under a new process, Ottawa will no longer force all bidders to commit 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment on spending in Canada. Instead, manufacturers will lose points in the scoring system if they do not make this commitment, but they will still be allowed to remain in the competition
> 
> Before the changes were made, the F-35 could have been automatically disqualified because the international consortium that builds the aircraft doesn’t allow for the provision of traditional industrial benefits.
> 
> Of the 20 points that are attributed to the cost of the new aircraft, 10 are determined based on the acquisition costs and 10 are determined based on the sustainment of the aircraft after their purchase.
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-puts-premium-on-fighter-jets-ability-to-conduct-attacks-on/



And what about ability to shoot down cruise missiles after launch? Hell, let the F-15EX into the competition.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Because historical we are an expeditionary force.


----------



## AlexanderM

I thought most here want the F-35, so it would be good news for the F-35.


----------



## MTShaw

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I thought most here want the F-35, so it would be good news for the F-35.



They’d have to develop (hopefully) stealthy drop tanks.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And find a way to carry a whole lot more missiles internally to be able to have real combat NORAD air intercept capability in stealth mode--if stealth is necessary for that mission for now (but what about fighter-escorted Russkie bombers, maybe Su-57 eventually?).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Particularly with modern stand off weapons, you need to intercept them in the high arctic to prevent them from getting into weapons range.


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And find a way to carry a whole lot more missiles internally to be able to have real combat NORAD air intercept capability in stealth mode--if stealth is necessary for that mission for now (but what about fighter-escorted Russkie bombers, maybe Su-57 eventually?).
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



“Real” capability?   I didn’t know four (4) AIM-120 AMRAAMs was not a real capability.  Anyway, technology exists to increase the AIM-120 load out to six (6): https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/amp27347465/f-35-missile-increase/

This compares to zero (0) stealthy-stowed missiles on any other contender...mathematically, this makes the F-35 ‘infinitely’ better. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor

There does not seem to be any reason that the stealthy "pod" featured on the Advanced Super Hornet concept aircraft (which allows stealth carriage of either external fuel or weapons) could not be adapted for the F-35, answering most objections.


----------



## Kirkhill

Might could be a bit difficult to launch G2G's AMRAAMs from the internal weapons bay with that thing attached.  

But I'm no expert.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Might could be a bit difficult to launch G2G's AMRAAMs from the internal weapons bay with that thing attached.
> 
> But I'm no expert.   ;D



The weapons in the pod would be expended first, then the pod dropped to reveal the internal bay. This way you always fly with the wings in a "clean" configuration, and don't excessively increase the RCS by carrying underwing stores.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The almost never-ending farce plays on. This FUBAR procurement (both big parties) is making Canada an international joke:



> Exclusive: Airbus, Boeing indicate they may pull out of Canada fighter jet race - sources
> 
> Airbus SE and Boeing Co may pull out of a bidding process to supply Canada with new fighter jets because they say the contest is unfairly tilted toward Lockheed Martin Corp, two sources with direct knowledge of the situation said on Monday [July 8].
> 
> The three companies competing with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet have already complained about the way the contest is being run, and expressed concern some of the specifications clearly favor the U.S. firm, industry sources have said in recent weeks.
> 
> Next week the government is due to release the so-called request for proposals - the final list of requirements - for the 88 new planes it wants to buy. The contract is worth between C$15 billion ($11.5 billion) and C$19 billion and the planes are due to be delivered between 2025 and the early 2030s.
> 
> Boeing and Airbus have now formally written to Ottawa expressing concerns about the current requirements, said two sources familiar with the matter who declined to be identified given the sensitivity of the situation. The fourth bidder is Sweden’s Saab AB.
> 
> Pat Finn, the defense ministry’s top official in charge of procurement, confirmed one of the four companies had sent a formal letter but gave no details. The final request for proposals is due out on July 17 and modifications are still being considered, he said.
> 
> “We continue to engage all four of them,” he said in a telephone interview. “We have had some comments (such as) ‘If changes are not made in such a place then we would frankly consider possibly not bidding.’”
> 
> “We are looking at those very seriously. I can’t say that we will make every change, but as far as we know we continue to have four bidders in the race.”
> 
> Airbus declined to comment. Boeing did not respond to a request for comment.
> 
> Canada has been trying unsuccessfully for almost a decade to buy replacements for its aging F-18 fighters. In May, Ottawa changed the rules to allow Lockheed Martin to submit a bid, prompting Boeing to take the unusual step of announcing publicly it was surprised.
> 
> “Anyone who is not Lockheed Martin has expressed a very strong view,” said one of the sources. “We have been pretty clear with the government that this is not a request for proposals that lends to our participation.”
> 
> At least one firm has expressed unhappiness that the requirements emphasize the ability to carry out first strikes on targets abroad, a strength of the F-35, said the sources.
> 
> The government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau insists the competition is not rigged. Finn said the defense ministry also had made changes to the requirements at the request of Boeing, Airbus and Saab.
> 
> Canada is part of the international consortium that developed the F-35. The former Conservative administration said in 2010 it would buy 65 of the jets but later scrapped the decision, triggering years of delays.
> 
> Trudeau came to power in 2015 vowing not to buy the F-35 on the grounds that it was too costly, but Ottawa has since softened its line.
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-fighterjets-exclusive/exclusive-airbus-boeing-indicate-they-may-pull-out-of-canada-fighter-jet-race-sources-idUSKCN1U32EX



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

🤦‍♂️ It’s downright embarrassing.


----------



## BurmaShave

Boeing can take their Congressman tricker and kick rocks IMO. Between the Bombardier rubbish, the 737 Max crashes, and the persistent QC issues, they're not in my good books.

The requirements are stilted in favour of the F-35 for sure...because it's a competition to select the best aircraft. If we water it down with long term cost, Canadian content, or industry benefits (which we will and maybe even should), those odds will change.


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Airbus SE and Boeing Co may pull out of a bidding process to supply Canada with new fighter jets because they say the contest is unfairly tilted toward Lockheed Martin Corp...


Yet when PMJT was elected on the promise that the F-35 would simply be disallowed from any competition, I didn't hear them saying that _that_  was in any way unfair.  
Cry me a river.   :'(


However, in May the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published an interesting assessment from Richard Shimooka, "Catastrophe:  Assessing the Damage from Canada’s Fighter Replacement Fiasco."


> ...Ottawa’s performance on this file mirrors the SNC-Lavalin Scandal and the Mark Norman Affair.  “At their heart, these two incidents represent attempts by the Liberal government to circumvent established processes to meet their partisan interests,” Shimooka explains. “This description is just as apt for the fighter program.”
> 
> “During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party promised not to buy the F-35 jets, but instead to use a competition to identify and subsequently purchase a lower-cost competitor… this decision proved to be impossible, unethical, and potentially illegal.”
> 
> From billions of dollars being wasted on a procurement process to fix a contrived capability gap to potentially threatening Canada’s defence relationship with the US, the report finds that political interests have consistently been put above Canada’s defence needs.



The press release that covers the report's key issues is here.

The full report is here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

BurmaShave said:
			
		

> Boeing can take their Congressman tricker and kick rocks IMO. Between the Bombardier rubbish, the 737 Max crashes, and the persistent QC issues, they're not in my good books.
> 
> The requirements are stilted in favour of the F-35 for sure...because it's a competition to select the best aircraft. If we water it down with long term cost, Canadian content, or industry benefits (which we will and maybe even should), those odds will change.



Boeing would be better off arguing to have the 30% FMS cost done away with so it can compete with the F-35 on a more level playing field.


----------



## MarkOttawa

How much for 88 planes at Cold Lake and Bagotville? Big security requirements upgrade?



> Belgium Spending €275 Million On F-35 Infrastructure
> 
> Belgium has begun tendering for new infrastructure worth up to €275 million ($308 million) to support its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet.
> 
> Because Brussels wants to base its 34 F-35As across two air bases, Florennes and Kleine Brogel, two sets of facilities will be required. This will include facilities for operational planning, mission preparation and training infrastructure, each with four flight simulators and hangarage for maintenance facilities for six aircraft. The costs also cover the building of new flight lines and 16 covered aircraft shelters. Also stemming from these funds is a so-called quick reaction alert facility to support the national air policing mission operating on a 24 hr.-a-day, 365-day-a-year basis.
> 
> The tender issued on July 3 is separate from the wider F-35 Foreign Military Sale which Brussels agreed to last October. The _documents also provide insight into the security requirements demanded by the U.S. Department of Defense for nations operating the fifth-generation aircraft, calling for the new facilities to be enclosed and equipped with intrusion detection and alarms_ [emphasis added]. Belgian ministers have already approved plans to recruit additional personnel to guard the aircraft. On several occasions, protesters have broken into the Kleine Brogel base over the housing of U.S. dual-key nuclear weapons there.
> 
> The _new F-35 facilities must be approved and certified to U.S. government standards, the tender documents say, and the selected company or contractors will have to hold national security clearances and be vetted by the U.S. State Department_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Florennes will be the first of the two airbases to receive the F-35, with construction work starting in the second quarter of 2022, while work at Kleine Brogel will begin in the first quarter of 2024.
> 
> This development is in line with the delivery profile for Belgium’s aircraft. The first  F-35will be based in the U.S. from 2023 to support training, likely at Luke AFB, Arizona, similar to the activities of other F-35 operators. Four or five F-35s will be delivered in 2023, officials say, and the aircraft will arrive in batches of four from 2024-2028 and in 2030. A batch of five aircraft will be delivered in 2029. The first F-35 will not be based in Belgium until 2025.
> https://aviationweek.com/defense/belgium-spending-275-million-f-35-infrastructure



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> 🤦‍♂️ It’s downright embarrassing.



In this case, it’s embarrassing that Boeing and Airbus are whining that they can’t compete with reasonable requirements like “conducting bombing runs in contested airspace”. They know their jets are inferior and have never beat out the F35 in any competition.


----------



## Iron 1

Quirky said:
			
		

> In this case, it’s embarrassing that Boeing and Airbus are whining that they can’t compete with reasonable requirements like “conducting bombing runs in contested airspace”. They know their jets are inferior and have never beat out the F35 in any competition.


Truth...


----------



## dimsum

Long-ish article about the requirements of the future fighter.



> The Rubik’s Cube of fighter procurement
> Posted on July 17, 2019 by Alan Stephenson
> 
> This article originally appeared in the 2019 edition of RCAF Today magazine.
> 
> Purchasing a fleet of fighter aircraft is a complex process with many variables and the Canadian government has a duty to ensure the billions of procurement dollars are properly spent. The interplay between the four dimensions involved in military procurement — military, technological, economic, and political — defies simple analysis.
> 
> _Rest at link_



https://www.skiesmag.com/features/the-rubiks-cube-of-fighter-procurement/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't actually officially starting competition before election:



> Feds expected to announce official request for CF-18 replacement jets today
> 
> The federal government is expected to announce today the official request for proposals for Canada's 88 new fighter jets to replace the aging CF-18 fleet.
> 
> The requests for proposals are set to be sent to the four suppliers in the running for the $19-billion competition—Saab, Airbus, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin— later this afternoon.
> 
> Replacing the military's existing jets—purchased in the '80s—has been a work in progress for nearly a decade, with the previous Conservative government announcing in 2010 that it had selected the Lockheed Martin F-35s for a multi-billion dollar sole-source deal. Under that plan new jets were set to be delivered by 2016 but the deal erupted in political controversy over accusations the Tories misled Parliament about the true cost of the planes.
> 
> Then, during the 2015 federal election campaign, Justin Trudeau vowed that if the Liberals formed government they would not purchase the F-35s and would instead look for a cheaper option. Though just months later Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan signalled that the F-35 would not be excluded from the "open" fighter replacement competition.
> 
> The Liberals launched the procurement process to replace the fleet in 2017, with the planned timeline of having a contract awarded in 2022, with the first aircrafts delivered in 2025.
> 
> The Liberals first said they'd be purchasing 18 Boeing Super Hornets in the interim, before backing out of that agreement amid tensions between the U.S. aerospace giant and Canadian company Bombardier. In November 2018 the government settled on procuring 18 used F-18s and up to seven additional non-flyable aircrafts for parts and training, from Australia.
> 
> The initial draft tender for these 88 new jets was issued in October 2018 and suppliers provided the federal Liberals with their recommendations for the formal invitation to these major aerospace manufacturers to submit their proposals.
> 
> Meanwhile, Canada continues to pay what has amounted to more than $500 million to remain a partner in the F-35 development program over the last 20 years.
> 
> _With files from CTV News' Michel Boyer and The Canadian Press_
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-expected-to-announce-official-request-for-cf-18-replacement-jets-today-1.4519686



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the info-machine …


> … Following extensive engagement with industry and eligible suppliers over the past 18 months, the formal Request for Proposals has now been released to eligible suppliers.
> 
> The following suppliers have until spring 2020 to submit initial proposals to Canada:
> •Sweden—SAAB AB (publ)—Aeronautics
> •United Kingdom and Northern Ireland—Airbus Defense and Space GmbH (with MBDA UK Limited, L3 Technologies MAS and CAE Canada)
> •United States—Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company) (with Pratt and Whitney)
> •United States—The Boeing Company (with Peraton Canada Corp., CAE Inc., L3 Technologies MAS Inc., GE Canada and Raytheon Canada Limited Services and Support Division)
> 
> Canada will provide two opportunities for all bidders to demonstrate that they can present a plan to meet Canada's security and interoperability requirements. The security offer is due in fall 2019, and following feedback from Canada, bidders may revise and resubmit that offer as part of the initial proposal in spring 2020 …


More @ link


----------



## The Bread Guy

And, for the record, the online RFP notice (also attached in case link doesn't work) ...


> ... Nature of Requirements:
> 
> The Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) is Canadas project to acquire 88 advanced fighter aircraft and associated equipment, training and maintenance, materiel, engineering and information system set-up and support to enable achievement of full operational capability of the new fleet. The requirement also includes weapons, sustainment tools and auxiliary equipment (purchased on an as and when requested basis) in addition to initial set-up and sustainment during transition. The scope of sustainment for the new fleet may also include some or all of the steady-state period.
> 
> Canadas Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy, including Value Proposition, is being applied to this procurement. Bidders will be required to detail how they will fulfill Canadas economic benefits requirements, including supporting jobs and growth in Canada, over the coming decades.
> 
> This procurement is subject to national security exception and is, therefore, excluded from all of the procurement obligations of the trade agreements.
> 
> SUPPLIERS LIST:
> A Suppliers List was established in February 2018 as a result of the Suppliers List Invitation (SLI).
> 
> SUPPLIERS ON THE SUPPLIERS LIST:
> Entities forming the Suppliers on the Suppliers List as of July 17, 2019 are:
> - Sweden - SAAB AB (publ) - Aeronautics
> - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Airbus Defense    and Space GmbH (with MBDA UK Limited; L3 Technologies MAS and CAE Canada)
> - United States - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company)(with Pratt & Whitney)
> - United States - The Boeing Company (with Peraton Canada Corp, CAE Inc., L3 Technologies MAS Inc., GE Canada, and Raytheon Canada Limited
> Services and Support Division.
> 
> FORMAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RELEASE
> Canada released the formal Request for Proposal (RFP) on July 23, 2019 to all eligible Suppliers on the Suppliers List on that date. In accordance with Article 1.4 of the SLI, only Suppliers on the Suppliers List at the time of the formal RFP release are invited to bid.
> 
> Delivery Date: Above-mentioned***
> 
> The Crown retains the right to negotiate with suppliers on any procurement.
> 
> Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada ...


*** - "Date closing 2020/03/30 16:00 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)"


----------



## MarkOttawa

From former Hornet pilot--somehow I doubt today's pols are willing to take such direct responsibility; and media and opposition would crucify any gov't for being so blatantly political (when all all the big procurement decisions always are, one way or another):



> *Cabinet needs to take responsibility for cleaning up the fighter procurement mess*
> 
> "With the release of the two-phased RFP on Tuesday, it is evident that the government continues to ‘game’ the procurement process by delaying the critical security and interoperability issues until after the election to maintain the pretence of an equitable process."
> 
> The attempt to purchase a new fighter just keeps getting messier and messier with suppliers threatening to pull out of the competition at one time or another.
> 
> This, of course, is all part of the strategy in shaping the request for proposal (RFP) for companies seeking to gain advantages and is a direct result of the government compelling a competition at all costs. Instead of focusing on the military requirement, government insistence on leveraging defence equipment purchases to create jobs and economic growth has become the path to a winning bid. In the last month, all four competitors have threatened to walk away knowing the consequential political fallout in an election year.
> 
> Purchasing a fleet of fighter aircraft is a complex process with many variables and the government has a duty to ensure the billions of procurement dollars required are properly spent. Although the goal is to produce an objective assessment, the interplay between the four dimensions involved in military procurement (military, technological, economic, and political) defies simple analysis. The desire to maximize economic offsets has put operational primacy, the purpose of purchasing fighter aircraft in the first place, into question and led to the current manoeuvring to influence the final RFP.
> 
> The fighters being offered represent two significant divisions. The first division is technological/sustainability, namely between fourth- and fifth-generation fighter aircraft and revolves around long-term sustainment costs and future technological adaptability. The second division is commercial/security, specifically European (Eurofighter/Gripen) versus American (F-35/Super Hornet) fighters and enmeshes national security compliance with the government’s desire for tailorable economic packages. The specifics of these divisions are important as they impact each of the four dimensions.
> 
> The government’s choice to ensure a competitive process with more than three bidders resulted in modifications to the assessment of mandatory criteria in critical operational functions in order to ensure the European platforms could qualify. This benefitted economic interests, however, the initial application of the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) policy appeared to undermine the primacy of military needs and marginalized the F-35. This led to the spectre of the Liberal government’s promise that “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber” becoming a reality through other policy means.
> 
> Consequent changes to the draft RFP to ensure the F-35 was not disadvantaged by the ITB policy resulted in the other three companies challenging the operational requirements as they perceived their advantages in the economic offset criteria disappearing, but the ITB policy still remains problematic.
> 
> With the release of the two-phased RFP yesterday, it is evident that the government continues to ‘game’ the procurement process by delaying the critical security and interoperability issues until after the election to maintain the pretence of an equitable process. There is however a way to regain control of this procurement and that is to return to the formula used in procuring the CF-18 — an objective evaluation of the platforms and a subjective decision by cabinet.
> 
> Assessment of the military and technological requirements are straightforward given the clear direction that the government provided in the defence policy statement. It is not for the suppliers to question the stated criteria but to reply with their platform capabilities. The economic dimension in the objective assessment needs to focus solely on the life-cycle costs and the platform cost/capability benefit.
> 
> The ITB economic offset assessment is subject to politicization and meddling with the stated military and technological criteria. All competitors need to state their value proposition in global terms during objective evaluation, but only two finalists should be asked to prepare a complete bid for subjective selection by those responsible and accountable to the public — cabinet.
> 
> Canadians do need a substantive return on the $20 billion allocated for the future fighter purchase, but our national security and relationship with the U.S. in both geostrategic and technological terms is fundamental. It is up to cabinet to make a subjective decision on Canada’s future fighter based on evidence supplied by an objective evaluation and subjective economic returns, not a bureaucratic formula that they can hide behind.
> 
> _Alan Stephenson is a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, holds a PhD from Carleton University, and is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces with 3,600 fighter hours flying third generation CF-104 Starfighters and fourth generation CF-18 Hornets. He has held senior appointments in National Defence Headquarters, NATO and NORAD._
> https://ipolitics.ca/2019/07/25/cabinet-needs-to-take-responsibility-for-cleaning-up-the-fighter-procurement-mess/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

F-35's coming for a visit

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/204893/f_35-returns-to-canada-this-fall-as-fighter-jet-makers-jockey-for-position.html


----------



## SupersonicMax

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> F-35's coming for a visit
> 
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/204893/f_35-returns-to-canada-this-fall-as-fighter-jet-makers-jockey-for-position.html



No.  The USAF F-35 Demonstration team is coming for a demo.  This was planned about a year and a half ago.


----------



## Spencer100

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> No.  The USAF F-35 Demonstration team is coming for a demo.  This was planned about a year and a half ago.



And it has nothing to do with marketing the plane?  Right!


----------



## Sub_Guy

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> And it has nothing to do with marketing the plane?  Right!



Right. 

The RAF Red Arrows will be touring around North America, I wonder what their agenda is?

How about our CF-18 demo team?  

It’s nothing more than a demo squad showing off their bird.  Maybe some of us want to see the latest and greatest.  As much as I love antiques, it’s always nice to see something new flying around.  

Why does everything have to be so political?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> And it has nothing to do with marketing the plane?  Right!



The F-22 came to Cold Lake last year.  Does that mean they are “marketing” the plane?


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The F-22 came to Cold Lake last year.  Does that mean they are “marketing” the plane?


Hopefully...


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hopefully...



They have no intentions of selling that to another country.  I wish.


----------



## Spencer100

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> The RAF Red Arrows will be touring around North America, I wonder what their agenda is?
> 
> How about our CF-18 demo team?
> 
> It’s nothing more than a demo squad showing off their bird.  Maybe some of us want to see the latest and greatest.  As much as I love antiques, it’s always nice to see something new flying around.
> 
> Why does everything have to be so political?



Well it is very political...sorry it just is. 

Plus those examples are very much marketing too  The Snowbirds are pure marketing for  the CAF and RCAF  to public and for recruiting.  Showing the taxpayer what they get.   One of my friends was a Snowbird and his job was PR and marketing when not flying.   The Red Arrows market the Global Great Britain brand and the RAF. 

Sorry to argue but I'm a little jaded.  Most things modern life are "marketing"  I as a do anything my first thought is "who is market for?"  "who's paying for it?"


----------



## RocketRichard

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Well it is very political...sorry it just is.
> 
> Plus those examples are very much marketing too  The Snowbirds are pure marketing for  the CAF and RCAF  to public and for recruiting.  Showing the taxpayer what they get.   One of my friends was a Snowbird and his job was PR and marketing when not flying.   The Red Arrows market the Global Great Britain brand and the RAF.
> 
> Sorry to argue but I'm a little jaded.  Most things modern life are "marketing"  I as a do anything my first thought is "who is market for?"  "who's paying for it?"


Big Snowbird fan here. Rumint is Tutors  are to be retired in next 5 years.  Zoomies: Would the Hawks be able to be a demo Sqn?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BillN

The RAF Red Arrows have been using Hawks for years, so the Snowbirds should have no issues using them.


----------



## RocketRichard

BillN said:
			
		

> The RAF Red Arrows have been using Hawks for years, so the Snowbirds should have no issues using them.


Ah yes. Good to know. Thanks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Retired AF Guy

BillN said:
			
		

> The RAF Red Arrows have been using Hawks for years, so the Snowbirds should have no issues using them.



Plus, the RCAF has been using the CT-115 Hawk as its basic jet trainer for a number of years.


----------



## Spencer100

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Plus, the RCAF has been using the CT-115 Hawk as its basic jet trainer for a number of years.



We would have to buy new ones.  We only have 18? Or so at NATO training and the other school.  Need about that for the snowbirds.  And if we have to buy new we have to a bid competition so that will take 10 plus years.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> We would have to buy new ones.  We only have 18? Or so at NATO training and the other school.  Need about that for the snowbirds.  And if we have to buy new we have to a bid competition so that will take 10 plus years.



We, the CAF, do not own the Hawks or the Harvard II.  They are owned by CAE.  And they are beat up.  Some airframes have more than 13,000 hrs of air time.  That is more than some Tutors!!!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note this:



> PARIS: Leonardo on target with M-345 trainer
> ...
> Although Rome is the sole customer for the M-345 to date, Leonardo is pursuing several campaigns with the type, including Canada and Spain, as well as undisclosed countries in Africa.
> 
> Madrid could acquire as many as 35 examples, as it replaces its fleet of 64 CASA C-101s, while Ottawa's Future Aircrew Training programme is seeking a successor to its 18 BAE Systems Hawk 115s in the 2023-2024 timeframe.
> 
> In addition, Leonardo intends to develop an armed variant of the M-345 once the trainer is qualified.
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-leonardo-on-target-with-m-345-trainer-459005/



And this from gov't on new trainer program, various services plus planes:



> Future Aircrew Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/snac-nfps/fpna_infograp-fact_infograph-eng.html



More:
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/snac-nfps/ffpn-fact-eng.html

Plus:



> Leonardo promotes the M-345 for the Canadian aerobatic team Snowbirds
> https://www.blogbeforeflight.net/2019/05/leonardo-promotes-m-345-for-canadian-aerobatic-team-snowbirds.html



This recently from Dimsum on FAcT:
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/130837/post-1578139.html#msg1578139

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

RomeoJuliet said:
			
		

> Big Snowbird fan here. Rumint is Tutors  are to be retired in next 5 years.  Zoomies: Would the Hawks be able to be a demo Sqn?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



The tutors are set to retire in 2030. Once this fighter jet replacement circus gets sorted out the snowbirds are next in the zoom zoom world.


----------



## Good2Golf

Quirky said:
			
		

> The tutors are set to retire in 2030. Once this fighter jet replacement circus gets sorted out the snowbirds are next in the zoom zoom world.



Assuming you don’t consider the Challengers to be ‘zoom zoom’... 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Cloud Cover

Seriously G2G, it wouldn’t surprise me if this gov actually thinks that sock puppet shuttles are a “Canada’s Back” display of precision military flying that no child should miss.


----------



## Spencer100

The snowbird's are most likely done after the Tutors are retired.  I would say the best is a smaller Harvard (or similar trainer) team.  I could see a flight of five part time.


----------



## RocketRichard

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The snowbird's are most likely done after the Tutors are retired.  I would say the best is a smaller Harvard (or similar trainer) team.  I could see a flight of five part time.


My hunch is a hard no on standing down Snowbirds. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OldSolduer

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The snowbird's are most likely done after the Tutors are retired.  I would say the best is a smaller Harvard (or similar trainer) team.  I could see a flight of five part time.



I don't think so, unless you have some inside info you can't share.

They have gone through this before. G2G might be able to shine some light on the inner workings of the RCAF and the Snowbirds.


----------



## Good2Golf

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I don't think so, unless you have some inside info you can't share.
> 
> They have gone through this before. G2G might be able to shine some light on the inner workings of the RCAF and the Snowbirds.



Mr. Seggie, not as tied in as I once was, but the Snowbirds steeds have been steadily diverging from a reasonably supportable platform for decades and it's only a matter of time before SARP (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2016/aerospace-systems-347.page) or son-of-SARP and their mantra of "must be interchangeable with the training fleet" becomes indeterminate, because the training fleet will be supplied by a civilian consortium and as yet unknown.  The RCAF has (not so) secretly wished for the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle to become the F-35's lead-in fighter (Korean Aerospace worked hand in hand with Lockheed during the development of the T-50) and then it would order 'a few more' T-50s for the SBs, paint them red and white, and "Presto!" new Snowbird aircraft...

For the Defence Acquisition Guide - 2016 plan below, is no more (at least publicly).  



> *Snowbird Aircraft Replacement Project*
> 
> Replace Existing Systems with Newer or Different System
> 
> Objective
> 
> To satisfy the requirement to provide the mandated Government of Canada aerobatic air demonstration capability to Canadian and North American audiences.
> 
> Requirements
> 
> This project will continue the proud tradition of Canada’s Snowbirds as an air display capability and a key recruitment tool for the Canadian Armed Forces. Snowbird Aircraft Replacement Project (SARP) is linked to the CT-114 Life Extension Beyond 2020 project and may also be linked to the solution for Future Pilot Training, which is due to replace NATO Flying Training in Canada in the 2020 period. The chosen platform must be configurable to the 431 (AD) Squadron standard, including a smoke system, luggage capability and a unique paint scheme. The platform must also be interchangeable with the training fleet to ensure the hard demands of show performances can be distributed throughout the aircraft fleet.
> 
> Preliminary Estimate
> 
> $500 million to $1.5 billion
> Anticipated Timeline
> 
> 2019 to 2020 Options Analysis
> 2022 Definition Approval
> 2020 to 2026 Implementation Approval
> 2025 Request for Proposal Release
> 2026 to 2036 Contract Award
> 2026 to 2036 Final Delivery




Now, nothing on the (public) books, and Future Aircrew Training (FAcT) in the current Defence Capabilities Blueprint has nothing noted regarding the Snowbirds.



> Future Aircrew Training
> 
> Project Type - Project Replace
> 
> Objective
> The project will develop and implement a relevant, cost-effective, flexible, and efficient aircrew training program to meet future aerospace requirements of the CAF.
> 
> Requirements
> The project must ensure a seamless transition with existing aircrew training delivered by programs like NATO Flying Training Canada, Contracted Flying Training and Support, and the training provided by 402 Squadron. The project must deliver agile and flexible courses to meet the future needs of the CAF. Aircrew standards and control of training content will be maintained by the RCAF. The training must meet the unique challenges of the Canadian environment, exploit technical advances to maintain relevant and cost effective training, and maximize simulation and emulation to create efficiencies and provide the best value for Canada. FAcT is envisioned as an acquired service contract, though the procurement strategy has yet to be finalized.
> 
> Funding Range
> $1 billion to $4.99 billion
> 
> Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)
> Completed Start Options Analysis
> 2019/2020 Start Definition
> 2022/2023 Start Implementation
> 2023/2024 Initial Delivery
> 2028/2029 Final Delivery



My guess?  CAE wins the FAcT award in 2022, and includes a "costed option" to the RCAF to provide an additional capability depth to cover the Snowbirds...

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## FSTO

If the Snowbirds are that much of priority for "Canada's BACK!" Have the Liberal Party of Canada fund the goddamn things!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good2Golf: What plane(s) likely for CAE/KF Aerospace "SkyAlyne" bid for FAcT?
https://www.janes.com/article/80419/partners-target-future-training-cansec18d1

From gov't:



> *Future Aircrew Training Program*
> ...
> *List of qualified suppliers*
> 
> On December 10, 2018, Canada established a list of qualified suppliers that demonstrated their ability to meet Canada’s needs, as defined in the Invitation to Qualify.
> 
> Here is the list of qualified suppliers (in alphabetical order):
> 
> Airbus Defence and Space
> Babcock Canada Inc.
> Leonardo Canada
> Lockheed Martin Canada Inc.
> SkyAlyne Canada Limited Partnership
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/snac-nfps/ffpn-fact-eng.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## BurmaShave

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Good2Golf: What plane(s) likely for CAE/KF Aerospace "SkyAlyne" bid for FAcT?
> https://www.janes.com/article/80419/partners-target-future-training-cansec18d1
> 
> From gov't:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



PC-21 and King Air 350 seem likely. No idea for Ph I, Ph IV/FLIT, or helo. Planes change as we juggle requirements. When the actual bidding time comes around, we'll see what they go for.

I've heard some interesting (and not the good kind of interesting) ideas from some of the players. Things like the Grob 120TP, doing FLIT on prop aircraft, and VR goggle-based sims. There was even talk of a scalable aircraft (can dial up/down the horsepower and systems for Phase I/II/II). Hopefully CAE/KF can avoid the good idea fairy, seeing as they've been delivering aircrew training for a while now and know what works.


----------



## SupersonicMax

FAcT does not include FLIT which will be a different program altogether.


----------



## BurmaShave

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> FAcT does not include FLIT which will be a different program altogether.



Yeah, but the good idea fairies were trying to explain to lil ole me how their plans for FaCT could be leveraged for Ph IV/FLIT. Nothing official, I was just a chatty student talking to tours.

Still, it struck me as weird. Especially cause they also tried to convince me the majority of my course could be delivered in the sim, which I strenuously disagreed with.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ah yes, the “our sim is so good we can do everything but the graduation ticket ride in the sim” bit.  Still hard to get some off that position and  accept its not like the commercial aviation world.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ah yes, the “our sim is so good we can do everything but the graduation ticket ride in the sim” bit.  Still hard to get some off that position and  accept its not like the commercial aviation world. 

SkyAlyne and Babcock will likely offer similar platforms since they are the incumbents in Canada and UK/France respectively. If Lockheed-Martin, I’d figure KT-1 / T-50 pairing, notwithstanding that FLIT is currently not within FAcT. King Airs and Bell product for Multi/Rotary Ph3 likely.  I doubt rotary will entertain Airbus spinning the rotor the opposite way as all the RCAF single-rotor helos. No idea where Ph.1 will go.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Dumb question: What does FLIT stand for?


----------



## Good2Golf

Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.   Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.   Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Thank You.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.   Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



As a tangent for you, when I was hiking through chunks of the Lake District, in Lancashire, last month I had a good chance to see both types of aircraft in use by, I presume, the RAF.

I'm not sure of the makes or models involved, but their turboprop plane was a pretty cool little number. During high winds you couldn't hear them coming until they were alomost overhead.


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> As a tangent for you, when I was hiking through chunks of the Lake District, in Lancashire, last month I had a good chance to see both types of aircraft in use by, I presume, the RAF.
> 
> I'm not sure of the makes or models involved, but their turboprop plane was a pretty cool little number. During high winds you couldn't hear them coming until they were alomost overhead.



RAF (or to be more accurate, Babcock under contract to the RAF) uses the Textron/Beech Texan II (T-6C) and the BAE Hawk.  Similar versions to what CAE operates for the RCAF/NFTC.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Airbus pulls out of Canada's fighter jet competition

Company claims the cost of meeting NORAD requirements was too steep


One of the companies in the race to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 jet fighters has dropped out of the competition.

Airbus Defence and Space, which was pitching the Eurofighter Typhoon, notified the Liberal government Friday that it was not going to bid.

The decision was made after a detailed review of the tender issued by the federal government in mid-July.

The move leaves only three companies in the contest: Lockheed Martin Canada with its F-35; Boeing with the Super Hornet; and Saab, which is offering an updated version of its Gripen fighter.

Simon Jacques, president of Airbus Defence and Space Canada, made a point of saying the company appreciated the professional dealings it had with defence and procurement officials.

"Airbus Defence and Space is proud of our longstanding partnership with the Government of Canada, and of serving our fifth home country's aerospace priorities for over three decades," Jacques said in a statement. "Together we continue in our focus of supporting the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, growing skilled aerospace jobs across the country and spurring innovation in the Canadian aerospace sector."

Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America.

It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make."

A controversial evaluation process

After complaints from the Trump administration, the Liberal government revised the industrial benefits portion of the tender to make it more fair to Lockheed Martin.

The changes to the evaluation process irked some competitors.

Under long-established military procurement policy, the federal government demands companies spend the equivalent of a contract's value in Canada as a way to bolster industry in this country.

The F-35 program is not structured that way. It allows Canadian companies to bid on the aircraft's global supply chain contracts.

There is, however, no guarantee that they'll get any of those contracts.

The recent revision ensures that Lockheed Martin will not be severely penalized for having a different system.

Last spring, Boeing executives voiced their concerns publicly during a defence trade show in Ottawa.

"I was surprised by the recommended changes," said Jim Barnes, the director of business development in Canada for Boeing Defence, Space & Security. "We believe we can put a really compelling offer on the table.

"You have a policy that's been in place for decades that has been very successful. The minister has mentioned this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, so why would you deviate from a policy that has been so successful to accommodate a competitor?"


----------



## OldSolduer

I'm just a retired infantry guy here so small words and short sentences please.

So with Airbus backing out and Saab being the other Euro contender, would it not make more sense to purchase something from our continent?

Just a thought and not all that original either.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Eurofighter and benefits, 2 EYES problem:



> ...
> *Not a surprise, says expert*
> 
> David Perry, vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute who specializes in defence procurement issues, said the decision by Airbus did not come as a surprise, especially given the company’s concerns over the recent changes by the Liberal government to the industrial benefits portion of the tender to make it more fair to Lockheed Martin.
> 
> “If somebody had asked me which of the four companies were most likely to drop out, I would have guessed Airbus,” Perry told Radio Canada International.
> 
> “Their sense was they had really spent a lot of time emphasizing the ITB (Industrial and Technological Benefits) offering that they had and so when the government made the change, which I think it made for the right reasons, to allow Lockheed or anybody else to bid under an adapted economic offset package model, they had certainly expressed that they thought that would really change the rules of the game.”
> 
> *Reaching full interoperability difficult for European aircraft*
> 
> Another concern the company had mentioned in its press release was the difficulty and the cost of establishing the 2-EYES interoperability with U.S. systems that Canada is looking for, Perry said.
> 
> To reach the level of interoperability that Canada requires to be able to fulfil its NORAD obligations, it needs to have aircraft that can work seamlessly with American aircraft, which means being integrated into the U.S. intelligence sharing systems, Perry said.
> 
> These systems allow the aircraft not only to communicate with each other and the ground controls but also access highly sensitive intelligence data that the U.S. jealously guards.
> 
> “What it means is that you have to have a connection between your intelligence feed and the equipment on the aircraft,” Perry said. “Our intelligence is largely American-driven and having that match with American equipment is very easy because it’s U.S. national systems and the American equipment comes to Canada previously connected, because the American government connects it.”
> 
> This creates a big hurdle for European plane makers, he said.
> 
> “Their equipment isn’t always automatically connected to American systems,” Perry said.
> 
> Some analysts have argued that this question of interoperability essentially gives Lockheed Martin and Boeing an edge over their European competitors.
> 
> “Ultimately for us to buy a fighter aircraft and make it effective, it has to work seamlessly with the U.S. government, not just the U.S. Air Force but the rest of the U.S. government,” Perry said.
> 
> “And I think the general sense is that the United States has said that it will work with whatever aircraft Canada buys, but ultimately we need to make those aircraft work with very sensitive American intelligence systems.”
> https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/08/30/airbus-withdraws-from-canadian-fighter-jet-completion/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Eurofighter and benefits, 2 EYES problem:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.


----------



## Underway

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.



5 Eyes isn't a thing either technically AFAIK.  Just faster to say than CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ Eyes Only....


----------



## Cloud Cover

Maybe they were referring to NORAD?  Or the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, referred to by IC in this 2018 document: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/h_ad03978.html


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.



I'm guessing he means CANUS EYES ONLY.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Underway said:
			
		

> 5 Eyes isn't a thing either technically AFAIK.  Just faster to say than CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ Eyes Only....



5 Eyes is a thing.  It’s an intelligence alliance.  Short hand is FVEY.


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.



SECRET // CANUS is very much a thing.

As is the already stated FVEY, and rarely used 4EYES (CAN/US/UK/AUS).

You don't need "EYES ONLY" after a caveat unless its CANADIAN EYES ONLY. Its implied that CANUS means only Canada and US...


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SECRET // CANUS is very much a thing.
> 
> As is the already stated FVEY, and rarely used 4EYES (CAN/US/UK/AUS).
> 
> You don't need "EYES ONLY" after a caveat unless its CANADIAN EYES ONLY. Its implied that CANUS means only Canada and US...



CAN/US is.  2 Eyes isn’t.


----------



## Cloud Cover

My favourite is the US marking “NOFORN”, after they give you the docs, from the very briefing they asked you to give.


----------



## MarkOttawa

SuperSonicMax:



> CAN/US is.  2 Eyes isn’t.



Maybe a thing is born.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> SuperSonicMax:
> 
> Maybe a thing is born.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Like an Alien 👾?


----------



## Edward Campbell

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> 5 Eyes is a thing.  It’s an intelligence alliance.  Short hand is FVEY.




I'm nitpicking, but actually, I think ECHELON is the "thing," or was, anyways, 20_ish_ years ago, and 'Five eyes' etc is just a way to refer to it. AFAIK, ECHELON still exists, on the "books," so to say. It began as a codwwork for a system and it evolved into a whole, formal, five nations programme.


----------



## Iron 1

Civilian here...don't beat on me.
In my experience we have always had a "special" relationship with the USA.
This dates back to the 1930's IIRC?
Throughout the early 1950's we made a concerted effort (CF-100 program and investment in Pinetree/Mid-Canada) to prove that we could pull our weight, with regards to the air defense of the North American Continent.
Since this point we have become increasingly servile to our "big brother".
Now our chickens have come home to roost. There are no other options.
If we can't talk to the guy's in Elmendorf (or more importantly? If they don't want to talk to us because it may prove "problematical")

Where do we really sit in terms of providing our slice of the NORAD pie?
We need to buy the F-35 and we should have done it ten years ago under Harper's original plan.

Or something like that... butts would be in seats if it was already a done deal.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Iron 1 said:
			
		

> Civilian here...don't beat on me.
> In my experience we have always had a "special" relationship with the USA.
> This dates back to the 1930's IIRC?
> Throughout the early 1950's we made a concerted effort (CF-100 program and investment in Pinetree/Mid-Canada) to prove that we could pull our weight, with regards to the air defense of the North American Continent.
> Since this point we have become increasingly servile to our "big brother".
> Now our chickens have come home to roost. There are no other options.
> If we can't talk to the guy's in Elmendorf (or more importantly? If they don't want to talk to us because it may prove "problematical")
> 
> Where do we really sit in terms of providing our slice of the NORAD pie?
> We need to buy the F-35 and we should have done it ten years ago under Harper's original plan.
> 
> Or something like that... butts would be in seats if it was already a done deal.



Aye but Defence is a partisan political issue in Canada.  Thanks for taking an interest in the site my friend. Biggest thing we could do to improve our Defence capability wouls be to educate Canadians but they must want to be educated first.


----------



## Iron 1

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Aye but Defence is a partisan political issue in Canada.  Thanks for taking an interest in the site my friend. Biggest thing we could do to improve our Defence capability wouls be to educate Canadians* but they must want to be educated first.*


And therein lies the fundamental issue...

Grrr...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Presumably Boeing is offering the Block III Super Hornet to RCAF (it is the only model now in production, for USN)--article over-egging IRST a tad?



> IRST gives Super Hornets counter-stealth capability
> _Infra-red system relies on thermal signature emitted by the target, tracked from a very long distance under adverse visibility_
> 
> he US Navy has awarded the Boeing company a US$152 million contract to complete the design, development, integration, and testing of the Infra-Red Search Track (IRST) system for the F/A-18E/F Block III, the latest variant of the Super Hornet, Defense Update reported.
> 
> A few days later the company received another US$208 million contract to integrate and produce Lockheed Martin’s Legion Pod IRST for the US Air Force F-15C/D fleet.
> 
> The new Block II IRST will replace the Block I system which did not meet the Navy’s requirements. This “see first, strike first” capability empowers pilots with greater reaction time, improving survivability.
> 
> Development and testing are expected to conclude in 2021, in time for expected Super Hornet Block III deliveries. The first part of this program was an US$89 million order awarded in June 2017. In October, the sensor’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin was awarded US$100 to upgrade the IRST21 sensor for the new Block II standard.
> 
> The IRST will enable the Navy fighters to target adversaries beyond visual and radar range, and enhance survivability in radar denied environment, operate against existing and emerging air threats.
> 
> Better yet … IRST is completely passive and does not highlight the location of the aircraft, unlike when a pilot decides to use the on-board radar, which can give away its position as radio frequency energy bursts out.
> 
> IRST can also work in all weather conditions as it uses the infrared rather than the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
> 
> While the US services have yet to embrace IRST technology, some of NATO air forces, as well as Russia and China are employing such systems, as well as Singapore and South Korea on their F-15s.
> 
> IRST relies on the thermal signature emitted by the target, tracked from a very long distance. While these tracks are affected by clouds and humidity, the high sensitivity of the Long Wave sensors is optimized for operations even under adverse visibility conditions.
> 
> The IRST consists of a passive long-wave infrared receiver, a signal processor, inertial measurement unit and environmental control unit packed into a section of a fuel tank attached to the belly of the Super Hornet, the report said.
> 
> It will be part of an avionics upgrade that will prepare the Super Hornet to fight modern adversaries. Other elements of that upgrade include the Distributed Targeting Processor — Networked computer, a new, powerful processor that will increase the capability to process multiple tracks, from on board and remote sources, in real time.
> 
> Remote tracks will be delivered over a new, high speed data link known as the Tactical Targeting Network Technology, that enable several Super Hornets flying a loose formation to share many tracks picked by their IRSTs, to passively “fix,” geolocate and determine the range and heading of each target, just like a radar — something a single IRST cannot do.
> 
> According to The National Interest, once either China or Russia manages to put together long-wave infrared search and track, high-speed data links, and the computers and algorithms for multi-ship sensor fusion, the ability of US fifth-generation fighters to operate independently will diminish.
> 
> That’s bad news for the Pentagon, of course. It suggests, it is only a matter of time before both China and Russia will be able to shoot down F-22s and F-35s.
> 
> The Russians — The National Interest reported — have had infrared search and track sensors onboard their fighter aircraft for decades. Even the earliest versions of the Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker have had an IRST system installed.
> 
> The Russians have continued to field modern fighters such as the Sukhoi Su-30SM and Su-35S with newer and more modern IRST technology even if the detection ranges are fairly unimpressive. Even the forthcoming Su-57 PAK-FA incorporates the 101KS-V infrared search and track system.
> 
> Both Russian and Chinese defense industries have experience building IRST sensors and should be able to develop a long wave infrared search and track pod without too much difficulty.
> 
> By the same token, both the Russians and the Chinese have access to airborne data-networking capability. The Russian Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound is equipped with RK-RLDN and APD-518, the later of which can coordinate a flight of four jets.
> 
> Newer Russian fighters such as the Su-30SM, Su-35S and the Su-57 also incorporate datalinks — as do their Chinese counterparts. However, the speed and throughput of these datalinks remain in question, but it is all but a certainty that both Moscow and Beijing have the wherewithal to develop high-speed high band airborne datalinks.
> 
> Once the Russians and Chinese have the ability to link two or more longwave IRST-equipped jets via a high speed link, they would have most of the ingredients needed to build a counter-stealth capability.
> 
> That leaves the question of Russia and China being able to develop advanced sensor fusion algorithms, which is a challenging undertaking even for American defense contractors.
> 
> It will take time, but it is likely that both nations have the ability to develop such software and the computing hardware to make it work. Beijing, which has more access to external sources of computing technology, is more likely to be able to develop such an avionics package first in the the relative near term.
> 
> However, Russia will also probably be able to develop a similar capability given time — and possibly access to foreign processors from China perhaps if sanctions are not lifted.
> 
> Indeed, the U.S. Air Force anticipated this development—the service noted that its F-22 Raptor would be increasingly challenged by the 2030s by new enemy capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The IRST will enable Navy F-18s to target adversaries beyond visual and radar range, enhance survivability in a radar denied environment and operate against existing and emerging air threats. Handout._
> https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/article/irst-gives-super-hornets-counter-stealth-capability/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will there then by two (more 2 EYES):



> Sweden's Saab undecided on whether to bid on Canada's fighter-jet contract
> 
> Days after Airbus Defence and Space pulled out of the $19-billion race to replace Canada's aging fighter jets, the only European firm still eligible to compete says it has not decided whether it will.
> 
> Saab Canada president Simon Carroll says the Swedish firm is interested in entering its Gripen jet against its two remaining competitors, both of which are from the U.S.: Boeing's Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin's F-35.
> 
> However, Carroll told The Canadian Press on Tuesday that his company is still analyzing the competition's nitty-gritty details -- including a security requirement that forced out two other European jet-makers.
> 
> All bidders are required to explain by Sept. 20 how they plan to ensure their planes can integrate with the top-secret Canada-U.S. intelligence network known as "Two Eyes," which is used to co-ordinate the defence of North America.
> 
> But in announcing its withdrawal from the competition Friday, Airbus said meeting the requirement would place "too significant of a cost" on non-U.S. aircraft. French firm Dassault cited the same requirement when it pulled its Rafale jet in November.
> 
> "We are still looking at that security assessment side of things from the Two-Eyes perspective," Carroll said.
> 
> "We don't see any major issues with it as this point in time. Having said that, we're still reviewing everything through the whole (request for proposals) at this point in time and we will reserve the right to make our judgment on whether or not we provide a bid."
> 
> Airbus also raised concerns about changes to a long-standing policy that requires bidders on military contracts to legally commit to invest as much money in Canadian products and operations as they get out of contracts they win.
> 
> Bidders can now instead establish "industrial targets," lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign non-binding agreements promising to make all efforts to achieve them. Such bids do suffer penalties when the bids are scored, but are not rejected outright.
> 
> That change followed U.S. complaints the previous policy violated an agreement Canada signed in 2006 to become one of nine partner countries in developing the F-35. The agreement says companies in the partner countries will compete for work associated with purchases of the planes.
> 
> While Saab has previously raised its own concerns about the change, saying it would shortchange Canadian taxpayers and industry, Carroll said it was "not a hurdle" and that "we think we have a very good offering for what we can offer in Canada."
> 
> Even participating in the competition is not a cheap proposition for fighter-jet makers; while Carroll would not speak to the potential cost to Saab, analysts have previously pegged the cost in the millions of dollars.
> 
> While companies are expected to submit their plans to meet the Two-Eyes security requirement on Sept. 20, the government has said it will provide feedback and let bidders amend their submissions.
> 
> Final bids aren't expected until next winter, with a formal contract signed in 2022. The first plane won't arrive until at least 2025. Successive federal government have been working to replace Canada's CF-18s for more than a decade.
> 
> Carroll praised the government for being transparent as it has worked for years to launch the competition, which followed an aborted attempt between 2010 and 2012 to buy F-35s without a competition.
> 
> "We're supportive of the government processes and what they've done moving forward," he said.
> 
> "The transparency from the government has been very good. They've given ample opportunity for us to review documents. They've been very open in saying that these are the dates and these are the times."
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/sweden-s-saab-undecided-on-whether-to-bid-on-canada-s-fighter-jet-contract-1.4576026



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Saab is probably the best contender (IMO) out the Euro's if i recall didn't they offer a full tech transfer? or was that Dassault? regardless Saab and the sweeds usually do not worry to much about throwing money at a problem, much of their domestic military industry is meant to solve their problems. A Contract for 80+ jets to Canada would be icing on the cake for Saab, and I am sure they would be very willing to work with us to set up domestic supply chains for some parts. Who knows maybe they will let Bombardier build them and let some federal party win some votes in quebec.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Except out of the original 5 aircraft we were offered, it is the worst aircraft we could get.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Except out of the original 5 aircraft we were offered, it is the worst aircraft we could get.



Well, that should make it nearly certain to win...


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well, that should make it nearly certain to win...



And built, not as well, on license by Bombardier


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Except out of the original 5 aircraft we were offered, it is the worst aircraft we could get.



What makes it the worst option? Age of the design?


----------



## SupersonicMax

No integrated sensor fusion, a true fourth gen aircraft (vs 4.5 to 5th gen), lower payload, lesser range and endurance than what we have now.  The only benefit compared to what we have now is an AESA radar...


----------



## Spencer100

Well Bombardier would have a hard time building it and would not have the ability.  There is that.

CRJ to Mitsu 
Dash 8 to Longview (Viking)
Water bombers and Twin Otter to Viking plus the Dash 1-7 too
Shorts to Spirit? (maybe)
Training to CAE 

Just Lear and Globals are left in Bombardier


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> No integrated sensor fusion, a true fourth gen aircraft (vs 4.5 to 5th gen), lower payload, lesser range and endurance than what we have now.  The only benefit compared to what we have now is an AESA radar...



https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen-ef/

Maybe i am misreading but it sounds like the new NG(E/F) model has sensor fusion tech. Half the take off weight is a disadvantage, speed it has a slight edge over the F35. Much of it's negatives seem to be a draw back of the fact its a smaller aircraft thus less internal fuel, takeoff weight, etc.....  Meaning drop tanks would be required in the arctic.


----------



## PuckChaser

Also keep in mind that technology transfer sounds nice, but its not free. Brazil bought new Gripens with technology transfer for $120M USD each (2014), but that included armaments and services. F-35 is trending down in price and is already below $90M USD each. Not to mention the billions we'd waste building an orphan assembly line for the Gripens that'll just shut down right away as soon as the last jet rolls.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Also keep in mind that technology transfer sounds nice, but its not free. Brazil bought new Gripens with technology transfer for $120M USD each (2014), but that included armaments and services. F-35 is trending down in price and is already below $90M USD each. Not to mention the billions we'd waste building an orphan assembly line for the Gripens that'll just shut down right away as soon as the last jet rolls.



It won't shut down on an election year.  Just the year afterwards.


----------



## Iron 1

Dimsum said:
			
		

> It won't shut down on an election year.  Just the year afterwards.


Truth...


----------



## observor 69

The high-speed hard sell: why the F-35 is coming to a Canadian air show

The F-35, the warplane Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised not to buy four years ago, touched down in Ottawa on Wednesday — on the eve of a federal election — as one of the leading contenders in the competition to replace the air force's aging CF-18 jet fighters.

The stealth jet's demonstration team will perform this weekend at an air show in Gatineau, Que., giving many of the capital's movers and shakers their first up-close look at an aircraft that has consumed a lot of oxygen in Canadian politics.

During the last election, the Liberals famously (or infamously) promised not to buy the F-35 and said they would opt instead for a cheaper aircraft, using the savings to refit the navy.
The U.S. Air Force demonstration team that will be taking the F-35 through its paces this weekend fits into that marketing effort with its use of slick cockpit videos — the most recent of which was shot over Niagara Falls, Ont. Wednesday morning, prior to the arrival of a pair of F-35s at the Ottawa International Airport.

"The really cool things about the airplane are not going to be on display out there this weekend," said Capt. Andrew 'Dojo' Olson, the demonstration team leader. "So if they think the demo is cool, they have no idea how cool the other stuff is."

Olson is referring to the stealth jet's top secret features, many of them related to the aircraft's ability to network with other units in the field — both in the air and on the ground — and gather electronic intelligence.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-canada-competition-1.5270600


----------



## MarkOttawa

Inuvik airfield upgrade announced (new fighter in mind?):


> National Defence to contribute funding for upgrades at Inuvik Airport
> 
> As outlined in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is modernizing infrastructure at our bases and wings, as well as exercising Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.
> 
> Today, the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, announced the Government of Canada will provide the Government of the Northwest Territories with up to $150 million over five years for the extension and modernization of the Inuvik Airport runway. The _project will extend the existing runway by 3,000 feet and modernize its lighting, navigational and military aircraft landing systems_ [emphasis added]. This project has been made possible through collaborative efforts between the Department of National Defence, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and the Inuvik airport.
> 
> This investment will allow the Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) Forward Operating Location to support a greater variety of military aircrafts for RCAF and NORAD operations. This project is expected to create economic opportunities for the region throughout construction...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/09/national-defence-to-contribute-funding-for-upgrades-at-inuvik-airport.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Inuvik airfield upgrade announced (new fighter in mind?):
> Mark
> Ottawa



FYI
- If Inuvik is getting upgraded to 9,000ft, watch to if any of the others below get upgraded as well.

Canada's current fleet of CF-18s are operated out of two airbases, CFB Cold Lake, Alberta and CFB Bagotville, Quebec.  From these two bases, CF-18s are often rotated to CFB Comox (BC), CFB Goose Bay (NL), CFB Gander (NL), and CFB Greenwood (NS).  CF-18s also often find themselves in CFB Trenton (ON).  All of these bases meet the 8,000 foot requirement for the F-35, some of them, just barely.

Here is a list of these bases along with the length of their longest runway, in feet.


CFB Cold Lake:  12,600
CFB Bagotville:  10,000

CFB Comox:  10,000
CFB Goose Bay:  11,051
CFB Gander:  10,200
CFB Greenwood:  8,000 (the minimum)

CFB Trenton:  10,000


Things get hazier when we look at Canada's Forward Operating Locations (FOL) up north.  These FOLs allow the fighters to operate in Canada's northernmost territory.  These locations share a runway with a civilian airport and simply do not have the resources of a full military base.  These runways are built with small, commuter aircraft in mind, not stealth fighters.


FOL Yellowknife:  7,503
FOL Inuvik:  6,001
FOL Rankin Inlet:  6,000 
FOL Iqalut:  8,605


Notice that Iqalut is the only base the meets the minimum requirement.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Notice that Iqalut is the only base the meets the minimum requirement.



Purely coincidentally, it also has the Frobisher Hotel, with a fully functioning bar


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Purely coincidentally, it also has the Frobisher Hotel, with a fully functioning bar



And a nice bar at that!


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And a nice bar at that!



:nod:


----------



## thunderchild

Would it not make sense to buy a stealth drone for first night operations and if it gets shot down you are not loosing a highly trained pilot?
After the first night the enemy knows your coming besides hanging bombs on the wings of o stealth aircraft destroys the reason for being stealthy anyway


----------



## PuckChaser

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Would it not make sense to buy a stealth drone for first night operations and if it gets shot down you are not loosing a highly trained pilot?
> After the first night the enemy knows your coming besides hanging bombs on the wings of o stealth aircraft destroys the reason for being stealthy anyway



Got a link to something that exists in real life?


----------



## SupersonicMax

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Would it not make sense to buy a stealth drone for first night operations and if it gets shot down you are not loosing a highly trained pilot?
> After the first night the enemy knows your coming besides hanging bombs on the wings of o stealth aircraft destroys the reason for being stealthy anyway



Kicking the door down on the first night is a very complex problem that requires a custom solution depending on our and the enemy's capabilities and setup.  One thing is for sure, it is not unidimensional and requires multiple asset types with different capabilities.  The F-35 will not go on its own.  Generally, you'll need some SEAD platforms, taking down the enemy's IADS normally with soft kills along with OCA platforms taking care of the air threats.  It'll be followed by strike platforms that will conduct DEAD and strikes on C3 targets.  Deception is part of the game.  Read "Every Man A Tiger" to have an idea of own the Gulf Air War was planned an executed.  They used drones during the first night to stimulate the IADS and worked.


----------



## GR66

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Kicking the door down on the first night is a very complex problem that requires a custom solution depending on our and the enemy's capabilities and setup.  One thing is for sure, it is not unidimensional and requires multiple asset types with different capabilities.  The F-35 will not go on its own.  Generally, you'll need some SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) platforms, taking down the enemy's IADS (Integrated Air Defense System) normally with soft kills along with OCA (Offensive Counter-Air) platforms taking care of the air threats.  It'll be followed by strike platforms that will conduct DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses) and strikes on C3 (Command, Control and Communications) targets.  Deception is part of the game.  Read "Every Man A Tiger" to have an idea of own the Gulf Air War was planned an executed.  They used drones during the first night to stimulate the IADS and worked.



My (hopefully accurate) translation of the acronyms for those civilians among us.  Please correct if I've made any mistakes.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:
			
		

> My (hopefully accurate) translation of the acronyms for those civilians _and Infantry_ among us.  Please correct if I've made any mistakes.



There, FTFY


----------



## Good2Golf

One shouldn’t forget the part that SOF and AVN played in DEAD ops in shaping the DESERT STORM battlespace prior to troops crossing the LD (and F-117s conducting their own DEAD).

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## don3wing

This is an interesting article from defence-aerospace.com 

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/205736/plan-to-add-chaff-launchers-to-f_35a-confirms-‘stealth’-no-longer-enough.html

The F-35A Is Set to Finally Get Chaff Countermeasures to Confuse Enemy Radars (excerpt)
(Source: The War Zone; posted September 9, 2019)[/b]
By Joseph Trevithick

The U.S. Air Force is hoping to integrate a new, advanced chaff countermeasure onto its F-35A Joint Strike Fighters next year, according to a report. The cartridges, which release radar reflective material to blind and confuse enemy aircraft and air defenses, are a staple across many of the service's other combat aircraft, but have been curiously absent from the stealthy F-35's otherwise extensive defensive suite. 

Aviation Week's Defense Editor Steve Trimble was first to spot the detail on Sept. 9, 2019. The Air Force included the information about the new chaff cartridge, known presently as the ARM-210, in a draft environmental impact statement, dated August 2019, regarding the basing of F-35s at various Air National Guard facilities. The report includes a host of information on how the aircraft might impact their surrounding environments, including the potential release of countermeasures, such as infrared decoy flares and chaff. 

"The ARM-210 chaff proposed for use by the F-35A is currently unavailable and undergoing operational testing," according to the environmental review. "It is expected to be available for use in 2020." 

It is unclear whether this applies to the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B or U.S. Navy F-35C variants, as well, or any of the three variants in service with foreign air forces. The F-35's use or potential use of chaff has long been something of a debate, in general. Recent U.S. military budget documents and other sources make no mention of it among the aircraft's expendable countermeasures – flares and towed decoys – which had suggested that it was, indeed, a capability the Joint Strike Fighter lacked and might not necessarily have needed given its stealthy design. (end of excerpt) 


Click here for the full story, on the War Zone website. 


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Contrary to what is stated above, there is nothing ‘curious’ about the fact that the F-35 was designed without chaff or IR flare launchers. 

Since its stealthy design was claimed to make the F-35 invisible to radar, there was clearly no need for active countermeasures like chaff to protect it from radar. This same reasoning explains why no other US Air Force ‘stealth’ aircraft, from the F-117 to the F-22 and B-2, are not fitted with any. 

By the same logic, the fact that chaff is now planned to be retrofitted to the F-35A merely confirms that, a quarter-century since it was designed, ‘stealth’ is no longer a sufficient guarantee of the F-35A’s survival in combat – if it ever was. 

And this clearly poses a major problem, since ‘stealth’ is the promise that justified the aircraft’s many design limitations in terms of speed, range and weapon payload. 

If ‘stealth’ is no longer the combat asset its manufacturer has long claimed to justify these limitations, the F-35A becomes just another aircraft with mediocre performance – but with a high sticker price and huge operating costs.) 

-ends-


----------



## Uzlu

> US firm considering $830 million aircraft manufacturing plant in Lower Mainland
> 
> BC’s Lower Mainland is in the running as a possible site for the development of a new major aircraft manufacturing plant with the potential to employ thousands of people.
> 
> In an economic investment and growth update, a report by staff with the City of Abbotsford notes the municipality is being considered by an unnamed US aerospace firm “as a Canadian site” for the new plant.
> 
> There are two development options of varying scale; the smaller plant would produce a $125-million investment with 7,000 new jobs, while the large plant would result in an $830-million investment and 10,000 or more jobs.
> 
> Such a facility would of course require a very significantly-sized site, but no locations have been publicly identified at this time. The plant would certainly bolster the Fraser Valley’s economy, and likely create a further upward demand in housing.
> 
> The report will be reviewed by city council next week, and the next round of engagement is scheduled to occur in January 2020.
> 
> Major US aerospace firms include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Gulfstream Aerospace, and Boom Supersonic.
> 
> It is currently unclear what type of aircraft could be produced at this facility. For example, this project could be related to the Canadian federal government’s $19-billion procurement process to have a global manufacturer build new fighter jets that replace the ageing CF-18s.


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/abbotsford-aircraft-manufacturing-plant


----------



## Uzlu

> When asked about the price tag, Trudeau’s answer was straightforward:
> 
> “By cancelling the F-35 … and choosing instead an alternative bid … we will be saving tens of billions of dollars in the coming decades. That money will be put towards ensuring that the National Shipbuilding Strategy is actually able to complete all the ships promised and continue to invest in the kinds of resources and training and equipment that the men and women in our Armed Forces so justly deserve.”


Such as new submarines to replace the _Victoria_s?





> COMMENTARY: Alternative Saab fighter could save navy by dodging extravagant F-35s
> 
> *Evasive manoeuvres on defence spending*
> 
> Forty years ago, Department of National Defence leaders insisted that Canada needed the most expensive jet available: The F-15 Eagle. Then prime minister Pierre Trudeau instead launched the New Fighter Aircraft competition, focused on industrial offsets and best value. The winner was the least expensive jet in the competition that met existing mission requirements: The CF-18 Hornet.
> 
> As history is fond of repeating itself, DND leaders today want the F-35: the most expensive jet available.
> 
> Once again, there is an affordable alternative. The new Saab Gripen-E, the only jet in the competition that would be made in Canada, is the least expensive jet that can replace the CF-18. The Gripen is the only jet in the competition with a lower operating cost than the CF-18 and would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars relative to purchasing the F-35.
> 
> In September 2015, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau announced in Halifax that a Liberal government would not buy the F-35 and instead would launch an “open and transparent competition” to replace the CF-18. Much has been said about excluding the F-35, but pundits often forget the third element of his promise: that by purchasing a less expensive jet, we would free up more money for shipbuilding. When asked about the price tag, Trudeau’s answer was straightforward:
> 
> “By cancelling the F-35 … and choosing instead an alternative bid … we will be saving tens of billions of dollars in the coming decades. That money will be put towards ensuring that the National Shipbuilding Strategy is actually able to complete all the ships promised and continue to invest in the kinds of resources and training and equipment that the men and women in our Armed Forces so justly deserve.”
> 
> While the CF-18 replacement program hasn’t been as open and transparent as Pierre Trudeau’s NFA program, the Liberal government has made good on its promise to spend more on the navy. Vancouver’s Seaspan will receive an additional $14.2 billion to build 16 more ships for the Coast Guard. Halifax’s Irving Shipyards will receive an additional $1.5 billion to build two more Arctic patrol ships and the Canadian Surface Combatant budget will increase by $8 billion to ensure all 15 new frigates are fully funded.
> 
> Defence scholars Anton Bezglasnyy and Douglas Ross have warned that the high operating cost of the F-35 could make it “the plane that ate the Canadian navy.” A 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office warned about escalating F-35 costs: “The annual F-35 operating and support costs were estimated to be considerably higher than the combined annual costs of several legacy aircraft, and according to DOD officials, the sustainment strategy was not affordable.” The F-35 only offers partial, and in no way guaranteed, industrial offsets.
> 
> Saab, on the other hand, has a history of full industrial offsets and affordability. Our NATO allies in the Czech Republic and Hungary are happy with their Gripen-Cs. The Hungarian Air Force performed the NATO Baltic Air Policing mission this summer and released a video on YouTube of Hungarian Gripen pilots chasing Russian Su-27s (and getting displeased looks from the Russian pilots when they pulled alongside). Earlier this month, Czech Gripens began their sixth NATO Air Policing tour.
> 
> The next-generation Gripen-E is a super Gripen, maintaining many of the legacy Gripen’s cost advantages while adding a state-of-the-art AESA radar, sensor fusion, more fuel, fifth-generation electronic warfare and battlefield networking. The Gripen-E’s sensor fusion wide-area touch screen is even made by the same subcontractor as the F-35’s sensor fusion display.
> 
> The Gripen-E was designed for Arctic operations at northern Swedish bases and forward operating locations. It was also designed to fly farther than the CF-18, making it perfect for large countries. The Gripen-E won Brazil’s contest, beating the French Rafale and American Super Hornet, because it offered domestic assembly with Embraer and met the technical requirements at half the total cost of ownership of the second-place Rafale.
> 
> The Gripen-E is also a front-runner in the Finnish competition to replace their F-18 Hornets. The Finnish bid includes a pair of Canadian-made Saab/Bombardier GlobalEye airborne radar jets. Canada’s CP-140 maritime patrol aircraft are older than the CF-18s and need to be replaced by 2030. The Saab/Bombardier GlobalEye and Swordfish jets are the obvious frontrunners, are made in Canada, and were designed to work perfectly with Gripens.
> 
> Saab, working with Lockheed Martin, has already delivered 2-Eyes NORAD compliant systems to the Royal Canadian Navy that came with jobs and investment in Halifax. The Halifax Frigate modernization program included Saab Sea Giraffe radars, Saab CEROS fire control systems, and Saab 9LV command-and-control systems. Saab also has a close partnership with Boeing as the primary development and manufacturing partner on the U.S. Air Force’s new T-X fighter trainer.
> 
> Regarding 5-Eyes and NATO integration, any claims that the Gripen-E would have a hard time are absurd. Not only are the Czech and Hungarian Gripens regularly flying NATO missions, but Swedish Gripen-Cs were an instrumental part of coalition operations over Libya. The Swedish Gripens integrated flawlessly, using NATO Link-16, flew a third of coalition recon missions, and provided intelligence of such a high quality that Swedish officers were invited to 5-Eyes intelligence meetings. The Canadian commander of those NATO operations, Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard, said of the Swedish jets: “The Gripens have a strategic importance for the operation. They have a spectacular capability.”
> 
> The NDP have stated their support for building fighter jets in Canada and the Gripen is the only remaining competitor offering domestic manufacturing. The Green party campaigned against the F-35 in 2015. Saab, being Swedish, is the only vendor committed to nuclear non-proliferation and focused on environmentally responsible manufacturing.
> 
> The Conservatives say that they will balance the budget, which they did in 2015, in five years. But the Harper government cut defence spending to below one per cent of GDP and deferred over $9 billion in defence programs to balance the 2015 budget. This led former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page to lament: “National Defence is becoming a source of funds to reduce the deficit. We’re going to need a whole new capital plan for National Defence.” Purchasing the F-35, and trying to balance the budget with other cuts in defence spending, would put the National Shipbuilding Strategy on the chopping block.
> 
> The Saab Gripen is the only jet that’s affordable enough for the Tories to balance the budget without cancelling ships. Purchasing the Gripen-E would allow Trudeau to keep his promise to buy an affordable alternative to the F-35 and fully fund the navy.


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/national-perspectives/commentary-alternative-saab-fighter-could-save-navy-by-dodging-extravagant-f-35s-352103/


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have spoken to actual Hungarian Air Force officers about the Grippen. It certainly is an improvement over their Soviet era MIGs, but they didn't describe it as the best fighter in the world. More like the best that they could afford.

I do not see the continued attraction to building in Canada. What is the point of setting up a production line to build fewer than 100 fighters that will then just shutdown in a few years? 

If jobs in Canada are the over riding consideration, then wouldn't being a continued partner in the F35 program be the way to go and get a piece of building 3000 (plus) jets over the next 3 decades?


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have spoken to actual Hungarian Air Force officers about the Grippen. It certainly is an improvement over their Soviet era MIGs, but they didn't describe it as the best fighter in the world. More like the best that they could afford.
> 
> I do not see the continued attraction to building in Canada. What is the point of setting up a production line to build fewer than 100 fighters that will then just shutdown in a few years?
> 
> If jobs in Canada are the over riding consideration, then wouldn't being a continued partner in the F35 program be the way to go and get a piece of building 3000 (plus) jets over the next 3 decades?



Stop it! You're talking sense and that is not allowed during the election mister!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have spoken to actual Hungarian Air Force officers about the Grippen. It certainly is an improvement over their Soviet era MIGs, but they didn't describe it as the best fighter in the world. More like the best that they could afford.
> 
> I do not see the continued attraction to building in Canada. What is the point of setting up a production line to build fewer than 100 fighters that will then just shutdown in a few years?
> 
> If jobs in Canada are the over riding consideration, then wouldn't being a continued partner in the F35 program be the way to go and get a piece of building 3000 (plus) jets over the next 3 decades?



"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"

Nobody is saying the F35 is better than the Gripen E.  I have no doubt the F35 is a far more capable aircraft; however, the real issue which I think is a valid point presented in the above article is:

"Can Canada afford the F35 without major sacrifices to other programs and overall General Purpose Combat Capability across the Spectrum of Operations?"

What do we need to sacrifice IOT afford the F35?  half the expected number of CSCs? The Submarine Program? Griffon Replacements? Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft? Kingston Class Replacements?  UAVs that we still don't have? Air Defence? Future Anti-Tank Capability? Artillery?  Cyber & Renewed EW Capability? Heavy Engineering & Mobility?

Think of all the tools we already lack or are deficient in:

Naval Strike
UAV
Cyber
EW
Bridging
AAW
GBAD
ATGM Systems
SP Artillery
MLRS
AH
New Submarines
Proper AORs
Replacements for the CP140s
Replacements for Tac Hel
Replacements for Kingston Class
Replacements for Halifax Class
Cyber
EW

This list is not exhaustive.

The Future Fighter is going to have two primary roles:

1.  Defence of North America through NORAD (Gripen E is more than capable of filling this role)
2.  Bombing Brigands in North Africa and the Middle East (It is also perfectly capable of filling this role) in fact a Spitfire could probably do a relatively good job in certain instances.  

So what exactly do we give up so the Air Force can have their Ferraris?


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If jobs in Canada are the over riding consideration, then wouldn't being a continued partner in the F35 program be the way to go and get a piece of building 3000 (plus) jets over the next 3 decades?



Ding ding ding.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> So what exactly do we give up so the Air Force can have their Ferraris?



I was pretty young at the time, but I swear Jean Chretien said something similar to kill the EH-101 and set back the Sea King replacement for 15 years.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Ding ding ding.
> 
> I was pretty young at the time, but I swear Jean Chretien said something similar to kill the EH-101 and set back the Sea King replacement for 15 years.



Yes he did say something similar; however, the context of what he said and what I am saying are different.

Buy the F35 if and only if it doesn't put other programs in jeopardy.


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Yes he did say something similar; however, the context of what he said and what I am saying are different.
> 
> Buy the F35 if and only if it doesn't put other programs in jeopardy.



Call me cynical, but I don't think $X saved in the future fighter project will mean $X gained in other projects.  The govt will take that back because let's be serious here, Defence doesn't matter for most Canadians (and definitely not for politicians, despite party platforms on election runs).


----------



## Cloud Cover

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"
> 
> Nobody is saying the F35 is better than the Gripen E.  I have no doubt the F35 is a far more capable aircraft; however, the real issue which I think is a valid point presented in the above article is:
> 
> "Can Canada afford the F35 without major sacrifices to other programs and overall General Purpose Combat Capability across the Spectrum of Operations?"
> 
> What do we need to sacrifice IOT afford the F35?  half the expected number of CSCs? The Submarine Program? Griffon Replacements? Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft? Kingston Class Replacements?  UAVs that we still don't have? Air Defence? Future Anti-Tank Capability? Artillery?  Cyber & Renewed EW Capability? Heavy Engineering & Mobility?
> 
> Think of all the tools we already lack or are deficient in:
> 
> Naval Strike
> UAV
> Cyber
> EW
> Bridging
> AAW
> GBAD
> ATGM Systems
> SP Artillery
> MLRS
> AH
> New Submarines
> Proper AORs
> Replacements for the CP140s
> Replacements for Tac Hel
> Replacements for Kingston Class
> Replacements for Halifax Class
> Cyber
> EW
> 
> This list is not exhaustive.
> 
> The Future Fighter is going to have two primary roles:
> 
> 1.  Defence of North America through NORAD (Gripen E is more than capable of filling this role)
> 2.  Bombing Brigands in North Africa and the Middle East (It is also perfectly capable of filling this role) in fact a Spitfire could probably do a relatively good job in certain instances.
> 
> So what exactly do we give up so the Air Force can have their Ferraris?



The point to me isn’t what all of those systems cost to buy, sustain and use. It’s a lot of money, no doubt it would swing the defence spending needle close to 2.5% GDP. We can afford that as a country without giving up much, if anything. 

But Canada doesn’t spend, or sustain the military rationally and our procurement system is far from rational. So even if they funded to buy the equipment, the money would flow in a sea of stupid and not much would change. That’s why Canadians and Canadian politicians don’t want to spend in this space.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...
> So what exactly do we give up so the Air Force can have their Ferraris?



Tanks and submarines as well, if we want to divest ourselves of fighters. 

All three of those capabilities have a disproportionately large share of CAF assets dedicated to them, if one were looking at a “solid Tier 2 helper force”’to the Tier 1 hegemonies. 

Canada just needs to decide if it wishes to resolve itself to that place...like the Kiwis did to their Aussie big brothers. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Tanks and submarines as well, if we want to divest ourselves of fighters.
> 
> All three of those capabilities have a disproportionately large share of CAF assets dedicated to them, if one were looking at a “solid Tier 2 helper force”’to the Tier 1 hegemonies.
> 
> Canada just needs to decide if it wishes to resolve itself to that place...like the Kiwis did to their Aussie big brothers.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I think we can afford fighter jets, just not the top of the line ones.  If we do go for the F35, than something else must go.  The Shipbuilding program cannot be sacrificed, it's too important strategically and politically.

Does Gripen E get the job done?  Sure it does not nearly as well as the F35 but it gets the job done nevertheless.  If we can build it domestically, even better.

I personally think it's more important that we be able to build military hardware domestically long term than it is to have a few pieces of foreign equipment built entirely elsewhere.

The F35 is like the Tiger Tank of aircraft.  Super powerful but expensive which in a shooting war with the Dragon and Bear is going to be a huge impediment.  Canada needs a Sherman Tank, not a King Tiger.

I think this chart from Janes explains the problem space quite clearly:







Yes the cost to build an F35 is going to drastically come down but the cost per hour to fly the thing is going to break our piggy bank.


----------



## PuckChaser

Gripen's cost per flight hour is based on the Gripen-C. The numbers have been doctored to look like its way cheaper. See this article and breakdown: https://www.quora.com/Can-SAAB-Gripen-E-compete-with-F-35

Sure, maybe Canada doesn't need a Tiger tank. But the reason the Sherman tank was able to win the day was because there we 4 or 5 Shermans attacking every Tiger. Canada is getting 85 Tigers, or 85 Shermans. Given that choice, I'd take the Tiger everyday of the week.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Gripen's cost per flight hour is based on the Gripen-C. The numbers have been doctored to look like its way cheaper. See this article and breakdown: https://www.quora.com/Can-SAAB-Gripen-E-compete-with-F-35
> 
> Sure, maybe Canada doesn't need a Tiger tank. But the reason the Sherman tank was able to win the day was because there we 4 or 5 Shermans attacking every Tiger. Canada is getting 85 Tigers, or 85 Shermans. Given that choice, I'd take the Tiger everyday of the week.



That is where I took the data from  8)

There is no question the Gripen is way cheaper to operate than the F35, even if it isn't exactly that number.

My Sherman comparison has to do with ability to replace losses.  Having our own production line in that case becomes more important.  In a real peer war, we need to be able to crank out new equipment to replace our losses quickly.  It's all about industrial capacity.  

I would take Gripen's mixed with a fleet of Armed RPAs oh and put some bombs and missiles on the CP140 while we are at it.  

We have no RPAs at the moment, no bombs on the CP140 and we have just inherited some second hand Australian toilet paper.  

We also have a laundry list of other capabilities that need servicing.  Where does the money come from and where is the compromise?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Also, the Grippen E is looking to be about $113M USD per copy, vice about $80-85M USD for an F35.

I grant that the hourly O&M costs of an F35 will (probably) remain higher than a Grippen. But then there is the problem of operating a micro fleet *cough* Cyclone *cough*. You want a modernization package every 5 years or so (and you had better- if you want to win a war and have at least some of your pilots live)? It will be us and the swedes footing the R&D bill. Let me assure you- that won't be cheap.

So, in summary- it is expensive choosing to be a country with an adult foreign and defence policy. Unless we just want to outsource the whole thing to the US...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> That is where I took the data from  8)
> 
> There is no question the Gripen is way cheaper to operate than the F35, even if it isn't exactly that number.
> 
> My Sherman comparison has to do with ability to replace losses.  Having our own production line in that case becomes more important.  In a real peer war, we need to be able to crank out new equipment to replace our losses quickly.  It's all about industrial capacity.
> 
> I would take Gripen's mixed with a fleet of Armed RPAs oh and put some bombs and missiles on the CP140 while we are at it.
> 
> We have no RPAs at the moment, no bombs on the CP140 and we have just inherited some second hand Australian toilet paper.
> 
> We also have a laundry list of other capabilities that need servicing.  Where does the money come from and where is the compromise?



But we won't have a production line- at least not for long. I can guarantee that once the last fighter has rolled off the line in Canada's order, from the factory assembled at great expense in Bugtussle NB (or whatever "vital riding" needs the electoral bribery), the line will close and hundreds will be laid off. It will 4 years of work- tops.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> But we won't have a production line- at least not for long. I can guarantee that once the last fighter has rolled off the line in Canada's order, from the factory assembled at great expense in Bugtussle NB (or whatever "vital riding" needs the electoral bribery), the line will close and hundreds will be laid off. It will 4 years of work- tops.



Yep.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Also, the Grippen E is looking to be about $113M USD per copy, vice about $80-85M USD for an F35.
> 
> I grant that the hourly O&M costs of an F35 will (probably) remain higher than a Grippen. But then there is the problem of operating a micro fleet *cough* Cyclone *cough*. You want a modernization package every 5 years or so (and you had better- if you want to win a war and have at least some of your pilots live)? It will be us and the swedes footing the R&D bill. Let me assure you- that won't be cheap.
> 
> So, in summary- it is expensive choosing to be a country with an adult foreign and defence policy. Unless we just want to outsource the whole thing to the US...



I agree but I don't necessarily think it will be just us footing the bill for the Gripen, there are some other players in the mix:



> *Saab to hold meetings with Indian firms for making Gripen E aircraft
> *
> Saab is in the fray for a contract to supply around 110 fighter planes to India under the Multi Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) programme.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/defence/saab-to-hold-meetings-with-indian-firms-for-making-gripen-e-aircraft/amp_articleshow/71095650.cms

And



> *Saab presents first Brazilian Gripen E fighter for flight test*



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.upi.com/amp/Defense-News/2019/09/12/Saab-presents-first-Brazilian-Gripen-E-fighter-for-flight-test/5561568306285/

Also, Brazil eventually plans to increase that order to over 100 aircraft and are considering a carrier variant as well.

Their primordial reason for selecting the Gripen E over the F18 Super Hornet and Rafale was considerably lower operating costs and generous industrial benefits SAAB gave them.  Most South American countries are in need of new fighter aircraft and Brazil sees an opportunity for Embraer to build some aircraft for Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Sure- basic flight safety, structural and engine upgrades over the life we could share with all Grippen users. Combat systems? Probably only the NATO Allies get to share the load, and maybe only the Swedes, depending how sensitive an issue it is. Maybe only us, if it is a NORAD related issue.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I think we can afford fighter jets, just not the top of the line ones.  If we do go for the F35, than something else must go.  The Shipbuilding program cannot be sacrificed, it's too important strategically and politically.



Ah, I see. It’s the Navy’s turn.  Cutting
edge force projection and coalition contribution only needs to happen at 28kts or less?  You’re parroting politically structured/postured argumentation...Classic “either this or that but not both...”

Are you personally confident in your knowledge of the Defence Investment Plan that CSC/JSS/AOPS protions of the NSS would be compromised were FCFP proceed with the existing DIP allocations (based on F35)?  




			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Does Gripen E get the job done?  Sure it does not nearly as well as the F35 but it gets the job done nevertheless.  If we can build it domestically, even better.



You believe the Gripen is ‘okay’....Saab has not formally submitted a proposal that has been evaluated by PSPC, so how certain are you about its capability and merit against all requirement s criteria that your statement is true. 

Why not accept less within NSS?  Let’s see a reduction in the $100B+ life-cycle costs! 



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I personally think it's more important that we be able to build military hardware domestically long term than it is to have a few pieces of foreign equipment built entirely elsewhere.



...of course lass the more than $1B of F35 parts built by 1000’s of Canadians to date...but that doesn’t even begin to address the disproportionate costs to keep low volume ‘unique’ aircraft running for three decades.  It is a mug’s game to believe that  cheaper acquisition costs necessarily equate to lower life-cycle costs...which are known to be lower when shared across much greater quantities




			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The F35 is like the Tiger Tank of aircraft.  Super powerful but expensive which in a shooting war with the Dragon and Bear is going to be a huge impediment.  Canada needs a Sherman Tank, not a King Tiger.



The F-22 Raptor is the King Tiger.  F-35 is ‘just’ a Panzer V (Panther).  Having a Panzer I or II without the sensor/fire control capabilities of the V or Tiger II...is that good enough for Canada?  So long as it gets all 15 CSC with bells and whistles, right?



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I think this chart from Janes explains the problem space quite clearly:
> 
> https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1ebff55f5b48222ca8245a327bd0551e[/
> [/quote]
> 
> Those may be Janes’ figures, but they are highly
> contextual...the fact that a Gripen is cheaper than publicly available (via ATIP) historical all-up cost figures even for a CH-146 Griffon makes me wonder about the applicability of directly relating those figures provided with how Canada would operate and find the aircraft. Spoiler alert when you ATIP the RCAF platform costs, you’ll find the CF-188 is not the most expensive aircraft to operate...shut down those more expensive? Lease alternatives. Shoot solidly for middle of the road?
> 
> 
> [quote="Humphrey Bogart"]
> I think this chart from Janes explains the problem space quite clearly:
> Yes the cost to build an F35 is going to drastically come down but the cost per hour to fly the thing is going to break our piggy bank.
> [/quote]
> 
> Cost and life-cycle cost to come down drastically, but still not enough?
> 
> Break the piggy bank, aka Canada’s Fiscal Framework / Investment Plan?
> 
> Are you sure?  Do you know how much Canada spends on the F-18 today?  It’s in the public record, and it’s not a small number. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the anticipated YFR for FCFP throughout the 30 years of the aircrafts life and how it isn’t affordable within the Department’s already planned budgetary planned allocations.
> 
> Without seeing the details of the F35, Super Hornet and Gripen complete packages, I’m not going to parrot jingoistic, subjective critique-lines on any particular contender.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax

Do we really want to have partner nations like Brazil when it comes to software development and systems integration?  Or do we want to stay in the “circle of trust”?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Do we really want to have partner nations like Brazil when it comes to software development and systems integration?  Or do we want to stay in the “circle of trust”?



That was my point, above. Brazil, India, Botswana, South Africa, Thailand and maybe not even the Czechs or Hungarians would be allowed to see our version of the software.

Ask me how I know how ruinously expensive that will be for us....


----------



## Kirkhill

And we are back to Daddy Trudeau's playing footsie with Cuba, Yugoslavia and India in the Non-Aligned Movement.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ah, I see. It’s the Navy’s turn.  Cutting
> edge force projection and coalition contribution only needs to happen at 28kts or less?  You’re parroting politically structured/postured argumentation...Classic “either this or that but not both...”
> 
> Are you personally confident in your knowledge of the Defence Investment Plan that CSC/JSS/AOPS protions of the NSS would be compromised were FCFP proceed with the existing DIP allocations (based on F35)?



Of course not as I am not privy to that information; however, its well known that the current force structure of the Canadian Armed Forces is unsustainable at current spending levels.  With no new money forthcoming, this will not change.

See: *Fiscal Sustainability of Canada’s National
Defence Program*
Dated: 26 Mar 15



> The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates
> that the current force structure of the Department of
> National Defence (DND) is unsustainable at current
> funding levels. To achieve sustainability, it will be
> necessary to change the force structure, increase the
> amount of funding allocated to DND, or implement a
> combination of the two.


https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/Defence_Analysis_EN.pdf

This situation has never been rectified, even with all the theatrics of "Strong, Secure, Engaged" and all of the funding promised has been kicked down the road until later, whenever that date materializes.  So yes, the Defence Department continues to atrophy capability, year after year.

They also just released a report on the Canadian Surface Combatant program:

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2019/Canada-Surface-Combatants-update/CSC_Update_2019_Report_E.pdf

Updated estimate cost is $69.8 billion for the program, that's close to $10 billion more than the previous estimate in 2017.  It keeps increasing, year after year. Inflation is a real killer!

My entire argument is based around the premise that if no increase in Defence spending as a percentage of our GDP is forthcoming, we will not be able to feed our Defence Department's considerable appetite for cutting edge equipment. How do we build ships while also maintaining a fighter force capability?



> You believe the Gripen is ‘okay’....Saab has not formally submitted a proposal that has been evaluated by PSPC, so how certain are you about its capability and merit against all requirement s criteria that your statement is true.
> 
> Why not accept less within NSS?  Let’s see a reduction in the $100B+ life-cycle costs!
> 
> ...of course lass the more than $1B of F35 parts built by 1000’s of Canadians to date...but that doesn’t even begin to address the disproportionate costs to keep low volume ‘unique’ aircraft running for three decades.  It is a mug’s game to believe that  cheaper acquisition costs necessarily equate to lower life-cycle costs...which are known to be lower when shared across much greater quantities



I believe the Gripen to be adequate for our needs.  Will it be anywhere close to as capable as the F35, hell no.  Will it be capable of bombing brigands in North Africa and the Middle East?  Absolument.  It's also perfectly capable of chasing down 60s era Tupolev bombers.  If a country like Sweden, which is 27% the size of Canada population wise can support their own fighter aircraft, it should not be a problem for us.  I am worried about costs to the Canadian Armed Forces of actually operating the F35.  Which will come at the expense of other projects, projects that are equally necessary.

I also doubt that we will have 15 Frigates at the end of the CSC, regardless of what the present Government says.  The timeline for the CSC is so long that any Government in power can basically say whatever they want.  My prediction is due to escalating program costs coupled with inflation, we end up with less than 15 CSCs.  We might build some additional ones but maybe they will be sold to someone else (New Zealand, Chile, etc).  Every new ship build in Europe has over-promised and under-delivered so what makes us think we will be any different.

Likewise, unless we do something drastic, I can't see affording new capabilities like RPA, Investments in Cyber, replacements for the Aurora, Vic Class Submarines, etc.  I trust the PBO way more than I trust any sort of Defence Investment Plan.



> The F-22 Raptor is the King Tiger.  F-35 is ‘just’ a Panzer V (Panther).  Having a Panzer I or II without the sensor/fire control capabilities of the V or Tiger II...is that good enough for Canada?  So long as it gets all 15 CSC with bells and whistles, right?
> 
> Those may be Janes’ figures, but they are highly
> contextual...the fact that a Gripen is cheaper than publicly available (via ATIP) historical all-up cost figures even for a CH-146 Griffon makes me wonder about the applicability of directly relating those figures provided with how Canada would operate and find the aircraft. Spoiler alert when you ATIP the RCAF platform costs, you’ll find the CF-188 is not the most expensive aircraft to operate...shut down those more expensive? Lease alternatives. Shoot solidly for middle of the road?
> 
> 
> Cost and life-cycle cost to come down drastically, but still not enough?
> 
> Break the piggy bank, aka Canada’s Fiscal Framework / Investment Plan?
> 
> Are you sure?  Do you know how much Canada spends on the F-18 today?  It’s in the public record, and it’s not a small number. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the anticipated YFR for FCFP throughout the 30 years of the aircrafts life and how it isn’t affordable within the Department’s already planned budgetary planned allocations.
> 
> Without seeing the details of the F35, Super Hornet and Gripen complete packages, I’m not going to parrot jingoistic, subjective critique-lines on any particular contender.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I have no particular allegiance to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force or any service in the CAF for that matter.  What I care about is that Canada is able to deliver capabilities across the spectrum of combat with the budget that we have been allocated by the Government of Canada which according to SIPRI was $21.6 billion last year placing us at #14 in the world for total military spending.

https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/fs_1904_milex_2018_0.pdf

Canada absolutely needs fighter aircraft but it also needs RPAs, New Maritime Patrol Aircraft, New Ships, Submarines and many other capabilities which it is presently lacking.  It somehow needs to fit this in to that $21.6 billion and sacrifices will need to be made for that to be accomplished.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And we are back to Daddy Trudeau's playing footsie with Cuba, Yugoslavia and India in the Non-Aligned Movement.



We have been in the Non-Aligned Movement since the 1970s in all but spirit.  Token contributions to Defence of Europe notwithstanding, we have sat out almost all Anglo-American interventions and were an otherwise reluctant player 95% of the time.  This isn't to knock the quality of the CAF, it's the reality of the political situation in Canada.


----------



## SupersonicMax

HB:  how do you assume our mission set is unopposed CAS exclusively?  Have you read SSE and how it relates to what we, the fighter force, need to be ready to face?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Back to the old Colonial way of thinking I see.

Screw it, just give the Americans the 21.5$ billion a year and have them defend us in name as they already do in spirit. 

I’m sick of this second tier way of thinking that Canadians suffer from.  It’s time that we pay our own way and have what it takes to sit at the table with the Adults.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...
> Canada absolutely needs fighter aircraft but it also needs RPAs, New Maritime Patrol Aircraft, New Ships, Submarines and many other capabilities which it is presently lacking.  It somehow needs to fit this in to that $21.6 billion and sacrifices will need to be made for that to be accomplished.



So you don’t believe that FFCP was properly and fully budgeted completely into DND’s Investment Plan accrual profile, then, and if not reduced in scope, will endanger other programs?

Regards
G2G


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Back to the old Colonial way of thinking I see.
> 
> Screw it, just give the Americans the 21.5$ billion a year and have them defend us in name as they already do in spirit.
> 
> I’m sick of this second tier way of thinking that Canadians suffer from.  It’s time that we pay our own way and have what it takes to sit at the table with the Adults.



To be honest, we never really got out of the colonial way of thinking.  It was first the French, then the Brits, then the Americans.  

The one thing that would change this mindset is if the US attacked us.  Until then, most of the public will think the US will protect us and therefore not give a whit about Defence.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dimsum said:
			
		

> To be honest, we never really got out of the colonial way of thinking.  It was first the French, then the Brits, then the Americans.
> 
> The one thing that would change this mindset is if the US attacked us.  Until then, most of the public will think the US will protect us and therefore not give a whit about Defence.



I’d argue that there was a time from 1945 - 1960 that we grew a pair and stood, for the most part, on our own two feet. 

If the US “attacked us”, it would make the Germans going through Denmark look like a never ending saga.


----------



## OldSolduer

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I’d argue that there was a time from 1945 - 1960 that we grew a pair and stood, for the most part, on our own two feet.
> 
> If the US “attacked us”, it would make the Germans going through Denmark look like a never ending saga.



I agree with that. Then Hellyer  and the best friend  :sarcasm: of the CAF - PET - gutted the military and we have never recovered or allowed to recover from that.


----------



## Journeyman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ... choosing to be a country with an adult foreign and defence policy.


Wow, I just heard Martin Luther King's voice in my head saying  "I have a dream..."  op:


----------



## GR66

One topic I've seen come up on various sites is the need for the USAF to increase it's ability to conduct "Distributed Operations" due to the vulnerability of airfields to missile and air attack (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2900/RR2959/RAND_RR2959.pdf).  

This is particularly true in the Asia-Pacific theater due to the relatively limited number of air bases and the number of missiles that China can deploy, but I'd imagine it would also be an issue in a conflict with Russia as one of their key objectives would be to eliminate NATO's ability to secure air superiority.

Saab claims a minimum take-off distance of 500m and minimum landing distance of 600m for the Gripen-E (https://saab.com/globalassets/gripen.com/downloads/gripen-e-fact-sheet--en.pdf) but I imagine this is for an unloaded aircraft, but from what I've read it is designed to operate from a network of 800m runways distributed across Sweden in their "Bas 90" (Air Base System 90) network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90) in time of war so I assume the 800m runway length is for combat loaded aircraft.  I've also read claims that a group of 10 Gripen-E's can be supported in operations by a single C-130.  

By comparison the F-35A requires a minimum runway length of 8,000' (2438m) for safe operation according the the RAAF.

Does this have any impact on the concept of operations for the RCAF?  I know our CF-18s operate from multiple airfields in Canada as I'm sure the F-35A's will as well, but does an 8,000' minimum runway vs a 2,625' minimum runway pose a significantly greater risk?  

This website (https://www.indexmundi.com/canada/airports_with_paved_runways.html) suggests there are a total of 40 airports in Canada with runways over 8,000' but 444 airports with runways over 3,000' (914m).  Could an enemy effectively ground our fighter force or keep them so far south as to be ineffective against threats in the far North by hitting a fairly small number of targets?  

Similarly, could China by attacking key long airfields in the region prevent our fighters from being able to deploy within effective combat range of a conflict area like Taiwan or the South China Sea?

Should this be a factor in our selection of a replacement fighter?


----------



## Czech_pivo

I find this to be interesting - granted it might have been taken out of context - In November 2012, Lieutenant Colonel Lars Helmrich of the Swedish Air Force testified to the Riksdag regarding the Gripen E. He stated that the current version of the Gripen would be outdated in air-to-air combat by 2020.[170] With 60 Gripens having been judged to be the minimum required to defend Swedish Airspace, the Swedish Air Force wants to have 60–80 Gripens upgraded to the E/F standard by 2020.[171]


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> HB:  how do you assume our mission set is unopposed CAS exclusively?  Have you read SSE and how it relates to what we, the fighter force, need to be ready to face?



Never assumed any such thing.  I have read SSE and it's beyond vague which is why I don't place a whole lot of value in it as a capstone document.



> the Canadian Armed Forces requires a fighter fleet that is capable, upgradeable, resilient and interoperable with our allies and partners




capable of what?
upgradeable to what?
resilient against what?

Interoperable is the only piece that's pretty self-explanatory but there is no evidence that European aircraft suffer from any real interoperability issues beyond bureaucratic inertia.  

The big concern for me isn't whether we have a Fighter Force or not as we clearly need one.  It's how do we procure a new fighter force while also being able to afford all the other capabilities we need to replace/generate?



> Replace the CF-18 fleet with 88 advanced fighter aircraft to improve Canadian Armed Forces air control and air attack capability.
> Acquire space capabilities meant to improve situational awareness and targeting, including: replacement of the current RADARSAT system to improve the identification and tracking of threats and improve situational awareness of routine traffic in and through Canadian territory; sensors capable of identifying and tracking debris in space that threatens Canadian and allied space-based systems (surveillance of space); and, space-based systems that will enhance and improve tactical narrow- and wide-band communications globally, including throughout Canada’s Arctic region.
> Acquire new Tactical Integrated Command, Control, and Communications, radio cryptography, and other necessary communications systems.
> Recapitalize next generation strategic air-to-air tanker-transport capability (CC-150 Polaris replacement).
> Replace utility transport aircraft (CC-138 Twin Otter replacement).
> Acquire next generation multi-mission aircraft (CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft replacement).
> Invest in medium altitude remotely piloted systems.
> Modernize short-range air-to-air missiles (fighter aircraft armament).
> Upgrade air navigation, management, and control systems.
> Acquire aircrew training systems.
> Recapitalize or life-extend existing capabilities in advance of the arrival of next generation platforms.
> Sustain domestic search and rescue capability, to include life extension of existing systems, acquisition of new platforms, and greater integration with internal and external partners.
> Operationalize the newly acquired Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue aircraft fleet.



Lots of other pieces in that list from SSE that the CAF needs to invest in but the big piece is the integration of all those pieces of equipment and the effects they are able to deliver in the Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW) Concept which is a great little capability that the RCAF has that needs to not only be maintained but enhanced.  When we deploy Canadian Air Assets somewhere, they need to be able to show up and not rely on someone else for everything from AAR, ISR, Targeting, etc.  That includes investments in capabilities we don't presently have like Armed RPAs.

I personally think focusing primarily on the fighter force at the expense of everything else is a fools errand, which is why SSE is such a weak document from an Air Power perspective. The Army has the Brigade, The Navy the Task Group.  The Air Force has the AEW but they don't talk about it at all, only that they need those new fighters!

Fighter Aircraft are nothing without all the other enablers that support it. That includes everything from Logistics, C2, ISR, EW, AAR, etc.  It's the sum of all those parts that when combined, give a military an actual combat capability.  It's like trying to play a game of chess only focusing on moving the Queen.  The Queen can do a lot of damage but is usually pretty useless without shaping actions and mutual support provided by the Rooks, Knights, Bishops and Pawns all of whom serve different but equally important roles.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So you don’t believe that FFCP was properly and fully budgeted completely into DND’s Investment Plan accrual profile, then, and if not reduced in scope, will endanger other programs?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



You can add FFCP along with every other procurement program to the list of overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to cost(s).  It's the nature of our schizophrenic Defence Policy.  

The Fighter Force will have their Ferraris and then the next hot combat theatre we show up in where Canadians are getting shot at and killed, we won't have the right coloured uniforms, any helicopters, a proper NSE with adequate logistic support for our operating area, tanks, etc, etc...

Oh, those Ferraris won't be able to support the troops in contact either, wouldn't want to scratch the them.



			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I find this to be interesting - granted it might have been taken out of context - In November 2012, Lieutenant Colonel Lars Helmrich of the Swedish Air Force testified to the Riksdag regarding the Gripen E. He stated that the current version of the Gripen would be outdated in air-to-air combat by 2020.[170] With 60 Gripens having been judged to be the minimum required to defend Swedish Airspace, the Swedish Air Force wants to have 60–80 Gripens upgraded to the E/F standard by 2020.[171]



That's the Gripen C he is talking about.  Which is why Sweden is upgrading to the Gripen E.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...I personally think focusing only on the F35 at the expense of everything else is a fools errand, which is why SSE is such a weak document from an Air Power perspective.



You seem to be the only one focusing on the F35 at the “expense of everything else.”

CFD ran all those capabilities through CIPPR prior to SSE being released, so the CAF has done the appropriate due diligence to assess the viability and affordability of all the capabilities noted in SSE.  

The “fools errand” is trying to present an F-35 based FFCP capability as unaffordable and being the only COA that is endangering the viability of the entire Defence Services Program.  My personal view is that CSC is a far greater threat to the viability/affordability of DND’s capability set, but that’s just an opinion of a retiree so that and $2.10 will get you Timmies large double-double...

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...so that and $2.10 will get you Timmies large double-double...



But unlike anything from Irving, every 7th Timmies is free...


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But unlike anything from Irving, every 7th Timmies is free...



True, otherwise we would be getting 17 CSC for the price of 15.

And since the Government is in the mood to buy things at $4B a pop, why don’t we sneak in two B-2s...kind of a BOGO deal?


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> True, otherwise we would be getting 17 CSC for the price of 15.
> 
> And since the Government is in the mood to buy things at $4B a pop, why don’t we sneak in two B-2s...kind of a BOGO deal?



You appear to be confusing government procurement with a desire to acquire usable capability, and not merely as a wealth transfer mechanism where capability is merely an afterthought.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You seem to be the only one focusing on the F35 at the “expense of everything else.”
> 
> CFD ran all those capabilities through CIPPR prior to SSE being released, so the CAF has done the appropriate due diligence to assess the viability and affordability of all the capabilities noted in SSE.
> 
> The “fools errand” is trying to present an F-35 based FFCP capability as unaffordable and being the only COA that is endangering the viability of the entire Defence Services Program.  My personal view is that CSC is a far greater threat to the viability/affordability of DND’s capability set, but that’s just an opinion of a retiree so that and $2.10 will get you Timmies large double-double...
> 
> Regards
> G2G



It's not the only COA but my concern is how do we continue to not only deliver the program we are currently delivering while also affording flexibility for new and emerging capabilities?

The NSPS isn't going away, ships are going to be built.  I've already mentioned that I don't believe 15 CSCs will be built because as you say, the $$$$ aren't there.  I think we will probably end up with approximately 2/3 of what's been promised due to cost overruns.  That's consistent with other nations shipbuilding programs as well which have had to manage expectations.  If the UK is getting 8 and Australia is getting 9, I have a very hard time believing Canada will build 15.  More likely we will build 8 to 10 and if we do build others, it will be for someone else's Navy.

Even with the NSPS, the Air Force is getting the vast majority of new funding if you believe what SSE says.



> The Government will provide $17.5 billion to fund equipment projects for the Royal Canadian Navy over the next 20 years.
> The Government will provide $46.4 billion to fund equipment projects for the Royal Canadian Air Force over the next 20 years.
> 
> The Government will provide $18.9 billion for Canadian Army equipment projects over the next 20 years.
> The Government will provide $1.5 billion to fund equipment projects for Canada’s Special Operations Forces over the next 20 years.
> The Government will provide $4.6 billion for joint capability projects in domains such as cyber, intelligence as well as joint command and control over the next 20 years.
> The Government will provide $4.9 billion over the next 20 years to infrastructure projects across Canada in order to maintain the necessary portfolio of real property holdings.





So 50% of the money is going to the Air Force, 18% to the Navy and 20% to the Army over the next 20 years.  

Here is my prediction:

Navy:  We end up with 8/10 CSC, Submarines are divested without replacements.
Air Force:  We end up with the F35 but we lose our AAR capability and have to rely on the USAF for that overseas, we also don't replace the MPA capability and other capabilities lag like Armed RPAs, Tac Hel replacements, etc.  I seriously doubt we will have any sort of Armed RPAs in the CAF by the time I retire.
Army:  Tanks quietly go away in 10-15 years but we keep the Mobility/Engineering variants. No new Air Defence capability, etc.  

Essentially, we end up with a military that is able to conduct flag waving exercises overseas and nothing more.  We don't offer much more than that now in many cases.  It was mostly luck that the CAF was able to put the right pieces of equipment together with the right upgrades and bring high levels of value to the Air Campaigns in Libya & Iraq.  I don't see any sort of deliberate plan to maintain that institutional inertia.

My personal opinion, which is what's driving my present dissension with basically everyone in this thread, is the CAF needs to find a way to provide similar capabilities to what it can deliver now, while also planning for financing emerging and new capabilities, without breaking the bank account which is eroding due to a number of factors: aversion to military spending, inflation, etc.  That means buying in certain cases, an SKS i.e. the poor man's deer hunting rifle.

With that in mind G2G, I have to agree with you that CSC will probably do equal amounts of damage to the Defence Services Program.  This thread isn't about CSC though, it's about the Future Fighter procurement.  I certainly don't think the Gripen or Super Hornet is a better aircraft than the F35, the F35 is clearly a more capable aircraft, the question I am really wondering is how much more its going to cost and is that cost worth it?  It's too bad that Airbus & Dassault dropped out as I would have been interested to see an objective competition held between all five competitors.


----------



## Good2Golf

Keeping in mind that SSE is a living document, and even itself is not current. To wit, CSC ranged from DND estimates of $55-60B to PBO’s estimate of $70B.  Those figures were for the 26-year project duration, but you can see that SSE’s ‘division of the pot’ as it were, is not accurate. $17.5B for ALL Navy projects in the next 20 years?  That doesn’t true up even with CSC cash flow alone.  In 20 years, at least $40-45B will be disbursed on CSC alone. Add JSS and AOPS, etc. and the Senior Service is looking to spend more than the Air Force and Army combined...


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Keeping in mind that SSE is a living document, and even itself is not current. To wit, CSC ranged from DND estimates of $55-60B to PBO’s estimate of $70B.  Those figures were for the 26-year project duration, but you can see that SSE’s ‘division of the pot’ as it were, is not accurate. $17.5B for ALL Navy projects in the next 20 years?  That doesn’t true up even with CSC cash flow alone.  In 20 years, at least $40-45B will be disbursed on CSC alone. Add JSS and AOPS, etc. and the Senior Service is looking to spend more than the Air Force and Army combined...



Are we talking accrual or cash based?  Depending on delivery timelines and amortization periods, $17.5B may well be accurate for the 20 year horizon.


----------



## Good2Golf

I don’t know the section of SSE that HB quoted, but I wouldn’t think it would be cash account V1 monies. When I see the word ‘project(s)’ I have difficulty believing that doesn’t include a healthy amount of accrual-based investment cash pulled from the Fiscal Frameworkz


----------



## Czech_pivo

Can someone please explain how Spain, with about 15.5$ Billion USD in military spending and 120k in the Armed Forces can have an Aircraft Carrier, a comparable sized navy to ours, a larger Air Force by about 40%, a larger army and a 5,000 strong naval marine unit in the same pay packet. 
I mean, they are looking at the F-35 for their carrier and quite possibly for their remaining 120 F18’s fighters.
Why the difference? Are we so top heavy in Brass as some are saying that large piles of cash are being sucked up needlessly?  Is it our massive size and small population that leads to such large discrepancies and inefficiencies?  Do we pay our soldiers that much more then they do that our bang for the buck is sucked up in payroll?


----------



## OldSolduer

I’ll be f$&king dead before the RCAF gets a replacement for the F-18. Its been eight or nine years now with no decision.
Maybe (tin foil hat) the current or future GoC will just decide the RCAF cannot have any fighters at all....you know because it’s 2019.
I genuinely fear for the future of the CAF.


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Can someone please explain how Spain, with about 15.5$ Billion USD in military spending and 120k in the Armed Forces can have an Aircraft Carrier, a comparable sized navy to ours, a larger Air Force by about 40%, a larger army and a 5,000 strong naval marine unit in the same pay packet.
> I mean, they are looking at the F-35 for their carrier and quite possibly for their remaining 120 F18’s fighters.
> Why the difference? Are we so top heavy in Brass as some are saying that large piles of cash are being sucked up needlessly?  Is it our massive size and small population that leads to such large discrepancies and inefficiencies?  Do we pay our soldiers that much more then they do that our bang for the buck is sucked up in payroll?



They are organized to be a military not just a institution, 15 brigades in 6 military regions. If we wanted efficacy we would drop down to two army, one air division, not to mention our bureaucracy is overly redundant and meant to keep people employed not be effective.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> They are organized to be a military not just a institution, 15 brigades in 6 military regions. If we wanted efficacy we would drop down to two army, one air division, not to mention our bureaucracy is overly redundant and meant to keep people employed not be effective.



So basically if we cut the bloated brass, trim the GHQ numbers, amalgamate some units, close some of the lesser needed/used bases, that our current budget would allow us to increase our Armed Forces by 50% in numbers, easily afford 88+ F-35's, get all 15 CSC's, replace the subs, CP-140's, the Kingstons and a bunch of others things??

So, who I have to fire first to get the ball rolling?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Can someone please explain how Spain, with about 15.5$ Billion USD in military spending and 120k in the Armed Forces can have an Aircraft Carrier, a comparable sized navy to ours, a larger Air Force by about 40%, a larger army and a 5,000 strong naval marine unit in the same pay packet.
> I mean, they are looking at the F-35 for their carrier and quite possibly for their remaining 120 F18’s fighters.
> Why the difference? Are we so top heavy in Brass as some are saying that large piles of cash are being sucked up needlessly?  Is it our massive size and small population that leads to such large discrepancies and inefficiencies?  Do we pay our soldiers that much more then they do that our bang for the buck is sucked up in payroll?



Spain is also broke, and one of the leading economic basket cases in Europe.... just sayin'


----------



## Czech_pivo

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Spain is also broke, and one of the leading economic basket cases in Europe.... just sayin'



Very true - but another 4yrs of this gov’t and we’ll be neck and neck with them.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Can someone please explain how Spain, with about 15.5$ Billion USD in military spending and 120k in the Armed Forces can have an Aircraft Carrier, a comparable sized navy to ours, a larger Air Force by about 40%, a larger army and a 5,000 strong naval marine unit in the same pay packet.
> I mean, they are looking at the F-35 for their carrier and quite possibly for their remaining 120 F18’s fighters.
> Why the difference? Are we so top heavy in Brass as some are saying that large piles of cash are being sucked up needlessly?  Is it our massive size and small population that leads to such large discrepancies and inefficiencies?  Do we pay our soldiers that much more then they do that our bang for the buck is sucked up in payroll?



The CAF are the second highest paid military in the world considering all the benefits etc...  The cost of people in the CAF is very high.  Spain doesn't have those issues.  The infrastructure costs in Spain are also much lower given that the country is smaller, and doesn't need to spread bases around everywhere, and the fact the US pays for at least one of their large naval/air bases (Rota).  I don't see the US carrying the freight for Halifax and Shearwater combined.

Spain also does not spend very much to keep older equipment going.  We pay quite a bit to ensure our older equipment works.  For example my last NATO the Spanish OHP had a 30mm that they hadn't fired in 15 years.  Their new ships are cheaper to operate than our old ships, so maintenance costs are lower. Which leads me to my next point.  New ships (read CSC) even with the sticker price will be cheaper on a year over year basis than keeping our current ships going.  It's at the point where payments on the new car are less than the repairs/maintenance on the old car.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Can someone please explain how Spain, with about 15.5$ Billion USD in military spending and 120k in the Armed Forces can have an Aircraft Carrier, a comparable sized navy to ours, a larger Air Force by about 40%, a larger army and a 5,000 strong naval marine unit in the same pay packet.
> I mean, they are looking at the F-35 for their carrier and quite possibly for their remaining 120 F18’s fighters.
> Why the difference? Are we so top heavy in Brass as some are saying that large piles of cash are being sucked up needlessly?  Is it our massive size and small population that leads to such large discrepancies and inefficiencies?  Do we pay our soldiers that much more then they do that our bang for the buck is sucked up in payroll?



One area where they may save money is in wages/benefits. From '99-'03 I was stationed in Naples, Italy at AFSOUTH HQ and I worked with two Spanish Army WO's  and they received a fraction of the benefits that I did. Example, one of them was married and they received very little/no benefits to help them. Mind you, since then their benefits may have improved.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> One area where they may save money is in wages/benefits. From '99-'03 I was stationed in Naples, Italy at AFSOUTH HQ and I worked with two Spanish Army WO's  and they received a fraction of the benefits that I did. Example, one of them was married and they received very little/no benefits to help them. Mind you, since then their benefits may have improved.



I had a sense that this was the case, coupled with a smaller country, these can add up to significantly higher costs, but really that much?


----------



## jmt18325

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Very true - but another 4yrs of this gov’t and we’ll be neck and neck with them.



While I hate to derail this thread, that isn't even remotely true.  Our debt to GDP ratio is small and decreasing, unlike Spain.


----------



## Czech_pivo

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> While I hate to derail this thread, that isn't even remotely true.  Our debt to GDP ratio is small and decreasing, unlike Spain.



So you’re saying that we can afford to spend more on our military and pay our fair share?


----------



## Czech_pivo

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> While I hate to derail this thread, that isn't even remotely true.  Our debt to GDP ratio is small and decreasing, unlike Spain.



One major thing to remember is that Spain doesn’t have the concept of Provincial Gov’ts that take up debts the size of Ontario’s. Add in Ontario’s debt to the Feds, along with Quebec et al and then talk to me.


----------



## jmt18325

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> So you’re saying that we can afford to spend more on our military and pay our fair share?



I've always been a proponent of that, yeah.


----------



## jmt18325

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> One major thing to remember is that Spain doesn’t have the concept of Provincial Gov’ts that take up debts the size of Ontario’s. Add in Ontario’s debt to the Feds, along with Quebec et al and then talk to me.



I'd love to discuss this further - I just know I'll get in trouble for doing it here.


----------



## Dale Denton

Thread should be split into a discussion into the many differences in the defence realm between us and Spain. Interesting read so far.


----------



## Spencer100

Does Canada really have any other options?  

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/one-nation-may-have-no-choice-buy-f-35-stealth-fighter-84806


----------



## tomahawk6

Canada has a NORAD mission so IMO that dictates the type of aircraft and range. So that trims the options to twin engine with some type of stealth capability. It must be able to interoperate with the USAF . Maybe Rafale ? 

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/watch-first-look-of-rafale-fighter-jet-for-iaf/videoshow/66604791.cms


----------



## Sub_Guy

Why twin engine?


----------



## AlexanderM

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada has a NORAD mission so IMO that dictates the type of aircraft and range. So that trims the options to twin engine with some type of stealth capability. It must be able to interoperate with the USAF . Maybe Rafale ?
> 
> https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/watch-first-look-of-rafale-fighter-jet-for-iaf/videoshow/66604791.cms


Rafale already withdrew, as they either could not interoperate to the level required with the US or it was too expensive to do so within the contract. I really like the Rafale but it's not going to happen.


----------



## tomahawk6

Maybe the F15X might fit the bill ?

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/30/boeings-new-f-15x-may-replace-an-aging-fleet-of-f-15cd-eagles/


----------



## MilEME09

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Why twin engine?



Many argue that due to how vast and remote our arctic is, twin engine is better because if one engine fails they can still limp back to base, vs going down in the middle of no where


----------



## SeaKingTacco

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Maybe the F15X might fit the bill ?
> 
> https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/30/boeings-new-f-15x-may-replace-an-aging-fleet-of-f-15cd-eagles/



Except Boeing isn't offering that to Canada. They are offering the Super Hornet.


----------



## CBH99

I realize Boeing isn't "offering" the Super Hornet, but could Canada not request that it be offered?  If it was seriously being considered, in an alternative dimension, would Boeing really give up the chance to sell 88 planes to us if we wanted the new F15 instead of the updated F18?


----------



## PuckChaser

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I realize Boeing isn't "offering" the Super Hornet, but could Canada not request that it be offered?  If it was seriously being considered, in an alternative dimension, would Boeing really give up the chance to sell 88 planes to us if we wanted the new F15 instead of the updated F18?



Not how our system works. Its up to the manufacturers to bid the aircraft they think best meets the requirements.


----------



## Baz

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not how our system works. Its up to the manufacturers to bid the aircraft they think best meets the requirements.



... and meets the current business plan of the company.


----------



## Uzlu

> Erratic flight path: Canada’s fighter procurement plan
> 
> The path towards procuring a replacement fighter for the CF-188 Hornet has been one with many twists and turns due to political gamesmanship and strategic business marketing, causing much public misunderstanding.
> 
> This short article aims to put a few things into perspective as the competitors complete their analysis and response to the government’s request for proposal (RFP) issued July 23, 2019, for the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).
> 
> *Eligible suppliers*
> 
> Of the original five qualifying suppliers, only the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III, Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II, and Saab Gripen E fighters remain in the competition.
> 
> The Dassault Rafale and Airbus Eurofighter Typhoon were both pulled from consideration, with company officials citing “that NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] security requirements continue to place too significant of a cost on platforms whose manufacture and repair chains sit outside the United States-Canada 2-EYES community.”
> 
> Given that the Canadian government identified the first two principal roles of the Canadian Armed Forces as ensuring Canadian sovereignty and the defence of North America, the requirement to be fully functional and integral within NORAD is mandatory.
> 
> The reality today is that fighters are not simply weapons platforms, but flying computers that also function as airborne sensors that are designed to be integrated into command and control computer networks. Thus, the challenge for non-American manufacturers is to overcome both sensitive commercial and U.S. national security concerns when they are required to integrate and support U.S. information-sharing equipment in their platforms.
> 
> A second reason given for Airbus’s departure was the eleventh-hour modification to the RFP that relaxed the expected industrial technological benefits (ITB) obligations. To attract more than three suppliers and ensure a competition, the government originally stuck to its standing ITB policy of “requiring the winning supplier to make investments in Canada equal to the value of the contract.” However, this effectively eliminated the F-35 due to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program agreement – signed by Canada – that forbade such a demand. To provide latitude to all bidders, the final RFP was modified into a two-phased proposal to allow non-American companies to address 2/5-EYES challenges up front, while also applying rated criteria for economic offset potential of stated ITB requirements, to keep the F-35 within the bidding process. Additionally, five per cent was shifted from cost to economic criteria to compensate for changes in the original draft ITB policy. The proposals will now be assessed on 60 per cent technical merit, 20 per cent cost and 20 per cent economic benefits.
> 
> *Current bidders*
> 
> In recent years, the Saab Group expanded globally by offering industrial partnerships that combined local production and capital-heavy ventures with national customer partners.
> 
> Saab’s approach with the Gripen E bid in Canada follows this successful formula of maximizing national economic benefits with an economical product; however, Saab also faces the challenges that Airbus determined to be too difficult to overcome. Additionally, the Gripen E is still in development; its first production flight occurred on Aug. 26, 2019, meaning issues of proven performance and systems maturation need to be factored in during bid evaluation. According to the firm, this first fighter will be used as a test aircraft in a joint Swedish/Brazilian test program, the only two customers for the Gripen E to date.
> 
> Given that the Eurofighter bid was sponsored by the U.K. government, a member of the 5-EYES community that decided it could not meet the information-sharing requirements, Saab will need to be innovative and cost-conscious in its proposal if it is to surmount this mission-critical criteria.
> 
> As for the Super Hornet, Boeing promised to invest $18 billion in ITBs under the failed 2017 purchase agreement for 18 fighters, and it is anticipated that the company will follow its established approach to investing in Canada as per previous ITB commitments.
> 
> Concern over the so-called Boeing Clause, “to allow only companies that it deems ‘trusted partners’ to bid on major capital programs,” has faded away and Boeing is confident that it can mount a competitive bid,  particularly now that the U.S. Navy’s (USN) commitment to future purchases will keep the production line open until 2033.
> 
> By incorporating leading-edge technology into the Block III to meet adversarial advances, Boeing has ensured the Super Hornet will meet Canadian requirements. Although still in development as well, a major question for government decision-makers has to do with sustainability. At present, only the USN and Kuwait will operate the Super Hornet Block III, while Australia has plans to upgrade their Block II version. As Australia expects to retire its fleet in the early 2040s and the USN in 2045, the challenge for Boeing will be in meeting the stated lifecycle expectancy of Canada’s future fighter in a cost-effective manner.
> 
> Since 2015, the much-maligned F-35 has proven itself in combat and counts Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the three U.S. services as customers. As the only fifth generation fighter, it contains technological advances that are designed into the aircraft and cannot be replicated in fourth generation platforms.
> 
> The overall architectural concept regards the F-35 as more than just a weapons platform, but also as a forward sensor that is fully integrated into the developing multi-domain command and control system. Initial airframe costs have been significantly reduced and early sustainment issues are being resolved; however, the F-35 remains the most costly platform to own and operate at the moment.
> 
> With a projected lifetime production run of over 4,000 fighters, lifecycle support is guaranteed, and Canadian industry stands to gain substantially from Canada’s early investment in the co-operative JSF Program. However, according to reports, manufacturers will lose points in the ITB element formula scoring system if they do not make a 100 per cent commitment to the contract value, which Lockheed-Martin is prohibited from doing by JSF contractual agreement.
> 
> *Arctic*
> 
> Interestingly, all remaining competitors can lay claim to being Arctic platforms. Canada has already proven the F/A-18’s credentials in the high North, the U.S. will base two combat F-35 squadrons in Alaska, and Sweden has developed the Gripen with Arctic operations in mind.
> 
> The issue of one versus two engines has never been a significant issue for Arctic operations except in Canada. Originally, two engines was one of the many discriminators used in choosing the F/A-18 over the F-16 in 1979. Recently, the Standing Committee on National Defence’s shaping of the narrative in 2016 to promote the sole-source purchase of the Super Hornet reintroduced the idea that operations in the Arctic demanded two engines.
> 
> As with commercial aviation where transatlantic flight once required four-engine passenger planes, the advancements in engine technology have led to standard two-engine models today. Engine reliability is not a concern with any of the competing fighters. However, operations in Canada’s Arctic are unique and risky in an inhospitable region that is 11 times the size of Sweden. Other discriminators, such as continuous communications and tracking, become equally or more important to survival.
> 
> *Stealth*
> 
> One of the unfortunate aspects of American F-35 global marketing efforts with respect to the FFCP is the issue of stealth technology. Although the idea of penetrating, first strike operations sells well in the U.S., stealth is a much maligned and misappropriated concept in Canada.
> 
> Stealth technology is all about maximizing self-protection and increasing survivability by disrupting the ‘kill-chain’ through low observability. This concept is no different from the tactical advantages that I used while flying the CF-104 in Germany during the Cold War. The Starfighter had a one-square-metre cross-section nose-on, making the adversary’s initial radar detection difficult and target acquisition and identification questionable, delaying force commitment to the target. This complicated the decision and order to attack the target, and finally upon weapons release, the low radar cross-section shrunk the available radar weapons envelope needed for destruction of the fighter. The CF-104’s speed significantly exacerbated the adversary’s kill-chain difficulties.
> 
> The CF-188 Hornet I flew later required a Defensive Electronic Countermeasures suite that masked the larger aircraft radar cross-section, and electronically intervened and complicated a more advanced kill-chain.
> 
> The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) will significantly decrease ambiguity and decision-making time in the near future. Whether built into the design or strapped on later, some form of self-protection is required to protect the pilot and the fighter asset that will either be defending Canadian territory or operate in foreign contested airspace when the government commits its fighter force.
> 
> The question is one of application and the cost effectiveness of self-protection measures used by each platform and how they are expressed in the bid proposal.
> 
> *Costs*
> 
> Costing is a nebulous exercise outside evaluation of the final bids due to the many variables. Although airframe costs are most often thrown around, the government must consider the airframe, operating, infrastructure, sustainment and other related costs as a package, balanced against the capability being purchased.
> 
> A good example of the intricacies involves the way the fighter fleet is bought. The Super Hornet must be purchased through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, where the U.S. government acts as the broker. Generally, a 30 per cent mark-up is charged for research and development (R&D) and administrative fees.
> 
> In the case of the F-35, as a JSF partner, these costs are reduced for Canada through common funding. The costs for R&D have already been shared by the membership pool, and partners pay the same price for the weapons system as the U.S. services.
> 
> Future upgrades become additional FMS expenses for the Super Hornet, whereas upgrade developments are shared by JSF members.
> 
> Each of the competitors is being asked to provide 88 fighter aircraft within the $19 billion funding envelope and the old adage of “you get what you pay for” is very applicable.
> 
> Each of these platforms brings a different level of current and future combat capability that needs to be judiciously weighed. If the fighter is to reach the government’s goal of flying until 2060, each needs to be flexible and adaptative to evolving technology. More significantly, 70 per cent of lifecycle costs are in sustainment and therefore the fighter chosen must be cost-effectively supported for the next 40 years.
> 
> *The next leg*
> 
> In the lead-up to the RFP, it has been evident that national security factors have been competing with economic benefit interests. With the election this fall, the next government (whatever form this takes) will no doubt want to review the project and put its own stamp of approval on the process that it has inherited.
> 
> Hopefully this will not further delay the decision on the replacement of the CF-188 fleet and the Royal Canadian Air Force will finally be able to move ahead with the best fighter aircraft Canadians can provide to the women and men who are putting their lives in harm’s way.
> 
> _Alan Stephenson (Col ret’d) holds a PhD from Carleton University and is a former CF-188 pilot with 3,600 hours flying fighters. He is currently an aviation consultant and a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute._


https://www.skiesmag.com/features/erratic-flight-path-canadas-fighter-procurement-plan/


----------



## Iron 1

As Stevenson notes, The 104 was an absolute beast and an ongoing nightmare for the "bad guys".
There were just not a lot of ways to interdict them unless the intercept profiles were impeccably flown and the PVO's radar net was able to maintain contact.
I have no seat time in fast air, but I do have decades of time spent learning about the period.
IOW? I'm a Cold War era base brat with an unremitting interest in the subject.
A new build CF-104 (boom AAR capability, composite construction, avionic upgrades, and an F-135; 35,000 lbs of thrust) would probably be an effective solution and something we could do here.

Thinking outside of the box...

Kelly's basic air frame is still as valid today as it was in 1952... 

Whether you could cram it all into the limited internal space is the question.

Regardless? If it could be done... it would turn the world upside down.
You don't need to turn and burn because missiles are (finally) delivering on the promises from the 60's.
Imagine a "snake" in the weeds with 35,000lbs pushing it.
OEL7 (J-79-11...etal.) was 10,000 dry and 15,800 wet.
Build it and see what happens...?
We could probably sell 2 or 3 thousand to tin pot regimes, in a dummied down version with an OEL-7.

Or not?

I really believe that Kelly Johnson hit the mark with the F 104.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Iron 1 said:
			
		

> As Stevenson notes, The 104 was an absolute beast and an ongoing nightmare for the "bad guys".
> There were just not a lot of ways to interdict them unless the intercept profiles were impeccably flown and the PVO's radar net was able to maintain contact.
> I have no seat time in fast air, but I do have decades of time spent learning about the period.
> IOW? I'm a Cold War era base brat with an unremitting interest in the subject.
> A new build CF-104 (boom AAR capability, composite construction, avionic upgrades, and an F-135; 35,000 lbs of thrust) would probably be an effective solution and something we could do here.
> 
> Thinking outside of the box...
> 
> Kelly's basic air frame is still as valid today as it was in 1952...
> 
> Whether you could cram it all into the limited internal space is the question.
> 
> Regardless? If it could be done... it would turn the world upside down.
> You don't need to turn and burn because missiles are (finally) delivering on the promises from the 60's.
> Imagine a "snake" in the weeds with 35,000lbs pushing it.
> OEL7 (J-79-11...etal.) was 10,000 dry and 15,800 wet.
> Build it and see what happens...?
> We could probably sell 2 or 3 thousand to tin pot regimes, in a dummied down version with an OEL-7.
> 
> Or not?
> 
> I really believe that Kelly Johnson hit the mark with the F 104.



With an endurance of 10 minutes...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Yeah, but it would be a pretty epic ten minutes.

Kind of like those guys flying  Me 163 Komets in 1945. Except without the cool ability to glide once the fuel ran out...


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Yeah, but it would be a pretty epic ten minutes.
> 
> Kind of like those guys flying  Me 163 Komets in 1945. Except without the cool ability to glide once the fuel ran out...



Oh it could glide, I’m sure....with a 0.00035:1 glide ratio...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Oh it could glide, I’m sure....with a 0.00035:1 glide ratio...



I glide better than that when I fall off ladders...


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I glide better than that when I fall off ladders...



Yep. :nod:


----------



## NavyShooter

Here's the thing about a 'reborn CF-104' - what is the role they'd be used in?  

In the Cold War, they were a nuke delivery device - Zip in, flip toss, boogey away from the 'big boom'.  

That's not how we use our fighters now.  

So....if we were to get a 'rebuilt' -104, it'd be an answer to a question we're not asking.


----------



## Kirkhill

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Here's the thing about a 'reborn CF-104' - what is the role they'd be used in?
> 
> In the Cold War, they were a nuke delivery device - Zip in, flip toss, boogey away from the 'big boom'.
> 
> That's not how we use our fighters now.
> 
> So....if we were to get a 'rebuilt' -104, it'd be an answer to a question we're not asking.



Ditch the pilot and you have a 1000 knot UAS.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Ditch the pilot and you have a 1000 knot UAS.



And fewer widows...


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And fewer widows...



Not if the UAS is doing its job right.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Head's up to potential contractors - you need security clearances to work on designing and building places to keep the fighter we haven't decided on yet ...


> ...*Purpose of this Advance Procurement Notice*
> 
> This is not a bid solicitation. This is an advance notice of potential projects with anticipated security requirements to provide interested Consultants/Contractors and Sub-consultants/Sub-Contractors an opportunity to apply for security clearances. Note that there is no guarantee that this project will proceed.
> 
> *Description of the Project*
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) requires infrastructure that can support a Future Fighter Capability (FFC) that will maintain the Defence of Canada, fulfill the role of a strong & reliable partner in the Defence of North America, and provide Canada with an effective and modern air capability for international operations. The infrastructure must provide shelter and a working environment capable of supporting the operation and maintenance of a yet to be determined advanced fighter aircraft. The infrastructure must also be capable of supporting operations at high security classifications and utilizing advanced technologies and equipment to enable the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to execute control of Canadian Airspace and contribute to Alliance/Coalition operations.
> 
> *Description of the Services*
> 
> If approved, work associated with the FFCP infrastructure could include concept development, design, renovation and/or new construction of operations, storage, maintenance, training and administrative facilities at the Main Operating Bases (MOBs) in Cold Lake and Bagotville and may include similar work at numerous other locations throughout Canada including the following:
> 
> - Deployed Operating Bases (DOBs): Comox, Winnipeg, Trenton, Greenwood, Goose Bay;
> - Forward Operating Locations (FOLs): Inuvik, Iqaluit, Yellowknife; and,
> - Combined Air Operations Centres (CAOCs): North Bay, Winnipeg.
> 
> The FFCP infrastructure work at the above locations is projected to occur between 2020 and 2030 ...


----------



## dimsum

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Head's up to potential contractors - you need security clearances to work on designing and building places to keep the fighter we haven't decided on yet ...



No surprise here - the infrastructure has to be secret (or higher) if the aircraft is going to be secret (or higher).


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> No surprise here - the infrastructure has to be secret (or higher) if the aircraft is going to be secret (or higher).



Dimsum, that’s not necessarily a point hoisted aboard by all contractors... :nod:


----------



## a_majoor

Going a bit sideways, but if there is a willingness to look at UCAVs (much like other air forces are doing), we might consider something based on the MQ-25 "Stingray".

We have lots of area to cover, so an aircraft with long range is certainly a big plus. The Stingray was designed as a "tanker", so it has a great deal of internal volume, which could be repurposed for a variety of other things. It could act as a large sensor platform, carry a considerable load of bombs or missiles or even more futuristic weapons (not that far in the future) such as lasers or hypersonic missiles. A "Stingray" that can fight with a laser of hypersonic missile really has little need to be able to fly at supersonic speeds, or even be much of a dogfighter.

For now, such an aircraft would be under the control of a nearby CF-18 in the manner of the "Loyal Wingman" concept the USAF is looking at. How autonomous these aircraft could be is an open question, certainly there is no possibility of making them completely autonomous with current or near term technology, but perhaps the need for a human controller close at hand might be lessened over the coming years.


----------



## Uzlu

> Job guarantees for aerospace workers a must: Federal NDP
> 
> REGARDLESS of which company wins the CF-18 fighter replacement contract, Trudeau’s Liberal government must make sure there are job guarantees for aerospace workers here in Canada and strong economic benefits for the Canadian public, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said at a press conference on Wednesday in Ottawa with NDP Deputy Leader Alexandre Boulerice and Yvon Payment from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW).
> 
> “This case has been dragging on for years. It’s starting to get ridiculous. In 2015, the Liberals promised to fix the tendering process and four years later, nothing has happened,” said Boulerice. “In Mirabel, men and women are working miracles to make the CF-18s work. Without the knowledge and ingenuity of this group of workers, the government would be in trouble. At the very least, [Prime Minister] Justin Trudeau and his new ministers must respond quickly to this issue and make sure these workers continue to do this work.”
> 
> For 37 years, the repair and maintenance of Canadian CF-18s has been carried out in Quebec. Today, the work done on Canadian fighter aircrafts at L3-Harris in Mirabel provides employment for about 600 people. To date, it is impossible to know whether the government intends to obtain the necessary guarantees to protect jobs in the country or to know the extent and type of industrial and technological economic benefits that will come from the contract to manufacture 88 Royal Canadian Air Force fighter jets.
> 
> “The contract is valued at $19 billion. At this price, it would be inconceivable not to ensure that we obtain the necessary means to maintain and create jobs here and obtain positive benefits for the country,” said Yvon Paiement, President of Local 712 of the Machinists. “The vagueness in which this dossier is being conducted is further proof that we need an industrial strategy for the aerospace sector, which is well thought out in the long term and economically coherent, which places our interests as a society, as citizens and as workers in the award of public contracts.”
> 
> The NDP said it intends to engage the new minister of defence on this issue at the beginning of the parliamentary session in Ottawa.


https://www.voiceonline.com/job-guarantees-for-aerospace-workers-a-must-federal-ndp/#


----------



## daftandbarmy

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.voiceonline.com/job-guarantees-for-aerospace-workers-a-must-federal-ndp/#



Funny, during the recent election he said not much about jobs... which is weird for an NDP 'big Union' guy.


----------



## Uzlu

> Boeing Offers Industrial Benefits Package in Canadian Fighter Jet Bid
> 
> Boeing is offering a multi-billion dollar industrial benefits package as part of its fighter jet pitch to Canada, in hopes that support for domestic industry will give the company an edge in the competition.  The contractor says Canadian companies could receive up to CAD30 billion ($22.5 billion) in work if Ottawa selects the F/A-18 Super Hornet as its next fighter.  Canada wants to buy 88 aircraft to replace its existing CF-18 Hornets.
> 
> It was only earlier this month that Boeing confirmed its participation in the competition, as Ottawa recently changed the program’s industrial benefits parameters in order to allow Lockheed Martin’s F-35 to remain in the competition.  Lockheed is unable to guarantee domestic work because of how the F-35 program is structured, which would normally be a problem because Canada’s defense procurement system requires domestic offsets.  The change allows Lockheed Martin to participate without guaranteeing work for domestic manufacturers.  Canadian firms have received CAD1.3 billion ($980 million) in F-35 work over the last 12 years, and Lockheed argues that opportunities will increase as F-35 fleets around the world grow in size.
> 
> Boeing’s more direct industrial benefits package will certainly boost to the company’s offering, but economic benefits only make up 20 percent of the bid evaluation.  Cost will make up another 20 percent.  Lockheed has been gradually bringing down the F-35 unit cost, but long-term maintenance costs are still higher than legacy aircraft.  The remaining 60 percent of the bid evaluation will be based on technical merit.  Critics have argued that the technical portion of the program favors the F-35, as the solicitation places an emphasis on strategic attack and ground attack overseas.
> 
> Saab’s Gripen fighter is also in the running, but the European aircraft is considered an underdog.  Airbus pulled the Eurofighter Typhoon from the competition earlier this year, citing the industrial benefits policy changes and additional costs that would have been incurred due to NORAD security requirements.  Dassault withdrew its Rafale fighter last year.
> 
> Final bids are due in the spring, and a winner will be selected by early 2022.  Deliveries are expected to commence in 2025, assuming the program remains on track


https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2019/11/21/boeing-offers-industrial-benefits-package-in-canadian-fighter-jet-bid/


----------



## Dale Denton

Guessing if the Advanced SH+Growler combo is selected, as we stay in the F-35 program. Get some benefits from both. In 30 yrs from now the "F-35Gs" would be available with a proven record which we decide to buy as our allies start ordering "F-36s".


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Canada’s Future Fighter Capability: Supplier teams are visiting two Air Force fighter Bases*
> 
> _By Stéphanie Poulin, communications advisor, FFCP / Ottawa_
> 
> 3 Wing Bagotville and 4 Wing Cold Lake are the Royal Canadian Air Force’s two busy fighter bases,  supporting Canada’s domestic needs and international commitments. These are our two main operating bases, or MOB if you want to learn the jargon. Our current fighter fleet is stationed at these two MOBs, and is where our 88 future fighters will be housed. Every time our government makes a decision to send a fighter in support of NATO, NORAD, or a global coalition, one, or both, of these locations sends them off. This means that jets have to be ready at any time, all the time. Efficient workspace becomes crucial to making this happen.
> 
> Ideally located for this responsibility, these two high-alert Wings will continue to be the cornerstones of Canada’s air defence. This makes these two locations a key part of the current future fighter capability project and of the bids eligible suppliers are currently preparing.
> 
> While Supplier teams are still working on their bids, the three contenders, Sweden-Saab (Gripen E), US-The Boeing Company (F/A-18 Super Hornet) and US-Lockheed Martin (F-35 Lightning II), were invited to visit Bagotville and Cold Lake.
> 
> The goal of this visit is for the supplier teams to gain a better understanding of how we operate and sustain our current aircraft, so they can frame their proposals in the Canadian context. The teams are also looking at our current facilities to evaluate future needs should their aircraft be selected. The outcome of the visit won’t decide what infrastructure we will need, but rather allow the three Supplier teams to include how we can make use of Canada’s current fighter infrastructure and if any new or expanded facilities would be required.
> 
> This visit is the second occurring within the FFCP process. The first was in November 2018, with the same purpose of providing Suppliers an equal opportunity to understand how we in Canada operate.
> 
> Is it too early to think of infrastructure? New aircraft mean new needs for space, training, maintenance, supply, and operations. And fighter jets are among the most complex and advanced equipment in the military that need to be maintained from the moment they are received. Although we have yet to identify our future fighter, it’s necessary to get started on infrastructure planning now, to be ready by the time the first aircraft arrive.
> 
> Other RCAF operating locations may also need to be altered to support the new fighters. Bagotville and Cold Lake will remain the permanent homes of our jets, however.
> 
> We’ll keep working on all these pieces, while waiting for Suppliers’ proposals, this coming March.



https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2019/12/35899


----------



## Quirky

Without a question Cold Lake needs a massive infastructure upgrade, from hangars/hangarettes, fueling etc. The current state of the hangar line is just laughable.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

I agree, I visited Cold Lake last May and noticed how in poor condition the infrastructure is on the Wing. The hangar where by far the worst I’ve seen in all my travel across all RCAF Wings.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> Other RCAF operating locations may also need to be altered to support the new fighters


 = "the new ones might not have much range, because you know...budget cuts".  Fighters don't play much in the war on gender-based violence and other voter-palatable spending.

 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not sure if already posted, observation from a pilot of both the Hornet and SH.

https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/


----------



## CBH99

Thanks for posting that 

Cool website, definitely some cool articles about fighters.  Great reads!


----------



## observor 69

Lockheed Martin awarded $18M for F-35 support for Australia, UK, Canada

Dec. 13 (UPI) -- Lockheed Martin has received an $18 million contract modification for maintenance and operation of the support center that tests the F-35 aircraft for three partner nations.

The deal will fund maintenance and operations at the Australia, Canada, United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

More at the link.
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/12/13/Lockheed-Martin-awarded-18M-for-F-35-support-for-Australia-UK-Canada/5401576266672/?ts_=24


----------



## MarkOttawa

Block III Super Hornet (which is what RCAF would get) on the way for USN:



> US Navy prepares to receive first Super Hornet Block 3 test aircraft
> 
> The US Navy (USN) is soon to receive the first Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block 3 testbed aircraft.
> 
> A representative from Boeing told Jane’s on 7 January that the first aircraft will be delivered “on schedule” later in the first quarter of 2020.
> 
> In 2019 at Boeing’s St Louis production facility in Missouri, Jennifer Tebo, Director of Development F/A-18 Program, said this schedule had been accelerated by about 12 months to allow the USN to have two test aircraft to start carrier suitability trials of the advanced computing and networking capabilities of the Block 3 platform.
> 
> With the first aircraft set to be handed over shortly, Tebo noted that Boeing will begin to deliver full-up Block 3 jets to the navy during late 2020 and early 2021.
> 
> Senior programme officials recently outlined the importance of what Boeing terms ‘the evolutionary approach’ to the Hornet platform that has resulted in the latest Block 3 iteration of the McDonnell Douglas aircraft that was first rolled out to the fleet in the early 1980s.
> 
> Boeing announced in 2011 that it was developing a USN Flight Plan upgrade path that would run in parallel with an International Roadmap for current and future export customers. With some tweaks, this Flight Plan/International Roadmap became the Advanced Super Hornet in 2013 and the Block 3 Super Hornet in 2017. In the FY 2018 President’s Budget, the USN fully funded the Block 3 development programme. This involves five major changes, or Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), to the aircraft...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.janes.com/article/93546/us-navy-prepares-to-receive-first-super-hornet-block-3-test-aircraft



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

> Saab Gripen E: Dark horse
> 
> If you have been following the convoluted process of replacing Canada’s aging fleet of CF-188 fighter jets, the continued presence of the Saab Gripen E might seem puzzling in a competition that has seen both Dassault Aviation and Airbus Defence and Space withdraw their entrants.
> 
> The Gripen has been mocked as too small by some critics and less capable than the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II or Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the remaining competitors, by others. It’s also, perhaps ironically given the many concerns raised about the F-35, the only fighter still in development and not yet operational.
> 
> But to dismiss the single-engine Gripen E as merely a longshot might be a mistake. Because in a project that will be evaluated on capability, cost and economic return to Canada, Saab firmly believes it has a compelling offer to make.
> 
> Some of the reasons for that belief became evident when _Skies_ recently toured Saab’s production facilities in Linköping, Sweden, and visited air wings and operational bases where the Gripen C is deployed by the Swedish Air Force and NATO customers to monitor and interdict Russian aircraft skirting, and at times breaching, domestic airspace.
> 
> The Gripen was purpose-built for Swedish national defence, but its missions of quick reaction alert (QRA) defensive counter-air along Sweden’s borders and offensive roles during, for example, NATO’s Operation Unified Protector over Libya in 2011, would look familiar to any Canadian CF-188 Hornet pilot. So, too, would the modest defence budget with which it was procured.
> 
> And in a Canadian defence procurement system where access to intellectual property (IP) is deemed essential to long-term in-service support and technology upgrades, Saab has demonstrated an approach to foreign sales that can include the wholesale transfer of IP to sustain the aircraft and a commitment to share and invest the knowledge behind that IP with indigenous industry.
> 
> To appreciate the strengths of the Gripen, it helps to understand the origins of Saab. An abbreviation for Swedish Aircraft Company, the business is the direct result of an agreement with the Swedish government over 80 years ago to start an aircraft manufacturing company with the sole purpose of being able “to protect Sweden’s borders and people,” explained Jerker Ahlqvist, deputy head of Business Area Aeronautics.
> 
> Vastly outnumbered by Russian fighter jets and strategic bombers that reside in Kaliningrad, a short distance from its southern border, Sweden has relied on tactical superiority to achieve combat effectiveness, deploying some of the first datalinks and electronic warfare systems in its fighters, starting with the Saab 35 Draken and more recently the 37 Viggen. That combination of aircraft combat performance, pilot tactics, cost and availability were all baked into the JAS 39 Gripen, said Ahlqvist.
> 
> “It is not something you can start to think of once you have designed your fighter.
> It needs to be part of the design criteria from the beginning,” he said.
> 
> And that philosophy has carried over into the Gripen E, what Ahlqvist called “an even smarter” system of integrated systems. The fighter has two customers at present–Sweden will begin with 60 and Brazil is acquiring 36, eight in the twin-seat F variant–but the aircraft is a contender in at least three fighter replacement competitions globally.
> 
> However, unlike the F-16s, F-18s, F-35s and other jets it is up against, the Gripen E is not yet in service.  The test program of four aircraft has accumulated over 150 hours, a majority of those in 2019, achieved 9Gs, broken the Gripen speed record in level flight, validated new flight control software, sensors and electronic warfare systems, conducted a test flight with a new electronic attack jammer pod, flown with the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, and fired the short-range IRIS-T air-to-air missile. Brazil accepted its first flight test aircraft in September and expects to take delivery of its first operational aircraft in 2021.
> 
> *Investing in superior technology*
> 
> The enhanced capability of the Gripen E furthers a combat DNA intended to meet an operating environment the Swedish Air Force regards as cluttered, contested, connected, constrained and congested with advanced fighters and air defence systems.
> 
> “The Russian QRA behaviour has been changing in the last three to four years. There is more aggressive flying,” explained Col Anders Persson, commander Air Staff.
> 
> Russian Sukhoi Su-35, 34 and 27 fighters have frequently flown to within 10 metres of Swedish aircraft in the past 24 months and, in what he said was “a signal to us” earlier this year, a Russian signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft escorted by two fighters flew inside Swedish airspace for a minute. “That had never happened before in Swedish airspace. A fighter, yes, a SIGINT, yes, but never a SIGINT escorted.”
> 
> A Swedish defence white paper in May concluded Russian capability and activity, in particular electronic warfare (EW), will continue to increase, necessitating investment in superior technology and tactics. “You are superior in technology if you use the technology in the right way,” Persson emphasized.
> 
> As with its predecessors, the Gripen E aims to detect and disrupt threats earlier in the kill chain through an improved avionics system that fuses data from an Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radar system on a swashplate, a passive infrared search and track (IRST) sensor, a tailored datalink and an enhanced EW system, explained Jonas Hjelm, senior vice-president and head of Business Area Aeronautics.
> 
> As part of the test program, Saab is trialing what it calls Multi-Functional System EW, part of its Arexis family of airborne EW systems, that incorporates ultra-wideband digital receivers, gallium nitride (GaN) AESA transmitters, digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) devices, precision direction finding and localization, and stealth-enabled countermeasure systems. The onboard signals and data processing are further enhanced by artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms.
> 
> The result is far better situational awareness in the cockpit. Ahlqvist described an OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop informed by an electronic support measures system in which the pilot is “quicker to see, quicker to understand, quicker to decide, quicker to act and quicker to adapt. With all the sensors on board, with the data analysis on board … the aircraft will suggest what he should do, so he will be quicker to act.”
> 
> Through datalinks, which Saab been developing and employing for over 30 years, “a couple of Gripens can do magic just because of the way the datalink is used,” he said.
> 
> While the debate about stealth may feature prominently in the Canadian competition, Saab sees no long-term value in building for short-term stealth. “If you build an airframe with a stealthy design, there are other things you can’t do with that aircraft,” observed Ahlqvist. “We have created another way by, for instance, putting in a very capable electronic warfare system that can make the aircraft invisible.”
> 
> “Stealth is much more than the radar cross section,” added Patrick Palmer, executive vice-president and head of Marketing and Sales for Saab Canada. “That is a perishable commodity as technology evolves. Ten years from now, the technology in terms of radar capability will be far more advanced than it is today. What this allows us to do is provide that upgradability, to be forever responding to whatever those new threats are.”
> 
> Instead, the goal for the Gripen is to be a “true multi-function aircraft in all aspects,” said Persson. As adversaries advance anti-access/area denial weapon systems and their own stealth capabilities, EW and datalinks for passive sensing and silent networking are an operational necessity to share target information between aircraft. “As soon as we take off, the jamming [from Russia] starts,” he said.
> 
> Those onboard systems are “a huge difference maker” for the multi-function Gripen E, said Mikael Olsson, Saab’s chief test pilot. “It is purposely designed for what you see around Sweden (such as the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system in Kaliningrad). That is what it is designed to counter.”
> 
> Saab is “building the aircraft around the pilot,” observed BGen Csaba Ugrik, commander of Hungary’s recent Baltic NATO air policing mission in Lithuania, of the systems and human-machine interface in the cockpit. Based at Šiauliai Air Base, Hungary served as lead nation for a three-month rotation from May through August, operating five JAS 39 Gripen C and D aircraft, augmented by Spanish F-18s and United Kingdom Eurofighter Typhoons at Ämari Air Base in Estonia.
> 
> Over that time, the Hungarians conducted more than 400 sorties, over 40 of which were actual (Alpha) scrambles in response to Russian Tupolov, Antonov and Sukhoi transports, bombers and fighters, including the Tupolev Tu-142 maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft, transiting to Kaliningrad or flying over the Baltic Sea. “If they don’t want to see us too close to the aircraft, they are doing manoeuvres,” he noted.
> 
> Consequently, the Gripen Link 16 datalink was critical to ensuring situational awareness. “If you are running the APU here and you turn on the Link 16, you will have the information already on the ground, and you can move the maps and see what is going on 300 kilometres away… and you can prepare for the fight,” he said. “That is a good advantage of the aircraft.”
> 
> Capt David Szentiendrei, a graduate of the NATO Flying Training in Canada program in 2012, said the Gripen worked well with non-NATO fighters and excelled at maintaining and sharing situational information fused from its sensor suite.
> 
> Both Airbus and Dassault withdrew from the Canadian fighter competition citing, in part, their concerns about the NORAD security requirements and the need for Two Eyes (United States and Canada) interoperability. Though Sweden is not a member of NATO, Saab has designed the Gripen to meet Sweden’s requirement to be fully interoperable with NATO, and in particular with the U.S., working on same or similar datalinks. “We have our own mission planning but the data format transfers into the NATO system,” said Persson.
> 
> With the technology behind onboard sensor systems poised to change almost as rapidly as the applications in a smartphone, Saab has attempted to “future proof” the Gripen by designing the avionics “in such a way where the software is more or less hardware independent,” said Ahlqvist. “The threat environment changes quickly and you will need to make changes in a much faster way then you have done in the past. Gripen E allows for that.”
> 
> By separating the hardware layer from the software layer, and the flight critical applications from the mission critical or tactical, “we are ready for novel algorithms like artificial intelligence in the future,” explained Johan Segertoft of Saab, noting that even in the development phase of the E model, multiple software changes were required because computing power improved during that span.
> 
> “This is a major problem in a fighter jet,” he observed, adding that the exponential increases in computing power make it difficult to predict how technology will be affected. “Computer power translates to tactical power…[T]he key is how you harness the evolution of computing power.”
> 
> The separation of church and state also means that every change no longer requires re-testing and certification. “The vision was, program in the morning, fly in the afternoon,” he added. “You can code once and deploy everywhere. We can now do a change in a matter of days.”
> 
> *Knowledge transfer
> *
> From the outset, Saab built the Gripen E with international customers in mind. And it has demonstrated a willingness to transfer technology in a manner that might seem unusual to some. Besides Sweden, four countries currently operate the Gripen C — South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand (the U.K. Empire Test Pilots’ School also uses the platform). But as the first foreign customer for the Gripen E, Brazil provides an interesting case study on how that technology and knowledge transfer could work.
> 
> “One of the aspects that makes us unique is our willingness and ability to share technology,” said Mikael Franzén, vice-president and head of the Gripen Brazil business unit. “We understand the importance of national industry and national independence.”
> 
> Saab has recognized IP without knowledge has limited value. Under a “train the trainer” model over a 10-year period, 350 professionals from local partner companies and the Brazilian Air Force will receive theoretical and on-the-job training in Sweden for anywhere from six months to two years. Already, over 190 Brazilians have completed their technology transfer program and are now working on teams in the Gripen Design and Development Network.
> 
> The offer to Canada would be similar, said Palmer. “This illustrates what the realm of the possible is. In the case of Brazil, they had a very specific focus in terms of what they wanted to accomplish from a [technology transfer] perspective … [We] will be completely responsive to the RFP. We have been working with suppliers and partners in Canada for the last 24 months or so, and we will have a very attractive proposition.”
> 
> He acknowledged that one of the strengths of the current CF-188 sustainment program was early engagement with Canadian industry and access to IP. “Our vision is to have companies and capability early in the process so that you don’t have this huge wall at the end where you are not able to get over it.”
> 
> Whether that willingness to transfer critical IP negates any of the concerns raised by the NORAD security requirements remains to be seen. But Palmer said Two Eyes interoperability is not a technical issue, but rather a process and procedure challenge. “We see it more as where is that data going, what is it touching, who has access to it, and how is that controlled.”
> 
> No discussion of fighter jets would be complete without an attempt to pin down costs. Comparing price tags is problematic because different companies and countries often use different metrics to define unit flyaway costs, cost per flight hour and long-term sustainment. Saab officials were coy about an exact number, but the sale of 36 Gripen E/F aircraft to Brazil, including related systems, support and equipment, was valued at around US$4.5 billion.
> 
> “I think it is a fact that we are the most cost-efficient solution,” said Eddy De La Motte, vice-president and head of the Gripen E/F business unit. “That goes both for acquisition and flight hour costs.”
> 
> If there is a feature Saab hopes might intrigue Canadians, it’s the Gripen’s ability to operate in Arctic conditions. Sweden’s most northern air base is above the Arctic Circle, so the Gripen “was designed from the beginning to cope with very cold conditions and to be operated with no hangars in open airfields, short takeoff and landing on ordinary roads, even in winter time,” said Ahlqvist.
> 
> It’s an operating concept that has been in place since the country first introduced fighter jets. In fact, the Gripen can operate from an 800-metre road that is just 17 metres wide, and can be refuelled, rearmed and checked in under 10 minutes by a team of five conscript soldiers and a technician. More impressive, with just a few more personnel, a small team can replace an engine in one hour in the same frigid conditions.
> 
> And it is something that the Swedish air force regularly trains. “Every time we have an exercise, we [operate] on dispersed basing,” assured Persson.


https://www.skiesmag.com/features/saab-gripen-e-dark-horse/


----------



## Drallib

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.skiesmag.com/features/saab-gripen-e-dark-horse/



Thanks for sharing this!

I have a thought/question for anyone who might be able to answer;

Why is it that Canada is only going about purchasing 88 Fighter Jets? Didn't the government purchase around 130 CF-18's? Being an aircraft technician, I know that the total number of aircraft you have doesn't mean those are serviceable at all times. That number ranges due to snags, heavy/periodic maintenance, and staggers (not flying certain aircraft even if it's serviceable because you don't want to use the hours remaining before another aircraft).

Another note, with aviation being dangerous in general, these machines will unfortunately malfunction and crash (after a good ejection Lord willing). That number of 88 total aircraft in time will drop to possibly 80 or less... 

Do you think 88 Fighter Jets is a good number with the different roles Canada has with regards to airpower?

Another thought... do you think SAAB would increase that number from 88 to say 100 or so to increase their chances of winning? Or is that something Canada would even consider...

Just some thoughts! Thanks.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Drallib: 138 Hornets were acquired because we needed to proved significant numbers of fighters for both our air force in Germany with NATO at height of the Cold War, and for NORAD.

Then USSR collapsed, Cold War ended, and CAF were brought home from Germany as threat of NATO war with Russia thought essentially non-existent. Size of fighter force essentially allowed to be halved to high 70s.

For many years NORAD has been far and away main commitment of RCAF fighters with a few supposedly available for NATO when needed (or a coalition as vs ISIS). Now that relations with Russia are not easy it makes sense to increase the overall fleet to have some more available for NATO purposes.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Drallib

MarkOttawa: Thanks for the reply.

Another thing too is that the CF-18s have been in service for 30+ years now, and by the time we get the new Fighters it will be even more. One reason they've been able to be pushed this far is because of the amount of Fighters we had to fly, therefore lowering the hours per aircraft.

I suppose there's many factors in play, like the new Block III Super Hornet having an airframe life of 10,000 hours compared to the Legacy Hornet's 6,000 hours.

I'm sure the government has put a lot of thought into all of this.

What are you hoping the RCAF goes with?


----------



## dapaterson

This is what the Army wants...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H346eSUs3Z0


----------



## Drallib

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This is what the Army wants...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H346eSUs3Z0



 :rofl:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Drallib said:
			
		

> MarkOttawa: Thanks for the reply.
> ...
> What are you hoping the RCAF goes with?



Would go with new F-15EX as best for NORAD mission, far and away the most important one for RCAF. Plane is much faster than F-35A, greater range, much greater missile load (up to 22! https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30705691/f-15ex/) than F-35A even when it's carrying externally and is non-stealthy. Both are expected to cost around US $80 million in 2025 (https://www.airforcemag.com/article/F-15EX-vs-F-35A-/)

Would think a key point is whether Russian bombers might have fighter escorts, in which case stealth for defending fighter approaching the Russians would be important. But when stealthy F-35A will only be able to carry 6 missiles (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-sidekick-invention-lets-f-35-carry-six-missiles-instead-four-79781), enough to deal with any cruise missiles that get launched? If they can even be tracked by current North Warning System that badly needs big modernization (https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/senior-officer-warns-norad-cant-detect-russian-bombers-in-time-needs-upgrades).

As for escorted bombers, an earlier post:



> NORAD (RCAF) vs Bears…and Foxhounds–and Nukes
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/mark-collins-norad-rcaf-vs-bears-and-foxhounds-and-nukes/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Would go with new F-15EX as best for NORAD mission, far and away the most important one for RCAF. Plane is much faster than F-35A, greater range, much greater missile load (up to 22! https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30705691/f-15ex/) than F-35A even when it's carrying externally and is non-stealthy. Both are expected to cost around US $80 million in 2025 (https://www.airforcemag.com/article/F-15EX-vs-F-35A-/)
> 
> Would think a key point is whether Russian bombers might have fighter escorts, in which case stealth for defending fighter approaching the Russians would be important. But when stealthy F-35A will only be able to carry 6 missiles (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-sidekick-invention-lets-f-35-carry-six-missiles-instead-four-79781), enough to deal with any cruise missiles that get launched? If they can even be tracked by current North Warning System that badly needs big modernization (https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/senior-officer-warns-norad-cant-detect-russian-bombers-in-time-needs-upgrades).
> 
> As for escorted bombers, an earlier post:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


I would be very happy to see the F-15 chosen, but can they be offered, or does Boeing have to go with the SH? I think I remember that the F-15 is Max's #1 choice and who am I to argue.


----------



## PuckChaser

F-15EX isn't bidding, so we're not getting it. Boeing is only pushing Super Hornets to keep that line open.


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> F-15EX isn't bidding, so we're not getting it. Boeing is only pushing Super Hornets to keep that line open.


This is what I thought. Thanks.


----------



## CBH99

Slightly off topic, but why can't we express interest in the F-15X?

Not to slow the process down any further, I'm happy to see any progress made.  And the fact that both the F-18 and F-15 now have airframes with 10,000hrs instead of 6,000hrs prior to a SLEP is a big deal.


But if we feel like the F-15 might be the best choice, and it fits within the budget.  Can we not tell Boeing "Hey, interested in buying some of these..."  ??


Why does Boeing get to decide what our options are?


----------



## PuckChaser

Because that's how our system works. We list mandatory and recommended specs/ abilities and the companies get to pick what they think will win the contract. We can't write the SOR for what we want/need, it has to be broad enough to let other companies bid. We could always go sole source, but that requires a boatload of justification for $200 radio antennas, I can't imagine what it would take for TB to approve a multi billion sole source purchase.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because that's how our system works. We list mandatory and recommended specs/ abilities and the companies get to pick what they think will win the contract. We can't write the SOR for what we want/need, it has to be broad enough to let other companies bid. We could always go sole source, but that requires a boatload of justification for $200 radio antennas, I can't imagine what it would take for TB to approve a multi billion sole source purchase.



Operational necessity or national security?


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Operational necessity or national security?



Or Pork Barrel politics?  :nod:

<cough>lastyear'spre-electiondirectawardofa$2BcontracttogeneraldynamicsfortheLAV<cough>


----------



## Bearpaw

More F-35 woes:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/01/f-35-pilots-are-mostly-not-allowed-to-fire-25mm-gun-and-it-is-inaccurate-when-used.html

Bearpaw


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Hard to take the article seriously when it reads like it was written by a 5th grader.

The grammer is terrible. The logical flow of "premise, premise, conclusion", is absent.

The thesis (if one can find one) seems to be that Elon Musk is awesome- ask him to build fighters.

 :


----------



## Cloud Cover

But, but, but .... “Brian Wang is a prolific business-oriented writer of emerging and disruptive technologies. He is known for insightful articles that combine business and technical analysis that catches the attention of the general public and is also useful for those in the industries. “.  :waiting:


----------



## Drallib

Wow, I never even heard of the F-15EX! Looks like some serious business with 22 missiles!

Seriously, with what Canada uses the CF-18 for, I don't think the F-35 is the right choice for a few reasons...

- All together new system which would require a LOT of logistic changes, training for technician, etc...
- Maintenance times for the F-35 is a lot more extensive I believe? Also, I think most of it would be out of country.
- Cost per flight hour is around $40,000 compared to the Block III Super Hornets $18,000?
- Because the F-35 is a stealth fighter, it had to sacrifice flight performance.

With regards to missions, what does Canada do when intercepting foreign aircraft? They fly right next to them and wave saying "GOO'DAY, B'Y!"

Boeing is offering jobs in Canada, familiar platform, AND I'm pretty sure the F-35's internal weapons bay is extremely limited to what it can carry, so if you wanted more, it would have to carry external weapons, therefore sacrificing stealth.

Sure, the F-15EX can carry 22 missiles but (and it doesn't really matter since the F-15EX isn't being offered) for the necessity of needing an aircraft with Fighter and Attack capabilities, I think overall the Block III Super Hornet is the obvious choice.

We'll find out in 2 years. Love me some new planes regardless what it is.


----------



## Weinie

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Hard to take the article seriously when it reads like it was written by a 5th grader.
> 
> The *grammer* is terrible. The logical flow of "premise, premise, conclusion", is absent.
> 
> The thesis (if one can find one) seems to be that Elon Musk is awesome- ask him to build fighters.
> 
> :



Haven't we all had problems with grammar


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Weinie said:
			
		

> Haven't we all had problems with grammar



You will note that I said nothing about spelling.


----------



## Drallib

Weinie said:
			
		

> Haven't we all had problems with grammar





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You will note that I said nothing about spelling.


----------



## MilEME09

Given the current government created a capability gap, and given that even with the used australian fighters we do not have the numbers the liberals say we need to meet norad and international commitments. A government could ram through a sole source contract based on urgent national security requirements which if we moved quickly could mean jets within two years instead of a contract within 2 years.


----------



## Drallib

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given the current government created a capability gap, and given that even with the used australian fighters we do not have the numbers the liberals say we need to meet norad and international commitments. A government could ram through a sole source contract based on urgent national security requirements which if we moved quickly could mean jets within two years instead of a contract within 2 years.



Does a sole source contract mean simply there wouldn't be a competition? If that's the case then the companies wouldn't offer the best they could, would they not?

With that being said I think 2 years is a long time to pick a winner but I don't know everything that's involved in that sort of thing.


----------



## CBH99

A sole source contract is when the government is able to purchase specific equipment without the need to solicit bids from a variety of companies, usually due to something called an UOR - or Urgent Operational Requirement.

For example, when Afghanistan was in full tilt, it was easier for the military to simply buy what it wanted, quickly, by stating it was needed due to an UOR.  (Leopard 2 tanks, CH-147D models for interim, C-17's to move cargo, etc.)


Usually, however, the government is required to open the purchase up to a variety of bidders who feel they can offer the capability the government is looking for within the price the government has set.  And once that process starts, that's where time slows right down...rrriiigghhhhttttt dooowwwnnnnn.... 



(And yes, 2 years to evaluate the same options we've had for the past 10 years is absurdly long.  Nobody wants to simply take the lead, make a decision, and execute.  So until then, it's evaluate, evaluate, evaluate...)


----------



## Good2Golf

...at least the Liberals bought a watered-down EH-101 a few years after Jean Chretien’s “No ‘elicoptairs!  Zip! Zero! Nada!” 1993 campaign promise. 

This is getting downright shameful...in the sense of further shame...following the shame Harper should have for not moving ahead with the JSF in 2014/2015. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So apparently the real reason we are short of pilots and maintainers is that they are all at a secret base maintaining and flying 6 1959 Avro Arrows that were not actually destroyed. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjuL9IM-1T0


----------



## SeaKingTacco

:tsktsk:

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!


----------



## SupersonicMax

This is EXACTLY how an intercept goes...





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjuL9IM-1T0


----------



## WingsofFury

Drallib said:
			
		

> Seriously, with what Canada uses the CF-18 for, I don't think the F-35 is the right choice for a few reasons...
> 
> - All together new system which would require a LOT of logistic changes, training for technician, etc...
> - Maintenance times for the F-35 is a lot more extensive I believe? Also, I think most of it would be out of country.
> - Cost per flight hour is around $40,000 compared to the Block III Super Hornets $18,000?
> - Because the F-35 is a stealth fighter, it had to sacrifice flight performance.
> 
> With regards to missions, what does Canada do when intercepting foreign aircraft? They fly right next to them and wave saying "GOO'DAY, B'Y!"
> 
> Boeing is offering jobs in Canada, familiar platform, AND I'm pretty sure the F-35's internal weapons bay is extremely limited to what it can carry, so if you wanted more, it would have to carry external weapons, therefore sacrificing stealth.
> 
> Sure, the F-15EX can carry 22 missiles but (and it doesn't really matter since the F-15EX isn't being offered) for the necessity of needing an aircraft with Fighter and Attack capabilities, I think overall the Block III Super Hornet is the obvious choice.



Any new platform is going to come with a lot of logistical changes and training, it doesn't matter what plane we get.
Yes, cost per flight is more -- that happens when you put a stealth coating on an airplane. 
Sacrifice flight performance because of stealth? Just curious what was sacrificed and why it's important. How do you feel about the weapon pylons on the Super Hornet impacting its flight performance?

What do you expect them to do, shoot them down?

I'm sure you don't mean extremely limited...the weapon bays can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Paveway series of bombs, the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Brimstone, SPEAR 3 anti-tank missiles, and cluster munitions (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser). How is that limited?

Super Hornet carries 18,000lbs of ordnance externally on pylons and stations -- F-35 carries 22,000lbs combined internally and externally. Super Hornet would be dead if there were any SAM installations present...not the case with the F-35. Survivability goes a long way.

I still don't understand how you think the Block III SH is the obvious choice...please explain?


----------



## AlexanderM

I am of course kidding but if Japan did this, I'd be thinking let's partner up with them, buy some SH for the present.

Once again, I am kidding, but this would be the type of aircraft that I think would do a great job covering all of our real estate.

https://news.yahoo.com/japans-black-widow-stealth-fighter-070000408.html


----------



## Drallib

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Any new platform is going to come with a lot of logistical changes and training, it doesn't matter what plane we get.
> Yes, cost per flight is more -- that happens when you put a stealth coating on an airplane.
> Sacrifice flight performance because of stealth? Just curious what was sacrificed and why it's important. How do you feel about the weapon pylons on the Super Hornet impacting its flight performance?
> 
> What do you expect them to do, shoot them down?
> 
> I'm sure you don't mean extremely limited...the weapon bays can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Paveway series of bombs, the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Brimstone, SPEAR 3 anti-tank missiles, and cluster munitions (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser). How is that limited?
> 
> Super Hornet carries 18,000lbs of ordnance externally on pylons and stations -- F-35 carries 22,000lbs combined internally and externally. Super Hornet would be dead if there were any SAM installations present...not the case with the F-35. Survivability goes a long way.
> 
> I still don't understand how you think the Block III SH is the obvious choice...please explain?



The Block III is "stealthier" than previous F/A-18s. How much more and how effective is the question...

Also, how much stealth does the F-35 sacrifice when it does carry weapons externally? And if the F-35 got noticed or engaged, would it be able to put up a fight?

I listened to a podcast called "The Fighter Pilot Podcast" and the host Vincent Aiello (retired Navy F/A-18 pilot) interviewed an F-35 pilot who talked about the jet open and honestly. Because of the design of the aircraft for it's stealth capabilities meant they had to shape and size things a certain way. Because of this, when the F-35 went toe-to-toe with 4th-Gen Fighter Jets, it didn't measure up the best. If the F-35 is never spotted, terrific. But as soon as it's spotted and say it uses it's 4 to 6 missiles in "stealth-mode", not very good  :not-again:

And by the internal weapon bay being limited, it can carry either; a) 4x AIM-120 or b) 2x AIM-120 with 2x JDAM.

Obvious choice? Maybe not... poor choice of wording on my part. And yes, regardless of which aircraft the RCAF recieves, there will be training and logistical changes, but the changes to an F-35 will be more of a change. Although, now I wouldn't use this point as an argument anymore. In the grand scheme of things this greater change in training and logistics is a small price to pay.

Hmm... after some further reading, if you want Stealth ability, you can have it. If you want "beast mode" you can have it too. Maybe have a couple F-35s penetrate defenses in stealth mode and a couple further out in "beast-mode". 

Another questions... if Canada does go ahead with the F-35, do you think the B variant (STOVL) is the appropriate choice? Or would the A variant (CTOL) be a better option. Doesn't the F-35A have more range?


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:
			
		

> The Block III is "stealthier" than previous F/A-18s. How much more and how effective is the question...
> 
> Also, how much stealth does the F-35 sacrifice when it does carry weapons externally? And if the F-35 got noticed or engaged, would it be able to put up a fight?
> 
> I listened to a podcast called "The Fighter Pilot Podcast" and the host Vincent Aiello (retired Navy F/A-18 pilot) interviewed an F-35 pilot who talked about the jet open and honestly. Because of the design of the aircraft for it's stealth capabilities meant they had to shape and size things a certain way. Because of this, when the F-35 went toe-to-toe with 4th-Gen Fighter Jets, it didn't measure up the best. If the F-35 is never spotted, terrific. But as soon as it's spotted and say it uses it's 4 to 6 missiles in "stealth-mode", not very good  :not-again:
> 
> And by the internal weapon bay being limited, it can carry either; a) 4x AIM-120 or b) 2x AIM-120 with 2x JDAM.
> 
> Obvious choice? Maybe not... poor choice of wording on my part. And yes, regardless of which aircraft the RCAF recieves, there will be training and logistical changes, but the changes to an F-35 will be more of a change. Although, now I wouldn't use this point as an argument anymore. In the grand scheme of things this greater change in training and logistics is a small price to pay.
> 
> Hmm... after some further reading, if you want Stealth ability, you can have it. If you want "beast mode" you can have it too. Maybe have a couple F-35s penetrate defenses in stealth mode and a couple further out in "beast-mode".
> 
> Another questions... if Canada does go ahead with the F-35, do you think the B variant (STOVL) is the appropriate choice? Or would the A variant (CTOL) be a better option. Doesn't the F-35A have more range?



You are asking questions that have been beaten to death on this forum and this tread. The answers are there if you search for them.

Furthermore, the F-35 will be the obvious choice considering the international partners already flying it, operationally in some cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operators What will the super hornet support look like in 20, 30, 40 years? We would be the only country still flying the things. The only reason why Canada hasn't bought them is politics, that's it. The RCAF already chose the F35 years ago.


----------



## CBH99

Two quick things...


1.  Drallib, it's nice to have a new member on the forum actively engaging in current military matters.  

Some of us have been here for a decade or so, and we get used to pounding each other if we bring up things that have been brought up many times in the past, we sometimes forget it's good to have new members here and engaging.  Glad your here  



2.  Part of the appeal of the F-35 is the international logistics chain.  When engaging in operations and you have F-35's from say 6 different countries all operating together, it makes maintenance & spare parts a lot easier.  

If your a country that is the only country flying Plane X, and everybody else at the show is flying Plane Y - it can just make maintenance more tricky and costly.  By having everybody more or less using the same gear, it makes things easier.  (Obviously some risks there too)





Best plane for our needs?  Solid arguments for and against, and the points you bring up aren't invalid.  

However, after everything is considered, every single country that has been presented with the classified info about the F-35 have chosen the F-35.  And with the costs coming down to be comparable to the latest updated Gen 4 fighters, it's no longer cost prohibitive like it was a few years ago. 


(I too listen to the Fighter Pilot Podcast and know the episode your referring to) - always interesting things to be taken away from that show.  The episode on the Rafale I found pretty interesting - absolutely a solid little beast of a jet


----------



## Drallib

CBH99, 

Thanks for the reply! I was actually thinking "oh man...I gotta read through over 100 pages before my next thought" but I will try and search for previous comments/thoughts before making more posts in the future.

I keep going back and forth personally on the F-35 and the Block III Super Hornet. Even the SAAB Gripen is making an impression on me!

Whoever Canada awards the contract to, I'll be happy with. I do think it's appealing having the same airframe with other nations and allies. 


Drallib


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Throwing the current boxes into the bin, if we went F35, Canada could also contribute to a F35B buy To help equip the UK new carriers, along with a couple of like minded nations (5-6 each) and provide maintainers and pilots for the multi-national Squadron as a way to boot NATO and the Commonwealths ability to counter threats. Working on new aircraft in an challenging, interesting, multi-national environment might actually help the retention issues. After all one can only put up with some much BS, when one know that the government is committed to doing nothing and the planes get older and older...

Of course the above would require a completely new government and some very interesting use agreements, but can be done. Now to go on ebay and find some unicorns...


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Throwing the current boxes into the bin, if we went F35, Canada could also contribute to a F35B buy To help equip the UK new carriers, along with a couple of like minded nations (5-6 each) and provide maintainers and pilots for the multi-national Squadron as a way to boot NATO and the Commonwealths ability to counter threats. Working on new aircraft in an challenging, interesting, multi-national environment might actually help the retention issues. After all one can only put up with some much BS, when one know that the government is committed to doing nothing and the planes get older and older...
> 
> Of course the above would require a completely new government and some very interesting use agreements, but can be done. Now to go on ebay and find some unicorns...



We have done it in the past in war time, might take some negotiation and a commitment as to how often we rotate onto the carrier. It would also require additional aircraft, say two squadrons worth to rotate onto the carrier. It would also bring a skill set into the RCAF we do not have,and give us a smaller training delta if we say ever got our own carrier.


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> Throwing the current boxes into the bin, if we went F35, Canada could also contribute to a F35B buy To help equip the UK new carriers, along with a couple of like minded nations (5-6 each) and provide maintainers and pilots for the multi-national Squadron as a way to boot NATO and the Commonwealths ability to counter threats.



Was this explored when we first bought the Hornets? 

I'm not gonna entertain myself with the "one day we'll get a CVN", but would it be worth it to buy more expensive 35Bs, contribute many of them elsewhere and provide the bodies to the QE Class? Would be great if we had our CSC/Type 26 in a UK Carrier Group working under cover of RCAF F-35Bs.


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:
			
		

> Even the SAAB Gripen is making an impression on me!



The Gripen is a toy airplane that no one is buying and arguably a step back from our current CF-18s. It's a small, yet somehow heavy, under-powered 4th gen aircraft that's still a decade away from any sort of operational flights. SAAB will likely drop out of the competition or just claim that the requirements are rigged to favour the eventual winner and fighter everyone wants. 



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Throwing the current boxes into the bin, if we went F35, Canada could also contribute to a F35B buy To help equip the UK new carriers, along with a couple of like minded nations (5-6 each) and provide maintainers and pilots for the multi-national Squadron



Oh boy, and I thought Cold Lake was bad, how does a 6 month boat ride on the HMS Prince Harry sound?   :boke:


----------



## Baz

Quirky said:
			
		

> Oh boy, and I thought Cold Lake was bad, how does a 6 month boat ride on the HMS Prince Harry sound?   :boke:



Better than 6 months on a Frigate... maybe.


----------



## Drallib

Quirky said:
			
		

> The Gripen is a toy airplane that no one is buying and arguably a step back from our current CF-18s. It's a small, yet somehow heavy, under-powered 4th gen aircraft that's still a decade away from any sort of operational flights. SAAB will likely drop out of the competition or just claim that the requirements are rigged to favour the eventual winner and fighter everyone wants.



I just spent some time going through this entire thread reading up the information already shared, and I have to agree with you. I was okay with the Gripen. I was hoping for the Block III Super Hornet. But now I really hope Canada goes with the F-35A (which I now know is the variant in the competition from someone sharing a Skies Magazine article).


----------



## CBH99

The Gripen isn't a bad plane, and the new E/F models have some pretty impressive features.  

It's a good plane for Sweden for sure, as it's locally produced from the ground up, doesn't need much range to whip around Swedish airspace, affordable, supports the local economy, and can take advantage of Swedish infrastructure and geography.



That being said, it really isn't the right plane for Canada at all, for quite a few obvious reasons.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Throwing the current boxes into the bin, if we went F35, Canada could also contribute to a F35B buy To help equip the UK new carriers, along with a couple of like minded nations (5-6 each) and provide maintainers and pilots for the multi-national Squadron as a way to boot NATO and the Commonwealths ability to counter threats. Working on new aircraft in an challenging, interesting, multi-national environment might actually help the retention issues. After all one can only put up with some much BS, when one know that the government is committed to doing nothing and the planes get older and older...
> 
> Of course the above would require a completely new government and some very interesting use agreements, but can be done. Now to go on ebay and find some unicorns...



Why not set up an Air Force PMC, you know, like 'Blackwater Top Gun'?

Provinces like BC already contract a huge air force during fire season then, when the summer goes 'down under', so do the contractors.

For a retainer of a few $ Billion the highest bidder gets exactly the airforce it wants, as and when needed, without all the attendant hassles of having to manage yucky things like 'people' and 'logistics' and other fixed & variable costs (like 5* hotel bills ).


----------



## Rifleman62

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not set up an Air Force PMC, you know, like 'Blackwater Top Gun'?
> 
> Provinces like BC already contract a huge air force during fire season then, when the summer goes 'down under', so do the contractors.
> 
> For a retainer of a few $ Billion the highest bidder gets exactly the airforce it wants, as and when needed, without all the attendant hassles of having to manage yucky things like 'people' and 'logistics' and other fixed & variable costs (like 5* hotel bills ).



Why? How much has the USAF been charging us for decades and decades?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not set up an Air Force PMC, you know, like 'Blackwater Top Gun'?
> 
> Provinces like BC already contract a huge air force during fire season then, when the summer goes 'down under', so do the contractors.
> 
> For a retainer of a few $ Billion the highest bidder gets exactly the airforce it wants, as and when needed, without all the attendant hassles of having to manage yucky things like 'people' and 'logistics' and other fixed & variable costs (like 5* hotel bills ).



We more or less did that with the Royal Navy prior to WWI and they took all the cruisers out of Esquimalt at the beginning of the war, forcing our premier to start his own navy.


----------



## Drallib

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not set up an Air Force PMC, you know, like 'Blackwater Top Gun'?



What's an Air Force PMC?


----------



## FSTO

Quirky said:
			
		

> Oh boy, and I thought Cold Lake was bad, how does a 6 month boat ride on the HMS Prince Harry sound?   :boke:



Well you get exotic port visits every 2 weeks, cruise liner like stability in most sea states, and booze. What's not to like?


----------



## dapaterson

Drallib said:
			
		

> What's an Air Force PMC?



PMC = Private Military Company (like Blackwater)


----------



## Drallib

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well you get exotic port visits every 2 weeks, cruise liner like stability in most sea states, and booze. What's not to like?



"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

Getting back on topic, if Canada goes with the F-35A and later on the idea of deploying on another allies' Aircraft Carrier, then perhaps develping F-35B/Cs is likely. I would like to see Canada aquire Aircraft Carriers eventually.


----------



## Good2Golf

On order right after nuke subs...


----------



## Baz

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> On order right after nuke subs...



... and then we're going to knit sailors and airmen to man it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Baz said:
			
		

> ... and then we're going to knit sailors and airmen to man it.



I've heard others state similar things - lack of sailors/airmen.  Is this because the intake process is long, convoluted and broken or is this because the overall compensation is lacking.  Is it because of a very small number being allowed to be accepted yearly.  What is the overall issue or issues?


----------



## Drallib

I don't think the military is lacking applicants. They have a certain maximum number and are careful not to exceed that number. But if the Navy acquired aircraft carriers, or began building them, then that maximum number would increase, and would begin accepting applications for those positions.

Getting slightly off topic again, my apologies.

F-35C... there we go.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> On order right after nuke subs...



And attack helicopters.


----------



## CBH99

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I've heard others state similar things - lack of sailors/airmen.  Is this because the intake process is long, convoluted and broken or is this because the overall compensation is lacking.  Is it because of a very small number being allowed to be accepted yearly.  What is the overall issue or issues?





Curious to hear this also, but from some folks in the Air Force and from an Air Force standpoint.  (Since it's an RCAF thread)

We've heard lots about pilots & technicians not sticking around, but what are the main things that is causing the RCAF to lose those people?  Are the issues easily fixable, or are they deeper issues that would be challenging?  Is it a long and painful recruiting process?  etc


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Curious to hear this also, but from some folks in the Air Force and from an Air Force standpoint.  (Since it's an RCAF thread)
> 
> We've heard lots about pilots & technicians not sticking around, but what are the main things that is causing the RCAF to lose those people?  Are the issues easily fixable, or are they deeper issues that would be challenging?  Is it a long and painful recruiting process?  etc



While noting the source of this article is a bit biased, it does a good job of describing the issues with recruiting - in the US at any rate.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-recruitment-problem-the-military-doesnt-want-to-talk-about/

And no, I don't want to derail this thread (for a change  ).


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99, I’d say it’s more an issue of institutional challenges with fair and open communications with key (all) personnel groupings in the Air Force.  Multiple promises to disparate groups and even down to individual levels don’t turn out well when everyone starts to cross-check stories with each other.  Everyone’s special until it turns out no one's special and faith is lost and many take that as the ‘walk in the snow storm’ moment to take stock and see what’s important in the overall picture.  Reinforced by anecdotal and close-in post-RCAF experiences by many who’ve moved in, and the Air Force ‘walk’ is seen by many still in to not align with the ‘talk’ and then one sees the individual (chose to) walk.  Master of One’s own destiny. 

:2c:  YMMV

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CBH99, I’d say it’s more an issue of institutional challenges with fair and open communications with key (all) personnel groupings in the Air Force.  Multiple promises to disparate groups and even down to individual levels don’t turn out well when everyone starts to cross-check stories with each other.  Everyone’s special until it turns out no one's special and faith is lost and many take that as the ‘walk in the snow storm’ moment to take stock and see what’s important in the overall picture.  Reinforced by anecdotal and close-in post-RCAF experiences by many who’ve moved in, and the Air Force ‘walk’ is seen by many still in to not align with the ‘talk’ and then one sees the individual (chose to) walk.  Master of One’s own destiny.
> 
> :2c:  YMMV
> 
> Regards
> G2G



The Navy's a good example to us all. Start them young, build the culture, and then learn about what is really important from watching them: 

https://navyleague.ca/navy-league-cadets/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we are always looking for serving personal to speak to our Cadets, so if your near North Van with free Tuesday evening, we be honoured to have you  ;D


----------



## Drallib

I read this entire Topic and I don't recall seeing any possible solutions to this issue, but if Lockheed wins the bid with their F-35A (which is what they're offering), will the RCAF be able to provide air-to-air refueling to those aircraft? Since the F-35A is refueled by the boom system, not the probe/basket like the CF-188.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

i though Max had responded on that issue, might be in the F35 thread?


----------



## dapaterson

There is a project on the books to replace the Polaris a/c, which provide the current refuelling capability to the CAF.  It is reasonable to assume that the project will acquire refuelling aircraft that are compatible with the future fighters.


----------



## MarkOttawa

If this goes through price of Super Hornets for RCAF would go well up and the path to its being an orphan aircraft would shorten:



> Navy Cuts Super Hornet Production to Develop Next-Generation Fighter
> 
> The Navy wants to truncate production of the legacy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in favor of pumping money into accelerating the development of its long-gestating next-generation carrier-based fighter program, the service revealed in its Fiscal Year 2021 budget request.
> 
> Next year’s order of two dozen F/A-18E/F Super Hornets would be the last on the books for the Navy under this plan. In 2019, Super Hornet maker Boeing won a $4-billion multi-year contract to buy 78 Super Hornets through FY 2021.
> 
> According to the justification in the documents, the money the Navy for planned a subsequent multiyear buy of 36 Super Hornets from FY 2022 to 2024 would be rerouted to “accelerated development of Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and other key aviation wholeness investments,” read the documents.
> 
> The cut of the Super Hornets past FY 2021 is estimated to route $4.5 billion over the five-year horizon of the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to the new aviation effort.
> 
> “The _decision to cease F/A-18 procurement after FY 2021 ensures the Carrier Air Wing will maintain capable strike fighter capacity to pace the most stressing threats through the 2030s_ [emphasis added],” read the Navy documents.
> 
> The NGAD program, previously known as F/A-XX, has sought to replace the payload capacity of the Super Hornets on carrier decks as the incoming F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter brings a stealthy fighter to the air wing. The program has had fits and starts over the last decade as the service has grappled with shaping the future of the air wing.
> 
> Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said late last year said the service was still thinking about how it would move forward with carrier aviation.
> 
> “I do think we need an aviation combatant, but what the aviation combatant of the future looks like? I don’t know yet. I think there’s going to be a requirement to continue to deliver a seaborne launched vehicle through the air that’ll deliver an effect downrange,” Gilday said at U.S. Naval Institute’s Defense Forum Washington conference.
> 
> “I do think that that will likely be a mix of manned and unmanned. The platform which they launch from? I’m not sure what that’s going to look like.”
> 
> The Navy has been widely criticized for not modernizing its air wing to keep up with the growing threat of longer-range guided missiles that can put capital ships like carriers at risk. Pentagon leaders singled out the Chinese Dongfeng family of DF-21 and DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles as a key threat last year.
> 
> A _study released last year by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said that, in order for a future carrier air wing to be effective in a major conflict with China, it would need to develop aircraft that could operate consistently at ranges of up to 1,000 nautical miles from the carrier. That’s double the effective combat range of an F-35C.
> 
> It’s unclear if NGAD will be manned, unmanned or some combination of both_ [emphasis added]. While former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said in 2015 that the F-35C would be the last manned fighter the service would buy, the service has been lukewarm in introducing unmanned carrier aircraft into the air wing.
> 
> It abandoned a program to develop a low-observable, carrier-based unmanned strike aircraft in favor of the current MQ-25A Stingray unmanned refueling aircraft.
> 
> Last year, Navy leaders said they weren’t working on development of a new unmanned carrier aircraft.
> 
> “We are just compelled to be somewhat pragmatic in how well they work before we over-commit. We have a limited budget; we also have real lives at stake,” then-Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems (OPNAV N9) Vice Adm. Bill Merz said last year.
> 
> “Unmanned isn’t really unmanned, you just don’t have a body sitting in the platform. There’s a lot of support. You have deck handling, a lot of things you have to come through to bring these things aboard a maritime environment.”
> https://news.usni.org/2020/02/10/navy-cuts-super-hornet-production-to-develop-next-generation-fighter



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is interesting:



> PLAAF Senior Pilot Reveals Poor Performance in Joint Exercise With RTAF
> 
> An early December 2019 report from inside of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) reveals previously unreleased technical details of People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) Russian-built Su-27s losing a majority of engagements in a November 2015 joint exercise with the 701 Fighter Squadron of the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF). This Thai unit operates eight Saab JAS-39C and four JAS-39D Gripens.
> 
> The engagements, known as Falcon Strike 2015, were the first of three such exercises and were detailed in a lecture given by one of the PLAAF’s most heavily decorated pilots, Senior Colonel Li Chunghua Hua (李中華), at the PRC’s Northwestern Polytechnical University (西北工业大学) in Xi’an, Shaanxi Province.
> 
> Li is described as one of the most experienced Sukhoi Su-27SK/J-11A pilots in the PLAAF with some 3,200 hours in fast jets, much of them in the Russian-made Sukhoi.  His revelations are unprecedented and are assessed by US intelligence as demonstrating a growing concern within the officer corps over deficiencies with the training regime for the PLAAF’s pilot cadre.
> 
> These first exercises ran at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base and showed the advantages of the smaller and more technologically-advanced Gripen over the Russian Sukhoi.  Several of Li’s summations from the exercise are:
> 
> *The JAS-39 performance was at its worst inside the within visual range (WVR) envelope.  Over a two-day period, PLAAF pilots shot down 25 Gripens at a loss of only one Su-27.  The Su-27 has an advantage over the performance of the JAS-39 due to its more powerful Salyut AL-31F engines, and the Swedish aircraft was handicapped in that it was equipped with the older-generation AIM-9L Sidewinder instead of the current-generation Diehl IRIS-T missile.
> *Once the exercise transitioned to beyond visual range (BVR) combat, the superiority of the JAS-39 became readily apparent.  The Swedish aircraft shot down 41 Su-27s over a period of four days with a loss of only nine JAS-39s.
> #The Su-27s flown by the PLAAF were operating with a modified version of the NIIP N001 radar that could fire the Vympel RVV-AE active-homing air-to-air missile (AAM). But its effective detection range was only 120km in comparison with the JAS-39’s Ericsson PS-05/A at 160km.  The Gripen’s Raytheon AIM-120 AAM also outranged the RVV-AE at 80km versus only 50 km for the Russian missile.
> *Li stated that the JAS-39C/D’s much smaller radar cross-section (RCS) at 1.5-2.0 m2 was a major factor, as the much larger Su-27 is easier to detect at 12 sq miles.  The JAS-39 can also ripple-fire up to four AIM-120s simultaneously but the Su-27 can fire only one RVV-AE at a time.
> 
> Gripen achieved 88 percent of its kills at 19 miles or greater, while the Su-27 had just 14 percent of its kills at this range. The RTAF also had 10 kills at a distance of more than 31 miles compared with zero long-distance kills by the Su-27.
> 
> In subsequent exercises the PLAAF fared better by sending the Chengdu J-10A - and then in 2019 the J-10C - in place of the Su-27.  Li pointed out that the J-10C was more of a match for the JAS-39C/D in that “its active array radar significantly improves detection distance and multi-target attack capability, the DSI (divertless) air intake of the J-10C reduces the radar intercept area while the PL-15 missile increases the range, making it an over-the-horizon platform.”
> 
> Li also commented that the next-generation version of the Gripen, the JAS-39E, is likely to feature even more advanced combat performance.  His interest in the aircraft parallels a larger body of analysis within the PLA intelligence community that has had a fixation on the design and development of the Gripen as a template for PRC industry to follow.
> https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-02-08/plaaf-senior-pilot-reveals-poor-performance-joint-exercise-rtaf



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:
			
		

> I read this entire Topic and I don't recall seeing any possible solutions to this issue, but if Lockheed wins the bid with their F-35A (which is what they're offering), will the RCAF be able to provide air-to-air refueling to those aircraft? Since the F-35A is refueled by the boom system, not the probe/basket like the CF-188.
> 
> Any thoughts?



We would just do what we always do, feed off US tankers until procurement takes their thumb out of their ass and makes a decision on the Polaris replacement. Next gen fighter will enter service around what, 2025? By that timeline we will see the new tanker/transport by 2035.


----------



## suffolkowner

Drallib said:
			
		

> I read this entire Topic and I don't recall seeing any possible solutions to this issue, but if Lockheed wins the bid with their F-35A (which is what they're offering), will the RCAF be able to provide air-to-air refueling to those aircraft? Since the F-35A is refueled by the boom system, not the probe/basket like the CF-188.
> 
> Any thoughts?



I believe it has been mentioned by the RCAF several times that no decision on the Polaris replacement will happen until the CF-18 replacement has been decided (I think recently in the Canadian Defence Review or Skies mags). Really there are only two choices the Airbus 330 MRTT or the Boeing KC-46 and both can be equipped for receptacle or probe or both. I'm assuming this is an attempt to simplify the acquisition process by eliminating options


----------



## a_majoor

At the rate things are going, there will be a switch to 6th generation fighters (or whatever platform carries out those functions) by the rest of the world's air forces by the time we figure this out.

Perhaps the only saving grace would be if the USAF decides to go for the new "Century Series" idea of producing a few hundred new fighters of different designs every few years. While only the USAF could possibly afford the full program, by the time we get our heads unstuck, we could possibly buy into one of these programs (If the USAF is building 300 of the F-205, we order 100 on the end of the line) which would satisfy the need for some time, Indeed, as the USAF divests itself of "legacy" F-205's, Canada can buy them for parts...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Would the F-205 be the Super Arrow?


----------



## a_majoor

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Would the F-205 be the Super Arrow?



As a USAF plane, it would be the "Super Thunderchief"


----------



## Drallib

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I believe it has been mentioned by the RCAF several times that no decision on the Polaris replacement will happen until the CF-18 replacement has been decided (I think recently in the Canadian Defence Review or Skies mags). Really there are only two choices the Airbus 330 MRTT or the Boeing KC-46 and both can be equipped for receptacle or probe or both. I'm assuming this is an attempt to simplify the acquisition process by eliminating options



Found the SkiesMag page on it! Thanks 

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/boeing-bid-kc-46-future-rcaf-tanker-program/


----------



## Good2Golf

US Navy cuts Super Hornet production to develop its Next Generation Fighter

Potential issue with SH as an option for Future Fighter.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good2Golf--as I pointed out here  :



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If this goes through price of Super Hornets for RCAF would go well up and the path to its being an orphan aircraft would shorten:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

The risk of Army.ca via WPA2 for weeks whilst on the road...didn’t see that as you presented.  Agree, doesn’t look good for SH if it happens...

G2G


----------



## Drallib

I'm not very educated when it comes to these things... but how would that affect the bidding for Canada's next fighter jet? Would less sales mean Boeing wouldn't be able to offer as much? Since it's $19 Billion for 88 jets, how would this change their bid?


----------



## Good2Golf

Increased capital cost and decreased pool of aircraft over which fleet-wide in-service support costs are distributed would notably affect the price point of the commercial offer, which impact any candidate’s likelihood of winning a competition.

Regards
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser

Drallib said:
			
		

> I'm not very educated when it comes to these things... but how would that affect the bidding for Canada's next fighter jet? Would less sales mean Boeing wouldn't be able to offer as much? Since it's $19 Billion for 88 jets, how would this change their bid?



It'll likely push up the flyaway cost per SH in their bid, unless they want to take a haircut on the profits. If they're smart they'll try to keep the cost below F35 just to keep their production line open.

$19B is likely a pipedream cost, we're at the mercy of what the companies bid.


----------



## Drallib

I wonder if this would make Boeing more desperate to get a deal with the RCAF.


----------



## CBH99

Boeing has shot itself in the foot in so many different ways, both commercially and militarily, especially with the RCAF and USAF - Boeing is desperate to get as much business as it can regardless.

One thing the USAF did that was smart was that they had Boeing pay to fix the problems with the KC-46A out of their own pocket.  They realized that 'concurrency' isn't always the best way to go about things (f**king moronic actually) - and left it to Boeing to screw up what should have been one of their simplest military projects on the books.  (Replacing tankers with new tankers...  :facepalm: )

Instead, they took all kinds of shortcuts - the big one being the camera/operator interface having problems (Despite the Airbus equivalent having a similar system that has worked for years.)  As it stands now, the KC-46A can't refuel.  

They essentially fought like crazy to get the contract with Airbus cancelled, then proceeded to FUBAR it in a way that only Boeing can.  They had an opportunity to build a fairly simple system, on time and on budget, and set themselves up for future contracts with the US DOD.  Instead they cost themselves & their shareholders a ton of money needlessly, and have left the USAF with a massive gap in aerial-refueling capability they may now have to pay contractors to fill.  



Combine that with Boeing's completely incompetent challenge to Bombardier's C-series, which Airbus then partnered with Bombardier to have the aircraft manufactured in the US and avoid tariffs (which were later rejected).  Boeing could have done the same, but didn't think of it.  Not only that, but the aircraft was serving a market that Boeing didn't build an equivilent of - if it had offered to partner with Bombardier, it would have greatly expanded it's sales, as it would have been serving an in-demand market it hadn't been previously.


Then you combine that with the 777MAX fiasco of them installing software which deliberately took control of the aircraft away from the pilots - without bothering to tell the pilots about the system, or how to override it (and clearly not required since no other model of commercial aircraft has that particular system).


THEN, bloody hell, combine that with the run-around they've given the FAA and Congress about the whole thing...  


Boeing is in a pool of crap of it's own making.  They are bleeding money faster than a guy with a severed carotid between the KC-46 fixes, 777Max fiasco, mounting lawsuits from various airlines, etc.  Boeing needs all the business it can get right now.

Yes, the CEO was fired & there is new leadership at the helm.  I just don't understand how a company with the brains, resources, and pork-barreling of Boeing can be run in such a piss poor fashion.


----------



## Czech_pivo

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Boeing has shot itself in the foot in so many different ways, both commercially and militarily, especially with the RCAF and USAF - Boeing is desperate to get as much business as it can regardless.
> 
> One thing the USAF did that was smart was that they had Boeing pay to fix the problems with the KC-46A out of their own pocket.  They realized that 'concurrency' isn't always the best way to go about things (f**king moronic actually) - and left it to Boeing to screw up what should have been one of their simplest military projects on the books.  (Replacing tankers with new tankers...  :facepalm: )
> 
> Instead, they took all kinds of shortcuts - the big one being the camera/operator interface having problems (Despite the Airbus equivalent having a similar system that has worked for years.)  As it stands now, the KC-46A can't refuel.
> 
> They essentially fought like crazy to get the contract with Airbus cancelled, then proceeded to FUBAR it in a way that only Boeing can.  They had an opportunity to build a fairly simple system, on time and on budget, and set themselves up for future contracts with the US DOD.  Instead they cost themselves & their shareholders a ton of money needlessly, and have left the USAF with a massive gap in aerial-refueling capability they may now have to pay contractors to fill.
> 
> 
> 
> Combine that with Boeing's completely incompetent challenge to Bombardier's C-series, which Airbus then partnered with Bombardier to have the aircraft manufactured in the US and avoid tariffs (which were later rejected).  Boeing could have done the same, but didn't think of it.  Not only that, but the aircraft was serving a market that Boeing didn't build an equivilent of - if it had offered to partner with Bombardier, it would have greatly expanded it's sales, as it would have been serving an in-demand market it hadn't been previously.
> 
> 
> Then you combine that with the 777MAX fiasco of them installing software which deliberately took control of the aircraft away from the pilots - without bothering to tell the pilots about the system, or how to override it (and clearly not required since no other model of commercial aircraft has that particular system).
> 
> 
> THEN, bloody hell, combine that with the run-around they've given the FAA and Congress about the whole thing...
> 
> 
> Boeing is in a pool of crap of it's own making.  They are bleeding money faster than a guy with a severed carotid between the KC-46 fixes, 777Max fiasco, mounting lawsuits from various airlines, etc.  Boeing needs all the business it can get right now.
> 
> Yes, the CEO was fired & there is new leadership at the helm.  I just don't understand how a company with the brains, resources, and pork-barreling of Boeing can be run in such a piss poor fashion.



Bombardier comes to mind.


----------



## CBH99

I know, as I was writing that I was cringing at how many similar issues exist with Bombardier too...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely all the senior management went to the same school of management training.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Likely all the senior management went to the same school of management training.



Yes, the school of 'Mom and Dad' has always been a bit thin on the skills required to run a major corporation....

A bailout won't fix Bombardier's biggest problems: family control and dual-class shares

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/a-bailout-wont-fix-bombardiers-biggest-problems-family-control-and-dual-class-shares


----------



## dapaterson

When Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas, the MBA culture of the latter displaced the engineering culture of the former, causing many of the current problems.  Boeing's philosophy was to do it right; McDonnell Douglas' philosophy was to do it cheap.


----------



## Good2Golf

^ this...  :nod:

Back in the day, Boeing and Lockheed (up to the amazing L-1011) were the builders of choice.  MD and the post-stealth (best good enough practices) takeover state of Boeing represents much that is wrong with trying (or succeeding) to apply the MBA lens to every aspect of business.  Boeing used to stand up to its reputation: “If it ain’t Boeing, I’m not going!”  MAX MCAS is just the latest in the swirl into the drain. Not sure if Boeing can recover in the long-term.

:2c: 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Baz

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Boeing represents much that is wrong with trying (or succeeding) to apply the MBA lens to every aspect of business.



Yet there is a drive to apply that same lens to military organizations and operations...


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ^ this...  :nod:
> 
> Back in the day, Boeing and Lockheed (up to the amazing L-1011) were the builders of choice.  MD and the post-stealth (best good enough practices) takeover state of Boeing represents much that is wrong with trying (or succeeding) to apply the MBA lens to every aspect of business.  Boeing used to stand up to its reputation: “If it ain’t Boeing, I’m not going!”  MAX MCAS is just the latest in the swirl into the drain. Not sure if Boeing can recover in the long-term.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> 
> G2G



I don't know.....I think the problems are a little more focused than that.  When I look around the industrial landscape the problems I see everywhere are IT and Software driven. The Boeing MCAS problem is one born out of software.   Bringing an example closer to my work.  Tesla is company born from tech industry, Ford and GM are old manufacturers. Lets take the Tesla's autopilot they put it on the cars almost in Beta test...Ford and GM will not do that because of history of not releasing till it works (they have been sued too many times).  Tesla can get away with it updating on the fly.  Ford and GM are struggling with software. 

 One. Their engineering and engineers don't understand work with and in the tech area and have problems with it same as Boeing. 
 Two. Finding tech talent is very hard, even with good pay.  Good tech talent wants to work at the startup and cashout when they make it by selling to Amazon.  Even the Big 3 trying to working this by remaking their offices and moving to Cal but they can offer sexy.  Boeing can't offer sexy. Flying is not the dream anymore of the todays kids.


----------



## Good2Golf

IT/embedded software no doubt has a lot to do with it, but not exclusively nor even the majority.  There are also significant elements of supply chain pressures as well, to wit the entire 737 airframe fabricated by Spirit, not even a Boeing product, and all that flows from that relationship.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Singapore buying 4-12 F-35Bs.

https://twitter.com/TheBaseLeg/status/1228280142155452416/photo/1

"In the early days of the program, the F-35 was marred by design deficiencies and cost overruns."


----------



## MarkOttawa

The Finns' actual fly-off proceeds, by a well-informed Finnish blogger:



> HX Challenge pt. 4: More of Everything
> 
> _Unfortunately, Finnish daily Aamulehti which so far has openly shared recordings of the main press event at the HX Challenge media events has decided to put these behind a paywall. As such, this post is based upon secondary sources (i.e. published articles). Sorry for the inconvenience, but these are the unfortunate facts. Next week we will be back to primary sources (as I will attend the Boeing briefing in person)._
> 
> From the outset, the F-35 has been the aircraft to beat in HX. It isn’t impossible that it will end up beaten, but the string of successes throughout the world (marred only by the highly politicised German failure to be allowed to bid) and unique selling points makes it the gold standard in Western fighter design at the moment. As such, anyone wishing to better Lockheed Martin’s stealth fighter will have to put in some serious effort to show why their bid is better for the Finnish Defence Forces’ concept of operations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The two F-35A’s from that eventually came over from 308th FS were described as being amongst the latest jets in use at Luke AFB, which should mean that they are of the Block 3F, i.e. ready for combat use. Source: Finnish Air Force FB/Joni Malkamäki_
> 
> At least from the outside, that task hasn’t become any easier from the start of the competition. While Lockheed Martin might have seemed a bit too certain of success in the early days of the competition, this week’s media event has shown that they are listening to the customer and not just offering a copy-paste version of offers made to other countries.
> 
> Few doubt the combat capability of the F-35A. The advanced sensor suite and fusion coupled with low-observability features make it a formidable foe for anyone, and the large number of aircraft on order makes it future proof in a way none of the other contenders are. The biggest questions has been surrounding security of supply, sovereignty of data, and industrial cooperation. It is important to note that this does not mean that the Air Force is ready to buy the second best just to ensure that they will get these secondary benefits, but rather that the Air Force has judged these issues to be of crucial importance in allowing a fighter to be combat capable. As has been repeated throughout the last few years: the bids are only ranked on their overall combat capability as part of the overall Finnish defence solution.
> 
> And there’s plenty of combat capability in Lockheed Martin’s offer. While the contenders aren’t allowed to comment on the number of aircraft offered, Steve Sheehy, Lockheed Martin’s Director of Sustainment Strategies and Campaigns, appeared to accidentally disclose that it would be a case of 1-to-1 replacement of the Hornets.
> 
> “The requirement is 64, we are at 64”*
> 
> This was later walked back to the more politically acceptable line of “‘If the requirement is for 64, we are at 64.’ Lockheed Martin will not comment publicly on the number of fighter jets in its response to the call for tenders.” Considering the fact that we have known since last autumn that 64 isn’t in fact a set requirement any longer, my personal belief is that the offer is for 64 aircraft. Make of it what you will, but a 64-ship strong F-35A force would be an impressive one by any measure. It would conceivably make Finland the seventh largest operator of the F-35 (all marks included), leaving behind Tier 2 and 3 contributors such as the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, as well as making the Finnish Air Force the third largest European operator after the UK and Italy (both of which will likely be operating joint F-35A/B fleets). While this might seem like a bold step, it should be remembered that when Finland bought the F/A-18C Hornet it was an order on a similar scale (the early 90’s seeing the AIM-120 equipped Hornet second only to the F-15C Eagle in the air-to-air role). As long as the aircraft can fit within the price tag, the Finnish Air Force is unlikely to shy away from capability. In fact, a serious F-35A order does hold deterrence value in and of itself, as it would highlight the determination to invest in a credible high-end defence as well as the close bilateral defence cooperation with the US.
> 
> The next #HX candidate to participate in the #HXChallenge is Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II. Two F-35As arrived at Pirkkala Air Base tonight on 9 February. #ilmavoimat #finaf #comcamfi pic.twitter.com/ilpwfn7dSk
> 
> — Ilmavoimat (@FinnishAirForce) February 9, 2020
> 
> Perhaps the most interesting part of the press release was the part on how Lockheed Martin plans to ensure security of supply and industrial cooperation.
> 
> Not only the aircraft, but the F135 engine as well would reportedly be produced in-country.*
> 
> This is a significant development in an area that has traditionally been viewed as a weak part of the Lockheed Martin offer, and would be a significant step away from the current production chain which is responsible for pushing the price of the aircraft down to the extent that 64 aircraft could fit inside the Finnish budget. It might look like a case of squaring the circle, but apparently Lokcheed Martin (and Pratt & Whitney) thinks the Finnish order is important enough that they are prepared to take these steps. While the F-35 has final assembly lines outside of the US (in Italy and Japan), in the case of the engine my understanding is that Pratt & Whitney doesn’t do final assembly outside of it’s two sites in the continental US. Such an offer would by it’s very nature include a rather large amount of tech transfer, and ensure Finnish industrial know-how stays up to date when it comes to maintaining and overhauling the aircraft.
> 
> Perhaps a harder thing swallow for the Finnish Air Force was the scheme drawn up for the management of spare parts. This would include peacetime stocks stored in-country for normal operations, with a different set for times of heightened tensions being stored internationally and transferred to Finland when needed. While this kind of centralised spare hubs likely play a significant role in ensuring a low operating cost, not having complete control over the necessary wartime spares will likely be a no-go. However, it is important to remember that this second offer currently being referenced by Lockheed Martin isn’t the same as their best and final offer, which will come only after the approximately six months of negotiations with the Finnish MoD and Defence Forces that are now starting. Lockheed Martin also acknowledges that the sizes of both the in-country and the international stocks aren’t locked, but are currently being discussed. It does however feel that this is one area where the company’s normal ‘tailored for NATO’-options still clashes with the Finnish thinking surrounding wartime operations.
> 
> The stealth capability is the defining feature that sets the aircraft apart from the rest of the competition...[read on]
> https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/02/16/hx-challenge-pt-4-more-of-everything/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So this is how the grown ups buy aircraft?


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The Finns' actual fly-off proceeds, by a well-informed Finnish blogger:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



And now Super Hornet and Growler pitched by Boeing for Finland's new fighter, by the same Finnish blogger (I don't believe Growler is part of our competition):



> HX Challenge pt. 5: Bigger, Better, Stronger
> https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/48471877/posts/2597903006



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

It might not be but Boeing could offer it on the side


----------



## The Bread Guy

Public Services and Procurement Canada:  Industry says they need a weeeeeee bit more time ...


> The Government of Canada is committed to providing members of the Royal Canadian Air Force with the fighter aircraft they need to do their jobs, and ensuring the best possible value for Canadians.
> 
> At the request of industry, the March 30 deadline for preliminary proposals for the Future Fighter Capability Project has been extended. Eligible suppliers now have until June 30, 2020 to complete and submit their proposals.
> 
> This extension supports our commitment to conduct an open, fair, and transparent competition. Procurements of this magnitude are complex, and submission of a good proposal is important for suppliers and for Canada. This extension allows eligible suppliers to address recent feedback on their security offers, ensuring that Canada receives competitive proposals that meet its technical, cost and economic benefits requirements.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> “The government set out an aggressive timeline to implement this very complex, high-value procurement, and while we understand the importance of this procurement for our women and men in uniform, our focus is on moving the process forward as quickly as we can, while ensuring that all bidders have the time they need to put forward their best proposal.”
> 
> The Honourable Anita Anand
> Minister of Public Services and Procurement
> 
> “Our government is making the necessary decisions to get the best aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force and Canada. This extension will allow the eligible suppliers to make their best possible offer to ensure that we are able to provide the equipment our members need at a fair cost to Canadians.”
> 
> The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan
> Minister of National Defence
> 
> “Canada’s Industrial Technological Benefits policy is expected to generate high-value jobs and economic growth for Canadian aerospace and defence businesses for decades. Ensuring that all suppliers have the opportunity to put their best bid forward is important to ensure strong economic benefits are secured for Canadians.”
> 
> The Honourable Navdeep Bains
> Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry
> 
> *Quick facts*
> 
> This is the most significant investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force in more than 30 years and is essential for protecting the safety and security of Canadians and meeting international obligations.
> 
> Officials conducted extensive engagement with Canadian aerospace and defence industries to ensure that they are well positioned to participate in the procurement.
> 
> Canada is using a phased-bid compliance process, which is an additional measure to ensure that bidders will have an opportunity to address non-compliance in their proposals related to mandatory criteria. Following evaluation of preliminary proposals, a dialogue phase may be conducted with one or more compliant bidders to reduce the risk that a proposal is eliminated due to an error or omission.
> 
> Proposals will be rigorously assessed on elements of capability (60%), cost (20%) and economic benefits (20%).
> 
> All proposals will be evaluated according to the same evaluation criteria.
> 
> Canada’s Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy, including a Value Proposition applies to this procurement. This is expected to generate high-value jobs and economic growth for Canadian aerospace and defence businesses for decades ...


----------



## OldSolduer

The delays will ensure that the RCAF will get a 5th gen fighter when the 7th gen comes on line in 2040.

 :sarcasm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The delays will ensure that the RCAF will get a 5th gen fighter when the 7th gen comes on line in 2040.
> 
> :sarcasm:


You starry-eyed optimist, you ...


----------



## Iron 1

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You starry-eyed optimist, you ...


Sad but true...
If I was a millennial I'd embed the standard Metallica video here.
But I'm not.
So I won't.
But it's sad...and it's true.

And this makes me sad (not to mention frustrated).
How can this keep on being a political football, perpetually @ third and long?

This is probably SAAB admitting that their "tinker-toy" can't play with the big boys, yet rather than doing the proper thing they prefer to ask for a 3 month extension.
Just so they can come back in 3 months and admit that their tinker toy can't play with the big boys?
Seems rather ridiculous...
It's a great airplane for third world nations and others in the EU on a budget.
It's a waste of time even considering it for our needs. 
Maybe I'm wrong here?
From all I've read?
I don't think so.
I send a shitload of money to Ottawa every year and I am not impressed.
Yes.
I am an Albertan.


----------



## dimsum

Saab Forms Industry Team For Canada Fighter Bid



> Four companies have joined the Saab Gripen E’s proposal for the C$15-20 billion Future Fighter Capability contract in Canada, which remains in a recently extended competitive phase.
> 
> Saab’s industrial team, which includes IMP Aerospace & Defense, CAE, Peraton Canada and GE Aviation, is the last of the three remaining bidders for the contracts to supply 88 fighters to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s CF-188 fleet, which is the local designation for the Boeing F/A-18A/B.
> 
> “We have assembled a dynamic roster of innovative leaders within Canada’s aerospace industry, across multiple regions to offer the best solution for Canada’s future fighter,” said Jonas Hjelm, senior vice president and head of Saab Aeronautics.
> 
> Saab is competing against the Lockheed Martin F-35A and Boeing F/A-18E/F for the Canadian order.
> 
> Industrial benefits represent 20% of the formula used by Public Works and Procurement Canada to select the contract winner. Cost is assigned the same value in the evaluation as industrial benefits, with overall capability forming the remaining 60% of the weighted criteria.
> 
> Canadian officials relaxed a previous requirement for contractors to reserve a share of the aircraft sustainment program for Canadian companies. The F-35’s international partnership disallows guaranteed industrial participation, so the concession allowed Lockheed to remain in the competition, but drove the Eurofighter Typhoon team to withdraw from the bidding process last August. Dassault previously withdrew the Rafale from the competition in November 2018.
> 
> The remaining three participants were due to submit preliminary proposals by March 31. But Canadian procurement officials on Feb. 24 said the deadline would be extended until June 30.
> 
> ‘This extension will allow eligible suppliers to submit their best possible offer,” said Harjit Sajjan, Canada’s Minister of National Defense.



https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/air-warfare-symposium/saab-forms-industry-team-canada-fighter-bid


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Saab Forms Industry Team For Canada Fighter Bid
> 
> https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/air-warfare-symposium/saab-forms-industry-team-canada-fighter-bid



How ironic that the new extension falls at the exact same time as the Conservative leadership convention? How wonderful it will be for the Libs to roll out the news on the fighter replacement at the time the news will be reporting on the leadership race. 
Unreal how much politics is wrapped into the whole process - the renewal, the CSC, the icebreakers, the LAV’s - it’s absolute crap.


----------



## OldSolduer

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Saab Forms Industry Team For Canada Fighter Bid
> 
> https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/air-warfare-symposium/saab-forms-industry-team-canada-fighter-bid



I'm no genius but it seems its "any plane but the F-35".


----------



## PuckChaser

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm no genius but it seems its "any plane but the F-35".



If Lockheed loses with a Liberal government in power, they will bury the government in litigation for a rigged process against them. Especially since every other country that's ran a competition has had the F-35 beat out the SH and Gripen numerous times.


----------



## Rifleman62

Which will tie up the procurement for some years, which is probably what the Liberals would like. The liberals do what they want, and screw everyone else except their supporters.


----------



## Quirky

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm no genius but it seems its "any plane but the F-35".



If Saab wins I can see a huge issue with future pilots going the fighter jet route in Moose Jaw. Nevermind the Cold Lake issues already discussed ad nausim, flying the SAAB won't sweeten the deal.


----------



## YZT580

For just plain flying, the SAAB is a sweetheart.  There won't be a problem from the pure flying viewpoint.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:
			
		

> For just plain flying, the SAAB is a sweetheart.  There won't be a problem from the pure flying viewpoint.



Personal experience?


----------



## Quirky

YZT580 said:
			
		

> For just plain flying, the SAAB is a sweetheart.  There won't be a problem from the pure flying viewpoint.



Buying fighters purely for airshows and scenic tours through the mountains. There are cheaper options for that...


----------



## Good2Golf

Quirky said:
			
		

> Buying fighters purely for airshows and scenic tours through the mountains. There are cheaper options for that...



:nod:

Subcontract ‘Top Aces’


----------



## YZT580

Wasn't talking about usefulness was talking about the pure joy of flying.  Every pilot I have ever met considers his aircraft the absolute best.  Cold Lake won't matter if they an actually get to fly an aircraft that still has that new car smell and that isn't older than he is.  Whether it is the best for the job or not, if the SAAB is the one picked 3 months after training commences there will be a total buy in by the flight crews.  This is not saying that the SAAB is the one to buy, that is just an observation after years of working with pilots.


----------



## SupersonicMax

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Wasn't talking about usefulness was talking about the pure joy of flying.  Every pilot I have ever met considers his aircraft the absolute best.  Cold Lake won't matter if they an actually get to fly an aircraft that still has that new car smell and that isn't older than he is.  Whether it is the best for the job or not, if the SAAB is the one picked 3 months after training commences there will be a total buy in by the flight crews.  This is not saying that the SAAB is the one to buy, that is just an observation after years of working with pilots.



You’ll see a whole lot, more-so than now, of experienced fighter pilots, our backbone, that would leave.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You’ll see a whole lot, more-so than now, of experienced fighter pilots, our backbone, that would leave.



Yeah... it would be too much like all your friends seeing you drive by in a Volvo station wagon with two dogs in the back and a 'baby on board' sticker in the rear window


----------



## SupersonicMax

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yeah... it would be too much like all your friends seeing you drive by in a Volvo station wagon with two dogs in the back and a 'baby on board' sticker in the rear window



No, it’s because we know it isn’t the aircraft for Canada.  The Government buying the Grippen would show that it doesn’t really have its priorities right and definitely not our safety in combat at heart.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> No, it’s because we know it isn’t the aircraft for Canada.  The Government buying the Grippen would show that it doesn’t really have its priorities right and definitely not our safety in combat at heart.



The cynic in me would say "then why is capability, cost, and benefits valued at 60/20/20 instead of 70/15/15, or 80/10/10", or words to that effect.

But that's if I was a cynic


----------



## MTShaw

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> No, it’s because we know it isn’t the aircraft for Canada.  The Government buying the Grippen would show that it doesn’t really have its priorities right and definitely not our safety in combat at heart.



The challenge is supporting an F-35 in one of the coldest, most barren places on the earth.  I agree that the vast majority of our fleet should be composed of the F-35, but we also need something like the Gripen that can be repaired in much more austere conditions. It’s not so simple as mirroring the Americans.  We have differing requirements.

Without something like the Gripen, or a smaller, tactical MPA, you won’t have to worry about “our safety in combat” (whatever that means), because we won’t be there.


----------



## Quirky

MTShaw said:
			
		

> The challenge is supporting an F-35 in one of the coldest, most barren places on the earth.  I agree that the vast majority of our fleet should be composed of the F-35, but we also need something like the Gripen that can be repaired in much more austere conditions. It’s not so simple as mirroring the Americans.  We have differing requirements.



No, we don't, stop making out the RCAF like some special snowflake fighter community with unique requirements. The USAF will have two squadrons of F-35s in Alaska, which is much more austere than anything permanent we have in Canada, including Cold Lake. I don't know how the Gripen will be easier to repair than the F-35, you base this on what, internet marketing by SAAB? You support the F-35 with proper infrastructure like hangarettes in Cold Lake and Bagotville and it will do just fine. Supporting the F-35 will be easier as the supply chain will be much, much bigger than anything SAAB can provide.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:
			
		

> No, we don't, stop making out the RCAF like some special snowflake fighter community with unique requirements. The USAF will have two squadrons of F-35s in Alaska, which is much more austere than anything permanent we have in Canada, including Cold Lake. I don't know how the Gripen will be easier to repair than the F-35, you base this on what, internet marketing by SAAB? You support the F-35 with proper infrastructure like hangarettes in Cold Lake and Bagotville and it will do just fine. Supporting the F-35 will be easier as the supply chain will be much, much bigger than anything SAAB can provide.



Not to mention with parts being built in various places aroud the world, and allies also using it, If we have say a 6 pack on EX in say Poland if they need parts we could always buy/borrow them from them, or have them shipped from Italy for example. With SAAB, all spare parts are likely coming out of Europe and SAAB's main factories, meaning a rather large supply chain till the reach canada.


----------



## PuckChaser

MTShaw said:
			
		

> The challenge is supporting an F-35 in one of the coldest, most barren places on the earth.  I agree that the vast majority of our fleet should be composed of the F-35, but we also need something like the Gripen that can be repaired in much more austere conditions. It’s not so simple as mirroring the Americans.  We have differing requirements.



Where's your source that the Gripen is a magic aircraft that can be "bush fixed" like a Twin Otter instead of needing a hanger and specialized parts/training like literally every other jet aircraft in the last 50 years?


----------



## MTShaw

Quirky said:
			
		

> No, we don't, stop making out the RCAF like some special snowflake fighter community with unique requirements. The USAF will have two squadrons of F-35s in Alaska, which is much more austere than anything permanent we have in Canada, including Cold Lake. I don't know how the Gripen will be easier to repair than the F-35, you base this on what, internet marketing by SAAB? You support the F-35 with proper infrastructure like hangarettes in Cold Lake and Bagotville and it will do just fine. Supporting the F-35 will be easier as the supply chain will be much, much bigger than anything SAAB can provide.



FYI.

The average January temp in Anchorage is -3. In Inuvik it’s -30. Comparing apples to pumpkins.  Alaska is warmed by the heatsink we call the Pacific, and Europe is warmed by the trade currents.  Like I said, I’m concerned about the logistics of a plane with known known problems vs a plane that can keep the Beaufort sea clear.  THe Gripen is one option. There’s also (to be practical) the option of another smaller MPA than HMG is considering for the CP-140 replacement, using the electronics on the C295 along with NSM/Harpoon/Exocet on the wing pylons.

I’m floating an idea to solve a real problem. I have aphasia so I hope that makes sense.


----------



## MTShaw

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where's your source that the Gripen is a magic aircraft that can be "bush fixed" like a Twin Otter instead of needing a hanger and specialized parts/training like literally every other jet aircraft in the last 50 years?



The operational concept of the Swedish Air Force is to do just that. And we do have Hangars in Inuvik for maintenance. So, thanks for the paper tiger, but I’ll pass.


----------



## Sub_Guy

MTShaw said:
			
		

> FYI.
> 
> The average January temp in Anchorage is -3. In Inuvik it’s -30. Comparing apples to pumpkins.  Alaska is warmed by the heatsink we call the Pacific, and Europe is warmed by the trade currents.  Like I said, I’m concerned about the logistics of a plane with known known problems vs a plane that can keep the Beaufort sea clear.  THe Gripen is one option. There’s also (to be practical) the option of another smaller MPA than HMG is considering for the CP-140 replacement, using the electronics on the C295 along with NSM/Harpoon/Exocet on the wing pylons.
> 
> I’m floating an idea to solve a real problem. I have aphasia so I hope that makes sense.



Beauty.  But the AFB which will be home to the F-35 is Eielson, and it is currently -31 there right now (much colder on average than Anchorage).

C-295 is not a viable option for a CP-140 replacement.  The C-295 does not meet the speed requirement nor the endurance requirement. Keep in mind the primary role for the CP-140 is ASW, so whatever bird you come up with needs to be an effective ASW platform.

If you think the RCAF is setup to mimic the Swedes you are mistaken. The only "bush fixing" will be whatever is needed to get it back to home-plate. 

The Gripen will be a costly mistake for Canada if we choose to go with it.


----------



## MTShaw

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Beauty.  But the AFB which will be home to the F-35 is Eielson, and it is currently -31 there right now (much colder on average than Anchorage).
> 
> C-295 is not a viable option for a CP-140 replacement.  The C-295 does not meet the speed requirement nor the endurance requirement. Keep in mind the primary role for the CP-140 is ASW, so whatever bird you come up with needs to be an effective ASW platform.
> 
> If you think the RCAF is setup to mimic the Swedes you are mistaken. The only "bush fixing" will be whatever is needed to get it back to home-plate.
> 
> The Gripen will be a costly mistake for Canada if we choose to go with it.


Fair enough. 

Just to clarify, I wasn’t trying to put forward the C-295 As a CP-140 replacement, but a midrange surface patrol and enforcement aircraft. 

Come to think of it, and F-35 with drop tanks could do the same think of it.

Lightweight Torpedoes for the F-35?


----------



## YZT580

From where I sit, you don't need a stealth aircraft to go up against anything that will come in from the north.  The sheer distances dictate that any attack will consist of long range bombers, tankers, and fighter escorts: non of which will be particularly stealthy.  So we need air to air superiority with the ability to fight and regenerate from relatively basic facilities.  Our other commitments i.e. Nato need a totally different aircraft.  The F35 is a good aircraft but it can't do everything.  If it could, the yanks wouldn't be spending all kinds of cash in maintaining and replacing aircraft such as the F15 and the F18 with others of the same bloodline.  Perhaps we need to quit thinking small and acquire two fleets with one dedicated to Nato requirements and the other more suited for protecting our own airspace: particularly the north. And yes, SM I realise that we have difficulty staffing our current squadrons but that is a solvable problem with a little cash and a little out of the box thinking.  We can afford it if we have the will to do it.  The Aussies have


----------



## HB_Pencil

MTShaw said:
			
		

> The challenge is supporting an F-35 in one of the coldest, most barren places on the earth.  I agree that the vast majority of our fleet should be composed of the F-35, but we also need something like the Gripen that can be repaired in much more austere conditions. It’s not so simple as mirroring the Americans.  We have differing requirements.



You realize that Canada was part of the requirement setting process for the JSF partnership, and its primary input into them was cold weather operations. We helped ensure that the aircraft would be sufficiently capable in our arctic. So the claim that its somehow incapable to operate in such an environment is ludicrous - its basically deceptive marketing from Gripen. 



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> The cynic in me would say "then why is capability, cost, and benefits valued at 60/20/20 instead of 70/15/15, or 80/10/10", or words to that effect.
> 
> But that's if I was a cynic



The ratios mean very little. If the scoring on any single segment is geared towards just meeting a basic compliance and does not advantage additional capabilities, then its actual value in the competition might as well be worth 0.... which is what the government has been trying to do with this competition. ITBs will play a much larger role in determining the outcome than the 20% they have suggested. That's happen in a number of other competitions lately.


----------



## Quirky

YZT580 said:
			
		

> is a solvable problem with a little cash and a little out of the box thinking.  We can afford it if we have the will to do it.  The Aussies have



The majority of Canadian disagree with you and they pay taxes that fund this little operation. The RCAF and CAF as a whole is seen as a luxury in this country and I doubt many would care if we disappeared overnight. We can't even get recruiting right without it blowing up in our faces and you are advocating two fighter fleets? Not happening.


----------



## HB_Pencil

YZT580 said:
			
		

> From where I sit, you don't need a stealth aircraft to go up against anything that will come in from the north.  The sheer distances dictate that any attack will consist of long range bombers, tankers, and fighter escorts: non of which will be particularly stealthy.



Russia's next generation fighter (Su-57), Long range drone (Ohtoknik) and Bomber (Tupolev PAK DA) are all low observable designs, so thats just factually incorrect. Also given the development of hypersonics and new low observable cruise missiles, we need platforms with the best sensor capabilities to fill in the gaps in Radar coverage - there's really only one option here. You're basically arguing for a threat environment now and trying to dictate capabilities from it. Look even ten years down the line and all of the options, save for one, are inadequate for what we're likely to face. 



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> So we need air to air superiority with the ability to fight and regenerate from relatively basic facilities.  Our other commitments i.e. Nato need a totally different aircraft.  The F35 is a good aircraft but it can't do everything.  If it could, the yanks wouldn't be spending all kinds of cash in maintaining and replacing aircraft such as the F15 and the F18 with others of the same bloodline.



The USN will in all likelihood end Super Hornet purchases this year in order to spend money on their next generation fighter NGAD. Also your point belies the fact that the US uses 5th Generation aircraft for the core of their air northern defence capabilities. The United States has not had a 4th Generation fighter in Alaska since around 2007 - its a F-22 force.  Furthermore, the F-35 is already (or very soon) on NORAD duty operating from Vermont ANG. 



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> Perhaps we need to quit thinking small and acquire two fleets with one dedicated to Nato requirements and the other more suited for protecting our own airspace: particularly the north. And yes, SM I realise that we have difficulty staffing our current squadrons but that is a solvable problem with a little cash and a little out of the box thinking.  We can afford it if we have the will to do it.  The Aussies have



Basically if we follow your suggestion, we would be trying to think small - lets cheap out and buy a substandard fighter to undertake some sort of ill-defined but unique northern requirements. The Aussies have two fighter fleets, not because the Super Hornet has something special over the F-35, but rather due to circumstances - they faced the early retirement of their F-111s and needed a replacement around 2010, which the F-35 could not be ready. In order to make it worth while, they decided that once sufficient F-35s were available, their SHornet fleet would be migrated over to the Growler Configuration. Thats a force decision that is not relevant for our situation. Similarly to your earlier point, the USAF has F-15s and may buy a few more not because the F-15 is "better" but because of existing force structure and training capacity issues. 

Furthermore running two fleets of aircraft would be a massive increase in the cost to the RCAF's tactical fighter fleet, and seriously impact its ability to staff and pilot its aircraft. DRDC did an analysis of this, and found that it made no financial sense to build such a force structure.


----------



## PuckChaser

Man, we better tell Norway that the F-35 won't work in the Arctic, they're buying 52 of the things that beat the Gripen-E (then called NG) in competition. Finland is also running their competition right now, with the Super Hornet the last aircraft evaluated a week ago (https://www.janes.com/article/94239/finland-launches-hx-evaluations-for-f-35a). I'd be willing to put money on the fact that the F-35 will win again.


----------



## MarkOttawa

PuckChaser: Here are some very detailed posts on the Finnish HX fighter competition (actual fly-off in winter in Finland!) by an excellent Finnish fellow:



> Corporal Frisk [not]
> Finnish blogger in reserve, defence and national security.
> https://corporalfrisk.com/tag/hx/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

In the way that there might have been some pilots who likes the CF-5 better than the CF-18, perhaps your sample set has some strange distribution.  Personally I’d rank them to my preference to fly as:

1. F-35 (the 5th-gen avionics and sensors suite (DAS) and battlespace connectivity is insane and a friend who flies it regularly says it’s got really nice handling compared to a Rhino. 
2. Eurofighter.  Canarded twin-engine delta...I hear it has some really nice flight dynamics. 
3. Super Hornet (‘Rhino’).  Big but not Eagle or Raptor big, so not quite as cool as the ‘Big Boys’.
4. Gripen E.  (Now that the flight control rules were revised to keep it from bucking into the ground during landing).

That said, seized-rotorcraft aren’t as fun as floppy-winged, so I’d still prefer back-forth-up-down-all around and blowing crunchies’ blue rockets over, so don’t take my word for choices. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## suffolkowner

In the end I think the F-35 will be chosen and that we will be able to plug into any production slot that we want. Once the procurement process is engaged versus sole sourcing there is just no stopping the inevitable slowdown. Saab may not even bid due to the "2 Eyes" requirements and that is the reason for the latest 3 month extension. I have no doubt that Saab can compete on costs both purchase and O/M just look Finlands bid where they through in a couple Globaleyes. Also I have seen many a time in the commercial/industrial world where one product was vastly superior to another on O/M, so I would not discount that. But all numbers I have seen suggest that the F-35 should outperform the other 2 finalists on all metrics that are understandable by a layman/casual observer. I also do not understand how stealth is so often discounted in the Air to Air role, I believe that I would want every advantage I could have, and that is what I want for the men and women that are in this position. 

To me we have one product on the end of or near the end of its production run, another that is not really in production yet and the final choice the F-35 that is just entering the prime years of its production that was developed and in use by virtually every single one of our allies. In my mind there would have to be some really compelling numbers to alter the outcome

There is an interesting discussion going on over at F-16.net on the long CF-18 replacement thread where recently the topic of Cold Lake was brought up, perhaps some of you are contributors


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile Finland's competition moves smartly, looks thorough on their own ground:



> Finns Analyzing Fighter Trials Data
> 
> Finnish procurement officials say they expect all five contenders in the country’s HX Fighter competition to remain in the race until the end.
> 
> The comments by the Finnish defense ministry’s head of strategic projects, Lauri Puranen, emerged following the conclusion of the HX Challenge. The challenge saw each of the aircraft types deployed to Finland in January and February for flight trials to confirm that the proposed aircraft have met the specifications promised by the manufacturers.
> 
> But in an interview with the Finnish business newspaper Kauppalehti, Puranen said the trials showed that not all the specifications promised by the manufacturers had been met.
> 
> He said officials were “partially satisfied” and “partly not,” although not all trial data had been analyzed.
> 
> “There will always been surprises, but it was known some machines will have shortcomings,” he told the newspaper.
> 
> Finland wants to purchase up to 64 fighters to replace its fleet of F/A-18C/D Hornets. Five Western combat aircraft have entered the fray. The British government is leading the marketing effort for the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon, while Washington is pushing both the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. France and Sweden have answered with the Dassault Rafale and the Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen.
> 
> Saab announced in June that its offer included its GlobalEye airborne early warning platform. Boeing’s proposals also are believed to include several EA-18 Growler electronic warfare platforms.
> 
> Puranen did not say which aircraft suffered shortcomings, although he questioned why four F-35s were sent for the deployment but only two arrived. He noted that one was subsequently unserviceable.
> 
> “It [the F-35] could not fly all flights. The other flew all the flights,” he told the newspaper. Finnish media have questioned why such a large footprint was sent with the aircraft, as well as the tanker that supported the flight across the Atlantic. The F-35s were also joined by two U.S. Air Force C-17s carrying support equipment. None of the other fighters deployed had such a large footprint, even Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornets, which also made the crossing. They were joined by a KDC-10 tanker from Omega.
> 
> The trials saw a total of 40 missions flown to test aircraft performance, systems and sensors against targets in the air and on the ground.
> 
> “Through a joint effort we could create a comprehensive testing environment here in Finland,” said Col. Juha-Pekka Keranen, the Finnish Air Force’s HX Fighter program director.
> 
> “Our geographical location and the candidates’ security requirements had imposed limitations on the testing of the most sensitive electronic warfare capabilities in Finland. However, we will be able to verify these vital capabilities in the candidates’ main operators’ own test areas,” Keranen said.
> 
> He noted that some of the candidates may still have “aces up their sleeves” in terms of capabilities that could be released after the procurement has been made.
> 
> Trials tested the aircraft sensors at range, as well as their resolution and ability to maintain tracking while targets used maneuvering or employed countermeasures. They also determined the workload and speed associated with preparing the weapon system to attack a ground target, and in the case of a long-range attack with standoff weapons, if the aircraft can be provided with more specific target data by a datalink. The flights were also used to measure the each of the fighter’s capability to identify and locate electronic signals and produce situational awareness of the target area.
> 
> “In a combat situation, it is vital to know whether the sensors produce sufficiently precise data on both stationary and moving targets, and whether it is possible to utilize the target data in accordance with the requirements of different weapons and weapon systems,” Keranen said.
> 
> Defense officials note that the process is still some way from a decision, with a final comparison only possible once the contenders have handed in legally binding best offers, due at the end of 2020.
> 
> Finland wants the selected platform to be operational into the 2060s and will judge the bids on military capability, security of supply, industrial cooperation, procurement and life cycle costs, and security and defense policy implications.
> 
> “Our Design-to-Cost model aims to maximize the HX’s military capability within the budget,” Keranen said. “However, each change in the HX packages is likely to have an impact on the decision-making areas, meaning that we have to look at the big picture when optimizing the tenders with the manufacturers.”
> 
> _Helsinki is expected to make a selection in 2021_ [emphasis added].
> https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/air-warfare-symposium/finns-analyzing-fighter-trials-data



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/lockheed-delivers-500th-f-35/137066.article


Harder to argue each day with the F35 given it keeps improving


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/lockheed-delivers-500th-f-35/137066.article
> 
> 
> Harder to argue each day with the F35 given it keeps improving



That's 5 times the number of Gripen E/F aircraft, and the F-35 is still in LRIP...


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's 5 times the number of Gripen E/F aircraft, and the F-35 is still in LRIP...



Indeed.  It was always understood to be the next F-16....mass-produced, multi-national multi-role strike fighter that would have its in-service support costs spread over a large and enduring installed base. 

It’ll be ours too...even the current government knows it’s actually the best bang for the fully life-cycle costed buck. They just have to figure out how to get there from the tortuously painful fiasco they backed themselves into with an ‘anything but JSF’ line in the 2015 campaign.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Indeed.  It was always understood to be the next F-16....mass-produced, multi-national multi-role strike fighter that would have its in-service support costs spread over a large and enduring installed base.
> 
> It’ll be ours too...even the current government knows it’s actually the best bang for the fully life-cycle costed buck. They just have to figure out how to get there from the tortuously painful fiasco they backed themselves into with an ‘anything but JSF’ line in the 2015 campaign.



Unlike, you know, the way they handled that 'new helicopter' thing...  :sarcasm:


----------



## Good2Golf

Even Chretien realized his campaign promise was wrong. He just made sure DND came up with another name other than EH-101 Merlin when we bought the AW101 / CH-149.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That said, seized-rotorcraft aren’t as fun as floppy-winged, so I’d still prefer back-forth-up-down-all around and blowing crunchies’ blue rockets over, so don’t take my word for choices.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Isn't that a F-35 B?   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Isn't that a F-35 B?   ;D



Touché!  I’d definitely that one a go.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!



> IMP joins bid to assemble Canada's new fighter jets in Nova Scotia
> 
> Ken Rowe wants to assemble the next generation of Canadian fighter jets right here in Nova Scotia.
> 
> His IMP Group is part of a consortium bidding to put together and maintain 88 of Saab’s Gripen fighter jets at his company’s massive hangar near Halifax Stanfield International Airport to serve as Canada's next wave of fighter jets. The $19-billion future fighter procurement program aims to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s existing fleet of CF-18 Hornets.
> 
> “We have to win the competition first of course,” said Rowe, IMP's founder and executive chairman.
> 
> “But if we win, they will be ... assembled in our large new hangar at the airport.”
> 
> It wouldn’t make sense to set up a factory here to build less than 100 Gripens, he said.
> 
> “But a lot of the parts will be made here in our shops, where it makes sense, and the whole aircraft assembled here,” Rowe said Wednesday in a telephone interview...
> 
> “We should have the lowest price,” Rowe said of the Gripen. “And it’s a cold weather aircraft that’s a very popular one.”
> 
> The feds are slated to choose the winning bidder in 2022, with the first jets to be delivered three years after that.
> 
> “I don’t access all the politics that goes on in these decisions because everyone and their dog gets involved,” Rowe said. “The military will have a quiet say of what aircraft they want and it will come down to the competitive issue of price and technical qualifications.”
> 
> IMP, which employs about 2,000 people in Nova Scotia, hasn’t worked out yet how many people it would need to add to its labour force here to assemble the fighter jets.
> 
> “There would be quite a large hiring,” Rowe said. “But until they work out what exactly are we expected to do, this is very early days.”..
> 
> IMP already maintains several different Canadian military helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
> 
> "We're a major defence contractor in Canada but we don't go preaching it every day to the public," Rowe said.
> 
> He’s confident IMP would be able to find skilled workers capable of assembling the Swedish fighters here.
> 
> “We never take on a project that we can’t complete on time and within the budget asked of us,” he said.
> https://www.thetelegram.com/business/regional-business/imp-hopes-canadas-new-fighter-jets-will-be-assembled-in-nova-scotia-419518/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Rowe said. “The military will have a quiet say of what aircraft they want"
Click to expand...


RCAF: We've made our assessment, our recommendation based on future capability, interoperability with our allies and price is the clear choice, the F-35.
Government: "You get the SAAB because we can build them here and employ a couple hundred assembly line workers in NS for a few years."
RCAF: 'Collective fighter pilot community in Canada leaves for the airlines'
Government:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The government will buy unmanned and unarmed drones, with the drones controlled by the same people in Miramichi who handle the Phoenix Call centre.


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> The government will buy unmanned and unarmed drones, with the drones controlled by the same people in Miramichi who handle the Phoenix Call centre.



Don't give them any ideas.


----------



## FSTO

The author of this Op piece.
Alex McColl has a master of public policy degree from the University of Calgary, where he wrote his capstone thesis, CF-39 Arrow II: A Swedish Solution to the CF-18 Replacement Problem, on military procurement.

https://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/national-perspectives/alex-mccoll-mackay-ironically-lining-up-against-fighter-jet-jobs-in-his-own-riding-420208/

Wasn't there a factory built in St Jean for an air defence system that was shut down shortly after the last item rolled off the line? Have we learned nothing? (sarcasm)


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:
			
		

> The author of this Op piece.
> Alex McColl has a master of public policy degree from the University of Calgary, where he wrote his capstone thesis, CF-39 Arrow II: A Swedish Solution to the CF-18 Replacement Problem, on military procurement.
> 
> https://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/national-perspectives/alex-mccoll-mackay-ironically-lining-up-against-fighter-jet-jobs-in-his-own-riding-420208/
> 
> Wasn't there a factory built in St Jean for an air defence system that was shut down shortly after the last item rolled off the line? Have we learned nothing? (sarcasm)



No company is going to invest millions to build a factory for a few aircraft, then shut it down, It blows my mind people still make the argument about cost, when the F-35 costs continue to drop while costs are only going up for 4th gen aircraft as production slows. I also love how liberals tout an open and fair competition but are dragging their heels about actually launching it. I have said it before and I will say it again, defense procurement needs to be taken out of political hands, the department should handle it all internally and be exempt from the stupid rules about canadian content, etc... that are driving defense costs up in this country.


----------



## Quirky

FSTO said:
			
		

> The author of this Op piece.
> Alex McColl has a master of *public policy degree* from the University of Calgary, where he wrote his capstone thesis, CF-39 Arrow II: A Swedish Solution to the CF-18 Replacement Problem, on military procurement.



I couldn't think of a more useless way to spend nearly a decade in university.


----------



## observor 69

Quirky said:
			
		

> I couldn't think of a more useless way to spend nearly a decade in university.



"According to the US Census Bureau, Master’s in Public Policy (MPP) graduates earn an average of $19,000 more than their counterparts with bachelors degrees. 

Some surveys suggest that MPP grads can expect a 31% increase in their salary."

https://prodigyfinance.com/resources/blog/getting-masters-public-policy-expect-salary-bump


----------



## Spencer100

FSTO said:
			
		

> The author of this Op piece.
> Alex McColl has a master of public policy degree from the University of Calgary, where he wrote his capstone thesis, CF-39 Arrow II: A Swedish Solution to the CF-18 Replacement Problem, on military procurement.
> 
> https://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/national-perspectives/alex-mccoll-mackay-ironically-lining-up-against-fighter-jet-jobs-in-his-own-riding-420208/
> 
> Wasn't there a factory built in St Jean for an air defence system that was shut down shortly after the last item rolled off the line? Have we learned nothing? (sarcasm)



The plant did not close down 

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/company/divisions_and_subsidiaries/rheinmetall_canada/index.php


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO, maybe you’re thinking of UTDC, that made the HLVWs at a plant near Sherbrooke, Qc, that was subsequently dismantled entirely and returned to frank and after the HLs were completed?

Regards,
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

And just rebuilt and redismantled to assemble SMP variant MSVS trucks?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> FSTO, maybe you’re thinking of UTDC, that made the HLVWs at a plant near Sherbrooke, Qc, that was subsequently dismantled entirely and returned to frank and after the HLs were completed?
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



or the LSVW, Iltis


----------



## Good2Golf

I thought Western Star contract-built the LSVW under Iveco’s license?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Quite possibly


----------



## FSTO

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The plant did not close down
> 
> https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/company/divisions_and_subsidiaries/rheinmetall_canada/index.php



Thanks, the MEGAPLEX left me scarred for life and anything to do with Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is hazy at best.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Orphan fighter if Congress agrees--cost for RCAF if production restarted?



> Navy Says Ending Super Hornet Line Frees Up Resources for Life Extension Work
> 
> CAPITOL HILL – The Navy’s request to end the F/A-18E-F Super Hornet production line after 2021 instead of signing another multiyear production contract was not to save money, but rather to allow manufacturer Boeing to convert the production line from building new planes to overhauling old ones at a rate of 40 per year.
> 
> The Navy is managing a shifting fighter fleet, which today only sends fourth-generation Super Hornets on deployments but by next year will begin its transition into a blend of fourth- and fifth-gen fighters, once the first squadron of F-35C Joint Strike Fighters heads out with the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group.
> 
> Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said today that the best way to support the ideal mix of F-18s and F-35s was to stop buying Super Hornets after the current contract ends in Fiscal Year 2021 and to focus instead on getting as many as possible per year through the Service Life Modification (SLM) program. SLM not only adds thousands of flying hours to the planes’ lives but also upgrades them to the new Block III configuration with that adds stealth, range, weapons-carrying capacity and advanced connectivity.
> 
> “Most of the parts of the aircraft aren’t built on the production line, it’s assembly; so we’re going to see a large transference of that skill and expertise as we take airplanes apart and service life extend them,” he told USNI News after a House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing, adding that he wanted the same experts that assembled new planes to re-assemble the older ones after they were taken apart for new components to be adding in for the life extension and capability upgrade program.
> 
> _“And also part of that is modifying those from Block II to Block III aircraft. So we’re going to simultaneously extend the service life so we can get more flying hours and then greatly enhance the capability as we give them the full Block III capability. So essentially an airplane coming out of there is a Block III F/A-18E-F with lots of flying hours left, which is not much different than a new production Block III F/A-18E-F with a lot of hours left_ [emphasis added].”
> 
> Many of the Navy’s most controversial cuts in the FY 2021 budget request were driven by flat toplines and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine construction squeezing out other spending priorities – cutting one of two planned attack submarines in 2021 and cutting a planned Arleigh Burke destroyer in the out years were “strictly affordability” issues, Navy officials have said.
> 
> _Geurts assured that the decision to end F-18 procurement earlier than previously planned – another multiyear contract had been written into earlier aircraft procurement plans, showing a buy of 36 jets from 2022 to 2024 – had nothing to do with money and everything to do with need_ ]emphasis added].
> 
> “When we look at our fighter shortfall, we’re about 49 aircraft short. Between SLM and F-35 coming online – we’re adding F-35s into the fleet now – that fighter shortfall essentially goes to zero towards the end of the 2020s. And so, looking at that, we have to take a little bit of risk in between now and the end of 2020s; about 40 aircraft on a fleet of 800 is a manageable risk. Particularly if we keep our mission capable rate up. I think we added about 134 aircraft to the Navy inventory in our mission capable rate improvements this last year, so that’s another way” to increase ready jets available for training and operations, Geurts told USNI News.
> 
> During the hearing, though, the subcommittee’s chairman and ranking member expressed concern about stopping production, especially since the Navy’s replacement program, the FA-XX program, is still in early development.
> 
> “_The Navy’s budget proposal removes 36 Super Hornet strike-fighter aircraft planned after fiscal year 2021 and begins shutdown of the F/A-18 production line beginning in 2023_ [emphasis added], increasing the Navy’s strike-fighter shortfall next year. Further, we need to understand what gives Navy leadership and acquisition officials confidence that terminating Super Hornet production 10 years before the next generation FA-XX strike-fighter, currently existent on just briefing slides, is prudent,” Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) said in his opening statement.
> 
> “Regarding Navy strike fighter management: This budget request removed 36 new production F/A-18 Super Hornets in the out-years that were originally planned for production in last year’s budget. Given the Navy’s current shortfall of 49 aircraft, I’m concerned that this decision is creating too much operational risk in the near term,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) said in her opening statement. Boeing’s F-18 production facility is in her home state of Missouri, but not in Hartzler’s district.
> 
> Geurts told the lawmakers during the hearing that he was confident the Navy would have enough jets ready to train and operate at any given time under this plan. The SLM process currently takes 18 months but will be reduced to 12 months once the work moves to a productionized setup on an assembly line, which can only happen if new construction stops...
> https://news.usni.org/2020/03/10/navy-says-ending-super-hornet-line-frees-up-resources-for-life-extension-work



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Orphan fighter if Congress agrees--cost for RCAF if production restarted?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



How long before the RCAF - I mean the GoC - purchases "slightly used" Super Hornets? 

Forgive me if I seem a bit jaded.


----------



## Drallib

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> How long before the RCAF - I mean the GoC - purchases "slightly used" Super Hornets?
> 
> Forgive me if I seem a bit jaded.



They wont. We need the 10,000 airframe hours with new jets. But with Boeing still getting this business with the US Navy it means the cost of the new Block III Super Hornets wont sky rocket.

I think thats what he was getting at.


----------



## CBH99

Really puts in perspective the "USN Woes" in terms of numbers...

Managing the risk of 40 aircraft, out of a fleet of 800...    



With the exception of a full scale conflict with China, the USN alone could outnumber & outmatch anybody else on planet Earth, and then some.  

And the USMC with a fleet of approximately 130 Harriers & 150 legacy Hornets.



Just mind boggling numbers to me


----------



## MarkOttawa

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Really puts in perspective the "USN Woes" in terms of numbers...
> 
> Managing the risk of 40 aircraft, out of a fleet of 800...
> 
> With the exception of a full scale conflict with China, the USN alone could outnumber & outmatch anybody else on planet Earth, and then some.
> 
> And the USMC with a fleet of approximately 130 Harriers & 150 legacy Hornets.
> 
> Just mind boggling numbers to me



As for the USMC, an earlier post:

Factoid: USMC Rules, or, Who’s Got the Big Fighter Force?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/mark-collins-factoid-usmc-rules-or-whos-got-the-big-fighter-force/

Current Marine F-35 plan:



> "...The Corps’ approved Program of Record remains 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs.”..
> https://news.usni.org/2019/04/04/marines-accelerating-f-35c-procurement-support-carrier-deployments-f-35b-buys-slow



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Drallib

> Pushing fighter jet deadline raises questions on which jets can do the work: experts
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6600416/canada-fighter-jet-competition/
> 
> "The government believes it needs to run a competition, but there're many situations where, in reality, there's only one or two competitors that can actually meet the needs of the Canadian Forces," said Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and an expert on defence.
> 
> "So the government's put in a bit of a pickle by its rhetoric where it wants to portray that 'yeah, we're having a competition or we're providing value for money and all these kind of important things for Canada', but in fact knows there's really only one competitor."
> 
> 
> "We've got to buy aircraft that can be completely and seamlessly inter-operable with the U.S.," said Dave Perry, vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and an expert on defence procurement.
> 
> Perry noted that in the past, questions around how aircraft will operate between Canadian and American systems hasn%u2019t been relevant because Canadian fighter jets have always been American.
> 
> Now, with foreign bidders like Sweden's Saab, the onus is on them to demonstrate their jets can actually do the work.
> 
> "Saab is the only competitor that is not part of either Five Eyes or Two Eyes and as a result, it would have the greatest amount of work in order to meet the requirements of the Royal Canadian Airforce," said Shimooka.
> 
> "Right off the bat, it requires the greatest amount of work for this."
> 
> While the government wouldn't say which firm asked for the deadline extension, both Lockheed Martin and Boeing offered statements saying it wasn't them.
> 
> A government source speaking on background insisted the extension will not impact the expected decision date. The result of the contest are due in 2022 with expected delivery of whichever jet is chosen beginning in 2025.


----------



## Quirky

Bet ya a loonie SAAB knows they are ultimately screwed, if the Eurofighter and Rafale can't compete in Canada then SAAB will just spin their wheels. Why even bother spending the Millions knowing it will come down to the F-35 and Super Hornet? It will essentially be the F-35 by default seeing how the Navy is shutting down Super Hornet production. This stupid little competition is a colossal waste of tax payer dollars.


----------



## Rifleman62

Trudeau will do what he wants, not what's best for Canada, then fruit salad the justification. President Trump should tell him it's the F-35 or you cannot operate with US Forces, anywhere incl NORAD.


----------



## Drallib

Quirky said:
			
		

> Bet ya a loonie SAAB knows they are ultimately screwed, if the Eurofighter and Rafale can't compete in Canada then SAAB will just spin their wheels. Why even bother spending the Millions knowing it will come down to the F-35 and Super Hornet? It will essentially be the F-35 by default seeing how the Navy is shutting down Super Hornet production. This stupid little competition is a colossal waste of tax payer dollars.



And a way for the Liberal party to cover its rear end.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Trudeau will do what he wants, not what's best for Canada, then fruit salad the justification. President Trump should tell him it's the F-35 or you cannot operate with US Forces, anywhere incl NORAD.



Don't worry. That is already happening, on a variety of levels, unofficially.


----------



## Iron 1

Drallib said:
			
		

> And a way for the Liberal party to cover its rear end.


Truth...five more years down the road and no end in sight.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Want to bet the competition will be delayed several years due to the emergency funding and economic downturn reducing funds available?


----------



## CBH99

Between his inability to get the pipeline built from Alberta to BC, Teck cancelling it's massive oilsands project (7000+ jobs) - plus was actually extremely environmentally friendly, supported lots of local indigenous communities and had the support of various chiefs - plus the cancellation of the LNG pipelines through Quebec...and now Coronavirus?  

This economy was already taking slug to the chest, repeatedly, before this... downturn in the economy is probably the most polite way one could put it.


How does one expect to finance all these military projects, as well as various other initiatives, when one continues to kill every positive economic boost the country could get?    :facepalm:


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Between his inability to get the pipeline built from Alberta to BC, Teck cancelling it's massive oilsands project (7000+ jobs) - plus was actually extremely environmentally friendly, supported lots of local indigenous communities and had the support of various chiefs - plus the cancellation of the LNG pipelines through Quebec...and now Coronavirus?
> 
> This economy was already taking slug to the chest, repeatedly, before this... downturn in the economy is probably the most polite way one could put it.
> 
> 
> How does one expect to finance all these military projects, as well as various other initiatives, when one continues to kill every positive economic boost the country could get?    :facepalm:



Defense projects always have been a good way to create jobs and boost the economy


----------



## Colin Parkinson

but not buying jets, building new offices, cutting grass, maybe buy us some more LAV's, staff cars


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> but not buying jets, building new offices, cutting grass, maybe buy us some more LAV's, staff cars



But jets need new infrastructure, training facilities, etc...


----------



## Uzlu

> Low-risk capability: Boeing says Block III Super Hornet offers Canada proven performance and predictable costing
> 
> Jim Barnes admits that when he arrived in Canada in 2012 to take up business development for Boeing Defense, Space & Security, long-term production of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was precarious. By his own estimate, the line that so far has delivered over 600 fighter jets since the mid-1990s appeared ordained to close by 2018 without new customers.
> 
> “Now, it is a completely different story because of the U.S. Navy’s commitment to Block III,” he said in a recent interview with Skies. “They need advanced fighters on their carrier decks and the airplane they hoped would be joining that deck isn’t being delivered in a timely manner, so it opened up the opportunity for the Block III.”
> 
> Under a multi-year procurement contract, the U.S. Navy will acquire 78 of the advanced aircraft through 2024. Moreover, it has begun a service life modification (SLM) program that will see all or most of its fleet of about 450 Block II Super Hornets upgraded with Block III systems through 2033. The first two were delivered in February.
> 
> Boeing will deliver the first Block III testbed aircraft to the U.S. Navy later this spring to begin carrier trials of the computing and networking systems, in advance of the first operational aircraft in early 2021.
> 
> “Right now, there is no planned retirement date for the Super Hornet,” noted Barnes, now the director of Fighter Programs in Canada. “It will be a mainstay on carrier decks for decades to come.”
> 
> Delays in rolling out Lockheed Martin’s F-35C Lightning II – ‘C’ for carrier variant – undoubtedly spurred renewed interest in the Block III Super Hornet. But the aircraft has also benefited from a collaborative spiral approach to technology development that has ensured new systems are only introduced when they are combat ready. Many of the improved capabilities sought by the Navy for the Block III were first pioneered or trialled on the Block II.
> 
> Enhanced capabilities and healthy F/A-18E/F production and SLM lines in St. Louis, Mo., and San Antonio, Texas, are part of a package Boeing hopes will resonate with the Canadian government and Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) when they evaluate the contenders to replace Canada’s 30-year-old legacy F/A-18A/B Hornets.
> 
> When the request for proposals (RFP) finally closes on June 30 – it was recently extended from March 30 at the “request of industry,” according to the government – Boeing will propose the equivalent of a U.S. Navy Block III aircraft with an instrumented landing system that was previously integrated on Australian and Kuwaiti variants.
> 
> The Super Hornet is among three candidates – the others are the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II and Saab Gripen E – vying to replace the Air Force’s remaining 76 CF-188 Hornets. The acquisition and sustainment project, known as the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP), for 88 advanced fighter jets is valued between $15 billion and $19 billion. The formal RFP was issued on July 23, 2019, and all three supplier teams (which include the aircraft manufacturer and representative government) had to submit preliminary security offers by Oct. 4, outlining how they intend to meet Canada’s 5 Eyes and 2 Eyes security and interoperability requirements.
> 
> “The Super Hornet is a low risk program,” said Barnes. “We only integrate [new] technology when it is ready to reduce risk of schedule and cost, and outpace the threat. And what comes with that next-generation capability is predictable and affordable costs, not only for acquisition, but also for the [operational] lifecycle.”
> 
> *Cost and capability*
> 
> Comparing aircraft costs is always problematic. The process by which a fighter is acquired can significantly affect the final price, and Canada would buy the Super Hornet under a government-to-government foreign military sale, which can inflate the cost by as much as 30 per cent. But a multi-year procurement for the Block III in the U.S. president’s budget for fiscal 2020 projected a cost of about US$66 million per aircraft, and estimates in the past two years have suggested a price of US$70 million.
> 
> “The cost for Canada will depend on how many aircraft they buy and when they are taking delivery, but that’s a great place to start,” said Barnes.
> 
> The more important figure for Boeing, though, is the operating cost. The current cost per flight hour for the Super Hornet is around US$18,000, well below the F-35A, which Lockheed Martin officials recently told Skies is above US$30,000 and striving to reach US$25,000 by 2025.
> 
> “If you do the math on 88 airplanes flying for 30 years at about 250 hours per year, that is billions of dollars in savings over the life of that platform,” noted Barnes.
> 
> The Block III program will also extend the Super Hornet to a 10,000-flight-hour airframe for Navy operations. Given that the RCAF, through life extension programs, has managed to push the CF-188 well beyond its intended 6,000 flight hours, that increased airframe life bodes well for an air force that doesn’t operate in a highly corrosive saltwater environment, slam its jets down on short carrier decks or take off from catapults, noted Ricardo Traven, Boeing’s former F/A-18 Super Hornet chief test pilot and currently the lead test pilot for the 787 Dreamliner. “It is 10,000 [airframe hours] for the Navy; I really don’t know what it could be for an air force. It is one strong airframe.”
> 
> The Block III configuration introduces significant upgrades, including conformal fuel tanks (CFT), enhanced coatings to reduce radar signature, advanced mission computers and data links, and a single, customizable wide-area multi-function display. It also includes improvements originally planned for the Block II such as a centreline drop tank with a networked infrared search and track (IRST) sensor and satellite communications (SATCOM) system.
> 
> Many of these will be critical to meeting the RCAF’s stated mission requirements, but Boeing is hoping to gain some credit for capabilities that are not specifically part of the RFP.
> 
> Side-by-side, the Super Hornet boasts a much larger airframe compared to the legacy Hornet. But that added wing span and extra flex means more fuel, weapons and electronics, and greater manoeuvrability than smaller competitors, said Traven, a former major in the RCAF from southern Ontario.
> 
> “You have a bigger airplane that is more manoeuvrable, and can fly slower than the legacy fighter on approach because of those big areas, which is important when coming into land on a short, snowy or wet runway in forward operation locations like Inuvik,” he said. “You don’t have to flare at all, you can plant the airplane on the first few metres of runway on touchdown. And the landing gear is very rugged. The Super Hornet has two nose gear tires – most others have one – and that counts on wet runways and snow.”
> 
> The conformal fuel tanks expand the Super Hornet’s standard combat air patrol mission range by about 20 per cent or increase the loiter time by roughly 30 minutes, said Barnes. A clean Super Hornet carries 14,000 pounds of fuel, the same as a legacy Hornet with two extra fuel tanks, noted Traven. “Take away the drag of the pylon and tanks and you can see that the Super Hornet will go significantly farther on a clean airplane.”
> 
> At a time when the RCAF has limited strategic tanking and is poised to retire the tactical air-to-air refueling provided by the CC-130H Hercules, the Super Hornet offers a unique feature: It can serve as its own tanker. If tanking isn’t readily available, the possibility of adding a fifth jet to support a four-ship of fighters responding to a NORAD quick reaction alert mission could be “a game changer,” noted Traven.
> 
> As part of spiral technology development, the Block III replaces the previous two mission computers with a Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N), an onboard system that when combined with the Navy’s future Targeting Tactical Network Technology (TTNT) will allow data sharing at speeds and volume that greatly exceed current Link 16 tactical data exchange capabilities.
> 
> Multiple Block III Super Hornets with DTP-N and the longwave IRST sensor integrated into the centreline nose tank “can solve targeting and the distance equation, which was almost impossible with a single ISRT,” said Traven of what he called an anti-stealth capability. “You can target stealth airplanes at very long range without the radar because you can process its location. First, you can locate it based on the heat signature, and you can process the distance and speed and tracking by having multiple sources talking to each other through this distributed processing targeting network. With the upgraded DTP-N, combined with TTNT, it is checkmate for the whole fifth-gen argument. The amount of information we can share is unbelievable.”
> 
> He emphasized that the U.S. military, not aircraft manufacturers, would establish the data protocols by which fighters communicate information and would not permit a closed network dictated by one type of aircraft.
> 
> Boeing has long disputed the stealth argument, maintaining the Super Hornet incorporates enough stealthy technology, including enhancements to the Block III, to perform the broad range of missions. Traven said the Navy has taken a pragmatic approach, asking for as much stealth as possible without sacrificing the capabilities that are important to its mission sets.
> 
> “That advanced processor, DTP-N, and the advanced data link, TTNT, and the advanced communication, the SATCOM, were all proven on the EA-18G Growler. That is the Super Hornet way of low-risk integration of advanced capabilities,” added Barnes.
> 
> Though the debate about one versus two engines has faded in recent years, Traven remains a believer in the twin engine. Based on RCAF experience flying the NORAD mission deep into the Arctic and conducted missions across the North Atlantic, he said that distance and the unexpected remain factors that can trump reliability. While he doesn’t dispute the dependability of next-generation single engines, even the best can’t account for a wayward Canada goose.
> 
> “I need two engines because of all the unknowns, especially on approach to Inuvik when you see a [Canada] goose go by that can take out your engine, or the chunk of ice that goes down the intake on takeoff, or the hydraulic line that wasn’t tightened exactly right. All of those things are never included in the engine reliability argument.”
> 
> Mission systems and aircraft performance will be paramount in any Air Force evaluation, but the ease of transition from the CF-188 to the Super Hornet may also earn Boeing points. In interviews with Skies at the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Replacement Squadron and at the Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Unit, both in Norfolk, Va., pilots and maintenance technicians described conversion programs from the F/A-18C to the E of about three months for pilots and four to six months for techs, depending on the systems.
> 
> “A lot of that training transfers one for one,” observed Traven, noting the similarity of most systems in the cockpit and throughout the aircraft.
> 
> Just as important, all the ground support equipment (GSE) and tooling is the same, meaning equipment at operating squadrons and forward bases would not need to be replaced. Both Traven and Barnes observed that while there was mention of infrastructure in the RFP, there was no discussion of the support systems and even runway lengths that might have to change with other aircraft. “I think that has been lost in this whole discussion,” said Traven.
> 
> “It is a big deal and I hope they are considering that in an appropriate manner,” added Barnes. “When you are already operating legacy Hornets, the requirement to get current maintainers and pilots up to speed on a Super Hornet is much less than it would be starting from scratch.”
> 
> *Value proposition*
> 
> As part of its bid, Boeing has reactivated the team that successfully delivered the CF-188 Hornet in the 1980s, including L3 Harris MAS, Peraton, CAE, Raytheon Canada and GE Canada.
> 
> “What we are trying to do is leverage the billions of dollars of investment the government has already made in the fighter support infrastructure and utilize that on the Super Hornet,” said Barnes.
> 
> Over the years after the CF-188 was acquired, companies like L3 Harris MAS in Mirabel, Que., developed detailed knowledge about every airframe in the fleet. Boeing is not proposing a wholesale transfer of Block III intellectual property (IP), but rather a gradual handover. “As Canada got more familiar with the [legacy Hornet] platform, more intellectual property was exchanged,” said Barnes. “Our plan would be to do that same approach on the Super Hornet. We’ll do as much as we can on day one, but it will probably be an evolution over time. The Canadian companies certainly understand that.”
> 
> Mission system technologies would have to be part of a government-to-government negotiation, he added, but would likely be part of an incremental transfer over time.
> 
> The IP discussion is part of Boeing’s proposal to meet Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) obligations. The three bidders will have the option to sign a binding ITB agreement and commit to investing in Canadian content up to 100 per cent of the contract value, or agree to a nonbinding economic benefit agreement.
> 
> “We will sign the binding agreement,” said Roger Schallom, senior manager for International Strategic Partnerships.
> 
> As part of its value proposition, Boeing will also meet the specific requirements around investment in small- and medium-sized businesses, innovation, skill development and long-term sustainment. Fulfilling a 100 per cent Canadian content value obligation often means spending far more than the actual contract value, said Schallom. On a program valued over $15 billion, manufacturing work packages could translate into as much as $30 billion in actual work for Canadian companies over the 25 years Boeing would have to fulfil its ITB commitment.
> 
> For example, Boeing’s ITB obligation for the CH-147F Chinook helicopter program was about $1.3 billion. “We are going to spend in purchase orders about $2.6 billion of work in Canada,” he added.
> 
> More important to companies that have supported the CF-188 would be the 30-plus years of guaranteed in-service support (ISS) contracts. “Those are the billions of dollars that could be left on the table if you go with the nonbinding solution,” emphasized Barnes.
> 
> “You have to give your ISS companies credit for getting specific sustainment percentages in the RFP,” added Schallom. “They are wielding a pretty big hammer right now. If you go nonbinding, [that economic return] is a big question mark.”
> 
> It could be argued Boeing Defense, Space & Security missed an opportunity to claim an edge in the FFCP when, in 2017, the Canadian government withdrew the planned purchase of 18 Super Hornets. The aircraft were being considered to fill an interim capability gap in the RCAF’s ability to simultaneously conduct NORAD and NATO missions, but the purchase was cancelled over a trade dispute between Boeing Commercial and Bombardier’s
> C Series airliner program.
> 
> But, with the Canadian fighter competition about to finally close, Boeing clearly believes it’s well positioned with an advanced fighter jet that can meet all mission requirements well into the future, while returning significant economic benefits to Canadian industry for a predictable and affordable cost.
> 
> It’s an offer Canada will have to weigh carefully.
> 
> _Chris Thatcher is an aerospace, defence and technology writer, editor of RCAF Today, and a regular contributor to Skies._


https://www.skiesmag.com/features/low-risk-capability-boeing-says-block-iii-super-hornet-offers-canada-proven-performance-and-predictable-costing/


----------



## Uzlu

> The Ties That Bind, Fifth Generation Build
> 
> *Lockheed Martin drives to provide the F-35 program with more operational readiness at less cost*
> 
> Midway along the one-mile assembly line at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics’ F-35 Lightning II production facility in Dallas-Fort Worth, Kevin McCormick, business development lead for the program, points to a 50-inch hinge on a wing skin being manufactured for the carrier variant of the fifth-generation fighter. The designated F-35C model has foldable wingtips for storage on the hangar deck and to allow for two aircraft to be simultaneously brought up by elevator to the flight deck.
> 
> When not folded to 29-feet, the F-35C has a larger wingspan than the F-35A and F-35B variants – at 43-feet versus 35-feet, respectively – to generate maximum lift when coming off the end of the deck. The larger horizontal surface area of its wings also allows the F-35C to bleed off energy for arrested carrier landings. The F-35C also has the greatest internal fuel capacity of the three F-35 variants, carrying nearly 20,000 pounds of internal fuel for what the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) describes as longer range and better persistence than any other fighter in a combat configuration. The F-35 program is officially run by the JPO to coordinate multi-nation participation, with Lockheed Martin serving as the prime contractor.
> 
> Combining its range with the fifth-generation capabilities of stealth and sensor fusion common to the other two variants, JPO notes the F-35C will serve as the U.S. Navy’s future first-day-of-the-war strike fighter – unique in the world as a purpose-built carrier aircraft with very low observability never before deployed at sea. The U.S. Navy is the largest customer receiving F-35Cs, with the U.S. Marine Corps also acquiring the C variant in addition to the F-35B. The B variant is primarily defined by its lift-fan technology for vertical takeoff and landing.
> 
> McCormick makes note of a rectangular cutout on the lower wing skin for a B model, which is where some 2,000 pounds of hot gas will be vented off the core of the engine to assist in its short takeoff and vertical landing. Most of the wings – being built vertically to save space – are for the F-35A variant, because seven of the eight international partners and all four foreign military sales customers are currently buying the A-designated model.
> 
> “We have A models, B models and C models all coming off the same line and we do not have segregation between domestic or international. It is one of the big selling points here,” says McCormick. “We’ve been doing that for years on the F-16 and other products out of this facility.” Hinting at recent manufacturing advances at the plant, McCormick notes how quiet the production environment is, because, unlike with its previous build of F-16s, there are no rivets used on the F-35 – a key attribute of the aircraft’s very low observability capabilities.
> 
> The F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter variant is competing for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP), which aims to procure 88 new generation fighters to replace the country’s ageing CF-188 Hornet fleet. The FFCP competition was launched in late-2017 and now has three aircraft under consideration, including the F-35A, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, and Saab Gripen E.
> 
> Dassault and the consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon have pulled out of the competition with both noting Canada’s extensive interoperability requirements with U.S. forces as a primary reason, as well as the RFP’s Industrial Technological Benefits (ITB) obligations. Canada’s evaluation criteria for its Future Fighter procurement is based on technical merit (60 per cent), cost (20 per cent) and economic benefits (20 per cent). In February 2020, the federal government announced it would extend the FFCP submission deadline from March 30 to June 30, but maintained its schedule to choose the winning bid in 2022 and have the first aircraft delivered by 2025.
> 
> The 20 per cent weighting toward economic benefits is ultimately defined by dollar-for-dollar obligations – meaning, the fighter supplier provides Canadian companies with revenue opportunities equal to value of the purchased aircraft. Technical merit weighting includes interoperability requirements with NORAD. This would naturally seem to provide more opportunity for U.S.-built fighters to win the contract, but all three of the remaining competitors face past political encumberments tied directly to aerospace business.
> 
> Without wading too deep into the political motivations behind what will be an investment of more than $20 billion dollars, there are a clearly a number of reasons why the Trudeau government would support the procurement of the F-35 based on the three pillars of weighted criteria, cost, economic benefit and technical merit.
> 
> Canada became an industrial partner of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program in 1997 and there are now more than 110 Canadian companies contributing to the production of the F-35 program, which equates to thousands of jobs and what Lockheed estimates to be more than $1.5 billion in terms of contract value over the life of the program. This includes that 50-inch hinge for the F-35C wing, which was procured from a Canadian company.
> 
> McCormick points to the monitors sitting above the aircraft sections being working on in a staging area, which identifies where the JPO is at in terms of the worldwide delivery sequence of F-35s. He notes aircraft number 664 is bound for Australia and next to it is aircraft number 665, which will go to the Marines. More than 455 F-35s had been delivered to customers by November 2019 with the aircraft in operation at 20 bases around the world. (By early 2020, Lockheed announced more than 500 F-35s had been delivered to customers.)
> 
> In late November, the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facility in Dallas-Fort Worth was producing lots 11 and 12, which the company also refers to as LRIP 11 and LRIP 12. LRIP stands for Low Rate Initial Production and each lot identifies with when a contract is first awarded. LRIP 11, for example, was contracted in 2017 and those aircraft were being delivered throughout 2019. This lot timing is significant because it ultimately determines the price of each fighter jet for new contracts. If Canada is to name the F-35 as the winning bid, it would likely receive LRIP 15 aircraft, or perhaps from LRIP 16 given the new RFP extension.
> 
> As a clean-sheet, fifth-generation fighter, which is primarily defined by stealth and sensor fusion, the initial cost of the LRIP 1 F-35A fighters was just under $250 million per unit (all remaining dollar amounts are presented in U.S. funds). It was not until LRIP 5 when the first nine F-35s were delivered to external customers at a cost of around $125 million per unit.
> 
> “We set a target, that by lot 14, LRIP 14, we would get to an $80 million jet. Some folks said it was unattainable but we have reached it a year early. LRIP 13 will be less than $80 million for an A,” says Mike Shoemaker, vice president, customer initiatives at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. Lockheed estimates the average price for the F-35A will be $79.2 million in LRIP 13 and $77.9 million in LRIP 14.
> 
> Shoemaker joined Lockheed a year and a half ago after a distinguished 35-year military career, retiring in 2018 as Vice Admiral of the U.S. Navy. Serving as Commander of Naval Air Forces, he was responsible for the combat readiness of all Navy Aviation forces and 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers – 82,000 personnel, 168 squadrons, 2,800 aircraft and a $7.5 billion annual operating budget. He has also accumulated more than 4,400 flight hours, primarily in the A-7E Corsair and F/A-18C Hornet, with 1,066 carrier-arrested landings.
> 
> In his new role with Lockheed, Shoemaker is the customer interface for Aeronautics product lines and services, predominantly for the F-35 program, ensuring that the company meets strategic milestones and satisfies both international customer and industrial partner requirements. “We’ve been successful in the cost piece of the program… 77 per cent of the cost of the airplane is in the parts. We’ve been very aggressive and working with partners, trying to get them on long-term contracts, incentivizing them to reduce the costs of the parts that make up the F-35,” says Shoemaker, who also points to cost savings coming from what the company refers to as touch labour. “We’ve had a 75 per cent reduction in touch labour on this airplane since 2010.”
> 
> LRIP 13 production will represent a 70 per cent decrease in per-unit cost since LRIP 1. Driven by an increase in assembly-line automation for the F-35, the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facility has essentially doubled its production from 2017, when 66 aircraft were delivered, before reaching 91 aircraft produced in 2018, and holding to its target of 131 aircraft to be delivered by the end 2019.
> 
> Lockheed Martin expects that by the end of 2022, the F-35 will reach nearly 30 bases with more than 860 aircraft delivered. Eight services, including the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps, have reached Initial Operational Capability with the F-35. This has resulted in more than 230,000 flying hours for the F-35, with more than 955 trained pilots and more than 8,475 qualified maintenance personnel. Luke Air Force Base in Glendale, Arizona, on February 21, 2020, achieved a major milestone by completing more than 56,000 F-35 flight hours. Canadian pilots would train at Luke if the F-35A Lightning II wins the country’s FFCP.
> 
> “This really highlights the opportunities to be part of a growing worldwide fleet, 3,500 to 4,000 aircraft,” says Shoemaker, alluding to the potential for the F-35 to not only satisfy Canada’s FFCP technical requirements with an interoperable, true fifth-generation fighter, but also satisfy Industrial Technological Benefits obligations under the RFP. Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson pegged the F-35 fleet number at 4,000 during the 2019 Paris Air Show. “We may go beyond that. If you look at the number of F-16s we delivered as sort of the de facto NATO fighter years ago, we may replace them with F-35s, but I think the opportunities for a growing worldwide fleet are huge and certainly Canada has been an important part of the production piece so far.”
> 
> Shoemaker also notes Canada would have a distinct advantage over other international partners of the F-35 program because the largest F-35 fleet will always be just south of its border. This will include an unprecedented 300 F-35s being delivered to the U.S. National Guard – the first time it is receiving brand new fighters off the production line. Japan currently holds the largest international F-35 fleet with a commitment for 147 jets. Poland recently committed to 32 F-35s and the JPO continues to be involved in Finland and Switzerland procurement competitions.
> 
> “What we’re doing here with the F-35 is building a unified fleet,” says Steve Sheehy, director, sustainment strategies and campaigns, Lockheed Martin. “This is a single point of view. We’re pulling all the sustainment data together for that entire fleet, roughly 4,000 aircraft.” Sheehy has been involved in F-35 international logistics program management for more than four years. He is a former Colonel in the U.S. Air Force, where he spent 25 years in a range of maintenance and logistics roles for military aircraft like the F-15, F-16, U-2, RQ-4 and MC-12. In comparing the fleet position of the F-35 with the F-16, he notes the latter airplane has 28 independent fleets being served by 24 different supply chains.
> 
> “The F-35 is engineered for sustainment,” he says. “The analytics and data we pull off this jet will allow us to drive to what we call a condition-based maintenance philosophy. We are able to predict what parts are about to fail.” Sheehy explains this predictive health analysis has been a significant factor in helping to drive up Mission Capable (MC) rates for the F-35. The company has a target of reaching an MC of 80 per cent, assuming the remaining 20 per cent will be equally accounted for by non-mission capable maintenance and supply. Sheehy notes the fleet is already seeing many operational cases of customers exceeding an MC of 80 per cent, particularly with the F-35A variant. “It’s also about the R&M of the components of this aircraft. To date, 73 per cent of the parts of the aircraft have not failed. That’s a huge testament to our suppliers.”
> 
> In terms of cost per hour, Lockheed Martin states it is targeting the generally accepted rate of $25,000 for a fourth-generation fighter. The JPO recently noted an F-35 rate of around $36,000 per flight hour. The Lockheed team sees this hourly rate trending in the right direction and expects its fifth-generation F-35A to reach $25,000 per hour flight time by 2025. To this end, the government initially asked Lockheed to develop processes that would result in nine maintenance hours per flight hour, but the team has already achieved six maintenance hours per flight hour.
> 
> Sheehy describes a range of initiatives that are providing signficiant sustainment cost reductions for the F-35. To a point where the traditional flightline maintenance teams have adopted the term BOLT – Blended Operational Lightning Technician, because they are no longer working in task silos.
> 
> A primary tool of cost reduction is the legacy Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is now being updated a new generation. Described as a portable maintenance aid, ALIS is the centrepiece of maintenance tasks and, therefore, operational capability for the F-35. With ALIS running an APU, which eliminates the need to start up the F-35’s powerful Pratt & Whitney engine, and an Integrator Power Package, maintainers are able to work on all F-35 systems from a laptop – with full visibility inside the aircraft control systems, weapons systems and fuel systems.
> 
> Leveraging ALIS, a crew chief with a laptop can actually transfer or check the condition of the entire fuel system and quantities per fuel tank, which alone changes the need for six people to just one. Sheehy also points to the how the F-35 uses pneumatics (air pressure) to release armaments from the weapons bay, as opposed to traditional explosive shells, which saves manhours in terms of cleaning carbon out of the systems.
> 
> “On the F-35, 95 per cent of our line replaceable units are what we call first-tier removable. There’s nothing in front of them to stop them from being taken out,” explains Sheehy, describing yet another massive manpower reduction provided by the F-35 design. He also notes the F-35 uses six flight control systems driven by independent, self-contained Electro Hydrostatic Actuators (EHAs). “With a single button, in less than a minute, the flight controls on the aircraft are rigged. No one else can do that. Those six EHAs systems are all electronically tied together.”
> 
> The F-35 also eliminates traditional steps of legacy fighters in pulling out critical computing hardware. The Communications, Navigation and Identification (CNI) system on the F-35 is actually stored on racks easily accessible from the outside of the aircraft, allowing for single-item swap outs. This again saves maintenance hours, but more importantly also protects the aircraft’s low observability (LO) platform.
> 
> “On our aircraft, 86 per cent of the parts you need to get to are behind panels that require no LO restoration,” says Sheehy. “With other stealth aircraft, if you took off a panel on the aircraft, you had hours to restore the LO edges for that panel… There is no LO restoration required at all [on the F-35].” He explains the government asked for nine flight hours between LO maintenance events, but F-35 maintenance teams are now averaging 17 hours before they need to touch the LO system.
> 
> Before heading over to the coating facility where the F-35 comes to life in its final stealth skin, McCormick finds an in-production F-35 that is destined for Norway, sitting in a main airframe fixture, where a jet typically stays for 45 days. “Okay – right here, the attach point will be on the aft portion, as well as on the wing’s centre barrel,” he explains, accommodating a request to find a feature that would likely be added to a Canadian F-35 contract. “That is where the doghouse faring for the drag chute will go, as well as the hydraulics that are already plumbed in… the Norwegians opted for the drag chute to slow the aircraft down in icy runway conditions.”


https://www.wingsmagazine.com/ties-that-bind-fifth-generation-build/


----------



## Spencer100

Covid to slow it down even more

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/04/21/covid-19-latest-hurdle-in-canadas-long-road-to-buying-new-fighter-jets/#.XqBQfEBFyUl


----------



## Uzlu

> Federal government issues another extension for fighter replacement proposals
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada has extended the deadline for proposals to replace the CF-188 Hornets until July 31, 2020.
> 
> The 30-day extension is a response to the coronavirus pandemic that has disrupted business operations globally, especially in the aerospace sector.
> 
> “The COVID-19 pandemic is presenting numerous challenges for businesses and their workforce, including the eligible suppliers for the Future Fighter Capability Project,” said a spokesperson for the department in a statement on May 6.
> 
> “The unprecedented situation has impacted proposal finalization. To support our commitment to conducting an open, fair, and transparent competition, the extension will ensure all suppliers are able to submit their most competitive offer to Canada.”
> 
> Three qualified contenders remain in the competition to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fighter jet fleet: Sweden’s Saab Aeronautics with the Gripen E and the United States-backed Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II. Dassualt Aviation and Airbus Defense and Space withdrew their entrants, the Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon, in 2018 and 2019, respectively.
> 
> The project, valued at up to $19 billion, is seeking proposals for 88 advanced aircraft to replace an aging fleet of 76 A and B model Hornets that began entering service in the mid-1980s. The bids will be evaluated on technical capability, worth 60 per cent of the evaluation; acquisition and operating costs (20 per cent); and economic benefit to Canadian industry, also 20 per cent and the highest weighting for economic return on any defence procurement to date.
> 
> It’s the second time this year the federal government has prolonged the deadline for the request for proposals (RFP). In February, at the request of one of the suppliers, it granted a three-month extension from March 30 to June 30.
> 
> Release of the formal RFP was also pushed back several times before being issued in July 2019, to accommodate changes during the draft RFP process. The project is the largest acquisition in recent Air Force history and has faced numerous schedule changes over the past decade.
> 
> This latest change comes a week after Canada submitted an annual payment of US$70.1 million to remain in the F-35 development program, which is being supported by nine partner countries.
> 
> To date, the government has invested US$541.3 million since 1997 into the multi-variant, next-generation fighter program. However, Canadian companies have captured US$1.8 billion in work on the fighter.
> 
> “This participation provides Canadian industry with contract opportunities that are only available to program participants,” a spokesperson for National Defence told Canadian Press. “Our membership will also allow us preferential pricing and sequencing in the build schedule should the F-35 aircraft be successful in the current future fighter capability program.”
> 
> Despite the recent delay because of COVID-19, PSPC still anticipates to award a contract in 2022. The first new aircraft would be delivered in early 2025.
> 
> In the interim, the government is acquiring and upgrading 18 operational Australian F/A-18A Hornets to augment the current fleet of 76 Hornets. The RCAF is also finalizing an upgrade package for the 76 fighters that will likely include enhancements to their combat capability.


https://www.skiesmag.com/news/government-extends-fighter-proposal-deadline/


----------



## MilEME09

Sounds like an excuse to stall to me, or maybe SAAB still hasn't submitted their proposal.


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Sounds like an excuse to stall to me, or maybe SAAB still hasn't submitted their proposal.



This excuse makes sense to me, many of those companies have all their employees who would be physically compiling all the paperwork for the bids working from home. The earlier extension was the one that seemed fishy to me.


----------



## Drallib

After reading about the F-35 delays and issues, and the whole argument about single engine, and also single nose wheel, I'm still not sure who Canada will decide on. I was leaning heavily to the F-35 because of it's capabilities and everyone else choosing it.


----------



## Drallib

> Boeing Rolls Out First F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet Strike Fighter
> 
> The first F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet test jet has rolled out of final assembly at Boeing's factory in St. Louis, Missouri, the company announced on May 8, 2020.
> 
> This is the first of two F/A-18 Block III test jets headed to the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy will use these jets for carrier testing of Block III capabilities. Upgrades include the advanced cockpit system’s new 10-by-19 inch touchscreen display. Boeing is set to deliver the two test jets to the U.S. Navy in the coming weeks.
> 
> Boeing received a whopping $4 Billion U.S. Navy contract in March last year for multi-year procurement of 78 F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet strike fighters (61 single-seat E and 17 two-seat F), delivered through 2024.
> 
> The Block III configuration adds capability upgrades that include enhanced network capability, longer range, reduced radar signature, an advanced cockpit system and an enhanced communication system. Boeing started converting existing Block II Super Hornets to Block III this year. The fighter’s life will be extended from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours.
> 
> The Block III Super Hornet has shoulder mounted conformal fuel tanks. They can carry 3,500 pounds of additional fuel and they reduce drag, allowing the aircraft to operate longer, go faster and/or carry more weight.
> 
> Inside the cockpit, the advanced cockpit system has replaced the buttons and knobs, similar to a large tablet. The new 10-by-19 inch touchscreen display provides the pilot with the capability to see, track and target multiple long range targets generated by the common tactical picture.
> 
> The block II IRST will be able to detect threats at long range without having to depend on radar which may be jammed. The block II IRST will generate a multi-ship, common tactical picture at long range, allowing the Super Hornet to operate as a smart sensor node on the network.
> 
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/05/boeing-rolls-out-first-f-a-18-block-iii-super-hornet-strike-fighter/


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:
			
		

> After reading about the F-35 delays and issues, and the whole argument about single engine, and also single nose wheel, I'm still not sure who Canada will decide on. I was leaning heavily to the F-35 because of it's capabilities and everyone else choosing it.



What's the problem with a single nosewheel?


----------



## Drallib

Dimsum said:
			
		

> What's the problem with a single nosewheel?



Wet/icy runways.

I know that icy runways shouldn't happen because of flight planning and everything, and maybe it wouldn't even matter. Another thing is cost per flying hour. So many factors. At this point, I'll be happy with either the F35 or F18 Block III.


----------



## Drallib

Boeing with the visuals. Looks good.


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:
			
		

> Boeing with the visuals. Looks good.



No two-seater variant?  

Although I suppose there probably wouldn't be many ACSOs jumping at a Cold Lake posting.  Maybe Bagotville though.


----------



## MilEME09

Dimsum said:
			
		

> No two-seater variant?
> 
> Although I suppose there probably wouldn't be many ACSOs jumping at a Cold Lake posting.  Maybe Bagotville though.



Boeing has made a 2 seater version for every other hornet, I doubt they would stop now.

What I would be interested in is if the new weapons pylons they designed for the latest F-15s are compatible with the Block III F-18 super hornets. Those Pylons enabled the F15 to carry upto 32 AIM-120's, toss that on a F-18, and if we end with with them at would atheist be a force multiplier to carry a large amount of munitions as a smaller airforce.


----------



## blacktriangle

Maybe someone truly informed can weigh in, but I seem to remember F-15s having a pretty strong payload capability...that's why they have had so much utility as bomb trucks in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Drallib said:
			
		

> Wet/icy runways.
> 
> I know that icy runways shouldn't happen because of flight planning and everything, and maybe it wouldn't even matter. Another thing is cost per flying hour. So many factors. At this point, I'll be happy with either the F35 or F18 Block III.



Having flown the Hornet on icy runways, I can tell you with certainty that the aircraft still becomes a curling rock, despite the dual nosewheel.  Vipers operate in Northern countries with, gasp, a single nosewheel without difficulty.


----------



## Drallib

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Having flown the Hornet on icy runways, I can tell you with certainty that the aircraft still becomes a curling rock, despite the dual nosewheel.  Vipers operate in Northern countries with, gasp, a single nosewheel without difficulty.



Thanks for the insight. I was making the point after reading the post by Uzlu titled “Low-risk capability“ in the 19th paragraph. I still hope the RCAF goes with the F35A.


----------



## Good2Golf

Technically, higher tire pressure actually makes a plane less susceptible to hydroplaning in standing water. Vaq = 9 x ground speed (kts) x Sqrt tire pressure (psi).  Generally, single tire assemblies run higher pressure than dual assemblies, so they’ll be less prone to aqua planing.


----------



## Uzlu

All three candidates—Gripen E, Block III Super Hornet, and F35A—are new jets with probably lots of new-jet problems still to be worked out.



> EDITORIAL: When it comes to the F-35 stealth fighter, buyer beware
> 
> Amidst the welter of cash flying out of Ottawa over the past few weeks, you might not even have noticed US$70 million that flew south to help design and build a fighter jet Canada isn’t committing to buying yet.
> 
> The federal government is in the midst of sorting out a contract for a new fighter to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s, and the U.S.-built F-35 stealth fighter is one of the three candidates.
> 
> But, whatever aircraft wins, we’re already spending money on the F-35. The US$70 million was just the latest contribution.
> 
> There are good reasons for spending the money, even though we haven’t committed to buying any of the aircraft: being part of the team of countries involved in the development of the aircraft means Canadian manufacturers can bid on contracts related to the now US$428 billion aircraft construction project. (The entire acquisition and operations budget for the aircraft is now US$1.6 trillion.)
> 
> Buying in could be seen as simple government pragmatism; Canada’s put US$541.3 million into the stealth fighter’s development since 1997, but the government says that spending has landed US$1.8 billion in contracts for Canadian companies.
> 
> Pragmatism aside, the F-35 is a fascinating business case. That’s because the aircraft and its failures, delays and budget overruns have kept U.S. federal government watchdog auditors very busy.
> 
> The U.S. Government Accounting Office issued its latest report on the aircraft’s troubles last Tuesday. The GAO pointed out the U.S. Defence Department “began development of the F-35 aircraft in 2001 without adequate knowledge of its critical technologies or a solid design, as we reported in March 2005.”
> 
> Testing on the aircraft found 3,200 deficiencies in the aircraft’s weapons systems. The GAO also found that the aircraft was not meeting its reliability and maintainability performance targets, meaning aircraft would need more hours of maintenance than expected for every hour of operation. The aircraft also had multiple cyber-security vulnerabilities.
> 
> But biggest of all? A key component of the aircraft doesn’t work properly and is being replaced. Not an engine, or a weapons system — but the hardware and software that are needed to track maintenance, training, mission planning and a host of other systems.
> 
> Users of the aircraft break its main component parts down into the airframe, engines and the aircraft’s Autonomous Logistics Information system. Even though 550 of the aircraft have already been delivered (even before completing full testing) the ALIS is now going to be replaced with a new Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN).
> 
> Right now, the development of ODIN is only in the planning stages, and its costs are unknown.
> 
> It might be a good thing to stay part of procurement team.
> 
> Going a step further and buying the aircraft?
> 
> Maybe it’s better to wait until all the bugs are worked out.


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/regional-perspectives/editorial-when-it-comes-to-canadas-new-fighter-jets-buyer-beware-449633/


----------



## Uzlu

> Trump: make all F-35 parts in US
> 
> No F-35 parts should be made abroad, U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday.
> 
> “We get parts from all over the place, it’s so crazy,” Trump said during an interview with Fox that aired Thursday morning. “We should make everything in the United States.”
> 
> While the president no doubt had politics in mind, politics is part of the reason why the F-35 draws upon a global supply chain — and for that matter, why nearly every U.S. state makes something for the fifth-generation combat jet. Doling out lucrative work to potential customers and to many lawmakers’ constituents helped get the massive program off the ground and keep it going through controversy.
> 
> But even before the pandemic, this vast supply chain had proved unwieldy. Getting spare parts for F-35s has been a problem for years. A May 12 Government Accountability Office report found that in 2019, F-35 suppliers “struggled to meet increased production demands…and, as a result, the program witnessed increased rates of late deliveries or parts shortages.”
> 
> In other words, the suppliers delivered parts late to Lockheed Martin, which assembles the bulk of F-35s in Fort Worth, Texas. That’s prompted Lockheed to reconfigure its assembly line, making it less efficient.
> 
> Further complicating F-35 production: the U.S. has kicked Turkey, which makes more than 1,000 of the plane’s parts, out of the program last year after Ankara received S-400 interceptors from Russia. Pentagon acquisition officials planned to remove all Turkish suppliers by March, but then said Turkey would continue making some parts through the end of the year.
> 
> A Pentagon acquisition official told GAO that Turkish companies would continue supplying parts through “the end of lot 14 deliveries” — scheduled in 2022. This is being done “in part, to avoid disruptions to aircraft deliveries and additional cost growth from standing up new suppliers.”
> 
> About those new suppliers. It’ll take time for them stand up manufacturing facilities and certify new parts. Lockheed representatives told GAO “it would take over a year to stand up these new suppliers, with lead times dependent on several factors, such as part complexity, quantity, and the supplier’s production maturity.”
> 
> And again, all of the estimates in GAO’s report were done before coronavirus.


https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/05/global-business-brief-may-14-2020/165407/


----------



## Good2Golf

Turkey as an exceptional case obviously within the F-35 global supply chain and operational community, the entire basis of the JSF Program was as the next generation of F-16...the “go-to” international light fighter with strike capabilities.  His apparent belief that you can rewrite the entire basis of international collaboration to build several thousand “5th-gen F-16 replacements” with all the program future value to accrue to the US while the multiple billions that the Tier 1, 2 and 3 (Canada being Tier 3 I believe) JSF Program member nations contributed is transactionally ignorant and risks the overall success of the program.  The harm to international programs that are significantly different than real estate development, boggles the mind. Perhaps it will take closing out all nations from the supply chain and seeing the damage that does to the program would be enough for some to dissuade POTUS if continuing down this line of thinking.  It’s not a case of Air Force one, where he held all the cards and Boeing essentially had to accept a non-contractual “here, I’m taking xxxx off the price, take it or you’ll pay the price.”  Here, many nations, although they definitely wouldn’t be happy, would be able to revise their programs. Then we probably really would see Eurofighter, Rafale and Grippen numbers increase.


----------



## GR66

I'm certainly not one to take President Trump's many random musings as any indication of change to US official policy, but he certainly hasn't been shy in including Canada in his targets for his "America First" policies in the past (steel and aluminum imports being one example).  

Hypothetically, if he were to instruct LM to begin repatriating parts production for the F-35 to the US then I'd imagine it would be a boost to the Gripen bid to replace the CF-18's.  After all, if the US is willing to exclude F-35 parts production from allies, then who says he wouldn't also be willing limit industrial offsets that military contractors are permitted to provide to other countries?  Gripen with MBDA missiles to ensure continued supply, support (and investment in Canadian industry) sure wouldn't be a good thing for NORAD in my mind. 

That being said, I think a LOT of people in the US would sit the President down before that and explain to him why what he's suggesting really is a BAD idea.


----------



## Good2Golf

We’d go Rafale before we went Gripen.  At the cost of oversimplification and raising some people’s ire, the Gripen is just a 2-gen improvement on the CF-5.  

NORAD would have some serious challenges, but I don’t think the current Government would look at the gains with Stronger ties with France and complete tech transfer and license build of Dassault’s Rafale in Mirabel (oops, I pre-judged the prefered COA, my bad) over the loss of the questionable by many current string integration of Canada and America with continental air defence/defense.  If Trump is really aiming for a ‘Fortress America’, there certainly couldn’t be a better* Government in place in Canada to help him with his wish. (* assumption that neither the NDP nor Green Party will ever form a sitting Govermnent in Canada).

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:
			
		

> After reading about the F-35 delays and issues, and the whole argument about single engine, and also single nose wheel, I'm still not sure who Canada will decide on. I was leaning heavily to the F-35 because of it's capabilities and everyone else choosing it.



The single engine hasn't been an issue in fighters in a long time now. 

The F-18L concept did use a single front nose tire. The entire aircraft looks kinda funny just sitting there. Reminds me of that dude in the gym that never does legs. In retrospect, it would've made sense to have that gear for the RCAF. The amount of time spent maintaining an unnecessarily complicated landing gear system that doesn't get fully utilised could be spent elsewhere. Not to mention the cost and weight savings. Lets hope we don't make the same mistake and buy Navy, carrier landing designed, fighters again. 









			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> That being said, I think a LOT of people in the US would sit the President down before that and explain to him why what he's suggesting really is a BAD idea.



By the time we choose anything Trump will be done his 2nd term and won't be an issue anymore.  ;D


----------



## AlexanderM

Very sexy.


----------



## MilEME09

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Very sexy.



I wonder if we bought Growlers too would they be built to the block III standard? If we didn't get the F-35 and it's stealth, to me, and my limited knowledge  investing in an EW package to support them would be the next best thing, that is to say Super Hornets plus a squadron of growlers.


----------



## Drallib

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I wonder if we bought Growlers too would they be built to the block III standard? If we didn't get the F-35 and it's stealth, to me, and my limited knowledge  investing in an EW package to support them would be the next best thing, that is to say Super Hornets plus a squadron of growlers.



The US Navy is planning to upgrade all their 160 Block I Growlers to Block II (Block III Super Hornet equivalent) but some systems wont be ready until 2025. I'm not sure when Boeing would be rolling out brand new Block II Growlers.

I just realized the US Navy has almost double the amount of Electronic Attack aircraft than we will have for an entire Fighter fleet. _Sigh_



> New capabilities for the Growler Block II
> 
> the Super Hornet Block III, including the Advanced Cockpit System and conformal fuel tanks,%u201D Tebo says, adding that remaining upgrades will be specific to the electronic attack suite. It is to note that in the Growler the shift from drop tanks to conformal ones not only will increase the time on station and reduce the radar cross section, but it will also avoid interfering with the central EW pod. The mission system will also be upgraded in order to improve the information distributing process, reducing the crew workload thanks to the new software and the cockpit touch screen. The Growler Block II will also integrate a number of programmes of record, such as the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) that is split in three different systems, the Mid-Band, 2-6 GHz, already in development, the Low-Band (100 MHz-2 GHz) which Request for Information was issued in early June, and the High-Band (6-18 GHz), which has yet to be started. These systems should be ready by 2025, when Boeing expects to deliver the first Growler Block II. The Tactical Targeting Network Technology will definitely be installed, in order to exchange information with Block III Super Hornets as well as E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.



https://www.edrmagazine.eu/new-capabilities-for-the-growler-block-ii


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:
			
		

> I just realized the US Navy has almost double the amount of Electronic Attack aircraft than we will have for an entire Fighter fleet. _Sigh_



The USN (including the USMC) has the world's second-largest "air force"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/top-guns-the-most-lethal-air-forces-the-planet-11814


----------



## Quirky

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Very sexy.



That's how you squeeze every last drop out of an obsolete design with bolt-ons, yet still not coming close to the capabilities of an off the shelf platform like the F-35. 

When the F-35 absolutely decimates the F18 and Gripen, in every single category during our evaluation, again, I hope all these flight sim mock-ups in Canadian colours vanish from the internet forever.


----------



## Drallib

Quirky said:
			
		

> That's how you squeeze every last drop out of an obsolete design with bolt-ons, yet still not coming close to the capabilities of an off the shelf platform like the F-35.
> 
> When the F-35 absolutely decimates the F18 and Gripen, *in every single category* during our evaluation, again, I hope all these flight sim mock-ups in Canadian colours vanish from the internet forever.



Super Hornet has two engines.

F18: 1
F35: everything else


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:
			
		

> Super Hornet has two engines.



Not this shit again.  :


----------



## dapaterson

Legend has it that the twin engine requirement was inserted by the Air Force at the time not for "arctic overflight redundancy" but as a way to disqualify the F-16 from the competition and steer the decision back to their preferred choice, the F-15.


----------



## Good2Golf

Drallib said:
			
		

> Super Hornet has two engines.
> 
> F18: 1
> F35: everything else



That is an obsolete tome...

Failure and shutdown rates in today’s engines don’t support a blanket “2 is better than 1” position.   It’s just a newer version of the equally out of touch “4 is better than 2” argument decades earlier. 

I never had an engine failure in a single-engined RCAF aircraft. I’ve had two engine failures in dual-engines aircraft. 

If I were part of the project procurement team, I am confident that our assessment would look at reliability rates/MTBFs and the like, not just “2 is better than 1.”

Regards
G2G


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Legend has it that the twin engine requirement was inserted by the Air Force at the time not for "arctic overflight redundancy" but as a way to disqualify the F-16 from the competition and steer the decision back to their preferred choice, the F-15.



Sounds as believable as the legend that the US offered us the F-14's that were stopped from going to Iran after the Islamic revolution. This was after we already were taking delivery of the F-18, so  we would of had a mixed fleet.


----------



## Drallib

My previous post was a joke. Sorry people.


----------



## Good2Golf

Drallib said:
			
		

> My previous post was a joke. Sorry people.



It’s a horse than does a good job of regularly reincarnation...

Don’t forget to add  s


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That is an obsolete tome...
> 
> Failure and shutdown rates in today’s engines don’t support a blanket “2 is better than 1” position.   It’s just a newer version of the equally out of touch “4 is better than 2” argument decades earlier.
> 
> I never had an engine failure in a single-engined RCAF aircraft. I’ve had two engine failures in dual-engines aircraft.
> 
> If I were part of the project procurement team, I am confident that our assessment would look at reliability rates/MTBFs and the like, not just “2 is better than 1.”
> 
> Regards
> G2G


When you have 4 precautionary shutdowns are taken pretty lightly.


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:
			
		

> When you have 4 precautionary shutdowns are taken pretty lightly.



Reminds me of a cranky comment by an F-16 to ATC as a B-52 declared a PAN for an engine failure...

“Oh no!  Not the dreaded 7-engine approach...”

;D


----------



## Drallib

F-35A with RCAF paint scheme from Canadian Defence Review magazine. Looks good.

https://twitter.com/CDRmagazine/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The bottom picture is Canadian livery, but the top picture's pair of F35's have a little kangaroo in their roundels: They are ADF planes.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The bottom picture is Canadian livery, but the top picture's pair of F35's have a little kangaroo in their roundels: They are ADF planes.



We'll be buying them, gently used, within the century.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We'll be buying them, gently used, within the century.



In 2050, life extention till 2130


----------



## MilEME09

https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/britains-tempest-fighter-going-leave-084500747.html


So next gen euro fighter will take flight in 2025, and production in 2035. Good thing they dropped out, I wouldn't want to buy a jet that would not be supported in 10 years.


----------



## Drallib

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The bottom picture is Canadian livery, but the top picture's pair of F35's have a little kangaroo in their roundels: They are ADF planes.



I can't see it that well, but the magazine I have has a leaf. I just assumed the image I found had RCAF roundels. Oops!


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/britains-tempest-fighter-going-leave-084500747.html
> 
> 
> So next gen euro fighter will take flight in 2025, and production in 2035. Good thing they dropped out, I wouldn't want to buy a jet that would not be supported in 10 years.



I don't understand your comment.

The Tempest is UK project (with maybe Italy) Japan has dropped out of Tempest they were thinking about it.  France, Germany and Spain have a project they are working on (more like arguing about) to replace the Eurofighter.


----------



## MTShaw

Drallib said:
			
		

> F-35A with RCAF paint scheme from Canadian Defence Review magazine. Looks good.
> 
> https://twitter.com/CDRmagazine/



I doubt the ADF need the parachute system on the back.


----------



## Drallib

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I doubt the ADF need the parachute system on the back.



Is that what that thing is between the vertical stabalizers?!? I always wondered why some had it and some didn't. Thank you!


----------



## MilEME09

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I don't understand your comment.
> 
> The Tempest is UK project (with maybe Italy) Japan has dropped out of Tempest they were thinking about it.  France, Germany and Spain have a project they are working on (more like arguing about) to replace the Eurofighter.



Its the sheer fact by the time we get a replacement for the F18, other nations will already be rolling out their next gen prototypes. Due to political failures, and politicians sticking their hands in DND's spending affairs we continue to lag behind, eventually it will cost lives.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With the rampant overspending by this current government, our fighter fleet will likley not get replaced, unless the US feels sorry for us and gives us clapped out F-16 from one of the National Guard.


----------



## Quirky

Colin P said:
			
		

> With the rampant overspending by this current government, our fighter fleet will likley not get replaced, unless the US feels sorry for us and gives us clapped out F-16 from one of the National Guard.



I’d rather have the USAF aircraft base out of Canadian military airfields in Cold Lake and Comox. When Canadians see foreign fighter jets flying over their cities maybe they will wake up over this issue.


----------



## Drallib

Colin P said:
			
		

> With the rampant overspending by this current government, our fighter fleet will likley not get replaced, unless the US feels sorry for us and gives us clapped out F-16 from one of the National Guard.



As of now, they want to keep the Hornets operational until 2032.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’d rather have the USAF aircraft base out of Canadian military airfields in Cold Lake and Comox. When Canadians see foreign fighter jets flying over their cities maybe they will wake up over this issue.



I'd add Yellowknife, Bagotville and Goose Bay or Gander.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Drallib said:
			
		

> As of now, they want to keep the Hornets operational until 2032.



Well could market the RCAF at that point as a "Heritage Flight"


----------



## MTShaw

Drallib said:
			
		

> As of now, they want to keep the Hornets operational until 2032.



Yup. Hence the Super Hornet interim buy.  Now we have to age out f-18c in to F-35


----------



## PuckChaser

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Yup. Hence the Super Hornet interim buy.  Now we have to age out f-18c in to F-35



Lets get real. Super Hornet interim buy was a way to cook the books and buy the SH as the fighter replacement without having to have a competition that it would lose and fulfill a Liberal campaign promise to not buy the F-35. It was never about capability, even the so called "fighter gap" was manufactured to justify the purchase.


----------



## OldSolduer

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’d rather have the USAF aircraft base out of Canadian military airfields in Cold Lake and Comox. When Canadians see foreign fighter jets flying over their cities maybe they will wake up over this issue.



Surely you jest. Most Canadians could give a rat’s a$$ about defence matters.


----------



## Quirky

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Surely you jest. Most Canadians could give a rat’s a$$ about defence matters.



I digress, when the public hears of “Trumps Air Force” flying over the peaceful tranquility of Vancouver Island and BC, people will lose theirs minds.


----------



## Drallib

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> MTShaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Hence the Super Hornet interim buy.  Now we have to age out f-18c in to F-35
> 
> 
> 
> Lets get real. Super Hornet interim buy was a way to cook the books and buy the SH as the fighter replacement without having to have a competition that it would lose and fulfill a Liberal campaign promise to not buy the F-35. It was never about capability, even the so called "fighter gap" was manufactured to justify the purchase.
Click to expand...


So the "Super Hornet Interim Buy" turned into the "Slightly newer Legacy Hornet Buy"?


----------



## MTShaw

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Lets get real. Super Hornet interim buy was a way to cook the books and buy the SH as the fighter replacement without having to have a competition that it would lose and fulfill a Liberal campaign promise to not buy the F-35. It was never about capability, even the so called "fighter gap" was manufactured to justify the purchase.



Perhaps. However, we still needed the newer fighters to keep the Air Force flying until 2032. That’s why we ultimately bought F-18cs from Australia.

But Boeing being a well managed organization decided to throw Bombardier under the bus, and likely lost a 15 billion contract.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile, what some Canadians fantasize about....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKXDrcFRKyY


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, what some Canadians fantasize about....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKXDrcFRKyY



That dream is dead. Those that want to resurrect it are not of their right minds.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The only take away from that is that the F-35 depends on its stealth and networking to win. Eventually that stealth is going to be degraded as opposing systems improve and networking will increase in all fighters, also degrading their edge. With those two degraded enough, can a small number F-35 survive when unsupported and with only their internal weapons onboard? 

I personally think the F-35 brings a lot to the fight for small airforces without their own AWACs. However they do it at a cost in manoeuvrability, loadout and speed. It does make sense to have the F-35s work in tandem with a fighter built to fight/speed/loadout and stealth a secondary concern. That means that you are future proofing your fighter force for longer. Throw in a Growler type aircraft as well, and you have a very potent mix.


----------



## Dana381

Colin P said:
			
		

> I personally think the F-35 brings a lot to the fight for small airforces without their own AWACs. However they do it at a cost in manoeuvrability, loadout and speed. It does make sense to have the F-35s work in tandem with a fighter built to fight/speed/loadout and stealth a secondary concern. That means that you are future proofing your fighter force for longer. Throw in a Growler type aircraft as well, and you have a very potent mix.



Isn't the F-35 already able to do most of what a growler can and are they not developing pods to do the rest?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't recall the USN saying the F35C will replace the Growlers, which to my understanding can do both active and passive EW, so listening to enemy emissions and also jamming. I don't think the F-35 can do that, but can detect and provide targeting information prior to being detected itself. Not my field of expertise and someone will likely fill us in more. However the real abilities of both aircraft are classified.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’d rather have the USAF aircraft base out of Canadian military airfields in Cold Lake and Comox. When Canadians see foreign fighter jets flying over their cities maybe they will wake up over this issue.



They wouldn't know the difference, I don't think.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They wouldn't know the difference, I don't think.



You, sir are correct. And the average Canadian has no clue about defence matters nor do they care, until their property is flooded or near burning down or ravage by an ice storm. Or in the case of Toronto - need their driveway shovelled.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't recall the USN saying the F35C will replace the Growlers, which to my understanding can do both active and passive EW, so listening to enemy emissions and also jamming. I don't think the F-35 can do that, but can detect and provide targeting information prior to being detected itself. Not my field of expertise and someone will likely fill us in more. However the real abilities of both aircraft are classified.



Colin, search for AN/ASQ-239 capabilities.  Impressive passive and active EW capability For the F-35. It’s truly state of the art. 

The Growler’s EW Suite is impressive enough, especially in its power, but there’s really not much more (if at all) that the AN/ALQ-218 receiver can do  that the 239 couldn’t (the 218 is an evolutional design of the E-6B Prowler’s legacy system, vice the quantum design advancement the 239 is) and the AN/ALQ-99 (albeit the E version) is still a hammer-like jammer first flown in the early-70s. 

The Growler really is, for the most part, a re-platforming of the Prowler’s mission system onto a newer/faster aircraft, with some version updates. 

The fact that the ASQ-239 lets the F-35...any F-35, integrate passively and when required actively, into the EM battlespace is under-appreciated. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## blacktriangle

https://armadainternational.com/2019/10/lightning-reflexes/

This article seems to have a decent open-source overview of some of the capabilities.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Drallib said:
			
		

> As of now, they want to keep the Hornets operational until 2032.
> [/quote
> 
> It is 2070 , the US Air Force announced the retirement of it's last manned fighter.
> Meanwhile in Canada, the government is optimistic that the C.F. 18 replacement programme will be back on track by mid decade.


----------



## dimsum

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Drallib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of now, they want to keep the Hornets operational until 2032.
> [/quote
> 
> It is 2070 , the US Air Force announced the retirement of it's last manned fighter.
> Meanwhile in Canada, the government is optimistic that the C.F. 18 replacement programme will be back on track by mid decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...is this where the the enemy realizes it can disrupt/take over the comms links to the RPAS but because the CF-18s are too "dumb", it can't be controlled?
> 
> If so, the RCAF is really playing the long game   :rofl:
Click to expand...


----------



## lenaitch

> ...is this where the the enemy realizes it can disrupt/take over the comms links to the RPAS but because the CF-18s are too "dumb", it can't be controlled?
> 
> If so, the RCAF is really playing the long game



Battlestar Galactica!


----------



## MilEME09

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Battlestar Galactica!



So say we all!, seriously though there is something to say about low tech solutions to high tech problems, wasn't it the soviets who brought home some F-5's after Vietnam only to discover they kicked the Mig-21's ass, not crazy badly but badly enough.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Does anyone know the cost of these 78 Super Hornet Block III being supplied to the USN? 10,000 hrs airframe life sounds like our kind of plane!!!!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/boeing-delivers-first-f-a-18-block-iii-super-hornets-to-us-navy/


----------



## dapaterson

The incremental physical infra costs to add the SH to the RCAF would make that acquisition a non starter unless we plan to also buy new build SH as the future fighter.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The incremental physical infra costs to add the SH to the RCAF would make that acquisition a non starter unless we plan to also buy new build SH as the future fighter.



I have the sense that the current government Is willing to swallow several poising pills just to keep PMJT shielded from any potential criticism of an un-kept (2015) campaign promise (“No new F-35s!”).  Electoral reform un-kept promise, etc. notwithstanding, I think the Liberals will die on a hill before they admit that the L-35 is the most capable and lowest full life-cycle cost option...probably wait until the next election (hoping for a majority in 21/22...).


----------



## MTShaw

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I have the sense that the current government Is willing to swallow several poising pills just to keep PMJT shielded from any potential criticism of an un-kept (2015) campaign promise (%u201CNo new F-35s!%u201D).  Electoral reform un-kept promise, etc. notwithstanding, I think the Liberals will die on a hill before they admit that the L-35 is the most capable and lowest full life-cycle cost option...probably wait until the next election (hoping for a majority in 21/22...).



How is the F-35 the lowest full cycle cost option? $36000 vs $18000 super hornet cost per flying hour? The crazy infra costs due to the oddly specific hangar power Requirements. Those infra requirements needing to be met in Inuvik and Iqaluit.

Those are three things, amongst others, that make the F-35 more expensive to operate. I%u2019m not saying that they should not make up the majority of our fleet, but lets be realistic.


----------



## Good2Golf

Show me a source that compares those hourly operating costs the same way that DND life-cycle costs things and I’ll consider it.  Until then, those are just numbers that people selectively pick to prove their own points.  Let’s go back in a time machine to 1982 and point out to the NFA Project how much more the the CF-188 is going to cost.


----------



## MTShaw

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Show me a source that compares those hourly operating costs the same way that DND life-cycle costs things and I’ll consider it.  Until then, those are just numbers that people selectively pick to prove their own points.  Let’s go back in a time machine to 1982 and point out to the NFA Project how much more the the CF-188 is going to cost.



You provide them as you made the claim first. Those numbers seem to be common but may not be accurate.


----------



## AlexanderM

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I have the sense that the current government Is willing to swallow several poising pills just to keep PMJT shielded from any potential criticism of an un-kept (2015) campaign promise (“No new F-35s!”).  Electoral reform un-kept promise, etc. notwithstanding, I think the Liberals will die on a hill before they admit that the L-35 is the most capable and lowest full life-cycle cost option...probably wait until the next election (hoping for a majority in 21/22...).


I agree with you, it's like going after the guns was a way of getting more idealists back on board with the party, or firming their support of the party, whichever, so it was political. In the same way the idealists likely would not like the purchase of the F-35, so the Liberals won't risk it. I for one am not in favor of having idealists driving the bus. I understand they are now in a position to win a majority and even then they'll want to keep all the idealists happy. IMO


----------



## Cloud Cover

Until now this is a government focused on optics not budgets, but that may change (for better or for worse).


----------



## MTShaw

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Until now this is a government focused on optics not budgets, but that may change (for better or for worse).



I hope everything below makes sense as I have aphasia.

To be fair, all governments are focused on optics. Yet we all expect the conservatives to balance the budget. The don’t. The last balanced budget happened before Harper. The next balanced will likely come after PMJT. Taxes will likely go up to pre conservative levels before we see a balanced budgets.

BTW, I am a dreamer. I believe we should let Europe take care of itself and Canada should join or make some sort of Northcom with US, Norway, Denmark and Canada, as it’s unlikely Germany will come to our defense if we are attacked. 

As for the type of plane we need more than one type of plain. One will likelybe the F-35 due to US pressure, the other will likely be the F-39 because of the industrial coalition Saab has developed. We had mixed fleets before the f-18.

I also think that we should buy  rq-9c along with the rq-9b because the avenger’s greater payload and can bomb the shit out anyone who encroachers on our territory.

Dreamer, pragmatic and fiercely patriotic. I’m sick of Canada preparing to fight other people’s wars.

Canada First.


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I also think that we should buy  rq-9c along with the rq-9b because the avenger’s greater payload and can bomb the shit out anyone who encroachers on our territory.



Thing is, the Avenger isn't really in production - it has no customers.  Even the USAF isn't buying any, which would mean that if we were to get it we would be the launch customer...we've been down that road before with the Cyclone.


----------



## MTShaw

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Thing is, the Avenger isn't really in production - it has no customers.  Even the USAF isn't buying any, which would mean that if we were to get it we would be the launch customer...we've been down that road before with the Cyclone.



Then we are going to have to buy some big, super long distance planes that can have rest areas for a second crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Corporate_Jets#Airbus_ACJ330-200.

We could select the airframe and and put a tender out for systems and integration. Thales and Raytheon?


----------



## dapaterson

MTShaw said:
			
		

> We could select the airframe and and put a tender out for systems and integration. Thales and Raytheon?



Canada is too small to effectively procure and sustain bespoke fleets.  The acquisition and integration risks are tremendous (see again, Cyclone; delays with Aurora modernization; delays with CF18 modernization throughout its lifecycle (some masked by dumb luck related to changes in exchange rates...)).

Our success with C17, C130J and 'Hook acquisitions was that in the first two instances "Canadianization" consisted of the roundel on the tail; in the latter, it was primarily collaborative with the vendor who was making us the launch customer for a modernization of an existing line - and the Canadian Good Idea Engineers were (mostly) kept at bay.


TL;DR - Keep most AERE and SIGS officers away from requirements.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> the Canadian Good Idea Engineers were (mostly) kept at bay.



Can you send some fairy killers here?


----------



## Quirky

MTShaw said:
			
		

> As for the type of plane we need more than one type of plain. One will likelybe the F-35 due to US pressure, the other will likely be the F-39 because of the industrial coalition Saab has developed.



It will be the F-35 because it's the right aircraft for Canada, not because of US pressure. Secondly, Canadian companies are already building parts for the F-35 (https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation), how many SAAB components are currently being built? None. The "Super Gripen" just completed its first flight last month while the F-35 has already flown combat missions. Going for the Gripen is not only a poor choice knowing it's capabilities, and lack there of, but also just plain stupid.


----------



## MTShaw

Quirky said:
			
		

> It will be the F-35 because it's the right aircraft for Canada, not because of US pressure. Secondly, Canadian companies are already building parts for the F-35 (https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation), how many SAAB components are currently being built? None. The "Super Gripen" just completed its first flight last month while the F-35 has already flown combat government missions. Going for the Gripen is not only a poor choice knowing it's capabilities, and lack there of, but also just plain stupid.



Sorry I wasn't clear. I agree that the F35 is likely the best plane without  access to classified material. 

But I was referring to optics. Saab has a very visible industrial coalition. That may every one on both sides of aisle pause. 

And Lockheed wouldn't pull production if we went back to 65 planes. 

And governments never do stupid shit.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Quirky said:
			
		

> Going for the Gripen is not only a poor choice knowing it's capabilities, and lack there of, but also just *plain stupid.*



Gripen it is!

While I agree that the F-35 is the only choice.  I feel there could be pressure in the near future to create “jobs, jobs, JOBS!”.  Which is what the Gripen brings to the table....


----------



## Drallib

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Gripen it is!
> 
> While I agree that the F-35 is the only choice.  I feel there could be pressure in the near future to create %u201Cjobs, jobs, JOBS!%u201D.  Which is what the Gripen brings to the table....



A very short term benefit for a long term mistake... hopefully the fact that Canadians have already made money from the F35 plays a factor.


----------



## MilEME09

Drallib said:
			
		

> A very short term benefit for a long term mistake... hopefully the fact that Canadians have already made money from the F35 plays a factor.



Agreed, with the F35 we get industrial benefits from day 1. Not so much with any other aircraft, plus with so many other users, spare parts will be common, our pilots can go train in the US while ours are built vs having to go to Sweden.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Agreed, with the F35 we get industrial benefits from day 1. Not so much with any other aircraft, plus with so many other users, spare parts will be common, our pilots can go train in the US while ours are built vs having to go to Sweden.



Don't forget that if we need spares in the US/UK/wherever, we can probably get them from the Americans or Brits or whoever.  Not so much with the Gripen.


----------



## STONEY

F-35,F-35, F-35  is it all hype.  Been in development for over 20 years yet still is not in full scale production.  Has more defects now than 10 years ago. Needs more maintenance per flight hour than the Sea King. Cost per flight hour many times than any other fighter. Computer does not work as expected and is due for replacement. Only one version has a gun and that one does not  work satisfactorily, the other versions require a gun pod that nullify stealth. If flown over speed of sound several times its stealth coating needs repair.  Needs special hangers with power source not available at any Canadian base and cannot operate from any of our satelite bases. Has the longest turn around time of all fighters. Cannot carry extra fuel tanks so range not great . It is slower than other A\C and dog fighting is worse than competition. The list goes on and on. When it is compared to the top 5 western fighters in several operational areas it comes out 5Th. The competing fighters looking better all the time at least you know what your getting.

CHEERS


----------



## CBH99

I know your not trying to troll, given your posting history.  But literally ALMOST every single point you made was incorrect...   :facepalm:


----------



## observor 69

Response to STONEY:

God your comments on the F-35 p... me off! Perhaps because it lacks context.  This aircraft excels in areas that exploit its systems in the battlespace. I could quote online sources but I assume you can also.
Whether it is the right aircraft for Canada is a complex military-political matter to be addressed by those with the appropriate background and knowledge.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dog fighting?  Is that just in time for the next Top Gun?  I thought that went out with OTH missiles and sensors. Maybe they can fly within visual and yell 'pew pew' at each other before being sad about Goose all over again to get the full experience.


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Dog fighting?  Is that just in time for the next Top Gun?  I thought that went out with OTH missiles and sensors. Maybe they can fly within visual and yell 'pew pew' at each other before being sad about Goose all over again to get the full experience.




Hey now, I have high hopes for this new Top Gun movie...


----------



## Drallib

STONEY said:
			
		

> F-35,F-35, F-35  is it all hype.


Mmm... the pilots who fly it seem impressed.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Been in development for over 20 years yet still is not in full scale production.


Walk before you run.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Has more defects now than 10 years ago.


Source?



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Needs more maintenance per flight hour than the Sea King.


Now you're comparing the most advanced Fighter in the world to a helicopter.... from 1960.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Cost per flight hour many times than any other fighter.


If it wasn't then people would ask why, being so advanced.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Computer does not work as expected and is due for replacement.


Good thing we wont be getting it for another 5 years. And we'll have it for 40 years after that. Lots of computer changes albeit. 



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Only one version has a gun and that one does not  work satisfactorily, the other versions require a gun pod that nullify stealth.


Good thing we're getting the version that has a gun. I'm sure if it didn't work, they wouldn't be deploying them.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> If flown over speed of sound several times its stealth coating needs repair.


Every aircraft has it's limitations, like speed and alititude. 



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Needs special hangers with power source not available at any Canadian base and cannot operate from any of our satelite bases.


Lockheed, Boeing, and SAAB all visited Cold Lake, so if they said "Hey, we can't give you what you need" then I don't think they would still be in the competition.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Has the longest turn around time of all fighters. Cannot carry extra fuel tanks so range not great .


External Fuel Tanks https://www.airforcemag.com/lockheed-looking-at-extending-the-f-35s-range-weapons-suite/



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> It is slower than other A\C and dog fighting is worse than competition.


Fighter pilots don't like to admit it, but the F35 is redefining what it means to be a Fighter Pilot.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> The list goes on and on. When it is compared to the top 5 western fighters in several operational areas it comes out 5Th. The competing fighters looking better all the time at least you know what your getting.


I'd like to see that statistic of coming 5th... depends what you're rating it on too. It _is_ the newest kid on the block.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> CHEERS


 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Response to STONEY:
> 
> God your comments on the F-35 p... me off! Perhaps because it lacks context.  This aircraft excels in areas that exploit its systems in the battlespace. I could quote online sources but I assume you can also.
> Whether it is the right aircraft for Canada is a complex military-political matter to be addressed by those with the appropriate background and knowledge.



That 'military/political' thing reminded me of why the British named their new fighter the 'Typhoon': because the Germans started WW2


----------



## MTShaw

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Thing is, the Avenger isn't really in production - it has no customers.  Even the USAF isn't buying any, which would mean that if we were to get it we would be the launch customer...we've been down that road before with the Cyclone.



We have some unique requirements. Range being the big one. We have updated our MPAs without pooping our pants.

Yup it will cost, but sharing the  air frame of the A330 MRTT will help alleviate some of the costs. Or a P-8 in a 777 airframe?

But we need something that will traverse the North West Passage at minimum. 

I’ll End it here being at risk of hijacking this sub forum.


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:
			
		

> We have some unique requirements. Range being the big one. We have updated our MPAs without pooping our pants.



Having known some folks in that community, I'm not sure I totally agree.  But I digress.

...back to fighters.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Boeing renews its public pitch to replace Canada's CF-18 fleet*
> 
> _Posted: Jun 25, 2020_
> 
> One of the companies bidding to sell Canada a new fleet of fighter jets made a public pitch today highlighting its long-standing, cross-country economic relationships and history of delivering high-paying aerospace jobs.
> 
> The presentation by Boeing executives and an independent research firm arrives against a background of a pandemic-ravaged economy and a looming federal deadline to submit bids to replace the air force's aging CF-18 fleet.
> 
> ...
> 
> Boeing plans to pitch its Super Hornet fighter. The most up-to-date version of the jet, known as the Block 3, was delivered recently to the U.S. Navy for use on aircraft carriers.
> 
> In its presentation, the company estimates the value of its direct economic activity in Canada — both commercial and defence — at $2.3 billion, resulting in 11,000 jobs across the country. The independent report estimates that when indirect spending is taken into account, the U.S. multinational contributes $5.3 billion and 20,700 jobs to Canada's economy.
> 
> Boeing's decision to make its case publicly is significant in part because federal finances are reeling under the weight of an anticipated $252 billion deficit and staggering levels of unemployment brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
> 
> ...
> 
> Jim Barnes, a senior Boeing executive, told a conference call of reporters on Thursday that there is no planned retirement date for the Super Hornet. He claimed the warplane offers the most economical solution for Canada in terms of the cost of flying and operating fighter aircraft.
> 
> He said he foresaw the fighter being in service with the U.S. Navy for "decades to come."
> 
> The company's argument was recently given a boost when Germany decided to buy 45 Super Hornets as a replacement for its Tornado fighters.
> 
> The deadline for final submissions in Canada's competition is now July 31, after it was pushed back on at least two occasions.
> 
> Barnes said Boeing is ready to submit and will meet the deadline. He acknowledged the company asked for the latest extension because of the pandemic.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-jet-fighters-cf18-1.5627353


----------



## Uzlu

> Boeing validates economic impact in Canada
> 
> If there were lingering doubts about Boeing’s contribution to the Canadian economy, company executives attempted to lay them to rest as the Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer prepares to submit its proposal for Canada’s future fighter jet next month.
> 
> Boeing directly invested $2.3 billion in Canada in 2019, primarily through its aerospace composite manufacturing operation in Winnipeg, and generated about 11,000 jobs, according to an economic impact assessment conducted by Ottawa-based consulting firm Doyletech Corporation. Those figures climbed to around $5.3 billion and 20,000 jobs once indirect spending was factored in.
> 
> “That is an extremely good result,” Rick Clayton, a partner with Doyletech, told a media briefing on June 25. A more than two-for-one return on every dollar spent is “one of the best [results] we have had.”
> 
> Moreover, 95 per cent of what Boeing generates is exported. “That’s about as high as we have ever seen,” he said.
> 
> The assessment also captured Boeing’s investments in Canadian supplier and technology development, making the company what he called an “agile producer” able to capitalize on both Canadian resources and “smarts.” Technology developed by many suppliers often involves systems integration, an added value over aircraft components.
> 
> Investments and direct participation in industry-university networks, centres of excellences, and even a learning factory incorporating big data, machine learning and artificial intelligence — “sort of like a teaching hospital, only for manufacturing,” according to Clayton — are influencing the next cadre of advanced manufacturing workers.
> 
> Boeing and its two competitors, Lockheed Martin and Saab, have until July 31 to submit their bids for 88 advanced fighters to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fleet of CF-188 Hornets.
> 
> The bids will be evaluated on technical merit, cost and economic benefit to Canada. They will also be assessed on the “bidders’ impact on Canada’s economic interests.”
> 
> That provision, dubbed by media as the Boeing clause, was inserted into the procurement process after the U.S. government, following a complaint by Boeing, issued almost 300 per cent duties on the sale of Bombardier C-Series aircraft to U.S. customers. The federal government retaliated by cancelling a $6 billion interim plan to buy 18 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to fill a capability gap and said it would assess “economic behaviour” in evaluating any future bids.
> 
> In addition to its sizeable economic footprint at 13 sites across Canada and through around 500 suppliers, Boeing also emphasized its commitment to the government’s Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) policy.
> 
> The company has delivered on $11 billion in ITB obligations over the past 25 years as part of the sale of the CF-188 and upgrade programs, CH-147F Chinook helicopters, CC-177 Globemaster III strategic lift aircraft, ScanEagle unmanned aircraft and satellites.
> 
> For the future fighter project, the three bidders will have the option to sign a binding ITB agreement and commit to investing in Canadian content up to 100 per cent of the contract value, or agree to a nonbinding economic benefit agreement.
> 
> “Boeing will firmly commit to a 100 per cent ITB obligation,” said Jennifer Seidman, the recently appointed lead for international strategic partnerships in Canada.
> 
> That value proposition will include further investment across what the government has identified as key industrial capabilities in the defence sector and new efforts to build diversity in the aerospace and defence workforce, “starting with STEM related efforts targeting Canadian youth and continuing through to the support of professionals in businesses of all sizes across all regions of the country,” she said.
> 
> Boeing will propose the F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet to replace the RCAF’s legacy Hornets. The first of two in the new Block III configuration were delivered to the U.S. Navy in mid-June for flight testing and carrier suitability and integration testing of all mission system components.
> 
> The USN intends to acquire 78 of the advanced aircraft under a multi-year procurement contract and has begun a service life modification program that will upgrade about 450 Block II Super Hornets with Block III systems.
> 
> The Block III integrates enhanced displays, processing and data link technology “to provide an open architecture mission system with advanced networking that continue to evolve at a pace that exceeds the current plans of our competitors,” said Jim Barnes, director of fighter programs for Canada.
> 
> The Block III program has extended the aircraft’s airframe to 10,000-flight-hours for Navy operations, and introduced upgrades, including conformal fuel tanks, a centreline drop tank with a networked infrared search and track (IRST) sensor and satellite communications (SATCOM) system.
> 
> The USN expects to take delivery of the first aircraft by 2021 and have a squadron per carrier wing by 2024, a year before the RCAF will receive the first of its new fighters, he noted.
> 
> At a time when the Canadian government is facing a ballooning deficit, Barnes reminded media that operational costs far exceed the acquisition price, and the Super Hornet has the lowest operational flight costs among U.S.-built fighters, according to the U.S. government, at about $18,500 per flight hour. A Super Hornet fleet would also allow the RCAF to “leverage existing physical and intellectual infrastructure, significantly reducing aircrew and maintenance training requirements,” he added.
> 
> Canada would not be a lone operator either. Barnes noted that the USN does not have a planned retirement date for the Super Hornet fleet, despite the gradual integration of Lockheed Martin F-35C fighters onto carrier decks. Boeing is also competing the Super Hornet in Finland and Switzerland. And in April, the German Armed Forces indicated an interest in the procurement of 93 new Eurofighter Typhoons and 45 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to bridge between its Tornado fleet, set to retire by 2030, and the next-generation Future Combat Air System likely to enter service around 2040.


https://www.skiesmag.com/news/boeing-validates-economic-impact-canada/


----------



## PuckChaser

100% ITB as new investment in Canada, or just count current operations towards that ITB level? Devil is in the details, but seems like they're on a full court press PR mode now.


----------



## CBH99

*<Slowly zips up my flame retardant HAZMAT suit, in preparation for the well deserved ordinance coming my way>*


Just to clarify, I am a big supporter for the F-35 for our future fighter, for a myriad of reasons.  By the time we get our platforms, it will have matured into a very capable fighter (even moreso than it is now) and a lot of the bugs will have be ironed out the hard way by our allies.  I am pro F-35.


However...allow me to play devil's advocate here for a moment.   ;D


The Boeing guy does make some good points about leveraging existing infrastructure and operating costs.  

The operating cost of the F-35, as it stands now, is higher than a Super Hornet.  I'm not sure if that includes touch-ups or maintenance of the outer skin, which unlike other aircraft, is a high tech machine in and of itself.

So while the purchase price may be similar to a Super Hornet, the operating cost could bite a country like ours in the butt, especially post COVID economy.



In terms of leveraging existing infrastructure, he has a point there also.  While I'm sure the cost of building new hangers & support facilities has been costed and looked at in detail, it can't be cheap.  

The USN, as it currently stands, looks to upgrade/procure approximately 650 Super Hornets bk.3, and additional sales/upgrades may be in the works for Germany as well as some Middle East customers.



So... given the operating costs, costs of new or refurbished infrastructure, etc.  Would the new Super Hornet be *that bad* of an option for us?  Given our current budgets, post COVID finances, and ease of transitioning to the new jet?


(My own personal opinion...the $862 million just spent to upgrade 36 of our Hornets should have just been spent on purchasing new jets/infrastructure for new jets instead.)   :2c:


----------



## SupersonicMax

With any potential bidder, we will need to upgrade our facilities.  We can’t house this kind of technology in 1950’s hangars that have largely not been worked on.


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> With any potential bidder, we will need to upgrade our facilities.  We can’t house this kind of technology in 1950’s hangars that have largely not been worked on.



What better way to jump start the economy the massive defense infrastructure


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> What better way to jump start the economy the massive defense infrastructure




Agreed.  Lots of construction work, safety tickets for workers, catering opportunities, supplying of construction materials, etc.


----------



## PuckChaser

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Lots of construction work, safety tickets for workers, catering opportunities, supplying of construction materials, etc.


DND needs billions in infrastructure. Call me a cynic but highly doubt Petawawa's horse stables or Kingston's asbestos shacks are getting replaced anytime in the next 20 years...


----------



## quadrapiper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ...Kingston's asbestos shacks...


Hey, those are heritage structures!

"Valuable examples of mid-20th-C military vernacular architecture, preserving almost unchanged the era's unique building materials and approaches..."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Whether it is the right aircraft for Canada is a complex military-political matter to be addressed by those with the appropriate background and knowledge.



Doesn't that disqualify our current PM from participating in the decision?


----------



## CBH99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeclSBTxg6Y


Not advocating for the Gripen at all, was just really impressed with the incredibly short takeoff and landing in this video!      8)


----------



## AlexanderM

https://twitter.com/BoeingCanada/status/1277611314358214656


Not advocating for the Super Hornet Block III.


----------



## PuckChaser

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Not advocating for the Super Hornet Block III.



Yeah they're full court press with social media ads to every Canadian right now. Its missing the tagline "Don't worry about us getting a 300% tariff on Bombardier causing them to partner and then sell off all their commercial aerospace jet program."


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The real reason PM Trudeau is against buying the F-35:


----------



## GR66

I just wish all the options had greater range.  For Northern defence and vs potential peer enemies I think that range is something you can't get enough of.


----------



## Good2Golf

You have to strike a balance somewhere. It’s not like long-range, deep strike penetration into a peer or superior adversary’s robust ADA2 environment is on Canada’s requirements list.  Working the MOB>FOL>AAR’d ops isn’t an unreasonable concept supportable from all the contenders to one degree or another.


----------



## dapaterson

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The real reason PM Trudeau is against buying the F-35:



Except Canada joined the JSF PSFD MOU in 2002, when a gentleman by the name of Jean Chretien was prime minister...

EDIT: unscramble PSFD


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except Canada joined the JSF PSFD MOU in 2002, when a gentleman by the name of Jean Chretien was prime minister...
> 
> EDIT: unscramble PSFD



Twisted political win-win.  Previous Liberals good for committing hundred of millions of dollars to the JSF Progam to get billion+ back to industry, but Conservatives evil for....ummm....not...buying the JSF?


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> PuckChaser: Here are some very detailed posts on the Finnish HX fighter competition (actual fly-off in winter in Finland!) by an excellent Finnish fellow:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Finnish fighter competition--the start and conclusion of a post by Corporal Frisk wherein he points out weaknesses of F-35A bid (high operating costs may limit fleet size to much) and those of Super Hornet, Gripen E (how many decades ahead will there be substantial user bases?)--so don't rule out Eurofighter and Rafale (gone from RCAF competition):



> The Black Horse(s)
> 
> I have on a number of occasions stated that the outcome of the HX programme is far from certain, despite the F-35 probably being the fighter to beat...
> 
> How is it then with the two dark horses? Surprisingly well, to be honest. The Eurofighter Typhoon has a solid user base, including four major European countries having invested heavily in the system, which provide a depth that significantly improves the chances of it staying in service up to 2060 even if the FCAS and Tempest are already looming at the horizon. The Rafale has a more limited user base, despite scoring three notable export orders recently. Still, France can generally be considered a rather stable user country, and has traditionally held onto its platforms for a long time. Recent examples include the Super Étendard (retired in 2016), the Mirage F1 (retired from the reconnaissance role in 2014), and the Mirage 2000 (still happily serving on in both the ground-attack 2000D and fighter 2000-5 versions). Karl Rieder joked on Twitter when discussing the future of the Super Hornet that buying French is safer, since there’s no budget to change plans. It’s a joke for sure, but there’s also a grain of truth buried within that statement.
> 
> So, will 2021 see a showdown between the Rafale and Eurofighter for the HX-prize, the rest having failed the gate checks? Probably not, though I would not be surprised if there is at least someone in the anticipated top-three being kicked out (which based on earlier information, we might know the details of in 2046). At the same time, I am certainly open for the possibility of us getting a surprise winner, and I do not believe anyone who claims they knows the outcome.
> https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/07/13/the-black-horses/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Drallib

With the deadline for proposals 9 days away, will they be public to some extent for people to see what is being offered?


----------



## MilEME09

Drallib said:
			
		

> With the deadline for proposals 9 days away, will they be public to some extent for people to see what is being offered?


We will likely only get the basic information, and a rough cost of each bid


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Finnish fighter competition--the start and conclusion of a post by Corporal Frisk wherein he points out weaknesses of F-35A bid (high operating costs may limit fleet size to much) and those of Super Hornet, Gripen E (how many decades ahead will there be substantial user bases?)--so don't rule out Eurofighter and Rafale (gone from RCAF competition):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



For a better Canadian perspective, check out Doug Allen's blog Best Fighter for Canada. In his blog Allen compares the three remaining aircraft on the following criteria:

- Politics$;

- Logistics;

- Range;

- Stealth and Countermeasures;

- Maneuverability;

- Sensors;

- Firepower; and, 

- Speed.


----------



## dimsum

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> For a better Canadian perspective, check out Doug Allen's blog Best Fighter for Canada.



I've read a few of his posts.  He's very pro-Gripen, but the reality is that the Gripen E (which is what Saab is proposing) isn't in service yet.  So, sure it *could* have the advantages based on the legacy Gripen, but no one has actually operated it yet, including the Swedes.

Edit:  I wonder how Saab will be able to negotiate the issue with interoperability/security that caused Airbus and Dassault (not small companies) to pull the Typhoon and Rafale from competition.


----------



## CBH99

The one thing the Gripen has going for it, that the others don't, is that it has the potential to reinvigorate the Canadian aerospace industry during a time where it's been beaten to a pulp.

Bombardier, through it's own mismanagement (at the level that truly should be criminal) has sold off almost every asset in it's aerospace folder, essentially eliminating a huge chunk of the Canadian aerospace industry along with it.  (Which is mind-boggling, since the C-series was a huge success as an aircraft, and short sighted politics got in the way).


What the Gripen brings to the table, in addition to being an advanced, nimble little jet - is the opportunity to create hundreds of high tech jobs, as well as a full technology transfer.  Being able to manufacture them, update them, and service them all inside of Canada is the big shot in the arm that the Canadian aerospace industry desperately needs now that Bombardier has single-handedly basically destroyed it.  (With the exception of Viking Air, which unfortunately is a very small player.)


Is it the best jet for Canada?  Probably not.  Although, being able to operate in austere northern environments is kind of what we're all about as a country, 6 to 7 months of the year.  

Has it successfully participated in NATO operations?  Yes, exceptionally so.  Is it designed to excel at air-to-air as a MiG killer?  Yes.  Is it affordable to not only purchase, but also operate?  Yes.

Is it 5th gen?  No.  Able to perform the same capabilities as the F-35?  No.  Is the current, upgraded model in service yet?  No.  



I've seen all 3 of these jets perform at air shows, and the Gripen honestly looks like a children's toy when compared to the others (Just due to it's incredibly small size.)

I am fairly pro F-35, with a Block 3 Super Hornet being my second choice.  But, the Gripen isn't all bad when you consider the health boost it gives to our government directed industrial decline.   :2c:



**All of that being said, IIIIIFFFFFF the Gripen is selected, I hope the manufacturing & technology transfer is done outside of Bombardier.  Even if that means awarding to a different company, or starting up a small crown corporation from scratch.  Bombardier leadership can't be more incompetent, inefficient, and in my own _*humble*_ opinion, downright criminal.  And yes, I'm mildly bitter about it.**


----------



## NavyShooter

The only worse possible solution would be to give the manufacturing/tech transfer to Irving and getting them to build jets...that'd be terribad.


----------



## Quirky

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Is it the best jet for Canada?  Probably not.  Although, being able to operate in austere northern environments is kind of what we're all about as a country, 6 to 7 months of the year.



F-35 and Super Hornet as just as capable to operate in so-called austere environments. What does that even mean by the way? Expensive fighters will be parked inside climate control hangars overnight, the likelihood of cold-start from -30 is rare. I’ve seen it once in the winter after a crash and the aircraft were quarantined outside overnight. All modern fighters are capable of operation in all-weather environments, the Gripen E isn’t special in that regard.


----------



## OldSolduer

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The only worse possible solution would be to give the manufacturing/tech transfer to Irving and getting them to build jets...that'd be terribad.



Terribad???


----------



## Weinie

CBH99 said:
			
		

> The one thing the Gripen has going for it, that the others don't, is that it has the potential to reinvigorate the Canadian aerospace industry during a time where it's been beaten to a pulp.
> 
> Bombardier, through it's own mismanagement (at the level that truly should be criminal) has sold off almost every asset in it's aerospace folder, essentially eliminating a huge chunk of the Canadian aerospace industry along with it.  (Which is mind-boggling, since the C-series was a huge success as an aircraft, and short sighted politics got in the way).
> 
> 
> What the Gripen brings to the table, in addition to being an advanced, nimble little jet - is the opportunity to create hundreds of high tech jobs, as well as a full technology transfer.  Being able to manufacture them, update them, and service them all inside of Canada is the big shot in the arm that the Canadian aerospace industry desperately needs now that Bombardier has single-handedly basically destroyed it.  (With the exception of Viking Air, which unfortunately is a very small player.)
> 
> 
> Is it the best jet for Canada?  Probably not.  Although, being able to operate in austere northern environments is kind of what we're all about as a country, 6 to 7 months of the year.
> 
> _*Has it successfully participated in NATO operations?  Yes, exceptionally so.  Is it designed to excel at air-to-air as a MiG killer?  Yes.  Is it affordable to not only purchase, but also operate?  Yes.*_
> 
> Is it 5th gen?  No.  Able to perform the same capabilities as the F-35?  No.  Is the current, upgraded model in service yet?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen all 3 of these jets perform at air shows, and the Gripen honestly looks like a children's toy when compared to the others (Just due to it's incredibly small size.)
> 
> I am fairly pro F-35, with a Block 3 Super Hornet being my second choice.  But, the Gripen isn't all bad when you consider the health boost it gives to our government directed industrial decline.   :2c:
> 
> 
> 
> **All of that being said, IIIIIFFFFFF the Gripen is selected, I hope the manufacturing & technology transfer is done outside of Bombardier.  Even if that means awarding to a different company, or starting up a small crown corporation from scratch.  Bombardier leadership can't be more incompetent, inefficient, and in my own _*humble*_ opinion, downright criminal.  And yes, I'm mildly bitter about it.**



A friend who is an F-18 pilot once dryly remarked: "I have lot's of gun camera footage of Gripen's"


----------



## Drallib

Quirky said:
			
		

> F-35 and Super Hornet as just as capable to operate in so-called austere environments. What does that even mean by the way? Expensive fighters will be parked inside climate control hangars overnight, the likelihood of cold-start from -30 is rare. I’ve seen it once in the winter after a crash and the aircraft were quarantined outside overnight. All modern fighters are capable of operation in all-weather environments, the Gripen E isn’t special in that regard.



One of SAAB's selling points is how it can land on a strip of road to refuel/rearm. Also their short take-off/landing ability.

"Gripen can take off and land on runways that are just 800 metres long and 16 metres wide, and the fighter has been designed for all different types of weather and runway conditions, including the harsh snow-covered runways in the Arctic climates found in northern Sweden."


----------



## Sub_Guy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Is it the best jet for Canada?  Probably not.  Although, being able to operate in austere northern environments is kind of what we're all about as a country, 6 to 7 months of the year.



Eielson AFB (F-35 base) is much colder on average than any of the bases the Swedes fly their Gripens from. Sweden's winters aren't that cold at all, not when you compare them to our own winters.  

I don't see Canada adopting the "land on a strip of road" mentality.  It sounds cool, but in reality the logistics required to maintain that capability would be a nightmare.


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:
			
		

> One of SAAB's selling points is how it can land on a strip of road to refuel/rearm. Also their short take-off/landing ability.
> 
> "Gripen can take off and land on runways that are just 800 metres long and 16 metres wide, and the fighter has been designed for all different types of weather and runway conditions, including the harsh snow-covered runways in the Arctic climates found in northern Sweden."



That's fine, but is that the way we operate up north?  How would the logistics work of getting fuel/weapons/etc to those places?

If not, wouldn't longer legs (which the Gripen E doesn't have compared to the F-35 or Super Hornet) be more beneficial to reach further from FOLs like Inuvik?


----------



## Drallib

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's fine, but is that the way we operate up north?  How would the logistics work of getting fuel/weapons/etc to those places?
> 
> If not, wouldn't longer legs (which the Gripen E doesn't have compared to the F-35 or Super Hornet) be more beneficial to reach further from FOLs like Inuvik?



I agree.


----------



## dapaterson

Aircraft listed in increasing order of ferry range (per publicly available information).  To my knowledge, this assumes internal fuel only without AAR.

F35A range: 2800km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Gripen C/D range: 3200km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Super Hornet range: 3330km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

Gripen E/F range: 4000km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen


EDIT to add Gripen E/F range


----------



## Drallib

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Aircraft listed in increasing order of ferry range (per publicly available information).  To my knowledge, this assumes internal fuel only without AAR.
> 
> F35A range: 2800km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
> 
> Gripen C/D range: 3200km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
> 
> Super Hornet range: 3330km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet



Is that Super Hornet Block II or III with CFTs?


----------



## dapaterson

Drallib said:
			
		

> Is that Super Hornet Block II or III with CFTs?



Good question; looking at the source documents referenced in the wiki, it appears that it does include CFT. (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1)

Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.


----------



## Drallib

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Good question; looking at the source documents referenced in the wiki, it appears that it does include CFT. (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1)
> 
> Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
> Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.



On the Wiki page under _Specifications (F/A-18E/F)_ it says the Combat Range 722km. Under the _Advanced Super Hornet_ section, 2nd paragraph, it talks about the CFTs adding 480km to the Combat Range, making it 1202km. If it can add 66.4% to the Combat Range, I wonder what the Range with 2 AIM-9s would be (2346km currently) or the Ferry Range (3330km currently).

Internal Fuel is 14,700 lbs. The CFT would add 3,500 lbs to that. External Fuel Tanks is another 13,040 lbs but I can only see this being used for refueling purposes.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Drallib said:
			
		

> On the Wiki page under _Specifications (F/A-18E/F)_ it says the Combat Range 722km. Under the _Advanced Super Hornet_ section, 2nd paragraph, it talks about the CFTs adding 480km to the Combat Range, making it 1202km. If it can add 66.4% to the Combat Range, I wonder what the Range with 2 AIM-9s would be (2346km currently) or the Ferry Range (3330km currently).
> 
> Internal Fuel is 14,700 lbs. The CFT would add 3,500 lbs to that. External Fuel Tanks is another 13,040 lbs but I can only see this being used for refueling purposes.



And I assume this is all done within the context of a well established, protected and maintained in flight refuelling capability.... 

.... cool 'combat tools' are always nice, but great combat logistics is always the strategic game-changer AFAIK.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The only worse possible solution would be to give the manufacturing/tech transfer to Irving and getting them to build jets...that'd be terribad.



Actually, SAAB has teamed up with IMP to assemble the aircraft, if chosen.

Allen has this write-up on IMP at his blog.


----------



## dapaterson

IMP has a less than stellar record for timely delivery of aircraft.  Adding a Gripen assembly line would push back future Aurora block upgrades into the 2100s...


----------



## CBH99

I hate to say it, but they still seem like a better choice than Bombardier


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> IMP has a less than stellar record for timely delivery of aircraft.  Adding a Gripen assembly line would push back future Aurora block upgrades into the 2100s...



Many years decades ago we said the same about _Chantier Davie_. When TRUMP (*TR*ibal class *U*pdate and *M*odernization *P*roject) was going one ship had to be refitted in Quebec ~ it was firm, non-negotiable government policy in the 1970s and '80s, 20%+ of just about anything had to be procured in Quebec ~ and that meant _Davie_. We, not jokingly, referred to the project as "One No Trump," because the engineers were really, honestly concerned that _Davie_ could not do the work and we would end up with only three 280s.

_Davie_ nearly went under; they were in such a financial and managerial mess that they were unfit for the first round of the _National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy_. Then they got new, foreign, owners and they turned themselves around ~ it's amazing what getting out from under "_Quebec Inc_" can do for a company, isn't it? Now people are singing their praises. 

Companies can be destroyed by bad owners ~ _Bombardie_r is proof of that ~ and government ownership and protection can, often do, make things worse. My boss, back in the 1980s, the Chief of Engineering for the CF, believed that Canadian and Quebec government politival policies destroyed a good shipyard. But _Davie_ is back. Eventually the family will be forced out of the _Bombardier_ boardroom and it will be taken public and will be owned by foreigners, I expect. It might become a success story, too.


----------



## YZT580

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .
> 
> .
> 
> Companies can be destroyed by bad owners ~ _Bombardie_r is proof of that ~ and government ownership and protection can, often do, make things worse. My boss, back in the 1980s, the Chief of Engineering for the CF, believed that Canadian and Quebec government politival policies destroyed a good shipyard. But _Davie_ is back. Eventually the family will be forced out of the _Bombardier_ boardroom and it will be taken public and will be owned by foreigners, I expect. It might become a success story, too.


IF there is anything left to re-build.  It is fast becoming nothing but a real estate holding company with a couple of cottage industries to keep a few quebecers employeed.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Actually the new Global series of large bizjets, on which Bombardier's future depends, are largely made in Toronto:
https://www.bombardier.com/en/media/newsList/details.binc-20191204-bombardier-announces-long-term-agreement-with-gtaa.bombardiercom.html?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Eielson AFB (F-35 base) is much colder on average than any of the bases the Swedes fly their Gripens from. Sweden's winters aren't that cold at all, not when you compare them to our own winters.
> 
> I don't see Canada adopting the "land on a strip of road" mentality.  It sounds cool, but in reality the logistics required to maintain that capability would be a nightmare.


 What ! Where's your sense of adventure ?
It's a really good point actually, never mind the fact that RCAF would have to develop the ability to operate the majority of it's forces not only dispersed but in austere conditions. 
We then we have the interesting question who's is going to pay to upgrade the Trans Canada Highway to the sort of standard the you could land aircraft on ? Granted you only have to do that in small sections. I suspect that still you're looking at tens of billions and that's just the Trans Canada never mind the rest of the Canadian highway system.
But I can't see any government spending that kind of money, not on defence and not in the amounts necessary to accomplish a complete and utter rethink of of how our Airforce operates.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on RCAF competition--we'd sure have to buy a lot of missiles to take advantage of the potential loadout:



> Boeing Shows Super Hornets Bristling With 14 Missiles In Formal Sales Pitch To Canada
> _Boeing's Super Hornet is now formally competing against Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Saab's Gripen E to become Canada's next fighter jet._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35272/boeing-shows-super-hornets-bristling-with-14-missiles-in-formal-sales-pitch-to-canada



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

We can't even afford 14 missiles, this ad is misleading


----------



## PuckChaser

14? That's cute.

https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We can't even afford 14 missiles, this ad is misleading



Even if we could, that would take a load crew around 6-8 hours to get them all on. War will be over by then.


----------



## Uzlu

> Lockheed Martin promises $16.9B injection to Canadian economy with F-35s
> 
> *Fighters up against Boeing's Super Hornet, Saab's Gripen in bid to replace aging warplanes*
> 
> One of the companies vying to build the air force's next generation of warplanes promises it can inject as much as $16.9 billion into the Canadian economy, even though its pitch to the Liberal government falls somewhat outside traditional boundaries.
> 
> Lockheed Martin Canada is offering the F-35, which has a controversial political history in this country, as a potential replacement for the military's nearly 40-year-old fleet of CF-18 jet fighters.
> 
> Three bids in the often-delayed $19 billion competition were delivered Friday and the federal government expects to narrow the field to two by next spring, with the first fighters not scheduled for delivery until 2025.
> 
> The other contenders are Boeing, which is offering the latest version of its Super Hornet, and Saab with the updated version of its Gripen jet.
> 
> Under longstanding federal procurement policy, defence contractors are essentially expected to match the value of the contract and deliver an equal share of benefits to the Canadian economy.
> 
> The worldwide F-35 program is different in the sense that partnership in the program means Canadian companies are allowed to bid on fleetwide contracts and there is no dollar-for-dollar guarantee.
> 
> *Lockheed's pitch*
> 
> In a slick video presentation Thursday, Lockheed Martin put on display its Canadian partner companies that are already working on the program, supplying a diverse range of parts and systems with testimonials from employees about how proud they are to be working on the F-35.
> 
> Steve Callaghan, Lockheed Martin's vice-president of F-35 business development, said he is confident the company has delivered a solid pitch to the Canadian government despite the difference and the possible handicap it faces.
> 
> "We're delighted to be part of this competition," he said during a remote media availability on Thursday. "We understand the rules. We understand the way the competition is structured and the requirements."
> 
> The company conducted an analysis on the impact of its program in Canada and estimates over the lifetime of the F-35, it will pour $16.9 billion into the gross domestic product and that there is the potential for more as sustainment contracts for the warplane eventually come on stream.
> 
> Lorraine Ben, the chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin Canada, said the fighter jet program is important to the country's economic recovery from the pandemic because it delivers high-skilled, high-paying jobs.
> 
> Should Canada not choose the F-35, Callaghan said, the existing contracts, which are currently worth $2 billion, would be honoured for the duration of their commitment but might go elsewhere.
> 
> "Future contracting would likely be placed using industries and best value for those nations that are procuring the F-35," he said. "Canadian industry is truly embedded in the global supply chain today and brings great value to the program and of course great value to Canada and Canadian industry. We really do look forward to Canadian industry continuing their contribution."
> 
> *Controversial history*
> 
> It has been a decade since the former Conservative government set off a political firestorm when it signalled it intended to sole-source the purchase of 65 F-35s.
> 
> After searing reports from both the auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Office, which questioned the cost and how much homework the federal government had done in terms of competition, the plan was shelved.
> 
> The Liberals, prior to being elected in 2015, promised not to buy the F-35 and instead purchase a cheaper aircraft and plow the savings into the navy.
> 
> The Trudeau government eventually relented and allowed Lockheed Martin into the competition, and even bowed to pressure from the Trump administration to make sure the playing field was level in terms of evaluation of the economic benefits.
> 
> Callaghan steered clear of the politics on Thursday.
> 
> "We're really focused on this competition and providing the information Canada needs to make its decision," he said.
> 
> Critics have often complained that the F-35 — a stealth fighter with advanced sensing technology — will be too expensive to maintain over the long term.
> 
> At the moment, it costs $25,000 per hour to fly, according to figures released Thursday by the company.
> 
> Callaghan says the plan, using a variety of methods including artificial intelligence and robotics, is to cut that figure in half in the coming few years.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lockheed-martin-f35-canadian-economy-1.5676643


----------



## Uzlu

> ALEX McCOLL: Fudging F-35 figures a lobbyist stealth tactic
> 
> A CBC report on Aug. 6 contained some revealing remarks from Steve Callaghan, an executive at Lockheed Martin — one of three bidders on the multi-billion-dollar contract to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets.
> 
> In touting the merits of his next-generation F-35A stealth aircraft, Lockheed’s vice president of business development said his company’s plan was to reduce the cost per flight hour from $35,000 “to at least $25,000 per flying hour in the coming few years.”
> 
> The CBC reported this as if he were speaking in Canadian dollars. He was not.
> 
> If a lobbyist omits pertinent details in an interview, and perhaps smirks while the CBC relays a beneficial false assumption, that is legal in Canada.
> 
> However, it is illegal in the United States for the chief financial officer (CFO) of a publicly traded company to deliberately mislead institutional investors.
> 
> Which makes the following very interesting.
> 
> On May 14, Goldman Sachs hosted a webcast with Ken Possenriede, executive vice president and CFO of Lockheed Martin.
> 
> The presentation began with a 979-word disclosure slide outlining how his statements were “pursuant to the safe harbour provisions of the Federal Securities Law.”
> 
> Early in the presentation, Possenriede outlined the plan to get F-35A costs down “to $25,000 (USD) per flight hour by 2025.”
> 
> Possenriede repeated the marketing language multiple times: “We have committed to drive the price of sustaining the airplane per flight hour down to $25,000 (USD) by 2025.” But when it came to long-term revenue growth, the sustainment story started to change: “We see sizable growth opportunities in sustainment.”
> 
> The Goldman Sachs moderator wanted to know how the F-35 could become cheaper for the taxpayer while also increasing revenues for Lockheed Martin. Possenriede’s answer should be required reading for anyone who writes about military procurement:
> 
> “We still see sustainment growing, and one point I’d make is — not many folks understand this — but that $25,000 per flight hour, that’s in 2012 dollars, and I’m not suggesting that it’s going to ramp up dramatically, but to get to 2025, the benchmark is in 2012 (US) dollars. So, we have to escalate that to some extent to get to current-year dollars and then ultimately then-year dollars. But I think with the modernization, the sparing that’s going to be required, the continued activation and the repairing, with or without a PBL concept, I think you’re going to see sustainment continue to grow.”
> 
> Using the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics average annual rate of inflation from 2012 to 2020, one can estimate the 2025 cost per flight hour at just under $31,000 (USD). At current exchange rates, that means a cost per flight hour of over $41,000 Cdn.
> 
> In her 2009 book, Ivanka Trump shared the following business advice: “Perception is more important than reality… This doesn’t mean you should be duplicitous or deceitful, but don’t go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage.”
> 
> Do you believe what the salesperson told the CBC, or do you believe what the CFO told investors?
> 
> The CBC also reported that Lockheed Martin’s estimate of industrial benefits could be worth “as much as $16.9 billion into the Canadian economy.”
> 
> Even if Lockheed Martin delivers “as much as” they claim — doubtful considering how it has delivered only 44 per cent of the investment it promised Italy — at such a high sustainment cost, well over half of all Canadian taxpayer dollars would flow to the United States. All for a jet that must be sent back to Texas for upgrades.
> 
> Now let’s look at the competition.
> 
> The F-35 bid stands in stark contrast to the full industrial offsets, complete technology transfer, and assembly in Nova Scotia offered by rival Saab on its Gripen-E bid. (Saab recently announced a partnership with IMP to assemble Gripen fighter jets at the Halifax airport if their bid is successful.)
> 
> The “Gripen for Canada Team” includes leaders in Canada’s aviation industry that would create jobs across Canada.
> 
> While a number of those companies are also component suppliers for the third bidder — Boeing’s Super Hornet — a reliable industry source (not authorized to speak on the record) stated that Boeing’s package — American assembly, only partial technology transfer, and indirect offsets — add up to a more expensive jet that creates fewer supplier jobs in Canada.
> 
> It’s worthy of note that the Trump administration has been pressuring Boeing and Lockheed Martin to centralize fighter component manufacturing in the United States.
> 
> Boeing includes existing seven-series component jobs as part of their benefits package. Is this really new investment, or is it an unspoken threat that Boeing would close its massive factory in Winnipeg unless Canada buys American?
> 
> The Trump administration also re-imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum exports this month. These are not the actions of an honest trade partner.
> 
> Now let’s look at affordability.
> 
> The 2018 auditor general report on Canada’s current complement of CF-18 fighter jets made it clear that sustainment funding was insufficient to maintain even the relatively affordable CF-18.
> 
> One of the main problems “was the shortage of technicians to maintain the (CF-18).”
> 
> F-35 proponents are quick to point to the F-35’s seemingly low flyaway cost. This number is only relevant for estimating the cost of replacing jets lost in accidents. Buying squadrons of fighter jets is not like buying a sports car; it’s like buying a full racing team. One must include the entire cost of weapon-system procurement, including spares, tools, training, weapons, and upgrades to existing facilities. Anyone who focuses on the flyaway cost should be met with the skepticism normally reserved for used car salesmen.
> 
> Here’s the bottom line, which should be of great concern to people in Nova Scotia.
> 
> The significant increase in costs and the number of technicians required to sustain the F-35A makes the plane utterly unaffordable without sizable cuts to the navy’s new frigate program. Much of that shipbuilding effort is concentrated in Halifax.
> 
> Add in the COVID-19 deficit, and it becomes possible that Canadian F-35s would rust on the ground even after slashing the navy into a glorified coast guard.
> 
> There are precedents for this.
> 
> When Austria replaced its affordable Saab Draken fighter jets with expensive Eurofighters, it did not adequately increase the sustainment budget. With too little funding left over for new missiles, bombs, night vision or key system upgrades, Austria’s Eurofighters are a barely-armed token force of lawn ornaments.
> 
> Next door, the Czech Republic has well-trained pilots that fly modernized, well-armed, Saab Gripen-C/D jets that regularly pull their weight on NATO missions.
> 
> Canada’s aviation industry has not built a truly cutting-edge fighter jet since the Avro Arrow was cancelled in 1959. Not only does the JAS-39 Gripen-E closely resemble the Arrow, but it shares the Arrow’s ability to fly at twice the speed of sound.
> 
> Renamed the CF-39 Arrow II and made in Halifax, the Saab Gripen would represent a major advancement in combat capability, a significant investment in Halifax, and would become a source of national pride for a new generation of Canadians.


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/local-perspectives/alex-mccoll-fudging-f-35-figures-a-lobbyist-stealth-tactic-484927/


----------



## PuckChaser

Only took half way through the article to find out the real reason Alex McColl wrote it: Sell the Gripen built in Canada concept. Unfortunately he's used his own "lobbyist stealth tactic" in neglecting the astronomical costs of starting a 1-off production line in Canada that would dwarf the flyaway of a F-35A or even Super Hornet. We definitely should strive to be the Czech Republic of the 5EYES community and NORAD...

Steve Callaghan isn't doing a slight of hand with numbers, literally everyone in the world buying the US aircraft see the numbers in USD.


----------



## MilEME09

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/us-navy-starts-development-of-next-generation-manned-fighter-to-replace-the-f-a-18e-f-super-hornet-and-ea-18g-growler-aircraft/?fbclid=IwAR1wBpBKEQGW-MVV0Bifc3qzgiaQ3BnhlQcDsC_wqPuaI_mYCiG14h5i5T4

US navy has started a program to replace the Super Hornet and Growler fleet, next decade. Another nail in the confin for the super hornet in my opinion.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Aussie thinking now a generation or more ahead of where RCAF is at, or will be, for some time; this is getting embarrassing and Canadian Forces will not benefit from PM Trudeau's effort to re-make Canada. Start of a post at think tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute, further links at original:



> Australia’s air force should already be planning to replace the F-35
> 
> Australia’s 2020 defence strategic update and accompanying force structure plan outline the next 20 years of development for the Royal Australian Air Force’s strike and air combat capability [see here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-02/australias-new-defence-strategy-strategic-shift-foreign-policy/12412650]. Some notional funding streams are provided in the force structure plan that define the priorities for capability development and raise some intriguing questions for future planners to consider.
> 
> At the centre of the plans for the RAAF, of course, are the F-35A fighter jets, which are due to achieve final operational capability by the end of 2023. The force structure plan also allocates funds for ‘additional air combat capability’ between 2025 and 2030. It doesn’t specify what that additional capability will be, though it says that the government ‘is committed to … support of the F/A-18F Super Hornet strike aircraft, and acquiring enhanced air launched munitions’.
> 
> The Super Hornet remains an important capability, given that it will be the initial primary launch platform for the AGM-158C long-range anti-ship missile, or LRASM.
> 
> The F/A-18F fleet could be upgraded to ‘Block III’ standard, allowing the jets to remain in service into the mid-2030s. That makes sense from a risk-management perspective, because the government wouldn’t be betting everything on the long-term effectiveness of the F-35’s stealth. China’s continued development of quantum sensors and use of artificial intelligence could erode that advantage in coming years.
> 
> Defence’s 2016 integrated investment program contemplated acquiring a fourth squadron of F-35s, stating that:
> 
> "the _Super Hornet fleet has been extended beyond its initial bridging capability timeline and is now planned to be replaced around 2030. Its replacement could include either a fourth operational squadron of Joint Strike Fighters or possibly a yet to be developed unmanned combat aerial vehicle. The decision on the replacement of this air combat capability will be best undertaken post-2020 when technology and emerging threat trends are better understood_ [emphasis added]."
> 
> The 2020 plan doesn’t mention a fourth F-35 squadron, but elevates support for what it calls ‘teaming air vehicles’. It anticipates their acquisition between 2025 and 2040, which would fit in with decisions being made on the future of the F/A-18F versus an additional squadron of F-35s.
> 
> _Boeing’s loyal wingman drone for its ‘airpower teaming system’, being developed in Australia, could emerge as a good solution to the RAAF’s long-range-strike requirements by the end of this decade_ [emphasis added]. It could be evolved into a more capable platform, with greater range, payload and speed, from its current prototype design. It wouldn’t be the equivalent of acquiring the B-21 Raider stealth bomber, but an evolved loyal wingman would represent something closer to a true long-range-strike platform than simply purchasing another squadron of F-35s, without all the political, financial and strategic challenges associated with the B-21.
> 
> Alongside achieving final operational capability for the F-35 and teaming vehicles, the force structure plan seems to focus on long-range missiles as the centrepiece of a ‘strike’ option for the RAAF. But thinking needs to go further than simply bolting long-range munitions onto F-35s and F/A-18Fs, and a future strike capability will need to extend beyond the RAAF.
> 
> For example, _any new capabilities will need to rely heavily on the Defence Intelligence Group, established on 1 July to ensure that platforms have access to the latest intelligence to maximise their combat effectiveness. That could bring in a host of non-airpower capabilities, ranging from unmanned surface vessels equipped for maritime surveillance such as the Ocius Bluebottle, through to surveillance satellites in low-earth orbit that are to be acquired through Defence Project 799, Phase 2_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The 2020 plan also suggests that the RAAF must consider a replacement for the E/A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft between the late 2020s and 2040. Keeping the Growlers operating alongside the Super Hornets makes good sense. But _if the Super Hornets are retired by the mid-2030s, that would be an ideal time to explore new approaches to electronic warfare and attack. Once again, the sensible solution would be to take full advantage of unmanned systems wherever possible. One option might be for Australia to team up with the United States to develop a stealthy and highly survivable variant of the loyal wingman, with the US supplying the complex and classified electronic warfare payload on board_.
> 
> _Looking further into the future, the plan mentions the period between 2035 and 2040 as the beginning of a process for considering a replacement for the F-35. In fact, something would be amiss if the RAAF weren’t discussing the F-35 replacement right now and thinking about how Australia could work with the US, the UK and other allies on fielding new types of air combat platforms much sooner. For example, the US is no longer speaking about ‘sixth-generation’ fighters, and recognises the risks of slow, decades-long acquisition cycles for a future fighter. The focus of its next-generation air dominance program is now on a ‘digital century series’ approach of rapid development of small numbers of several types of airframes over short periods, as few as five years_ [emphasis added].
> 
> It would be a mistake for the RAAF to embark on another 20-year acquisition project to eventually replace the F-35 from the late 2040s, yet that’s exactly what the force structure plan implies. Waiting until 2035 to begin developing a replacement ignores the clear trends that suggest a desire for faster capability acquisition.
> 
> The F-35 has taken two decades to develop, at great expense, and the approach of a common airframe for multiple tasks means it can’t be optimised for a single role. Going back to platforms optimised for a specific role—air dominance, long-range strike and electronic attack, or intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—that can be acquired faster might be a better path.
> 
> The RAAF shouldn’t wait until 2035 to get started on developing these types of capabilities. Its plans to complement, and then replace, the F-35 can be accelerated, and it would make sense to promote collaboration with the US and the UK in this endeavour to boost the RAAF’s air combat capability sooner.
> https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-air-force-should-already-be-planning-to-replace-the-f-35/



Thank goodness the RCAF does not have a long-range strike role.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

With due respect Mark (and I do genuinely mean that - I think we all appreciate the articles you post) -- this article is probably well intentioned, but mostly hot air.  

While the Aussies do seem to invest not just the resources, but the time efficiency of common sense, into the air force - asking them to start looking at a replacement for the F-35 now is next to impossible.

We truly don't know what the next generation of combat aircraft will look like, after the F-35 and other 5th gen fighters.



Manned or unmanned?  Elon Musk suggests unmanned, and I'd have to agree.  But, the USAF is thinking manned / optionally manned.

What could they do that the 5th generation fighters can't?  

Is the F-35 eventually going to end up like the F-15 or F-16 line?  Constantly upgraded models being produced, and still one of the top fighters decades after it's introduction?

What kind of weaponry exists in the air-to-air realm in the 2040's and 2050's?  I'm guessing very efficient direct energy weapons, which will literally change the entire game in every single way.



It's good that the author wants the RAAF to think that far down the road.  But realistically, they can't.  Technology improves too quickly, and new technologies are on the horizon that will change the way things are made, done, performed, and executed.


----------



## suffolkowner

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/government-awards-design-contract-for-future-fighter-infrastructure-in-cold-lake.html

seems like a quick decision. I wonder how fighter specific they need to be


----------



## SupersonicMax

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/government-awards-design-contract-for-future-fighter-infrastructure-in-cold-lake.html
> 
> seems like a quick decision. I wonder how fighter specific they need to be



All contenders have mandatory requirements that they need to meet that drive the design of the facilities.

It was anything but a quick decision.  This has been in the works for a couple of years and this is only the design contract.


----------



## dapaterson

The design contracts include build options, which can speed up the process but also gives offramps if the contractor is unable to deliver adequately.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Personally, I think this is a 'nice to see happening' event.


----------



## Quirky

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/government-awards-design-contract-for-future-fighter-infrastructure-in-cold-lake.html
> 
> seems like a quick decision. I wonder how fighter specific they need to be



I’m sure the design will be Canadian specific (3x more expensive) that meets our unique requirements than no other country faces, like cold weather. If construction is to start summer 2022 and the aircraft isn’t chosen, then how is the infrastructure supposed to accommodate X aircraft? Will they flip a coin and build a hangar to house the F35 or Super Hornet?


----------



## QV

Trudeau promised to not buy the F35 so that narrows it down. I suppose they’re building hangars for some version of an F18. Whether they’re old Aussie F18s or, if he’s feeling generous maybe a few Super Hornets.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’m sure the design will be Canadian specific (3x more expensive) that meets our unique requirements than no other country faces, like cold weather. If construction is to start summer 2022 and the aircraft isn’t chosen, then how is the infrastructure supposed to accommodate X aircraft? Will they flip a coin and build a hangar to house the F35 or Super Hornet?



Pick the largest aircraft in the running and build to accommodate it, cover your bases. Hangers usually are not for individual aircraft, from talking to friends in cold lake, multiple aircraft are in one, these are massive buildings. Seems like its more a question of how many will fit rather than if they will fit.


----------



## CBH99

One of the coolest things I ever experienced while in the military was getting a tour of CFB Cold Lake, and having our guide take us to one of the hangers.

Walked in a side door... and...        


CF-18's.  Everywhere.  So damn cool.  


Didn't realize how big the buildings were until that moment, and how much technical expertise resides in the RCAF.  Made us grunts feel like monkeys... watching all the technicians and maintenance folks working away.  

I always enjoyed the limited opportunities I had to work with air force folks.  But that moment was an instant "Oh, wow...we really under-appreciate just how smart these folks are" moment for me


----------



## dimsum

QV said:
			
		

> Trudeau promised to not buy the F35 so that narrows it down. I suppose they’re building hangars for some version of an F18. Whether they’re old Aussie F18s or, if he’s feeling generous maybe a few Super Hornets.



It was a campaign promise, and we all know how much those get fulfilled.

The F-35 is definitely still one of the three contenders.




			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> I always enjoyed the limited opportunities I had to work with air force folks.  But that moment was an instant "Oh, wow...we really under-appreciate just how smart these folks are" moment for me



Hell, I'm in the Air Force and I'm blown away at how much tech expertise we have, esp when you start talking to folks in 1 CAD and Ottawa.  We have some really, really smart people.


----------



## suffolkowner

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’m sure the design will be Canadian specific (3x more expensive) that meets our unique requirements than no other country faces, like cold weather. If construction is to start summer 2022 and the aircraft isn’t chosen, then how is the infrastructure supposed to accommodate X aircraft? Will they flip a coin and build a hangar to house the F35 or Super Hornet?



My understanding is that infrastructure design for the F-35 has already been done down south and one of the major consideration is the different electrical supplies necessary. I believe I've posted some of those links previously but I can look again. Maybe its just a matter of spacing and pulling different wire? Cold shouldn't be an issue as the frame of the building should accommodate any insulation system or better yet insulated panels. I'm curious about the fireproofing requirements though, are your hangers already using a spray applied cementitious fire proofing?

The RFP was issued on May 20th for Cold Lake and June 17th for Bagotville so I'm assuming another announcement is imminent

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fighter-jets/future-fighter-capability-project.html


----------



## Quirky

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> are your hangers already using a spray applied cementitious fire proofing?



The really thick stuff that's all deyhdrated and falls off when the doors are opened/closed? I think that's it. 



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Pick the largest aircraft in the running and build to accommodate it, cover your bases. Hangers usually are not for individual aircraft, from talking to friends in cold lake, multiple aircraft are in one, these are massive buildings. Seems like its more a question of how many will fit rather than if they will fit.



Not really the space so much as the power requirements for aircraft electrical systems. You want to run and set-up wiring/plugs etc right the first time. Space may be an issue as the F-35s wings do not fold while the Super Hornets does. Having a hangar too small means you need to find space up to 4 aircraft, like with our current fleet. The current hangars were not designed for the F-18s so units frequently have to store them outside of their own building. If you are scattering your a/c all over the base it makes for inefficient use of maintenance resources. 

I hope the new plan includes hangarettes on the flightline for flying, while keeping the bulk of the heavy maintenance at the main unit hangar. This is how all the fighter bases in the US operate, we need to run the same style. Towing aircraft in/out every day for flying wastes time and manpower.


----------



## suffolkowner

Quirky said:
			
		

> The really thick stuff that's all deyhdrated and falls off when the doors are opened/closed? I think that's



Yeah that'll be the stuff, unfortunately it can fall off/fail for a variety of reasons and good luck getting the manufacturer to do anything but blame the applicator

As far as the hangers go hopefully we are looking atwhat the US has already done and not reinventing the wheel


----------



## observor 69

Quirky said:
			
		

> I hope the new plan includes hangarettes on the flightline for flying, while keeping the bulk of the heavy maintenance at the main unit hangar. This is how all the fighter bases in the US operate, we need to run the same style. Towing aircraft in/out every day for flying wastes time and manpower.



Quirky, as an old 104 avionics tech I just wanted to say I make it a point to read your thoughts/comments. Took my 104 course in winter at CYOD and couple of Maple Flags with the Voodoo. So I can relate to the problems and view point from your world. 


Cheers


----------



## Quirky

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> As far as the hangers go hopefully we are looking atwhat the US has already done and not reinventing the wheel



That's what I'm worried about, we spend too much time making things Canadian-specific when it's been done by other countries already. The USAF/USN already operates out of environments that covers anything we will experience here in Canada, there is no sense developing something of our own when it's been done already. 



			
				Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Quirky, as an old 104 avionics tech I just wanted to say I make it a point to read your thoughts/comments. Took my 104 course in winter at CYOD and couple of Maple Flags with the Voodoo. So I can relate to the problems and view point from your world.
> 
> 
> Cheers



Towing is, by a wide margin, the biggest waster of manpower and time by units. Maint pers spend almost half their day worrying where to put aircraft for future ops and heavy maint. It's just so unnecessary. The hangar set-up is currently an extremely inefficient way of operating, nevermind the sheer waste of overhead space that's required to heat 6 months of the year. I believe the hangars in baggotville are just high enough for a CF-18, though I've never been in one, just from pictures.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Finnish fighter competition--the start and conclusion of a post by Corporal Frisk wherein he points out weaknesses of F-35A bid (high operating costs may limit fleet size to much) and those of Super Hornet, Gripen E (how many decades ahead will there be substantial user bases?)--so don't rule out Eurofighter and Rafale (gone from RCAF competition):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The start of a comprehensive update from the excellent Finnish blogger Corporal Frisk on the progress of Finland's new fighter competition--they seem a lot more, er, transparent than we are:



> The Big Dance that wasn’t to be
> 
> It was supposed to be the last big dance of the HX contenders in Finland, with a final air show in the unpredictable June-weather before the decision was to be announced not even a year later in early 2021. But then COVID happened.
> 
> The air show was first moved to August, and then the whole program schedule was pushed back with the decision now expected Q4 2021 due to the inability to hold the final pre-BAFO talks in person last spring. As such, the air show in Kauhava this weekend is set to be a somewhat muted affair compared to the expectations. This is obviously a pity, especially as the local enthusiasts in Kauhava were set to have the biggest celebration of the towns aviation heritage since the closure of the air force base in 2014.
> 
> Compared to earlier years, the late stage of the program is visible in the fact that few breaking news were published, though there were some interesting stories.
> 
> First out in the spotlight was the Finnish Defence Forces and MoD themselves, who published a rather long and surprisingly open interview interview with colonel Keränen (FinAF A3) and Lauri Puranen (MoD program manager for strategic capability projects) in their Radio Kipinä-podcast. The theme was “The HX-program – Mythbusters”, and they spent quite a bit of time explaining why it isn’t possible to replace the fighters with ground-based systems or UAVs, the extremely close cooperation between the politicians making the eventual decisions and the soldiers and officials providing the groundwork, as well as how there are no favourites at this stage. All of these are issues that have been raised in the domestic discussion in Finland, with more or less populist undertones depending on the issue and who’s making the point. However, there were some interesting nuggets for the avgeek community as well.
> 
> Keränen made a direct point that the Air Force is not planning on going even in case of war, but that they will strive for a serious kill ratio.
> 
> "We want something like the Brewster, [which] had 32:1 during the Second World War [vs the Soviets 1939-40 and 1941-44, only a Finn could ever say that https://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm]. Of course that is the kind of thing we are aiming for, whether it’s realistic or not is another thing, but if we can reach for example 10:1 that is 600 fighters that we can shoot down. Or bombers, depending on whatever comes."
> 
> You’d be excused for feeling this comes off as arrogant, but a quick look into the history books shows that during the jet age such numbers have been well within the realms of possibility...
> https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/08/29/the-big-dance-that-wasnt-to-be/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on Saab's Gripen E offer to Finland:



> Saab unveils broad package for HX bid
> 
> Sweden’s Saab provided an outline of a significant package as part of its bid for Finland’s HX fighter procurement programme on 28 August, including the development of a new lightweight air-launched decoy missile.
> 
> As part of the company’s offering for the HX programme, an in-country development and sustainment centre will be established to provide a variety of work including parts production and the assembly of engines and aircraft in Finland through a support and maintenance, repair, and overhaul facility. The company is currently engaged in supporting 10 research projects on microwave technology in Finland, with more than 100 industrial participation programmes agreed in support of the company’s HX bid.
> 
> “This presence will be a very good base to support and sustain the Gripen and GlobalEye in operation, ensuring security of supply,” Micael Johannson, President and CEO of Saab, said.
> 
> Other research programmes currently supported by Saab in Finland include those for sensors and artificial intelligence.
> 
> The new air-launched decoy missile system, which was revealed for the first time during the press briefing, has benefited from substantial development work by the Saab Technology Centre in Tampere, Finland.
> 
> “Here we are combining the knowledge, long-term, in Sweden and in Finland, in microwave electronics,” HX programme campaign director for Saab Magnus Skogberg said. Development of the decoy missile will also support an expansion of the facility in Tampere.
> 
> Chief of Operations for the Swedish Air Force Colonel Carl-Fredrik Edström said that a Finnish acquisition of the Gripen and GlobalEye will create new possibilities for the two air forces.
> https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/saab-unveils-broad-package-for-hx-bid_11910



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

It looks like none of the bidders were able to come in on the bid target including Saab which included 2 Globaleyes seems strange


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It looks like none of the bidders were able to come in on the bid target including Saab which included 2 Globaleyes seems strange



Just to clarify, you're referencing the Finnish budget target, correct?  Not Canadian?

Merci, Matthew.


----------



## suffolkowner

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, you're referencing the Finnish budget target, correct?  Not Canadian?
> 
> Merci, Matthew.



Yes from the above corporalfrisk site


----------



## Drallib

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It looks like none of the bidders were able to come in on the bid target including Saab which included 2 Globaleyes seems strange



What do you mean by this? That none of the bidders were able to keep it within the $12 billion? Or they weren't able to offer enough?

I was wondering about that actually, for Canada's Future Fighter Competition, do the candidates have to use up the entire $19 billion? Or could they offer the 88 jets, and everything else, for say $15 billion to make themselves more competitive?


----------



## suffolkowner

Drallib said:
			
		

> What do you mean by this? That none of the bidders were able to keep it within the $12 billion? Or they weren't able to offer enough?
> 
> I was wondering about that actually, for Canada's Future Fighter Competition, do the candidates have to use up the entire $19 billion? Or could they offer the 88 jets, and everything else, for say $15 billion to make themselves more competitive?



From what I understood from corporalfrisk they were all over which is why I found it strange that Saab would offer the Globaleye's but then they are probably a small part of the total.

I would assume that the $19B is an upper limit but didn't Airbus go over on FWSAR? I would think that the bidders would be able to come under the $19B. As $19B divided by 88 jets is $215.9 million and $12B divided by 64 is $187.5 million so there's a fair bit of room, hopefully.

Are we obligated to take the 88 though?


----------



## Drallib

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> From what I understood from corporalfrisk they were all over which is why I found it strange that Saab would offer the Globaleye's but then they are probably a small part of the total.
> 
> I would assume that the $19B is an upper limit but didn't Airbus go over on FWSAR? I would think that the bidders would be able to come under the $19B. As $19B divided by 88 jets is $215.9 million and $12B divided by 64 is $187.5 million so there's a fair bit of room, hopefully.
> 
> Are we obligated to take the 88 though?





> The Canadian Press · Posted: Jul 05, 2017 7:54 PM ET
> 
> The Liberals say the extra fighter jets are required to meet a new policy, adopted in September, that increased the number of warplanes that must always be ready for operations.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pilots-jets-fighters-commander-1.4192170


If Canada chooses the F-35A at roughly $104 million CAD per jet, for 88 jets that would be just over $9 billion. Where would the other $9 billion be going towards?


----------



## suffolkowner

Drallib said:
			
		

> If Canada chooses the F-35A at roughly $104 million CAD per jet, for 88 jets that would be just over $9 billion. Where would the other $9 billion be going towards?



Simulators, parts including spare engines, munitions I'm guessing. Is the infrastructure part of this?


----------



## Drallib

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Simulators, parts including spare engines, munitions I'm guessing. Is the infrastructure part of this?



I don't think the infrastructer is because they just gave the contract to a company to build in Cold Lake, but perhaps if Lockheed wins the competition they'll have to pay for the specific requirements for the F-35 (probably what you meant).


----------



## AlexanderM

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Simulators, parts including spare engines, munitions I'm guessing. Is the infrastructure part of this?


My understanding was that the infrastructure was part of it and for the F-35 it's the most expensive of the 3. I could be wrong. I seem to remember that with the F-35 the runways needed some substantial lengthening.


----------



## CBH99

SupersonicMax tends to know his stuff when it comes to this world... you sniffing around anywhere Max??


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:
			
		

> SupersonicMax tends to know his stuff when it comes to this world... you sniffing around anywhere Max??



Eventually someone who knows what they're talking about will be by to straighten things out


----------



## SupersonicMax

I am pretty sure infrastructure is included in the whole FFCP allocation.  The rest will be used for aircraft/parts/simulators/maintenance/logistics/training etc.

Infrastructure costs are not overly driven by aircraft choice AFAIK (but some aspects will be).


----------



## Drallib

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure infrastructure is included in the whole FFCP allocation.  The rest will be used for aircraft/parts/simulators/maintenance/logistics/training etc.
> 
> Infrastructure costs are not overly driven by aircraft choice AFAIK (but some aspects will be).



Fixed


----------



## Drallib

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Pick the largest aircraft in the running and build to accommodate it, cover your bases. Hangers usually are not for individual aircraft, from talking to friends in cold lake, multiple aircraft are in one, these are massive buildings. Seems like its more a question of how many will fit rather than if they will fit.



This is exactly what they're doing. 

They're using the Super Hornet for space requirements and design purposes and are also planning on building hangarettes for 37 fighters in Cold Lake.


----------



## STONEY

Is the writing on the wall.  A few observations First the Gripen can operate from just about any airport in Canada and highways.  The Super Hornet can operate from anywhere our present Hornet can operate from. The f-35 however is a different story, it requires a long runway huge maintenance facilities and special power sources not available at any Canadian base. Some of the countries that are getting them 
have found that they  will have to go from several fighter bases to only one base for the f-35 because of the huge outlay for required infrastructure .
    Now we hear that Cold lake & Bagotville are being completely rebuilt (not that they don't need it) into fighter superbases with many new facilities. Is the open and transparent competition a farce or is the writing on the wall????


----------



## MilEME09

STONEY said:
			
		

> Is the writing on the wall.  A few observations First the Gripen can operate from just about any airport in Canada and highways.  The Super Hornet can operate from anywhere our present Hornet can operate from. The f-35 however is a different story, it requires a long runway huge maintenance facilities and special power sources not available at any Canadian base. Some of the countries that are getting them
> have found that they  will have to go from several fighter bases to only one base for the f-35 because of the huge outlay for required infrastructure .
> Now we hear that Cold lake & Bagotville are being completely rebuilt (not that they don't need it) into fighter superbases with many new facilities. Is the open and transparent competition a farce or is the writing on the wall????



Regardless of the aircraft we pick, our infrastructure is old and needs replacing in order to house a future fighter fleet. Proper planning would allow for more then what we need to anticipate any potential future needs as well.


----------



## Quirky

STONEY said:
			
		

> A few observations First the Gripen can operate from just about any airport in Canada and highways.



Sure it can.  :


----------



## Drallib

STONEY said:
			
		

> Is the writing on the wall.  A few observations First the Gripen can operate from just about any airport in Canada and highways.  The Super Hornet can operate from anywhere our present Hornet can operate from. The f-35 however is a different story, it requires a long runway huge maintenance facilities and special power sources not available at any Canadian base. Some of the countries that are getting them have found that they  will have to go from several fighter bases to only one base for the f-35 because of the huge outlay for required infrastructure .
> Now we hear that Cold lake & Bagotville are being completely rebuilt (not that they don't need it) into fighter superbases with many new facilities. Is the open and transparent competition a farce or is the writing on the wall????



There's no use purchasing a new fighter to save money on some runways when said fighter could be obsolete in 25 years.

I think the F35 will be _the fighter_ for the foreseeable future and if we want a fighter that isn't obsolete by 2060 then get the best fighter you can buy. Not the one that is able to take off on the runways we currently have.

 :2c:


----------



## Drallib

The new Block III Super Hornets that Boeing rolled out of final assembly I've noticed don't have the Conformal Fuel Tanks on them. Are those able to be attached afterwards? 

The article I read said the _Block III Super Hornet has shoulder mounted conformal fuel tanks._ Mounted sounds like it can be added on later?

Can anyone confirm this? 

Thanks!

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/06/boeings-f-a-18-block-iii-super-hornet-takes-first-flight/


----------



## CBH99

The two that have been delivered are just test jets, I believe mostly to test their new cockpit configurations, displays, and primary systems.

I don't believe any production Block 3 models have rolled out yet.  Something interesting to watch for.


----------



## blacktriangle

Quirky said:
			
		

> Sure it can.  :



Once the budget cuts really take hold, you guys may need aircraft that can land on a public highway...  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

reveng said:
			
		

> Once the budget cuts really take hold, you guys may need aircraft that can land on a public highway...  ;D



Possible...



			
				reveng said:
			
		

> Once the budget cuts really take hold, you guys may need aircraft that can land on a public highway...  ;D realize it will be your grandchildren who fly Canada's next 'new fighter'.



_Also_ possible...

 ;D


----------



## GR66

Drallib said:
			
		

> The new Block III Super Hornets that Boeing rolled out of final assembly I've noticed don't have the Conformal Fuel Tanks on them. Are those able to be attached afterwards?
> 
> The article I read said the _Block III Super Hornet has shoulder mounted conformal fuel tanks._ Mounted sounds like it can be added on later?
> 
> Can anyone confirm this?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/06/boeings-f-a-18-block-iii-super-hornet-takes-first-flight/



From these links they can be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_fuel_tank#:~:text=Conformal%20fuel%20tanks%20have%20the,be%20removed%20on%20the%20ground.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1015765


----------



## Drallib

Boeing giving a short sales pitch video of the Block III Super Hornet to the RCAF, and says we fly Charlie F-18s  :not-again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mWFnIoivO8


----------



## CBH99

I think he was referring to the Hornet Life Extension program, which ultimately brought everything up to C standard?  

Or maybe his mind just hasn't wrapped itself around that when the script says legacy hornet, it's actually being literal


----------



## Drallib

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I think he was referring to the Hornet Life Extension program, which ultimately brought everything up to C standard?
> 
> Or maybe his mind just hasn't wrapped itself around that when the script says legacy hornet, it's actually being literal



Would it be deemed an F-18A+ ? And how did you know it was scripted...


----------



## CBH99

I remember, vaguely, YEARS ago when the CF-18 was being upgraded after the Kosovo campaign that the upgrades being done were basically bringing them in line with C/D standard.

There's been upgrades since then, so I'm really just pulling straw out of a hat at this point.  That article, for whatever reason, always stayed in my mind.


Between F-18 sales & upgrade programs for the USN, USMC, and the Super Hornet being considered in several fighter procurement programs currently and over the last few years (Swiss, Indians, Canadians, Finland, Kuwait, Australia, etc etc) I imagine that even if it wasn't totally scripted, he probably skimmed some talking points before going in front of a camera to film something that would be uploaded to their official page.



Like I said though, I'm pulling straw out of a hat.  I was just saying I "think" that might be where he got the Charlie model reference  from.   :2c:   :dunno:


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:
			
		

> Boeing giving a short sales pitch video of the Block III Super Hornet to the RCAF, and says we fly Charlie F-18s  :not-again:



Does it really matter at this point? It’s like adding a navigation system to your 1980 Lincoln Continental when everyone uses google maps on their phone.


----------



## CBH99

Quirky said:
			
		

> Does it really matter at this point? It’s like adding a navigation system to your 1980 Lincoln Continental when everyone uses google maps on their phone.




Or like adding AESA radars to your 1980 CF-18, right before it gets replaced?   ullhair:


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Or like adding AESA radars to your 1980 CF-18, right before it gets replaced?   ullhair:



IF they ever get replaced. I can see JT and his band of thieves telling DND that `due to the COVID crisis and all the poor people we paid to sit at home and do sweet f&8k all and continue to, you won`t get new fighters - or ships - or tanks. Make do with what you have. And btw we`re taking some of your budget to extend benefits to disenfranchised Canadians. Have a great day Mr - or Ms CDS.


----------



## Drallib

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> IF they ever get replaced. I can see JT and his band of thieves telling DND that `due to the COVID crisis and all the poor people we paid to sit at home and do sweet f&8k all and continue to, you won`t get new fighters - or ships - or tanks. Make do with what you have. And btw we`re taking some of your budget to extend benefits to disenfranchised Canadians. Have a great day Mr - or Ms CDS.



Then he can fulfill his promise not to buy the F35 and purchase the rest of the RAAF's fleet of Legacy F-18s to save money.  :


----------



## MilEME09

Drallib said:
			
		

> Then he can fulfill his promise not to buy the F35 and purchase the rest of the RAAF's fleet of Legacy F-18s to save money.  :



Short term yes, but long term upgrades, maintenance, etc... add up and will be more costly. I hope to God that doesn't happen, and I hope the next CDS has a spine and would tell the politicians that anything akin to used equipment is a bad idea.


----------



## Spencer100

Drallib said:
			
		

> Then he can fulfill his promise not to buy the F35 and purchase the rest of the RAAF's fleet of Legacy F-18s to save money.  :



Too late sold to private company in the US


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Too late sold to private company in the US



Perhaps we can contract out for Air support?


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Short term yes, but long term upgrades, maintenance, etc... add up and will be more costly. I hope to God that doesn't happen, and I hope the next CDS has a spine and would tell the politicians that anything akin to used equipment is a bad idea.




I wonder how much they listen to the CDS to be honest.  (Obviously, I have no idea if the PM truly listens/values the advice of the CDS, as I'm not a fly on the wall.)

However.  CDS Vance had a reputation in the Afghan war years for being a solid, no nonsense, 'get it done' kind of guy.  He introduced a new mindset in both the troops & senior leadership when he took the reigns, and from what I remember (I'm aging here, rapidly lately it seems) that his attitude towards the fighting the war was a far cry, and much needed, difference from General Fraser who oversaw operations in 2006.


He seems like he has a spine, and a common sense attitude towards things.  So it makes me question how much the PM & his staff really listen to the CDS, or if he's more the "Sure, we will get his input, but mostly going to do our own thing regardless of what he says" type.


----------



## Drallib

Further development for the Gripen.



> Swedish and Brazilian Gripen E Fly Together
> 
> As a sign of years of great collaboration, the first Brazilian Gripen flew side by side with Sweden’s first Gripen E (designated 6002) for the first time. Together, the two nations have been driving the development of Gripen E/F through joint tests, verification, and validation programs as part of the Brazilian Gripen programme.
> The Gripen programme has also been instrumental in the strengthening of Brazil's national defence industry. The Brazilian partners have remained involved in development and production of Gripen aerostructures, systems, avionics, production, and flight testing and training. Some of the Brazilian companies such as Embraer, Akaer and AEL Sistemas are even part of Saab's global supply chain for Gripen E/F. As of today, the Brazilian Gripen programme features one of the largest technology transfer programmes ever carried out for the Brazilian Air Force, and the largest ever done by Saab to another country.
> 
> “Brazil is the perfect partner. Not only do they have the operational knowledge and an experienced aviation industry, they also play a major role in Gripen's development,” says Major General Carl-Johan Edström, Commander of the Swedish Air Force. “Together we seek for solutions that involve long-term commitment, and just like us, they want to build their capacity for the next 20 years and longer. I am very positive about the future of this collaboration,” he adds.
> 
> Brazil and its defence industry also play a major role in the development of Gripen F. About 400 engineers are working on the development of Gripen F at the Gripen Design and Development Network (GDDN). Gripen Flight Center, located at the same plant, will also start its operations later this year.
> 
> However, Brazil is not the only new test site where Saab is expanding its flight operation this year. Saab will also transfer a Gripen E aircraft to Malmen airbase in Linköping as part of its joint testing strategy together with the Swedish Defence Material Administration (FMV) and the Swedish Armed Forces.
> 
> “I am incredibly proud to be an Air Force Commander in a nation that manufactures its own fighter aircraft. It is not only something remarkable amongst nations but it also means that I can safely say that we are tactically superior already with the system we have today, Gripen C/D,” says Major Edström.
> 
> Read the full story here



https://saab.com/fr-be/gripen/news/blog/gripen-blog/2020/swedish-and-brazilian-gripen-e-fly-together/


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:
			
		

> So it makes me question how much the PM & his staff really listen to the CDS, or if he's more the "Sure, we will get his input, but mostly going to do our own thing regardless of what he says" type.



In my opinion you're probably right. The AG tried to tell the PM not to interfere in the SNC Lavallin fiasco and it got her fired.


----------



## Drallib

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> In my opinion you're probably right. The AG tried to tell the PM not to interfere in the SNC Lavallin fiasco and it got her fired.



So who makes the final decision? The PM? 

Because there's a team from the RCAF looking at the proposals, from Fighter Pilots to AERE Officers... so say they come back and say "this one  :nod:" do you think the PM would say "but 2 engines  8)" and decides on something else?


----------



## Drallib

Also, I read that there wont be many "milestones" until the winner is announced in 2022, but between now and then there's the initial evaluation until Feb 2021, and then an evaluation of revised proposals from Aug-Nov 2021. 

What an exciting team to be a part of, to selecting Canada's next fighter. Knowing that there's a team from the RCAF working in the selection process gives me hope. Then again, this could only make up for that 60% of capability. Not the other 20/20.


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:
			
		

> Knowing that there's a team from the RCAF working in the selection process gives me hope. Then again, this could only make up for that 60% of capability. Not the other 20/20.



There is a team from the CAF that works in the selection process for every purchase.  For Air Force things, this work is shared between the Directorate of Air Requirements (DAR) and the Project Management Office (PMO).  The Army has Dir Land Reqs (DLR) and Navy has Dir Naval Reqs (DNR) that essentially do the same thing that DAR does.

There are a whole whack of other agencies involved in it as well, but DAR and PMO (in this case) are the big ones from the DND/CAF side.


----------



## Drallib

I wasn't sure if I should post this here or in the "JSF" thread in the US military section, but it just made me think if Canada will ultimately choose to join all the other very close allies who have decided to purchase the F35 and join that community for the next 30+ years. Interesting read for sure.



> The Power of a Growing International F-35 Community
> 
> The United States is rapidly building an international community based around the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The military value of such a community is indisputable. The F-35 will be one of the pillars supporting the creation of a new, sensor-rich way of warfare. But as the negotiations that led to the opening of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) demonstrated, potential international sales of the F-35 can provide significant diplomatic leverage as well. Moreover, experience has shown that operating the same platform and training together can bring militaries closer together.
> 
> From the very beginning, the F-35 program was designed to be international. Eight foreign partners – Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the United Kingdom – invested their own funds in the program in return for participation in R&D and the promise of future work shares. Each of these countries was allowed input into the aircraft's design, and several have provided unique technologies. Turkey, now formally banned from the program over its decision to acquire a Russian air defense system, produced specialized aircraft parts.
> 
> Other countries are acquiring the F-35 through the foreign military sales process. Israel, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, Poland and Singapore all are purchasing the F-35 this way, and the UAE looks to be next. There have been reports that the U.S. and India have discussed the possibility of the latter joining the JSF community.
> 
> [.....]
> 
> There are tremendous advantages for the U.S. and its allies from the growing international F-35 community. Currently, twelve countries have ordered the F-35, either as members of the consortium or through the foreign military sales process. In a number of these countries, the aircraft is already operational; at least one, Israel, has acknowledged its use in combat. The gains in interoperability that go along with the operation of a common platform are important in coalition warfare. In addition, the creation of a multi-national network of F-35 bases, repair facilities and depots, as well as a global supply chain, will support the ability of U.S. and coalition forces to project power rapidly.
> 
> [.....]
> 
> The JSF price is coming down as production reaches economic ordering quantities, due in part to strong international demand. The benchmark variant's price, the conventional takeoff/landing F-35A, is now down to $80 million per copy, less than the most advanced variant of the F-16. As the unit price declines, more nations will be in a position to acquire the F-35.
> 
> [.....]
> 
> Once nations enter the program, some have discovered that they like and need the F-35 so much that they decide to buy additional aircraft. Japan upped its requirement from just 42 aircraft to 147, adding both F-35As and the short takeoff/vertical landing F-35B. Israel appears ready to ask to increase by 25 its planned purchase of 50 F-35s. As Russia and China continue to build up their militaries and act more belligerently, other nations may add to the number of F-35s they acquire as well.
> 
> https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/09/25/the_power_of_a_growing_international_f-35_community_578575.html


----------



## Drallib

Contract for CFB Bagotville



> Government awards design contract for future fighter infrastructure in Bagotville
> 
> As outlined in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is providing Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel with the infrastructure they require to support their future operations.
> 
> On Oct. 2, the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, announced a $12.1-million contract award to EllisDon-EBC Inc. Joint Venture of Ottawa for the design of a new fighter jet facility at 3 Wing Bagotville, one of two main operating bases for Canada’s future fighter aircraft. This infrastructure, along with the facilities being built at 4 Wing Cold Lake, will support the long-term maintenance and operation of 88 new aircraft being procured for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) through the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).
> 
> “Modern infrastructure is a critical step to remaining operationally ready for the future, and this project is another guarantee that we will continue protecting Canadian sovereignty while standing with NORAD and NATO, today and tomorrow,” said Sajjan. “We are well on our way to constructing the modern facilities we need to house our future fighter fleet.”
> 
> This contract is an important milestone in preparing Bagotville for the future fighter, and delivering the infrastructure our aviators will need. Both the Cold Lake and Bagotville infrastructure projects will provide significant economic opportunities for the Canadian construction industry, as well as their respective communities. In total, approximately 900 jobs are expected to be created during the design and construction of both facilities.
> 
> The Bagotville facility will host two tactical fighter squadrons and will cover approximately 12,500 m2, providing space for daily operations, maintenance, administration, mission planning, and simulator training.
> 
> “By investing in infrastructure for the future fighter aircraft and the Canadian Armed Forces, the government is also investing in the Bagotville community,” said Anita Vandenbeld, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence  “The design and construction of this new facility will provide economic benefits for Canadian industry and the Bagotville region, while ensuring our military remains strong, secure, and engaged.”
> 
> Quick Facts
> 
> -A $9.2-million contract was awarded in August 2020 to EllisDon Construction Services for the design portion of the Cold Lake future fighter infrastructure.
> -Construction is expected to begin at both bases in summer 2022.
> -Both the Bagotville and Cold Lake design contracts will include options for the contractors to build the new facilities, and any additional infrastructure once the future fighter is selected, should Canada decide to exercise these follow-on options.
> -By awarding these infrastructure design contracts now, before the future fighter is selected, necessary work can proceed and bases will be ready for the first aircraft deliveries.
> -These facilities will be designed and constructed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver standards and will use energy efficient options wherever possible.
> 
> https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/government-awards-design-contract-for-future-fighter-infrastructure-in-bagotville/?utm_source=skies-daily-news-top-story&utm_campaign=skies-daily-news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=top-story&utm_content=V1


----------



## MarkOttawa

DCSA approval of sale of Super Hornet/Growler or F-35A for Finland (if chosen):

Note large numbers (almost as many as RCAF), all-in procurement costs:

1) 





> Finland – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft and Weapons
> https://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/finland-fa-18ef-super-hornet-aircraft-and-weapons



2) 





> Finland – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft with Air-to-Air Missiles and Air-to-Ground Precision Guided Munitions
> https://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/finland-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-aircraft-air-air-missiles-and-air-ground



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> DCSA approval of sale of Super Hornet/Growler or F-35A for Finland (if chosen):
> 
> Note large numbers (almost as many as RCAF), all-in procurement costs:
> 
> 1)
> 2)
> Mark
> Ottawa




And here is Corporalfrisk's in depth analysis of the above

https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/10/11/hx-goes-dsca/#comments


----------



## Drallib

Not sure if this will leverage anything for SAAB now, or if this was already in place when they submitted their 'bid'.

_Am I the only one who's beginning to warm up to having the Gripen as Canada's future fighter?_



> Saab strengthens ties to Canada through CRIAQ partnership
> 
> Saab and the Consortium for Research and Innovation in Aerospace in Quebec (CRIAQ) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
> 
> This collaborative relationship aims to leverage Quebec’s R&D ecosystem’s strengths to encourage the development of collaborative research projects between Saab and Canadian industry, as well as universities and research organizations.
> 
> This collaboration has been formed to support Saab’s future Industrial and Technological Benefit (ITB) commitments, if the Gripen fighter is selected for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).
> 
> “The quality and breadth of aerospace research and innovation in Canada is globally recognised, with the Quebec region home to many excellent companies and institutions. Therefore, it was natural to reach this agreement with an important organisation like CRIAQ. We look forward to working together to benefit research and the fostering of talent in Quebec,” said Jonas Hjelm, senior vice-president and Saab’s head of business area aeronautics.
> 
> “During such unsure times within the industry, this partnership demonstrates that the aerospace industry in Quebec and Canada remains attractive and world class. We are very pleased with this signing as we continue to develop our aerospace industry, adding a new global player to our ecosystem. I am convinced that CRIAQ’s academic, industrial and SME community, and the Quebec economy as well, will clearly benefit from this international collaboration,” said Alain Aubertin, CEO of CRIAQ.
> 
> The ITB Policy is the government’s main tool for leveraging procurement to create jobs and economic growth in Canada. Saab has submitted an offer of 88 Gripen E fighters for the Canadian FFCP, and a core element of the Gripen industrial offering includes CAE in Montreal, Quebec who will supply training and mission systems solutions.
> 
> The MoU was signed in April 2020.
> 
> https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/saab-strengthens-ties-to-canada-through-criaq-partnership/?utm_source=skies-daily-news-todays-news&utm_campaign=skies-daily-news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=todays-news&utm_content=V1


----------



## dimsum

I thought CAE also did sims for the F-35 (and perhaps even the Super Hornet)?  There are already a lot of companies in Canada profiting from F-35, so LM can use that for ITBs.  Unsure about Boeing and the Super Hornet.

Also, the Gripen E isn't in service yet, so that adds another issue.  I'm generally skeptical of the line "it'll just be like X - there won't be any issues" because if it's so similar, why didn't they just upgrade the other one while keeping the same model number?  

The other two are at least in operational service somewhere.


----------



## dapaterson

The F-35 "operational" status has enjoyed flexible definitions, and declarations that omit that certain key capabilities are on the roadmap but not yet in production.

I trust no one trying to sell to Defence; I fear that we have trouble.  Right here in River City.  And trouble starts with a T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Plane.


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:
			
		

> _Am I the only one who's beginning to warm up to having the Gripen as Canada's future fighter?_



If the Gripen E is chosen it will be for purely political reasons. Nothing that I've seen, heard or read says that's superior to the offering from LM or Boeing, hell our current CF-18 is a better fit in some areas. How it's still in the running considering the Eurofighter and Rafale pulled out is beyond me. They are really trying hard to get this contract and they can smell the blood due to our bastardized procurement process and leadership in Ottawa. On a separate note, I don't know how you can justify to pilot recruits to go jets. It's like showing up to a hockey pick-up game with brand new skates that have never been sharpened out of the box. Maybe flying the best possible equipment is not an issue and all that matters is the fresh paint smell?


----------



## lenaitch

> If the Gripen E is chosen it will be for purely political reasons



We have a fairly proud history of that.


----------



## Weinie

Quirky said:
			
		

> _*If the Gripen E is chosen it will be for purely political reasons. Nothing that I've seen, heard or read says that's superior to the offering from LM or Boeing, hell our current CF-18 is a better fit in some areas. *_How it's still in the running considering the Eurofighter and Rafale pulled out is beyond me. They are really trying hard to get this contract and they can smell the blood due to our bastardized procurement process and leadership in Ottawa. On a separate note, I don't know how you can justify to pilot recruits to go jets. It's like showing up to a hockey pick-up game with brand new skates that have never been sharpened out of the box. Maybe flying the best possible equipment is not an issue and all that matters is the fresh paint smell?



As I mentioned before, I have a bud flying CF-18's who remarked that he has lots of CF-18 gun sight video with Gripens in the sights.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, I have a bud flying CF-18's who remarked that he has lots of CF-18 gun sight video with Gripens in the sights.



 :rofl:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Weinie said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, I have a bud flying CF-18's who remarked that he has lots of CF-18 gun sight video with Gripens in the sights.



As I'm sure there are Gripen pilots with gun camera footage of CF-18s in their sights. :cheers:


----------



## Weinie

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> As I'm sure there are Gripen pilots with gun camera footage of CF-18s in their sights. :cheers:


I would prefer to procure a fighter that doesn't have any gun camera video of it at all.


----------



## GR66

Weinie said:
			
		

> I would prefer to procure a fighter that doesn't have any gun camera video of it at all.



Oh....so you want this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrWUrMK5d4&ab_channel=GuardianNews


----------



## Colin Parkinson

lenaitch said:
			
		

> We have a fairly proud history of that.


----------



## Weinie

GR66 said:
			
		

> Oh....so you want this one?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrWUrMK5d4&ab_channel=GuardianNews



Yeah, I'm a little biased.

Watched it bend the sky at a demo last year from Gatineau.


----------



## Drallib

Weinie said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm a little biased.
> 
> Watched it bend the sky at a demo last year from Gatineau.



The F35 would be awesome. Tbh, I'll be happy with whichever fighter Canada goes with.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

>



Looks like it would nicely fit the Ross Rifle


----------



## CBH99

Weinie said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm a little biased.
> 
> Watched it bend the sky at a demo last year from Gatineau.




Liar!!  You can't watch it do anything, Trump said it was invisible!  Like ACTUALLY invisible!  Pfftttt... nice try


----------



## Weinie

Don gave me some special glasses. Do not share this with anyone.


----------



## armrdsoul77

How many of the current bidders would still qualify if they reinstated the float requirement?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If that's the case, then I am going to form a company and submit a Canadian made fighter that can use almost any of our lakes as a adhoc airfield. Just needs a wee update, that the taxpayers can pay for after we win the contract.


----------



## MarkOttawa

How about this one?



> http://www.airvectors.net/avcmast.html#m2



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's American therefore bad


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's American therefore bad



The Sea Dart was legit bad!


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The Sea Dart was legit bad!



I met one of Convairs TPs decades ago and he told me that the pounding at V1 was ludicrous.  They had a special drain in the oxygen mask because the pounding would empty anything in the pilot's sinuses...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I met one of Convairs TPs decades ago and he told me that the pounding at V1 was ludicrous.  They had a special drain in the oxygen mask because the pounding would empty anything in the pilot's sinuses...



I like a good adrenaline rush but no thanks!


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I met one of Convairs TPs decades ago and he told me that the pounding at V1 was ludicrous.  They had a special drain in the oxygen mask because the pounding would empty anything in the pilot's sinuses...



That's a feature, not a bug


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/boeing-would-perform-canadian-super-hornet-final-assembly-in-us

Boeing has confirmed that final assembly in the US vs in Canada. Hopefully the GoC starts realizing you can't ask for everything to be built here.


----------



## YZT580

makes sense.  no point in investing in real estate,training manpower (sorry person power) jigs and all the rest for a small run.  Better to focus on long term investment.


----------



## CBH99

I don't know if that statement was released as a result of some MP's inquiring about the Super Hornet's being assembled here, but if thats the case - it goes to show how dumb some of the MP's actually are  :facepalm:

They have a steady production line already in place, with streamlined practices and a well trained work force.  They have solid orders from the USN not only for the Block 3, but to upgrade Block 2 Hornets when they are doing their SLEP.  This number fluctuates between 650 and 720 aircraft for the USN alone.

That doesn't include Hornet orders & upgrades for other countries as well.



Why on earth would Boeing set up a manufacturing facility in Canada for a mere 88 jets?


----------



## dapaterson

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Why on earth would Boeing set up a manufacturing facility in Canada for a mere 88 jets?



It's been done before - the MSVS SMP was assembled in Canada on a brownfield site which, a few decades before, had been a similar assembly line for the HLVW fleet.

We're pouring billions extra into Irving and SeaSpan to build ships for the RCN at a significant cost premium over buying hulls offshore.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Saab is betting on jobs! jobs! jobs!



> ...
> A similar offer is likely to be part of Saab’s pitch to Canada when the request for proposals closes on June 30. In March, the company announced a “Gripen for Canada Team” that includes IMP Aerospace & Defence, CAE, Peraton Canada and GE Aviation. De la Motte said the proposal for 88 Gripen E jets would include “high skilled jobs” as well as aircraft and systems built by Canadians...
> https://www.skiesmag.com/news/saab-delivers-virtual-gripen-e-program-update/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Jobs are the only thing the Gripen has going for it. It'll pale in comparison to the piece of the 3,100 aircraft the 9 major partners plan to buy for the F35, however.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

or donating to the right causes.....


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Jobs are the only thing the Gripen has going for it. It'll pale in comparison to the piece of the 3,100 aircraft the 9 major partners plan to buy for the F35, however.



Including the other FVEY partners (minus NZ, which doesn't have a fighter force).

Then again, the other FVEY partners all bought the Boeing P-8 while we're still flying the Auroras.


----------



## FSTO

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Including the other FVEY partners (minus NZ, which doesn't have a fighter force).
> 
> Then again, the other FVEY partners all bought the Boeing P-8 while we're still flying the Auroras.



Funny you should mention the Kiwi's. I share an office with Aus/UK/Kiwi officers here in Bahrain. I said to the Kiwi Cdr that to complete the trifecta of buying used equipment from our Commonwealth cousins, Canada will be purchasing the retired Kiwi P3's to supplement our IR fleet.  ;D

The Aussie Cdr said "Sounds like a probable COA for you guys."


----------



## suffolkowner

Personally based on my limited knowledge I would prefer the F-35 over the SuperHornet although I still have concerns about its operating costs. A bigger concern might be in the number of units acquired. To me there is no point on acquiring 88 new fighters if we don't have the people to keep them in the air. The same could be said for the CSC program run of up to 15 ships. Although I have a good idea how the government comes up with it's fighter jet numbers I can not say the same for the ships.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The way the number of CSCs was calculated is the following: Either coast at all time has to be able to deploy a Canadian Task Force (CTF) of three ships (two optimized for ASW/SuW, and one optimized for command/AAD), with another TF getting ready. Then you add one or two hulls per coast to cover ships in long refit - with one ship being able to swing coast as required.

It's that simple, and such CTF is a powerful tool in naval terms.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention the Kiwi's. I share an office with Aus/UK/Kiwi officers here in Bahrain. I said to the Kiwi Cdr that to complete the trifecta of buying used equipment from our Commonwealth cousins, Canada will be purchasing the retired Kiwi P3's to supplement our IR fleet.  ;D
> 
> The Aussie Cdr said "Sounds like a probable COA for you guys."



Yep.

 :not-again:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Another indication that 'amateurs talk tactics while professionals study logistics.' 

The Real F-35 Problem We Need to Solve

Unless its logistics can be improved, the jet’s contributions to a major fight will be far less than Pentagon wargamers are counting on.

When Pentagon strategists game out potential near-peer conflicts, they tend to plug in sortie-generation rates for the F-35 Lightning II that reflect the program’s original vision, not the far lower numbers that represent the actual state of things. But if planners intend to count on the F-35 in a battle of any but the shortest duration, the Pentagon and industry must urgently improve their ability to maintain and sustain the most technologically complex (and capable) aircraft in history. A performance-based logistics plan currently being discussed is worth considering.

I confess that as a young Marine Corps aviator, I cared not at all for logistics. My peers and I took for granted that our EA-6B Prowlers would be ready to go every time we were ordered into the skies over Iraq and Bosnia. And they were. In the 1990s and well into the 2000s, the maintenance readiness of our Vietnam-era jets rivaled that of aircraft two and three decades younger. In the early 2000s, the Navy Department decided to extend the EA-6Bs’ service life yet again. Soon our Prowlers were deploying nonstop around the globe, and flying at a rate significantly higher than in previous decades.

What kept our Methuselah jet improving with age? Money, expertise, and need. The costs of PRL (program related logistics) and PRE (program related engineering) rose as the plane flew on well beyond its designed lifespan. The intricacies of maintenance and logistics were well understood and well-tended by Northrop Grumman and other companies, working with Naval Air Systems Command engineers and the fleet’s own experts. And the need for electronic-warfare planes assets only grew as the world entered the Network Age.

The Prowler was a relatively small program – the classic “low density, high demand” asset — while the F-35 Lightning II is the largest acquisition program in the country's history. More than 500 F-35s are flying already; plans call for a total of 2,456. But the F-35 program faces the same central questions we confronted with the Prowler: how to sustain it, how to best maintain readiness, and how to devise a functional supply and maintenance system. 

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/09/real-f-35-problem-we-need-solve/168883/


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention the Kiwi's. I share an office with Aus/UK/Kiwi officers here in Bahrain. I said to the Kiwi Cdr that to complete the trifecta of buying used equipment from our Commonwealth cousins, Canada will be purchasing the retired Kiwi P3's to supplement our IR fleet.  ;D
> 
> The Aussie Cdr said "Sounds like a probable COA for you guys."



To extend the lifespan of Canada's Herc-H fleet (a number of years ago), the CAF purchased retired US Hercs with less stress on the wingsets; cut out the wings, and grafted them onto our a/c (as that was cheaper and faster than taking the US a/c and Canadianizing them).


----------



## Quirky

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> A bigger concern might be in the number of units acquired. To me there is no point on acquiring 88 new fighters if we don't have the people to keep them in the air.



We've been operating undermanned for years now so this isn't anything new. Eventually burn out the people that keep them flying and promote under qualified, inexperienced techs. This is the RCAF motto, in the fighter force anyway. Do more with nothing.


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:
			
		

> We've been operating undermanned for years now so this isn't anything new. Eventually burn out the people that keep them flying and promote under qualified, inexperienced techs. This is the RCAF motto, in the fighter force anyway. Do more with nothing.



No, that's in all fleets.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> No, that's in all fleets.



Nice to see we have a "Unified system approach"


----------



## blacktriangle

Colin P said:
			
		

> Nice to see we have a "Unified system approach"



It goes beyond the RCAF. It's a joint, total force approach to mediocrity & irrelevance. 

 :nod:


----------



## MilEME09

reveng said:
			
		

> It goes beyond the RCAF. It's a joint, total force approach to mediocrity & irrelevance.
> 
> :nod:



As shown by the fact VOR rates went down during covid critical manning limits.


----------



## Drallib

I wonder how Boeing's offer comparison to SAAB's offer in economic benefits.



> Boeing outlines $61B in Future Fighter benefits
> 
> Boeing on October 27 stated its bid in the Government of Canada’s ongoing Future Fighter Capability Project procurement competition, if successful, would provide $61 billion and nearly 250,000 jobs to the Canadian economy. Required by the competition’s RFP, the economic benefits outlined by Boeing are largely based on five new agreements with its Canadian aerospace partners involved in the bid.
> 
> Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) aims to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s ageing fleet of CF-188 Hornet’s with 88 new-generation fighters. The competition centres around three fighter jets in the Saab Gripen E, Boeing F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
> 
> “Canada is one of Boeing’s most enduring partners and has continuously demonstrated that they have a robust and capable industry supporting both our commercial and defence businesses,” said Charles “Duff” Sullivan, managing director, Boeing Canada. “The large scale and scope of these Canadian projects reinforces Boeing’s commitment to Canada and gives us an opportunity to build on our motto of promises made, promises kept.”
> 
> Boeing explains that, based on new data and projections from economists at Ottawa-based Doyletech Corp., the total economic benefits to Canada and its workforce for the acquisition of the F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet will last for at least 40 years and benefit all regions based of the country.
> 
> “Boeing and its Super Hornet industry partners have a long track record of delivering economic growth to Canada, which gave us the confidence that our data and detailed projections are extremely accurate,” Rick Clayton, economist at Doyletech Corp.
> 
> The $61 billion in economic benefits outlined by Boeing with a Block III Super Hornet selection in the FFCP are largely based on partnerships with five Canadian-based aerospace operations, including:
> 
> *CAE (Montreal, Quebec)*
> Boeing and CAE’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlines the implementation of a training solution for the Block III Super Hornet based in Canada and under full control of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). This includes full mission simulators and part task training devices for pilot training and maintenance technician training, courseware, as well as Contractor Logistics Support, Training Support Services, and Facilities Services to support RCAF training.
> 
> *L3Harris Technologies (Mirabel, Quebec)*
> Boeing and L3Harris’ MOU includes a range of sustainment services, including depot and base maintenance, engineering and publications support for the Canadian Super Hornet fleet; potential for other Super Hornet depot work; and maintenance scope for Canada’s CH-147 Chinook fleet.
> 
> *Peraton Canada (Calgary, Alberta)*
> Boeing and Peraton currently work closely together on CF-18 upgrades. This work will expand to include a full range of Super Hornet avionic repair and overhaul work in Canada.
> 
> *Raytheon Canada Limited (Calgary, Alberta)*
> Boeing and Raytheon Canada’s MOU outlines the implementation of large-scale supply chain and warehousing services at Cold Lake and Bagotville to support the new Super Hornet fleet, as well as potential depot avionics radar support.
> 
> *GE Canada Aviation (Mississauga, Ontario)*
> In cooperation with its parent organization, GE Canada will continue to provide both onsite maintenance, repair and overhaul support services for the F414 engines used on the Super Hornet, as well as technical services and engineering within Canada in support of RCAF operations and aircraft engine sustainment.
> 
> With its past partners, Boeing notes it has delivered on billions of dollars in industrial and technological benefits obligations dating back more than 25 years. The work started with the sale of the F/A-18s in the mid-1980s and progressed through more recent obligations including acquisition of and sustainment work on the C-17 Globemaster and the CH-47F Chinooks to meet Canada’s domestic and international missions.
> 
> Boeing states its direct spending in Canada in 2019 rose to $2.3 billion, a 15 per cent increase in four years. When the indirect and induced effects are calculated, Doyletech states this amount more than doubles to $5.3 billion, with 20,700 jobs.
> 
> Boeing notes its partnership with Canada dates back to 1919, when Bill Boeing made the first international airmail delivery from Vancouver to Seattle. Today, Canada is among Boeing’s largest international supply bases, with more than 500 major suppliers spanning across country. With nearly 1,500 employees, Boeing Canada supplies composite parts for all current Boeing commercial airplane models and supports Canadian airlines and the Canadian Armed Forces with products and services.
> 
> https://www.wingsmagazine.com/boeing-outlines-61b-in-future-fighter-benefits/


----------



## Iron 1

With regards to the F-18E/3
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that we will be buying into a platform that is reaching it's end of life (in terms of it's future capacity to be adapted/expanded for operational requirements moving forward).
This will probably be the last manned aircraft that the GOC will buy.

And it will be expected to retain a degree of relevance for the next 35+ years.

No other platform (outside of the F-35) realistically meets the requirement...or am I wrong?

I'm just a fly on the wall here, OTOH? 
These are my tax dollars being spent and I'd like to know where they're going.


----------



## CBH99

You are both right and wrong.  SupersonicMax is our resident fighter pilot / expert on these things, and has provided some great contributions if you scroll through the thread.


You right right in that the Super Hornet is potentially limited in it's future growth potential.  There are always things that can be modified & upgraded, such as IRST sensors, more powerful or fuel efficient engines, upgraded power plants, etc.  However, in general, it's ability to be upgraded for the next 35+ years is something I think we all agree isn't in it's favour.

However, the USN has stated they want an operational fleet of 650 Block 3 Super Hornets in the fleet, with total aircraft numbers around 720.  That isn't anything to sneeze it.

If Germany, Finland, Kuwait, and Canada are all included in those numbers, we are looking at a fleet of roughly 1000 relatively new Block 3 Super Hornets globally.  So there will be a strong motivate both operationally and financially to keep those aircraft relevant.  (With the exception of Kuwait, the Super Hornet is currently in competition with Germany, Finland, Canada)  

Especially since their sustainment cost is substantially less than an F-35 (maintenance of stealthy coating alone is pretty darn  expensive) - countries using it primarily for 'Non 1st Day of War' purposes may find it to be an affordable alternative to the F-35, that does everything they need it to do.




The F-35 is clearly the best choice, and I don't think anybody who knows anything about these types of matters would disagree with that.  It has won every competition it's entered, and every country that has been provided with the classified info has chosen it.  Canada, being a partner nation in it's development, has access to that information.

The problem with the F-35 was that they designed it pretty much in the public eye, in an age where social media & mainstream media reign supreme.  Instead of developing it quietly, working out the bugs, and presenting it for competition - they developed it very much in the public eye, almost from scratch.  So the public's perception of the aircraft is very much skewed & unfair.

Add to that our brilliant PM's blatantly stupid statement that "He will run a fair and open competition, that specifically excludes one particular plane" (an oxymoron) - and the pressure on him to fulfill that promise, despite it's stupidity, the F-35 has had to fight an unfair uphill battle to have it's merits considered, despite it being the best choice.



Politicians are dumb, especially ours.  The mainstream media is dumb, at best - sensationalistic and extremely biased, at worst.  (Which makes them more akin to propaganda, than news.)  And the average person is dumb when it comes to military matters, international relations, international trade, etc.  Combine those things, and we'll get whatever we get....hopefully our CDS & VCDS are listened to.  

 :2c:


----------



## Drallib

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted already, but Brigadier-General (Ret) Charles S. “Duff” Sullivan, Managing Director Boeing Canada, wrote an article titled _"Block III Super Hornet – Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Capability for the 21st Century"_.

Even though he works with Boeing it's still a good read on his experience as an RCAF Fighter Pilot and his views on the Block III Super Hornet. 

https://www.rcafassociation.ca/advocacy/links-resources/block-iii-super-hornet-canadas-next-generation-fighter-capability-for-the-21st-century-by-duff-sullivan-managing-director-boeing-canada/


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:
			
		

> I'm surprised this hasn't been posted already, but Brigadier-General (Ret) Charles S. “Duff” Sullivan, Managing Director Boeing Canada, wrote an article titled _"Block III Super Hornet – Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Capability for the 21st Century"_.
> 
> Even though he works with Boeing it's still a good read on his experience as an RCAF Fighter Pilot and his views on the Block III Super Hornet.
> 
> https://www.rcafassociation.ca/advocacy/links-resources/block-iii-super-hornet-canadas-next-generation-fighter-capability-for-the-21st-century-by-duff-sullivan-managing-director-boeing-canada/



There are a few issues I have with that article, but the big one to me is the "long term USN commitment" argument.  The USN actually started the project to replace the Super Hornet this summer with the Next Generation Air Dominance initiative.  Their plan is to start replacing them and the Growlers in the 2030s.

https://news.usni.org/2020/08/18/navy-quietly-starts-development-of-next-generation-carrier-fighter-plans-call-for-manned-long-range-aircraft


----------



## MTShaw

Dimsum said:
			
		

> There are a few issues I have with that article, but the big one to me is the "long term USN commitment" argument.  The USN actually started the project to replace the Super Hornet this summer with the Next Generation Air Dominance initiative.  Their plan is to start replacing them and the Growlers in the 2030s.
> 
> https://news.usni.org/2020/08/18/navy-quietly-starts-development-of-next-generation-carrier-fighter-plans-call-for-manned-long-range-aircraft



They haven’t been able to field a squadron of F-35s, so I don’t think a non-militaristic democratic government would be inclined to offer up another 100 billion for development of virtual vapourware. 

The next war will likely involve cruise missiles and UCAVs, not planes cruising over enemy territory. Just like the notion of the marines attacking from the sea is ridiculous given manpads and RPGs.

I know the F-35 will be a great aircraft when it’s finished. But the American’s congress has said it isn’t. That’s why it’s still in IOC. 

I’m still curious what happened to the X-47b.


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I’m still curious what happened to the X-47b.



"The X-47B demonstrators themselves were intended to become museum exhibits after the completion of their flight testing, but the Navy later decided to maintain them in flying condition pending further development.[10][11]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B


----------



## CBH99

Dimsum said:
			
		

> There are a few issues I have with that article, but the big one to me is the "long term USN commitment" argument.  The USN actually started the project to replace the Super Hornet this summer with the Next Generation Air Dominance initiative.  Their plan is to start replacing them and the Growlers in the 2030s.
> 
> https://news.usni.org/2020/08/18/navy-quietly-starts-development-of-next-generation-carrier-fighter-plans-call-for-manned-long-range-aircraft




I believe the USN wants roughly 650 Block 3 Super Hornets available for their squadrons, with 720 Super Hornets (perhaps remaining being Block 2?) in inventory.  Seeing as how they just received their first Block 3 aircraft in June of this last year, I doubt they will be retiring them in the 2030's.

I do hear what you are saying though.  


I just doubt the USN is going to be replacing the Block 3 Super Hornet with a manned next generation fighter in 10 years, especially when they haven't even deployed a single F-35C squadron operationally yet.

If they do deploy a next generation aircraft intended for combat, I'm leaning towards a UCAV.   :2c:


----------



## Troopasaurus

Germany approves 38 Eurofighter purchase

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/12/airbus-hopes-its-65-billion-german-eurofighter-sale-will-shine-for-switzerland-finland/


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I believe the USN wants roughly 650 Block 3 Super Hornets available for their squadrons, with 720 Super Hornets (perhaps remaining being Block 2?) in inventory.  Seeing as how they just received their first Block 3 aircraft in June of this last year, I doubt they will be retiring them in the 2030's.
> 
> I do hear what you are saying though.
> 
> 
> I just doubt the USN is going to be replacing the Block 3 Super Hornet with a manned next generation fighter in 10 years, especially when they haven't even deployed a single F-35C squadron operationally yet.
> 
> If they do deploy a next generation aircraft intended for combat, I'm leaning towards a UCAV.   :2c:



I would be willing to bet as an air dominance aircraft they want an air superiority aircraft, not a multirole for their carrier air groups. More to compliment the F35 not replace it


----------



## MarkOttawa

USN’s CNO wants to shake up naval combat aviation--crewed 6th gen fighter even? Compared to the US, UK or Australia it is striking how little Canadian GoFos say about various ways ahead, both technically and organizationally:



> CNO Gilday: Navy Needs ‘Fundamental Change’ in How it Develops Fighters
> 
> A decade from now, the backbone of the Navy’s tactical air fleet will begin to retire with no clear successor in line yet.
> 
> Earlier this year, the service signaled the end of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program and zeroed out the production line past 2021 to instead fund the Navy’s Next Generation Air Dominance program. The NGAD program office stood up earlier this year after a decade of stops and starts to develop a system or systems that will replace the weapons-carrying capacity of the Super Hornet, USNI News reported in August.
> 
> For Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday, the Navy needs to avoid repeating the procedural mistakes that led to a 20-year process for the F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter to make it into the Fleet…
> 
> “I am more cautious with sixth-gen TACAIR, only because I’ll tell you that if I’m thinking about how long it took to field the F-35,” he said.
> “If we invested in next-generation TACAIR beyond [the fifth-generation F-35] capabilities, there also has to be a fundamental change in the development and the delivery of that aircraft or it’s not going to be worth the investment.”
> 
> Gilday was bullish about the future of unmanned aviation systems for the carrier air wing.
> 
> “There are very highly classified efforts going on – R&D with respect to next-generation air wing. There is a heavy unmanned focus on that. I am a big proponent of the unmanned,” he said…
> 
> “I’m not satisfied at the pace at which we’re moving,” Gilday said.
> “Comparatively, if we talk about Navy’s efforts in unmanned under the sea, on the sea, and in the air, that we would give ourselves maybe, you know, a B-minus under the sea, a B-minus on the sea and probably a C-minus or perhaps worse in the air.”
> 
> Gilday cited the seven-year gap between the 2013 landing of the X-47B Unmanned Carrier Air Vehicle demonstrator (UCAS-D) aboard USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) at sea and the 2019 first flight of MQ-25A Stingray unmanned tanker program.
> 
> “The MQ-25 is a project that I am putting heat on to deliver. And then we have to deliver at scale,” he said.
> 
> Beyond that, there are still fundamental questions about the Navy’s follow-on to the Super Hornet that the service has yet to answer.
> 
> “Will we be doing air-to-air combat in 2045 with manned aircraft? I think that’s a big question,” he said.
> 
> “If we do go manned in sixth-gen, the development and delivery timeline has to be significantly better than what we’ve seen with fifth-gen.“
> https://news.usni.org/2020/11/09/cno-gilday-navy-needs-fundamental-change-in-how-it-develops-fighters



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> USN’s CNO wants to shake up naval combat aviation--crewed 6th gen fighter even? Compared to the US, UK or Australia it is striking how little Canadian GoFos say about various ways ahead, both technically and organizationally:



My complete WAG is because they don't want to say anything that may even hint at a preferred bidder for the Future Fighter project.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> My complete WAG is because they don't want to say anything that may even hint at a preferred bidder for the Future Fighter project.



I think you give our system way too much credit!  I don’t think anyone is looking far enough to see a need for a 6th Gen platform.


----------



## MTShaw

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think you give our system way too much credit!  I don’t think anyone is looking far enough to see a need for a 6th Gen platform.



Which is true. However, no one has any idea what a 6th generation platform is. I’d be happy if we got a adequate number of MQ-9Bs that can work with the resulting platform from FFCP. ANd if we stumbled on to a CP-140m replacement which could tie both of those platforms together, would we would have magically achieved 6th generation?

There are plenty of ways to screw that up. And every government around is equally incompetent.


----------



## Dale Denton

Our "new" used former RAAF classic hornets are now entering the museum circuit. Maybe there was a clause in the contract to have access to the museum pieces.

Perhaps in a few years we'll be scavenging those for spare parts.


*War Memorial welcomes RAAF Classic Hornet to collection*
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/7329-war-memorial-welcomes-raaf-classic-hornet-to-collection



> Defence, in association with Boeing Defence Australia, today officially handed over F/A-18 Classic Hornet, A21-022, to the War Memorial’s Treloar Technology Centre in Canberra.
> 
> The F/A-18 Classic Hornet, A21-022, will join other significant exhibits in the collection, including “G for George” – a Lancaster bomber that belonged to No. 460 Squadron RAAF Bomber Command during World War II.
> 
> Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price said it was important to retain significant objects in the memorial’s National Collection that reflect the Australian Defence Force’s proud service.
> 
> “This is an appropriate new home for F/A-18 Classic Hornet A21-022, which will be the first of two Classic Hornets to be honoured in such a way,” Minister Price said.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Canadian Aviation and Space Museum has had a CF-18 since 2001.

https://ingeniumcanada.org/aviation/artifact/mcdonnell-douglas-cf-188b-cf-18b


----------



## MarkOttawa

Saab plays Quebec card:



> Saab offers two aerospace centres in Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter
> 
> Saab is offering to open two new aerospace centres as part of its Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project.
> 
> The aerospace facilities, the Gripen Centre and the Aerospace Research & Development Centre, would be based in the greater Montreal region, the company announced at Aero Montreal’s International Aerospace Innovation Forum 2020 on 14 December.
> 
> Mission system software and hardware development, as well as integration, for the proposed Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Gripen E would be done at the Gripen Centre.
> 
> The Aerospace Research & Development Centre would focus on a variety of aerospace technologies, including automation, artificial intelligence and “greening” technologies. That work may or may not be directly related to the Gripen E. Rather, the research and development would focus on next-generation aerospace technologies more generally.
> 
> Saab is also in talks with undisclosed local universities about partnerships related to the aerospace centres, it says.
> 
> Saab has only about 50 people working in Canada currently, across various businesses such as maritime traffic management and army training and simulation work. However, between the two aerospace centres, the company anticipates at least 3,000 people being directly employed.
> 
> The RCAF is looking to buy 88 advanced fighters to replace its fleet of Boeing CF-18 Hornets. Canada’s Department of National Defence estimates acquisition of the aircraft, related equipment and entry into service will cost C$15-19 billion ($11.8-14.9 billion).
> 
> A contract is scheduled to be awarded in 2022 after evaluation by the RCAF. The air force wants the first jets received as soon as 2025. The new fleet is expected to fly beyond 2060.
> 
> In addition to Saab, the RCAF received bids in July from Boeing, which is offering its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and Lockheed Martin, which is offering F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters.
> 
> … Saab has proposed that Canada’s IMP Aerospace & Defence would handle in-country production of the Gripen E, and provide support over the lifetime of the fleet. The company says initial aircraft would be produced in Sweden to meet Ottawa’s goal of first fighter delivery in 2025. It is still evaluating how many aircraft could be made in Canada, but says it aims to “maximise” the number.
> 
> The rest of the Saab Gripen for Canada team would include CAE, which is to provide training and mission systems; Peraton Canada, which is to supply avionic and test equipment, as well as component maintenance, repair and overhaul, and material management; and GE Aviation, which is set to provide and sustain the fighters’ turbine engines.'
> https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/saab-offers-two-aerospace-centres-in-gripen-e-proposal-for-canadas-future-fighter/141602.article



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

would IMP put their assembly line in Halifax or elsewhere?  Would certainly nail down the liberal seats in N.S. if they did.


----------



## CBH99

Aircraft selection aside...

I hate to be synacle (how on earth do you spell that word?)


But this is a company offering to do something in Canada that would create thousands of jobs.  The PM won't ever go for it.

Whether it's pipelines to BC and Alaska, the Tekk project in Alberta, or building LNG pipelines throughout southern Ontario & Quebec... every single opportunity to get onboard with a big project that would employ thousands of people per project has been squandered.  

Hopefully it'll be a wakeup call to the LPC, when all this Covid nonsense is over with...and nobody has a job to go back to, and therefore the government coffers won't start refilling themselves.   ff topic:



Off topic, I apologize.  I just don't think Saab realizes how absolutely little their offer to create thousands of jobs matters to this government.   :2c:


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I hate to be synacle (how on earth do you spell that word?)



Cynical.

The jobs angle is because the project has a certain percentage of the bid award going towards Industrial Technological Benefits (ITBs), which translates to points on the overall bid.

One way to maximize those points (there's some sort of factor that I won't get into b/c it's frankly too complicated for me to explain right now) is to have tech jobs in Canada such as aircraft design and manufacturing.


----------



## PuckChaser

Estimated 3,000 jobs that'll mostly disappear once all the aircraft are assembled (keeping in mind the first chunk will be completed in Sweden due to timelines) is pretty cute.

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada



> According to the Statistics Canada model, approximately 50,000 jobs will be created in Canada through the selection of the F-35. To date, nearly 10,000 Canadian jobs have been created as a result of Canada’s partnership status in the F-35 global partnership program.
> 
> Canada has been an industry partner on the F-35 program for more than 15 years and has been offered nearly 200 projects in the Industrial Participation Plan.
> 
> 110 Canadian companies have already contributed to the development and production of the F-35. Thus far, Canadian companies have been awarded high value contracts as part of the F-35 global supply chain amounting to $2 billion USD and approximately $120 million in capital investment for facility upgrades. Yet to be measured is the export opportunities already realized by small and medium-sized companies stemming from the expertise they have gained as an F-35 supplier. Being part of developing and producing the F-35 is without doubt a once in a generational experience for Canadian suppliers, innovators and aviators.



10,000 jobs that will last well beyond the one and done Gripen, 110 seperate companies instead of pork barreling Quebec. We'll probably pick the Quebec option.  :facepalm:


----------



## dimsum

What's more, a bunch of the F-35 jobs have been there for years.  Boeing in Winnipeg makes parts for the wings, for example.  

If Canada doesn't select the F-35, will LM keep those jobs in Canada?


----------



## OldSolduer

Dimsum said:
			
		

> What's more, a bunch of the F-35 jobs have been there for years.  Boeing in Winnipeg makes parts for the wings, for example.
> 
> If Canada doesn't select the F-35, will LM keep those jobs in Canada?



Being an interested observer, how much influence would the USA wield in this situation? For instance would the incoming VP of the USA pay a nice visit to our Dear Leader or perhaps the President of the USA calls JT and reminds the little twerp who his neighbour is?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Estimated 3,000 jobs that'll mostly disappear once all the aircraft are assembled (keeping in mind the first chunk will be completed in Sweden due to timelines) is pretty cute.
> 
> https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada
> 
> 10,000 jobs that will last well beyond the one and done Gripen, 110 seperate companies instead of pork barreling Quebec. We'll probably pick the Quebec option.  :facepalm:



Always ready with anti-Quebec ignorant biases, are you.

Guess what: 75% of those 110 companies doing most of the work on Canadian participation in F-35 program are around Montreal. Know why? Because that is where 70 % of the Canadian aeronautical industry is located. Yes, Quebec is still the only place in Canada that builds complete helicopters and airplanes (Since Airbus took over production of the "C-Series" under their name, they have increased the number of employees and the production rate by 15% -still here at Mirabel). 

P.S. I know about the BC company who bought the rights to the old Twin Otter/Buffalo/CL-215/415, but it has yet to make a single sale of a new one or build even a single one.

Edited to add: I forgot: Ontario also builds some planes: They are the Bombardier business jets. My apologies for forgetting them.


----------



## PuckChaser

Maybe it's a bias, or maybe if we're going to use defense projects to create jobs we shouldn't always hand them to the province with the 3rd lowest unemployment rate Nationally. I'm sure the Maritimes, BC and Alberta who are all 2% of more worse off should get some federal help, instead of just trying to buy seats in the Commons.


----------



## dapaterson

Given the massive federal dollars being funnelled to Bermuda/Bahanmas via the Irving shipyard, the Maritimes can't claim to be hard done by.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the massive federal dollars being funnelled to Bermuda/Bahanmas via the Irving shipyard, the Maritimes can't claim to be hard done by.



Pretty sure this is why the Feds have issued so many gag orders over our shipbuilding program.

In all seriousness we should try and diversify if we can and encourage growth of other sectors. One off jet production probably is not the best way to do that. With the F35, we the high number of planes being built, the work on smaller elements would be spread out through the entire economy.


----------



## Drallib

Would the F35 giving Canadians jobs go towards GDP or GNP? Are these Canadians living in Canada?

Also, selecting the Gripen E would allow Canadians to have information on the technology and develop possible future aircraft of our own, no? Also, more say in upgrades given we'll be the biggest SAAB customer flying the E model.

The more time passes, the more I'm accepting the idea of a CF-139 Gripen.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Always ready with anti-Quebec ignorant biases, are you.
> 
> Guess what: 75% of those 110 companies doing most of the work on Canadian participation in F-35 program are around Montreal. Know why? Because that is where 70 % of the Canadian aeronautical industry is located. Yes, Quebec is still the only place in Canada that builds complete helicopters and airplanes (Since Airbus took over production of the "C-Series" under their name, they have increased the number of employees and the production rate by 15% -still here at Mirabel).
> 
> P.S. I know about the BC company who bought the rights to the old Twin Otter/Buffalo/CL-215/415, but it has yet to make a single sale of a new one or build even a single one.
> 
> Edited to add: I forgot: Ontario also builds some planes: They are the Bombardier business jets. My apologies for forgetting them.



Actually, Viking builds Twin Otters from scratch, in Victoria (components come from Calgary). Airbus builds helicopters in Fort Erie, ON. Just sayin...


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:
			
		

> Would the F35 giving Canadians jobs go towards GDP or GNP? Are these Canadians living in Canada?
> 
> Also, selecting the Gripen E would allow Canadians to have information on the technology and develop possible future aircraft of our own, no? Also, more say in upgrades given we'll be the biggest SAAB customer flying the E model.
> 
> The more time passes, the more I'm accepting the idea of a CF-139 Gripen.



What benefit aside from pride would that give us?  As we found out with the Avro Arrow, we don't have a big enough domestic market, and are we seriously going to try and compete with the international market with the likes of LM, Boeing, and Airbus?  Even in the commercial sector, we had a better chance with the Bombardier C-Series but ultimately ended up losing it to Airbus.  

In theory I like the idea, but we would bankrupt whatever company gets tapped to produce our own homegrown aircraft.  

I keep losing where I found it but there were discussion threads either here or reddit that said the contract with SAAB means no spares if the customer engages in offensive conflicts.  So if you want to go to OP MOBILE or IMPACT again?  Bye bye spares.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

So Sweden gets a veto on our foreign policy?


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So Sweden gets a veto on our foreign policy?



I ended up doing some light digging and found the Swedish Govt document on strategic export controls on Google.  Section 2.1 may be relevant:  

_Under Section 1, second paragraph of the Military Equipment Act, military equipment may only be exported if there are security and defence policy reasons for doing so, and provided there is no conflict with Sweden’s foreign policy.  _

Now, that may just be boilerplate and we may have the same wording on our arms exports, but that's still a possibility that Sweden may not export things if the mission conflicts with their foreign policy.  I am not a lawyer so I don't know how valid this argument is, to be honest.

https://www.government.se/4af0bf/contentassets/04dd1926300f41088b86238154b7708e/skr-2017-18-nr-114-eng-popularversion-002.pdf


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So Sweden gets a veto on our foreign policy?



With SAAB offering a full technology transfer could we not work around this by setting up our own domestic spare parts production?


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> With SAAB offering a full technology transfer could we not work around this by setting up our own domestic spare parts production?



Maybe.  Again, how big of a market are we talking about here?  

With the F-35, you're looking at many nations and a global supply chain of spares, etc.  If we don't choose the F-35, what will the ramifications be for current Canadian contracts?  I'm not sure what the answer is to that last question.


----------



## MTShaw

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Maybe.  Again, how big of a market are we talking about here?
> 
> With the F-35, you're looking at many nations and a global supply chain of spares, etc.  If we don't choose the F-35, what will the ramifications be for current Canadian contracts?  I'm not sure what the answer is to that last question.



We could split the buy.

The F-35 supply chain is very brittle because it passes through less stable countries like Turkey or the US.


----------



## MilEME09

MTShaw said:
			
		

> We could split the buy.
> 
> The F-35 supply chain is very brittle because it passes through less stable countries like Turkey or the US.



Except a split fleet would require a lot more investment, and a much larger airforce then we currently have. We are already hurting for pilots and techs, a split fleet won't help that.


----------



## MTShaw

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Except a split fleet would require a lot more investment, and a much larger airforce then we currently have. We are already hurting for pilots and techs, a split fleet won't help that.



I’ll defer to your expertise on force structure. My point is that none of the bids are ideal.

Lockheed said they _may_ build a factory for the C-130 in the Vancouver area. That would win the industrial for me. Buy the supply chain is so brittle that they have yet been able to movie F-35 parts production out of Turkey.

The truly sensible one is the F-18 because it will be in service for 40 years because the Germans and the US Navy (whether they like it or not) will be using it for that long. But I have not idea if it’s the right one.

My Aphasia is locking up, so I hope what I wrote makes sense.

Michael


----------



## lenaitch

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So Sweden gets a veto on our foreign policy?



The US already does; either their government or their corporations.


----------



## Good2Golf

lenaitch said:
			
		

> The US already does; either their government or their corporations.



Not a veto.

The U.S. and Canada have a *mutually-agreed* Defense Production Sharing Agreement (1956) (Ref:  https://www.ccc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/defence-production-sharing-agreement-en.pdf) aimed at equalizing defense-related trade between the two countries. 

Sweden has no such equivalent agreement with Canada.


----------



## CBH99

I think he was referring to the fact that the US does have a veto, in some respects, as to what our equipment can be used for.


In regards to Sweden, I'm with Dimsum.  I'm not a lawyer.  I don't know how legally binding that wording is.  But, I assume it would be fair to say that once we purchase the jets, and if they manufactured in Canada we obviously would be in a position to manufacture spare parts also -- we could use the jets for whatever the Government of Canada decided, whether it aligned with Sweden's foreign policy or not.

US equipment tends to come with caveats, especially when being sold to 'non-western, not always allies' countries.  I.e., Pakistan.


Thankfully, most western countries tend to have very similar moral codes when it comes to military force being used in the execution of their foreign policies, and we don't really have to worry about US or Swedish 'veto power'.  (We all avoid civilian casualties, abide by strict ROE, and are professional in our conduct.)


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I think he was referring to the fact that the US does have a veto, in some respects, as to what our equipment can be used for.



One could misuse the word ‘veto’ for a lot of things, ITAR, EAR, FDA, etc., but we shouldn’t.  Let’s at least be accurate in how defense production, acquisition and export & licensing policies are employed.  Restrictions/constraints perhaps, but veto give a clear impression of a one-sided arbitrary denial. 

Regards
G2G

_*edited for spelling_


----------



## Drallib

SAAB with more Industrial and Technological Benefits.



> Saab proposes new Sensor Centre in Canada​At the AIx Space 2021 Conference, Saab announced that it has offered to establish a new facility in Canada as part of its offer for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).
> 
> This would be known as the Saab Sensor Centre and would be located in Vancouver, British Columbia, with a focus on sensor technologies such as radar. The Saab Sensor Centre would provide career opportunities for Canadian engineering talent in the Vancouver area, as well as offering research and development avenues for academia.
> 
> One of the proposed projects is to develop a Space Surveillance Radar (SSR) in Canada, in co-operation with other companies within the Canadian space industry. It is envisaged that this surface radar will target the global market for greater awareness of objects in the Earth’s orbit.
> 
> “So much of modern life and military capability depends on space-based assets. Today space is anything but empty when it comes to the Earth’s immediate vicinity with an increasing number of satellites and many more to come. We feel that Saab teamed with Canadian space partners are the perfect combination to co-develop a SSR for Canada and the global market,” said Simon Carroll, President of Saab Canada Inc.
> 
> A Saab radar demonstrator has been built and is the basis for a co-development opportunity of a SSR with Canadian companies and their world-leading expertise and knowledge. This demonstrator leverages radar technology as found in Saab’s military radars that operate across the world including on Canadian and US naval ships.
> 
> Saab, in co-operation with the Swedish government, has offered 88 Gripen E fighter aircraft, for Canada’s FFCP. The establishment of the Saab Sensor Centre is part of the associated Canada-wide Industrial and Technological Benefits program from Saab.
> 
> https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/saab-proposes-new-saab-sensor-centre-in-canada/


----------



## MilEME09

Well its better then a potato plant in AB


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Saab really going after the economic side of the assessment.....which based on Trudeau's priorities may be a really smart move.  Especially with the cost inflation in all the Naval programs.


----------



## PuckChaser

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> Saab really going after the economic side of the assessment.....which based on Trudeau's priorities may be a really smart move.  Especially with the cost inflation in all the Naval programs.


Thats because the Gripen can't compete on capability.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The concern is that Trudeau doesn't care about that little detail.  He's just looking for the most efficient way to buy votes with our own money....and more capable fighter jets is probably pretty low on that scale.


----------



## Drallib

Regardless of what is selected, it will get the job done at the end of the day. I think it'll be the Gripen which will then be used for political reasons on what a benefit it is to Canada. 

I'll still be pleased with whichever airframe we select.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Without getting into OPSEC, will they evaluate each contender against most likely future opponents?  So Su-57, J-20, etc.?  

I'm honestly very concerned we're selecting from a group of "peace dividend" designs that by the time they are adopted will be insufficient for the task.  Given the massive investment we're talking about, I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on skipping a generation and instead buying into one of the 6g programs such as Japan's F-X, the UK/Spanish/Swedish Tempest or the Franco/German FCA which appear to be much better suited to dealing with the Su-57, J-20, etc.


----------



## PuckChaser

Our Hornets will fall out of the sky before 6th Gen is ready. It also reinforces our ridiculous 20 year from idea to FOC procurement cycle.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:


> Our Hornets will fall out of the sky before 6th Gen is ready. It also reinforces our ridiculous 20 year from idea to FOC procurement cycle.



I just think we make it overly complex with studies and everything else. I am not an airforce person or a procurement specialist but in my mind wouldn't it be easy to create a flying compition that puts each aircraft to the test, best one wins?


----------



## dapaterson

Defining the test - the evaluation criteria - is where many projects founder.  Given the multiple interdependencies, costs driven by second or third order effects, government policies enforcing certain behaviours... just an environmental scan of who's involved can be complex.

And when such steps are skipped "to save time" inevitably we discover that we didn't have time to do it right, but then are forced to find the time to do it over.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Defining the test - the evaluation criteria - is where many projects founder.  Given the multiple interdependencies, costs driven by second or third order effects, government policies enforcing certain behaviours... just an environmental scan of who's involved can be complex.
> 
> And when such steps are skipped "to save time" inevitably we discover that we didn't have time to do it right, but then are forced to find the time to do it over.


Would not a 6th Gen fighter fare better than a 5th Gen or 4.5th Gen fighter under GBA+ analysis?


----------



## AlexanderM

Whatever we purchase now could possibly be augmented with some advanced drones at some point, seems to be at least part of what the future holds.


----------



## MilEME09

AlexanderM said:


> Whatever we purchase now could possibly be augmented with some advanced drones at some point, seems to be at least part of what the future holds.


Part of the issue though is if we do not go F35, Lockheed will pull everything out of Canada made for that aircraft overtime. Canadian companies won't be able to bid on contracts, that will cost jobs. Only way to avoid that would be if the F35 wins or if we do a mixed fleet which for the love of God they better not do.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MilEME09 said:


> I just think we make it overly complex with studies and everything else. I am not an airforce person or a procurement specialist but in my mind wouldn't it be easy to create a flying compition that puts each aircraft to the test, best one wins?


What constitutes “the best?”


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:


> What constitutes “the best?”


Is this where anyone who has worked in procurement collectively has a head explosion moment?


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:


> What constitutes “the best?”


Establish criteria to weigh them all against each other, at the end of the day once the points are scored, top aircraft wins. Yes I am overly simplifying it.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MilEME09 said:


> Establish criteria to weigh them all against each other, at the end of the day once the points are scored, top aircraft wins. Yes I am overly simplifying it.


Isn’t it what we already do?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

the Criteria being "How much money are you willing to spend in Canada?"


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> I just think we make it overly complex with studies and everything else. I am not an airforce person or a procurement specialist but in my mind wouldn't it be easy to create a flying compition that puts each aircraft to the test, *best one wins?*


They have done that already, multiple times in multiple nations. The F-35 wins handily every time.


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> I just think we make it overly complex with studies and everything else. I am not an airforce person or a procurement specialist but in my mind wouldn't it be easy to create a flying compition that puts each aircraft to the test, best one wins?


They have done that already, multiple times in multiple nations. The F-35 wins handily every time.


----------



## Drallib

I keep hearing about the F-35 being a "strike first" or "day one" fighter... with a our primary mission being defending Canada'a air space and supporting NATO missions, I can't see us purchasing the ultimate best fighter, but the one that will do the job just fine while appealing to the public.

Perhaps the F-35 takes the lead in the area of 'Capability' (60 points available) but with cost and industrial benefits each worth up to 20 points, I think the Gripen takes those both. I could be wrong, and of course Lockheed does have industrial benefits in a way, but this is going to be a nail biter.

I'm starting to feel like the Rhino is the odd one out.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Call me skeptical, but I worry our Prime Minister will pick the one with the largest carbon offset plan.....


----------



## Drallib

Is this another way of saying most environmentally friendly?


----------



## Quirky

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> The concern is that Trudeau doesn't care about that little detail.  He's just looking for the most efficient way to buy votes with our own money....and more capable fighter jets is probably pretty low on that scale.



Except that sensor center is in Vancouver, Saab should be placing those facilities in Ontario since they always elect the PM. The west should just stay home on voting day. 




Drallib said:


> Regardless of what is selected, it will get the job done at the end of the day.
> 
> I'll still be pleased with whichever airframe we select.



No it won't. The Gripen is designed for second-rate Air Forces, which by the way, they don't even want. How can the Gripfanbois tout all the capabilities it has when it's still a paper fighter? It's fat, its slow and barely a step up from our current fighter. The F-35 has gone into full production, hundreds are flying with international partners - some in real combat missions. What has the Gripen done besides desperately send flashy brochures? The program is slowly dying, no one is buying the BS. The only way the Gripen wins is if they throw out the capability evaluations and sole-source the thing based on a poor election promise. Knowing the stupidity of this government, that might happen.


----------



## Drallib

Quirky said:


> No it won't. The Gripen is designed for second-rate Air Forces, which by the way, they don't even want. How can the Gripfanbois tout all the capabilities it has when it's still a paper fighter? It's fat, its slow and barely a step up from our current fighter. The F-35 has gone into full production, hundreds are flying with international partners - some in real combat missions. What has the Gripen done besides desperately send flashy brochures? The program is slowly dying, no one is buying the BS. The only way the Gripen wins is if they throw out the capability evaluations and sole-source the thing based on a poor election promise. Knowing the stupidity of this government, that might happen.



The Gripen is the smallest airframe of the three, and can reach speeds of Mach 2...

The F-35 was also a flashy brochure when other nations purchased it. The F-18 is also in full production and flown real combat missions.

I agree, there are a lot of unknowns with the Gripen, but it can do the job our Air Force requires it to do.

I am by no means a 'Gripfanbois', and I'm not accusing you of saying I am, but as I said I'll be happy with whatever airframe we go with. All have their pros and cons.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Are there any incremental updates scheduled for the Gripen E that would make it acceptably "more capable"? 

Or is the size of the airframe (radome, power generation from single engine) always going to put it at a major disadvantage against larger platforms?

Perhaps coming from an alternate standpoint is there a way to develop tactics that suits what it can do?  So instead of being solely focused on its standalone sensors, could we assess its capabilities in the context of a data fusion environment where its main operational mode is passive sensors with Link 16/22? feeding in info from ground-based, air-based or satellite radars?  In that environment, if we can obtain targeting info from passive sources, does the mix of weapons (and their ranges) become more important than standalone active sensor capabilities?  So standoff distances provided by weapons like Meteor, LRASM, etc. become more of a larger priority?


----------



## Good2Golf

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> Are there any incremental updates scheduled for the Gripen E that would make it acceptably "more capable"?
> 
> Or is the size of the airframe (radome, power generation from single engine) always going to put it at a major disadvantage against larger platforms?
> 
> Perhaps coming from an alternate standpoint is there a way to develop tactics that suits what it can do?  So instead of being solely focused on its standalone sensors, could we assess its capabilities in the context of a data fusion environment where its main operational mode is passive sensors with Link 16/22? feeding in info from ground-based, air-based or satellite radars?  In that environment, if we can obtain targeting info from passive sources, does the mix of weapons (and their ranges) become more important than standalone active sensor capabilities?  So standoff distances provided by weapons like Meteor, LRASM, etc. become more of a larger priority?



Yes, SAAB could re-design the Gripen's tactical sensor/comm/nav/IFF system and integrate MADL, tying it in with the the majority of Western air forces in terms of sensor and C2 connectivity, vice the Swedish-only bespoke TIDLS link system (functionally similar to, but not compatible with Link-16).  TIDLS doesn't come close to having the necessary bandwidth to support high data-rate electronic connectivity associated with state of the art AESA radar systems and advanced 4k/8k multi-/hyper-spectral EO sensors.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:


> he Gripen is the smallest airframe of the three, and can reach speeds of Mach 2...


What does that even mean, is that supposed to be some sort of milestone? Under what conditions can it do this, clean aircraft with no weapons, what’s the acceleration, how long will it take for a clean Airshow configuration Gripen to reach those speeds? What’s the point when you’ll quickly be out of fuel and can’t sustain those speeds?

You really need to do some research on this subject, because like the typical Gripen supporter, you don’t understand why you support it and don’t bother comparing it to other platforms. Stop hanging out at blogs like Best fighter 4 Canada and you might find some real data.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Good2Golf said:


> Yes, SAAB could re-design the Gripen's tactical sensor/comm/nav/IFF system and integrate MADL, tying it in with the the majority of Western air forces in terms of sensor and C2 connectivity, vice the Swedish-only bespoke TIDLS link system (functionally similar to, but not compatible with Link-16).  TIDLS doesn't come close to having the necessary bandwidth to support high data-rate electronic connectivity associated with state of the art AESA radar systems and advanced 4k/8k multi-/hyper-spectral EO sensors.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I thought I had read that SAAB integrated Link-16 into the Czech Gripens as that was a mandatory part of their bid (NATO specified requirement).  If they did it for that small order (which was a retrofit of used C/D's), why wouldn't they include that in the Canadian bid for new-build aircraft?  Or are you saying that it's "jerry-rigged" solution and doesn't offer the full functionality that you would see on the other contenders?


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm sure it'll be included, right into the cost per airframe which is already close if not higher than the F-35.


----------



## Drallib

Quirky said:


> What does that even mean, is that supposed to be some sort of milestone? Under what conditions can it do this, clean aircraft with no weapons, what’s the acceleration, how long will it take for a clean Airshow configuration Gripen to reach those speeds? What’s the point when you’ll quickly be out of fuel and can’t sustain those speeds?
> 
> You really need to do some research on this subject, because like the typical Gripen supporter, you don’t understand why you support it and don’t bother comparing it to other platforms. Stop hanging out at blogs like Best fighter 4 Canada and you might find some real data.


I’m not saying it means anything. You said it was “fat” and “slow” so I replied that it was actually small and fast. Now you’re asking me what that’s suppose to mean? Sorry, I don’t understand you. 

Calling someone a “Gripen Supporter” because they’re okay with whichever platform is chosen is a bit of a stretch. And how have I not compared it to any other platform? Have I ever said it was the best? Not at all. I simply stated or asked if it could do the job we required. 

And instead of criticizing people for reading specific blogs for information, how about you be kind/helpful and point me to where you found your information?

Cheers.


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:


> I'm sure it'll be included, right into the cost per airframe which is already close if not higher than the F-35.


...yup, and still be Gen 3/4 technology that doesn’t give anything even close to MADL’s capacity to connect to the latest battlespace information framework.


----------



## Drallib

On a side note, the F-35 will be doing  a marketing  an airshow routine in Toronto 4-6 September and again in Mirabel, QC 18-19 September.


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:


> On a side note, the F-35 will be doing  a marketing  an airshow routine in Toronto 4-6 September and again in Mirabel, QC 18-19 September.


Is that the USAF demo team or LM's demo team?  

I guess the cynical people in the crowd would say "what's the difference?"


----------



## Drallib

dimsum said:


> Is that the USAF demo team or LM's demo team?
> 
> I guess the cynical people in the crowd would say "what's the difference?"


USAF. I wasn't aware there was a LM demo team.


----------



## PuckChaser

dimsum said:


> Is that the USAF demo team or LM's demo team?
> 
> I guess the cynical people in the crowd would say "what's the difference?"


USAF from 388th Fighter Wing: https://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/F-35A-...mo Team,newest 5th-generation stealth fighter.


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:


> USAF. I wasn't aware there was a LM demo team.


Me neither, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was.


----------



## Quirky

Drallib said:


> On a side note, the F-35 will be doing  a marketing  an airshow routine in Toronto 4-6 September and again in Mirabel, QC 18-19 September.



Saab should bring their Gripen E, if they ever manage to get it past the testing phase....


----------



## Drallib

Quirky said:


> Saab should bring their Gripen E, if they ever manage to get it past the testing phase....



They'll probably have a booth set up with some flashy brochures. 💁‍♀️


----------



## PuckChaser

Quirky said:


> Saab should bring their Gripen E, if they ever manage to get it past the testing phase....


They could fly it against the Arrow II.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:


> They could fly it against the Arrow II.


Where is that dead horse gif again?


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:


> They could fly it against the Arrow II.


Difference between between that the the Griphen though, is the griphen can realistically be built.


----------



## PuckChaser

Don't tell that to the folks on their Facebook page, they'll ban you. I might know a guy that happened to...


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:


> Don't tell that to the folks on their Facebook page, they'll ban you. I might know a guy that happened to...


That would also be me haha


----------



## GR66

Just a thought here for discussion and opinions.

The US seems to be hedging its bets on the F-35 a bit with a reduction in F-35 numbers while upgrading its fleet of 4th Gen aircraft and at the same time pushing forward with its NGAD program.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...alks-new-f-16-orders-latest-acquisition-shake

I personally think the F-35 is the best choice for replacing the Hornets but do have some concerns about some of the potential shortcomings that have been raised by critics.

The original ask was for 65 x F-35's which later became 88 x multi-role aircraft to be selected through competition.  A personally feel that 65 fighters are too few for Canada and to be honest 88 is as well.  Based on our procurement history (which I don't expect to change), whatever we pick will be with us for many years to come.  

What are people's thoughts if we were to go with the original 65 x F-35 plan and in place of the extra 23 fighters from the current plan we instead planned on procuring 65 x UCAV's (Loyal Wingman/Skyborg or similar) to supplement the F-35s.  

This would give us a total of 130 combat airframes instead of 88.  The UCAVs would be cheaper than manned fighters and would be economically (and possibly politically) easier to replace/upgrade going forward as technology advances.  

Of course UAVs would require pilots and maintainers, but would training and keeping UCAV pilots be easier than keeping traditional fixed-wing pilots?  Postings wouldn't have to be to Cold Lake...UCAV pilots presumably wouldn't be poached away from the RCAF to the commercial airlines the same way that traditional fixed-wing pilots are.

I'm sure there are lots of other 2nd and 3rd order effects that would result.  What would they be?  

Do you think that an approach like this might have merit?

🍻


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GR66 said:


> Just a thought here for discussion and opinions.
> 
> The US seems to be hedging its bets on the F-35 a bit with a reduction in F-35 numbers while upgrading its fleet of 4th Gen aircraft and at the same time pushing forward with its NGAD program.
> 
> https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...alks-new-f-16-orders-latest-acquisition-shake
> 
> I personally think the F-35 is the best choice for replacing the Hornets but do have some concerns about some of the potential shortcomings that have been raised by critics.
> 
> The original ask was for 65 x F-35's which later became 88 x multi-role aircraft to be selected through competition.  A personally feel that 65 fighters are too few for Canada and to be honest 88 is as well.  Based on our procurement history (which I don't expect to change), whatever we pick will be with us for many years to come.
> 
> What are people's thoughts if we were to go with the original 65 x F-35 plan and in place of the extra 23 fighters from the current plan we instead planned on procuring 65 x UCAV's (Loyal Wingman/Skyborg or similar) to supplement the F-35s.
> 
> This would give us a total of 130 combat airframes instead of 88.  The UCAVs would be cheaper than manned fighters and would be economically (and possibly politically) easier to replace/upgrade going forward as technology advances.
> 
> Of course UAVs would require pilots and maintainers, but would training and keeping UCAV pilots be easier than keeping traditional fixed-wing pilots?  Postings wouldn't have to be to Cold Lake...UCAV pilots presumably wouldn't be poached away from the RCAF to the commercial airlines the same way that traditional fixed-wing pilots are.
> 
> I'm sure there are lots of other 2nd and 3rd order effects that would result.  What would they be?
> 
> Do you think that an approach like this might have merit?
> 
> 🍻


What evidence do you have that UCAV/RPAS are cheaper than human occupied aircraft?


----------



## MilEME09

Unfortunately right now without budgetary increases ti the RCAF, as well as Trained manpower increases a split fleet of any kind will hinder us more then help. I agree the RCAF needs more then 88, id prefer a number around 138, which would replace every hornet we ever had 1 for 1. We keep wanting to do more with less, there comes a point where you can't do that any more because birds can't be in two places at once.


----------



## cf100mk5

Rate of F-35A production and uncertainty regarding sustainment costs of the fleet has US Air Force considering buying new F-16s.








						Air Force Eyes Drones For Adversary And Light Attack Roles As It Mulls Buying New F-16s
					

The future of the U.S. Air Force’s tactical aircraft fleet is under review, with some radical ideas under discussion.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## GR66

SeaKingTacco said:


> What evidence do you have that UCAV/RPAS are cheaper than human occupied aircraft?


This article claims that Boeing is aiming at a unit cost of around $2 million a piece for the Loyal Wingman:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...potentially-game-changing-loyal-wingman-drone

And this article gives a unit price of the similar purpose XQ-58A Valkyrie of $3 million each:

https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/boeing-loyal-wingman-fighter-jet-drone-prototype/

I totally get that these articles are marketing rather than contracts, but even if the price inflates to 10 times as much ($20-30 million each) it is much cheaper than additional manned fighter aircraft.


----------



## Good2Golf

And the institutional cost for operators, maintainers and supporters as well as infrastructure for the UAS/UCAVs? 🤔


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> And the institutional cost for operators, maintainers and supporters as well as infrastructure for the UAS/UCAVs? 🤔


Exactly. You well recognize that you cannot focus on the sales brochure price. You need to look at what the item costs you in O&M, including how many PYs it needs (hint: no RPAS project in the world has yet saved PYs...).

I like the idea of loyal wingman. But, it should be considered on the merits of what it operationally brings to the table. Not because it will save money. Because it won’t.


----------



## GR66

SeaKingTacco said:


> Exactly. You well recognize that you cannot focus on the sales brochure price. You need to look at what the item costs you in O&M, including how many PYs it needs (hint: no RPAS project in the world has yet saved PYs...).
> 
> I like the idea of loyal wingman. But, it should be considered on the merits of what it operationally brings to the table. Not because it will save money. Because it won’t.


I'm more thinking about getting ourselves wedded to a particular airframe (that may already be almost on the verge of replacement by the NGAD fighter) for the next 30+ years.  Whether we go F-35 or Super Hornet we'll be going "all in" on that platform and the chance of upgrading in my remaining lifetime I think is pretty minimal.

If we were to go with 65 x manned fighters (@ $80-100 million each) and 65 x UCAVs (@ say $20 million each) I think we'd have a much better chance of a) replacing/upgrading the UCAVS in 15-years with the next generation of unmanned aircraft and/or b) replacing 65 x manned fighters with a similar number of next-gen aircraft in 20-25 years than if we have to look at replacing all 88.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GR66 said:


> I'm more thinking about getting ourselves wedded to a particular airframe (that may already be almost on the verge of replacement by the NGAD fighter) for the next 30+ years.  Whether we go F-35 or Super Hornet we'll be going "all in" on that platform and the chance of upgrading in my remaining lifetime I think is pretty minimal.
> 
> If we were to go with 65 x manned fighters (@ $80-100 million each) and 65 x UCAVs (@ say $20 million each) I think we'd have a much better chance of a) replacing/upgrading the UCAVS in 15-years with the next generation of unmanned aircraft and/or b) replacing 65 x manned fighters with a similar number of next-gen aircraft in 20-25 years than if we have to look at replacing all 88.


And that is not bad reasoning, but nobody should kid themselves that it will save money.


----------



## Good2Golf

A common (and rather reliable) rule of thumb for major capital projects is that 15-20 year life-cycle costs are usually 2 to 2-1/2 times the initial acquisition costs.  So that would put potential ROM costs for a UCAV fleet at 3.5-4.5 billion dollars. Of note, UCAVs were not costed into _Strong, Secure, Engaged_.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> A common (and rather reliable) rule of thumb for major capital projects is that 15-20 year life-cycle costs are usually 2 to 2-1/2 times the initial acquisition costs.  So that would put potential ROM costs for a UCAV fleet at 3.5-4.5 billion dollars. Of note, UCAVs were not costed into _Strong, Secure, Engaged_.


Which is important to note given the CAF wants to aquire them now.


----------



## GR66

Good2Golf said:


> A common (and rather reliable) rule of thumb for major capital projects is that 15-20 year life-cycle costs are usually 2 to 2-1/2 times the initial acquisition costs.  So that would put potential ROM costs for a UCAV fleet at 3.5-4.5 billion dollars. Of note, UCAVs were not costed into _Strong, Secure, Engaged_.


Which is why in my questioning the possibility of this as an option I stated that we'd reduce the manned fighter purchase from 88 aircraft to 65 aircraft to save in the range of  $1.84 billion (23 x $80 million) to cover the cost of purchasing 65 x UCAVs at (let's assume a unit price of $25 million) $1.625 billion.  Pretty much a wash as far as initial purchase price goes.


----------



## PuckChaser

But then you need techs and infrastructure to maintain/house 42 more airframes. Not to mention expensive ground control stations for the UCAVs and the fact that we dont own any global communications satellites for the uplink, so we'd be leasing bandwidth which can easily be in the $10s of millions per channel per year. Oh, and starting develop a training system from scratch for a capability that doesnt have a single IOC platform yet.

UCAVs will be a thing, 20 years from now. Binning current procurement to bet on that technology is short sighted and foolish.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

May I ask a tangential question for those that would know?

What is the cost per flight hour of something like the SAAB Globaleye as opposed to the candidates we're currently evaluating?

Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## Good2Golf

GR66 said:


> Which is why in my questioning the possibility of this as an option I stated that we'd reduce the manned fighter purchase from 88 aircraft to 65 aircraft to save in the range of  $1.84 billion (23 x $80 million) to cover the cost of purchasing 65 x UCAVs at (let's assume a unit price of $25 million) $1.625 billion.  Pretty much a wash as far as initial purchase price goes.


That’s just a small part of the overall (notional) program.

• ‘Savings’ - ($1.8B)
• Acquisition - $1.6B
• Life-cycle Support Costs - $3.3B to $4.1B
———
Total incremental program cost - $3.1B to $3.9B

That’s $3-4B we don’t have in the budgeted allocation for DND.

What do you recommend we cut to fund these UCAVs?


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> That’s just a small part of the overall (notional) program.
> 
> • ‘Savings’ - ($1.8B)
> • Acquisition - $1.6B
> • Life-cycle Support Costs - $3.3B to $4.1B
> ———
> Total incremental program cost - $3.1B to $3.9B
> 
> That’s $3-4B we don’t have in the budgeted allocation for DND.
> 
> What do you recommend we cut to fund these UCAVs?


The pay of ministers, parliamentary pension, # of GOFOs, all button and bow/renaming initiatives, charge penalties to shipyards for any further delays.


----------



## GR66

Good2Golf said:


> That’s just a small part of the overall (notional) program.
> 
> • ‘Savings’ - ($1.8B)
> • Acquisition - $1.6B
> • Life-cycle Support Costs - $3.3B to $4.1B
> ———
> Total incremental program cost - $3.1B to $3.9B
> 
> That’s $3-4B we don’t have in the budgeted allocation for DND.
> 
> What do you recommend we cut to fund these UCAVs?


You would have had life cycle and support costs of the additional manned aircraft anyways.  So 2 to 2-1/2 times the $1.8 billion acquisition cost for the 23 extra manned airframes in life-cycle costs is replaced by 2 to 2-1/2 times the $1.6 billion acquisition cost for the 64 x UCAVs to replace them.  

Yes I get that there are also additional costs from having more airframes overall, but we previously had 138 Hornets so presumably we as a nation should have the capability to support 130 manned and unmanned aircraft.  

As far as ground control stations are concerned my understanding from the article is that the Loyal Wingman isn't controlled from a ground station, it's controlled by the accompanying aircraft, so no pilot, satellite or ground control station is required.

That being said I'm 100% sure that there will be additional costs with adding a new weapon system.  However, any new system will require additional investments.  If UCAVs are going to be the cutting edge technology, they why shouldn't we look at making that investment now (and getting them in the 10-year time frame that we're going to be getting our new manned aircraft) rather than waiting 10 years to get manned aircraft that we're going to keep for 40 years.  That just puts us (again) at 40-years behind what other nations (like Australia with the Loyal Wingman) are getting.


----------



## daftandbarmy

We could contract with MDA or another supplier (for unarmed UCAVs) for  a period of time to develop the concept and internal capacity to operate a UCAV fleet, then procure them ourselves eventually based on that ramp up period:





__





						MDA
					

Serving the world from our Canadian home and our global offices, MDA is an international space mission partner and a robotics, satellite systems and geointelligence pioneer with a 50-year story of firsts on and above the Earth. Today, we're leading the charge towards viable Moon colonies...




					mdacorporation.com


----------



## FJAG

PuckChaser said:


> But then you need techs and infrastructure to maintain/house 42 more airframes. Not to mention expensive ground control stations for the UCAVs and the fact that we dont own any global communications satellites for the uplink, so we'd be leasing bandwidth which can easily be in the $10s of millions per channel per year. Oh, and starting develop a training system from scratch for a capability that doesnt have a single IOC platform yet.
> 
> UCAVs will be a thing, 20 years from now. Binning current procurement to bet on that technology is short sighted and foolish.


If you go from 88 to 65 next generation fighters then presumably you should have one squadron's worth of existing personnel and infrastructure redundant which could be converted. Not to be too snide, but if UCAVs are a thing twenty years from no then we better start building the system now or we won't be ready when they are.

🍻


----------



## PuckChaser

FJAG said:


> If you go from 88 to 65 next generation fighters then presumably you should have one squadron's worth of existing personnel and infrastructure redundant which could be converted. Not to be too snide, but if UCAVs are a thing twenty years from no then we better start building the system now or we won't be ready when they are.
> 
> 🍻


So you're suggesting we collapse one of the 4 line fighter squadrons completely now and shortchange our fighter capability (remember the 88 number is because we have a "gap") to prep for 2 decades from now when UCAVs are viable platforms? We can't build systems for things that are basically mockups and test aircraft. The CAF does not have the money, or procurement model to be able to lean out that far on a system. We can barely get what we own now into the air but we should have folks sitting on their tools waiting for an experimental aircraft we haven't even signed a contract to purchase yet because it doesn't exist.

There's 2x X-47B UCAVs that exist in the world. Cutting off badly needed fighter procurements now to bet on UCAVs is asinine.


----------



## MilEME09

How many squadrons does 88 aircraft outfit? And how many spares would that leave us?


----------



## GR66

PuckChaser said:


> So you're suggesting we collapse one of the 4 line fighter squadrons completely now and shortchange our fighter capability (remember the 88 number is because we have a "gap") to prep for 2 decades from now when UCAVs are viable platforms? We can't build systems for things that are basically mockups and test aircraft. The CAF does not have the money, or procurement model to be able to lean out that far on a system. We can barely get what we own now into the air but we should have folks sitting on their tools waiting for an experimental aircraft we haven't even signed a contract to purchase yet because it doesn't exist.
> 
> There's 2x X-47B UCAVs that exist in the world. Cutting off badly needed fighter procurements now to bet on UCAVs is asinine.


Who says we have to drop a fighter squadron completely now?  We haven't even selected a replacement aircraft.  How many years will it be before we get our first new fighter?  How many before we get our 65th? 

The question isn't whether UCAVs are ready to fly today to replace one of our fighter squadrons it's whether they will be ready by the time we receive our 65th new fighter.  That's when you'd be looking at rolling the UCAVs into the 4th fighter squadron when they are (finally) retiring the last batch of Hornets.


----------



## Drallib

MilEME09 said:


> Unfortunately right now without budgetary increases ti the RCAF, as well as Trained manpower increases a split fleet of any kind will hinder us more then help. I agree the RCAF needs more then 88, id prefer a number around 138, which would replace every hornet we ever had 1 for 1. We keep wanting to do more with less, there comes a point where you can't do that any more because birds can't be in two places at once.


MilEME09, I asked a few months ago on this thread why Canada was only getting 88 aircraft oppose to the original number of hornet we had, and the response to that was we had a hornets in Germany or something along those lines. Basically, our mission now doesn’t require that many Fighter jets.

To add, if you look back prior to our purchase of the hornets, Canada had hundreds of fighter jets at one time (post-WWII) and different fighters as well. This was during the Cold War I think.

Different times call for different measures, and Canada’s mission today only calls for 88 Fighters (so our leaders say).

I think the 65 F-35As requested by the CPC was the absolute bare minimum required for our mission, which I assume more would have been purchased later on...


----------



## PuckChaser

GR66 said:


> Who says we have to drop a fighter squadron completely now?  We haven't even selected a replacement aircraft.  How many years will it be before we get our first new fighter?  How many before we get our 65th?
> 
> The question isn't whether UCAVs are ready to fly today to replace one of our fighter squadrons it's whether they will be ready by the time we receive our 65th new fighter.  That's when you'd be looking at rolling the UCAVs into the 4th fighter squadron when they are (finally) retiring the last batch of Hornets.


FJAG said if we dropped fighters we'd have a Squadron of pers to put towards UCAV.

With 2 aircraft built right now, the literal only UCAV that we'd consider buying is the X-47B. If you look at how long it took to make the F-35, which was a generational change aircraft, there's no possible way a UCAV is ready to bid in the early 2030s that FOC is supposed to be for FFCP. We also need to know what the damn are capable of, and what doctrine they support before we even start a project office and send out a RFP. We're supposed to have our first future fighter in mid-2020s, so for arguments sake in 2025. CF-188s start retiring then. There might be 4x X-47Bs flying around then. Totally a good idea to dump billions of finite defense dollars into an experimental project.

🤦‍♂️


----------



## FJAG

PuckChaser said:


> So you're suggesting we collapse one of the 4 line fighter squadrons completely now and shortchange our fighter capability (remember the 88 number is because we have a "gap") to prep for 2 decades from now when UCAVs are viable platforms? We can't build systems for things that are basically mockups and test aircraft. The CAF does not have the money, or procurement model to be able to lean out that far on a system. We can barely get what we own now into the air but we should have folks sitting on their tools waiting for an experimental aircraft we haven't even signed a contract to purchase yet because it doesn't exist.
> 
> There's 2x X-47B UCAVs that exist in the world. Cutting off badly needed fighter procurements now to bet on UCAVs is asinine.


Not at all. I personally think it would be nice to have them all. In fact more than 88 except the cash isn't there. But I digress ...

My comment was only in response to your response to GR66s suggestion that reducing from 88 to 65 would free up the procurement cash to for the UCAVs to which you stated that:



> But then you need techs and infrastructure to maintain/house 42 more airframes ...


All that I said was that IF you reduce from 88 to 65 then you would have the equivalent of one squadron's worth of resources to throw at the UCAVs -- 13 less aircraft being roughly one squadron.

I just think that GR66 is being a bit more forward leaning then some. If you buy the full 88 the RCAF will be wedded to those things for the next three decades at least (the CF 18 has been around for 38 years) There won't be a downstream nickel for anything new until the last F-35 or Grippen or whatever has rusted out on the tarmac.

I think it would be smart to leave some room in the inventory for the next generation of things.

Let's face it. We're all just spit balling here. If the Army isn't growing it's capabilities for the next peer conflict, then what is the next generation fighter really for. How many do we need to intercept encroaching Bears? I can see the need for new naval capabilities to "protect the homeland" against peer threats, but am having some troubles in seeing the next generation fighter as a "must have" rather than a "nice to have". If we'd bought them a decade ago like we should have, then okay. They were the only real option then. But now, there's a whole herd of new capabilities on the horizon and it would be nice for once to get in on the ground floor of new concepts. Putting all our Air Force eggas in one basket and locking them down for decades to come seems short sighted to me.

(Pretend there's $0.02 imoji here)

🍻


----------



## GR66

PuckChaser said:


> FJAG said if we dropped fighters we'd have a Squadron of pers to put towards UCAV.
> 
> With 2 aircraft built right now, the literal only UCAV that we'd consider buying is the X-47B. If you look at how long it took to make the F-35, which was a generational change aircraft, there's no possible way a UCAV is ready to bid in the early 2030s that FOC is supposed to be for FFCP. We also need to know what the damn are capable of, and what doctrine they support before we even start a project office and send out a RFP. We're supposed to have our first future fighter in mid-2020s, so for arguments sake in 2025. CF-188s start retiring then. There might be 4x X-47Bs flying around then. Totally a good idea to dump billions of finite defense dollars into an experimental project.
> 
> 🤦‍♂️


I think it would be fair to guess that FJAG wasn't suggesting that we drop our FIRST CF-18 squadron to be replaced in favour of UCAVs.  Why would you do that and have them sit waiting for a platform to be brought online?  Roll the first three squadrons into the first 65 x CF-18 replacement fighters while the UCAV technology matures and then the LAST squadron transitions into the new platform.

And Boeing is projecting that they will be mass producing Loyal Wingman by the middle of the decade.

https://www.reuters.com/article/boe...e-by-middle-of-decade-executive-idINKBN22H06F


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Interesting to say the least! Looks like the USN is having problem with its conformal tanks on its new F-18 E/F Block III models. I'm wondering if this would have any impact of Boeings offer to replace our CF-18s? 



> *Navy Considers Axing Conformal Fuel Tanks From Its Block III Super Hornet Upgrade Plan *
> By  Joseph Trevithick  January 29, 2021 ​
> The War Zone
> 
> The U.S. Navy is considering removing conformal fuel tanks, or CFTs, from the Block III upgrade package for its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets after discovering various issues with them during testing. Deciding not to pursue these tanks, which are designed to extend the Super Hornet's range even without it having to carry drop tanks in place of other underwing stores, could have significant ramifications for the service's future tactical aviation plans. It could also impact the export prospects for these jets, as well.
> 
> _Aviation Week_ was the first to report the potentially serious problems with the CFTs on Jan. 28, 2021. Boeing has been flight testing Super Hornets with the tanks as part of the Block III upgrade program since at least 2019. The company had previously experimented with adding CFTs to the aircraft, in cooperation with Northrop Grumman, as part of a proposed Advanced Super Hornet upgrade package, which it publicly unveiled in 2008.
> 
> The Navy told _Aviation Week_ that unspecified "technical, structural, and sustainment" problems had arisen in tests of the CFTs as part of the Block III upgrade effort. The service added that the issues had emerged during testing in a "carrier environment."
> 
> While we don't know what the exact issues are, the Navy's disclosure that there is a specific link between them and the operation of CFT-equipped jets from its aircraft carriers could suggest the problems have to do, at least in part, with how the upgraded aircraft handle the stresses of catapult launches and arrested recoveries. At the same time, the tanks were designed to handle the strains of high-g aerial maneuvers.
> 
> Another possibility might be that the tanks have been found to block access to key sections of the aircraft when they are installed, requiring their removal to perform certain routine maintenance and other tasks, adding costly time and effort to those processes. It's also interesting to note that the section on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the latest annual report from the Pentagon's Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E, makes no mention of the conformal fuel tanks, at all.
> 
> "The Boeing Block III Super Hornet’s advanced capabilities provide the Navy with multiple options for increasing an air wing’s combat effectiveness," was all Boeing would say in a statement to _The War Zone_ in response to queries about the issues the Navy has uncovered with the CFTs. "Together with the Navy, Boeing will ensure that the Block III remains the most versatile tactical aircraft in the fleet."
> 
> The addition of the tanks is just one of the planned Block III upgrades. The full package, which you can find out more about in this previous _War Zone_ piece, also includes new coatings to help reduce the radar signature of the aircraft, new mission computers and data links, and highly customizable wide-area multi-function displays in each cockpit, including the rear ones on two-seat F/A-18Fs. The Navy is also in the process of adding improved satellite communications (SATCOM) systems and the ability to use an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor installed in a modified drop tank, the latter of which you can read about in more detail in this past _War Zone_ feature, to its Super Hornets through separate programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing
> 
> A broad overview of the Navy's Block III upgrade program for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
> 
> However, the CFTs are a particularly significant part of the upgrade plan. Two of the aerodynamic CFTs, each of which can hold up to 515 gallons of fuel, are designed to be installed on top of the center "barrel" section of the F/A-18E/F's fuselage, fitted one on each side of the aircraft's central spine.
> 
> At least in principle, this provides significant benefits in range _and_ performance over draggy drop tanks, which can only hold 480 gallons of fuel each. Jets with CFTs can also carry additional stores on underwing pylons that otherwise would have to be set aside to carry the drop tanks.
> 
> In the past, Boeing has said, by way of example, that a Super Hornet carrying two AIM-9X Sidewinders, two AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), and two 2,000-pound-class precision-guided bombs would have a combat radius of 594 nautical miles with only the fuel in its internal tanks, plus a drop tank on its centerline pylon. With CFTs, a jet with the same loadout would have a combat radius of 714 nautical miles.
> The CFTs would also help make up for the loss of fuel in the new IRST-equipped centerline drop tanks. Those tanks can only carry 330 gallons of fuel, instead of 480 gallons. An F/A-18E/F with one of these drop tanks, as well as six AIM-120s and two AIM-9Xs, would have a combat radius of around 509 nautical miles, according to Boeing. With CFTs, that would be extended out to 611 nautical miles.
> 
> The Navy has touted this added range, and the additional stores capacity when operating out to those distances, as an important way to expand the overall capabilities of its carrier air wings. At the same time, it has described the benefits that the CFTs offer, together with the extra range future MQ-25A Stingray tanker drones will also provide, as a critical way to help reduce the vulnerability of its aircraft carriers. Extending the reach of these jets, as well as other aircraft in the carrier air wing, such as the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, means that flattops can launch them while staying further away from ever-growing anti-access and area denial threats, including advanced anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, especially in any potential future high-end conflict against a near-peer adversary, such as Russia or China.
> If the Navy now determines that the CFTs are more trouble than they're worth, its future Block III F/A-18E/Fs will be stuck with the same range and stores capacity limitations as its existing Super Hornets. The aforementioned MQ-25As could help mitigate this, but these drones alone would inherently offer more limited range-extension benefits than they could in combination with CFT-equipped Super Hornets. Those unmanned aircraft will also be heavily in demand to support future carrier air wings' F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, which cannot, at least at present, carry external drop tanks, at all. Any such external tank would negatively impact the radar-evading qualities of the F-35s to some degree, as well, making it unlikely that these jets would carry them on missions where they would need to be in their most stealthy configuration.
> 
> The CFTs have also been seen as a feature that could be ported over to the Navy's EA-18G Growler as part of a Block II upgrade program for those electronic warfare aircraft. These aircraft would also greatly benefit from added range, something that also translates to longer time on station, while simultaneously freeing up underwing pylon space. The EA-18Gs already have to lug around extra fuel, along with large jamming pods, to perform their missions.
> 
> With the Navy already looking to stop buying new Super Hornets, eliminating the CFTs from the Block III upgrade program could place more emphasis on its efforts to acquire new manned _and_ unmanned carrier-based combat aircraft. The service is still very much in the process of figuring out what exactly its future carrier air wings might look like as it progresses with its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which you can read about more in this previous _War Zone_ piece and should not to be confused with the Air Force's effort of the same name.
> 
> 
> The Navy cutting the CFTs could have impacts on Boeing's efforts to pitch Super Hornets with some or all of the Block III features to foreign countries, as well. The tanks are a notable component of the offers the company has submitted in competitions to supply jets to the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Indian Navy, among others.
> 
> If the problems uncovered so far do turn out to be limited to operations from catapult-equipped carriers, this might be less of an issue. The Indian Navy, for instance, only has one carrier in service, at present, and another under construction, both of which feature ski jumps, rather than catapults. Canada plans to operate whatever new fighter jets it ends up buying from bases on land, as does Germany, which recently decided to acquire F/A-18E/Fs as a partial replacement for its aging Panavia Tornado combat jets.
> 
> 
> It is important to stress that the Navy has not yet made a final decision on how it will proceed, or not, with adding CFTs to its Super Hornet fleet as part of the Block III program. Still, that the service is considering axing the tanks from the planned slate of upgrades at all is a significant development that signals there are real challenges preventing the full potential benefits they offer from being realized.
> 
> _Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com_




Link


----------



## MarkOttawa

Finnish Hornets ten years younger than RCAF's just buy them to complete the fighter force renewal:



> Finland Seeks Best and Final Offer for HX Fighter Jets with April Deadline​
> The Finnish Defence Forces Logistics Command sent the Request for Best and Final Offer (BFO) for the HX Fighter Programme today to replace its ageing F-18 Hornet aircraft.
> 
> The Request for BFO concerns the following multi-role fighters and their related systems and weapons: Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet (United States), Dassault Rafale (France), Eurofighter Typhoon (Great Britain), Lockheed Martin F-35 (United States) and Saab Gripen (Sweden).
> 
> *The deadline for finalized tenders is 30 April 21 while the government will decide on the procurement at the end of 2021 *[emphasis added].
> 
> The Finnish Parliament has approved an authorization order of EUR 9.4 billion to procure multi-role fighters to replace the Hornet fleet.
> 
> The tendering phase began in spring 2018 when the Defence Forces Logistics Command sent a preliminary call for tenders and an invitation to participate in negotiations. In October 2019, a revised Request for Quotation (RFQ) was sent, and responses to it were received in January 2020. The negotiations have taken place between tendering phases.
> 
> The Request for Best and Final Offer states uniform requirements. It is, however, tenderer-specific meaning that the quotation of each tenderer is based on a package with specifications offered in the quotation and the negotiations. With the Request for Best and Final Offer, each tenderer is requested to compile the information provided in the previous tenders and negotiations into a final and binding package.
> 
> The transferable appropriation of EUR 579 million for five years will ensure that the procured system will be introduced as part of Finland’s defence system. EUR 21 million has been granted to cover the costs arising from the preparation of the programme.
> 
> *HX Options*
> 
> The HX options of each tenderer differ as to the costs of introduction into service, construction needs and integration into the defence system. This is why each tenderer will be given a tenderer-specific price limit, and, in addition, a similar option will be included in the Request for Best and Final Offer for each tenderer for later purchases and contractual changes. Therefore, the price ceiling set for each tenderer is about EUR 9 billion.
> 
> At its meeting in January 2021, the Government’s Ministerial Committee on Economic Policy supported sending the Request for Best and Final Offer. The grounds and steering for finalising the HX project can be found in the Government Programme and the Government’s Defence Policy Report 2017.
> 
> The *package to be procured includes not only the aircraft but also associated technical systems, training systems, necessary maintenance equipment, test equipment and spare parts along with weapons, sensors and other required type-specific support functions. The package must also include the changes in command, control, communications and computers (C4) and information systems required for its integration into the defence system, as well as the construction of security-critical infrastructure *[emphasis added]*.
> 
> Considerations in decision-making
> 
> Selecting a multi-role fighter is based on four considerations: the multi-role fighter’s military capability, security of supply, industrial participation and costs* [emphasis added]. Security and defence policy implications will be assessed separately outside of the actual tendering process. A procurement decision also requires contractual readiness with the proposed tenderer.
> 
> Since the procurement will have an impact on the Defence Forces’ operational capability and will define the Air Forces’ combat capability into the 2060s, it is important to select a system with the best possible capabilities, including supporting elements and development capacity over the entire life cycle.
> 
> The manufacturer must be able to provide industrial participation solutions and a maintenance system that meet the requirements while also ensuring operability in emergencies and sufficient capacity to operate independently in emergencies. It must be possible to cover the operating and maintenance costs of the selected system from the defence budget.
> 
> *Phases of the procurement procedure from now on*
> 
> The best and final quotations requested by the end of April will be assessed to make a procurement proposal. When a tenderer passes the requirements regarding security of supply, industrial participation and costs, it will then be subjected to the last phase of capability assessment.
> 
> A capability assessment will be made in phases taking into account the packages offered and the capability values verified on the basis of testing events. In the last phase, a long-term war game will be simulated to determine the operational efficiency of each candidate’s HX system. The Defence Forces’ proposal on the system to be selected will be based on the outcome of the war game and an assessment of the future development potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defense World
> 
> 
> View News at Defense World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defenseworld.net



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

GR66 said:


> potential shortcomings that have been raised by critics.



Tabloid journalism is a real problem these days, these so called "experts" are clueless and only put out articles to entice web traffic. 

Lets look at the hard data:

610+ Currently built. 
First combat mission was in 2018 by the Israeli Air Force. 
Dozen international partners
Foreign militaries deliveries
Decades of sustainment, support and upgrades on the international level from our closest ally 

You'd have to be crazy to think anything else can offer the same level of capability and long term support for the price.



> The UCAVs would be cheaper than manned fighters and would be economically (and possibly politically) easier to replace/upgrade going forward as technology advances.



Assumptions. When a UCAV can intercept an airliner or northern threat, dogfight and make split-second life or death decisions, then it's an option. Until then, having a pilot at the controls of his machine, on location, is still Canada's only option. Plus we don't want "pilots" walking around in flight suits having never flown anything, save that debate for the US. 
Our biggest problem from all your ideas is people, we don't have them to operate multiple fleets of fighters/UCAVs in semi-isolated locations that's a hotbed for retention issues.


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:


> Assumptions. When a UCAV can intercept an airliner or northern threat, dogfight and make split-second life or death decisions, then it's an option. Until then, having a pilot at the controls of his machine, on location, is still Canada's only option. Plus we don't want "pilots" walking around in flight suits having never flown anything, save that debate for the US.
> Our biggest problem from all your ideas is people, we don't have them to operate multiple fleets of fighters/UCAVs in semi-isolated locations that's a hotbed for retention issues.


I agree with you about the UCAV capabilities *at this time*. However, I'm sure companies are looking at air-to-air capabilities too. 

As for your other points:

Why would RPA crews be operating them out of semi-isolated locations?  The tech is there now that they don't even need the local launch/recovery units - everything is done via SATCOM.  The crews could be in somewhere like Winnipeg or Ottawa (I'm spitballing bc of prox to Command) while the aircraft are deployed around the world.  The maintainers would be with the aircraft obviously, but its long endurance means the aircraft doesn't need to be located in Cold Lake or Goose Bay. 
Why don't we want RPA pilots without other experience?  If the USAF can train them from scratch successfully, can we not take their lessons and do the same thing?  
RPA pilots and sensor operators are pilots and sensor operators.  Period.  There was an Air Force Blues cartoon years ago that I'm trying (and failing) to find, but the gist was "if EOD stops using the bomb suit and uses remotely-operated bomb-disarming robots, are the operators no longer EOD operators?"  Does EOD need to be within bomb blast radius to be considered a "real" EOD operator?


----------



## Rifleman62

Still don't know how all these aircraft and new ships will be powered in Trudeau's New Climate Plan, nor Biden's.


----------



## dapaterson

Article by an RAF pilot on the F35 and its control systems.









						What is good and bad about the F-35 cockpit: A ‘Panther’ pilot’s guide to modern cockpits
					

The F-35 helmet: does it show too much too small? My background – Current F-35 pilot and Weapons School graduate. I Have flown the Harrier II and F/A-18 Hornet operationally as well as instructing …




					hushkit.net


----------



## GR66

Quirky said:


> Tabloid journalism is a real problem these days, these so called "experts" are clueless and only put out articles to entice web traffic.
> 
> Lets look at the hard data:
> 
> 610+ Currently built.
> First combat mission was in 2018 by the Israeli Air Force.
> Dozen international partners
> Foreign militaries deliveries
> Decades of sustainment, support and upgrades on the international level from our closest ally
> 
> You'd have to be crazy to think anything else can offer the same level of capability and long term support for the price.


It's not only in "tabloid journalism" where the F-35 is being questioned.  The USAF's own internal roadmap is calling for capping F-35 purchases at 1,050 rather than the 1,763 originally called for by the program and the Air Force is looking into expanded buys of F-15EX and and F-16 Block 70/72's in addition to attritable UCAVs and the 6th Generation NGAD fighter in place of the F-35 funding.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...alks-new-f-16-orders-latest-acquisition-shake

From the same article:

"Asked by a reporter on Jan. 14 for his thoughts about the F-35, then-Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller referred to his department’s largest weapon system program as a “piece of shit.” 

And Will Roper, the recently departed Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics stated this about the F-35 program:  “I think it’s a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk,” Roper told reporters on Jan. 14. “That’s why other tactical aviation options are appealing to have in the mix so that the Air Force has options.




Quirky said:


> Assumptions. When a UCAV can intercept an airliner or northern threat, dogfight and make split-second life or death decisions, then it's an option. Until then, having a pilot at the controls of his machine, on location, is still Canada's only option. Plus we don't want "pilots" walking around in flight suits having never flown anything, save that debate for the US.
> Our biggest problem from all your ideas is people, we don't have them to operate multiple fleets of fighters/UCAVs in semi-isolated locations that's a hotbed for retention issues.


In fact, the AI to control UCAVs in just those kinds of situation are well into development.  This past August DARPA's Air Combat Evolution (ACE) program pitted AI programs against a human F-16 pilot in simulated dogfights and the AI defeated the human pilot 5-0.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-...ight be the,pilot in five simulated dogfights.

And I have a bit of a problem with the "we can't operate multiple fleets of aircraft" argument that always seems to be brought up whenever a split fleet is mentioned.  I have absolutely no doubt that there are retention problems for both pilots and maintainers in the RCAF.  Those problems exist with a single fighter airframe, so the root cause isn't the prospect of having multiple airframes.  A solution to this issue will have to be found regardless of what aircraft we purchase (single type or multiple types) so it really shouldn't be framed as a split fleet only issue.

And with regards to the idea of a split fleet, we once had 138 Hornets in operation.  My original question was about the possibility of having 65 manned aircraft and 65 unmanned aircraft (130 aircraft total).  

Is the ability to support a similar number of aircraft that we had in the early 1980's simply outside the capability of the CF?  Is the prospect of supporting TWO different airframes for the air combat role impossible for us?  For rotary wing aircraft we manage to support the Cyclone, Cormorant, Chinook and Griffon (4 airframes...not sure who provides the support for the Bell 412CFs and Jet Rangers), and in the fixed-wing world we have the Tutor, Aurora, Buffalo, Hercules, Kingfisher, Globemaster, Twin Otter, Challenger, Polaris, King Air (10 airframes plus multiple training airframes).


----------



## Quirky

GR66 said:


> It's not only in "tabloid journalism" where the F-35 is being questioned.  The USAF's own internal roadmap is calling for capping F-35 purchases at 1,050 rather than the 1,763 originally called for by the program and the Air Force is looking into expanded buys of F-15EX and and F-16 Block 70/72's in addition to attritable UCAVs and the 6th Generation NGAD fighter in place of the F-35 funding.
> 
> https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...alks-new-f-16-orders-latest-acquisition-shake
> 
> From the same article:
> 
> "Asked by a reporter on Jan. 14 for his thoughts about the F-35, then-Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller referred to his department’s largest weapon system program as a “piece of shit.”
> 
> And Will Roper, the recently departed Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics stated this about the F-35 program:  “I think it’s a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk,” Roper told reporters on Jan. 14. “That’s why other tactical aviation options are appealing to have in the mix so that the Air Force has options.



I guess Canada should buy F-35s and F-16s then?




> n fact, the AI to control UCAVs in just those kinds of situation are well into development.



Wake me up once they are operational and in service. Betting on unproven technology we have no infrastructure for is a great idea! The F-35 is operational and flying NOW.



> Is the ability to support a similar number of aircraft that we had in the early 1980's simply outside the capability of the CF?



Yes. Forget about the 1980s. It's like those avro arrow nutjobs who are convinced we can just spin up production and it will be the greatest fighter jet in history purely on specifications and performance of prototypes.


----------



## kev994

GR66 said:


> It's not only in "tabloid journalism" where the F-35 is being questioned.  The USAF's own internal roadmap is calling for capping F-35 purchases at 1,050 rather than the 1,763 originally called for by the program and the Air Force is looking into expanded buys of F-15EX and and F-16 Block 70/72's in addition to attritable UCAVs and the 6th Generation NGAD fighter in place of the F-35 funding.
> 
> https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...alks-new-f-16-orders-latest-acquisition-shake
> 
> From the same article:
> 
> "Asked by a reporter on Jan. 14 for his thoughts about the F-35, then-Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller referred to his department’s largest weapon system program as a “piece of shit.”
> 
> And Will Roper, the recently departed Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics stated this about the F-35 program:  “I think it’s a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk,” Roper told reporters on Jan. 14. “That’s why other tactical aviation options are appealing to have in the mix so that the Air Force has options.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the AI to control UCAVs in just those kinds of situation are well into development.  This past August DARPA's Air Combat Evolution (ACE) program pitted AI programs against a human F-16 pilot in simulated dogfights and the AI defeated the human pilot 5-0.
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/ai-wins-5-to-0-in-simulated-dogfights-against-human-f-16-fighter-pilot/139848.article#:~:text=in your browser.-,AI wins 5 to 0 in simulated,human F-16 fighter pilot&text=In what might be the,pilot in five simulated dogfights.
> 
> And I have a bit of a problem with the "we can't operate multiple fleets of aircraft" argument that always seems to be brought up whenever a split fleet is mentioned.  I have absolutely no doubt that there are retention problems for both pilots and maintainers in the RCAF.  Those problems exist with a single fighter airframe, so the root cause isn't the prospect of having multiple airframes.  A solution to this issue will have to be found regardless of what aircraft we purchase (single type or multiple types) so it really shouldn't be framed as a split fleet only issue.
> 
> And with regards to the idea of a split fleet, we once had 138 Hornets in operation.  My original question was about the possibility of having 65 manned aircraft and 65 unmanned aircraft (130 aircraft total).
> 
> Is the ability to support a similar number of aircraft that we had in the early 1980's simply outside the capability of the CF?  Is the prospect of supporting TWO different airframes for the air combat role impossible for us?  For rotary wing aircraft we manage to support the Cyclone, Cormorant, Chinook and Griffon (4 airframes...not sure who provides the support for the Bell 412CFs and Jet Rangers), and in the fixed-wing world we have the Tutor, Aurora, Buffalo, Hercules, Kingfisher, Globemaster, Twin Otter, Challenger, Polaris, King Air (10 airframes plus multiple training airframes).


You need more people and parts to have two fleets of x aircraft than you do to have one fleet of 2x aircraft because you end up having to duplicate people/parts.


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> You need more people and parts to have two fleets of x aircraft than you do to have one fleet of 2x aircraft because you end up having to duplicate people/parts.


Exactly.

All the other aircraft listed by GR66 have different roles.  Multiple fleets for a single role doesn’t make sense.  It would be like saying we should also get A400M to ‘tween the C-17s and Hercs, or also getting NH90s to backstop the Cyclone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The F-35 and F-15x seems to me a very potent mix allowing both aircraft to exploit their potentiel to the maximum.


----------



## GR66

Quirky said:


> I guess Canada should buy F-35s and F-16s then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake me up once they are operational and in service. Betting on unproven technology we have no infrastructure for is a great idea! The F-35 is operational and flying NOW.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Forget about the 1980s. It's like those avro arrow nutjobs who are convinced we can just spin up production and it will be the greatest fighter jet in history purely on specifications and performance of prototypes.


So I assume you were 100% against Canada signing on to the F-35 program when it began because it was a new technology and we didn't (and still don't) have the infrastructure for it?  And some of the originally planned capabilities are still under development?  Same for the Type 26 for the CSC?  

So when I note that the US Secretary of Defence and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics have expressed some concerns over the F-35 program as a single all-purpose combat aircraft I get lumped in with "Avro Arrow nutjobs"?



Good2Golf said:


> All the other aircraft listed by GR66 have different roles. Multiple fleets for a single role doesn’t make sense. It would be like saying we should also get A400M to ‘tween the C-17s and Hercs, or also getting NH90s to backstop the Cyclone.



Are our CF-188's a "single role" aircraft?  I thought that specifically we selected the Hornet because we needed a multi-role aircraft and that hasn't changed with our requirement for its replacement.  We need platforms that can conduct an air-to-air role as well as an air-to-ground role.  Are the Twin Otter, Herc and Globemaster not all transport aircraft?  They contribute different parts of the same basic function.

I originally put forward the question of manned fighters plus UCAVs for discussion and not because I am convinced that it's the right choice for the RCAF but I find myself defending the suggestion because some of the arguments I'm seeing don't seem very logical to me.  I have no doubt having a split fleet would create logistical and manning challenges, but I have trouble accepting the argument that these challenges are either insurmountable or fundamentally different than similar challenges that have been faced by other parts of the CF in adding new/different capabilities.  I also have some difficulty with the suggestion that we should not even consider investing in and developing new capabilities simply because the technology is not yet mature.  That seems a recipe for permanently having an outclassed military as we'll always be a generation behind the leaders in our capabilities.


----------



## YZT580

The F35 is at its best when it lurks in the bullrushes so to speak and oversees the battlefield.  It should be bought in tandem with another airframe that would actually carry out the strike whilst the F35 identifies the next and next and next target without having to defend itself because its first shot showed everyone where it was.  We've had multifple fleets before when our national population was a third less than it is now.  Heck we had more combat aircraft in Lars and Baden alone then we own now.  I don't believe that out of 35 million people we can't find and keep a few hundred flying fighters.


----------



## Good2Golf

GR66 said:


> Are our CF-188's a "single role" aircraft?  I thought that specifically we selected the Hornet because we needed a multi-role aircraft and that hasn't changed with our requirement for its replacement.  We need platforms that can conduct an air-to-air role as well as an air-to-ground role.  Are the Twin Otter, Herc and Globemaster not all transport aircraft?  They contribute different parts of the same basic function.


Sure, I’ll play your semantics game. Fighter operations is the role category and Canada wants a multi-role fighter that can perform both the Control of the Air and Air Attack doctrinal roles, like the CF-188 does currently.  I posit that Canada needs but one platform for the Future Fighter Capability Program to carry out the fast-air multi-role mission.

All the other platforms fulfill unique designated doctrinal roles in the RCAF, with the only arguable overlap being CH-146 Griffon being used for primary rotary-wing SAR in Trenton.


----------



## Drallib

YZT580 said:


> The F35 is at its best when it lurks in the bullrushes so to speak and oversees the battlefield.  It should be bought in tandem with another airframe that would actually carry out the strike whilst the F35 identifies the next and next and next target without having to defend itself because its first shot showed everyone where it was.  We've had multifple fleets before when our national population was a third less than it is now.  Heck we had more combat aircraft in Lars and Baden alone then we own now.  I don't believe that out of 35 million people we can't find and keep a few hundred flying fighters.



Back when we had a multi-fleet of fighters was post-WWII / Cold War time frame which there was a threat and necessity for the capability. The 4th-Gen fighters seems to have been a leap in technology and upgradability. Even when we ordered 138 hornets, there was still that necessity in the late 70s/early 80s with our base in Germany and our mission requirement.

Ordering hundreds of fighter now wouldn't solve anything. The RCAF only wings 120ish Pilots a year for either rotory, multi-engine, or fighter. The amount that release yearly is close to it also. And if you build that many more fighters then you need many more techs, more training, etc.

We even had an aircraft carrier. Yes, it was built at the latter days of WWII, but that less population argument isn't the best I don't think. It all depends on the mission we have.

Is it possible? Yes. I'm not saying we aren't capable, but with our current mission and with politicians needing a justification for such a purchase, especially in a pandemic economy, it wouldn't be likely.

My 2 cents.


----------



## FJAG

Drallib said:


> Back when we had a multi-fleet of fighters was post-WWII / Cold War time frame which there was a threat and necessity for the capability. .


Back many years ago, just after the F5 came into service, I was at, I think Bagotville on my ACO course and there was an F5 siting on the hanger floor next to the engine of a Voodoo. There wasn't much of a size difference. We still had 104s in Germany as well.

That's me a few years later on my FAC course in the back seat of an F5 for my familiarization flight about to attack Gagetown. No cookies lost.



🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> Back many years ago, just after the F5 came into service, I was at, I think Bagotville on my ACO course and there was an F5 siting on the hanger floor next to the engine of a Voodoo. There wasn't much of a size difference. We still had 104s in Germany as well.
> 
> That's me a few years later on my FAC course in the back seat of an F5 for my familiarization flight about to attack Gagetown. No cookies lost.
> 
> View attachment 64450
> 
> 🍻


OK, Goose, you win maximum cool points for today!


----------



## GR66

The RAF is moving forward with Loyal Wingman projects as well...

https://defence-blog.com/news/royal...rit-aerosystems-for-uncrewed-fighter-jet.html


----------



## Drallib

MarkOttawa said:


> Finnish Hornets ten years younger than RCAF's just buy them to complete the fighter force renewal:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



It seems our timeline isn't too far off from Finland's, with their Final Proposal date in April.

Our proposal evaluation is set to be completed in February, with the down-select decision and announcement expected April 2021, revised proposal submissions sent by Jul-Aug, evaluations of proposals Aug-Nov.

Would this evaluation of proposals in Aug-Nov be the Final and Best Offer to Canada though before a contract is awarded in 2022?

Another thought, does anyone think that if Finland selects the F35 then it is likely we will also?


----------



## Blackadder1916

FJAG said:


> Back many years ago, just after the F5 came into service, I was at, I think Bagotville on my ACO course and there was an F5 siting on the hanger floor next to the engine of a Voodoo. There wasn't much of a size difference. We still had 104s in Germany as well.
> 
> That's me a few years later on my FAC course in the back seat of an F5 for my familiarization flight about to attack Gagetown. No cookies lost.
> 
> View attachment 64450
> 
> 🍻



If you're a trivia fan - looks as though you're in 813 (the two seaters were numbered 116801 to 116846).

Another view of that aircraft.


			http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Aircraft/Aircraft--Canada--2-/Canadair-CF-116D-Freedom-Fighter--Serial-No--116813-.jpg
		






__





						CF5 two seaters
					





					www.rwrwalker.ca
				





> 9 December 1968 - Taken on strength
> 
> Originally ordered as RCAF 14813, re-marked before completion. Delivered direct to CFB Cold Lake, Alberta. On static display at CFB Namao on Armed Forces Day, 1969. May have been first public display of type. Operated by 433e L'Escadre de Combat, CFB Bagotville, PQ., in aluminum paint, by 1974. Also operated by 434 Squadron. Received structural upgrade late 1980s. With No. 419 Squadron at Cold Lake in 1990 and 1993. In storage at Aircraft Maintenance Development Unit at CFB Trenton by February 1995. Seen in storage, inside Hanger 3 at CFD Mountain View, Ontario in October 2005. Nose section in use as recruiting aid by 2007, still in aggressor markings. Reportedly owned by Public Affairs Exhibits.


----------



## FJAG

Blackadder1916 said:


> If you're a trivia fan - looks as though you're in 813 (the two seaters were numbered 116801 to 116846).
> 
> Another view of that aircraft.
> 
> 
> http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Aircraft/Aircraft--Canada--2-/Canadair-CF-116D-Freedom-Fighter--Serial-No--116813-.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CF5 two seaters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rwrwalker.ca


Thanks for that. We groundpounding types generally never think about the history of an aircraft. While I went to Bagotville for the ACO course, this flight was actually out of Summerside. I was on the Advanced Arty course in Gagetown and the the FAC course was part of that. They flew half of us students to Summerside to fly in the jets while the other half did the FACing, then the next day we changed round. 

For some years now I've been trying to remember where it was that I flew in a Tracker (I keep having these visions of being stuffed into that back seat for some time without remember where in hell I ever had that opportunity). The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that we were ferried across to Summerside, two at a time, aboard Trackers. My only other recollection of that time was leisurely sitting on a sunny hill overlooking a valley calling in a round of fire for effect while writing my wife a letter on my field message pad (this being the year I was gone from home for almost eleven months on one course after exercise after course after exercise after course)

Fun times

🍻


----------



## armrdsoul77

USAF and new 4.5 gen fighter​








						USAF rethinks future fleet, ponders clean-sheet 4.5-generation fighter
					

The US Air Force is studying a future fighter fleet that might include new Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters or possibly a clean-sheet 4.5-generation fighter.




					www.flightglobal.com


----------



## armrdsoul77

F-35 engine problems...









						Air Force Reduces Exhibition Flights on New F-35 Engine Woes
					

The Air Force F-35 jet team that performs at air shows around the world has had to scale back appearances this year. The problem: a growing shortage of engines because of longer repair periods, some due to previously unreported shortcomings with engine blade coatings.




					www.bloomberg.com


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

armrdsoul77 said:


> USAF and new 4.5 gen fighter​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USAF rethinks future fleet, ponders clean-sheet 4.5-generation fighter
> 
> 
> The US Air Force is studying a future fighter fleet that might include new Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters or possibly a clean-sheet 4.5-generation fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flightglobal.com



The fact that conversation is being had is certainly damning for the F35.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Now engines:



> Air Force Reduces Exhibition Flights on New F-35 Engine Woes​                               By
> Anthony Capaccio





> Engines running hot are causing cracking on turbine blades
> Previously undisclosed issue is latest in $398 billion program





> Air Force Reduces Exhibition Flights on New F-35 Engine Woes
> 
> 
> The Air Force F-35 jet team that performs at air shows around the world has had to scale back appearances this year. The problem: a growing shortage of engines because of longer repair periods, some due to previously unreported shortcomings with engine blade coatings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

The F-35 will be the best choice for us, for a variety of reasons - when everything works as intended, and the maintenance issues have been resolved.  There are still some pretty expensive fixes that need to happen first, one of which is the engine issue.  (Jet engines aren't remotely cheap)

It's been an accidental blessing we didn't purchase out 65 aircraft when the Conservatives first announced the procurement - financially & availability wise, I think we'd be in worse shape.  The Hornets, as old as they may be, are still reliable sluggers -- and while we all agree they need to be replaced, I really do think it's actually been a blessing our federal government is so incompetent at procurement... let others pay for the expensive fixes before we place our orders.  

0.02


----------



## MarkOttawa

CBH99 said:


> The F-35 will be the best choice for us, for a variety of reasons - when everything works as intended, and the maintenance issues have been resolved.  There are still some pretty expensive fixes that need to happen first, one of which is the engine issue.  (Jet engines aren't remotely cheap)
> 
> It's been an accidental blessing we didn't purchase out 65 aircraft when the Conservatives first announced the procurement - financially & availability wise, I think we'd be in worse shape.  The Hornets, as old as they may be, are still reliable sluggers -- and while we all agree they need to be replaced, I really do think it's actually been a blessing our federal government is so incompetent at procurement... let others pay for the expensive fixes before we place our orders.
> 
> 0.02


Meanwhile price looks like stalling, at least for a while:



> Steady F-35 Price Reductions Likely at an End​
> The next three lots of F-35 production—now being negotiated—likely won’t see much, if any, lowering of unit prices, Lockheed Martin aeronautics vice president Gregory M. Ulmer said Feb. 19.
> 
> A reduction in units being procured and an increase in capability of the aircraft will make it tough to keep the price from rising, he said.
> 
> “If you look at the next three lots, there’s going to be quite a bit of pressure, I would say, keeping the cost neutral,” Ulmer told journalists on a telecon press conference ahead of AFA’s virtual Aerospace Warfare Symposium Feb. 24-26.
> 
> There’s “a significant quantity reduction in the next three years … on the order of 100 aircraft,” he said, so there will be fewer aircraft across which to spread overhead costs.
> 
> In the Lot 12, 13, and 14 deal, announced in October 2019, there were 478 aircraft, and Lockheed’s unit price for the F-35A model fell below $80 million apiece for the first time. The Lot 12-14 contract reduced F-35 unit prices nearly 13 percent over the previous lots, and marked the sixth successive year of unit price reductions.
> 
> “We also know we’re going to put Tech Refresh 3 [upgraded software, improved core processor, new cockpit display] and new capabilities on the aircraft” in Lots 15-17, Ulmer said. Given all that, “We’re working to keep a cost-neutral position” for the next production lots.
> 
> The Joint Program Office reported in January that its contracting strategy for Lots 15-17 will be to negotiate a “base year” contract for Lot 15, with two single-year options in Lots 16 and 17.
> 
> The F-35 still has not been declared ready for full-rate production; that status has been repeatedly delayed while the Pentagon integrates the aircraft with the Joint Simulation Environment, a Pentagon wargaming system that assesses the right numbers of various platforms for various combat scenarios.
> 
> _Declaring the F-35 ready for full-rate production will make it possible for a multi-year contract of five to seven years, Ulmer said, noting that partners are already taking advantage of block buy quantities to reduce risk. That arrangement would enable contractors and subs to make better deals for materials and labor, which could hold prices down, he said_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steady F-35 Price Reductions Likely at an End | Air & Space Forces Magazine
> 
> 
> Unit prices aren't likely to decrease much, if at all, in the next three lots of F-35 production—now being negotiated, says Lockheed Martin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Didn't see anyone post this news on the Australian Loyal Wingman project -

First flight - 1 March.


----------



## PuckChaser

Maiden flight? Man we should dump 50% of our manned aircraft fleet for this clearly combat ready and proven technology!!!!


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:


> Maiden flight? Man we should dump 50% of our manned aircraft fleet for this clearly combat ready and proven technology!!!!


Well.  Don't know about you, but 5 years seems to go by in an awful big hurry.  Especially if PWGSC is involved.

It seems like only yesterday when Perrin Beatty was kicking the tyres on 12 nuclear subs and we were debating the merits of the Marder.  And I had only captured enough carbon for half of the man I am today.


----------



## PuckChaser

The F-35 is the only thing I can think of in recent memory where we bought into a project with intent to purchase before it was a mature capability. I wouldn't even be opposed to us signing a MOU to help pay for research costs for Loyal Wingman, but that's our next bound in purchases. We shouldn't be short changing current requirements for future, unproven designs.


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:


> The F-35 is the only thing I can think of in recent memory where we bought into a project with intent to purchase before it was a mature capability. I wouldn't even be opposed to us signing a MOU to help pay for research costs for Loyal Wingman, but that's our next bound in purchases. We shouldn't be short changing current requirements for future, unproven designs.


No doubt.

And we probably shouldn't be wasting money on moonshots and Mars explorers that could be spent on welfare checks, neither.

....

I don't get it.  We seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what we can't do because of the money we don't have but seem to be unable to look at changing the way we do things with the money we do have.

Let me take crewing ships as an example.

AOPS - 45 man crew but we put on 68 - an extra half a crew - 6 boats with 9 crews and at the same time I hear complaints about not being able to find sailors for the ships we do have because they don't want the sea time.

CSC is heading the same direction - boats designed for crews of less than a hundred and we are looking to put 200 sailors in them .... but, again, we have trouble filling the berths on the 12 frigates we do have.

...

I agree we have to keep "one foot on the ground".  But we also always have to "keep looking downfield"  for open ground.  And be prepared to change direction when the opportunity presents.

...

Do I think that we should chuck the hunt for the F35s and go all in on  Loyal Wingman?  That'd be daft.  But investing in the Aussie programme or even the Brit's Taranis.... while bringing the F35s on line.  There's a thought.

...

RAAF

Loyal Wingman - 6 prototypes on order
MQ-9B - 12-16 on order
MQ-4C - 6 on order

F35 - 33 in service, total of 72 ordered
F/A-18F - 24 in service
EA-18G - 11 in service

E-7A - 6 in service
MC-55A - 4 on order
P-8 - 12 in service, 2 on order

And we can go on...

The issue is not always the money we have.  It is the way we choose to spend the money.

Cheers.


----------



## PuckChaser

I honestly don't think manned vs unmanned aircraft is going to be the big PY savings everyone thinks it is. What you reduce in ALSE Techs you gain double or triple in Sigs pers to maintain the massive amounts of bandwidth to fly the things remotely, and in the Loyal Wingman case you still need a manned aircraft to control it.

We still haven't even cracked the seal on the big discussion on whether we'll let autonomous vehicles deploy munitions against an enemy without a human pushing the button....


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:


> I honestly don't think manned vs unmanned aircraft is going to be the big PY savings everyone thinks it is. What you reduce in ALSE Techs you gain double or triple in Sigs pers to maintain the massive amounts of bandwidth to fly the things remotely, and in the Loyal Wingman case you still need a manned aircraft to control it.
> 
> We still haven't even cracked the seal on the big discussion on whether we'll let autonomous vehicles deploy munitions against an enemy without a human pushing the button....


True enough.

With or without a pilot it still takes a ground crew to get the aircraft into the air.  So your probably right in terms of swapping UAVs for piloted craft.  On the other hand your sortie efficiencies might go up with 3 uavs playing follow-the-leader with every manned aircraft.

But that is why I think that things like the UAVs being trialled by the Royal Marines to replace CQ vehicles have more promise to deliver savings.  Also on board ships and in AFVs I am still of the opinion that needs must and that we must accept smaller crews and increased robotics to increase the number of platforms - platforms with more capable munition loadouts .  We need the woman-in-the-loop.  We shouldn't need so many of them.  

And why can't we drive a frigate from inside a lifeboat?


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:


> I honestly don't think manned vs unmanned aircraft is going to be the big PY savings everyone thinks it is. What you reduce in ALSE Techs you gain double or triple in Sigs pers to maintain the massive amounts of bandwidth to fly the things remotely, and in the Loyal Wingman case you still need a manned aircraft to control it.
> 
> We still haven't even cracked the seal on the big discussion on whether we'll let autonomous vehicles deploy munitions against an enemy without a human pushing the button....


That's why I think we won't go all in on unmanned (as opposed to remotely piloted/crewed) aircraft just yet.  Imagine if a completely autonomous aircraft drops bombs on the wrong target (civilian or friendly casualties).  Who is at fault?

However, with Remotely Piloted Aircraft you definitely don't lose PYs at all.  In fact, with the whole point of them being longer on-station times, you need multiple crews.  MQ-9s already have a 3-person crew for the aircraft (Pilot, Sensor Operator, and Mission Int Coordinator) with another bunch of Int folks working while it's flying.  So...5-6 people for each aircraft.  That's almost as many as an Aurora.


----------



## FJAG

dimsum said:


> That's why I think we won't go all in on unmanned (as opposed to remotely piloted/crewed) aircraft just yet.  Imagine if a completely autonomous aircraft drops bombs on the wrong target (civilian or friendly casualties).  Who is at fault?
> 
> However, with Remotely Piloted Aircraft you definitely don't lose PYs at all.  In fact, with the whole point of them being longer on-station times, you need multiple crews.  MQ-9s already have a 3-person crew for the aircraft (Pilot, Sensor Operator, and Mission Int Coordinator) with another bunch of Int folks working while it's flying.  So...5-6 people for each aircraft.  That's almost as many as an Aurora.


But all things being equal, you should be able to train several UAV operators for the cost of training one afterburner jockey. The airframes should be less costly and if you loose one you don't loose an afterburner jockey with it. In fact many of your drones could very well be one-trip-munition vehicles designed to suicide on the target or alternatively just release a precision guided weapon near the target. To get back to another thread, you could probably train NCOs to pilot remote munitions and no longer need to worry about the pilot attrition rate  🙂 

There are endless possibilities here limited only by our imagination. And yes, in mine there are still roles for fighter jocks.

🍻


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FJAG said:


> But all things being equal, you should be able to train several UAV operators for the cost of training one afterburner jockey. The airframes should be less costly and if you loose one you don't loose an afterburner jockey with it. In fact many of your drones could very well be one-trip-munition vehicles designed to suicide on the target or alternatively just release a precision guided weapon near the target. To get back to another thread, you could probably train NCOs to pilot remote munitions and no longer need to worry about the pilot attrition rate  🙂
> 
> There are endless possibilities here limited only by our imagination. And yes, in mine there are still roles for fighter jocks.
> 
> 🍻


It ain’t the training costs the kill you, it is the pay and benefits envelope...


----------



## FJAG

SeaKingTacco said:


> It ain’t the training costs the kill you, it is the pay and benefits envelope...


The good news is that the Air Force already has 3,700 officers so we really don't need any more than we're paying now. We just need to winkle them out of the cubicles that they are hiding in.

🙂


----------



## blacktriangle

FJAG said:


> To get back to another thread, you could probably train NCOs to pilot remote munitions and no longer need to worry about the pilot attrition rate  🙂


Definitely, but there may still be some unique retention issues to deal with. Stress/burnout, moral dilemmas, and so on. Especially for younger NCM sensor operators and Int types, who over time may decide that the "juice ain't worth the squeeze". As long as enough training capacity exists, I guess it won't matter too much. The CAF always seems to struggle in that regard, though...


----------



## FJAG

Let me digress from the main topic just a little more because the last half dozen posts are on point with this.

The phase in the book that Old Sweat and I are writing right now deals with the stand up of both a counter mortar radar troop and a UAV troop for Op Athena 1s ROTO 0 back in 2003. I've conducted close to a dozen interviews on the subject and think I've got a fair handle on it.

At the time the Directorate of Land Requirements had been working on a project for the integration of land sensors into what is commonly called ISTAR. Both the CMR and UAV were elements of that although neither system existed in our inventory. Back in April of 2002 a number of agencies got together in Suffield for an exercise that tested both a high level and medium level UAV and out of the tests came an acceptance that the CAF needed a suite of UAVs operating at the high, medium and low levels. The understanding was that the RCAF would be concerned about the former and the Army the two latter ones (i.e. Tactical UAVs).

Fast forward to Feb 2003 and the MND announces we're going to Kabul catching most of the CAF flatfooted. We send a recce party to the current ISAF III roto there and the Germans are flying the Puma UAV while the Dutch are operating the US AN/TPQ - 36 FireFinder CMR. The requirement for such system for the next ROTO is identified and rapidly agreed to and within a few weeks an Unforcasted Operational Requirement (UOR) is issued by the Directorate of Land Force Readiness to DLR, cash is allocated and the the procurement process begins.

Fast forward slightly to April 2003 when 2 CMBG is at the BTE in Wainwright, still carrying out its ordinary training cycle for high readiness and the artillery is standing up a target acquisition cell while the brigade is experimenting with an ISTAR company. As part of that, the artillery is flying a Vindicator (an aircraft used as a target for air defence training) modified with a small camera sensor package. An Air Force helicopter is cleared into the Wainwright training area but doesn't contact the brigade's Air Space Coord Centre or its TACP and flies directly through a Restricted Operating Zone (ROZ) in front of the Vindicator as it was being prepped for launch. As a result the Army files a Transport Canada (TC) Flight Safety Incident Report which is sent to the RCAF for investigation. It is at this point that the RCAF has little cows and starts making comments about the "Army doesn't have the right to fly anything" and inserts itself into the already ongoing stand-up of a tactical UAV capability for Afghanistan.

By the summer of 2003 the artillery has already stood up a troop and the Sperwer has been acquired.  The artillery sends some 20 personnel to a TC mandated civilian flight school for three months to learn about all things aircraft operation. Well before deployment and well before a single incident has occurred, the RCAF inserted five air crew trained personnel into the system at the time that the artillery's people attended Sperwer training in France for another three months.

I'm partially on board with Oldgateboatdriver with this. IMHO the type of aircraft matters. For high flying UAVs the Air Force should have full management of all five categories put forward by SupersonicMax; for medium level TUAVs the responsibility should be shared as suggested by Oldgateboatdriver; and at the low/miniUAV level the RCAF has no role whatsoever. There may need to be some discussion as to where the boundaries at this level should be but that's generally it.

There is a complicating factor that many of our allies do not have which is that aviation is usually an Army resource (and once was here too) while at unification the Air Force forced themselves into that field and made it an RCAF one. We therefore have an RCAF resource that typically operates in an environment already occupied by numerous Army projectiles and other systems that occupy and control the air space that aviation flies through. By intruding into this air space the RCAF has complicated tactical level air space management and the doctrine that controls it. Quite frankly we could simplify the entire system if rather than putting all of those five categories into RCAF hands, we put aviation into the Army's hands so that all five of those categories would be managed by the Army at the Aviation and below levels of operations. As I mentioned above, the whole issue respecting Sperwer started when an RCAF helicopter improperly entered a ROZ which was a measure imposed by a joint Army/Air Force tactical agency. Obviously there would still be instances of RCAF resources operating within Army controlled air space that would require joint management but the instances would be significantly fewer.

Incidentally I'm slowly moving my research forward along the timeline and while I know very little at this point about the RCAFs further insertion into the operation of UAVs for Athena 2 I'm looking forward to finding out the whys and whats that went on. I would very much like to speak to any RCAF individuals who were involved at that time and will let you know when I get there (probably late this year)

🍻


----------



## FJAG

SupersonicMax said:


> Not true.  We, more often than not, operate in airspace nowhere near land forces.  Also, by doctrine (be it Canadian, NATO or US), airspace (and all air assets, in some cases less helos in direct support of a maneuver force) is controlled by airpower.  They apportion aircraft and airspace to the Army.  Not the other way around.  This ensures that all assets are deconflicted and that all effects are coordinated.  Airpower does a lot more than supporting the Army.


Reread my paragraph and start with the part where I say "... as far as tactical air is concerned ...". Unless the air force has changed the joint doctrine somewhere "tactical air" concerns 


> An air operation involving the employment of air power in coordination with ground or naval forces to:a. gain and maintain air superiority;b. prevent movement of enemy forces into and within the objective area and to seek out and destroy these forces and their supporting installations;c. join with ground or naval forces in operations within the objective area, in order to assist directly in attainment of their immediate objective.


Funny that thing about air power apportioning air space to the Army. And here I always thought that in a given theatre that air power and air space allocation was exercised by the JTF commander through the Joint Force Air Component Commander with the main emphasis here being "through". Strangely enough, when we are considering operations where there is a requirement for tactical air in support of Army operations then the JTF commander who exercises overall command is an Army guy. There are a lot of things that the air force does because its their bag and no one cares enough to bother about but when it comes to who tells who what in a joint operation keep a clear eye on who is in overall command.

Stop reading air force doctrine and start reading joint doctrine when it comes to tac air. Kinda works the same for Joint Navy Task Forces to where the air element supports the Navy commander.

🍻


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SupersonicMax said:


> It is in RCAF doctrine, available here: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/mdn-dnd/D2-393-1-2018-eng.pdf
> 
> See page 8



Interesting. I have never read this pub before, but will read it in greater detail later. Thank you.

However, just a few first comments from reading that page and then looking back to get what are some of the concepts it refers to.

I start by noting that an air doctrine put out by RCAF that puts it in charge of air doctrine is ... something that might not stand the test of other commanders stating their own doctrine. So there is obviously some coordination going on somewhere and input obtained from multiple sources. For instance, I know that our (CAF) ASW doctrine is signed off on by both CRCN and CRCAF.

I also note that the section refers to these five residual aspects as relating to "air power operations".  I went back in the pub to find a definition of "air power operations" and found none. There is a list of characteristics of air power (including some that merely state that a given characteristic is that it is "less" or "more" of some aspect than the naval or land component's such character - an interesting negative way of stating things a bit like "we are Canadian because we are not Americans  ) but it doesn't state if those are merely some indicators used to help in qualifying some operations as air power or wether they are characters that must *all* be present for something to fall within the purview of air power. I don't know the answer and genuinely would like to know.

Nevertheless, staring from the fact that the RCAF doctrine applies to "air power operations", I ask the following: In the days of multiple types of RPA's and flying ordnance (long range missiles, ASu or Land attack, or even anti-ballistic), is it possible that not everything in the air constitute an "air power" operation?

Using the same examples I used before, I would suggest that the Army using a small RPA to look over a ridge or a frigates using a small shipboard RPA to go and read the ship's name, port of registration and look at the ship characteristic features to confirm identity for ship 20 NM from me - so I don't have to come about and close to ID - would be viewed by both the Army and RCN as mere extensions of one's senses or sensors (for the ship) in the usual discharge other functions, and not as applications of "air power", and therefore that the RCAF has no business sticking it's nose in it. I am  not set in my ways here and am willing to be convinced otherwise, so anyone feel free to attempt so.

On the other hand, I completely accept that the use of helicopters for prosecution of submarines constitutes "air power" operations. This said, while the navy will accept that  air safety, air worthiness (all aspects - technical and human) and in this case training and standards remain with the RCAF, I can also tell you that the navy will never accept that any doctrine relating to ASW as carried out from ship (with or without shipboard helicopters) be dictated by the RCAF.


----------



## cf100mk5

Possible RAF F-35 fleet reduction by as much as two thirds?










						British Armed Forces Poised To Make Big Cuts To F-35 Plans And More
					

The large-scale modernization promised under the upcoming defense review is likely to be tempered by some severe force reductions




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Looks like they use the excuse of "evolving technologies" to cut forces, but to make it look like it's not as bad as it is. To run carriers without sufficient jets and wear out those airframe from over use is pennywise and pound foolish. Reducing the buy rate per year will help the budget without incurring other long term costs.


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT the F15EX -  and "drones"  

Kratos has its own version of the Loyal Wingman - carried on the F15.

Is the F15 a UOR bomb-truck to carry drones in support of F35 led recce forces?









						F-15 Eagle Seen Loaded With Loyal Wingman Drone For Previously Unknown Tests
					

F-15s carrying loyal wingmen into the fight is a fascinating proposition, but what these tests could be for beyond that is even more intriguing.




					www.thedrive.com
				












						More Details On Kratos’ Optionally Expendable Air Combat Drones Emerge
					

The USAF doesn’t seem interested in fielding a high-end unmanned air combat vehicle, but they might be interested in fielding lots of cheaper, lower-end ones that they can even choose to throw away for certain missions.




					www.thedrive.com
				




 Low-Cost Attritable Strike Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Demonstration (LCASD)



> The LCASD system KUSD will provide represents a configurable design for multiple variants anticipated to perform various missions that could require Nap-of-The-Earth (NOE) Flight, Cruising at High Altitudes, Defensive Counter Air (DCA) Maneuvers, Offensive Counter Air (OCA) Maneuvers, the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) and the Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD).  Additionally, the System will also incorporate performance capability including extreme agility for missile avoidance maneuvers for improved survivability. The Kratos LCASD design will meet or in certain cases significantly exceed the following stated Air Force goals for the program:​
> 
> UAS Acquisition Cost: $3 million or less for the first unit up to 99 units, and $2 million or less for 100 or greater unit quantity purchases.
> 1,500 nautical mile mission radius with a 500 lb. payload.
> Capable of Mach 0.9 Dash.
> Maximum G load limits, maneuver rates, and subsystem environmental suitability.
> Internal weapons capability; sized to carry and deliver at least two GBU-39 small diameter bombs.
> Runway Independent Take-off and Landing capability.
> Emphasis on the use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) materials, sub-systems, manufacturing processes, and open mission system architecture concepts.
> Tactical consideration of the vehicle shape, elimination of gaps and mismatches, and aero-structural inlet








						Kratos Receives Low-Cost Attritable Strike Unmanned Aerial System Demonstration Contract Award | Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc
					

The Investor Relations website contains information about Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc's business for stockholders, potential investors, and financial analysts.




					ir.kratosdefense.com


----------



## Kirkhill

How much of the Davis-Monthan boneyard could be repurposed as either bomb-trucks and/or optionally manned  and/or unmanned aircraft?


----------



## Kirkhill

More curious stuff - F15 carries Valkyrie, Valkyrie carries Switch Blade


> In October 2020, AeroVironment revealed they had teamed with Kratos Defense & Security Solutions to demonstrate a "high-speed, long-range unmanned combat air vehicle" that serves as a mothership to deliver Switchblade 300s in large numbers that cooperatively attack and overwhelm enemy defenses












						AeroVironment Switchblade - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## blacktriangle

Kirkhill said:


> How much of the Davis-Monthan boneyard could be repurposed as either bomb-trucks and/or optionally manned  and/or unmanned aircraft?


Or the living boneyard at TTR in Nevada? Bandits become Zombies?


----------



## dapaterson

The USMC variant, the F35B, had a class A accident today, when the aircraft shot itself in mid-air.









						One of America’s $135.8 Million Fighter Jets Shot Itself
					

The F-35 is the most expensive weapon ever made. One just shot itself and did at least $2.5 million in damage.




					www.vice.com


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe it didn’t see itself?  The ultimate confirmation of its stealth capability.

ps. The Vice article does have some incorrect information:



> The F-35 is the most expensive weapon ever built. Just one of the B variants, flown by the U.S. Marine Corps, costs around $135.8 million.


 
The B-2 is significantly more expensive than an F-35, for example.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> The USMC variant, the F35B, had a class A accident today, when the aircraft shot itself in mid-air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of America’s $135.8 Million Fighter Jets Shot Itself
> 
> 
> The F-35 is the most expensive weapon ever made. One just shot itself and did at least $2.5 million in damage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vice.com


Misleading headline.  A round had a pre-mature burst.  This could happen with any platform.


----------



## Quirky

Vice.com is where I go to read stories, not news. Followed closely by the CBC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Articles extolling the virtues of the latest version of Super Hornet with a brief mention of Canada.









						The Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet Gets Even More Super
					

It’s always been versatile, but now it can reach farther.




					www.airspacemag.com


----------



## Gorgo

Given how much the American government is seemingly looking at the F-35 as a financial black hole with little returns, how would this enhance the chances of the F/A-18E/F to win the contest?









						The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
					

The U.S. Air Force’s chief of staff wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of aging F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated F-35 stealth fighters. But an affordable, lightweight fighter is exactly what the F-35 was first conceived to be.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> Articles extolling the virtues of the latest version of Super Hornet with a brief mention of Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet Gets Even More Super
> 
> 
> It’s always been versatile, but now it can reach farther.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airspacemag.com


There are more recent (Jan-Feb 2021) articles saying that the conformal fuel tanks may be problematic.









						The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet Might Be in Trouble
					

The latest Block III Super Hornet variant could have some issues with their conformal fuel tanks.




					nationalinterest.org


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

dimsum said:


> There are more recent (Jan-Feb 2021) articles saying that the conformal fuel tanks may be problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet Might Be in Trouble
> 
> 
> The latest Block III Super Hornet variant could have some issues with their conformal fuel tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org



Interesting read...

Either the "structural impact on landing gear" or "reduced access for servicing" could both torpedo the project (and the benefits it would have provided).

Bring on the F-15EX!


----------



## Quirky

> Bring on the F-15EX!



About 10 years too late to the game, not happening in Canada unless we request it or go sole source buy. Stranger things could happen. 

Anything but that stupid paper tiger from Sweden.


----------



## Gorgo

Quirky said:


> About 10 years too late to the game, not happening in Canada unless we request it or go sole source buy. Stranger things could happen.
> 
> Anything but that stupid paper tiger from Sweden.



Why don't you like the Grippen?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Quirky said:


> About 10 years too late to the game, not happening in Canada unless we request it or go sole source buy. Stranger things could happen.
> 
> Anything but that stupid paper tiger from Sweden.



I'm telling you right now....

If Trudeau can negotiate a deal which results in i) jobs in Eastern Canada where seats are contested, and ii) Boeing ensuring the contract is somehow carbon-neutral, I think he would jump at the opportunity.  I think the Liberal Party is desperate to try to change the page from the WE Charity scandal and Vaccine Procurement issues, and a story like that would most certainly help.


----------



## Quirky

Gorgo said:


> Why don't you like the Grippen?



The real question is what’s there TO like? Our F-18s are just as capable. That’s not a good thing. The gripen lives in a fantasy world of promised capabilities, they are so good their supporters keep it a secret! It’s a disgustingly overrated, underperforming turd that Sweden doesn’t even want.



Cdn Blackshirt said:


> I'm telling you right now....
> 
> If Trudeau can negotiate a deal which results in i) jobs in Eastern Canada where seats are contested, and ii) Boeing ensuring the contract is somehow carbon-neutral, I think he would jump at the opportunity.  I think the Liberal Party is desperate to try to change the page from the WE Charity scandal and Vaccine Procurement issues, and a story like that would most certainly help.



I don’t know how you can argue that a fighter jet is carbon neutral, dumping carbon into the upper atmosphere is as bad as it gets. How does Boeing set up shop in Eastern Canada and what part of the F-15 do they build?


----------



## NavyShooter

They contract production with Irving shipyards, use the 'delay' between the AOPS completion and the CSC commencement to run a bunch of them through their assembly hall, (note, open box at one end, pull wings and fuselage out, show pictures of said wings being bolted on and call it 'assembly' and 'Made in Canada' - tell everyone that Irving is planting 5 billion trees this year to offset the carbon, and they call it a win.

Votes from Eastern Canada secured for a decade.


----------



## dimsum

NavyShooter said:


> They contract production with Irving shipyards, use the 'delay' between the AOPS completion and the CSC commencement to run a bunch of them through their assembly hall, (note, open box at one end, pull wings and fuselage out, show pictures of said wings being bolted on and call it 'assembly' and 'Made in Canada' - tell everyone that Irving is planting 5 billion trees this year to offset the carbon, and they call it a win.
> 
> Votes from Eastern Canada secured for a decade.


Imagine the uproar from Canadian aviation companies when a shipyard gets any part of an aircraft contract.  

To be honest, I'm not even sure shipyards (or any other heavy industry) can do that.  I'm not sure how similar the qualification standards (like ISO, etc) are between those industries.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Imagine the uproar from Canadian aviation companies when a shipyard gets any part of an aircraft contract.
> 
> To be honest, I'm not even sure shipyards (or any other heavy industry) can do that.  I'm not sure how similar the qualification standards (like ISO, etc) are between those industries.


Sub-contract to IMP.

I’d say I’m jesting, but a large part of me wouldn’t be surprised if that actually came to pass. 😕


----------



## dapaterson

Gripen is already partnered with IMP.

So the good news is that we wouldn't have to worry about infrastructure being the long pole in the tent for capability delivery.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Gripen is already partnered with IMP.
> 
> So the good news is that we wouldn't have to worry about infrastructure being the long pole in the tent for capability delivery.


That is the prime IMP you’re referring to, not the IMP sub to Irving. 😉


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In Canada, it would not surprise me that a shipyard gets the contract to assemble new fighter here.....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Quirky said:


> I don’t know how you can argue that a fighter jet is carbon neutral, dumping carbon into the upper atmosphere is as bad as it gets. How does Boeing set up shop in Eastern Canada and what part of the F-15 do they build?



You're assuming the Liberal Party is looking to be accurate in its claims?  I have no such expectations.  In both cases they just need enough plausibility to be marketable as the sheep won't fact check it anyway.


----------



## MilEME09

Canada nearing end of decade-long search for new fighter jet, top official says - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The aircraft competing to replace the CF-18 are Lockheed Martin's F-35, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen.




					globalnews.ca
				




Finish line is in sight finally, let's hope we make it


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> Canada nearing end of decade-long search for new fighter jet, top official says - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The aircraft competing to replace the CF-18 are Lockheed Martin's F-35, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finish line is in sight finally, let's hope we make it


I think the finish line is...drum roll please.....


After much consultation - decades- the GoC has decided not to decide on a new fighter. You see COVID has eaten up all the money and well - sorry. Here's some new blue duct tape to fix your old ones.


----------



## MTShaw

OldSolduer said:


> I think the finish line is...drum roll please.....
> 
> 
> After much consultation - decades- the GoC has decided not to decide on a new fighter. You see COVID has eaten up all the money and well - sorry. Here's some new blue duct tape to fix your old ones.


Just an FYI, my MP is a Liberal. I asked her, amongst many other question (and from a good distance) about military procurement, she said they are going to buy new planes because they are simply out of time.

Also, when I spoke to Minister Sajjan very briefly last fall, I asked him if they were still committed to the 1.8% of GDP Defense spending indicated during the first Trudeau government and he said yes.


----------



## MilEME09

MTShaw said:


> Just an FYI, my MP is a Liberal. I asked her, amongst many other question (and from a good distance) about military procurement, she said they are going to buy new planes because they are simply out of time.
> 
> Also, when I spoke to Minister Sajjan very briefly last fall, I asked him if they were still committed to the 1.8% of GDP Defense spending indicated during the first Trudeau government and he said yes.


If they were smart, using defense spending, especially our infrastructure deficit to create jobs would boost the economy.


----------



## YZT580

but it will influence their choice.  Whichever airframe provides the most *visible* bang for the buck (translate that as jobs here in Canada) will become the winner


----------



## Weinie

YZT580 said:


> but it will influence their choice.  *Whichever airframe provides the most visible bang for the buck (translate that as jobs here in Canada) will become the winner*


I fear that this was always the leading option.


----------



## Quirky

canadas NGF requirements in order:

Economic offsets;
Cost;
Cool factor and if the media likes it;
Capability.




MilEME09 said:


> Canada nearing end of decade-long search for new fighter jet, top official says - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The aircraft competing to replace the CF-18 are Lockheed Martin's F-35, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finish line is in sight finally, let's hope we make it



Once the F-35 is chosen, the government (Cons and Libs), would have spent 11 years to come full circle from 2011. In addition, the Libs wasted $1.4b for CF-18 and Aussie Hornet upgrades and another 23 'capability gap' airframes*.

*How many are actually flying in squadrons at this point?


----------



## MTShaw

MilEME09 said:


> If they were smart, using defense spending, especially our infrastructure deficit to create jobs would boost the economy.


And thus, we circle back, inexorably, back to the Gripen. If we start building fighters in Canada, we will never be able to stop. The pattern will change when we join with Saab/Sweden, BAE/Britain and Leonardo/Italy for the Tempest program.


----------



## MilEME09

MTShaw said:


> And thus, we circle back, inexorably, back to the Gripen. If we start building fighters in Canada, we will never be able to stop. The pattern will change when we join with Saab/Sweden, BAE/Britain and Leonardo/Italy for the Tempest program.


Oh but will we write in our intent to buy the tempest only to back out when it's time to put our money where our mouth is?


----------



## MTShaw

MilEME09 said:


> Oh but will we write in our intent to buy the tempest only to back out when it's time to put our money where our mouth is?


That may be the case. But HMG would have to shutdown an industry. Given our vaccine problems, any government is capable of doing just that.


----------



## Loachman

Generation kill: In praise of America’s F-35 fighter
Proponents say two recent exercises demonstrate the warplane’s many capabilities are worth every penny
by Dave Makichuk April 17, 2021

Lockheed Martin’s controversial F-35 Lightning II stealth jet fighter has its detractors and proponents.

Having earned the nicknames the “trillion-dollar mistake” and “the flying super-computer,” among others, it has taken a beating from critics who point to its multitude of teething problems (some of which continue today), soaring costs and its inability to do anything really well.

My buddy and fellow pilot John Desramaux (aviation expert and Second World War historian from Ontario) and I often discuss (a.k.a. argue), over whether Canada should spend billions on the advanced, multi-role F-35, or just add more F/A-18s to its aging fleet of fighter jets.

As far as John is concerned, Canada should “go fifth generation, or go home.”

But is there any evidence - solid evidence - that backs that up?

More at link.


----------



## OldSolduer

Did the fighter saga survive the 354 billion dollar deficit budget?


----------



## PuckChaser

OldSolduer said:


> Did the fighter saga survive the 354 billion dollar deficit budget?


Yeah, it's hard to kill projects when you get 4 pages for National Defense out of a 734 page budget.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely continuing to move ahead very, very, very slowly. Favorite Liberal tactic is to never cancel things, just quietly defund then.


----------



## Gorgo

Something that might interest people here:



			Federal budget resurrects 'economic harm' warning as fighter jet contract nears


----------



## Edward Campbell

Gorgo said:


> Something that might interest people here:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal budget resurrects 'economic harm' warning as fighter jet contract nears


I suspect Prof Elinor Sloan has nailed it. Near the very end of the article, she is quoted as saying that "My guess is they are having to walk back that clear policy statement [2015, a Liberal Gov't will NOT buy the F-35]  ... [and] ... I can only read into this that [F-35 Joint Strike Fighter] will be chosen. They need to find a way, a political way, to justify this about-face."


----------



## Good2Golf

Agreed Mr. Campbell, Prof.  Sloan is bang on. Certainly no doubt that Boeing’s actions precipitated the chain of events that led to Bombardier’s C-Series being taken over by Airbus, arguably (perhaps) keeping Canada and Quebec from recovering any value from their C-Series related investments.  Most likely post-election, g will announce its moving ahead with the F-35 acquisition.

G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excellent Finnish blogger Corporal (not) Frisk on Finland's fighter competition--64 planes wanted--and Super Hornet/Growler/F-35A offers--start of post and excerpts on cruise missiles:



> The Further Adventures of the F-35 (and the Super Hornet)​The HX competition continues to provide surprises in the post-BAFO era, and this week’s media event courtesy of the US Embassy was no exception. After a short introduction by the embassy that described the strong partnership that exists between Finland and the US (and which included a note about Finnish exports and know-how finding its way into key US programs, such as the Polar Security Cutter), it was on to the two US fighter manufacturers to discuss their bids. And while they might be taking part in the same media event, the tone certainly tells of the battle heating up. Boeing discarded outright the theory of ordinary fighters working as EW-platforms, noting that an AESA radar will only provide X-band jamming, and only during ingress, leaving you unprotected when exiting the target area, while Lockheed Martin explained how the F-35A doesn’t require support from electronic warfare platforms or ISR assets “as opposed to 4th generation fighters”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Illustration of the difference between having a dedicated EW-aircraft compared to an unnamed strike fighter (no points for guessing which, though) using its AESA-radar as a giant jammer. The colour coding symbolise different bands, with the underwing pods of the Growler jamming the S-, C-, and X-bands while the centre-line pod handles the VHF, UHF, and L-band part of the spectrum. Picture courtesy of Boeing._
> 
> Much of the presentation from Boeing should be well-known talking points to readers of the blog, but in short Boeing still sees international opportunities for up to 400 Super Hornets on the international market. This includes everything from Germany, which already has down-selected the aircraft, to less likely cases such as India.The German contract is the most important one from a Finnish point of view and would likely be a minor facor in HX as it would mean another serious European operator, though my expectation is that the deal won’t be inked until the new government is formed and have gotten up to speed (read: 2022, which also seems to be roughly the timeline Boeing is expecting). Some have questioned the future of the programme as a whole with the rise of _Die Grünen_, but so far the programme is continuing apace and Germany has indeed already invested money in the preparatory studies, which would imply that the MoD is expecting it to survive a change of government. Notable also that while the Greens aren’t particularly keen on nuclear weapons, part of the allure of the Super Hornet in the strike role comes from the synergies of the Growler which is part of the non-controversial luWES Tornado ECR-replacement program. Of the near-future decisions, the _Swiss and Canadian decision are expected within June and before the end of the summer respectively. Switzerland and Canada are less likely to end in work for St Louis, but you never know_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> Is there a heavy cruise missile at all in Lockheed Martin’s best and final offer?
> 
> The JSM is a very nice weapon, and it marries extremely well with the F-35. However, the 550+ km range is a far cry from the 1,850+ km range of the AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER which is cleared for export to Finland as part of both US offers, but as noted the JASSM _has never been confirmed by Lockheed Martin_. Granted the F-35A might be able to operate closer to its intended target than the Super Hornet, but I sincerely doubt the difference is in the 1,300+ km class. And the difference isn’t just in the range (the JSM in fact outranges the current AGM-158A, so it would still be a step up), but the JASSM carries a 450-kg penetrating warhead while the JSM comes with the significantly more tame 125-kg fragmentation one.
> 
> To put it bluntly – it might be a cruise missile, but it is not the capability the Finnish Air Force is looking for...
> 
> Now, if there really is some rather significant holes in the F-35 package, such as the lack of a heavy cruise missile, it isn’t far-fetched to see a re-negotiation where say two aircraft are dropped and the cost is converted into JASSMs, as in all fairness the difference between 64 and 62 aircraft would in practice turn out to be rather minor. On the other hand, it is the BAFO package that will be evaluated in the war games that determine the winner, and it would be a high-risk gamble to go in with something else than the optimal solution to the needs of the FDF. A third possibility is that Lockheed Martin is believing that they won’t come out on top, and then it would look better to be able to walk away saying that they were able to fit 64 aircraft in their offer under the budget given, but that they lost on some more particularly Finnish requirement (defence budgets and numbers are rather global phenomenon and affect every future fighter programme in which they wish to compete, dispersed operations in snow doesn’t)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Further Adventures of the F-35 (and the Super Hornet)
> 
> 
> The HX competition continues to provide surprises in the post-BAFO era, and this week’s media event courtesy of the US Embassy was no exception. After a short introduction by the embassy that…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> corporalfrisk.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Reading about the USAF struggles to maintain the coatings on the F35, makes me wonder if the aircraft is a good fit for Canada, considering our poor track record of maintaining things?


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> Reading about the USAF struggles to maintain the coatings on the F35, makes me wonder if the aircraft is a good fit for Canada, considering our poor track record of maintaining things?


If you're talking about keeping things properly yes we do have a not great record. IF you're talking about the use of gun tape and patching things up to keep things operational then we are wizards.


----------



## Loachman

Colin Parkinson said:


> Reading about the USAF struggles to maintain the coatings on the F35, makes me wonder if the aircraft is a good fit for Canada, considering our poor track record of maintaining things?


I have never signed for an aircraft that was less than airworthy. There may have been some minor unserviceabilities at times, but never anything unsafe or that might have limited my mission.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:


> I have never signed for an aircraft that was less than airworthy. There may have been some minor unserviceabilities at times, but never anything unsafe or that might have limited my mission.


That i am not doubting, but how many aircraft are/were awaiting serving and parts? That seems to be a common trend in our fighter fleet?


----------



## Loachman

We always had excellent serviceability on exercises and ops, and less in garrison - where time could be taken to fix things and conduct major maintenance.


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> Reading about the USAF struggles to maintain the coatings on the F35, makes me wonder if the aircraft is a good fit for Canada, considering our poor track record of maintaining things?


One of the main selling features on the F-35 is it's stealth characteristics, in which a big part of that is the stealth coating.  If that coating is extremely expensive (which from my understanding, it is) - and wears out, or damages, fairly easily (again, my impression from articles over the years is yes, it is easily damaged) - then one of the key selling features, also seems to be one of the most expensive to maintain.

Can the program negotiate a better price on the coating?  Is this a program that users will just have to plan & budget for?  Is this something that will be a worse problem for us, or relatively the same as our USAF counterparts?  


By no means am I suggesting this isn't a great aircraft that can do amazing things, and is a real game changer in the next big battle.  And by chatting with a buddy of mine who currently flies the F-35C for the USN as well as the F-18E/F - and was the USN demo pilot for a year on the F-35 - he is very clear that he would prefer to take the F-35 into battle over anything else he has flown.  (Similar sentiments we've heard from Max and others.)

I too have my questions as to whether this is the right fit for us, given the bulk of what we do.  

We could do the bulk of our current missions with a CF-18E/F (Block 3, all whizzed up).  But for the occasions where our fighter pilots are deployed to a real shooting war, we need to make sure their jets can do as much as possible better than the enemy.  


(0.02)


----------



## kev994

I wonder if using a different paint for training is an option?


----------



## SupersonicMax

You want the LO coating for training to avoid drawing false lessons in the training environment and using less-than-optimal tactics to account for the LO coating


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SupersonicMax said:


> You want the LO coating for training to avoid drawing false lessons in the training environment and using less-than-optimal tactics to account for the LO coating


But would the LO training issue only apply to certain training missions? if that was 50% of the training and you have 5 jets not coated that had higher serviceability rates, that means more flying hours and better use of your limited number of maintainer, supplies and budget.


----------



## suffolkowner

The CPFH of the F35A need to be broken down by lot and Block to get a real impression of where things stand. Sustaining multiple parts systems/lines for the those different lots and blocks has greatly contributed to the cost/availability/and sustainability of the program. I think if you look at just the block 3 onward there will be a substantial difference


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy Will Get Air Force F-16 Fighter Jets to Fill Super Hornet Gap
					

The U.S. Navy is preparing to receive F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets from the Air Force as it moves to rid its inventory of legacy F/A-18 Hornet models.




					www.military.com
				




The Finnish report makes much of the ability to carry a long-range cruise missile.

And yet the trend seems to be towards UAVs as bomb trucks.  Old fighters could  be easily converted to missile carrying drones.

The F35s seem to me to be gaining a reputation equivalent to snipers.  They are more valuable when they don't have to disclose their presence by shooting.  They seem best advised to reserve their fire for High Value Targets and for self-defence.  The longer they can stay on station, meaning more fuel and less extraneous loads (like weapons" the more valuable they are.

Which brings us back to Canada.

Is it time to revisit the Fighters vs Missiles debate of the 1960s that killed the Arrow and bought us the Bomarc?

Do we need a force of 88x F35s?  Or do we need a steady supply of 88x F35s over the next 20 to 30 years that allows us to keep a couple of dozen current F35s at operational levels and spend some of the money on maintaining some long range UAV interceptors and bomb-trucks to back them up?  Convert the existing F18s into drones with missiles to work with the F35s when required?

Both the Brits, and the USAF, have been sending signals that they may honour their buy of total numbers of F35s over the life of the production lines but they may not field all those aircraft as a single, time constrained, fleet.  They will operate smaller fleets that are constantly upgraded and maintained over the life of the production lines.

The implication of that is that we are not looking for a paint that will last fifty years.  We are looking for  paint that will last 5 to 10 years before the aircraft is replaced by a new aircraft prior to being down-graded to second echelon tasks.


----------



## lenaitch

Colin Parkinson said:


> But would the LO training issue only apply to certain training missions? if that was 50% of the training and you have 5 jets not coated that had higher serviceability rates, that means more flying hours and better use of your limited number of maintainer, supplies and budget.



No doubt LM would charge an extra few Mn because it is a small, out-of-production line order.  Besides, five aircraft out of an already small fleet probably limits their assignment; they would always be training aircraft since stealth was felt to be operationally important.

Then again, at least one could be annually re-painted for the Demo Flight.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I get the impression that the current paint technology that they are using on the F35 is quite the maintenance burden on the USAF systems, which dwarfs ours. I suspect jets can fly with compromised/subpar coatings but not sure on that? 
Perhaps the first 5 are tagged as "Do not repaint" and once the coating reaches a certain point, it's removed and those 5 or so jets are used as training jets for all the non combat related training and familiarization flights. It likely that the traditional coatings could be stripped and LO coatings applied if needed?


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> I get the impression that the current paint technology that they are using on the F35 is quite the maintenance burden on the USAF systems, which dwarfs ours. I suspect jets can fly with compromised/subpar coatings but not sure on that?
> Perhaps the first 5 are tagged as "Do not repaint" and once the coating reaches a certain point, it's removed and those 5 or so jets are used as training jets for all the non combat related training and familiarization flights. It likely that the traditional coatings could be stripped and LO coatings applied if needed?


AFAIK the F-35 has RAM coating baked into the outer surface of the plane itself.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

interesting this article:









						Lockheed declares F-35 stealth coating ‘rock solid’
					

Lockheed Martin has defended both the stealth coatings of the F-35A and its efforts to boost the supply of spare parts, as it eyes the conclusion of three fighter campaigns in 2020 and lower operating costs.




					www.flightglobal.com
				



_More importantly, they contend, the coating is easily applied in the field and requires no environmental control facility as with previous versions of stealth aircraft. Lockheed says the interval between maintenance events for the F-35’s low-observable coating is now *19h – better than the targeted 9h*._

Also:








						How Air Force maintainers maker sure the F-35 stays a 'stealthy beast'
					

How do you make a 51-foot-long, 35-foot-wide fighter jet, with an engine that generates 43,000 pounds of thrust, vanish?




					www.businessinsider.com
				




From this New and Old F-35 Coatings Compared in Recent Photo of Two Italian Lightning II Jets - The Aviationist


_The old livery presented very evident panel lines which were painted a lighter gray than the rest of the aircraft, resulting in the characteristic saw tooth panel lines above and on the sides of the fuselage. In a weekly update by Lockheed Martin’s General Manager Jeff Babione dated April 13, 2017, the new coating system was announced as able to cut-off 128 hours in the painting process, resulting in a reduction of the costs by USD 16,000 per aircraft and 49M USD in the total life of the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Here is an extract of the aforementioned update:

Through a new coating system, the team was able to give the F-35 one uniform coat that saved a significant number of hours per unit in defects and rework.

James Thistle was the first to suggest the new coatings, now referred to as the Z13 overcoat. It took five years and a lot of hard work to incorporate the new coatings. The team used AF104 as a trial run with no issues, and James said it was worth the wait.

The Z13 overcoat significantly reduces the need for many of the labor-intensive tasks that drove rework and repair hours up._


----------



## MarkOttawa

Surprise! Two Boeing-connected former NORAD commanders push Super Hornet, start of an article:



> The best option for Canada? Former NORAD commanders’ perspectives on the next-generation fighter​In a presentation to the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence in March, Gen Glen D. VanHerck, commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), was asked his thoughts on Canada’s future fighter capability. He deftly sidestepped the implied question about which fighter might be better, politely declining to “weigh in on the fighter debate.” But he did offer his perspective on the general fighter capabilities NORAD requires for its threat response – long range, endurance to loiter, significant weapons capacity, and the ability to rapidly share information.
> 
> It’s a capability list two of his predecessors can appreciate. Admirals Timothy Keating and William Gortney both served as commanders of USNORTHCOM and NORAD (November 2004 to March 2007 and December 2014 to May 2016, respectively), but neither is reticent about which fighter jet the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) should acquire to replace its fleet of CF-18 legacy Hornets.
> 
> Now retired, both consult for Boeing. Each has over 5,000 hours flying off the decks of aircraft carriers in the A-7E Corsair II, FA-18 A-model Hornet, and in Gortney’s case, the FA-18E Block I Super Hornet. Having led the unique binational command, in which the NORAD commander operates inside both the U.S. and Canadian chains of command, they appreciate what is at stake when RCAF pilots and aircraft are assigned to quick reaction alert duty.
> 
> With VanHerck’s response priorities in mind, both believe the Boeing-built F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornet, more so than the Lockheed Martin F-35A or Saab Gripen E, is best suited for Canada’s NORAD role...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best option for Canada? Former NORAD commanders’ perspectives on the next-generation fighter - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> Admirals Timothy Keating and William Gortney both served as commanders of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD, but neither is reticent about which fighter jet the RCAF should acquire to replace its fleet of CF-18 legacy Hornets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excellent Finnish blogger Corporal Frisk talks to LockMart about their F-35A bid for Finland's new fighter--start of the post:



> Lifting the Fog​Lockheed Martin’s bid for the HX programme is likely the one that has caused the most speculation, and this blog has seen its fair share of that as well. Scott Davis, Lockheed Martin’s Managing Director for Finland, was happy to chat and clear up some of the remaining confusion.
> 
> Let’s begin with the elephant in the room: the offer in their BAFO is for 64 F-35A, and this is most certainly the number the company expects to supply Finland in case they win. The package of weapons they would supply does include an undisclosed number of weapons that include AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM, JSM, and AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER. All of these are included in the BAFO as regular to-be-delivered items, and not as options. Davis acknowledged that he had been unnecessarily vague in his comments at the earlier HX media event, leading to speculation about options to adjust the figures either up or down. However, it is now evident that Lockheed Martin joins Boeing and Saab in the 64 fighter-game.
> The JASSM-ER needs no further introduction, as in essence it is an upgrade of the Finnish Air Force current silver bullet. The weapon slings a 450 kg warhead out beyond 900 kilometers, where an IIR-seeker provide terminal guidance. The current weapons sport a one-way datalink, but it seems like the AGM-158B-2 will feature the updated two-way WDL of the AGM-158D JASSM-ER (the missile formerly known as JASSM-XR). Is it better for Finnish requirements than the Taurus KEPD 350? The Finnish Air Force thought so last time around, but as noted in my last post the weapons sport rather different design philosophies, and it isn’t necessarily a question with a straightforward answer.
> 
> A weapon in the class of the JASSM is needed to wipe out certain hardened targets, but the smaller weapons also offer interesting capabilities, especially as internal carriage offer other benefits besides stealth as well. As long as the weapons are carried internally an external observer will not be able to say if the aircraft is loaded, and in that case with what kind of weaponry. For an Air Force that cherish ambiguity – perhaps a bit more than really is healthy – being able to both train and perform QRA-missions in peacetime without sneaky plane spotters with diplomatic immunity being able to tell what the aircraft carries is likely to captivate their imagination. This allows for example raising the number of AMRAAMs carried in response to intel you don’t want the adversary to know you have, or even to change the loadout from a pure air-to-air one to a land-attack or anti-shipping one, all depending on the situation (you can obviously also do the classic ‘lets fly by their ship at low altitude with doors open and show that at least one aircraft carries JSM’ to really have them guessing about how many of the F-35s zooming around are ‘just’ fighters and how many are potential threats to maritime forces). It’s not a war-winning feature, but it is a positive secondary effect recognised already during the Cold War when USAF F-102/106 deltas were flying around at potential flashpoints...[read on]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lifting the Fog
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s bid for the HX programme is likely the one that has caused the most speculation, and this blog has seen its fair share of that as well. Scott Davis, Lockheed Martin’s Managi…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> corporalfrisk.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## armrdsoul77

Swiss choose F-35.Switzerland Chooses F-35 As Its Next Fighter Jet


----------



## MarkOttawa

Article at _Skies_ magazine on Swiss choosing F-35A--and RCAF:



> Swiss bet on F-35’s affordability, did they get it right?​
> Switzerland announced its selection of the Lockheed Martin F-35A as its new fighter on June 30, 2021, beating off competition from the Boeing Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon. Switzerland’s Air 2030 competition was valued at up to US$6.5 billion (CHF 6 billion) to replace the Swiss Air Force’s current fleet of F/A-18C/D Hornets and F-5E/F Tiger IIs. A flight demonstration phase in 2019 and comprehensive technical evaluation led to the decision to purchase 36 F-35As from the U.S., along with five Patriot missile air defense systems from Raytheon.
> 
> In a statement, the Swiss Federal Council proposed that Parliament should approve the procurement of the F-35A and Patriot. “An evaluation has revealed that these two systems offer the highest overall benefit at the lowest overall cost. The Federal Council is confident that these two systems are the most suitable for protecting the Swiss population from air threats in the future.” Switzerland will become the 15th nation to join the F-35 program of record.
> 
> News of the Swiss decision sent shockwaves through the fighter aircraft industry. The F-35 has attracted criticism over operating costs, mission capable rates and maintainability, and its perceived suitability to the air-to-air role. Yet Switzerland brushed aside that negativity, boldly stating that the F-35 is cheaper than the competition on all fronts, and that it beats them all hands-down on capability.
> 
> If a small country like Switzerland considers the F-35 to not only be the most affordable solution, but also the best solution to meet its primary role of air policing in a docile environment — we aren’t talking night one, low observable ingress into a high-density air defense network here — then it could threaten to effectively snuff out any competition to the F-35.
> 
> Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) will undoubtedly be under close scrutiny to see how the F-35 stacks up against the budgets and the competition — which includes Boeing’s Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen E.
> 
> According to the Swiss, it’s game, set, and match to America’s fifth-generation stealth fighter that can cover all fighter roles, and do it better and cheaper than anyone else!
> 
> Switzerland’s search for a new fighter aircraft has hit a number of notable bumps along the way. In 2011, it selected the Saab Gripen to replace the F-5, however, in a mandated referendum on the decision, the Swiss public refused to back the deal. The country’s defense procurement agency (armasuisse) re-launched the competition as Air 2030. In 2019, armasuisse effectively ejected the new Gripen E from the running after it recommended the Swedish contender should not attend a new round of evaluations because they were designed to evaluate aircraft that are “operationally ready” in 2019. Saab argued that Gripen E would be very much ready and in service by the time Air 2030 was required. Yet, the Gripen was out.
> 
> The _series of evaluations of each remaining competitor took place at Payerne Air Base in 2019 _[emphasis added]. A further referendum on whether Switzerland should buy a new fighter, or not, was held on Sept. 27, 2020, and this time it was accepted by a small margin, with a budget cap of CHF 6 billion placed on the new fighters.
> 
> Following prolonged analysis of the data, the Swiss Federal Council announced its findings, and said that all contenders had met the required specifications. However, with 336 points, the F-35 “showed the highest overall benefit and was the clear winner with a lead of 95 points or more over the other candidates.” It _added that the F-35 had scored highest in three of the four main criteria that had been evaluated.
> 
> It said the F-35A achieved the best result when it came to “effectiveness” because it had a “marked technological advantage over the other candidates_ [emphasis added]: it includes entirely new, extremely powerful, and comprehensively networked systems for protecting and monitoring airspace. The F-35A is able to ensure information superiority; this means pilots benefit from a higher situational awareness in all task areas when compared with the other candidates. This is especially true for day-to-day air policing.”
> 
> It also said that stealth played a part in its findings, with the F-35 being “designed from the ground up to be especially difficult for other weapons systems to detect. The resulting high survivability is a great advantage for the Swiss Air Force.” Significantly, it also said that because the F-35 is “easy to operate and is able to provide information superiority, it requires less training and has a better ratio of flight-to-simulator hours.” In fact, the Swiss evaluators decided that this latter factor means the F-35A requires around 20 percent fewer flight hours than the other candidates, and this means it will require 50 percent fewer take-offs and landings than the Swiss Air Force’s current fighters.
> 
> Moreover, it _said that the F-35, as the newest of the candidate fighters, will be best placed to sustain its technological lead over the planned service life of 30 years _[emphasis added--and new fighter in RCAF service?]. The F-35A also scored best when it came to product support, and achieved the highest rating due to its “efficient operation and maintenance, modern training design, and the high security of supply throughout its service life.” This is attributable in part to the F-35A being manufactured in high numbers and being common to air forces within Europe.
> 
> _Perhaps most surprisingly, the Swiss evaluation also said the F-35A achieved “by far” the best result in terms of costs — both in terms of procurement and through life_ [emphasis added]. The report stated: “At the time the bids were made in February 2021, the procurement costs amounted to CHF 5.068 billion — well under the financial cap of CHF 6 billion set by voters. Even when accounting for inflation up to the time of payment, procurement costs will remain below the credit limit.” The evaluation said the total costs of the F-35A (procurement plus operating costs) amounted to approximately CHF 15.5 billion over 30 years. It said that the Lockheed Martin proposal was an incredible $2.16 billion less than the nearest rival over the projected 30-year service life!
> 
> The only area where the F-35 didn’t achieve the best result was when it came to offsets to boost Switzerland’s defense industrial base.
> 
> The Swiss Federal Council report makes compelling reading with its unwavering support of the F-35 in almost all respects. The fact that it beat all of the competition on both unit and through-life cost is remarkable, especially when considering the high profile issues with operating costs that are being voiced by a number of operators. Lockheed Martin has undoubtedly made impressive progress with its push for an $80-million unit cost for the F-35A, and this would have been an extremely competitive price tag in Air 2030. Indeed, the Federal Council clearly stated that the F-35 was offered at the lowest price, even lower than a Super Hornet, which cost in the region of $50 million a piece in the U.S. Navy’s second multi-year purchase batch.
> 
> The Swiss statement on through-life cost makes stark reading against fierce words from Washington over F-35 operating costs. Members of Congress have gone as far as to threaten to cut F-35 production numbers due to unacceptably high sustainment costs. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is backing this thinking until operating costs are brought under control. It’s so serious that the GAO is recommending a delay in a Milestone C full-rate production decision on the F-35 until it meets a specific set of performance goals.
> 
> Recent reports point to an increasing gap in what operators thought they’d be spending on F-35 operations, compared with reality. U.S. Air Force chief Gen Charles Q Brown recently said that he’s contemplating using the F-35 only for “high-end missions” as a means to reduce operating costs. Earlier this year, Gen Mark Kelly, the head of Air Combat Command, said the “capability, the availability, and the affordability” of the F-35A are the three elements of the program that consume most of his time and focus. “We’re not exactly where we need [to be] on target with affordability,” Kelly said. Referring reporters to the F-35 Joint Program Office for specifics, Kelly guessed that the F-35A was running at a cost per flying hour (CPFH) of approximately $35,000 at present. In terms of confidence level of getting to the target of $25,000 by 2025, he said: “I’m not brimming with confidence.”
> 
> It’s not just the USAF that’s putting the spotlight on F-35 operating costs. British defense secretary Ben Wallace told a Parliamentary defense select committee on June 23 that he wanted to see “progress” when it comes to controlling maintenance costs on the U.K. fleet of F-35Bs.
> 
> Operating cost was a subject tackled by Swiss defense minister Viola Amherd as the F-35 decision was revealed. She said the decision was not made on the basis of reports from the GAO, which “cannot be checked.” She said Switzerland made its decision on the basis of “binding offers.” _If the F-35 fails to meet its promised cost performance, the Swiss Federal Council said it would consider the contractor to be in breach of contract_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Evidence from other operators suggests that operating the F-35 is simply too expensive, so it’s difficult to see how Switzerland has landed a deal that will easily address this issue.
> 
> It’s not even the planned reduction in overall flight hours and increased use of simulators that offer the Swiss such attractive numbers. The evaluators found that even when the same number of flight hours were calculated for all the candidates, the F-35 still came out as the cheapest option.
> 
> While some of the cost details have raised eyebrows, ultimately, the F-35 deal that has been outlined for Switzerland is a tantalizing one. The Swiss figures provide a fascinating window on F-35 export pricing, which as a Foreign Military Sale should not exceed U.S. domestic prices. The Swiss result will undoubtedly have many analysts reaching for their calculators to better understand how this F-35 deal has been constructed, and how it will translate to other competitions — like Canada’s FFCP.
> 
> Canada is already a partner in the F-35 program; it contributed funding to its development and has a foothold in the global supply chain, but with no obligation to buy. A planned deal for 60 F-35As was halted in 2015 by now-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who said the argument for having a stealthy, fifth-generation fighter “no longer makes sense.” He argued that many other fighters are available at much lower price points. So, Canada opted for fact-based decision making to get its fighter decision right.
> 
> A decision on Canada’s fighter competition is now expected early next year, with the Super Hornet, Gripen E, and F-35 going head-to-head. Unlike in 2015, Lockheed Martin has got F-35 unit cost down; much of the early concurrent development work has been completed; issues resolved; and the very capable Block 4 version is closer to reality.
> 
> If the Swiss numbers are accurate, the F-35 could prove to be an affordable option for Canada’s $19 billion (US$14 billion) budget. However, experts are questioning how the Swiss numbers add up.
> 
> Politics aside, it’s important that any potential customer fully understands what they are getting into. Much of the real cost in a fighter program comes from the support side — the through-life cost, and the unexpected or hidden costs. There’s no point in having fighters that are too expensive to operate over a long period of time.
> 
> Fifth-generation fighter or not, it should come down to the best performing and the cheapest option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swiss bet on F-35's affordability, did they get it right? - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> Switzerland buys the F-35 despite the fighter receiving criticism over operating costs, mission capable rates and maintainability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

Swiss pass on the Gripen E just shows how much of an outdated, irrelevant POS it really is.


----------



## YZT580

Quirky said:


> Swiss pass on the Gripen E just shows how much of an outdated, irrelevant POS it really is.


That just about guarantees we will buy it to go with the helicopters we have been blessed with


----------



## OldSolduer

I read an article yesterday that states we paid another 71 million to the F35 program.


----------



## Kirkhill

OldSolduer said:


> I read an article yesterday that states we paid another 71 million to the F35 program.



Well, that's roughly the price of a new F35A.   Seeing we have been contributing since Jean Chretien and Alan Williams signed us up for the programme, maybe we're buying them on time.  We should have a couple of squadrons ready for delivery by now.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:


> We should have a couple of squadrons ready for delivery by now.



Except it's still under development, the Canadian aircraft would be different blocks (with some possibly impossible to upgrade to the final standard), operating costs would be higher than forecast, repair and overhaul would take longer than predicted, and right now one in six would be grounded due to the lack of engines.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> Except it's still under development, the Canadian aircraft would be different blocks (with some possibly impossible to upgrade to the final standard), operating costs would be higher than forecast, repair and overhaul would take longer than predicted, and right now one in six would be grounded due to the lack of engines.


This would be different from our current fleet…how?


----------



## dapaterson

We wouldn't have the source code.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> We wouldn't have the source code.


So?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> So?


I’m with Max. so?


----------



## Good2Golf

If we were to add up the cost for C-releases to the CF-18’s s/w vs going with the USN’s X-release s/w, including the small bit of code room the USN gave Canada on 87X and 89X, we’d have probably (fiscally) spent significantly less than our own bespoke s/w load.   We need to avoid the temptation of (over-) Canadianizing things.  We’re not Israel…we don’t get to make side deals with the US.


----------



## Quirky

How do we Canadianize something already operating in Alaska. Do we convert the instruments to metric? Making things to fit our snowflake requirements just hampers overall procurement. We aren’t special. We aren’t unique.


----------



## MilEME09

We missed our biggest chance when turkey lost its place in line to get birds more quickly. At this rate we won't see a plane in the sky till the point not much of our F18 fleet is left.


----------



## dapaterson

Auditable source code should be a prerequisite, unless we fully trust the vendors.

Can we trust LockMart?

The F35 is a bad idea poorly implemented.  While it may well become a standard, and operating costs and readiness may increase, the program remains significantly troubled (due in no small part to the USMC).

Mind you, it is funny to see the CF105 assembly line operationalized, with the inherent problems of continuous prototype improvements resulting in notionally identical aircraft being materially different.


----------



## Good2Golf

So source code audited by…Shared Services Canada? 🤔


----------



## dapaterson

No, by military professionals.

Although SSC has lots of retired C&E folks infesting their higher ranks, so maybe that's part of their problem...


----------



## YZT580

Quirky said:


> How do we Canadianize something already operating in Alaska. Do we convert the instruments to metric? Making things to fit our snowflake requirements just hampers overall procurement. We aren’t special. We aren’t unique.


BILINGUAL


----------



## CBH99

Quirky said:


> Swiss pass on the Gripen E just shows how much of an outdated, irrelevant POS it really is.


I wouldn’t go THAT far 😅

Can it’s tech match the F-35?  No.  Even in its most advanced form, it isn’t on the same level as the F-35.  But nor is it intended to be.

It has the speed, weapons, radar, and ‘built in capabilities’ to be a pretty solid MiG killer, and overall deterrent fighter.  It wasn’t designed to have the range, payload, or advanced EW stuff on the F-35 because it wasn’t intended for the same missions.

Outdated compared to other options?  Perhaps.  Or I would perhaps suggest ‘great capabilities, just not enough of them to compete.’   I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a POS tho.


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:


> I wouldn’t go THAT far 😅
> 
> Can it’s tech match the F-35?  No.  Even in its most advanced form, it isn’t on the same level as the F-35.  But nor is it intended to be.
> 
> It has the speed, weapons, radar, and ‘built in capabilities’ to be a pretty solid MiG killer, and overall deterrent fighter.  It wasn’t designed to have the range, payload, or advanced EW stuff on the F-35 because it wasn’t intended for the same missions.
> 
> Outdated compared to other options?  Perhaps.  Or I would perhaps suggest ‘great capabilities, just not enough of them to compete.’   I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a POS tho.


I agree, it was designed with a different strategic mind set of defensive air superiority not offensive operations against a near peer in a first strike scenario.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> No, by military professionals.



Where are those skillsets held currently inside the CAF?


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> Where are those skillsets held currently inside the CAF?


Years ago (decades actually) WSSU then 4 SES at Cold Lake and some folks at DAEPM(FT) back when the Hornets Nest was still in Bldg 155 at CFB Rockcliffe.  Not sure if there’s anyone at all
today with anywhere close to the expertise required to conduct recursion testing on OEM s/w?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ack...with limited exposure to the SES/OLA etc worlds...it seems to me that expertise and capability is held...soley outside the CAF.

And...I'd love to see that situation reversed, but I won't even consider holding my breath on that one.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Years ago (decades actually) WSSU then 4 SES at Cold Lake and some folks at DAEPM(FT) back when the Hornets Nest was still in Bldg 155 at CFB Rockcliffe.  Not sure if there’s anyone at all
> today with anywhere close to the expertise required to conduct recursion testing on OEM s/w?


AETE still very much does regression testing on every single software build.


----------



## Good2Golf

OFP only or FCS too? (Unless you can’t say)


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> OFP only or FCS too? (Unless you can’t say)


AETE could do both if it had too but we haven’t had FCC updates in almost two decades (and most of the work is done by VX-23 at Pax River - I doubt we’d have much to do beyond double checking the interactions between the new FCC build and Canadian-unique softwares).  The FCC software isn’t written in Canada. AETE tests pretty much every OFP builds that are unique to Canada, including those built by the US specifically for us.


----------



## Quirky

CBH99 said:


> I wouldn’t go THAT far 😅
> Outdated compared to other options?  Perhaps.  Or I would perhaps suggest ‘great capabilities, just not enough of them to compete.’   I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a POS tho.



If your intent is to kill your own fighter pilots in a modern theatre with a capable enemy, the Gripen is a fantastic choice. We do have a big backlog in Moose Jaw….


----------



## CBH99

Quirky said:


> If your intent is to kill your own fighter pilots in a modern theatre with a capable enemy, the Gripen is a fantastic choice. We do have a big backlog in Moose Jaw….


In a peer fight against China or Russia?  Yes, agreed.  Or any high-intensity expeditionary operations against an enemy with decent AD systems.

As an affordable platform which has enough modern systems to give them some teeth, which are only needed to patrol their own national borders?  I can very much see the appeal.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I don't see the logic in that argument, though.  "Patrol their own national borders" suggests there is no expectation those borders will ever be challenged or penetrated.

If they aren't...wow, did we ever mess up with the whole "NORAD" thing.


----------



## Quirky

CBH99 said:


> In a peer fight against China or Russia?  Yes, agreed.  Or any high-intensity expeditionary operations against an enemy with decent AD systems.
> 
> As an affordable platform which has enough modern systems to give them some teeth, which are only needed to patrol their own national borders?  I can very much see the appeal.


We talking about Canada here, unless I’m in the wrong thread again.


----------



## CBH99

Quirky said:


> We talking about Canada here, unless I’m in the wrong thread again.


You said it was an outdated POS.  I'm saying it isn't, just isn't suitable for our needs.


----------



## Quirky

CBH99 said:


> You said it was an outdated POS.  I'm saying it isn't, just isn't suitable for our needs.


International orders speak for themselves and there is nothing significant in terms of quantity to suggest the Gripen E is a serious, modern contender.


----------



## PuckChaser

The argument that we don't "need" stealth is like saying we can buy body armor that only protects against 5.56mm because we don't need expensive protection against 7.62mm AP rounds. The widows you'll be creating probably would disagree about that need for the best possible protection when there's no performance trade off.


----------



## CBH99

PuckChaser said:


> The argument that we don't "need" stealth is like saying we can buy body armor that only protects against 5.56mm because we don't need expensive protection against 7.62mm AP rounds. The widows you'll be creating probably would disagree about that need for the best possible protection when there's no performance trade off.


Agreed.  Just wondering which post this is a reply to?


----------



## PuckChaser

Anyone thinking the Gripen or SH is a better value...


----------



## calculus

Wonder how this will influence the project team?
Navy Questions Future Viability of Super Hornets; Recommends Against New Buy​








						Navy Questions Future Viability of Super Hornets; Recommends Against New Buy - USNI News
					

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — If Congress mandates the Navy keep buying the current F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the airframes will be in the fleet into the 2050s. But by then, the fourth-generation fighters likely couldn’t stand up to future threats, a service official said Tuesday. Rear Adm. Andrew...




					news.usni.org


----------



## YZT580

calculus said:


> Wonder how this will influence the project team?
> Navy Questions Future Viability of Super Hornets; Recommends Against New Buy​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy Questions Future Viability of Super Hornets; Recommends Against New Buy - USNI News
> 
> 
> NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — If Congress mandates the Navy keep buying the current F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the airframes will be in the fleet into the 2050s. But by then, the fourth-generation fighters likely couldn’t stand up to future threats, a service official said Tuesday. Rear Adm. Andrew...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.usni.org


But just once, wouldn't you love it if parliament ordered new kit or added to the order that you already had without having to beg or give away something else?


----------



## kev994

YZT580 said:


> But just once, wouldn't you love it if parliament ordered new kit or added to the order that you already had without having to beg or give away something else?


USCG has never ordered a C130J and they have ~a dozen of them. There’s a senator or congressman in Alaska who keeps writing ‘and 2 C130s for the Coast Guard’ into the budget.


----------



## Quirky

calculus said:


> Wonder how this will influence the project team?
> Navy Questions Future Viability of Super Hornets; Recommends Against New Buy​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy Questions Future Viability of Super Hornets; Recommends Against New Buy - USNI News
> 
> 
> NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — If Congress mandates the Navy keep buying the current F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the airframes will be in the fleet into the 2050s. But by then, the fourth-generation fighters likely couldn’t stand up to future threats, a service official said Tuesday. Rear Adm. Andrew...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.usni.org


Meanwhile it’s still possible we will select the turd.


----------



## Dana381

Ever more possible than before as Boeing will likely reduce the price to keep the line going longer


----------



## OldSolduer

Have we - Canada - not been in the F 35 thing for over 10 years now.

And not ONE airframe yet.


----------



## Altair

OldSolduer said:


> Have we - Canada - not been in the F 35 thing for over 10 years now.
> 
> And not ONE airframe yet.


I thought we were part of the supply chain building part for it though.


----------



## CBH99

I can find lots of references to us investing approx $617M since 1997, and receiving more than $2B in contract work since then.  Does anybody know any specifics of what we have been building/supplying though?


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> I can find lots of references to us investing approx $617M since 1997, and receiving more than $2B in contract work since then.  Does anybody know any specifics of what we have been building/supplying though?


From the LM F-35 website:


----------



## dapaterson

Canada is a partner in the JSF R&D initiative.  It guarantees pricing, but does not oblige purchase.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canada's next interim fighter.....









						Canadian firm begins negotiations to buy Lebanese Hawker Hunter jets
					

Lortie Aviation was the only bidder for the Hawker Hunters in the third auction that was held Aug. 12.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> Canada's next interim fighter.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian firm begins negotiations to buy Lebanese Hawker Hunter jets
> 
> 
> Lortie Aviation was the only bidder for the Hawker Hunters in the third auction that was held Aug. 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


Oh I wish I knew how to use gifs 😅

laugh at the humour, nervous face because it isn’t the most absurd thing ever seriously suggested!

I think our fleet of 25 used legacy hornets from Australia will do us nicely until we make our decision & purchase.  

Buying used hornets which subsequently had some more extensive corrosion on some airframes than expected - which had to have their communication systems, ejection systems, some computers, etc upgraded just so they could integrate with the fleet we plan on replacing soon anyway was a good use of taxpayer dollars.  


Add these to the fleet also?  Heck yeah!!  Tajikistan will think twice next time they try to screw with us!!   (Does Tajikistan ever mess with us?  Is it a real country or am I being ignorantly kinda racist right now?  Where is it anyway?)


----------



## suffolkowner

Things are moving ahead with the new hangers in Cold Lake and Bagotville. I'm not sure how far they can go without knowing which fighter jet they are going to house









						Stantec to design fighter jet infrastructure in Quebec, Alberta - Canadian Consulting Engineer
					

The design-build project involves a partnership with EllisDon.




					www.canadianconsultingengineer.com


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> Add these to the fleet also?  Heck yeah!!  Tajikistan will think twice next time they try to screw with us!!   (Does Tajikistan ever mess with us?  Is it a real country or am I being ignorantly kinda racist right now?  Where is it anyway?)


How about the a hole Uzbeks ala Borat???


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> How about the a hole Uzbeks ala Borat???


Those bastards better never come across the border.


----------



## Quirky

suffolkowner said:


> Things are moving ahead with the new hangers in Cold Lake and Bagotville. I'm not sure how far they can go without knowing which fighter jet they are going to house



In typical Canadian procurement  incompetence, we will complete infrastructure and buildings to a “standard” spec. After the aircraft arrives the hangars will need millions of dollars of retrofits to keep the contracts flowing. Why build it once when you can do it twice for three times the price!


----------



## SupersonicMax

Quirky said:


> In typical Canadian procurement  incompetence, we will complete infrastructure and buildings to a “standard” spec. After the aircraft arrives the hangars will need millions of dollars of retrofits to keep the contracts flowing. Why build it once when you can do it twice for three times the price!


I am pretty sure they are building them to the worst case specs.


----------



## Quirky

Can you even weaponize a CT114?


----------



## Good2Golf

Quirky said:


> Can you even weaponize a CT114?


Yes. They were weaponaized as the CL-41G Wasp by the Royal Malaysian AF for COIN Ops.


----------



## Quirky

Good2Golf said:


> Yes. They were weaponaized as the CL-41G Wasp by the Royal Malaysian AF for COIN Ops.



Ah yes, the noisy cricket.


----------



## armrdsoul77

CL-41G Tebuan


----------



## The Bread Guy

Just spotted this in some IND-based media, so can't tell if this is old news or not - lead is buried right at the bottom of the piece ....


> *Why Dassault (Rafale) Aviation Surrendered A Multi-Billion Dollar Deal To US Fighter Jets Even Before Evaluation?*
> 
> (...)
> 
> RCAF has historically operated US-built warplanes and had originally expressed its desire for the Lockheed Martin F-35. Moreover, Ottawa, for this deal, requires a package of guaranteed industry offset work for whichever aircraft it selects. This may have been another reason why Dassault withdrew.
> 
> According to experts, the biggest stumbling block for Rafale was too much French hardware that is incompatible with Canadian Air Force including the radar and SPECTRA ECM system made by Thales and engines that are produced by Snecma.  It also includes weapons systems, which could pose a big challenge to RCAF.
> 
> Rafale’s weapon compatibility is not a matter of concern for Egypt or India which already operates Dassault Mirage and is already outfitted with a stockpile of French missiles.  For Canada, experts say would need to replace the American munitions including AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Mavericks, etc which was very much unlikely.


----------



## Good2Golf

The Bread Guy said:


> Just spotted this in some IND-based media, so can't tell if this is old news or not - lead is buried right at the bottom of the piece ....


…or because they figured if they let it go, they stand a good chance of winning STTC (CC-150 replacement…A330 MRTT is a well-qualified contender).


----------



## Kirkhill

This is a bit stale-dated (Oct 2020) 

But I found the side by side comparison intriguing as is the suggested "suite of munitions".



> The F-35 package, worth $12.5 billion, includes 64 F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing jets, 66 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines, and the aircraft’s associated communications and electronic warfare systems. Notably, it contains not only the aircraft’s current logistics system — the troubled Autonomic Logistics Information System — but also its replacement — the Operational Data Integrated Network — which is under development.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Super Hornet package — worth an estimated $14.7 billion — includes 50 single-seat F/A-18E jets, eight double-seated F/A-18Fs and 14 EA-18G Growlers, which is the electronic attack variant. The package also includes 166 F414-GE-400 engines for the dual-engine fighter, Sniper targeting pods, AN/APG-79 radars, AN/ALR-67(V)3 electric warfare countermeasures receiving sets, and Next Generation Jammer Midband and advanced electronic attack kits for the EA-18G.
> 
> Both offers include a suite of munitions for the aircraft, including 500 Small Diameter Bomb II weapons, 150 AIM-9X missiles, 200 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range weapons, Joint Standoff Weapons, Joint Direct Attack Munition kits that turn dumb bombs into precision-guided weapons, and assorted test and support gear for training and maintenance.



defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/09/finland-gets-the-green-light-to-buy-the-f-35-or-super-hornetand-billions-of-dollars-in-weapons/

What really struck home though was this:

66 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines for 64 F35s

166 F414-GE-400 engines 72 F18 variants.

150% more engine maintenance?  Is that right?


----------



## kev994

Kirkhill said:


> This is a bit stale-dated (Oct 2020)
> 
> But I found the side by side comparison intriguing as is the suggested "suite of munitions".
> 
> 
> 
> defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/09/finland-gets-the-green-light-to-buy-the-f-35-or-super-hornetand-billions-of-dollars-in-weapons/
> 
> What really struck home though was this:
> 
> 66 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines for 64 F35s
> 
> 166 F414-GE-400 engines 72 F18 variants.
> 
> 150% more engine maintenance?  Is that right?


There are 2 engines on each Super Hornet…


----------



## GR66

Does anyone know if the CF-18 Super Hornet bid included the conformal fuel tanks that were originally part of the Block III upgrade plan?

I didn't see this article previously, but it was being reported back in January that the USN was looking at dropping the conformal fuel tanks from their Super Hornet upgrade plan due to unspecified issues.   

If they were included as part of the bid I wonder how that would affect their scoring in the competition?  Obviously having to use drop tanks instead of CFT's would reduce the weapon payload the SH would be able to carry, or reduce the mission radius if the same weapon load were to be carried.


----------



## kev994

It kinda sounded like the issue with conformal fuel tanks maybe had to do with the catapult. Would not apply for our use if that is the case.


----------



## GR66

kev994 said:


> It kinda sounded like the issue with conformal fuel tanks maybe had to do with the catapult. Would not apply for our use if that is the case.


The article said it wasn't clear exactly what the issue was but that it was identified during testing in a "carrier environment".  That led to _speculation _that it may have to do with the stresses of catapult launches and arrested landings (If I'm no mistaken don't our Hornets use arrestor cables for landings at some short airfields?).  The other possibility mentioned was that the location of the CFTs made certain routine maintenance tasks difficult to perform without removing the tanks, but again the article states "we don't know what the exact issues are".

Also, if the major customer for the upgraded Super Hornets (the USN) is dropping the CFTs is there any guarantee that Boeing will continue to offer them to other, smaller customers?


----------



## CBH99

GR66 said:


> The article said it wasn't clear exactly what the issue was but that it was identified during testing in a "carrier environment".  That led to _speculation _that it may have to do with the stresses of catapult launches and arrested landings (If I'm no mistaken don't our Hornets use arrestor cables for landings at some short airfields?).  The other possibility mentioned was that the location of the CFTs made certain routine maintenance tasks difficult to perform without removing the tanks, but again the article states "we don't know what the exact issues are".
> 
> Also, if the major customer for the upgraded Super Hornets (the USN) is dropping the CFTs is there any guarantee that Boeing will continue to offer them to other, smaller customers?


Without knowing the exact issues with the CFTs, it’s hard to say if other, smaller countries may even be interested.  

If it has to do specifically with a carrier environment, that would lead me to _speculate_ it could be issues with salt water/corrosion, or CATOBAR-assisted takeoffs.  

We do use arrestor cable assisted landings at some FOLs, but my understanding is that even then, our Hornets are not dragged to a total stop the same way USN Hornets are on a carrier.  As small as some of the FOLs are, they are still more real estate (and less congested real estate at that) than a flat top.

(SupersonicMax, I’d actually love to hear your take on this?)


If the issues with the CFTs are carrier generated, whether it is salt water/corrosion issues or the constant heavy pounding of carrier takeoffs and landings - I don’t see why they couldn’t work on our new Hornets (if that’s the way it goes) or someone else’s.   

That being said, perhaps extreme cold weather will present it’s own unique challenges to the CFTs?


(Just off the top of my head, the only jets to use CFT’s on a regular basis are Israeli F-16s & F-15E Strike Eagles for USAF, Israel, Singapore.  Not sure if Saudi F-15E’s do, wouldn’t surprise me.  Seems a lot of planes are plumbed for, tested for, but not necessarily fitted with…)


----------



## SupersonicMax

If carrier suitability is the issue, it could be a number of things.  But, in developmental flight test, cat launches and arrestment scenarios are done before going to the boat, normally at Pax River.  If I was a betting man, I’d say it is related to maintaining the tanks at sea.

If it has to do with cable arrestments, cables on boats are much, much tighter than on any RCAF base.  Limits on equipment are different for land-based vs carrier-based arrestments.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> If carrier suitability is the issue, it could be a number of things.  But, in developmental flight test, cat launches and arrestment scenarios are done before going to the boat, normally at Pax River.  If I was a betting man, I’d say it is related to maintaining the tanks at sea.
> 
> If it has to do with cable arrestments, cables on boats are much, much tighter than on any RCAF base.  Limits on equipment are different for land-based vs carrier-based arrestments.


I love watching USN pilots do carrier landings. Entertaining


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> I love watching USN pilots do carrier landings. Entertaining


Yup…more fun than Air Force landings…


----------



## Drallib

I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with Billie Flynn. I just listened to him on Episode 121 of the Fighter Pilot Podcast "What's up with the F-35?", and in that podcast he made the analogy of 5th Gen vs 4th Gen (or 4.5) to a Smart Phone vs Flip Phone. In that podcast he mentioned his blog on the subject here.


----------



## dapaterson

He's not quite as famous as his ex wife.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Drallib said:


> I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with Billie Flynn. I just listened to him on Episode 121 of the Fighter Pilot Podcast "What's up with the F-35?", and in that podcast he made the analogy of 5th Gen vs 4th Gen (or 4.5) to a Smart Phone vs Flip Phone. In that podcast he mentioned his blog on the subject here.


Mr Flynn is an extremely competent, experienced, accomplished and credible test pilot.  There is no question in my mind.  He does, however, have a bias as he was the lead test pilot on the F-35 program.  It is important to read his opinion knowing this, the same way I would read Mr Ricardo Traven’s opinion (the former F/A-18 Chief Test Pilot at Boeing).


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> He's not quite as famous as his ex wife.


Or as ornery


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> Mr Flynn is an extremely competent, experienced, accomplished and credible test pilot.  There is no question in my mind.  He does, however, have a bias as he was the lead test pilot on the F-35 program.  It is important to read his opinion knowing this, the same way I would read Mr Ricardo Traven’s opinion (the former F/A-18 Chief Test Pilot at Boeing).


However folks who have flown both really tend to give the F-35 props -- not as many as those who have also flown the F-22, and those who have time on the 35/22 says the 22 is a no contest winner (too bad its so $$$ and the fact we refuse to export it even to 5I's countries)


----------



## dapaterson

Plus the 22 is no longer in production and us on its way to becoming an orphan fleet...


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Plus the 22 is no longer in production and us on its way to becoming an orphan fleet...


Well…it is already 25 years old and NGAD is in development as a Gen-6 aircraft…


----------



## GR66

dapaterson said:


> Plus the 22 is no longer in production and us on its way to becoming an orphan fleet...


Sounds like the perfect opportunity for the CF to buy them used once the USAF finally takes them out of service!

🙄


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Plus the 22 is no longer in production and us on its way to becoming an orphan fleet...





Good2Golf said:


> Well…it is already 25 years old and NGAD is in development as a Gen-6 aircraft…


And yet several Allies have even as recently as last year tried to get the line restarted.

Also Orphan fleet in US terms, isn't exactly the same as some other nations


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> However folks who have flown both really tend to give the F-35 props -- not as many as those who have also flown the F-22, and those who have time on the 35/22 says the 22 is a no contest winner (too bad its so $$$ and the fact we refuse to export it even to 5I's countries)


I am not saying whether he is right or not, just that some things he says may be overstated and others understated, given his background.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> I am not saying whether he is right or not, just that some things he says may be overstated and others understated, given his background.


Overstated/understated according to what datum?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Overstated/understated according to what datum?


Datum being facts and their relevance/importance to Canada’s situation.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Datum being facts and their relevance/importance to Canada’s situation.


Facts available to the public?  Using what comparison method to determine relevance/importance to “Canada’s situation?”

And by “Canada’s situation,” what does that mean?  To Govt? To DND? To Canadian industry? To the Canadian people?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Facts available to the public?  Using what comparison method to determine relevance/importance to “Canada’s situation?”
> 
> And by “Canada’s situation,” what does that mean?  To Govt? To DND? To Canadian industry? To the Canadian people?


Both. 

By Canada’s situation I mean factors influencing or important to Canada’s defence. I have to admit that it is difficult to contextualize when we hardly have a clear foreign policy or concrete strategic guidance.  There is a lot of room to maneuver for people to define what we need.

My point is that given Mr Flynn’s background, it is important to understand that his opinion may be biaised towards the F-35 given his interests.


----------



## Good2Golf

I don’t think anyone is inferring from his pitch that there isn’t an element of bias.

But so too, it is important for the RCAF and the FF to appreciate its own bias(es), relative to what is desired from an RCAF perspective, Departmental, Governmental, etc.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> I don’t think anyone is inferring from his pitch that there isn’t an element of bias.
> 
> But so too, it is important for the RCAF and the FF to appreciate its own bias(es), relative to what is desired from an RCAF perspective, Departmental, Governmental, etc.


Agreed.  I have an opinion on what I believe we should get, amongst the three contenders but generally, I am much less emotionally attached to any aircraft compared to others.


----------



## Good2Golf

👍🏼 

I would hope that all involved in FFCP are most emotionally (in the professional sense) attached to the capabilities and the requirements that beget those requirements, as best as can be derived from extant government policy and statements (including life cycle and sustainability considerations).  

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express several times, so that and a few hours in some 900s during OJT give me just enough insight to be dangerous, but generically I would say that two of the three systems (see what I did there?) would be fairly decent choices, with the difference that I see being not insignificant (once all the money is allocated)  as which nexus of integration will we be closer too?  Uncle Sam and a handful of close bilateral nations, or a wider group alliance-focus…either of which could be quarterbacked as a bad move after the decision is made.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

dapaterson said:


> He's not quite as famous as his ex wife.


Did not know who that was until I looked it up!


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> He's not quite as *in*famous as his ex wife.



There, FTFY


----------



## Drallib

What would be good I think is if they had a member of the RCAF fly in both the F/A-18E and F-35A to bring some more perspective and non-biased opinion. Someone like Captain Chris Swartz.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Drallib said:


> What would be good I think is if they had a member of the RCAF fly in both the F/A-18E and F-35A to bring some more perspective and non-biased opinion. Someone like Captain Chris Swartz.



Great idea...

Would this take place in one of the circus rings next to, you know, a duel between the Sherman and the M-60? 

I think there was about the same time gap between the two being produced, but an even bigger pedant will probably be along in a minute to sort me out


----------



## Good2Golf

Drallib said:


> What would be good I think is if they had a member of the RCAF fly in both the F/A-18E and F-35A to bring some more perspective and non-biased opinion. Someone like Captain Chris Swartz.


So an RCAF fighter pilot who has flown their entire career operationally in a CF-18 would be “non-biased?”   🤔 

Best to make sure they at least flew another type operationally for some objective perspective.


----------



## Spencer100

Retired AF Guy said:


> Did not know who that was until I looked it up!


Wow...just looked up too....maybe they could have seen the red flags before?


----------



## Good2Golf

Red flags?  You mean to these types?


----------



## KevinB

LM just got a several B $ package for F-22 work 
  Rumor mill around DC is awash with what that can all mean...

Having been at CD's for both the F-35 and F-22, if I was the USAF until GENX Fighter is primetime, I would have kicked the 22 line back open for 5I folks and another USAF Squadron or two.

I'm still chuckling that people still think the Hornet and Super Hornet are viable in this day and age as a MultiRole Fighter - should probably be calling it the EA-18 as they are really only viable for Wild Weasel and uncontested ground strike


----------



## dapaterson

F35 was oversold in the beginning (and still has a ways to go to deliver promised capabilities).  Add to that the technological problems caused by inclusion the USMC requirement in the airframe, and...


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> I'm still chuckling that people still think the Hornet and Super Hornet are viable in this day and age as a MultiRole Fighter - should probably be calling it the EA-18 as they are really only viable for Wild Weasel and uncontested ground strike


It really depends what “roles” you want to take on and the threats you are willing to face.


----------



## Drallib

Good2Golf said:


> So an RCAF fighter pilot who has flown their entire career operationally in a CF-18 would be “non-biased?”   🤔
> 
> Best to make sure they at least flew another type operationally for some objective perspective.


Right now I believe he's on the Future Fighter team, and he has experience in the CF-18 Hornet and the F/A-18E Super Hornet.

Getting him some exposure (not sure how much would be necessary or what experience per se) on the F-35A and he would be able to bring more insight and knowledge from someone who has flown both airframes. And say he preferred the F-35 with his initial bias toward the Hornet family of jets, it would give his choice of the F-35 more weight.


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> It really depends what “roles” you want to take on and the threats you are willing to face.


Silly me I thought that a Nations Air FORCE was supposed to do Air Force things.

  I get part of your point - which is why I suggested the EA-18 designation - but if you only have 1 Fighter in your bag of tricks - it needs to be multi role capable against Peer/Near Peer threats - which means you don't always get a say in what threats you actually face - as sometimes the threat comes to you.

  It is all well and good to say in a Coalition Environment that you will take certain roles - but over your Nations skies - you need be able to tango with the currently fielded aircraft of hostile actors.    Based on that, I do not believe the Hornet family is a good or viable choice in that.

   Now if you want to fold the fighter side of the RCAF - and ask us to cover the air - that is fine too -- but then invest in other enablers.
      Don't try to snow the snow man that upgrading Hornets at this day and age is a good use of tax payer monies.

 Any attempt like that just shows the Fighter mafia cares more about their empire than the CF as a whole, or Canada as a nation.


----------



## Good2Golf

Drallib said:


> Right now I believe he's on the Future Fighter team, and he has experience in the CF-18 Hornet and the F/A-18E Super Hornet.
> 
> Getting him some exposure (not sure how much would be necessary or what experience per se) on the F-35A and he would be able to bring more insight and knowledge from someone who has flown both airframes. And say he preferred the F-35 with his initial bias toward the Hornet family of jets, it would give his choice of the F-35 more weight.


The concept of having the procurement system so dependent on a single person’s opinion, as experienced to the role as they may be, is very far removed from best practices.  Imagine they believe the F/A-18E to be best and the government chose that based on their personal opinion.  That doesn’t come anywhere close to seeming a good idea.   Imagine if the Army selected one soldier to have their opinion used to decide replacement boots.  All jokes aside about how that might actually result in a good boot for once, the risk of personal opinion overriding best capability is not acceptable to evaluation of capabilities against appropriately developed criteria.


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> Silly me I thought that a Nations Air FORCE was supposed to do Air Force things.
> 
> I get part of your point - which is why I suggested the EA-18 designation - but if you only have 1 Fighter in your bag of tricks - it needs to be multi role capable against Peer/Near Peer threats - which means you don't always get a say in what threats you actually face - as sometimes the threat comes to you.
> 
> It is all well and good to say in a Coalition Environment that you will take certain roles - but over your Nations skies - you need be able to tango with the currently fielded aircraft of hostile actors.    Based on that, I do not believe the Hornet family is a good or viable choice in that.
> 
> Now if you want to fold the fighter side of the RCAF - and ask us to cover the air - that is fine too -- but then invest in other enablers.
> Don't try to snow the snow man that upgrading Hornets at this day and age is a good use of tax payer monies.
> 
> Any attempt like that just shows the Fighter mafia cares more about their empire than the CF as a whole, or Canada as a nation.


The thing is that it is not a binary thing; there is a lot of grey in those answers.  The spectrum of threats the NORAD mission poses is very different than that of a Taiwan scenario.  If Canada’s foreign policy doesn’t see us competing in Taiwan, there is no incentive to invest in capabilities to fight China.

Even when if Canada wanted to get involved, to what level are we going to be involved?  Supporting coalition with support aircraft (Strat Transport, AAR)? Maritime Patrol?  Defensive Counter Air? Deep interdiction in contested airspace? Interdiction but in the peripheries?  SEAD? DEAD? CAS when all the threats are taken care of? And what would be an acceptable level of risk for Canada conducting those missions?

All those questions bring different requirements in capabilities. Some mission sets could be done by Super Hornets.  Others, not a chance in hell.  The issue is that we do not have answers to almost all of those questions.

For NORAD, thinking that we need to be ready for Russia the same way we would if we were to go downtown Moscow is flawed.  Threat concentration and threat types would be very different…


----------



## Good2Golf

Please tell me bomb runs in downtown Moscow were not anywhere in the FFCP justification documentation…


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> For NORAD, thinking that we need to be ready for Russia the same way we would if we were to go downtown Moscow is flawed.  Threat concentration and threat types would be very different…


 Best Defense is a good offense


----------



## Czech_pivo

SupersonicMax said:


> The thing is that it is not a binary thing; there is a lot of grey in those answers.  The spectrum of threats the NORAD mission poses is very different than that of a Taiwan scenario.  If Canada’s foreign policy doesn’t see us competing in Taiwan, there is no incentive to invest in capabilities to fight China.
> 
> Even when if Canada wanted to get involved, to what level are we going to be involved?  Supporting coalition with support aircraft (Strat Transport, AAR)? Maritime Patrol?  Defensive Counter Air? Deep interdiction in contested airspace? Interdiction but in the peripheries?  SEAD? DEAD? CAS when all the threats are taken care of? And what would be an acceptable level of risk for Canada conducting those missions?
> 
> All those questions bring different requirements in capabilities. Some mission sets could be done by Super Hornets.  Others, not a chance in hell.  The issue is that we do not have answers to almost all of those questions.
> 
> For NORAD, thinking that we need to be ready for Russia the same way we would if we were to go downtown Moscow is flawed.  Threat concentration and threat types would be very different…


In virtually any scenario that involves us dancing with the CCP will likely involve that RCN only and possibly the CA, in small specialized numbers.  The RCAF will not have the numbers or the ability to reach the area of operations in terms of fighter planes. Based on the current number of available fighters and what is the talked about numbers going forward, between NORAD and NATO (Rumanian) current obligations, we'll have virtually no fighters left to offer.  In any shooting war with the CCP we'll need to keep a greater number of fighters at home as the need for NORAD will come to the forefront as I'm sure the Russians will make our (and the American's) life as difficult as possible here at home by  poking our defences constantly.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:


> Please tell me bomb runs in downtown Moscow were not anywhere in the FFCP justification documentation…


Why?  Can't we relive some of the great Mosquito raids of old?  

"On 30 January 1943, two daylight missions were carried out to bomb Berlin using low-level daylight tactics. These attacks were timed to disrupt speeches by Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, head of the air force, and Joseph Goebbels, the Third Reich's Propaganda Minister. The first, in the morning, comprised a flight of three Mosquito B Mk. IVs from 105 Squadron, which attacked the main Berlin broadcasting station,[9] at 11:00, when Göring was due to address a parade commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Nazis' being voted into power. The mission gave the lie to Göring's claim that such a mission was impossible, and kept Göring off the air for more than an hour."


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> In virtually any scenario that involves us dancing with the CCP will likely involve that RCN only and possibly the CA, in small specialized numbers.  The RCAF will not have the numbers or the ability to reach the area of operations in terms of fighter planes.


Well thankfully the RCAF is more than just fighters.  Off the top of my head, you'll need:


Maritime Helicopters
Long Range (Maritime) Patrol Aircraft
Tactical Helicopters
Strategic and Tactical Airlift
Air-to-Air Refuelling

All of which are RCAF assets.  The only ones I haven't listed are fighters (although I suspect we'd need them too), SAR (domestic capability), and trainers.


----------



## Czech_pivo

dimsum said:


> Well thankfully the RCAF is more than just fighters.  Off the top of my head, you'll need:
> 
> 
> Maritime Helicopters
> Long Range (Maritime) Patrol Aircraft
> Tactical Helicopters
> Strategic and Tactical Airlift
> Air-to-Air Refuelling
> 
> All of which are RCAF assets.  The only ones I haven't listed are fighters (although I suspect we'd need them too), SAR (domestic capability), and trainers.


Yes, agree with the above.

1) Maritime Helicopters - would be paired with RCN asset
2) Long Range (Maritime) Patrol Aircraft - yes, could be used in theatre for patrolling out of Okinawa or Japan or Guam
3) Tactical Helicopters - possible use with the small number of CA forces on site in Taiwan, though I doubt that we'd use them there
4) Strategic & Tactical Airlift - Yes I certainly expect that our Globemasters would be in demand and possibly the Hercs
5) Air-to-Air Refueling - possible that our Polaris's would be asked for, I doubt that they'd in-theatre but maybe in Japan/Guam


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> Yes, agree with the above.
> 
> 1) Maritime Helicopters - would be paired with RCN asset
> 2) Long Range (Maritime) Patrol Aircraft - yes, could be used in theatre for patrolling out of Okinawa or Japan or Guam
> 3) Tactical Helicopters - possible use with the small number of CA forces on site in Taiwan, though I doubt that we'd use them there
> 4) Strategic & Tactical Airlift - Yes I certainly expect that our Globemasters would be in demand and possibly the Hercs
> 5) Air-to-Air Refueling - possible that our Polaris's would be asked for, I doubt that they'd in-theatre but maybe in Japan/Guam


Yes, but my point was to rebut against your comment on "involving the RCN only and possibly the CA".  

RCAF is integral to that, as I mentioned above.


----------



## Drallib

Good2Golf said:


> The concept of having the procurement system so dependent on a single person’s opinion, as experienced to the role as they may be, is very far removed from best practices.  Imagine they believe the F/A-18E to be best and the government chose that based on their personal opinion.  That doesn’t come anywhere close to seeming a good idea.   Imagine if the Army selected one soldier to have their opinion used to decide replacement boots.  All jokes aside about how that might actually result in a good boot for once, the risk of personal opinion overriding best capability is not acceptable to evaluation of capabilities against appropriately developed criteria.


I wouldn't say it should depend on their opinion, but have it taken into consideration. I do understand what you're saying though and agree with you.

I just want some F-35s already.


----------



## Good2Golf

Sadly, I think this iteration of Government will punt the fighters beyond the 2023 election..


----------



## Quirky

Hangars and infrastructure will be built before the first fighter arrives.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Quirky said:


> Hangars and infrastructure will be built before the first fighter arrives.


So is that a case of putting the cart before the horse?


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> So is that a case of putting the cart before the horse?


Building hangars and infrastructure before the aircraft?  

No - we need to store and support the aircraft somewhere when they arrive.


----------



## Good2Golf

Build them for F-15EXs and you’ll be good to go no matter the aircraft chosen. 😆


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> Building hangars and infrastructure before the aircraft?
> 
> No - we need to store and support the aircraft somewhere when they arrive.


But what standard to you build to?
  As @Good2Golf pointed out make it for the largest option and you are golden - not end up with something you don't want because the hangar wasn't the right size


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We would build infrastructure for the Gripen and then buy the F15 Eagle. Then we would give SNC lavilan the contract to do a bandaid fix at the cost of the original contract. Then tie all those cost to the fighter program.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> We would build infrastructure for the Gripen and then buy the F15 Eagle. Then we would give SNC lavilan the contract to do a bandaid fix at the cost of the original contract. Then tie all those cost to the fighter program.


I 😢 a bit because I could actually see that happening, but then 😊 since I knew you meant it 50.000001% to raise spirits a bit on the topic (and figured 49.999999% clairvoyant).


----------



## Drallib

They are building it to be able to fit the Super Hornet.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Drallib said:


> They are building it to be able to fit the Super Hornet.


Not sure where you got your information but the answer is a lot more complicated than that!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Boeing putting on full-court press (see also: "‘Boeing needs a bridge’: Planemaker looks abroad to keep Super Hornet line rolling" https://www.stltoday.com/business/l...4b1b-dfc1-5fcf-b363-27960307f2de.html)--start of lengthy article, clearly placed by Boeing:



> Boeing makes hard sell for Super Hornet as Canada’s future fighter​
> As a decision in Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) nears, Boeing is pulling out all the stops to convince Canada that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the right future fighter, over Lockheed Martin’s F-35A and the Saab Gripen E.
> 
> 
> Much of the pitch rests on Boeing’s long history of doing business with Canada’s aerospace industry and the economic windfall it promises will accompany the replacement of aging CF-188 Hornets with the larger, more capable F/A-18E/F Block III [_would RCAF go for conformal fuel tanks that USN has rejected_?}.
> 
> Boeing is promising an influx of work and funding to companies of all sizes in every Canadian province, Maria Laine, the company’s vice president of international business development, said during a Nov. 9 media day at the St. Louis plant where Super Hornets are built. An economic impact study performed by Canadian technology market analysis firm Doyletech _showed Boeing’s Super Hornet offering would create 250,000 jobs and infuse the Canadian economy with a total $61 billion over the aircraft’s service life.
> 
> “Our key competitor is not guaranteeing that same package,” Laine said. “They won’t guarantee it and even what they think they can do on a best-effort basis creates at least 100,000 less jobs and only one-third of the economic value _[emphasis added]. So, think about that. We have three times the economic benefit impact on Canadian defense and aerospace and the broader ecosystem, with what we’re delivering.”
> 
> Under FFCP, Canada plans to purchase 88 new aircraft to replace its CF-188s at a cost of between $15 billion and $19 billion. Sustaining the new jets over their 30- to 40-year service life promises billions more in annual work for the winning bidder.
> 
> Boeing’s proposal is designed to meet Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) obligations, in which the company signs a binding agreement to invest up to 100 percent of the contract value in the Canadian economy.
> 
> “The magnitude of that program, the number of aircraft, the fact that it is associated with a 100 percent ITB program… that has profound implications for the future of the aerospace and defense industry in Canada,” said Laine. “It’s not a decision that should be taken lightly and it’s something where you really want to make sure that you have a trusted partner to work with.”
> 
> _Boeing is also hammering the relative affordability of the Super Hornet versus the F-35, which is notoriously expensive to fly and maintain_ [emphasis added].
> 
> “The F-18 is the most affordable multirole combat aircraft to operate in the U.S. inventory, significantly less expensive than our key U.S. competitor,” said Laine.
> 
> She highlighting the “wonderful, enduring partnership” between Boeing and Canada since 1919, when Bill Boeing and a co-pilot delivered 60 letters by air mail between Seattle and Vancouver in a home-built float plane. From that humble, yet momentous, beginning, the relationship has grown to where Boeing now spends $2.3 billion each year in the country, Laine said. Adding in the job impact of 1,500 Boeing employees and 20,000 supporting the company’s supply chain in Canada, that figure jumps to $5.3 billion every year, she said.
> 
> “Right now, when you look at the Boeing footprint in Canada, when you buy Boeing, you’re really buying Canadian,” she added. “Every single commercial aircraft Boeing develops and produces has Canadian parts, Canadian-produced components. We’ve got a robust supply chain with over 500 companies spread all across Canada from coast to coast to coast.”
> 
> While Lockheed touts the F-35 as a “fifth-generation fighter” with unparalleled stealth and sensor technology, among many other futuristic refinements, that capability comes with a significant cost to procure, operate, and maintain. The unit price for a conventional take-off and landing F-35A has dropped precipitously in recent years to about $80 million. Boeing says a Block III Super Hornet comes in just below that.





> But that is only the cost to buy, not to operate or maintain the aircraft. The _current cost per flight hour for the Super Hornet is around US$18,000. The F-35A’s cost per flight hour sat at US$33,600 in fiscal year 2020. The OEM is currently working to reduce the operating cost to US$30,000 by 2023, and US$25,000 by 2025 _[emphasis added_]_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing makes hard sell for Super Hornet as Canada’s future fighter - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> Boeing is pulling out all the stops to convince Canada that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the right future fighter, over the F-35A and Gripen E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com



Read on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Drallib

I found the information on DWAN intranet that they’re building the facilities to be able to fit the largest airframe. The 3D images included were Super Hornets.

Message me your last name and initials and I can send you the link from SharePoint if you’re curious.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Physical size is one of many factors that is taken into account when talking about aircraft fitting in a hangar.


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:


> Physical size is one of many factors that is taken into account when talking about aircraft fitting in a hangar.


Which, without a fighter picked we have to accommodate the largest design, if a smaller one gets picked, perfect, more space for other things


----------



## KevinB

The Super Hornet is the largest airframe of the 3.
 In Over all: Length Width and Height


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:


> Which, without a fighter picked we have to accommodate the largest design, if a smaller one gets picked, perfect, more space for other things


Perfect. Just like our current hangars, filled with useless crap unrelated to operations. I swear we could film a few episodes of hoarders in some units.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:


> Perfect. Just like our current hangars, filled with useless crap unrelated to operations. I swear we could film a few episodes of hoarders in some units.


My new CQ has the mentality if it's older than 6 months and not moved or used its going back to depot. To many units horde things, cause it was useful before so they keep it, even if to never use it.


----------



## Drallib

SupersonicMax said:


> Physical size is one of many factors that is taken into account when talking about aircraft fitting in a hangar.


Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I think you’re saying is that another aircraft, like say the F-35, may require specialized AMSE that takes up more space.

The diagram I saw had these aircraft pretty close together, so if was probably a servicing/storage hangar where aircraft are towed in and out often, or they have a snag. Also the hangarettes that are on the flight line.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MilEME09 said:


> Which, without a fighter picked we have to accommodate the largest design, if a smaller one gets picked, perfect, more space for other things


No, we need to accomodate the largest, the one with the most stringent security requirements, the loudest one, the one with the most power generation requirements, the one with the most complex networking requirements, etc.  Just saying the hangars need to accommodate the largest aircraft is only a fraction of the truth.

Not knowing what we buy drives considerably the price up because the worst-case factors are not all shared by the same aircraft.


----------



## MJP

SupersonicMax said:


> No, we need to accomodate the largest, the one with the most stringent security requirements, the loudest one, the one with the most power generation requirements, the one with the most complex networking requirements, etc.  Just saying the hangars need to accommodate the largest aircraft is only a fraction of the truth.
> 
> Not knowing what we buy drives considerably the price up because the worst-case factors are not all shared by the same aircraft.


What you mean there other considerations that can't be simplified in one sentence?



MilEME09 said:


> My new CQ has the mentality if it's older than 6 months and not moved or used its going back to depot. To many units horde things, cause it was useful before so they keep it, even if to never use it.


Well only after the SM says it can come back


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> My new CQ has the mentality if it's older than 6 months and not moved or used its going back to depot. To many units horde things, cause it was useful before so they keep it, even if to never use it.



Yes! This person is a genius and should be cloned across the CAF.


----------



## MarkOttawa

What the Global Eye AEW&C plane brings to Saab's Gripen E bid for new Finnish fighter--very informative post by Corporal Frisk. Pity no-one like him in Canada. And pity our competition so much more secretive (I believe contending companies very, very limited in what can say publicly, practically gagged--but would our major media even be interested in such a detailed, technical briefing and report it without serious political spin?). Couple of excerpts, well worth the whole read:



> One Last Hurrah – Finnish Media visits an HX-contender





> ..._here we are, perhaps a month away from the decision _[emphasis added]_._





> ...the Gripen sports a number of nice features from a Finnish point of view, but what really sets Saab’s offer apart from the rest is the inclusion of not one but two airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft. The capability in itself would bring a huge shift in Finnish air operations regardless of whichever fighter would be at the other end of the chain (no, your favourite fighter isn’t a “mini-AWACS” just because it has a nice radar, you still won’t leisurely be cruising around on 10 hour missions gathering intelligence and keeping an up to date air picture while paying biz-jet operating costs). The value of the kind of persistent situational picture provided by a modern AEW&C platform is hard to overstate, especially in a Finnish scenario where the attacker will have numerical superiority (meaning that the decision about when and where to send Finnish fighters will have to be calculated carefully to ensure it is possible for them to do something that actually has an impact on the battle), the flat and forested nature of the country (meaning that there is a lack of suitable mountaintops on which to place groundbased sensors, instead anyone operating at very low levels will enjoy lots of radar shadows from which they can sneak up on Finnish targets), and the very joint nature of any major conflict stemming from the long land-border and the right flank and rear being composed of water (meaning that any higher-level situational picture need to take into account all three domains)....





> _Interlude: in some of the darker places of aviation forums there have been people claiming that Saab is trying to sell a fighter that in fact isn’t the best one out there through packaging it with an AEW&C platform. Regardless of whether it is correct or not, that is a completely moot point. The Finnish Air Force isn’t looking for the best fighter, the Finnish Defence Forces is looking for the best capability they can get for 10 billion Euro (and 250 MEUR in annual operating costs), and if pairing 64 JAS 39E Gripen with two GlobalEyes provide a greater combat capability than the competing packages, how Gripen fares in one-on-one air combat against some other fighter isn’t interesting in the slightest to Puranen or his team._
> 
> The GlobalEye is more or less everything you would expect from it...
> 
> With the Norwegian budget figures having raised more questions than the Swiss decision answered for the F-35, and the US Navy trying to kill off the Super Hornet production line faster than you can get a hornets nest fully cleaned out from a redcurrant shrub (which for me is approximately two weeks of time based on empirical testing), the Finnish skies are perhaps looking ready to accept a non-US fighter again. In that scenario, the Gripen is certainly a more likely choice than the two larger eurocanards, but at the same time questions of maturity surround the aircraft that is bound to reach IOC with an operational unit only in 2025 – the same year the first HX fighters are to be delivered. Basing the 39E on the proven 39C/D-platform certainly helps, and the decoupling of flight critical software from other systems seems to have been a winning concept considering the pace at which the test program has advanced (this includes software updates on flying aircraft every four weeks on average up to this point of the program). However, with nine aircraft operational and the first Batch 2 (series production standard) already off the production line, Saab just might be able to cut it in time.
> One Last Hurrah – Finnish Media visits an HX-contender



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Drallib

SupersonicMax said:


> Not knowing what we buy drives considerably the price up because the worst-case factors are not all shared by the same aircraft.



There's two scenarios that could play out.

Either they down-select to 2 bidders, and allow the infrastructure teams to focus design efforts on the down-select bidders, with some risk (or extra cost) until an agreement is made with the top-bidder.

Or, decision to down-select to 1 bidder (the top ranked bidder) moving directly to the finalization phase which would allow construction to commence as soon as possible.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Drallib said:


> There's two scenarios that could play out.
> 
> Either they down-select to 2 bidders, and allow the infrastructure teams to focus design efforts on the down-select bidders, with some risk (or extra cost) until an agreement is made with the top-bidder.
> 
> Or, decision to down-select to 1 bidder (the top ranked bidder) moving directly to the finalization phase which would allow construction to commence as soon as possible.


Or option 3: build everything to the « worst » case.


----------



## GR66

SupersonicMax said:


> Or option 3: build everything to the « worst » case.


But if they build the hangers to suit the Gripen, then won't they be too small if we end up buying the Super Hornet???


----------



## MilEME09

GR66 said:


> But if they build the hangers to suit the Gripen, then won't they be too small if we end up buying the Super Hornet???


Just take the wings off it will be fine....like air force NASCAR if they have to scramble


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:


> Or option 3: build everything to the « worst » case.


So you're with team Sopwith Camel?


----------



## GR66

dapaterson said:


> So you're with team Sopwith Camel?


Well, they do have the best air-to-air combat record of any of the contenders:

Air-to-Air Kills:
F-35 --> 0
Gripen --> 0
Super Hornet --> 1
Sopwith Camel --> 1,294


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> Well, they do have the best air-to-air combat record of any of the contenders:
> 
> Air-to-Air Kills:
> F-35 --> 0
> Gripen --> 0
> Super Hornet --> 1
> Sopwith Camel --> 1,294


Was there only three bidders?
  I would think there are a few other A/C that make the requirements in the SOW.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Was there only three bidders?
> I would think there are a few other A/C that make the requirements in the SOW.


There were 5.

Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale decided not to continue their bids.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> There were 5.
> 
> Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale decided not to continue their bids.


Can't say I blame them -- I mean historically the CAF doesn't exactly have a track record.
   Admittedly I was always curious from the very start about the single engine aspect of the F-35, that was a deal breaker back in the day for the F-16 when the 104 and Voodoos got replaced with the Hornet.
  Which always struck me as odd, given the justification used about having an engine go down over Canada's North - when the US had F-16's in Alaska (I guess the USAF has more faith in the engine, or their SAR...)


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Admittedly I was always curious from the very start about the single engine aspect of the F-35, that was a deal breaker back in the day for the F-16 when the 104 and Voodoos got replaced with the Hornet.


The whole "single engine" thing is less relevant now, since engines are much better than they were back then.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Can't say I blame them -- I mean historically the CAF doesn't exactly have a track record.
> Admittedly I was always curious from the very start about the single engine aspect of the F-35, that was a deal breaker back in the day for the F-16 when the 104 and Voodoos got replaced with the Hornet.
> Which always struck me as odd, given the justification used about having an engine go down over Canada's North - when the US had F-16's in Alaska (I guess the USAF has more faith in the engine, or their SAR...)


Would you be surprised if that was all just BS and the reason we went (C)F-18 was that McDonnell Douglas had a much better offset package than General Dynamics?  You don’t think it had anything to do with number of engines, as opposed to which ridings would see the most money injected into them Post-contract award… 😉

ps. Interesting Cliff Claven fact…research when Red Lobster restaurants came into being. If you guessed in the years immediately following the contract award to McDonnell Douglas, and imagine how much of an offset multiplier they got for the recapitalization of most Ponderosa restaurants into Red Lobsters (infrastructure, personnel costs, supply chain credits, etc), you’ll see why the offset game, now called Industrial and (used to be blatantly termed ‘Regional’) Technology Benefits (ITBs), figures prominently in  major government procurement…


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:


> Would you be surprised if that was all just BS and the reason we went (C)F-18 was that McDonnell Douglas has a much better offset package than General Dynamics?  You don’t think it had anything to do with number of engines, as opposed to which risings would see the most money injected into them Post-contract award… 😉
> 
> ps. Interesting Cliff Claven fact…research when Red Lobster restaurants came into being. If you guessed in the years immediately following the contract award to McDonnell Douglas, and imagine how much of an offset multiplier they got for the recapitalization of most Ponderosa restaurants into Red Lobsters (infrastructure, personnel costs, supply chain credits, etc), you’ll see why the offset game, now called Industrial and (used to be blatantly termed ‘Regional’) Technology Benefits (ITBs), figures prominently in  major government procurement…


I miss a good old Ponderosa steak.....every friday night when I was a kid, Dad would take the whole family out to Ponderosa for dinner.


----------



## OldSolduer

Czech_pivo said:


> I miss a good old Ponderosa steak.....every friday night when I was a kid, Dad would take the whole family out to Ponderosa for dinner.


Except one kid's name is Quebec then he always got the biggest steak. And dessert.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Would you be surprised if that was all just BS and the reason we went (C)F-18 was that McDonnell Douglas has a much better offset package than General Dynamics?  You don’t think it had anything to do with number of engines, as opposed to which risings would see the most money injected into them Post-contract award… 😉


Honestly not surprised at all.



Good2Golf said:


> ps. Interesting Cliff Claven fact…research when Red Lobster restaurants came into being. If you guessed in the years immediately following the contract award to McDonnell Douglas, and imagine how much of an offset multiplier they got for the recapitalization of most Ponderosa restaurants into Red Lobsters (infrastructure, personnel costs, supply chain credits, etc), you’ll see why the offset game, now called Industrial and (used to be blatantly termed ‘Regional’) Technology Benefits (ITBs), figures prominently in  major government procurement…


I really enjoyed Ponderosas - that makes me sad.


----------



## Quirky

What will we see first, a new fighter selected or PLD fixed?


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> Except one kid's name is Quebec then he always got the biggest steak. And dessert.


AND I neglected to mention this if your name is Alberta you get nothing and you pay for Quebec's steak.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:


> What will we see first, a new fighter selected or PLD fixed?


Procurement deliver something in under 10 years


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> Procurement deliver something in under 10 years


CH-147 Chinook
Identification:  25 July 2005
First delivery:  25 June 2013

CC-177 Globemaster
Identification:  19 May 2006
Last aircraft delivery:  31 Mar 2014


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> CH-147 Chinook
> Identification:  25 July 2005
> First delivery:  25 June 2013
> 
> CC-177 Globemaster
> Identification:  19 May 2006
> Last aircraft delivery:  31 Mar 2014


Ah but those have already happened, where as take the pistol for example being tossed back to the drawing board


----------



## SupersonicMax

dimsum said:


> CH-147 Chinook
> Identification:  25 July 2005
> First delivery:  25 June 2013
> 
> CC-177 Globemaster
> Identification:  19 May 2006
> Last aircraft delivery:  31 Mar 2014


CH148 Cyclone
Identification: 2003
First delivery: 2016
Last delivery: ???

CC295 Kingfisher
Identification: 2002
First delivery: December 2019
Last delivery: ???

To negate the lag in our procurement process, we need to be looking 20-40 years ahead.  Difficult to do with 4 year mandates and no tangible strategic guidance….


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> Ah but those have already happened, where as take the pistol for example being tossed back to the drawing board


Yes.  That's how I knew they took less than 10 years.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> CH148 Cyclone
> Identification: 2003
> First delivery: 2016
> Last delivery: ???
> 
> CC295 Kingfisher
> Identification: 2002
> First delivery: December 2019
> Last delivery: ???
> 
> To negate the lag in our procurement process, we need to be looking 20-40 years ahead.  Difficult to do with 4 year mandates and no tangible strategic guidance….


Two projects with very heavy political overriding factors (covering previous PM’s legacy, and teaching the RCAF a lesson about being so brash as to say what it ‘wants’…)

147 and 177 both had (generally) pan-Parliament support.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Two projects with very heavy political overriding factors (covering previous PM’s legacy, and teaching the RCAF a lesson about being so brash as to say what it ‘wants’…)
> 
> 147 and 177 both had (generally) pan-Parliament support.


147 and 177 (and to some extent the 130J) were somewhat unique in that we were fighting a long war and the requirements were derived from that.  Won’t happen again.  Every other procurement takes decades.


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> Yes.  That's how I knew they took less than 10 years.


They also used UOR in both situations as I recall


----------



## CBH99

Quirky said:


> What will we see first, a new fighter selected or PLD fixed?


I’m guessing a new fighter before the PLD is fixed.  

Why?  Honestly no idea… PLD hasn’t been on the drawing board for decades yet?  🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## CBH99

SupersonicMax said:


> 147 and 177 (and to some extent the 130J) were somewhat unique in that we were fighting a long war and the requirements were derived from that.  Won’t happen again.  Every other procurement takes decades.


You hit on several good points here Max.

We were committed to a long war, and equipping the forces to fight that war had broad support across Parliament.  

Not only that, but it didn’t matter what political party was in power.  The moment something happened, or the media ran with something, the other parties demanded that the one in power fix the problem immediately.  

So it had broad support across Parliament, but it also gave the vultures in each party something they thought they could pick at. 

It benefited us either way.  


Governments will dither (_especially_ ours) until there is a crisis.  And okay then will they somehow be able to get a lot done in short order, because the processes & rules (aka self-made red tape) magically disappears.


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> Ah but those have already happened, where as take the pistol for example being tossed back to the drawing board


Absolutely no one was willing to let Colt Canada have access to their TDP for a relatively insignificant number of guns.
   Now that CZ owns Colt - one might find out that the new pistol is a CZ...
Or the CF could drop the give us the TDP and made in Canada requirement-


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> 147 and 177 (and to some extent the 130J) were somewhat unique in that we were fighting a long war and the requirements were derived from that.  Won’t happen again.  Every other procurement takes decades.


No.  At least 147.  The 147D (IMLC) was for the war quite clearly and directly. The 147F (MHLH) was for getting back for the future, the capability given up in 1991.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> No.  At least 147.  The 147D (IMLC) was for the war quite clearly and directly. The 147F (MHLH) was for getting back for the future, the capability given up in 1991.


You can’t say that this wasn’t greatly helped by Afghanistan.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> You can’t say that this wasn’t greatly helped by Afghanistan.


As a matter of fact I can.   There wasn’t a single piece of AFG-related justification to government for the 147F.

In fact, for a period, 147D actually endangered 147F.  Some said, just rebuild the D instead of getting new F.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> As a matter of fact I can.   There wasn’t a single piece of AFG-related justification to government for the 147F.
> 
> In fact, for a period, 147D actually endangered 147F.  Some said, just rebuild the D instead of getting new F.


Because there was no formal justification doesn’t mean it didn’t have an impact.


----------



## Good2Golf

So what impact then do you think it had then between the 147F being procured or not, or in what fleet size or what configuration?  Specifics would support your argument.


----------



## Drallib

The blog _Best Fighter 4 Canada_ made a new post a few days ago.

UPDATE:  MISCELLANEOUS MUSINGS MESSING WITH MY MIND...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> So what impact then do you think it had then between the 147F being procured or not, or in what fleet size or what configuration?  Specifics would support your argument.


Not necessarily what we procured but how fast it was procured.


----------



## Good2Golf

Again, I’ll point out that MHLH timeline was impacted (extended) due to the temporary staff refocus on IMLC.  If the Manley Report had not supported heavy-lift helicopters, which resulted in the provision of $292M of funding to support the procurement of six CH-47Ds for AFG, MHLH would have gone to TB 9-10 months earlier and the contract with Boeing would likely have been signed in late-Fall 2008, not Summer 2009.  Not a big delay, but an AFG-induced delay nonetheless.


----------



## dapaterson

The 117, 130 and 147 acquisitions also benefited from being the only platforms in their class - an ACAN is a marvelous tool to shorten procurement timelines.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> The 117, 130 and 147 acquisitions also benefited from being the only platforms in their class - an ACAN is a marvelous tool to shorten procurement timelines.


Technically, the F-35 is the only platform in its class too.


----------



## dimsum

Drallib said:


> The blog _Best Fighter 4 Canada_ made a new post a few days ago.
> 
> UPDATE:  MISCELLANEOUS MUSINGS MESSING WITH MY MIND...


Re:  The potential issues with Gripen E and certification.  This is not a new requirement.  All the bidders must have been informed that their bids would have to comply with 2-Eyes requirements.  

The article it references is also 2 years old, but this could be a face-saving move by Saab to back out at the last minute as well.

Dassault backed out over similar issues in 2018.  When that happened, I was really shocked Saab stayed in.


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> Re:  The potential issues with Gripen E and certification.  This is not a new requirement.  All the bidders must have been informed that their bids would have to comply with 2-Eyes requirements.
> 
> The article it references is also 2 years old, but this could be a face-saving move by Saab to back out at the last minute as well.
> 
> Dassault backed out over similar issues in 2018.  When that happened, I was really shocked Saab stayed in.


If you are a company like Saab (incredibly impressive given it’s size/base) - the opportunity to sell 88 fighters to Canada for Billions of dollars is obviously extremely attractive…yet daunting when the competition are two of the big American giants.  

Add to this the 2-Eyes requirement, and both of your competitors are not only giants, but they are based in one country of the 2-Eyes agreement.  

Having Dassault withdraw must’ve been encouraging for them, as it’s one less company to compete with.  Their chances went up, mathematically speaking, when the number of competitors shrank.  

If they lose, they lose.  Their bid wasn’t selected.  But if they win…. That’s a huge win for a company that size 


0.02


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> As a matter of fact I can.   There wasn’t a single piece of AFG-related justification to government for the 147F.
> 
> In fact, for a period, 147D actually endangered 147F.  Some said, just rebuild the D instead of getting new F.


And to think they pushed ahead with the new build 147F - AAAANNNNDDDD managed to get them with nifty fuel tanks to boot 👍🏻

Glad someone pushed back.


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:


> Technically, the F-35 is the only platform in its class too.



Having tried that and failed when the a/c had not even reached IOC, it would not be entertained again.


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> Again, I’ll point out that MHLH timeline was impacted (extended) due to the temporary staff refocus on IMLC.  If the Manley Report had not supported heavy-lift helicopters, which resulted in the provision of $292M of funding to support the procurement of six CH-47Ds for AFG, MHLH would have gone to TB 9-10 months earlier and the contract with Boeing would likely have been signed in late-Fall 2008, not Summer 2009.  Not a big delay, but an AFG-induced delay nonetheless.


Could one not argue that if we weren't in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have acquired Chinooks at all?

So while Afghanistan may have delayed the formal contract signing of the 147F due to focusing on acquiring the 147D as soon as possible, if it weren't for Afghanistan we wouldn't have had either.  (??)


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Could one not argue that if we weren't in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have acquired Chinooks at all?
> 
> So while Afghanistan may have delayed the formal contract signing of the 147F due to focusing on acquiring the 147D as soon as possible, if it weren't for Afghanistan we wouldn't have had either.  (??)


No. 

TALC (Tactical Aviation Lift Capability) started pre-ID activities in 2000 in 1 Wing HQ, in coordination with DAR staff in NDHQ and Army staff in DGLCD (DG Land Capability Development) prior to 9-11.  While TALC formally entered Definition phase in 2005, after four years of SOF and initial conceptual combat Ops, and two years of ISAF stability ops in AFG, the heart of the pre-AFG capability development effort to re-establish a doctrinal medium transport helicopter (MTH) capability in Canada remained. AFG was referred to as a potential theatre of operations, as were the Balkans (still operating, although down from the SFOR BG to about 80 observers to EUFOR) as were potential African AOs (which required airlift to a far greater degree even than AFG or The Balkans). TALC was renamed MHLH (Medium to Heavy Lift Helicopter) shortly after the Harper Conservative government took over the Martin Liberals.  A set of mandatory capability requirements was issued, and based on those MCRs, the EH-101, Mi-17 and EC-725 were eliminated as non-compliant for capacity (they couldn’t lift the M-777 155mm howitzer), leaving the CH-47 Chinook, CH-53K King Stallion and Mi-26 Halo remaining, however the 53K was eliminated because the USMC procurement process would not support procurement by a foreign nation ahead of its procurement, and Mi-26 was eliminated due to supply chain incompatibility. So, single-bidder compliant and the government moved forward, taking another year of Definition Phase until late-2006, then 2-1/2 years of Development Phase culminating in Implementation Phase approval in June 2009 and signing with Boeing.

AFG’s biggest influence was the 9-month delay of ILMC on the MHLH timeline.


----------



## CBH99

I’m almost certain that NOBODY - minus yourself and a select few others - are aware of that.  You certainly sound like you know what you’re talking about.  

I _imagine_ most people, whether in the CAF at the time or the public, are under the impression that the 147 was acquired due to the Manley report and our operations in AFG.  

I didn’t know about any of the things you wrote about until now.  Thank You for posting that 👍🏻


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> You certainly sound like you know what you’re talking about.


He absolutely does...


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99, there is a trail of this information available publicly, including some presentations that were released back in the day, some in officially archived GoC material, some through investigative reporting, etc., just that most people just don’t care at the time since it isn’t an issue for most.  Some people have out this all together, like CGAI’s David Perry, arguably the most knowledgeable external-to-CAF SME to be found, regarding Canadian military procurement. Others do a decent job on augmenting details to known challenging procurements, Murray Brewster and the like, and even some others get some isolated facts right. 

The biggest issue for the current Chinooks, most of it back in pre-MHLH days, ie. TALC, then the early days of MHLH (2006-ish) when there was a pocket of criticism that the system was rigged for the Chinook.  The MCRs were developed to capture the enduring requirements that the helicopter would need in service with the RCAF supporting CAF ops globally.  The potential contenders were assessed and as previously noted, were eliminated. The government then issued an ACAN (Advance Contract Award Notice) in 2006, notifying its intent to procure the Chinook.  Public records confirm that only Augusta-Westland challenged PWGSC’s ACAN, but it was a puffed up chest kind of thing, because its argued product, the EH-101, could not lift the Army’s M-777.  AW withdrew its challenge, or PWGSC just said ‘sorry’, I can’t recall which, and the Government THEN proceeded to announce a sole-source procurement based on there only being one compliant bidder - Boeing.   Those docs were all on MERX at the time. I’m not sure if they still are.  A good reference MHLH project quad chart (also attached below) that remains archived in the Canada.gc.ca site at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/quad-charts/mhlh-quad-chart-en.pdf

Apologies to those wishing to discuss the Future Fighter Capability Project, but I figured there is some tangentially-related applicability to being informed on the process to the degree that heresay (well intentioned, or for other reasons) could do with some firm facts and framework of how it all went down back in the day.  I could get into FFCP in greater detail as well, but will save that for another day.  Its political factors in play make the Chinook look like a very simple procurement (which, for a $5B project, it actually was).

I’m quite comfortable in opining that even if we had never gone to Afghanistan, we would have CH-147F Chinook helicopters today.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> He absolutely does...


Well I did mess up the terminology a bit, 😉 throwing ‘Development’ into the ID-OA-Def’n-Impl-CloseOut spectrum. Some of us informally called the second half of Def’n as Development, but technically there is only Definition Phase before Implementation Phase.


----------



## dapaterson

Those are the four steps for projects; project managers only have three: hope, despair, and acceptance.


----------



## Good2Golf

Don’t forget the 5th step, dap - close out and sitting back on the couch with a nice cold beer. 😉


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t forget the 5th step, dap - close out and sitting back in the couch with a nice cold beer. 😉


If all of that is considered a relatively simple procurement, then that nice cold beer is a beer WELL earned!


----------



## Spencer100

WOW!  Boeing out!  The government must still be pissed at the destruction of Bombardier at the hands of Boeing.  The family must whisper is the PM's ear a lot.  I would suspect Boeing Winnipeg not long for the world. 

Boeing told its bid to sell fighter jets to Canada did not meet Ottawa's requirements

Plus knowing this government SAAB it is!  Totally wrong system. But on the other hand if this get us on side with the F35 that would be great.  But just think of the time wasted to get back to where we started.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Spencer100 said:


> WOW!  Boeing out!  The government must still be pissed at the destruction of Bombardier at the hands of Boeing.  The family must whisper is the PM's ear a lot.  I would suspect Boeing Winnipeg not long for the world.
> 
> Boeing told its bid to sell fighter jets to Canada did not meet Ottawa's requirements
> 
> Plus knowing this government SAAB it is!  Totally wrong system. But on the other hand if this get us on side with the F35 that would be great.  But just think of the time wasted to get back to where we started.


It sets the playing field for a lawsuit/challenge that will inevitably punt the decision further down the road…


----------



## dapaterson

Depends on what portion of the RFP they were deemed non compliant for.

With large, complex RFPs even the largest companies occasionally stumble and miss a key requirement in their proposal.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> Depends on what portion of the RFP they were deemed non compliant for.
> 
> With large, complex RFPs even the largest companies occasionally stumble and miss a key requirement in their proposal.


The cynic in me thinks it’s a politically calculated move that will delay the procurement to eventually allow the Super Hornet to win it and the government claiming their hand was somewhat forced.

Fits the narrative that we did something to punish Boeing AND get the fighter they originally wanted.


----------



## dapaterson

My experience with other, smaller, contracts make me think it may just be a staffer at PSPC picking flyshit out of pepper because of a missing semicolon.


----------



## MilEME09

Could the government give Boeing more time to fix their bid?


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:


> My experience with other, smaller, contracts make me think it may just be a staffer at PSPC picking flyshit out of pepper because of a missing semicolon.


But with something this big, if that happened to a ... preferred RFP, would the result be the same?  Gotta be _some_ political voodoo in there ....


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Spencer100 said:


> WOW!  Boeing out!  The government must still be pissed at the destruction of Bombardier at the hands of Boeing.  The family must whisper is the PM's ear a lot.  I would suspect Boeing Winnipeg not long for the world.
> 
> Boeing told its bid to sell fighter jets to Canada did not meet Ottawa's requirements
> 
> Plus knowing this government SAAB it is!  Totally wrong system. But on the other hand if this get us on side with the F35 that would be great.  But just think of the time wasted to get back to where we started.


Unofficially, still no confirmation, but tomorrow is Friday so expect something around 16:00 Ottawa time.


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:


> Could the government give Boeing more time to fix their bid?


Depends on the terms of the RFP, and the severity of the defect(s).

I have seen buds disqualified for next t including something that the bidder assumes everyone knows.

If it isn't in the bid package, it isn't part of the bid and can't be considered.


----------



## Good2Golf

Gotta love the classic shenanigans of PMO-leaked pre-poll information…


> Three sources from industry and government say the message was delivered Wednesday as the other two companies competing for the $19-billion contract -- U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Swedish firm Saab -- were told they met the government's requirements.
> 
> The three sources were all granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss these matters publicly.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Wow! (If true.) A few years ago a friend, who, I believe, had some privileged insight into the government's thinking (is that the right word for this gang?), said that Boeing's Super Hornet was a shoe-in. The "fix," (s)he said, was in. Canada would buy a handful (isn't 18 the planned number?) of Super Hornets from Boeing and then declare that these were the cat's pyjamas and a compliant lord-high executioner really senior Air Force general would say "this is exactly went Canada needs" and the Liberals would sole-source about 90, not Stephen Harper's measly 65+, fighters from Boeing. Then came the Boeing-Bombardier schmozzle and I suppose it all went pear-shaped.


----------



## Good2Golf

Edward Campbell said:


> Wow! (If true.) A few years ago a friend, who, I believe, had some privileged insight into the government's thinking (is that the right word for this gang?), said that Boeing's Super Hornet was a shoe-in. The "fix," (s)he said, was in. Canada would buy a handful (isn't 18 the planned number?) of Super Hornets from Boeing and then declare that these were the cat's pyjamas and a compliant lord-high executioner really senior Air Force general would say "this is exactly went Canada needs" and the Liberals would sole-source about 90, not Stephen Harper's measly 65+, fighters from Boeing. Then came the Boeing-Bombardier schmozzle and I suppose it all went pear-shaped.


That displeased the Chair of Bombardier (also a Director of Power Corporation) and thus Boeing’s fate was sealed.  They already have the consolation prize for some AWRs for support to the procured RAAF Legacy Hornets.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:


> That displeased the Chair of Bombardier (also a Director of Power Corporation) and thus Boeing’s fate was sealed.  They already have the consolation prize for some AWRs for support to the procured RAAF Legacy Hornets.


The timing lines up nicely with Trudeau’s trip down to DC, little doubt that the hand was tipped while there that Boeing was on the outs. Interesting that the unofficial news actually comes out on US Thanksgiving when Boeing stock is not trading and officially will come out tomorrow after the NYSE closes early at 1pm.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Did you also notice software lumber tariffs are back in play against Canada?


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> That displeased the Chair of Bombardier (also a Director of Power Corporation) and thus Boeing’s fate was sealed.  They already have the consolation prize for some AWRs for support to the procured RAAF Legacy Hornets.


You know what? I hope Boeing sues. 

Maybe then some heads will roll with regards to the procurement mess this country has produced. 

It’s a minor miracle a soldier can get a pencil issued without someone stalling it.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> You know what? I hope Boeing sues.
> 
> Maybe then some heads will roll with regards to the procurement mess this country has produced.
> 
> It’s a minor miracle a soldier can get a pencil issued without someone stalling it.


That's cause procurement canada and TB don't need to be involves in small contracts.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> Did you also notice software lumber tariffs are back in play against Canada?


Softwood?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> Softwood?


Yup. I figured the the timing of that and the Boeing thing were just a bit too coincidental.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> Yup. I figured the the timing of that and the Boeing thing were just a bit too coincidental.


  I agree.  But....

"Did you also notice *software* lumber tariffs are back in play against Canada?"   Is that a virtual thing?


----------



## Kirkhill

On the other hand, I am starting to wonder about a bit of a squeeze play by our friends.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> I agree.  But....
> 
> "Did you also notice *software* lumber tariffs are back in play against Canada?" Is that a virtual thing?


don’t ya just love auto-correct?


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> On the other hand, I am starting to wonder about a bit of a squeeze play by our friends.


What the worst thing they could do? Block lockmart from selling us the f35? Libs would love that


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> What the worst thing they could do? Block lockmart from selling us the f35? Libs would love that



I'm more inclined to think the force is on to buy the F35.  And recommit to ABCANZUS rather than the EU.


----------



## The Bread Guy

SeaKingTacco said:


> Did you also notice software lumber tariffs are back in play against Canada?


When have they been OUT of play since first imposed in 2001?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> I'm more inclined to think the force is on to buy the F35.  And recommit to ABCANZUS rather than the EU.


We just need the Chinese and Russians to keep stirring the pot more and more over the next 5-7yrs when some of the big decisions need to be met and we should be just fine. My fear is that they become dove-like during this time period and we buy the Gripen and don't replace the subs and waterdown the CSC's in numbers and capabilities and then we're boxed into a corner of being further sidelined to the kiddies table with the Kiwi's and others.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ummmmm….the Kiwis are on AUSNZUKUS’ “Team P8.”  

Canada gets its own table.


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> You know what? I hope Boeing sues.
> 
> Maybe then some heads will roll with regards to the procurement mess this country has produced.
> 
> It’s a minor miracle a soldier can get a pencil issued without someone stalling it.


No heads rolled when Leonardo sued for the FWSAR project loss (and subsequent win).  I doubt any will roll now.

Also, if it's a govt-to-govt spat, wouldn't LM (F-35) also be involved in that?


----------



## suffolkowner

dimsum said:


> No heads rolled when Leonardo sued for the FWSAR project loss (and subsequent win).  I doubt any will roll now.
> 
> Also, if it's a govt-to-govt spat, wouldn't LM (F-35) also be involved in that?


So Boeing will end up selling us more Chinooks? Or P8?

[_Mod edit: material not per site guidelines_]


----------



## OldSolduer

How's those Sopwith Camels look? Or maybe the Fokker Triplane aka the Red Baron plane is a better airframe?


----------



## Spencer100

Its official Boeing is out. (For now?)  

Canada confirms Boeing's Super Hornet officially out of fighter-jet competition


----------



## kev994

So do they pause for the lawsuit? I remember the FWSAR continued despite a vendor lawsuit but I think it was further along and less of a political hot-potato.


----------



## dapaterson

Or, with Airbus getting the tanker contract, do they keep their powder dry and push Canada to extend the P8 line?


----------



## Czech_pivo

OldSolduer said:


> How's those Sopwith Camels look? Or maybe the Fokker Triplane aka the Red Baron plane is a better airframe?


I think we still have enough manufacturing facilities left in country to actually produce those….a made in Canada solution?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Another related article on this.






						Government of Canada announces key milestone in process to replace Canada's fighter jets
					

/CNW/ - As part of its defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is acquiring 88 advanced fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force...




					www.newswire.ca


----------



## NavyShooter

Czech_pivo said:


> I think we still have enough manufacturing facilities left in country to actually produce those….a made in Canada solution?


How about we get Mikey McBrien and Plane Savers to build a few of them for us?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Czech_pivo said:


> Another related article on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Canada announces key milestone in process to replace Canada's fighter jets
> 
> 
> /CNW/ - As part of its defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is acquiring 88 advanced fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newswire.ca



So I guess we're getting the F-35 then.....


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> So I guess we're getting the F-35 then.....


Which should surprise very few people, really.  

I'm honestly surprised Saab is still in the running.


----------



## Czech_pivo

rmc_wannabe said:


> So I guess we're getting the F-35 then.....


Until I see one with our roundel on it, I'm a skeptic.


----------



## OceanBonfire

Czech_pivo said:


> Another related article on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Canada announces key milestone in process to replace Canada's fighter jets
> 
> 
> /CNW/ - As part of its defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is acquiring 88 advanced fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newswire.ca





> ... whereby the 2 remaining bidders would be provided with an opportunity to improve their proposals.



If we offer them to improve their proposals, we can expect even more delays.


----------



## yolotuber

Will we be flying both airframe once we start to get the deliveries?  And once the new airframe starts to arrive, will we still be teaching new pilots to fly the f-18, or all the new brass will be assigned to the new airframe ? Thanks


----------



## Good2Golf

OceanBonfire said:


> If we offer them to improve their proposals, we can expect even more delays.


…Boeing will argue they should be allowed to improve their proposal as well, to be compliant…


----------



## KevinB

I don't honestly think Boeing had a major interest in the RCAF Fighter business, at least not priotirizing over a potential for  P-8's and more Hook's etc.  Also Bell and Boeing are JV'd on Tilt Rotor - and that potential is WAY more lucrative than 88 Super Hornets...

   The RCAF Fighter business isn't very lucrative as the numbers are low - and while the RCAF will keep the for years and years with spare parts etc, unlike other items RCAF Fighter generally doesn't generate any headlines, or new business after the sale.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yup.  Boeing stopped making real money on CF-18s when Hornet OWSS went to L3 MAS…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  Boeing stopped making real money on CF-18s when Hornet OWSS went to L3 MAS…


If I was Boeing I would be holding a "We got kicked out party" 

Plus IMHO I think the Cdn Gov needs to go F-35 to attempt to regain trust and credibility within the 5I's


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Plus IMHO I think the Cdn Gov needs to go F-35 to attempt to regain trust and credibility within the 5I's


…and all the other NATO and Allied nations transitioning to the F-35.


----------



## RangerRay

Good2Golf said:


> …and all the other NATO and Allied nations transitioning to the F-35.


Don’t underestimate the Liberals’ ability to pick a loser out of sheer spite…that’s how we got saddled with the Cyclone.


----------



## Kirkhill

RangerRay said:


> Don’t underestimate the Liberals’ ability to pick a loser out of sheer spite…that’s how we got saddled with the Cyclone.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


>


So Sopwith Camel seems to be a good pick at this point...

Honestly I didn't know all of that history on the CF-5, one really had to wonder why in 1958 when the USN decided on the Phantom II, that instead of getting the Voodoo and Starfighter in 1961 why the RCAF had not gone down that route - until wanting to get it later, and having wasted their money needed to get the POS.

Makes me think that critical thinking and planning in the CAF has been dead for years...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

KevinB said:


> So Sopwith Camel seems to be a good pick at this point...
> 
> Honestly I didn't know all of that history on the CF-5, one really had to wonder why in 1958 when the USN decided on the Phantom II, that instead of getting the Voodoo and Starfighter in 1961 why the RCAF had not gone down that route - until wanting to get it later, and having wasted their money needed to get the POS.
> 
> Makes me think that critical thinking and planning in the CAF has been dead for years...


Because they could build it in Quebec and create jobs, jobs, jobs.

My Father-in-law's first real job was at a factory building the Iltis.  Government's don't create money, they circulate it.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> So Sopwith Camel seems to be a good pick at this point...
> 
> Honestly I didn't know all of that history on the CF-5, one really had to wonder why in 1958 when the USN decided on the Phantom II, that instead of getting the Voodoo and Starfighter in 1961 why the RCAF had not gone down that route - until wanting to get it later, and having wasted their money needed to get the POS.
> 
> Makes me think that critical thinking and planning in the CAF has been dead for years...



You want Sopwiths?  Here's the man for you.


----------



## Kirkhill

As for the Starfighter?  It like the CF-5 was built in Quebec by Canadair.  The Voodoo was a McDonnell development expressly for Canada.  Both came out of the decision to ditch the Arrow and take on the Bomarc GBAD nuclear missile in 1958.


----------



## kev994

OceanBonfire said:


> ... whereby the 2 remaining bidders would be provided with an opportunity to improve their proposals. account for there being fewer competitors


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> So Sopwith Camel seems to be a good pick at this point...
> 
> Honestly I didn't know all of that history on the CF-5, one really had to wonder why in 1958 when the USN decided on the Phantom II, that instead of getting the Voodoo and Starfighter in 1961 why the RCAF had not gone down that route - until wanting to get it later, and having wasted their money needed to get the POS.
> 
> Makes me think that critical thinking and planning in the CAF has been dead for years...


Yep the Sopwith Camel -  one where the airframe is built out of low observable materials. Like wood, and cloth. Does anyone know anything about carbon fiber?
I said this years ago.
Maybe up grade the MG to a more current one and use a 5.7 L Hemi engine.....

OK how about a 21xst century version of the Mosquito?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> Which should surprise very few people, really.
> 
> I'm honestly surprised Saab is still in the running.



Optics?


----------



## Kirkhill

OldSolduer said:


> Yep the Sopwith Camel -  one where the airframe is built out of low observable materials. Like wood, and cloth. Does anyone know anything about carbon fiber?
> I said this years ago.
> Maybe up grade the MG to a more current one and use a 5.7 L Hemi engine.....
> 
> OK how about a 21xst century version of the Mosquito?



This?







Or this?





__ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=969066690111862&id=192081688622


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> OK how about a 21xst century version of the Mosquito?


RAF Project Mosquito


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> RAF Project Mosquito


But she'll never look as beautiful as the original.


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> But she'll never look as beautiful as the original.


Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> RAF Project Mosquito



As an interesting aside, this company is a spin off from Shorts. They are infamous for turning away job applicants who happen to be Catholics, which isn't good optics especially as they are supported largely through juicy government contracts.

Viz:
Specialist Buyer​Spirit AeroSystems​
We employ people from all sections of the community and are committed to the appointment of the best candidate based upon the merit principle alone. In pursuit of our equal opportunities programme, we would particularly welcome more applications from Catholics and females, as these groups are currently under-represented in our workforce.


https://www.nijobs.com/Specialist-Buyer-Job-1590539.aspx


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:


> Or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=969066690111862&id=192081688622


Definitely this one. My favorite aircraft of all time.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> This?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=969066690111862&id=192081688622


Well the Mosquito does meet the requirement of having 2 engines….


----------



## Czech_pivo

Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a few minutes.

Let's say Canada goes down the path of choosing the Gripen.  Onshores a production here or a quasi-production line here to produce our version of the Gripen. 

They 'sell' this to the US in the following manner:


Buys more than the stated 88 that they are presenting shopping for;
Adds say another 1.5 -2 full squadrons (24-30 planes approx.), put aside the current retention issues for now
Commits to stationing a full squadron within either Romania or Latvia for NATO purposes

Pitches the concept that by having a production line within Canada it will lead to a better ability to defend ourselves and take some of the burden off the US
Creates an RCAF version of the NSS, commits to replacing/upgrading our fighters in a more timely manner, creating the skill-set and expertise within Canada in order to do so, gives the new production line a shot at being viable

Agrees to a very robust upgrading of the current NORAD capabilities and pays our fair share of the cost/burden
Add to this an agreement on 'hyper-sonic' missile defence within NORAD

Dangles the ongoing Aurora replacement project and 'hints' at Boeing's P8 as the preferred choice
Commits to increase the fleet size from 18 to 24-30, allowing for a better, more consistent and comprehensive patrolling of the Arctic and more roles within NATO

Continues to upgrade all northern air facilities to accommodate the F-35 from an operational view, thus allowing the USAF to seamlessly operate the F-35 across the north

Thoughts?


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a few minutes.
> 
> Let's Canada goes down the path of choosing the Gripen.  Onshores a production here or a quasi-production line here to produce our version of the Gripen.
> 
> They 'sell' this to the US in the following manner:
> 
> 
> Buys more than the stated 88 that they are presenting shopping for;
> Adds say another 1.5 -2 full squadrons (24-30 planes approx.), put aside the current retention issues for now
> Commits to stationing a full squadron within either Romania or Latvia for NATO purposes
> 
> Pitches the concept that by having a production line within Canada it will lead to a better ability to defend ourselves and take some of the burden off the US
> Creates an RCAF version of the NSS, commits to replacing/upgrading our fighters in a more timely manner, creating the skill-set and expertise within Canada in order to do so, gives the new production line a shot at being viable
> 
> Agrees to a very robust upgrading of the current NORAD capabilities and pays our fair share of the cost/burden
> Add to this an agreement on 'hyper-sonic' missile defence within NORAD
> 
> Dangles the ongoing Aurora replacement project and 'hints' at Boeing's P8 as the preferred choice
> Commits to increase the fleet size from 18 to 24-30, allowing for a better, more consistent and comprehensive patrolling of the Arctic and more roles within NATO
> 
> Continues to upgrade all northern air facilities to accommodate the F-35 from an operational view, thus allowing the USAF to seamlessly operate the F-35 across the north
> 
> Thoughts?


Where would you put the new squadrons? Do you stand them up right away? Or keep the planes I'm long term storage till we have the personal to man those additional squadrons? To make pur own production line Worth it we would need more then 88 airframe, but if we went that route would all 88 be built in Canada? Or the first few in Sweden then the rest here?


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> Where would you put the new squadrons? Do you stand them up right away? Or keep the planes I'm long term storage till we have the personal to man those additional squadrons? To make pur own production line Worth it we would need more then 88 airframe, but if we went that route would all 88 be built in Canada? Or the first few in Sweden then the rest here?


Well a complete new squadron would be stationed in either Romania or Latvia.  The other new half or new full squadron could either be add to Bagotville or Cold Lake, if only a half squadron or it a full, split between the two. There is also the potential of creating a new facility somewhere in the north, Inuvik possibly, but I can only imagine the retention issues of stationing crews up there full-time. 

In terms of personal, a comprehensive, long-term plan would need to drawn up on how to address the need for additional personal/pilots. Time would be on our side currently in order to do so but it's an issue that would need immediate attention.

The production line issue is the one that holds the most challenges.  Having a line that builds only 100-110 planes. A facility that turns out only 1 plane per month would result in a 9yr timeframe to produce the 100-110 planes required.  So, what happens in year 10? Do we start to cycle out the first planes built that are only 9-10yrs old?  Doesn't seem likely or feasible. Selling them abroad won't be happening as the Swedes won't allow it to occur as we'd be in competition against their own locally built Gripen's.  Obviously there is the potential of the production facility taking on the maintenance contract but that is not the same as building them. This point is the weakest link.


----------



## KevinB

Is it just me but every time I see the Gripen I have CF-5 flashbacks?


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Is it just me but every time I see the Gripen I have CF-5 flashbacks?


That would be a great attack ad.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> That would be a great attack ad.


I am guessing that LocMart would prefer not to waste paper, as doing so might give people the impression they where concerned about the Gripen as a competitor.   
    Now if I was an RCAF Fighter Pilot - I might be headed down to Staples to print out a bunch to distribute to co-workers


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I don't think the Gripen is a terrible aircraft. Sweden produces some solid Military hardware and Sweden is a Country that's highly regarded for their Engineering prowess.  

The real question is, does it meet our requirements and are the trade offs worth the cost?

Honestly, for most of the operations we do, it's completely fine.  Bombing brigands in 3rd World hell holes doesn't exactly require state of the art technology.

The F35 is clearly a superior aircraft but it's not all about specs.


----------



## calculus

Also, that reference is so obscure that 99.99% of the Canadian populace would not get it. Probably most current serving RCAF are not aware of the reasons behind the purchase of that aircraft.


----------



## KevinB

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I don't think the Gripen is a terrible aircraft. Sweden produces some solid Military hardware and Sweden is a Country that's highly regarded for their Engineering prowess.
> 
> The real question is, does it meet our requirements and are the trade offs worth the cost?
> 
> Honestly, for most of the operations we do, it's completely fine.  Bombing brigands in 3rd World hell holes doesn't exactly require state of the art technology.
> 
> The F35 is clearly a superior aircraft but it's not all about specs.


Yes that's exactly what the CF-5 said


----------



## KevinB

calculus said:


> Also, that reference is so obscure that 99.99% of the Canadian populace would not get it. Probably most current serving RCAF are not aware of the reasons behind the purchase of that aircraft.


Honestly until I saw that video - and started reading deeper into it, I never could understand it either.
   Just need to hit up folks on email with that YouTube link


----------



## armrdsoul77

CF-116 in the "adversary" role was put to good use?


----------



## kev994

Czech_pivo said:


> In terms of personal, a comprehensive, long-term plan would need to drawn up on how to address the need for additional personal/pilots. Time would be on our side currently in order to do so but it's an issue that would need immediate attention.


The RCAF has been bleeding pilots for at least 20 years and has made no headway despite having had immediate attention for quite some time. So I’m not sure how a new piece of crap plane would change that.


----------



## dimsum

armrdsoul77 said:


> CF-116 in the "adversary" role was put to good use?


Holy Flight Safety, Batman!


----------



## suffolkowner

Still a little surprised that Boeing got cut and not Saab. The Gripen is probably a fine aircraft but worry about it being too short legged for domestic operations. I wouldn't count Saab out though it could win on cost and industrial benefits. It all depends on how the scoring is done


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> The RCAF has been bleeding pilots for at least 20 years and has made no headway despite having had immediate attention for quite some time. So I’m not sure how a new piece of crap plane would change that.


My takeaways were at 7:52 and 8:48, about how the F-5 was the only aircraft not to meet spec, then how the spec was lowered so the F-5 was compliant.

The “More You Know!!!” moment was that MND Helleyer was an engineer at Northrup before becoming a politician.  🤔


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> My takeaways were at 7:52 and 8:48, about how the F-5 was the only aircraft not to meet spec, then how the spec was lowered so the F-5 was compliant.


Reminded me of the LSVW program change acceptance criteria until selected vehicle passes...



Good2Golf said:


> The “More You Know!!!” momen was that MND Helleyer was an engineer at Northrup before becoming a politician.  🤔


Not concerning at all right?


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Not concerning at all right?


No more than when he went “UFO-ologist” 👽


----------



## armrdsoul77

Cabal keeping UFO secrets to blame for world’s woes, says former cabinet minister Paul Hellyer


----------



## dapaterson

The RCAF has failed to scale pilot training, ACSO training, AESOp training, and air trades technical training to meet demand for decades.

Not high attrition, low production.


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:


> Still a little surprised that Boeing got cut and not Saab. The Gripen is probably a fine aircraft but worry about it being too short legged for domestic operations. I wouldn't count Saab out though it could win on cost and industrial benefits. It all depends on how the scoring is done


Without knowing the package either, we don't know if Saab has modified the design at all for the NG varient


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dimsum said:


> Holy Flight Safety, Batman!


bah the French fart in the general direction of your flight safety rules


----------



## suffolkowner

Canada’s fighter-jet merry-go-round
					

If history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, Karl Marx’s quip may be the best summation yet of Canada’s attempt to get a new fighter jet. One of three bidders is now out of the race to equip the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) with the 88 new frontline jets it needs for […]




					ipolitics.ca
				




"A contract decision is expected next year, but if the F-35 is chosen, 10 years of effort, human resources, and tax dollars will have been wasted."

too true a lot of time, effort, people and money is wasted on these big military programs for little return. As it is the procurement process is so slow that it has to be falling further behind each year on capital replacement


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> bah the French fart in the general direction of your flight safety rules


When an A-10 takes your antenna off at midway at the base pole - that is low -- this guy is around 20-50ft other than the touch and go - the CF-5 guy flying the road was lower, and had better music 

..


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> Canada’s fighter-jet merry-go-round
> 
> 
> If history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, Karl Marx’s quip may be the best summation yet of Canada’s attempt to get a new fighter jet. One of three bidders is now out of the race to equip the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) with the 88 new frontline jets it needs for […]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ipolitics.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A contract decision is expected next year, but if the F-35 is chosen, 10 years of effort, human resources, and tax dollars will have been wasted."
> 
> too true a lot of time, effort, people and money is wasted on these big military programs for little return. As it is the procurement process is so slow that it has to be falling further behind each year on capital replacement


The Cormorant says Hold My Beer...


----------



## armrdsoul77

A CF-5 supplemented with alien technology would have been outstanding.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A bit more serious, Ed Nash take on the process and choices


----------



## KevinB

Didn't @Good2Golf vote to make the Hangars for the EX earlier...


----------



## Good2Golf

Yup!


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> The RCAF has failed to scale pilot training, ACSO training, AESOp training, and air trades technical training to meet demand for decades.
> 
> Not high attrition, low production.


We produced 20 fighter pilots a year in early 2010s and we’re still in the hurt locker.  We just didn’t have the capacity to absorb them in the line units.  If attrition beats absorption capacity, you’ll always have an issue, and production won’t solve it.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I don't think the Gripen is a terrible aircraft. Sweden produces some solid Military hardware and Sweden is a Country that's highly regarded for their Engineering prowess.
> 
> The real question is, does it meet our requirements and are the trade offs worth the cost?
> 
> Honestly, for most of the operations we do, it's completely fine.  Bombing brigands in 3rd World hell holes doesn't exactly require state of the art technology.
> 
> The F35 is clearly a superior aircraft but it's not all about specs.


Just for comparison’s sake, the Gripen cannot load two GBU-31 (2,000 lb class GPS-guided weapons) with three external fuel tanks.  That doesn’t include air-to-air missiles for self-defence nor a targeting pod to find those targets…. I have flown several times in anger with two 2,000 lbs weapons and a complement of Air-to-Air weapons…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:


> Dangles the ongoing Aurora replacement project and 'hints' at Boeing's P8 as the preferred choice
> 
> Commits to increase the fleet size from 18 to 24-30, allowing for a better, more consistent and comprehensive patrolling of the Arctic and more roles within NATO


What replacement project?  Block 4 isn’t complete yet.  140s will be turning gas into noise for another 2 decades+.  With disrespect to my own fleet, the US doesn’t really take our MPA capability very serious.  

If I was going to burn more YFR with MPAs I would not do it in the arctic.


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:


> What replacement project?  Block 4 isn’t complete yet.  140s will be turning gas into noise for another 2 decades+.



Given how fast IMP's production line works, 2+ decades from now they'll still be inducting 140s into the Block 4 line.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> Given how fast IMP's production line works, 2+ decades from now they'll still be inducting 140s into the Block 4 line.



I’d love to comment on that publicly…but, I shouldn’t.


----------



## lenaitch

Of course we don't know why Boeing's bid was dropped, but if it was a pee-pee slap for their Bombardier action (or low points for supporting Canada's economic interests), then an F-15 would suffer the same fate.


----------



## kev994

SupersonicMax said:


> We produced 20 fighter pilots a year in early 2010s and we’re still in the hurt locker.  We just didn’t have the capacity to absorb them in the line units.  If attrition beats absorption capacity, you’ll always have an issue, and production won’t solve it.


Ditto for my non-fighter fleet; we’re drowning in First Officers, so much so that it’s a struggle keep them all current let alone keep them all progressing. More production would definitely exacerbate the situation.


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:


> Just for comparison’s sake, the Gripen cannot load two GBU-31 (2,000 lb class GPS-guided weapons) with three external fuel tanks.  That doesn’t include air-to-air missiles for self-defence nor a targeting pod to find those targets…. I have flown several times in anger with two 2,000 lbs weapons and a complement of Air-to-Air weapons…


The F35s max take off weight is almost double the Gripen's. Breaking it down, a lot of it comes to the engine inside the Gripen, it has a lot less power then the F-35, including about 36KN less thrust.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> Ditto for my non-fighter fleet; we’re drowning in First Officers, so much so that it’s a struggle keep them all current let alone keep them all progressing. More production would definitely exacerbate the situation.


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’d love to comment on that publicly…but, I shouldn’t.


shouldn’t, or can’t…??

There’s a lot of taxpayer dollars going to them, and their ability to complete work according to timelines has a direct affect on national security and our ability to deploy aircraft.  

I’m curious.  As I’m sure others are too.


----------



## Rifleman62

My .02 is that it is ALL political. This govt , the PM, doesn't give a shit what's good for its citizens, nor the CF. It's all about what's good for them, remain  in power. If the aircraft is made /or assembled in Quebec, it will be a go to. History proves that.

Where is the $600 Billion in unaccounted spending?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> shouldn’t, or can’t…??
> 
> There’s a lot of taxpayer dollars going to them, and their ability to complete work according to timelines has a direct affect on national security and our ability to deploy aircraft.
> 
> I’m curious.  As I’m sure others are too.



Most people aren’t privy to the status of fleets like the Aurora outside of what is released for public consumption.   Current work has me visiting 6 Hgr YHZ on occasion and I’d prefer to NOT end up in the Sqn Boss’s office for bad reasons.  😁


----------



## Rifleman62

A reminder:

Nimble, sleek, and almost useless in a real fight; the story of the Canadair CF-5 Freedom Fighter - May 8, 2021


----------



## calculus

Some good points made here: Didn’t Expect That! - Billie Flynn - My Blog

Understood the author is somewhat biased in favour of F35, but nevertheless, he makes some excellent points, especially with regards to the long-term economic impact of the two competing programs (F35 vs. Gripen).


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:


> and I’d prefer to NOT end up in the Sqn Boss’s office for bad reasons.  😁


...again...


----------



## kev994

Rifleman62 said:


> My .02 is that it is ALL political. This govt , the PM, doesn't give a shit what's good for its citizens, nor the CF. It's all about what's good for them, remain  in power. If the aircraft is made /or assembled in Quebec, it will be a go to. History proves that.
> 
> Where is the $600 Billion in unaccounted spending?


Come on, he’s not all about himself. He funnels some cash over to his family friends too.


----------



## suffolkowner

It seems like there's a bit of wiggle room in the way this project is moving forward. I would have thought the process would be a lot more rigid.

"Over the coming weeks, Canada will finalize next steps for the process, which, based on further analysis of the 2 remaining bids, could involve proceeding to final negotiations with the top-ranked bidder or entering into a competitive dialogue, whereby the 2 remaining bidders would be provided with an opportunity to improve their proposals."






						Government of Canada announces key milestone in process to replace Canada’s fighter jets - Canada.ca
					

As part of its defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is acquiring 88 advanced fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) through a competitive process that will ensure the requirements of the RCAF are met while ensuring best value for Canadians.




					www.canada.ca
				




I am hoping that they proceed with the final negotiations for the F35 and move this thing along. I would still love to see how the two offers ended up being scored


----------



## MilEME09

If Saab wins, they will be built in nova Scotia. If the F35 wins we will build various components for decades. Only way I see the benefit for Saab, is if they make canada a manufacturing center for the company and generate additional orders to be built by us.

Also the question is with Saab, do we get the E/F model or will it be a Hybrid of the E/F and the maritime? (Reinforced landing gear, arrestor hook)


----------



## Dale Denton

Serious question. Would keeping the CDN Grippen plant open be a good idea long-term???

My assumptions for arguments sake:
On one hand, we get the ability to produce and maintain our own fighters, a key strategic capability that's new. If we go F-35 and WW3 kicks off we'd be sharing a production line with many other partners, similar to the vaccine situation? How many planes could the F-35 plant really shove out for every partner in wartime?

Downside is that every gov't would be forced into buying more CDN Grippens after every order is almost complete, to avoid being the ones to 'close the plant'. No gov't would want be have the comparison to the Avro Arrow cancellation (regardless of practicality or cost). I'm thinking of GDLS-C, would we ever _not _buy a LAV or whatever to keep that plant open?

So do we work with the Saab plant like the NSS/GDLS-C; work as efficient enough to keep paychecks coming for as long as possible? Build 88 planes in 10ish years, then in the 2030s be forced to buy into a new Saab project or build another couple blocks of Grippens? Is having a larger fleet of Grippens better than F-35s? But, do we really want to push away from the US in yet another way, or would they be ok with us having a larger 120+ fleet of Grippens and be happy that we have more for NORAD duties or stationing abroad?

----------------------------

Senior Executive Vice President and head of SAAB Aeronautics, Lennart Sindahl, talks to Georg Mader for Defence IQ about the company’s activities in the fighter domain and beyond…
Source (from 2015)


> LS: One of the ideas, once we have that F-model – and I can say this without ‘disclosing’ anything – is that the future market will need a dedicated electronic-attack version...





> DIQ: Ah, you mean a‘Growler Gripen’, with pods, and full of humps and blades.





> LS (laughing): Yes, exactly.If you look into future combat scenarios, if you have a highend air force with a broad threat situation, such as the ‘GG’ as you called it, would make a real difference. That‘s what we’re looking into and that’s why it’s so good to have Brazil on board with the Fmodel.


----------



## MilEME09

Could Canada then gain an EW Gripen? Is that a capability the RCAF would want to add? 

There is also the possibility we could enter into the R&D front with Saab


----------



## suffolkowner

The Weight of Evidence: Norwegian Defence Budget and F-35 Costings
		


This article examines the cost of the F35A from Norwegian budget in relation to the ongoing competition in Finland.


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> The Weight of Evidence: Norwegian Defence Budget and F-35 Costings
> 
> 
> 
> This article examines the cost of the F35A from Norwegian budget in relation to the ongoing competition in Finland.


Everyone 'makes' Norway pay more for stuff as they have Oil money and tend not to negotiate aggressively.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Everyone 'makes' Norway pay more for stuff as they have Oil money and tend not to negotiate aggressively.


Canada just entered the chat…


----------



## Quirky

Only thing the Gripen will be good for is softening the battlefield by emptying the enemy of missile stocks. We would be better off converting them to UAVs.

I wonder where our CF-18s will be sold off to. AirUSA?


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:


> Only thing the Gripen will be good for is softening the battlefield by emptying the enemy of missile stocks. We would be better off converting them to UAVs.
> 
> I wonder where our CF-18s will be sold off to. AirUSA?


Given the Gripen E is bring pitched as a solution to A2AD networks. That statement is likely far from the truth.









						Gripen E-series | Saab
					

Gripen E-series is a true swing-role fighter with outstanding capabilities. The fighter is developed to counter and defeat the most advanced threats in a modern battlespace and to continuously evolve in order to keep up with new challenges.




					www.saab.com


----------



## armrdsoul77

*Saab Considers Unmanned Gripen Development Plan*


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LoboCanada said:


> But, do we really want to push away from the US in yet another way, or would they be ok with us having a larger 120+ fleet of Grippens and be happy that we have more for NORAD duties or stationing abroad?



They’d probably pause and think of our submarines (old and under-weaponed), MPAs (old and under-weaponed), inability to really sustain our rather small navy at sea ourselves and say “really surprised they bought anything new!”.

Then, they’d sit back and watch to see if the procurement went the way of the Cyclone.  Someone might even start a betting pool…

Oh wait. That would be CAF members.  

😄


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> Oh wait. That would be CAF members.
> 
> 😄



$50 on Boeing lawsuit causes procurement reset


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> They’d probably pause and think of our submarines (old and under-weaponed), MPAs (old and under-weaponed), inability to really sustain our rather small navy at sea ourselves and say “really surprised they bought anything new!”.
> 
> Then, they’d sit back and watch to see if the procurement went the way of the Cyclone.  Someone might even start a betting pool…
> 
> Oh wait. That would be CAF members.
> 
> 😄


Don’t forget the old hornets that we just bought and apparently don’t even have anyone to staff them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> Don’t forget the old hornets that we just bought and apparently don’t even have anyone to staff them.



It's all part of our new, secret AI program: 'Disloyal' wingman


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> It's all part of our new, secret AI program: 'Disloyal' wingman


No, those are the folks who decided to leave the RCAF for greener pastures in AC or WJ


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> No, those are the folks who decided to leave the RCAF for greener pastures in AC or WJ


Like a subset of all those types Gen Eyre critiqued for not ‘digging deep’…sure their families are looked after and no postings/moves/etc. but at what cost to their soul? 😉


----------



## childs56

suffolkowner said:


> The Weight of Evidence: Norwegian Defence Budget and F-35 Costings
> 
> 
> 
> This article examines the cost of the F35A from Norwegian budget in relation to the ongoing competition in Finland.


One of the things I hate are the hidden and associated costs with an initial purchase
When I buy something I want to know how much is the 
1 Object itself.  All in what am I paying when I walk out the door hop in the truck and drive away. Does it include the first tank of fuel? 
2 Cost of Maintenance,  how much does a oil change and parts cost me, what is the projected budget required for the basics. tires, brakes etc
3 Cost of accesories,  I want to know what addons do they have, are they available, are they required for the promised performance. Ie need that air deflector installed to reach full mpg.  
4 Cost to operate. How much fuel does it burn and how long do the brakes last, how many km before breaks downs, what are the expected breakdowns and what are the expected costs associated. 
I want those figures broken down individually. 

When I see a all in cost which includes all of the above,  it tells me someone is trying to hide something. 
Break down the overall cost and compare apples to apples.  
Operating cost may make a jet prohibitive with current budgets. We do not want to loose one ability over another.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile in the UAE









						UAE signs deal for 80 French Rafale fighter jets: officials
					

The United Arab Emirates has agreed to buy 80 French-made Rafale fighter jets, the biggest international order ever made for the warplanes, officials said on Friday during a visit by French President…




					www.france24.com


----------



## Good2Golf

Ironically, the thing that scares many Canadians with the high price tag of these types of capabilities, is that in many cases, the overall cost includes many or all of those factors.   Looking at previously released public numbers, for example, ‘each’ CH-147F includes $327M for: acquisition, spare parts, maintenance and logistics support, flight simulators, hangarage and initial several years of O&M funding.  That figure looks to be about 7-8 times what some refer to US Army figures for their programs that note a per unit flyaway cost, which means “a single bare aircraft flying away from the OEM factory.”  Using ballpark math, I’d estimate a 20-year program of 88 F-35s to be in the order of $49-50B ($80M x 7 multiplication factor of flyaway cost x 88 aircraft = $49.28B).  Per year that’s 2.5B/year to acquire, amortize, maintain, support and train.  Between RCAF and ADM(Mat), I’d wager that’s actually fairly close, within reasonable error bars, of what DND spends on CF-18 today. 

G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Ironically, the thing that scares many Canadians with the high price tag of these types of capabilities, is that in many cases, the overall cost includes many or all of those factors.   Looking at previously released public numbers, for example, ‘each’ CH-147F includes $327M for: acquisition, spare parts, maintenance and logistics support, flight simulators, hangarage and initial several years of O&M funding.  That figure looks to be about 7-8 times what some refer to US Army figures for their programs that note a per unit flyaway cost, which means “a single bare aircraft flying away from the OEM factory.”  Using ballpark math, I’d estimate a 20-year program of 88 F-35s to be in the order of $49-50B ($80M x 7 multiplication factor of flyaway cost x 88 aircraft = $49.28B).  Per year that’s 2.5B/year to acquire, amortize, maintain, support and train.  Between RCAF and ADM(Mat), I’d wager that’s actually fairly close, within reasonable error bars, of what DND spends on CF-18 today.
> 
> G2G



One thing that continually bothers me is the question of ammunition.  I accept that a war-machine is not a war-machine without ammunition but how much ammunition is necessary over the life of the machine?  And what happens if it is using ammunition that is common to other machines and is already in stock?  How do you predict how many wars will require the expenditure of how much ammunition against how many targets over the life of the machine?

And if ammunition is dependent on the unforeseen then how about fuel?  How about hours consumed?  How about losses?

It is appropriate to do those cost analyses and determine the costs of employment.  But those are not real costs because they are based on assumed reference points.

The real cost is the cost of the machine as it is provided.  That has to be the principal metric.  The others merely inform the decision and should be accounted for separately.  CapEx and OpEx.


----------



## suffolkowner

childs56 said:


> One of the things I hate are the hidden and associated costs with an initial purchase
> When I buy something I want to know how much is the
> 1 Object itself.  All in what am I paying when I walk out the door hop in the truck and drive away. Does it include the first tank of fuel?
> 2 Cost of Maintenance,  how much does a oil change and parts cost me, what is the projected budget required for the basics. tires, brakes etc
> 3 Cost of accesories,  I want to know what addons do they have, are they available, are they required for the promised performance. Ie need that air deflector installed to reach full mpg.
> 4 Cost to operate. How much fuel does it burn and how long do the brakes last, how many km before breaks downs, what are the expected breakdowns and what are the expected costs associated.
> I want those figures broken down individually.
> 
> When I see a all in cost which includes all of the above,  it tells me someone is trying to hide something.
> Break down the overall cost and compare apples to apples.
> Operating cost may make a jet prohibitive with current budgets. We do not want to loose one ability over another.


So from the article Norways 52 F35A's are 

$10.68B for aircraft and associated equipment/spares(munitions?)
$790M for Orland base infrastructure(main base)
$210M for Evenes base infrastructure (FOB)
$450M for management/implementation/administration

$770M budgeted for blk 4 upgrades
$870M for Joint Strike Missile integration (UK weapons integration is stated as $472M)

The stated operations cost is $19.5M per year per aircraft

An interesting timbit

According to Lieutenant Colonel Per Erik Sørgaard , head of ØRLAND'S F-35 service center , the machine's global maintenance system is costing all users.

- The cost of the system is divided according to how many planes the user has and how many hours they fly. There are some other rules for sharing costs, Sørgaard says.

According to the maintenance manager, the maintenance system gives Norway predictability in costs, but at the same time it reduces the flexibility of use. Due to the system, the Norwegian Air Force's operational F-35 fleets have to plan the use of their aircraft in advance, usually every two years.


- We do not want to order more flight hours than we can use, as this would increase the costs of the system in accordance with the cooperative principle. The plans need to be realistic, Sørgaard says.









						Norja valitsi F-35-hävittäjän Venäjän takia – nyt sillä pystytään toimimaan Bastion-vyöhykkeellä: ”On muuttanut pelin”
					

Norjan kuninkaalliset ilmavoimat laskee häivekoneidensa käyttökustannukset yllättävän alhaisiksi.




					www.is.fi


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> The real cost is the cost of the machine as it is provided.  That has to be the principal metric.  The others merely inform the decision and should be accounted for separately.  CapEx and OpEx.



Disagree.  

That’s precisely what gets people into fiscally-uninformed troubles when they think the only main consideration is the upfront CAPEX cost, and fail to appreciate the impact of all applicable cost factors OPEX/MAINTEX over the period that someone will own a particular possession.  

Canadians on the whole like to pretend everything is affordable, or those things they want.  Things they dont think they can offorf become something they no longer want, and either postpone, water-down or outright divest capabilities.  Look at the complete lack of appreciation that most Canadians have of the future impact of the ballooning debt…

To pretend that only acquisition costs matter is shortsighted and deliberately naive.  The follow-on considerations as you state being taken into account elsewhere, would not happen or be pushed off to…Meñana…

$0.02

G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good2Golf said:


> Disagree.
> 
> That’s precisely what gets people into fiscally-uninformed troubles when they think the only main consideration is the upfront CAPEX cost, and fail to appreciate the impact of all applicable cost factors OPEX/MAINTEX over the period that someone will own a particular possession.
> 
> Canadians on the whole like to pretend everything is affordable, or those things they want.  Things they dont think they can offorf become something they no longer want, and either postpone, water-down or outright divest capabilities.  Look at the complete lack of appreciation that most Canadians have of the future impact of the ballooning debt…
> 
> To pretend that only acquisition costs matter is shortsighted and deliberately naive.  The follow-on considerations as you state being taken into account elsewhere, would not happen or be pushed off to…Meñana…
> 
> $0.02
> 
> G2G


I'm with G2G; life cycle costs have an often deleterious thirty plus year impact on the defence budget. They are, frequently, three or four times the sail-away, drive-away or fly-away costs.


----------



## suffolkowner

obviously the MND/CAF/government need to budget for life cycle costs, but what are they based on and useful (the subject of my post above) The public has a right to know as well but I find that between the public and news media the message seems to get scrambled quite a bit.

Apparently the F35 has won the Finnish competition and is being presented to the government for acceptance at somewhere around the 10B Euros
(Saab was apparently more)








						IL:n tiedot: Puolustusvoimat esittää yhdysvaltalaista F-35:ttä Suomen uudeksi hävittäjäksi
					

Puolustusvoimat esittää Suomen seuraavaksi hävittäjäksi yhdysvaltalaista F-35-konetta. Asia vahvistetaan Iltalehdelle useista ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan lähteistä.




					www.iltalehti.fi
				




In light of the Norwegian numbers I'm curious as to how they squared the cost circle


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> obviously the MND/CAF/government need to budget for life cycle costs, but what are they based on and useful (the subject of my post above) The public has a right to know as well but I find that between the public and news media the message seems to get scrambled quite a bit.



I fully agree with you, suffolkowner, the highlighted portion above absolutely is something the citizens paying for the capability must be provided.  The communications challenge, and it has certainly not been done well in the past, needs to be properly framed and appropriate detail provided to the public. At best, less citizens hunting the detailed information themselves via ATIP, the comms effort has been to high level. IMO, the government should provide at least a two-level breakout costs for all major capital acquisitions:

Weapon system acquisition:

prime systems (aircraft, ships, vehicles, armament, etc.)
associated armament as applicable, at baseline assessed levels
unique infrastructure or mods to existing infra
initial sparing
initial statutory O&M allocation (pre-IOC)
training systems (simulators, e-learning systems, etc.)
statutory

Weapon system support

long-term sparing including to tables and exchanges
through-life engineering change management
configuration/obsolescence management
follow-on munitions resupply, both for consumption and life-cycle/expiry replacement

Weapon system operations

post-IOC O&M
attributable incremental personnel costs

Weapon system disposal (one of the least appreciated life-cycle costs ever!)

decommissioning of weapon system and ancillary material and removal from in-service supply/support systems/holdings
disposal of assets per applicable control programs/legislation (ITAR/CCGP/etc.)
remediation of facilities and any real property not required for other purposes.

In a perfect world, the only unknowns (but assumable) would be FOREX for material procured from non-Canadian sources, some commodity-based O&M unknowns (POL, etc) and volume/qty of consumables (munitions, non-rotable parts).  Properly developed, there’s no reason a major capital program couldn’t actually finish its life being within a small fraction of its planned overall costs at the end of the day. 

The biggest problem is that such a number is usually a BIG number that scares folks, so many involved in the process either deliberately or subconsciously try to mask the numbers with generalities and kicking of challenge points down the road for someone else to worry about…


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Disagree.
> 
> That’s precisely what gets people into fiscally-uninformed troubles when they think the only main consideration is the upfront CAPEX cost, and fail to appreciate the impact of all applicable cost factors OPEX/MAINTEX over the period that someone will own a particular possession.
> 
> Canadians on the whole like to pretend everything is affordable, or those things they want.  Things they dont think they can offorf become something they no longer want, and either postpone, water-down or outright divest capabilities.  Look at the complete lack of appreciation that most Canadians have of the future impact of the ballooning debt…
> 
> To pretend that only acquisition costs matter is shortsighted and deliberately naive.  The follow-on considerations as you state being taken into account elsewhere, would not happen or be pushed off to…Meñana…
> 
> $0.02
> 
> G2G



There is the cost of the service and the cost of the item.

The cost of the service being supplied includes the cost of a functional item.  More often than not the cost of the item is minor part of the service.  

It is right that the cost of supplying the service be fully understood.  For example the cost of supplying an air combat capability to defend Canada is a continuing cost regardless of the cost of the consumable - the fighter.  The fighter needs to be renewed on an ongoing basis as it wears out.  Canada has met the service requirement, since 1957, with the in-service Canucks and Super Sabres, the Starfighter and the Voodoo and then the Hornet.  If we want to get a sense of the service cost then we can look backwards at that history and compare the costs of maintaining those earlier aircraft, and their supply of pilots and maintainers, hangars and fields and plant.  But what percentage of the cost of providing that service over the last 64 years has been the cost of replacing those original Canucks and Super Sabres?

If Canadians are to be told the cost of continuing an existing service going forwards with a new fighter then they should be credibly informed of the costs to date of supplying that service with previous resources.  Then they can decide whether or not the revised cost of service with a new aircraft is value for money.  But to just pile on all the costs of the service and present them as a novel cost dependent on the replacement aircraft is misleading.

It is right to compare the costs of supplying the service with different fighters.  But that cost is purely a budgetary exercise.  It is a plan against which future operations can be compared and which allows two or more different solutions to be compared.  The cost of the fighter will have an impact on the total cost of the service.

On the other hand, it is equally right that the cost of the fighter, the consumable, be available for consideration as a stand-alone item.  Exclusive of other costs such as AIR-2 Genies that were never employed.


----------



## Good2Golf

How are you going to present the historical difference between past systems and the increasing proportional cost of progressive technology?  Do you think citizens paying $12,000 for a family sedan in the early-90s is going to keep them from paying $40,000 for a similar capability in the 2020s?


----------



## Kirkhill

G2G, 

While it appears we are getting closer to violent agreement I take issue with:

"Properly developed, there’s no reason a major capital program couldn’t actually finish its life being within a small fraction of its planned overall costs at the end of the day."

That statement works when the equipment and the service are employed according to the plan.  But the whole point of a defence force is that it is there to manage the unplanned event.  

If a fighter programme survives its life-cycle within budget then the good news is that the fighters have never been required for their primary purpose.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> How are you going to present the historical difference between past systems and the increasing proportional cost of progressive technology?  Do you think citizens paying $12,000 for a family sedan in the early-90s is going to keep them from paying $40,000 for a similar capability in the 2020s?



The same way the average citizen looks at all other costs - how much work does that equal?  In 1966 my parents arrived in Canada and bought a brand new 1200 sq ft, 3 bedroom bungalow for $6000.  You compare it to average income, GDP or percent of federal budget or defence budget.

The progressive cost of technology is offset by greater ranges, reduced numbers, less maintenance, fewer fields.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> Don’t forget the old hornets that we just bought and apparently don’t even have anyone to staff them.



I believe they are v.busy closing that capability gap…


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> I believe they are v.busy closing that capability gap…



I think I saw that movie, which featured F-18s of course


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> If a fighter programme survives its life-cycle within budget then the good news is that the fighters have never been required for their primary purpose.



Then the project staff failed to account for the reasonably assessable costs of doing business.

You make it seem like such a costing exercise would assume the jets sit the entire 20 years inside the hanger unused. 

It seem we do indeed see things differently.   No problem, the Earth shall still rotate at 0.000072 rad/s.

Regards
G2G


----------



## suffolkowner

At $19.5 million a year per aircraft operating cost how does that compare to the Hornet?

so we are looking at

$ 7 B   = 88 F35A's x $79M 
$ 14 B  = initial spares, munitions, simulators etc...
$ 1 B   = management/admin/implementation 
$ 1 B   = Bagotville infrastructure 
$ 1 B   = Cold Lake infrastructure 
?????? = infrastructure updates at FOL's and other bases
$ 63B = operating costs 88 x $19.5M x 37 years

total = $87 Billion

interesting that Ellis Don got $12 million for Bagotville and only $9 million for Cold Lake. Is Bagotville bigger?

Close GtoG? dropping it down to 20 years its $53 Billion?



Good2Golf said:


> Ironically, the thing that scares many Canadians with the high price tag of these types of capabilities, is that in many cases, the overall cost includes many or all of those factors.   Looking at previously released public numbers, for example, ‘each’ CH-147F includes $327M for: acquisition, spare parts, maintenance and logistics support, flight simulators, hangarage and initial several years of O&M funding.  That figure looks to be about 7-8 times what some refer to US Army figures for their programs that note a per unit flyaway cost, which means “a single bare aircraft flying away from the OEM factory.”  Using ballpark math, I’d estimate a 20-year program of 88 F-35s to be in the order of $49-50B ($80M x 7 multiplication factor of flyaway cost x 88 aircraft = $49.28B).  Per year that’s 2.5B/year to acquire, amortize, maintain, support and train.  Between RCAF and ADM(Mat), I’d wager that’s actually fairly close, within reasonable error bars, of what DND spends on CF-18 today.
> 
> G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Then the project staff failed to account for the reasonably assessable costs of doing business.
> 
> You make it seem like such a costing exercise would assume the jets sit the entire 20 years inside the hanger unused.
> 
> It seem we do indeed see things differently.   No problem, the Earth shall still rotate at 0.000072 rad/s.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Of course we see things differently.  That's a given.

And no I don't anticipate that the will spend their life in hangars.  Yes they will be used for intercepts, patrols, training and the occasional war.  They will be consumed at a planned rate.  Unless they are consumed at a catastrophic rate.

The issue is the replacement cost to maintain the service.

And as for .000072 rad/s?  

The Earth’s Rotation Is Gradually Slowing Down 

Cheers, Sir!


----------



## childs56

As we witnessed with the CF18's that were to be retired in 2003 as per the Defence White paper. We extended the life span by 20 plus years, the cost to do so will cost much more money then original prediction  of life cycle. The issue comes now that we have to replace the Jet, increase capability all the while maintaining a small budget. 
Again though, the initial costs need to be calculated through its intended life cycle and presented as such.  Breaking down the actual cost of the each aspect of equipment purchase, weapons purchase, operating costs, infrastructure costs etc.


----------



## SupersonicMax

childs56 said:


> As we witnessed with the CF18's that were to be retired in 2003 as per the Defence White paper. We extended the life span by 20 plus years, the cost to do so will cost much more money then original prediction  of life cycle. The issue comes now that we have to replace the Jet, increase capability all the while maintaining a small budget.
> Again though, the initial costs need to be calculated through its intended life cycle and presented as such.  Breaking down the actual cost of the each aspect of equipment purchase, weapons purchase, operating costs, infrastructure costs etc.


Procurement assumptions change over time (including before tending the contract and before taking delivery of the first aircraft). It’s a futile exercise to try to pin point an absolute number to a life cycle cost.  It’d be more useful to generate relative life cycle cost compared to what we already have, or compared between contenders.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like F-35A to win in Finland--how can Justin respond to a nice neutral Nordic country going from Hornets to this?



> Finland Is Reported to Pick F-35 Jets in $11 Billion Tender​Finland is set to pick Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 fighter jets in its 10 billion-euro ($11.3 billion) tender to replace soon-outdated war planes that form a key defense pillar of Russia’s neighbor, according to a report in local media.
> 
> A fleet of F-35s will be acquired due to their capability and expected long lifespan, newspaper Iltalehti said, citing a number of defense and security policy sources it didn’t identify. The Defense Forces made the proposal to the Defense Ministry, which backs the motion along with top security and foreign policy makers, the newspaper said on Sunday [Dec. 5}.
> 
> Selecting the Lockheed Martin warplanes would align the Nordic country with the U.S. for the coming decades through industrial cooperation that accounts for almost a third of the order price. Finland is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, though it trains with the alliance and uses NATO-compatible gear...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:


> Looks like F-35A to win in Finland--how can Justin respond to a nice neutral Nordic country going from Hornets to this?
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


How much of a say does the Government/PM have in the decision? Has the process not been established?
The Finnish government on the other hand has just been handed a recommendation
I'm still very curious how the numbers are made to work. Apparently the operational cost are to be limited to 10% of the defence budget or 250 million Euros in peacetime, seems unlikely

edit this is the original order approval






						Finland – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft with Air-to-Air Missiles and Air-to-Ground Precision Guided Munitions | Defense Security Cooperation Agency
					






					www.dsca.mil


----------



## childs56

SupersonicMax said:


> Procurement assumptions change over time (including before tending the contract and before taking delivery of the first aircraft). It’s a futile exercise to try to pin point an absolute number to a life cycle cost.  It’d be more useful to generate relative life cycle cost compared to what we already have, or compared between contenders.


That is why they need to seperate the cost of the Aircraft purchase from all the other costs in the life cycle. 
Then the government cant hide certain aspects in vague budgets. 
The cost to buy a jet that can fly. 
The cost to build the new hangers needed to support the new jets. 
The cost to buy the new AMSE equipment
The cost of the new weapon systems ie missiles, bombs, bullets.
these costs should be separate and published before putting a bid forward to the public.


----------



## KevinB

childs56 said:


> That is why they need to seperate the cost of the Aircraft purchase from all the other costs in the life cycle.
> Then the government cant hide certain aspects in vague budgets.
> The cost to buy a jet that can fly.
> The cost to build the new hangers needed to support the new jets.
> The cost to buy the new AMSE equipment
> The cost of the new weapon systems ie missiles, bombs, bullets.
> these costs should be separate and published before putting a bid forward to the public.



I generally hate the way programs account for their funds, I agree with @Good2Golf that it does need to be accounted for - but I do agree with you that it needs to be clearly separated in separate line items.

1) O&M: Operations and Maintenance is going to happen regardless of platform - additionally Military items by nature cannot be hard coded to a set O&M yearly - as while in Peacetime you can budget for milage, blade hours, airtime, seatime etc - it can all go out the window when the .gov says go do this here.   Sure Budgets get plussed up to account for unforeseen operations (usually) - it is often a mistake to lump them in with new capital programs - as sometimes that O&M can decrease with a new platform as the cost of keeping ancient items going is often staggering.

2) Hangers: Again a capital cost associated with the new item (maybe) - often programs tend to mission creep in some areas like this and cover years of poor maintenance on older facilities with a demolish and build new approach - which jacks the cost of the program - and should have been better captured elsewhere.  Also some countries love to hide expansions in this sort of thing -- new airfields on previously barren land for instance (not saying Canada is doing this - but I know some of the Euro countries love to do this for things )

3) AMSE - again a question of did we need new, or is this just another cover to either expanding capability in new sites etc.

4) Weapons and other consumables - new, or just more of the same?   If the same, they fall into O&M (albeit a different type).


Lastly, the public, and politicians are terrible arbiters of "value" to a military.   One should trust the Military to conduct its procurements for either Best Value to the Government, or Best Performance, or even Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (depending on the type of contract) and while the Militaries need to be transparent about where money is spend (in a Democracy) - if the Public and Politicians aren't trusting of the Military to do that - they should be replacing the service heads, and the public servants that serve in those areas.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:


> Looks like F-35A to win in Finland--how can Justin respond to a nice neutral Nordic country going from Hornets to this?
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Justin ref. sarcasm.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:


> Looks like F-35A to win in Finland--how can Justin respond to a nice neutral Nordic country going from Hornets to this?


Is Finland that neutral though?  They aren't part of NATO officially, but they contribute troops to NATO missions.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> Is Finland that neutral though?  They aren't part of NATO officially, but they contribute troops to NATO missions.



Not NATO, yet.










						NATO Secretary General welcomes deepened cooperation with Finland and Sweden
					

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg praised Finland and Sweden’s close partnership with NATO while visiting the Berga Naval Base with the North Atlantic Council, on Wednesday (27 October 2021). During the visit, they had the opportunity to witness the joint Swedish/Finnish Naval Exercise...




					www.nato.int


----------



## Rifleman62

RAAF Bids Farewell To The F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet
					

Australia formally retired the Hornet after more than 35 years of service and nearly 408,000 total flight hours. The Royal Australian Air Force officially




					theaviationist.com
				




RAAF Bids Farewell To The F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet​
The Royal Australian Air Force officially retired the F/A-18A/B “Classic” Hornet during an official farewell ceremony at RAAF Williamtown on November 29, 2021. The ceremony was attended by the Minister for Defence Peter Dutton, the Chief of the Air Force Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld, aviators and industry partners. The aircraft who took part in the ceremony were assigned to the last squadron still flying the Hornet, the No. 75 Squadron based at RAAF Base Tindal.

The Classic Hornet is being replaced by the F-35A Lightning II, with 44 already delivered out of the total order of 72 aircraft. No. 75 Squadron will begin the conversion progress in 2022, joining No. 3 and No. 77 Squadrons and the No. 2 OCU (Operational Conversion Unit) which already fly on the fifth gen aircraft. The RAAF declared the Initial Operational Capability of the F-35 last year and is scheduled to reach the Full Operational Capability by 2023.

_snip_

Even if retired by the RAAF, many of these Hornet will get a second life. As we already reported, 18 flying aircraft and seven non-flying aircraft were sold to Canada as interim gap filler until the introduction of the new fighter aircraft, while up to 46 might head out soon to the United States to join Air USA and provide contracted Red Air support and other services to the U.S. Armed Forces. Around eight aircraft will be prepared for display in Australia, including two at the Fighter World museum in Williamtown.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Rifleman62 said:


> RAAF Bids Farewell To The F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet
> 
> 
> Australia formally retired the Hornet after more than 35 years of service and nearly 408,000 total flight hours. The Royal Australian Air Force officially
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theaviationist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RAAF Bids Farewell To The F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet​
> The Royal Australian Air Force officially retired the F/A-18A/B “Classic” Hornet during an official farewell ceremony at RAAF Williamtown on November 29, 2021. The ceremony was attended by the Minister for Defence Peter Dutton, the Chief of the Air Force Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld, aviators and industry partners. The aircraft who took part in the ceremony were assigned to the last squadron still flying the Hornet, the No. 75 Squadron based at RAAF Base Tindal.
> 
> The Classic Hornet is being replaced by the F-35A Lightning II, with 44 already delivered out of the total order of 72 aircraft. No. 75 Squadron will begin the conversion progress in 2022, joining No. 3 and No. 77 Squadrons and the No. 2 OCU (Operational Conversion Unit) which already fly on the fifth gen aircraft. The RAAF declared the Initial Operational Capability of the F-35 last year and is scheduled to reach the Full Operational Capability by 2023.
> 
> _snip_
> 
> Even if retired by the RAAF, many of these Hornet will get a second life. As we already reported, 18 flying aircraft and seven non-flying aircraft were sold to Canada as interim gap filler until the introduction of the new fighter aircraft, while up to 46 might head out soon to the United States to join Air USA and provide contracted Red Air support and other services to the U.S. Armed Forces. Around eight aircraft will be prepared for display in Australia, including two at the Fighter World museum in Williamtown.



Canada be like...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good round-up article at _The Drive's_ "War Zone":



> Finland Chooses F-35 As Its Next Fighter: Report​The Joint Strike Fighter looks to have emerged successfully from its latest fighter competition, to replace Finland’s F/A-18 Hornets.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finland Chooses F-35 As Its Next Fighter: Report
> 
> 
> The Joint Strike Fighter looks to have emerged successfully from its latest fighter competition, to replace Finland’s F/A-18 Hornets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

MarkOttawa said:


> Good round-up article at _The Drive's_ "War Zone":
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Still can't figure out how they're going to keep the operating costs on 64 F-35's to $250M yearly thats $4M per aircraft while Norway is running $19.5M


----------



## Good2Golf

Where does $250M/yr come from?


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> Still can't figure out how they're going to keep the operating costs on 64 F-35's to $250M yearly thats $4M per aircraft while Norway is running $19.5M


They only fly them in the summer, it’s too dark to fly in the winter…..


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> Where does $250M/yr come from?


For some reason its a mandatory limit on the operations budget.









						IL:n tiedot: Puolustusvoimat esittää yhdysvaltalaista F-35:ttä Suomen uudeksi hävittäjäksi
					

Puolustusvoimat esittää Suomen seuraavaksi hävittäjäksi yhdysvaltalaista F-35-konetta. Asia vahvistetaan Iltalehdelle useista ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan lähteistä.




					www.iltalehti.fi
				




"For the F-35, the annual operating costs are relevant. They are within the framework set by the tender, according to which operating costs should not exceed 10% of the Defense Forces' peacetime budget. In that case, they should not exceed EUR 250 million."


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> For some reason its a mandatory limit on the operations budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IL:n tiedot: Puolustusvoimat esittää yhdysvaltalaista F-35:ttä Suomen uudeksi hävittäjäksi
> 
> 
> Puolustusvoimat esittää Suomen seuraavaksi hävittäjäksi yhdysvaltalaista F-35-konetta. Asia vahvistetaan Iltalehdelle useista ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan lähteistä.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.iltalehti.fi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For the F-35, the annual operating costs are relevant. They are within the framework set by the tender, according to which operating costs should not exceed 10% of the Defense Forces' peacetime budget. In that case, they should not exceed EUR 250 million."


Sorry, suffolkowner, crossed wires. I thought that was a cap on the Canadian program…and wondered where that figure would have come from. 

Cheers
G2G


----------



## CBH99

Not a good few weeks for the Super Hornet program.  

Further reduction in upgrades for the jets the USN is upgrading to Block 3, eliminated from the RCAF competition, and now apparently eliminated from the Finnish competition as well.  


On a professional note, I’d just let the Air Force decide which aircraft they get.  

I know that isn’t how it works…but they are the experts, they know combat aircraft + current/future tech coming online better than anybody, and pilots very much have a community that talks internally.  If they want ‘Machine X’ - get it for them.   


On a personal note, I’m don’t feel bad for Boeing one bit.  

I know the former CEO is now gone (talk about driving a company into the ground, literally and figuratively) and new management seems to be doing much better.  

But they burned bridges where they shouldn’t have, and burned credibility with almost everybody.  I’m not sorry that their competition is winning these contracts.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

Use for the CF 18 when taken out of service.  
I use to attend the Hamilton Air Show ( is that still a thing?) and was able to attend the behind the curtain social gatherings and talk to pilots and other people involved in putting on the big show. There was a demo team who was talking about the Canadian Snow Birds and they were saying if they actually had high performance jets unlike the vintage aircraft they actually flew the show would be 100 times more amazing. 
Trade the CF 114 Tutor jets in on stripped down CF 118s. The US Navy Blue Angels use to fly the older model F18s  from 1986 till 2020, now they fly the Super Hornet aircraft series. 
Just curious


----------



## Drallib

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Use for the CF 18 when taken out of service.
> I use to attend the Hamilton Air Show ( is that still a thing?) and was able to attend the behind the curtain social gatherings and talk to pilots and other people involved in putting on the big show. There was a demo team who was talking about the Canadian Snow Birds and they were saying if they actually had high performance jets unlike the vintage aircraft they actually flew the show would be 100 times more amazing.
> Trade the CF 114 Tutor jets in on stripped down CF 118s. The US Navy Blue Angels use to fly the older model F18s  from 1986 till 2020, now they fly the Super Hornet aircraft series.
> Just curious


One of the reasons why the Snow Birds are so spectacular is because of the Tutor. If they switched to the Hornet, it would be an entirely different show.


----------



## KevinB

Just maybe the Demo team should also be a potentially operational squadron using operational aircraft...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> But they burned bridges where they shouldn’t have, and burned credibility with almost everybody.  I’m not sorry that their competition is winning these contracts.



I am if that means, somehow, we end up with a less capable aircraft...like a Gripen.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Drallib said:


> One of the reasons why the Snow Birds are so spectacular is because of the Tutor. If they switched to the Hornet, it would be an entirely different show.



And too expensive so they'd eventually chop the whole program, probably.


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> Not a good few weeks for the Super Hornet program.
> 
> Further reduction in upgrades for the jets the USN is upgrading to Block 3, eliminated from the RCAF competition, and now apparently eliminated from the Finnish competition as well.


I suspect Boeing as I have said before is less investing in the SH than other airframes.
  The F-15EX is going to be a mainstay of the USAF - even with the F-35


CBH99 said:


> On a professional note, I’d just let the Air Force decide which aircraft they get.
> 
> I know that isn’t how it works…but they are the experts, they know combat aircraft + current/future tech coming online better than anybody, and pilots very much have a community that talks internally.  If they want ‘Machine X’ - get it for them.


Wants versus needs are an issue.
   Hence why you have a Performance Spec and Statement of Work.
Users often gravitate to the known, or the new - not necessarily what is best for the role.



CBH99 said:


> On a personal note, I’m don’t feel bad for Boeing one bit.
> 
> I know the former CEO is now gone (talk about driving a company into the ground, literally and figuratively) and new management seems to be doing much better.
> 
> But they burned bridges where they shouldn’t have, and burned credibility with almost everybody.  I’m not sorry that their competition is winning these contracts.


Boeing is too big to fail - sure the SH setbacks are problematic for that segment - but they are intertwined on so many projects with others and have several competing aircraft to the SH as well for most of the roles.


----------



## Quirky

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Use for the CF 18 when taken out of service.
> I use to attend the Hamilton Air Show ( is that still a thing?) and was able to attend the behind the curtain social gatherings and talk to pilots and other people involved in putting on the big show. There was a demo team who was talking about the Canadian Snow Birds and they were saying if they actually had high performance jets unlike the vintage aircraft they actually flew the show would be 100 times more amazing.
> Trade the CF 114 Tutor jets in on stripped down CF 118s. The US Navy Blue Angels use to fly the older model F18s  from 1986 till 2020, now they fly the Super Hornet aircraft series.
> Just curious


The snowbirds need modern tutors for their use. New engine, avionics and ejection seats. Keep everything else the same. Canada doesn’t need a blue angel team as the smaller town couldn’t support it.


----------



## KevinB

Quirky said:


> The snowbirds need modern tutors for their use. New engine, avionics and ejection seats. Keep everything else the same. Canada doesn’t need a blue angel team as the smaller town couldn’t support it.


My opinion, is the Snowbird should just go away if they aren't going to fly operational aircraft.
  Canada doesn't currently have enough pilots - sending some to fly an ancient trainer doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> My opinion, is the Snowbird should just go away if they aren't going to fly operational aircraft.
> Canada doesn't currently have enough pilots - sending some to fly an ancient trainer doesn't make any sense.


Yup.  Either pay the incremental cost to have some additional CT-155 Hawks (or whatever aircraft the FAcT project chooses to provide advanced Ph.3 pilot training), or be done with them.  As well, in the spirit of purging excess non-core resources, the Sky Hawks could also go — while less expensive proportionately, they represent the same extravagant non-core expenditure that has little correlation to recruiting input to the CAF.  I wouldn’t be surprised if more than a tenth of Canadians that know of the Snowbirds could even name the CAF parachute demo team…


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  Either pay the incremental cost to have some additional CT-155 Hawks (or whatever aircraft the FAcT project chooses to provide advanced Ph.3 pilot training), or be done with them.  As well, in the spirit of purging excess non-core resources, the Sky Hawks could also go — while less expensive proportionately, they represent the same extravagant non-core expenditure that has little correlation to recruiting input to the CAF.  I wouldn’t be surprised if more than a tenth of Canadians that know of the Snowbirds could even name the CAF parachute demo team…


I will admit I had to look it up. I forgot the name.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  Either pay the incremental cost to have some additional CT-155 Hawks (or whatever aircraft the FAcT project chooses to provide advanced Ph.3 pilot training), or be done with them.  As well, in the spirit of purging excess non-core resources, the Sky Hawks could also go — while less expensive proportionately, they represent the same extravagant non-core expenditure that has little correlation to recruiting input to the CAF.  I wouldn’t be surprised if more than a tenth of Canadians that know of the Snowbirds could even name the CAF parachute demo team…


Let CANSOFCOM field a MFP Demo team if they want after axing the Sky Hawks - I agree with you it's another item that really doesn't give good bang for the buck.


----------



## Quirky

KevinB said:


> My opinion, is the Snowbird should just go away if they aren't going to fly operational aircraft.
> Canada doesn't currently have enough pilots - sending some to fly an ancient trainer doesn't make any sense.


We have plenty of pilots, they are just not getting through the training system fast enough to front line units. The wait list is years for whatever phases of flight training.


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  Either pay the incremental cost to have some additional CT-155 Hawks (or whatever aircraft the FAcT project chooses to provide advanced Ph.3 pilot training), or be done with them.  As well, in the spirit of purging excess non-core resources, the Sky Hawks could also go — while less expensive proportionately, they represent the same extravagant non-core expenditure that has little correlation to recruiting input to the CAF.  I wouldn’t be surprised if more than a tenth of Canadians that know of the Snowbirds could even name the CAF parachute demo team…


I think most Canadians know the Snowbirds.  If not, they (or if young people, their parents) should be shamed.  

Skyhawks?  True.  Most people don’t know who they are, nor can I blame them honestly.


----------



## FJAG

I've got a use for the Snowbirds; at least part time. The Army has problems getting enough people certified and recertified as JTACs primarily because the training requires - well - aircraft, and the F18's don't always want to come out to play as often as the Army likes. 

Upgrade a few of the Tutors with the comms gear and targeting gear to allow then to do dry missions something like Blue Air Training does in the States. Program the serials in before the show schedule -- Badaboom.  You'll increase throughput and get some value for money.

🍻


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> We have plenty of pilots, they are just not getting through the training system fast enough to front line units. The wait list is years for whatever phases of flight training.


The front line units are drowning in new pilots who barely know what they’re doing. Our attempts to recruit away our problems was a bit of a predictable flop.


----------



## SupersonicMax

FJAG said:


> I've got a use for the Snowbirds; at least part time. The Army has problems getting enough people certified and recertified as JTACs primarily because the training requires - well - aircraft, and the F18's don't always want to come out to play as often as the Army likes.
> 
> Upgrade a few of the Tutors with the comms gear and targeting gear to allow then to do dry missions something like Blue Air Training does in the States. Program the serials in before the show schedule -- Badaboom.  You'll increase throughput and get some value for money.
> 
> 🍻


Conducting CAS is not trivial. Many of the Snowbirds pilots have never employed in a CAS role. That training burden would be enormous, not to mention the aircraft upgrade effort.  There is no capacity with the Smowbirds to bear that incremental training bill.

Top Aces provides dry and inert CAS already.


----------



## FJAG

SupersonicMax said:


> Conducting CAS is not trivial. Many of the Snowbirds pilots have never employed in a CAS role. That training burden would be enormous, not to mention the aircraft upgrade effort.  There is no capacity with the Smowbirds to bear that incremental training bill.
> 
> Top Aces provides dry and inert CAS already.


Then I got nothing to justify the Snowbirds.

And still wondering about JTAC certification and recertification throughput.


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> Then I got nothing to justify the Snowbirds.
> 
> And still wondering about JTAC certification and recertification throughput.


“CATS” does that already. As SSM stated, Top Aces, a subsidiary of Discovery Air, provides JTAC, EW, NTGEX and other training with a variety of tactical aircraft.  Decent reference that gives background to the capability.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> The front line units are drowning in new pilots who barely know what they’re doing. Our attempts to recruit away our problems was a bit of a predictable flop.



Excellent! We finally have enough leaders to stand up the RCAF Regiment...


----------



## Drallib

KevinB said:


> My opinion, is the Snowbird should just go away if they aren't going to fly operational aircraft.
> Canada doesn't currently have enough pilots - sending some to fly an ancient trainer doesn't make any sense.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> “CATS” does that already. As SSM stated, Top Aces, a subsidiary of Discovery Air, provides JTAC, EW, NTGEX and other training with a variety of tactical aircraft.  Decent reference that gives background to the capability.


Top Aces is not a subsidiary of Discovery Air anymore.


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Excellent! We finally have enough leaders to stand up the RCAF Regiment...


Don't give anyone ideas.


----------



## Drallib

Best Fighter 4 Canada with another post on the Super Hornet being out.

SUPER HORNET IS OUT. BOEING HAS NO ONE TO BLAME BUT ITSELF.

Another thing, we made it to page 188. (CF-188).

Speaking of number designations... whichever aircraft is selected, what do you suppose the number designation will be?

Can two different types of aircraft share a number designation? For example, the Twin Huey had the aircraft designation CH-135. With the F-35 being a Fighter aircraft, would it be allowed to use CF-135 for it's aircraft designation?

And do RCAF aircraft need to start with '1' or could the F-35 use CF-335.

The Gripen would have the same issue with the Jetranger using aircraft designation CH-139.


----------



## KevinB

Drallib said:


> Best Fighter 4 Canada with another post on the Super Hornet being out.
> 
> SUPER HORNET IS OUT. BOEING HAS NO ONE TO BLAME BUT ITSELF.
> 
> Another thing, we made it to page 188. (CF-188).
> 
> Speaking of number designations... whichever aircraft is selected, what do you suppose the number designation will be?
> 
> Can two different types of aircraft share a number designation? For example, the Twin Huey had the aircraft designation CH-135. With the F-35 being a Fighter aircraft, would it be allowed to use CF-135 for it's aircraft designation?
> 
> And do RCAF aircraft need to start with '1' or could the F-35 use CF-335.
> 
> The Gripen would have the same issue with the Jetranger using aircraft designation CH-139.


Why not just CF-35?
   Or CF-15EX


----------



## Good2Golf

Precedent was made with the CH-146 Griffon and the CT-146 Outlaw.  No reason CF-135 shouldn’t work.


----------



## Drallib

Good2Golf said:


> Precedent was made with the CH-146 Griffon and the CT-146 Outlaw.  No reason CF-135 shouldn’t work.



I think when there's the same aircraft but for different roles, in this example the CH-146 Griffon being used as a trainer, it allows the use of CT-146. 

Say for example (this would never happen) they transition the CF-188 Hornet to be used as a UAV. They would use CU-188. Same aircraft, different roles.


----------



## Good2Golf

I think it’s coincidental, and that there is more variation now than in the past, to wit the CC-295 Kingfisher.  A CF-135 isn’t going to break the system, nor would a CF-139.  There’ll be more of a challenge finding a bilingual name…although there is no CC-295 Pêcheur de Roi…


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two down, Canada to go:



> *Finland Orders 64 Lockheed F-35 Fighter Jets for $9.4 Billion
> https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...5-jet-wins-finnish-fighter-competition-source*



*Mark
Ottawa*


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> There’ll be more of a challenge finding a bilingual name…although there is no CC-295 Pêcheur de Roi…


Hornet isn't "Hornet" in French either.

Come to think of it, neither are any of our fleets.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Hornet isn't "Hornet" in French either.


And the (Super) Frelon is a helicopter! 😉


----------



## Drallib

Good2Golf said:


> I think it’s coincidental, and that there is more variation now than in the past, to with the CC-295 Kingfisher.  A CF-135 isn’t going to break the system, nor would a CF-139.  There’ll be more of a challenge finding a bilingual name…although there is no CC-295 Pêcheur de Roi…





Good mention G2G! I forgot about the CC-295. So the first digit can be something other than a '1' which I can see the Lighting II being CF-335 (or something along those lines).


----------



## KevinB

Why a third digit when it really isn't necessary?


----------



## dapaterson

KevinB said:


> Why a third digit when it really isn't necessary?


Leading Change.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Leading Change.


Sadly I suspect someone's annual review had a checkmark there...


----------



## daftandbarmy

MarkOttawa said:


> Two down, Canada to go:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mark
> Ottawa*



Given their neighbour to the East is aggressive, and to the West neutral...


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Leading Change.


Actually been like that since unification...so only Paul Hellyer should have received the tick in the 'Leading Change' box...


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Actually been like that since unification...so only Paul Hellyer should have received the tick in the 'Leading Change' box...


So the "leading change" would be to put it back to 2 digits...


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:


> Two down, Canada to go:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mark
> Ottawa*


Interesting that little, compact, small population, Finland, a country that has been viewed by the SU/Russia as a non-threat since the end of 1945 feels it needs 65 F-35's but a group of senior CAF officers thinks that 88 will meet all of our needs.   I'd love to do a comparison of the needs assessment/recommendation and compare it to ours.  I thank God that the original request of 65 F-35's that was originally forecasted was thrown out the window.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Czech_pivo said:


> Interesting that little, compact, small population, Finland, a country that has been viewed by the SU/Russia as a non-threat since the end of 1945 feels it needs 65 F-35's but a group of senior CAF officers thinks that 88 will meet all of our needs.   I'd love to do a comparison of the needs assessment/recommendation and compare it to ours.  I thank God that the original request of 65 F-35's that was originally forecasted was thrown out the window.


A key difference with Canada is  that Finnish fighters will be expected to take the fight to the Russians over Russian territory right from the start (hence the air-to-surface missiles they are acquiring, RCAF currently has only AGM-154 JSOW). The odds on RCAF fighters going into highly contested A2/AD areas on first day of war (or several thereafter) are slim.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

Czech_pivo said:


> Interesting that little, compact, small population, Finland, a country that has been viewed by the SU/Russia as a non-threat since the end of 1945 feels it needs 65 F-35's but a group of senior CAF officers thinks that 88 will meet all of our needs.   I'd love to do a comparison of the needs assessment/recommendation and compare it to ours.  I thank God that the original request of 65 F-35's that was originally forecasted was thrown out the window.


Agreed.  Totally agreed.  

As capable as they may be, and as much of a reason as that is used for always acquiring fewer numbers of platforms as a replacement for whatever it is they are replacing, numbers still do matter.  

A country the size of Finland?  

65 aircraft seems about right.  A country the size of Canada, especially with huge areas that are extremely remote?  Seems odd to have the same number of airframes.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:


> A key difference with Canada is  that Finnish fighters will be expected to take the fight to the Russians over Russian territory right from the start (hence the air-to-surface missiles they are acquiring, RCAF currently has only AGM-154 JSOW). The odds on RCAF fighters going into highly contested A2/AD areas on first day of war (or several thereafter) are slim.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


I understand Finland’s proximity to Russia, I’ve been to Helsinki and have taken the ferry over to St Petersburg. I was just trying to make the point that Finland, a country that is not viewed as a threat by Russia, that is geographically, economically and in population, so much smaller than Canada, is purchasing 75% of the total number of airframes that we are.
I don’t hear (read) the Finns bitching and complaining about how they can’t afford F-35’s. I swear to God sometimes I feel that those making decisions/recommendations here Canada are all descendants of teachers, who every time the bill comes at the restaurant all pull out their calculators and figure out their portion of the bill down to the half cent, rounding up and down when necessary. And if appetizers where ordered, calculating who ate X % of the appetizer and applying that % to the cost of the appetizer in order to ensure that they are ‘not over paying’.


----------



## MarkOttawa

News release from Finnish air force on choice of F-35A--how much will our government tell us about reasons for choosing new RCAF fighter (whenever they get around to it)?



> *The Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II is Finland’s next multi-role fighter*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II is Finland’s next multi-role fighter -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilmavoimat.fi



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:


> News release from Finnish air force on choice of F-35A--how much will our government tell us about reasons for choosing new RCAF fighter (whenever they get around to it)?
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


At _The Drive's_ "War Zone":


> Here’s How Finland Justified Its Decision To Buy 64 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters       The Finnish competition judged the Joint Strike Fighter the most cost-effective option to replace the Hornet.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here’s How Finland Justified Its Decision To Buy 64 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters
> 
> 
> The Finnish competition judged the Joint Strike Fighter the most capable and cost-effective option to replace the Hornet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> Hornet isn't "Hornet" in French either.
> 
> Come to think of it, neither are any of our fleets.


C’mon, Hercules is bilingual, you just make the first and last letter silent and it’s francais.


----------



## Dana381

Drallib said:


> Good mention G2G! I forgot about the CC-295. So the first digit can be something other than a '1' which I can see the Lighting II being CF-335 (or something along those lines).



If they follow the pattern they used when numbering the F-18 the CF-188 it would be the CF-355


----------



## suffolkowner

Corporal Frisk on the HX decision









						F-35A is HX – The Winner Takes It All
					

Back in 2017 I was fortunate enough to travel to RAF Lossiemouth together with a bunch of Finnish media courtesy of BAE Systems to get up and close with the Eurofighter Typhoon group operating ther…




					corporalfrisk.com
				




and a bit of an explanation on the difference in operating budgets

"The obvious issue is that it never is an apples versus apples comparison. *Switzerland famously include VAT in their costings, something that the FDF avoids.* The Swiss also present indexed average costs adjusted for inflation, while the Finnish figure is given in 2021 Euros. *The USAF also include a number of basing costs in their figures (and notable is that a USAF base include quite a bit more than a Finnish air force base)*. But Finland is also paradoxically assisted by jumping aboard the train at a relatively late stage, as the US don’t charge for non-recurring costs, and the partner nations – although they get a share of the license cost when fighters are sold abroad – have obviously invested significant sums throughout the program which now show up in their LCC. But there are a number of other key issues as well. Finland will fly approximately 9,000 hours annually, which is in line with the current Hornet flight hours. However, with the relative large number of aircraft that actually mean that *the Finnish fleet flies 140 flight hours per aircraft annually – approximately half of what the USAF does.* This naturally create less wear and lower maintenance cost per aircraft and year. *Notable is also that the 2 Bn EUR in upgrades are placed outside of the 254 MEUR annual operating costs,* a relic from the Hornet-era where upgrades were major MLU-style projects. *Another key difference between Finnish and many other European air forces is that Finland plan to shift training from the US back to Finland at a relatively early stage* – following their good experiences with the current (cost-effective) proptrainer – Hawk – Hornet pipeline. Keeping pilots at home instead of paying for them living abroad usually turns out to be cheaper (have you seen the real estate prices in Rovaniemi lately?), and we haven’t even mentioned the conscript mechanics. At the end of the day, all bids had roughly similar annual operating costs."


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:


> At _The Drive's_ "War Zone":
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



From that article, three thoughts:

1 possibility of the Finns not taking delivery of all 64 aircraft in one tranche - therefore operating a smaller fleet over a longer time with upgrades

“The production work will continue for more than 20 years, and the F-35 sustainment work will continue into the 2070s.”
The discussion also talks about buying some A2A weapons immediately and then acquiring more A2A and A2G munitions "as planes come on line ... avoiding mass obsolescence"
This would fit with the comment about the Finn's budget of 250 million Euros only providing $4.4 million per aircraft for operations and maintenance vs the US standard of $7 million.   64x4.4/7= 40 Aircraft operational with 24 to be delivered at a later date. 
This would explain the importance of security of supply up to and beyond 2050.   Something that SAAB and BOEING would have greater difficulty guaranteeing.

So 32 to 40 out of the 64 delivered immediately.

2 possibility of more hours on the ground

3 possibility of more flight simulators (permitting more hours on the ground).


Edit - just saw Suffolkowner's comments. Snap.


----------



## RaceAddict

Drallib said:


> Speaking of number designations... whichever aircraft is selected, what do you suppose the number designation will be?
> 
> Can two different types of aircraft share a number designation? For example, the Twin Huey had the aircraft designation CH-135. With the F-35 being a Fighter aircraft, would it be allowed to use CF-135 for it's aircraft designation?
> 
> And do RCAF aircraft need to start with '1' or could the F-35 use CF-335.
> 
> The Gripen would have the same issue with the Jetranger using aircraft designation CH-139.



If the F/A-18 became the (C)F-18(8), and the C-17 became the (C)C-17(7), I'd think they'd go with CF-355 for the JSF.

The Gripen is a little more complicated... "JAS" is the Swedish acronym for Fighter/Strike/Recce. (Nevermind that gripen is Swedish for griffin.) So a JAS 39 would technically be an RFA-39, abbreviated to F-39, or in Canada CF-399.

Am I other thinking this?


----------



## suffolkowner

Kirkhill said:


> From that article, three thoughts:
> 
> 1 possibility of the Finns not taking delivery of all 64 aircraft in one tranche - therefore operating a smaller fleet over a longer time with upgrades
> 
> “The production work will continue for more than 20 years, and the F-35 sustainment work will continue into the 2070s.”
> The discussion also talks about buying some A2A weapons immediately and then acquiring more A2A and A2G munitions "as planes come on line ... avoiding mass obsolescence"
> This would fit with the comment about the Finn's budget of 250 million Euros only providing $4.4 million per aircraft for operations and maintenance vs the US standard of $7 million.   64x4.4/7= 40 Aircraft operational with 24 to be delivered at a later date.
> This would explain the importance of security of supply up to and beyond 2050.   Something that SAAB and BOEING would have greater difficulty guaranteeing.
> 
> So 32 to 40 out of the 64 delivered immediately.
> 
> 2 possibility of more hours on the ground
> 
> 3 possibility of more flight simulators (permitting more hours on the ground).
> 
> 
> Edit - just saw Suffolkowner's comments. Snap.


It doesn't really explain away Norway's budget number of $19.5M

Finland $4.4M
USA      $7M
Norway $19.5M

budgeting witchcraft by accountants I guess. I'm still hoping the F-35 comes out on top in Canada though. I mean it's not like it's my money, oh wait🤔


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> It doesn't really explain away Norway's budget number of $19.5M
> 
> Finland $4.4M
> USA      $7M
> Norway $19.5M
> 
> budgeting witchcraft by accountants I guess. I'm still hoping the F-35 comes out on top in Canada though. I mean it's not like it's my money, oh wait🤔



Norway has lots of money, wants access to the US market (Nammo, NASAMs, JSM/NSM), and wants to be sure that Washington will send the Marines when necessary.

It is in their interest to show as much money as possible being transferred to Washington's books.  The locals don't miss the extra cash and in exchange Washington buys Norwegian technology.

As you suggest - accountants and their witchery.






						These technological trends will change The Norwegian Armed Forces
					

Sometimes new technologies open up for such great opportunities that we have to change the way we think and work. It also applies to The Norwegian Armed Forces.




					www.ffi.no
				





Edit - and I forgot about Kongsberg and their RWS technologies.


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> It doesn't really explain away Norway's budget number of $19.5M
> 
> Finland $4.4M
> USA      $7M
> Norway $19.5M
> 
> budgeting witchcraft by accountants I guess. I'm still hoping the F-35 comes out on top in Canada though. I mean it's not like it's my money, oh wait🤔


Norway stuck a lot of additional goodies into its program - airfields being one that jumps out...


----------



## dapaterson

All nations account for procurement differently, and include / do not include different things in their acquisition costs.


----------



## suffolkowner

dapaterson said:


> All nations account for procurement differently, and include / do not include different things in their acquisition costs.


Yes it makes it difficult to compare

Norway

$10.68B for aircraft and associated equipment/spares(munitions?)
$790M for Orland base infrastructure(main base)
$210M for Evenes base infrastructure (FOB)
$450M for management/implementation/administration
$770M budgeted for blk 4 upgrades
$870M for Joint Strike Missile integration (UK weapons integration is stated as $472M)

The stated operations cost is $19.5M per year per aircraft

Finland

$4.7B for aircraft
$1.58B for munitions
$2B for upgrades excluding blk 4 as delivered aircraft will be blk 4
$484M for infrastructure (corporal frisk) ?
$777M for infrastructure (the drive)?
$579M for transition
$2.9B for spares etc...

there's a bit of duplication there as its from multiple sources the infrastructure being the most obvious one but totals $12.3B so close

so again we are looking at

$ 7 B = 88 F35A's x $79M
$ 14 B = initial spares, munitions, simulators etc...
$ 1 B = management/admin/implementation
$ 1 B = Bagotville infrastructure
$ 1 B = Cold Lake infrastructure
?????? = infrastructure updates at FOL's and other bases

total = $24 Billion plus

$ 63B    = operating costs 88 x $19.5M x 37 years or $34B for 20 yrs
$  26B   = operating costs 88 x $8M x 37 years or $14B for 20 yrs
$ 14.5B = operating costs 88 x $4.5 x 37 years or $8B for 20 yrs

interesting that Ellis Don got $12 million for Bagotville and only $9 million for Cold Lake. Is Bagotville bigger?

from $32B to $87B depending on 37 yrs or 20yrs and what operating cost model we fit into lol


----------



## Kirkhill

And thus the only thing you can firmly compare is the FOB cost of the aircraft at the factory gate.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> And thus the only thing you can firmly compare is the FOB cost of the aircraft at the factory gate.


…if the contract actually breaks it out like that.  It’s usually a package deal that doesn’t have the same OEM fly-away cost as the US buys them in its appropriation system.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> …if the contract actually breaks it out like that.  It’s usually a package deal that doesn’t have the same OEM fly-away cost as the US buys them in its appropriation system.



As a recovering sales engineer I can authoritatively say that salesmen, and their managers, hate writing proposals that can be compared line item by line item.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yup.


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> As a recovering sales engineer I can authoritatively say that salesmen, and their managers, hate writing proposals that can be compared line item by line item.


As a customer I say that I absolutely want proposals or estimates to give me a line item breakdown.

As a lawyer my quotes to clients were usually: My hourly rate is $mumble mumble and I have absolutely no idea how much time this will end up taking mumble, mumble, variables, mumble mumble other side has a vote mumble mumble it will be a lot less if you settle mumble mumble If I had to take a wild assed guess it would be anywhere between Smumble mumble thousand and $mumble mumble thousand.

😁


----------



## suffolkowner

Hopefully we get a decent breakdown on the cost after the contract award, but I'm sure the Auditor General will comment on the program one more time. I still think we should have more access to the technical results as well









						F-35s Could Get New Engines As Soon As 2027
					

Adaptive engine technology and other improvements could significantly boost capability but would come at a cost.




					www.thedrive.com
				




Be nice if we could acquire our F-35's with the adaptive engines early on and introduce choice and competition from the engine standpoint again



			https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F1639100487393-ace.jpeg?quality=60
		


A 30% increase in range would be nice from over 1200nm to over 1500nm


----------



## Drallib

Dana381 said:


> If they follow the pattern they used when numbering the F-18 the CF-188 it would be the CF-355





RaceAddict said:


> If the F/A-18 became the (C)F-18(8), and the C-17 became the (C)C-17(7), I'd think they'd go with CF-355 for the JSF.
> 
> The Gripen is a little more complicated... "JAS" is the Swedish acronym for Fighter/Strike/Recce. (Nevermind that gripen is Swedish for griffin.) So a JAS 39 would technically be an RFA-39, abbreviated to F-39, or in Canada CF-399.
> 
> Am I other thinking this?




You’re both absolutely correct, my mistake. It would most likely be CF-355 if going by how they’ve numbered aircraft in the past.


----------



## calculus

suffolkowner said:


> Hopefully we get a decent breakdown on the cost after the contract award, but I'm sure the Auditor General will comment on the program one more time. I still think we should have more access to the technical results as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-35s Could Get New Engines As Soon As 2027
> 
> 
> Adaptive engine technology and other improvements could significantly boost capability but would come at a cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be nice if we could acquire our F-35's with the adaptive engines early on and introduce choice and competition from the engine standpoint again
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F1639100487393-ace.jpeg?quality=60
> 
> 
> 
> A 30% increase in range would be nice from over 1200nm to over 1500nm


Or even the Enhanced Engine Package, as described here, would be a pretty good upgrade: Pratt Pushes Alternative to New Adaptive Engine for F-35 - Air Force Magazine


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> As a customer I say that I absolutely want proposals or estimates to give me a line item breakdown.
> 
> As a lawyer my quotes to clients were usually: My hourly rate is $mumble mumble and I have absolutely no idea how much time this will end up taking mumble, mumble, variables, mumble mumble other side has a vote mumble mumble it will be a lot less if you settle mumble mumble If I had to take a wild assed guess it would be anywhere between Smumble mumble thousand and $mumble mumble thousand.
> 
> 😁


Are you sure you never worked in Corrections?


----------



## calculus

Interesting take from the admittedly somewhat biased Billie Flynn. Some good points are made, however: 









						Liberal Math – More, Cheaper, Better F-35s for Canada - Billie Flynn - My Blog
					

More F-35s (88 instead of 65), cheaper ($78M instead of $110M), better (Block 4 instead of Block 3), and best ROI (better than 4 to 1) sounds like an incredibly well executed plan. Except it isn't.




					billieflynn.com


----------



## suffolkowner

calculus said:


> Interesting take from the admittedly somewhat biased Billie Flynn. Some good points are made, however:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal Math – More, Cheaper, Better F-35s for Canada - Billie Flynn - My Blog
> 
> 
> More F-35s (88 instead of 65), cheaper ($78M instead of $110M), better (Block 4 instead of Block 3), and best ROI (better than 4 to 1) sounds like an incredibly well executed plan. Except it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billieflynn.com


Well I think he's wrong on a few points

1. original order book was for 80 not 65, I think it was the Harper gov't that reduced it not Chretien

2. the 88 fighters are derived from the same planning assumptions as the 65 required to meet our NORAD comittments just with an additional 12 fighters to meet concurrent NATO/NORAD duties

3. This statement seems mostly true to me

*More (88 instead of 65), cheaper ($78M instead of $110M), better (Block 4 instead of Block 3), and best ROI (better than 4 to 1) sounds like an incredibly well executed plan even more so with the US ‘Build Back Better’ trend to see Canada get a better deal and squeeze everything from those pesky, insular Yankees. *

IMO

Was it the right behaviour from a ally and partner nation, when all other partner nations ponied up for earlier block versions? No
Are we probably wasting our time, money, and personnel with the competition? Yeah probably
Was buying the Australian F-18's a mistake? Yes
Is it a mistake to proceed with the next F-18 update instead of accelerating a F-35 buy? Yes


----------



## CBH99

suffolkowner said:


> Well I think he's wrong on a few points
> 
> 1. original order book was for 80 not 65, I think it was the Harper gov't that reduced it not Chretien
> 
> 2. the 88 fighters are derived from the same planning assumptions as the 65 required to meet our NORAD comittments just with an additional 12 fighters to meet concurrent NATO/NORAD duties
> 
> 3. This statement seems mostly true to me
> 
> *More (88 instead of 65), cheaper ($78M instead of $110M), better (Block 4 instead of Block 3), and best ROI (better than 4 to 1) sounds like an incredibly well executed plan even more so with the US ‘Build Back Better’ trend to see Canada get a better deal and squeeze everything from those pesky, insular Yankees. *
> 
> IMO
> 
> Was it the right behaviour from a ally and partner nation, when all other partner nations ponied up for earlier block versions? No
> Are we probably wasting our time, money, and personnel with the competition? Yeah probably
> Was buying the Australian F-18's a mistake? Yes
> Is it a mistake to proceed with the next F-18 update instead of accelerating a F-35 buy? Yes


Agree with everything you said.  

Minus one thing…


Our sheer incompetence has actually put us in a better spot than we were.  

You mentioned was it right for us to wait so long while other partner nations placed orders for earlier versions.

By virtue, I agree with you. 

But by doddling this long, we will be getting  far more capable jets than if we had bought a few years ago.  Better jets in all tangible ways.  

It’s a shame it’s by accident.  But it is what it is.  How much money will other nations have to come up with to update their older jets?



Overall, agree with everything you stated and the sentiment of your post.


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> Well I think he's wrong on a few points
> 2. the 88 fighters are derived from the same planning assumptions as the 65 required to meet our NORAD comittments just with an additional 12 fighters to meet concurrent NATO/NORAD duties


How will these numbers hold up over the next 30+ yrs with attrition naturally occurring over this time period?  Will we not reach a time when we will no longer have enough planes to meet our commitments listed above?

Edit: From what I can see we lost a min. of 20 CF-188’s since they went operational here. If the same attrition rate occurs we can expect to lose 14/15 planes, putting us below of required NORAD commitments, with 0 planes left for any NATO duties.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Czech_pivo said:


> How will these numbers hold up over the next 30+ yrs with attrition naturally occurring over this time period?  Will we not reach a time when we will no longer have enough planes to meet our commitments listed above?
> 
> Edit: From what I can see we lost a min. of 20 CF-188’s since they went operational here. If the same attrition rate occurs we can expect to lose 14/15 planes.


----------



## Dana381

Anonymous F-35 Customer Is Getting A New Variant Of The Stealth Jet
					

An intriguing contract announcement reveals Lockheed Martin is working to design and develop a bespoke F-35 version for a foreign customer.




					www.thedrive.com
				




Any chance this is for a Canadianized variant?


----------



## MilEME09

Dana381 said:


> Anonymous F-35 Customer Is Getting A New Variant Of The Stealth Jet
> 
> 
> An intriguing contract announcement reveals Lockheed Martin is working to design and develop a bespoke F-35 version for a foreign customer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance this is for a Canadianized variant?


Unlikely, unless we get an announcement really soon, my money is on Israel


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> Unlikely, unless we get an announcement really soon, my money is on Israel


Good supposition. I read somewhere that Israel made more than 2000 mods to the F-4, which they received from the US beginning in 1969. Their Super Phantom, which they developed in 1987 (but never deployed) was phenomenal.


----------



## GR66

Dana381 said:


> Anonymous F-35 Customer Is Getting A New Variant Of The Stealth Jet
> 
> 
> An intriguing contract announcement reveals Lockheed Martin is working to design and develop a bespoke F-35 version for a foreign customer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance this is for a Canadianized variant?


I doubt it...nowhere in the article does it mention the bespoke variant being unarmed, built in Quebec, or gender neutral.


----------



## Good2Golf

Dana381 said:


> Anonymous F-35 Customer Is Getting A New Variant Of The Stealth Jet
> 
> 
> An intriguing contract announcement reveals Lockheed Martin is working to design and develop a bespoke F-35 version for a foreign customer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance this is for a Canadianized variant?


$49M for a bilingual OFP?  Could be.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> $49M for a bilingual OFP?  Could be.


If that were true someone finally used their head and went straight to final negotiations with Lockheed


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> $49M for a bilingual OFP?  Could be.


"Warlock 2, Renard 3, tournez la manivelle vers l'ouest."
"Warlock 4, lichette"


----------



## Good2Golf

…Renard 3, chien faché!


----------



## armrdsoul77

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-fighter-jets-defence-1.6296021


----------



## Quirky

armrdsoul77 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-fighter-jets-defence-1.6296021



"And going to Europe to buy the next fighter jet would be stepping outside decades of alignment with the U.S., particularly when it comes to continental defence, Perry said — which could lead to repercussions for the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.S."

European countries aren't even buying the gripen. It's been an underperforming embarrassment in every competition it's entered and primarily designed for 2nd and 3rd world developing countries.....

Can't wait to see the circus when we pick it.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:


> "And going to Europe to buy the next fighter jet would be stepping outside decades of alignment with the U.S., particularly when it comes to continental defence, Perry said — which could lead to repercussions for the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.S."
> 
> European countries aren't even buying the gripen. It's been an underperforming embarrassment in every competition it's entered and primarily designed for 2nd and 3rd world developing countries.....
> 
> Can't wait to see the circus when we pick it.


I'll admit the E/F Gripen tries to up its abilities, but absolutely, Canada isn't Sweden, our defense needs are extremely different. If we pick it, I'll be shocked but not surprised, we procurement equipment buy counter how many votes a project can buy, not its value as military equipment


----------



## WestIsle

MilEME09 said:


> I'll admit the E/F Gripen tries to up its abilities, but absolutely, Canada isn't Sweden, our defense needs are extremely different. If we pick it, I'll be shocked but not surprised, we procurement equipment buy counter how many votes a project can buy, not its value as military equipment



The costs for the latest Gripen appear to be now about the same as the F35 at least thats what the Thai military has said. The irony of this entire journey has been the constant downgrade an increase in cost for all aircraft other then the F35. The original Super Hornet Bid was billing a cheaper plan but with stealth features added while the Griphen was also supposed to have stealth features while also being much cheaper allowing for many more planes being built in Canada. Now the Super Hornet will not get another block upgrade and the Griphen are the same price while having no stealth features while only being assembled in Nova Scotia.


----------



## Quirky

WestIsle said:


> The costs for the latest Gripen appear to be now about the same as the F35 at least thats what the Thai military has said. The irony of this entire journey has been the constant downgrade an increase in cost for all aircraft other then the F35. The original Super Hornet Bid was billing a cheaper plan but with stealth features added while the Griphen was also supposed to have stealth features while also being much cheaper allowing for many more planes being built in Canada. Now the Super Hornet will not get another block upgrade and the Griphen are the same price while having no stealth features while only being assembled in Nova Scotia.



"adding on" stealth features onto a 4th gen non-stealthy aircraft is a hilarious concept. It's like dressing up your son with girl clothing, this doesn't make him a girl. Then again its 2022 so who knows anymore.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:


> "adding on" stealth features onto a 4th gen non-stealthy aircraft is a hilarious concept. It's like dressing up your son with girl clothing, this doesn't make him a girl. Then again its 2022 so who knows anymore.


Making a Gen 4.5 with a reduced radar profile isn't that laughable, you are taking Gen 5 tech and applying it to a proven airframe as an upgrade. It is a viable option


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:


> Making a Gen 4.5 with a reduced radar profile isn't that laughable, you are taking Gen 5 tech and applying it to a proven airframe as an upgrade. It is a viable option



When the Gen 5 costs less and isn't a pig with lipstick, there's no point other than buying something that "looks" like what we have now.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> Making a Gen 4.5 with a reduced radar profile isn't that laughable, you are taking Gen 5 tech and applying it to a proven airframe as an upgrade. It is a viable option


Sure, but would we be the launch customer for it?  Also, that would be a huge amount of "Canadianization" - which would drive up costs.

_Cyclone has entered the chat_


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dimsum said:


> Sure, but would we be the launch customer for it?  Also, that would be a huge amount of "Canadianization" - which would drive up costs.
> 
> _Cyclone has entered the chat_


For the love of god, do not buy another orphan fleet…


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> Making a Gen 4.5 with a reduced radar profile isn't that laughable, you are taking Gen 5 tech and applying it to a proven airframe as an upgrade. It is a viable option


It would be a whole new airfcraft - new materials, new engines, new fire control, new airframe (interior bays) etc.
Major non starter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> It would be a whole new airfcraft - new materials, new engines, new fire control, new airframe (interior bays) etc.
> Major non starter.


When has that stopped us?


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:


> For the love of god, do not buy another orphan fleet…


But isn't that the traditional role of procurement Canada?


----------



## kev994

KevinB said:


> It would be a whole new airfcraft - new materials, new engines, new fire control, new airframe (interior bays) etc.
> Major non starter.


Are we still talking about fighters? Because that sounds like the 295 that was supposed to be an off the shelf proven platform.


----------



## MilEME09

kev994 said:


> Are we still talking about fighters? Because that sounds like the 295 that was supposed to be an off the shelf proven platform.


I thought he was talking about the CSC? Sigh....we do this to our selves


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> I thought he was talking about the CSC? Sigh....we do this to our selves


Isn't the CSC the UK Type 31 with some small changes?  I thought Australia was also buying the same thing but Australianized somewhat.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dimsum said:


> Isn't the CSC the UK Type 31 with some small changes?  I thought Australia was also buying the same thing but Australianized somewhat.


There is no such thing as an “off the shelf” warship- unless you want to buy stock Arleigh Burkes direct from a US shipyard…


----------



## dapaterson

And even then, they would have to remove any US only equipment / materiel.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> And even then, they would have to remove any US only equipment / materiel.


To ensure we do not derail the thread, my point is that all high end military gear (ships, fighter aircraft) are fairly bespoke, even if they manufactured on an assembly line.

It is not like Lockmart, Boeing or SAAB have lots full of built aircraft, waiting to sell them to customers driving onto the lot. They only build when they have an order. If we get F-35, it will probably look somewhat different from a USAF F-35, to take into account our operating environment. If we get Grippens, they will look a bunch different from a Swedish Grippen, so that they fit our NATO/NORAD operational context.


----------



## Quirky

SeaKingTacco said:


> If we get F-35, it will probably look somewhat different from a USAF F-35, to take into account our operating environment.



USAF will/does(?) operate them out of Alaska, it's pretty much as close to Canada, if not harsher, as it gets. Maybe Canadas will come with heated seats, throttle and flight control stick? It's a wonder why the F-35C wasn't a consideration despite the extra cost. Stronger gear, wing fold, more internal fuel capacity and a dedicated hook for those short FOLs. The C model just 'looks' more menacing with the extra wing span.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Quirky said:


> USAF will/does(?) operate them out of Alaska, it's pretty much as close to Canada, if not harsher, as it gets. Maybe Canadas will come with heated seats, throttle and flight control stick? It's a wonder why the F-35C wasn't a consideration despite the extra cost. Stronger gear, wing fold, more internal fuel capacity and a dedicated hook for those short FOLs. The C model just 'looks' more menacing with the extra wing span.


We use the USN drogue  air to air refueling, vice the USAF probe method, so that will make our  hypothetical F35s a cross between an A and a C . Mind you, our next tanker may be fitted for both fuelling methods (I have not seen the tanker SOR).


----------



## dapaterson

Only Airbus was compliant with the tanker requirement.

I hope the Canadianization of the next fleet is limited to the RCAF roundel; anything more is lots of NRE throughout the life of the platform.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> We use the USN drogue  air to air refueling, vice the USAF probe method, so that will make our  hypothetical F35s a cross between an A and a C . Mind you, our next tanker may be fitted for both fuelling methods (I have not seen the tanker SOR).


A330 MRTT booms and drogues. 👍🏼


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> A330 MRTT booms and drogues. 👍🏼


There you go. Problem solved- “stock” F35As, it is (hypothetically).


----------



## CBH99

WestIsle said:


> The costs for the latest Gripen appear to be now about the same as the F35 at least thats what the Thai military has said. The irony of this entire journey has been the constant downgrade an increase in cost for all aircraft other then the F35. The original Super Hornet Bid was billing a cheaper plan but with stealth features added while the Griphen was also supposed to have stealth features while also being much cheaper allowing for many more planes being built in Canada. Now the Super Hornet will not get another block upgrade and the Griphen are the same price while having no stealth features while only being assembled in Nova Scotia.





Quirky said:


> USAF will/does(?) operate them out of Alaska, it's pretty much as close to Canada, if not harsher, as it gets. Maybe Canadas will come with heated seats, throttle and flight control stick? It's a wonder why the F-35C wasn't a consideration despite the extra cost. Stronger gear, wing fold, more internal fuel capacity and a dedicated hook for those short FOLs. The C model just 'looks' more menacing with the extra wing span.


I hadn’t thought about it before, but it IS a head scratcher indeed.  I mean, having reinforced gear, more interval fuel, a tail hook and folding wings for operating out of FOL’s just makes simple sense.  


SuperSonicMax - any thoughts?  

(You are very much my “go to guy” for anything like this)


----------



## Spencer100

CBH99 said:


> I hadn’t thought about it before, but it IS a head scratcher indeed.  I mean, having reinforced gear, more interval fuel, a tail hook and folding wings for operating out of FOL’s just makes simple sense.
> 
> 
> SuperSonicMax - any thoughts?
> 
> (You are very much my “go to guy” for anything like this)


They are more expensive.  At this point that will a bigger driver.  Other than the biggest driver..we can't let the PM look bad....or eat crow.


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> They are more expensive.  At this point that will a bigger driver.  Other than the biggest driver..we can't let the PM look bad....or eat crow.


Won't be call the F-35, the CF-355 or whatever else - but it won't be an F-35


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Won't be call the F-35, the CF-355 or whatever else - but it won't be an F-35


Technically the CF-18 is the CF-188, but everyone calls it the CF-18.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Bids for aircraft are decided by the manufacturers.  We just set requirements and companies put their bids forth.  We had no say on whether Boeing proposed the A or the C.


----------



## calculus

F-35 Fighter Enters 2022 With Strongest Momentum In Program’s History
					

Last year went very well for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, with more nations moving to buy it.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## CBH99

Spencer100 said:


> They are more expensive.  At this point that will a bigger driver.  Other than the biggest driver..we can't let the PM look bad....or eat crow.


We don’t make the PM look bad though.  He does that alllll on his own.  

If anything we make the PM look good via our commitments.  

Canadian jets over Romania?  A training mission in Iraq?  Another in Ukraine?  Commanding a NATO battlegroup in Latvia?  Ships sailing the flag all over the world?  The military being quite visible in domestic operations?

I’d reckon the reason he doesn’t look even more stupid is because of us, to some degree 🤷🏼‍♂


0.02


----------



## KevinB

Norway swaps in its F-35s for NATO quick-reaction mission in the High North
					

Norway’s has designated its F-35 aircraft for a NATO quick-reaction alert mission in the High North, ending a 42-year run of the country’s F-16s for that job, the government announced.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Spencer100

CBH99 said:


> We don’t make the PM look bad though.  He does that alllll on his own.
> 
> If anything we make the PM look good via our commitments.
> 
> Canadian jets over Romania?  A training mission in Iraq?  Another in Ukraine?  Commanding a NATO battlegroup in Latvia?  Ships sailing the flag all over the world?  The military being quite visible in domestic operations?
> 
> I’d reckon the reason he doesn’t look even more stupid is because of us, to some degree 🤷🏼‍♂
> 
> 
> 0.02


I totally get it. But 99% of Canadians don't even know we do those missions.  Plus the international people that do know want us to do more with better. 

And yes the CAF generally  goes above and beyond in the missions given them.  Thus making the PM look good.

....Hmmm crazy thought....next high profile mission....sandbag it...say its the lack of material support.

I know its not even in the thoughts of the org.  (plus the ultimate reason not to...unlimited likably) But in the civil service......


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> ....Hmmm crazy thought....next high profile mission....sandbag it...say its the lack of material support.


Committing career suicide in protest.  Hmm...


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> I totally get it. But 99% of Canadians don't even know we do those missions.  Plus the international people that do know want us to do more with better.
> 
> And yes the CAF generally  goes above and beyond in the missions given them.  Thus making the PM look good.
> 
> ....Hmmm crazy thought....next high profile mission....sandbag it...say its the lack of material support.
> 
> I know its not even in the thoughts of the org.  (plus the ultimate reason not to...unlimited likably) But in the civil service......


It has been done in the past - the deployment of a CMBG to Desert Shield/Storm/Strike was canceled early on due to the then CDS JDC told BM the then PM that there where NOT enough Medic's MO's etc, and not enough of a slew more and there would likely be high Canadian casualties compared to the rest of the coalition due to equipment and personnel shortages - so the CF sent the RCAF CF-18's, RCR to guard the planes - and then Iraqi's, and the RCN


----------



## MilEME09

KevinB said:


> It has been done in the past - the deployment of a CMBG to Desert Shield/Storm/Strike was canceled early on due to the then CDS JDC told BM the then PM that there where NOT enough Medic's MO's etc, and not enough of a slew more and there would likely be high Canadian casualties compared to the rest of the coalition due to equipment and personnel shortages - so the CF sent the RCAF CF-18's, RCR to guard the planes - and then Iraqi's, and the RCN


Hind sight being what we know, probably would if been okay, but that was also 1991, we are much worse off by comparison today.


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> Hind sight being what we know, probably would if been okay, but that was also 1991, we are much worse off by comparison today.


Agreed


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> It has been done in the past - the deployment of a CMBG to Desert Shield/Storm/Strike was canceled early on due to the then CDS JDC told BM the then PM that there where NOT enough Medic's MO's etc, and not enough of a slew more and there would likely be high Canadian casualties compared to the rest of the coalition due to equipment and personnel shortages - so the CF sent the RCAF CF-18's, RCR to guard the planes - and then Iraqi's, and the RCN


The casualty figures that they generated for that scenario were massive and far exceeded anything that the entire coalition eventually suffered. There were options. In those days we could have generated an armoured artillery brigade to augment one of the divisions.

Sometimes, I think that Canada's role model is George B McClellan - "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time." Abe Lincoln.

🍻


----------



## calculus

Article in Skies Magazine. The premise being LM may not have done enough to sell the economic benefits of the F35 program to Canadians.









						Failure to communicate: Did Lockheed miss the mark when pitching the F-35 to Canada? - Skies Mag
					

For a decade, Billie Flynn was the face and voice of F-35 international sales. Now, he admits that the F-35 sales pitch hasn’t resonated in Canada.




					skiesmag.com


----------



## Czech_pivo

calculus said:


> Article in Skies Magazine. The premise being LM may not have done enough to sell the economic benefits of the F35 program to Canadians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to communicate: Did Lockheed miss the mark when pitching the F-35 to Canada? - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> For a decade, Billie Flynn was the face and voice of F-35 international sales. Now, he admits that the F-35 sales pitch hasn’t resonated in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com


Thanks for posting - a great, informative article.


----------



## suffolkowner

LM has sweetened the deal for other export orders. I'm sure/I hope they were able to toss in some more industrial benefits our way as I understand it they are still looking to pick up some slack from Turkish industry


----------



## Good2Golf

calculus said:


> Article in Skies Magazine. The premise being LM may not have done enough to sell the economic benefits of the F35 program to Canadians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to communicate: Did Lockheed miss the mark when pitching the F-35 to Canada? - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> For a decade, Billie Flynn was the face and voice of F-35 international sales. Now, he admits that the F-35 sales pitch hasn’t resonated in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com



This is a misplaced assessment, assuming the Canadian federal government is being truthful about the defence procurement process.  I.e. that PSPC is managing the process on behalf of the GoC, where suppliers must comply with established operational, support and ITB and VP requirements per a stated (to the vendors) evaluation matrix or mandatory and rated requirements.

Sell?  🤔

To whom?

Canadian citizens (who are in no way part of the procurement process)?

Canadian public servants (who are legally and morally bound to uphold Canadian procurement policies)?

Politicians (who have tossed the hot potato back to public servants to ‘follow and uphold the process’)?

If this truly was a process to assess the most appropriate solution to meet Canada’s needs consisten with its openly stated Defence procurement policy, then there’s no ‘selling’ except through providing a submission that best meets the formally communicated requirements.

Full stop…………..


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> This is a misplaced assessment, assuming the Canadian federal government is being truthful about the defence procurement process.  I.e. that PSPC is managing the process on behalf of the GoC, where suppliers must comply with established operational, support and ITB and VP requirements per a stated (to the vendors) evaluation matrix or mandatory and rated requirements.
> 
> Sell?  🤔
> 
> To whom?
> 
> Canadian citizens (who are in no way part of the procurement process)?


You and I both know that public perception is one of the most important aspects to a major procurement.
   No Politician wants to get something that they think is going to be perceived poorly, regardless if it is the best tool for the job or not.


Good2Golf said:


> Canadian public servants (who are legally and morally bound to uphold Canadian procurement policies)?


Unless the .Gov tells them to buy Bell and not Sikorsky 
  Oh sorry my Griffon hangover came back around.


Good2Golf said:


> Politicians (who have tossed the hot potato back to public servants to ‘follow and uphold the process’)?


Again if the process was totally fair 


Good2Golf said:


> If this truly was a process to assess the most appropriate solution to meet Canada’s needs consisten with its openly stated Defence procurement policy, then there’s no ‘selling’ except through providing a submission that best meets the formally communicated requirements.
> 
> Full stop…………..
> View attachment 68307


If only


----------



## dapaterson

"Buy Sikorsky" and "RCAF" may well lead to some less than polite conversations.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> You and I both know that public perception is one of the most important aspects to a major procurement.
> No Politician wants to get something that they think is going to be perceived poorly, regardless if it is the best tool for the job or not.
> 
> Unless the .Gov tells them to buy Bell and not Sikorsky
> Oh sorry my Griffon hangover came back around.
> 
> Again if the process was totally fair
> 
> If only


I see you caught my deeply nested sarcasm in the thirteen periods after my ‘Full Stop’ 😉 

‘Griffon hangover’ 😆 

I’ll see your hangover and raise you ‘Enabler Guilt’ 🤣


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> I see you caught my deeply nested sarcasm in the thirteen periods after my ‘Full Stop’ 😉
> 
> ‘Griffon hangover’ 😆
> 
> I’ll see your hangover and raise you ‘Enabler Guilt’ 🤣
> View attachment 68391


Yeah, when no one else bit, I figured I need to push if off the cliff...



dapaterson said:


> "Buy Sikorsky" and "RCAF" may well lead to some less than polite conversations.


I get terrible heartburn when less capable items are bought for political reasons, rather than the CAF getting the proper kit.


----------



## dapaterson

Again, Sikorsky, proper kit, and RCAF will lead to spirited discussions that may include the word "Cyclone".


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Again, Sikorsky, proper kit, and RCAF will lead to spirited discussions that may include the word "Cyclone".


TBH I really can't fathom why the RCAF/RCN didn't come back to Sikorsky and say - thanks but we'd really like to see something in the SH-60 model 
 But was the original EH-101 supposed to do SAR, and MH ASW?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> I get terrible heartburn when less capable items are bought for political reasons, rather than the CAF getting the proper kit.


Do you have any heart left? How much kit is bought without a political calculation?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> TBH I really can't fathom why the RCAF/RCN didn't come back to Sikorsky and say - thanks but we'd really like to see something in the SH-60 model
> But was the original EH-101 supposed to do SAR, and MH ASW?


We did not buy 60Rs because Sikorsky did not offer them- they only offered the 92.

Best ask the Liberal Government of 2004 why the Merlin was not selected.

Yes, the original concept was that 50 x EH-101 would replace both Sea King and Labradors. In hindsight, it would have been a bargain…


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> We did not buy 60Rs because Sikorsky did not offer them- they only offered the 92.
> 
> Best ask the Liberal Government of 2004 why the Merlin was not selected.
> 
> Yes, the original concept was that 50 x EH-101 would replace both Sea King and Labradors. In hindsight, it would have been a bargain…


…add in that there was an option for 15 more to replace the original Chinooks.  NTH (New Transport Helicopter) was the short-lived project.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> …add in that there was an option for 15 more to replace the original Chinooks.  NTH (New Transport Helicopter) was the short-lived project.


That would have worked, too. Not as good as a hook, but not horrible, either.


----------



## Good2Golf

Agree.


----------



## dimsum

Now now, that smacks of the MRH-90 that the ADF just decided to retire early


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Now now, that smacks of the MRH-90 that the ADF just decided to retire early


You mean the ‘common configuration’ NATO chopper that had 17 different configurations? 😆 

No, NH90 by whatever name, isn’t near as capable as the EH-101 was or is.

The worst fit of that multi-fleet would have been the NTH, as the 101 only outs 9,000lbs on the hook….not…24000-28000. 😉


----------



## calculus

Some good news from the F35 program:









						Maintainers, rejoice! The first phase of a major F-35 logistics overhaul is complete - Breaking Defense
					

All of the oldest servers used to run the F-35's logistics system have now been replaced with modern hardware, with hopes of software to follow.




					breakingdefense.com
				




This will be key to getting the sustainment costs under control.


----------



## calculus

Finland _officially _joins the F35 club.









						Finland seals deal for U.S. F-35 stealth jets, reflecting tight ties to NATO
					

Finland has sealed a deal to buy dozens of F-35 stealth warplanes from the United States, in a sign of its military's close ties with NATO at a time of high tension between the West and Russia in Europe.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## CBH99

SeaKingTacco said:


> We did not buy 60Rs because Sikorsky did not offer them- they only offered the 92.
> 
> Best ask the Liberal Government of 2004 why the Merlin was not selected.
> 
> Yes, the original concept was that 50 x EH-101 would replace both Sea King and Labradors. In hindsight, it would have been a bargain…


Pffftttt…

I mean paying $500 million in cancellation penalties only to _not_ get any helicopters only seems like bad financial management in hindsight…

At the time, I’m sure it seemed like a stroke of pure genius!


Using a common airframe to replace both helicopters?  Streamlining the aircrew & maintenance training pipeline towards one airframe instead of two?  

C’mon man, that’s just crazy.


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> Pffftttt…
> 
> I mean paying $500 million in cancellation penalties only to _not_ get any helicopters only seems like bad financial management in hindsight…
> 
> At the time, I’m sure it seemed like a stroke of pure genius!
> 
> 
> Using a common airframe to replace both helicopters?  Streamlining the aircrew & maintenance training pipeline towards one airframe instead of two?
> 
> C’mon man, that’s just crazy.


Two words: "Cadillac elicopters"


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:


> I mean paying* $500 million* in cancellation penalties only to _not_ get any helicopters only seems like bad financial management in hindsight…


I think in actual fact it was $157.8 million but still a bad decision that haunts us to this day. Hopefully we can avoid something similar and just pick the F-35. I'm sure the Gripen is a fine plane but what would we call it as we already have one


----------



## Kirkhill

Pentagon cutting F35 orders by 35%?
An indication that there was no there there?

F35s were built to defeat sophisticated air defence systems.  But what if there are no sophisticated air defence systems?  What if the shambles in Ukraine is the reality.  Why spend money on that capability?  Add to the fleet because it is useful in many other ways but with a reduced threat and emerging alternate solutions (Drones, LAMs, UCAVs and LRPFs) perhaps there is less of need to put so much money on that bet?









						Pentagon Cuts Its Request for Lockheed’s F-35s by 35%
					

The Pentagon will request 61 F-35s in its next budget, 33 fewer of the stealth jets from Lockheed Martin Corp. than previously planned, according to people familiar with the spending blueprint.




					www.bloomberg.com
				




Apparently I can't get behind the paywall. Perhaps someone else will have better luck



			https://www.realcleardefense.com/


----------



## GK .Dundas

suffolkowner said:


> I think in actual fact it was $157.8 million but still a bad decision that haunts us to this day. Hopefully we can avoid something similar and just pick the F-35. I'm sure the Gripen is a fine plane but what would we call it as we already have one


You d do realise that is probably the actual reason they may use  not to buy it. As opposed to the one they give to the public. 
Expect a 1500 page press release when they do get to making the decision either way.


----------



## CBH99

suffolkowner said:


> I think in actual fact it was $157.8 million but still a bad decision that haunts us to this day. Hopefully we can avoid something similar and just pick the F-35. I'm sure the Gripen is a fine plane but what would we call it as we already have one


I think I had read, in more than one place, that when all of the costs came in, the number was higher.  It’s been ages and I could very well be wrong - your number sounds a lot more reasonable.  And precise 😉

I wish I had $157.5 million dollars that I could just turn into a pile, douse with gasoline, light on fire, and just watch it burn without caring all that much.  

Must be nice…


----------



## suffolkowner

GK .Dundas said:


> You d do realise that is probably the actual reason they may use  not to buy it. As opposed to the one they give to the public.
> Expect a 1500 page press release when they do get to making the decision either way.


Think of the money we can save an entire CAF's of Gripens and Griffons









						Saab JAS 39 Gripen - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						Bell CH-146 Griffon - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



VBMR Griffon - Wikipedia for LSVS?

Is there a naval option?



CBH99 said:


> I think I had read, in more than one place, that when all of the costs came in, the number was higher.  It’s been ages and I could very well be wrong - your number sounds a lot more reasonable.  And precise 😉
> 
> I wish I had $157.5 million dollars that I could just turn into a pile, douse with gasoline, light on fire, and just watch it burn without caring all that much.
> 
> Must be nice…


Ill take a look Im sure I have it book marked or down loaded somewhere

About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
Canada's Government said yesterday that it had reached a settlement agreement with E. H. Industries, a jointly owned unit of Westland Helicopters Ltd. of Britain and Agusta S.p.A. of Italy, for a claim arising from the 1993 cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter program. The settlement, worth $157.8 million (Canadian), or $115 million (United States), was reached in October but was made public only yesterday.
David Dingwall, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, said the settlement meant the Government "has closed the books on the EH-101 helicopter program." Prime Minister Jean Chretien's Government canceled the deal, reached by his Conservative predecessors, soon after taking office in late 1993. (Reuters)

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 24, 1996, Section D, Page 18 of the National edition with the headline: INTERNATIONAL BRIEFS;Canada Settles Claim On Canceled Helicopters. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

the above from the NY Times originally I think I read via CASR website

I'd pay $158M to go back to the original deal and get the 50


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Pentagon cutting F35 orders by 35%?
> An indication that there was no there there?
> 
> F35s were built to defeat sophisticated air defence systems.  But what if there are no sophisticated air defence systems?  What if the shambles in Ukraine is the reality.  Why spend money on that capability?  Add to the fleet because it is useful in many other ways but with a reduced threat and emerging alternate solutions (Drones, LAMs, UCAVs and LRPFs) perhaps there is less of need to put so much money on that bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon Cuts Its Request for Lockheed’s F-35s by 35%
> 
> 
> The Pentagon will request 61 F-35s in its next budget, 33 fewer of the stealth jets from Lockheed Martin Corp. than previously planned, according to people familiar with the spending blueprint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently I can't get behind the paywall. Perhaps someone else will have better luck
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.realcleardefense.com/


They didn't mention that the reason for that is foreign orders.  LocMart can't build anymore any faster...


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> They didn't mention that the reason for that is foreign orders.  LocMart can't build anymore any faster...



Clarified.  Thanks.


----------



## dapaterson

When talking EH101, there are both sunk costs already paid, plus cancellation penalties.

With two small bespoke fleets, both reduced by crashes, and problems with supply chains because both are bespoke, it may be time for the CAF to once again try to buy a single fleet, but this time an off the shelf, already in service model... If nothing else, it would boost defence spending.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> When talking EH101, there are both sunk costs already paid, plus cancellation penalties.
> 
> With two small bespoke fleets, both reduced by crashes, and problems with supply chains because both are bespoke, it may be time for the CAF to once again try to buy a single fleet, but this time an off the shelf, already in US service model... If nothing else, it would boost defence spending.


Fixed it for you
Cough Blackhawk cough...
  MH-60R can do the AWS job,
  MH-60G can do SAR/CSAR/CANSOF
  UH-60 can do the regular UH role.

and the Liberals could buy them and blame the Conservatives for not getting them originally...


----------



## dapaterson

Who in turn will blame the Libs for the EH101 fiasco.

Everyone wants a better, more streamlined military procurement system to more efficiently funnel tax dollars to their preferred vendors.


----------



## suffolkowner

KevinB said:


> Fixed it for you
> Cough Blackhawk cough...
> MH-60R can do the AWS job,
> MH-60G can do SAR/CSAR/CANSOF
> UH-60 can do the regular UH role.
> 
> and the Liberals could buy them and blame the Conservatives for not getting them originally...


I think the concept of operations for ASW drives the decision for a larger helicopter it would require a change that others here could explain better
Find a Bell comparable that can be built here


dapaterson said:


> When talking EH101, there are both sunk costs already paid, plus cancellation penalties.
> 
> With two small bespoke fleets, both reduced by crashes, and problems with supply chains because both are bespoke, it may be time for the CAF to once again try to buy a single fleet, but this time an off the shelf, already in service model... If nothing else, it would boost defence spending.


We slog it out and replace with the SB-1 Defiant?


----------



## dapaterson

Bell 412!


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> I think the concept of operations for ASW drives the decision for a larger helicopter it would require a change that others here could explain better
> Find a Bell comparable that can be built here


Most of the rest of the world does it with the MH-60R, or SH-60 SeaHawk...


dapaterson said:


> Bell 412!


The Helicopter Canada never should have bought...
   It can't do Martime stuff well with the skids (as our MH pilots have nicely explained) - and the payload is frightfully poor.

If Bell Miracle could build the UH-1Y Venom, it could solve most of the major issues - but the MH role.


I still think the LocMart/Sik FVL options are more reasonable to look to a pure fleet aspect for a UH/MH bird.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

“That can be built here”

This mentality is part of what slaughters our procurement process (probably an insult to the word process but…).

I like the Blackhawk idea.  I also like the Herc for Transport/SAR/MPA idea too.

We don’t consider the most important things with the most weight; operational capability.

That is why we have damn old fighters.  Our fighters were sub-standard in GW1.  That was 1991.

That is why we have a small orphan fleet of MHs that has some significant challenges. 

That is why our tiny LRP fleet is going thru upgrades on aircraft that are 4 decades old, while other countries with small fleets are moving to or already have P-8.

How’s that new FWSAR fleet doing?

It won’t change and our military will never be taken seriously because of it.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Who in turn will blame the Libs for the EH101 fiasco.
> 
> Everyone wants a better, more streamlined military procurement system to more efficiently funnel tax dollars to their preferred vendors.


I really don't care about vendor - I care about capability.
   Just because something can be built in Canada doesn't mean an inferior item should be adopted - or the CAF required to change specs to make the "preferred" option complaint.


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> “That can be built here”
> 
> This mentality is part of what slaughters our procurement process (probably an insult to the word process but…).


I like the concept of national capacity - but one needs to weigh how that can be done for certain items.
  I mean the fact that Miracle builds 412's/Griffons is great, but what use does the Griffon truly offer?   It was obsolete before the CAF got it.



Eye In The Sky said:


> I like the Blackhawk idea.  I also like the Herc for Transport/SAR/MPA idea too.


Always need more Hercules, triple the fleet would still get used regularly...



Eye In The Sky said:


> We don’t consider the most important things with the most weight; operational capability.


 That is what truly kills me - heck if the CAF was awake - they'd have a LO in the PM shop of FVL seeing where Canada can get in.
  Probably could use a Wescam ball 



Eye In The Sky said:


> That is why we have damn old fighters.  Our fighters were sub-standard in GW1.  That was 1991.
> 
> That is why we have a small orphan fleet of MHs that has some significant challenges.
> 
> That is why our tiny LRP fleet is going thru upgrades on aircraft that are 4 decades old, while other countries with small fleets are moving to or already have P-8.
> 
> How’s that new FWSAR fleet doing?
> 
> It won’t change and our military will never be taken seriously because of it.


Agreed.


----------



## kev994

dapaterson said:


> it may be time for the CAF to once again try to buy a single fleet, but this time an off the shelf, already in service model....


I think we were supposed to have done this with the cyclone and the kingfisher, we’re not very good shoppers.


----------



## suffolkowner

kev994 said:


> I think we were supposed to have done this with the cyclone and the kingfisher, we’re not very good shoppers.


I guess we can be thankful we didn't buy the NH90 or C27J. Bad luck follows bad decisions pretty much guarantees the gripen will be chosen


----------



## Quirky

suffolkowner said:


> I guess we can be thankful we didn't buy the NH90 or C27J. Bad luck follows bad decisions pretty much guarantees the gripen will be chosen


That’ll go over well with pilots wanting to fly the thing…. RCAF will turn into cannon fodder for NATO. Cheaper to send in the Gripens than fire expensive cruise missiles.


----------



## dapaterson

kev994 said:


> I think we were supposed to have done this with the cyclone and the kingfisher, we’re not very good shoppers.


Cyclone was not in-service with another military.

AERE officers in ADM Mat need to be given negative PER points for every bit of Canadianization they introduce into an aircraft.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

suffolkowner said:


> I guess we can be thankful we didn't buy the NH90 or C27J. Bad luck follows bad decisions pretty much guarantees the gripen will be chosen



Can we, though?


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> Cyclone was not in-service with another military.
> 
> AERE officers in ADM Mat need to be given negative PER points for every bit of Canadianization they introduce into an aircraft.


Is it AEREs though or is it DAR?


----------



## dapaterson

Hey, I'm all for equal-opportunity AERE PER processes.  PD or PM side..


----------



## Quirky

dapaterson said:


> AERE officers in ADM Mat need to be given negative PER points for every bit of Canadianization they introduce into an aircraft.



Interesting how much non sense of Canadianization they can fit into an F-35.


----------



## suffolkowner

Eye In The Sky said:


> Can we, though?


Well those two haven't been rousing successes anywhere. I guess time will tell if the Cyclone makes the cut. What exactly  is the problem with getting the Kingfisher online?

I keep thinking that this would be a good time for the government to announce a F35 decision


----------



## SupersonicMax

suffolkowner said:


> What exactly  is the problem with getting the Kingfisher online?


Plural. Problems. Many, many of them.


----------



## suffolkowner

SupersonicMax said:


> Plural. Problems. Many, many of them.


I've heard that but not the whats or the why's


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FWSAR - I’m not directly involved with that fleet so it wouldn’t be for me to say; but I am happy at this point that I didn’t move to that fleet. 



dapaterson said:


> Cyclone was not in-service with another military.
> 
> AERE officers in ADM Mat need to be given negative PER points for every bit of Canadianization they introduce into an aircraft.



Not just Adm Mat;  some at PMO need to appreciate their knowledge limits; CR2.1 being a decent demonstration of operator (OLA, UAG) input being sought as an afterthought and “while the paint was already drying”.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

suffolkowner said:


> Well those two haven't been rousing successes anywhere.



I’ve only really looked at the NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter) part of the entire NH-90;  but I remember exercising with NFHs in the Med in 2015 and later and they seemed to perform well. I think it was Manta 2018 we were supposed to do co-op with a HMCS Hfx class.  The Sea King was U/S for sonar.


suffolkowner said:


> . I guess time will tell if the Cyclone makes the cut.



If that project wouldn’t have been delayed and off the rails, the Cyclone would likely be close to a mid-life refit with updated sensors and systems.  Shouldn’t it have made the cut long ago?


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Fixed it for you
> Cough Blackhawk cough...
> MH-60R can do the AWS job,


It...can.

Some others can chime in if they want without straying too much into capabilities, but it would change crew composition and responsibilities.  I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I'm not sure it's "better" (lack of aircraft notwithstanding).



SupersonicMax said:


> Is it AEREs though or is it DAR?


Little of column A, little of column B...



Eye In The Sky said:


> I’ve only really looked at the NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter) part of the entire NH-90; but I remember exercising with NFHs in the Med in 2015 and later and they seemed to perform well. I think it was Manta 2018 we were supposed to do co-op with a HMCS Hfx class. The Sea King was U/S for sonar.


...and the Australians wholesale scrapped their MRH-90s that were supposed to be the common Army/Navy helicopter.  It was a matter of serviceability, I think.

Edit to add:  They bought Romeos, but that falls in line with RAN helicopter crew composition since they already flew SH-60Bs.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> It...can.


It is a smaller platform than the Cyclone - I'd replace them at least a 2 Hawk:1 Cyclone ratio, not sure if you can get two in the City Class hangar - but the CSC could be configured to fit two...
  The Hawk is a substantially more capable airframe than the Griffon - so the SAR, UH, SOF role would be better served by the replacement there - I am not familiar enough with the Cormorant to make a claim that the Hawk is better - but a common airframe would allow for more simulators - more spares etc.


dimsum said:


> Some others can chime in if they want without straying too much into capabilities, but it would change crew composition and responsibilities.  I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I'm not sure it's "better" (lack of aircraft notwithstanding).
> 
> 
> Little of column A, little of column B...
> 
> 
> ...and the Australians wholesale scrapped their MRH-90s that were supposed to be the common Army/Navy helicopter.  It was a matter of serviceability, I think.


Yes the Aussies went back to the Hawks - (their SOF had never switched out of the Blackhawk), you had put a link to a few stories abut the 90's that where not flattering.


----------



## Quirky

Damn rotary community derailed another thread lol


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> “That can be built here”
> 
> This mentality is part of what slaughters our procurement process (probably an insult to the word process but…).
> 
> I like the Blackhawk idea.  I also like the Herc for Transport/SAR/MPA idea too.
> 
> We don’t consider the most important things with the most weight; operational capability.
> 
> That is why we have damn old fighters.  Our fighters were sub-standard in GW1.  That was 1991.
> 
> That is why we have a small orphan fleet of MHs that has some significant challenges.
> 
> That is why our tiny LRP fleet is going thru upgrades on aircraft that are 4 decades old, while other countries with small fleets are moving to or already have P-8.
> 
> How’s that new FWSAR fleet doing?
> 
> It won’t change and our military will never be taken seriously because of it.


Good to see morale in the CAF is pretty high these days 😉  Joking ofcourse

At least our 40yo MPA have state of the art upgrades once complete!  Yet again, Canada does it’s weird “Upgrade to a P8 standard but leave the airframe as is, please.”

Or the same combat management system installed in our subs as brand new US Navy Virginia class boats.  

While clunky and slow, perhaps the above are examples of a savage genius none of us have ever realized?  Confusion of the enemy is a good thing!


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Good to see morale in the CAF is pretty high these days 😉  Joking ofcourse
> 
> At least our 40yo MPA have state of the art upgrades once complete!  Yet again, Canada does it’s weird “Upgrade to a P8 standard but leave the airframe as is, please.”
> 
> Or the same combat management system installed in our subs as brand new US Navy Virginia class boats.
> 
> While clunky and slow, perhaps the above are examples of a savage genius none of us have ever realized?  Confusion of the enemy is a good thing!



What I'll say is that SSK and SSN are optimized for different missions.  One doesn't really replace the other.


----------



## suffolkowner

Sweden and Finland have had problems with their NH90's as well. I don't know if its that governments just aren't budgeting enough for spares or maybe some airframes just chew through them. The difference is a lot of these countries seem to take a step back and evaluate the situation and are not afraid to change horses.

I'll feel a bit better once the F-35 is chosen assuming it is. For all the talk coming from the government I do not expect things to change much from a procurement standpoint. Then again we should allow the process to follow through to completion. Cant complain about political interference from one side of our mouth and advocate for it from the other


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> Good to see morale in the CAF is pretty high these days 😉  Joking ofcourse
> 
> At least our 40yo MPA have state of the art upgrades once complete!  Yet again, Canada does it’s weird “Upgrade to a P8 standard but leave the airframe as is, please.”
> 
> Or the same combat management system installed in our subs as brand new US Navy Virginia class boats.
> 
> While clunky and slow, perhaps the above are examples of a savage genius none of us have ever realized?  Confusion of the enemy is a good thing!



The problem with upgrades, or some of them at least, include the loss of that airframe for the period it is inducted.  Auroras went thru ASLEP, and all of the AIMP (Block 2, Block 3 and now Block 4).  That is on top of the normal “off Wing” stuff like TLIR (Third Line Inspection and Repair).

After any of those are complete, there is some level of testing.   That takes time and usually is somewhat restrictive;  bare dry runway, VFR flight/weather requirements.

If a major testing event is cancelled, it can be a fairly involved process to get all the stakeholders lined up and available again;  eg, RCN assets at “the time and place capable of doing what is needed”.

So you’re thru testing and have the upgraded airframe back.  Well.  Not everything is upgraded.  You still have unserviceable a/c because they are old, and things don’t work as well as they did when they are new (despite all these upgrades, 2nd and 3rd line maint, periodicals etc).  They are still, at the end of the day, old airplanes.

I posted something in a thread commonality with Allies and how spare parts and tools are very important when you’re away, because you simply can’t take everything you might need on a deployment for spare parts etc.  Soon, our MPAs will be working with Allies where the “common airframe” will be the P-8.

So for these and other reasons, despite having decent Integrated Missions Systems, we could find ourselves “with a seat at the table”, but we will be doing secondary or tertiary tasks (like our Fighters did in GW1, or like happened during IMPACT).

We rarely operate independently;  a Joint Force Commander is going to use their most reliable kit and units to perform critical tasks.   That is understandable of course, 100%.  That reality doesn’t necessarily line up well with how Canada funds and equips it’s Armed Forces.

Savage genius?  Perhaps; for someone like me who has used this kit in a few locations working with a handful of our Allies on Ex and Ops, it just reinforces that Canadians and our government don’t really care about defence and we are happy if someone else pays the bill, maybe happier still if someone else looks after the tip, too.

Ya, I’m a little jaded.  I’ve been embarrassed in front of Allied crews/pers once or 10 times too many on Ops.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Bell 412!


Preach, Brother!!!  😆


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eye In The Sky said:


> So for these and other reasons, despite having decent Integrated Missions Systems, we could find ourselves “with a seat at the table”, but we will be doing secondary or tertiary tasks (like our Fighters did in GW1, or like happened during IMPACT).



Just a small point of info, EITS. I don't know if urban legends have developped aroud the air contribution to GW1, but at the time:

(1) the CF-18 were six and seven year old state of the art fighters; and,

(2) they carried out their primary task, which was one of various primary tasks of the coalition, in providing CAP over RCN assets in theater.

You see, in the lead up to retaking Koweit, the estimates (pre-war) were that Irak had modern fighters with well trained crew that represented a significant air threat to ships. These estimates were not Canadian, but the universally accepted estimates of the US. 

Canada's main contribution to the war effort was to be a Naval Task Group, but when, in view of these estimates, we asked the US or the UK to provide air cover, they stated that they could not garantee such protection in view of their own needs for same. That's when it was decided to deploy CF-18's in theatre to provide air cover for the RCN. That in turn lead to the need to deploy some land forces to provide for the air assets force protection. Basically, had the RCN operated a carrier or had the US/UK been able to provide the protection, Canada's contribution would have been warships only.

After, and only after, the Iraqui air force ceased to be a threat, and with air assets already in theatre, was it decided to release them to the commander of the air campaign for use over Iraq. It is unfortunate, but by that time, there was little left to do.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Just a small point of info, EITS. I don't know if urban legends have developped aroud the air contribution to GW1, but at the time:
> 
> (1) the CF-18 were six and seven year old state of the art fighters; and,
> 
> (2) they carried out their primary task, which was one of various primary tasks of the coalition, in providing CAP over RCN assets in theater.
> 
> You see, in the lead up to retaking Koweit, the estimates (pre-war) were that Irak had modern fighters with well trained crew that represented a significant air threat to ships. These estimates were not Canadian, but the universally accepted estimates of the US.
> 
> Canada's main contribution to the war effort was to be a Naval Task Group, but when, in view of these estimates, we asked the US or the UK to provide air cover, they stated that they could not garantee such protection in view of their own needs for same. That's when it was decided to deploy CF-18's in theatre to provide air cover for the RCN. That in turn lead to the need to deploy some land forces to provide for the air assets force protection. Basically, had the RCN operated a carrier or had the US/UK been able to provide the protection, Canada's contribution would have been warships only.
> 
> After, and only after, the Iraqui air force ceased to be a threat, and with air assets already in theatre, was it decided to release them to the commander of the air campaign for use over Iraq. It is unfortunate, but by that time, there was little left to do.


Now you know why the air force insists that it controls all navair and army aviation.


----------



## dimsum

GK .Dundas said:


> Now you know why the air force insists that it controls all navair and army aviation.


Sorry - maybe I haven't had my coffee yet, but I don't follow how not having fleet defense air cover means RCAF insists it controls other aviation?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Just a small point of info, EITS. I don't know if urban legends have developped aroud the air contribution to GW1, but at the time:
> 
> (1) the CF-18 were six and seven year old state of the art fighters; and,
> 
> (2) they carried out their primary task, which was one of various primary tasks of the coalition, in providing CAP over RCN assets in theater.
> 
> You see, in the lead up to retaking Koweit, the estimates (pre-war) were that Irak had modern fighters with well trained crew that represented a significant air threat to ships. These estimates were not Canadian, but the universally accepted estimates of the US.
> 
> Canada's main contribution to the war effort was to be a Naval Task Group, but when, in view of these estimates, we asked the US or the UK to provide air cover, they stated that they could not garantee such protection in view of their own needs for same. That's when it was decided to deploy CF-18's in theatre to provide air cover for the RCN. That in turn lead to the need to deploy some land forces to provide for the air assets force protection. Basically, had the RCN operated a carrier or had the US/UK been able to provide the protection, Canada's contribution would have been warships only.
> 
> After, and only after, the Iraqui air force ceased to be a threat, and with air assets already in theatre, was it decided to release them to the commander of the air campaign for use over Iraq. It is unfortunate, but by that time, there was little left to do.



Our CF 18s didn’t have PGM abilities.  They sat out the air strike side until our Allies (the US IIRC) gave us some once the hard lifting was done.  That’s not a state of the art weapons system to me.  

Much like today, the US, UK and other forces maintain better Wpn Sys capabilities than we do.  Our MPA fleet is another example of this delta.

The CAF motto could be “fitted for, but not with”…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GK .Dundas said:


> Now you know why the air force insists that it controls all navair and army aviation.



There is no Navair or army aviation in the RCAF or in the CAF.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> Our CF 18s didn’t have PGM abilities.  They sat out the air strike side until our Allies (the US IIRC) gave us some once the hard lifting was done.  That’s not a state of the art weapons system to me.
> 
> Much like today, the US, UK and other forces maintain better Wpn Sys capabilities than we do.  Our MPA fleet is another example of this delta.
> 
> The CAF motto could be “fitted for, but not with”…


PGM was pretty novel back then.  US Hornets and Vipers didn’t have them either.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> PGM was pretty novel back then.  US Hornets and Vipers didn’t have them either.



I recall reading the “US gave the RCAF PGM kits” part, but for the life of me I can’t find the article or recall where i saw it.  Have you ever seen that in a CMJ or other article by chance?

This article eludes to an OP IRON SABRE but there is no "separate entry" for it on the website:





__





						Gulf War - FRICTION - Canada.ca
					

Historical information about the Gulf War.




					www.canada.ca
				




Canada’s commitment to Gulf operations increased on 14 September, when the Prime Minister announced that the CF would provide a squadron of fighter aircraft to provide Combat Air Patrols (CAP) for the Canadian ships in the Gulf. These aircraft came from 409 Squadron in Baden, augmented by aircraft and personnel from 421 and 439 Squadrons. The last of the 16 aircraft arrived in Doha, Qatar on 12 October, through Operation SCIMITAR.

Two days later Canadian CF-18s began to conduct patrols in area Whiskey 2 - the Coalition fleet’s second line of air defence – and turned back an Iraqi two-aircraft patrol. Within two weeks, having by then figured out how they could be fully integrated into the US – led air defence scheme and operations, they replaced US Marine Corps F-18s patrolling in area Whiskey-1, a front-line sector. Further proof of Canadian capabilities came when they were tasked to provide CAP for the US Navy aircraft carrier Midway while it was transiting through the Straits of Hormuz. The carrier was prohibited from launching its own CAP while in the Straits.

The air force contribution was already well integrated into the coalition, but it would be increased to twenty-four aircraft and about 550 men and women. Pilots from 421 and 439 Squadrons in Baden and 416 Squadron in Cold Lake replaced the initial deployments.

The air war began the night of 16 January with the CF-18s flying CAP, in Whiskey – 1 and immediately raised the chance of blue-on-blue conflict when allied pilots returning from offensive operations entered the Canadian patrol area without having turned on their Identification – Friend – Foe (IFF) transmitters. All these aircraft had to be intercepted and positively identified as friendlies – at night, often with closing speeds of Mach 2 – and no mistakes were made. This CAP of Whiskey-1 was almost exclusively Canadian until 19 January, at which time the arrival of two more American aircraft carriers allowed the Canadians to reduce their flying hours.

Starting 20 January, the Canadians started “sweep and escort” missions. CF-18s would sweep ahead of a group of attack bombers to ensure that the area was clear of enemy aircraft. Other CF-18s would provide close escort to manage any threats that popped up after the sweep aircraft had passed. These missions were not without risk. The anti-aircraft fire over Iraq was intense; the Iraqi forces also appeared to have a surplus of surface-to-air missiles, many of which were spotted approaching Canadian aircraft. Luckily, the missiles dropped away at the last minute, falling short.

On 30 January two CF-18s were diverted to attack an Iraqi fast patrol boat that had managed to escape destruction by other aircraft. After two strafing runs with the CF-18s 20 mm guns, the boat was irreparably damaged and later found to have sought safe-haven in Iran.

In mid-February, plans were underway at National Defence Headquarters for the CF-18s to take on a more offensive role – attacking Iraqi targets on the ground. To provide the necessary bombs, Operation IRON SABRE (see separate entry) was initiated on 22 February. Two days later the CF-18s conducted their first bombing run, dropping thirty-two Mk 82 500 lbs bomb, and it was intended that they would conduct between eight and sixteen sorties a day for up to thirty-two days. However, hostilities would end on 28 February, and as a result the CF-18s conducted only 56 bombing missions.

The CF-18s returned to Baden, with the last aircraft leaving Doha on 9 March.


----------



## SupersonicMax

SupersonicMax said:


> PGM was pretty novel back then.  US Hornets and Vipers didn’t have them either.


We were given PGMs for Op ECHO (Allied Force) in 1999.  The first Operational Fight Program to have PGM integrated was released in the mid 90s.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I was sure I read something somewhere about RCAF CF-18s getting kits that allowed "dumb" bombs to be dropped on targets that were being designated for them.  Something like that....but I am getting old and stuff.


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> I was sure I read something somewhere about RCAF CF-18s getting kits that allowed "dumb" bombs to be dropped on targets that were being designated for them.  Something like that....but I am getting old and stuff.


There was something. It was news back then, but I’m too old to remember exactly what was done.  I’m wondering if it was a clip on Lantirn type pod on a hard point.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The FE that sits across from me was a Tech who was posted to Baden with the 18s then and deployed on the first bunch in.   I’ll have to ask him tomorrow, see if he remembers.  The way I remember it in whatever article I read was “in the process of making it happen” when combat sorties ended.  I searched the internet for Op Iron Sabre info.  Nothing.    

“posted to Baden”;  that makes me feel old just keying that in!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:


> I was sure I read something somewhere about RCAF CF-18s getting kits that allowed "dumb" bombs to be dropped on targets that were being designated for them.  Something like that....but I am getting old and stuff.


Wasn't that the "Sniper pod" that was supposed to allow our CF18 to find and lase targets and then use smart munitions on the targets?


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> Our CF 18s didn’t have PGM abilities.  They sat out the air strike side until our Allies (the US IIRC) gave us some once the hard lifting was done.  That’s not a state of the art weapons system to me.
> 
> Much like today, the US, UK and other forces maintain better Wpn Sys capabilities than we do.  Our MPA fleet is another example of this delta.
> 
> The CAF motto could be “fitted for, but not with”…


In fairness to us the UK didn't even have a MPA for a wee bit there, and have at times had all of their Type 45 destroyers or all of their subs dockside pending work.

The US does do war very well though.  Have to give credit where credit is due


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It could be.  For some reason my brain is telling me it was the kits that get put on the actual bombs.   🤷‍♂️


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin Parkinson said:


> Wasn't that the "Sniper pod" that was supposed to allow our CF18 to find and lase targets and then use smart munitions on the targets?


We got the Nighthawk Pod just before Kosovo that we kept until the mid-late 2000s, after which it was replaced by the Sniper Pod (as part of ECP-583) that we are still using. Having a laser designator is a requirement to guide LGBs but you can still drop them without a pod, as long as you have someone with a designator to guide the bombs for you,


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:


> as long as you have someone with a designator to guide the bombs for you,


Like...oh, I don't know, a persistent endurance platform hanging out for most of the day


----------



## SupersonicMax

dimsum said:


> Like...oh, I don't know, a persistent endurance platform hanging out for most of the day


To be honest, with the availability of pods these days, there is no reason, short of having an airborne pod failure, why we couldn’t lase our own bombs all the time.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Like...oh, I don't know, a persistent endurance platform hanging out for most of the day


Is that what we’re calling JTACs these days?  ‘Persistent hangers out?’ 😆

Oh, you mean when Canada sees fit to acquire some of those fantastical uninhabited flying machines? I hear tell that people think such aerial beasts can do wonderous things.  Perhaps we may see such magical technology in the skies of Canada and around the world in this decade? 🤔


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Is that what we’re calling JTACs these days?  ‘Persistent hangers out?’ 😆
> 
> Oh, you mean when Canada sees fit to acquire some of those fantastical uninhabited flying machines? I hear tell that people think such aerial beasts can do wonderous things.  Perhaps we may see such magical technology in the skies of Canada and around the world in this decade? 🤔


Pay no attention the man behind the curtain......

I'm of the opinion Canada will never see armed UAVs - Its not the Canadian way.. sniff sniff!!!


----------



## kev994

OldSolduer said:


> I'm of the opinion Canada will never see armed UAVs - Its not the Canadian way.. sniff sniff!!!


I flew the Heron in 2009 out of KAF and it was never an issue, there were all kinds of bombs available on all kinds of aircraft everywhere. Getting the strike authorization always took longer than getting the bombs there. The fuel weight that you would have to subtract in order to takeoff with a hellfire would have made a difference between 24 hours endurance or 8 hours endurance. Not worth it IMO for that particular airplane.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Still never never land:



> Feds say new fighter jet selection is coming, but exact timing still unclear​
> Federal procurement officials won’t say when Canada will take the next step in the years-long process of selecting a new fighter jet.
> 
> The federal government announced in December that it had narrowed its search for a replacement of the military’s aging CF-18s to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and the Swedish Saab Gripen.
> 
> The government said at that time a decision would be made in short order on whether the government would engage in another round of negotiations with the two companies, or select a winner outright.
> 
> Yet nearly four months later, no announcement has been forthcoming, leading to concerns about even further delays in replacing Canada’s CF-18s at a time when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has underscored the importance of modern military capabilities.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada assistant deputy minister Simon Page said Tuesday the process is “very active, very live” as he was grilled by a parliamentary committee over the lack of a decision.
> 
> Yet while Page and other federal officials expressed optimism that a contract with the winning bidder will be signed by the end of the year, they declined to provide any details on the reasons for the delay or when a decision on the next step could come....



Sigh.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

Well Canada is forgotten in this piece...... Probably for the best.









						Biden Administration Fumbles F-35, Free World’s Fighter, Despite War In Europe
					

F-35 is being bought by over a dozen democracies, but the administration suddenly seems less enthused by the fighter than our allies.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Well Canada is forgotten in this piece...... Probably for the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden Administration Fumbles F-35, Free World’s Fighter, Despite War In Europe
> 
> 
> F-35 is being bought by over a dozen democracies, but the administration suddenly seems less enthused by the fighter than our allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


The piece totally ignores the fact that the Alliance  buys are why the USAF is decreasing acquisitions at this point. LocMart can only build so many - and it’s better from our standpoint that they get bought by Allies who will use them - and not need to have us being ours as often.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> Well Canada is forgotten in this piece...... Probably for the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden Administration Fumbles F-35, Free World’s Fighter, Despite War In Europe
> 
> 
> F-35 is being bought by over a dozen democracies, but the administration suddenly seems less enthused by the fighter than our allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com




Hmmm…


> So why, while Russia is on the march in Europe and China is steadily growing its military presence in the Pacific, would the Biden administration suddenly cut the planned buy from an average of 80 over the last three years to a mere 61—when the expectation had been for an order of 94?



Maybe to accelerate NGAD (or more of something else that may or may not yet exist)? 🤔


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:


> Still never never land:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


If we chose the Gripen's....


----------



## Quirky

From the uki thread....



Czech_pivo said:


> The current plan under the Liberals is to *buy 88 planes*, down to either the F-35 or the Gripen. I'm not certain what the ratio of fighter plane to trainer plane is, but let's assume that a cool dozen (12) are trainers. That leaves use with 76 actual fighters, *just 4 more* than what we currently have, *after 40yrs of attrition* *and a secondary purchase of another 18 planes. *Does anyone else see where I'm going with this?



I don't think 12 trainers dedicated to a 410 type squadron will be necessary. The majority of training is done in a simulator now a days, plus the F-35 is a one seater. I'm sure the information is in this thread WRT pilot training, but a dedicated squadron to training like we have now will likely be a thing of the past. 





__





						10 Ways the F-35 Simulator is Changing Pilot Training
					

Flexibility is key to the design of the F-35 Full Mission Simulator (FMS). It’s built into every element, allowing the system to accommodate all three aircraft variants and all U.S. and international services.




					www.f35.com


----------



## Spencer100

Plus the F-35 getting more expensive, maybe we should not have waited.





__





						U.S. Air Force F-35 Costs To Climb | Aviation Week Network
					

Price per tail increase likely as negotiations are delayed; Lockheed points to pandemic impacts and inflation.




					aviationweek.com


----------



## MTShaw

Spencer100 said:


> Plus the F-35 getting more expensive, maybe we should not have waited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Air Force F-35 Costs To Climb | Aviation Week Network
> 
> 
> Price per tail increase likely as negotiations are delayed; Lockheed points to pandemic impacts and inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aviationweek.com


But it would cost even more trying to upgrade 2b to 4 baseline F-35s Or even replace them.


----------



## Quirky

Spencer100 said:


> Plus the F-35 getting more expensive, maybe we should not have waited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Air Force F-35 Costs To Climb | Aviation Week Network
> 
> 
> Price per tail increase likely as negotiations are delayed; Lockheed points to pandemic impacts and inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aviationweek.com



Given the alternative right now, an aircraft at a low-rate production with an unknown capability besides company brochures, the F-35 is a bargain. Everything is going up in cost.


----------



## Prairie canuck

I know its been discussed and dismissed numerous times but has our new reality and possible budget increases made a mixed buy of F35s and Gripen Es a consideration. From what I've read, and of course there's a wide range of estimates and opinions, the Gripen E will be a pretty good platform with much much lower maintenance costs with estimates between $10,000 to $20,000 per hour flown. Fly more, pay less. The F35 is superior technically and has the "stealth" tag but at $35000 to $40000 in maintenance for every hour flown it will be a consideration and likely suck in money from somewhere else. Could a 50/50 purchase of a hundred aircraft be the way to go? I know there's the whole supply chain argument but let's just pretend the accountants are locked out of the room for now.

(personally I would have liked to see the F15EX in the running)


----------



## Quirky

Prairie canuck said:


> I know its been discussed and dismissed numerous times but has our new reality and possible budget increases made a mixed buy of F35s and Gripen Es a consideration.


No.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Quirky said:


> No.


I even felt your eyes rolling... ha!


----------



## kev994

Prairie canuck said:


> I know its been discussed and dismissed numerous times but has our new reality and possible budget increases made a mixed buy of F35s and Gripen Es a consideration. From what I've read, and of course there's a wide range of estimates and opinions, the Gripen E will be a pretty good platform with much much lower maintenance costs with estimates between $10,000 to $20,000 per hour flown. Fly more, pay less. The F35 is superior technically and has the "stealth" tag but at $35000 to $40000 in maintenance for every hour flown it will be a consideration and likely suck in money from somewhere else. Could a 50/50 purchase of a hundred aircraft be the way to go? I know there's the whole supply chain argument but let's just pretend the accountants are locked out of the room for now.
> 
> (personally I would have liked to see the F15EX in the running)


NOOOOOOOO!!!
Mixed fleet has too many inefficiencies, more people, more parts, more simulators, more infrastructure, etc, etc.  no offence, but it’s a terrible idea.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> NOOOOOOOO!!!
> Mixed fleet has too many inefficiencies, more people, more parts, more simulators, more infrastructure, etc, etc.  no offence, but it’s a terrible idea.



Which is why, probably, we will do exactly that


----------



## Prairie canuck

kev994 said:


> NOOOOOOOO!!!
> Mixed fleet has too many inefficiencies, more people, more parts, etc, etc.  no offence, but it’s a terrible idea.


No offence taken. (Although a few less O's would have still got the point across, Ha!)

Most other Air forces have mixed fleets so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary, although many seem to be changing over to the F35 exclusively. I mean the F35 parts are coming from several countries so the availability is still dependent on those "supply lines". I'm sure SAAB outsources its fair share of parts but isn't part of the deal to manufacture those airframes in Canada? Are their roles too similar?
Would a mixed fleet be more palatable if it was an F35 and F15 mix? 
Sorry for all the questions but there's not too many other sites (none that i've found) where answers to these can be had.


----------



## dimsum

Prairie canuck said:


> No offence taken. (Although a few less O's would have still got the point across, Ha!)
> 
> Most other Air forces have mixed fleets so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary, although many seem to be changing over to the F35 exclusively. I mean the F35 parts are coming from several countries so the availability is still dependent on those "supply lines". I'm sure SAAB outsources its fair share of parts but isn't part of the deal to manufacture those airframes in Canada? Are their roles too similar?
> Would a mixed fleet be more palatable if it was an F35 and F15 mix?
> Sorry for all the questions but there's not too many other sites (none that i've found) where answers to these can be had.


No, regardless of mix.  It's not a problem of availability but of training and supply on our end.

More fleets means more types of parts that we have to store.  Also, more fleets means different types of qualifications needed for the pilots, technicians, etc. 

We aren't a big enough force to warrant multiple types of fighters.  The Australians sort of got away with it because the Super Hornet was bought to replace their F-111 strike aircraft.


----------



## KevinB

If you only have 1 Fighter it needs to be the everything. 
  I think the F-15EX is the better option, except it wasn’t a submission.  

Admittedly by the time the GoC makes a decision, the F/A XX 6th Gen will probably be in service.


----------



## Prairie canuck

dimsum said:


> No, regardless of mix.  It's not a problem of availability but of training and supply on our end.
> 
> More fleets means more types of parts that we have to store.  Also, more fleets means different types of qualifications needed for the pilots, technicians, etc.
> 
> We aren't a big enough force to warrant multiple types of fighters.  The Australians sort of got away with it because the Super Hornet was bought to replace their F-111 strike aircraft.


Thanks, that clears it up a quite a bit. It's still those maintenance costs per hour that kinda leave an odor.... Oh well, just my opinion.


----------



## Prairie canuck

KevinB said:


> If you only have 1 Fighter it needs to be the everything.
> I think the F-15EX is the better option, except it wasn’t a submission.
> 
> Admittedly by the time the GoC makes a decision, the F/A XX 6th Gen will probably be in service.


I think even if GoC awards the contract today we're so far back in the que it will take forever. However a side benefit is everyone else gets to work out the bugs.


----------



## dimsum

Prairie canuck said:


> Thanks, that clears it up a quite a bit. It's still those maintenance costs per hour that kinda leave an odor.... Oh well, just my opinion.


Are the costs for the same model that Canada is looking to get (A), the STOVL (B), or carrier-based (C) model?  

Also, the Gripen E isn't in operation yet, so any maint or other costs are just estimates at this point.


----------



## Prairie canuck

dimsum said:


> Are the costs for the same model that Canada is looking to get (A), the STOVL (B), or carrier-based (C) model?
> 
> Also, the Gripen E isn't in operation yet, so any maint or other costs are just estimates at this point.


There are numerous sites and they all have different numbers but it's a pretty consistent  opinion that SAAB's operating costs are half or less than the F35's. I think the older model Gripen's operating costs being so low have influenced the E's estimates.


----------



## Quirky

Prairie canuck said:


> There are numerous sites and they all have different numbers but it's a pretty consistent *opinion* that SAAB's operating costs are half or less than the F35's.


Estimates based off opinions. Yup.


----------



## CBH99

Prairie canuck said:


> I think even if GoC awards the contract today we're so far back in the que it will take forever. However a side benefit is everyone else gets to work out the bugs.


One of the many examples where our ineptness in capital projects has somehow worked out in our favour.  

Takes forever to choose which plane to purchase, despite there only being 3 choices when it boils down to it?  When all of our allies have chosen it after being shown the classified stuff?  

When if we were even marginally ambitious we would have taken advantage of Turkey getting the boot and hockey sticked some of those contracts our way, after placing an order. 

But despite the GoC taking this long to make a decision on an ‘urgent file’ for them, and us dithering… it somehow worked out for us, yet again.  

Other countries brunt the costs of fixing deficiencies & shaking it out, and we wait until all of that is done before we place our order.  

Same goes for UAV’s.  We don’t have a combat mission on the go, do we _really_ need those things?  Nah.  And now an entirely new generation of them are on the horizon.  Good thing we waited.



Canada appearing quite wise when in reality the GoC can’t seem to stop making more red tape for itself.  

_The scary part of the genius behind it is that it isn’t even intentional_


----------



## MTShaw

Prairie canuck said:


> I think even if GoC awards the contract today we're so far back in the que it will take forever. However a side benefit is everyone else gets to work out the bugs.


Isn’t there a difference between being declared the preferred bidder and the contract being signed. This was how it was done with the CSC.


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> One of the many examples where our ineptness in capital projects has somehow worked out in our favour.
> 
> Takes forever to choose which plane to purchase, despite there only being 3 choices when it boils down to it?  When all of our allies have chosen it after being shown the classified stuff?
> 
> When if we were even marginally ambitious we would have taken advantage of Turkey getting the boot and hockey sticked some of those contracts our way, after placing an order.
> 
> But despite the GoC taking this long to make a decision on an ‘urgent file’ for them, and us dithering… it somehow worked out for us, yet again.
> 
> Other countries brunt the costs of fixing deficiencies & shaking it out, and we wait until all of that is done before we place our order.


Even if Canada bought F-35 today you are now years late in the queue. LocMart can only build so many at this point.  
  With several countries inking a contract and a few unexpected ones jumping in, the RCAF won’t get anything soon.  


CBH99 said:


> Same goes for UAV’s.  We don’t have a combat mission on the go, do we _really_ need those things?  Nah.  And now an entirely new generation of them are on the horizon.  Good thing we waited.


Sarcasm I hope.


CBH99 said:


> Canada appearing quite wise when in reality the GoC can’t seem to stop making more red tape for itself.
> 
> _The scary part of the genius behind it is that it isn’t even intentional_


Canada looks like it’s picking their nose on the short bus.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Same goes for UAV’s. We don’t have a combat mission on the go, do we _really_ need those things? Nah. And now an entirely new generation of them are on the horizon. Good thing we waited.


They're not just used for combat missions.

And no, not a good thing we waited.  We had trained operational crews in Afghanistan.  Now...not so much.


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:


> One of the many examples where our ineptness in capital projects has somehow worked out in our favour.
> 
> Takes forever to choose which plane to purchase, despite there only being 3 choices when it boils down to it?  When all of our allies have chosen it after being shown the classified stuff?
> 
> When if we were even marginally ambitious we would have taken advantage of Turkey getting the boot and hockey sticked some of those contracts our way, after placing an order.
> 
> But despite the GoC taking this long to make a decision on an ‘urgent file’ for them, and us dithering… it somehow worked out for us, yet again.
> 
> Other countries brunt the costs of fixing deficiencies & shaking it out, and we wait until all of that is done before we place our order.
> 
> Same goes for UAV’s.  We don’t have a combat mission on the go, do we _really_ need those things?  Nah.  And now an entirely new generation of them are on the horizon.  Good thing we waited.
> 
> 
> 
> Canada appearing quite wise when in reality the GoC can’t seem to stop making more red tape for itself.
> 
> _The scary part of the genius behind it is that it isn’t even intentional_


I agree to a point but were stretching the timetable now. Especially when we cant get an answer on what step in the process we are in or what the next stage is. I dont doubt that the gripen could cost half what the F35 does to keep operational but that still doesnt make it the right choice for us









						Feds mum on next step in fighter jet competition
					

Federal procurement officials won't say when Canada will take the next step in the years-long process of selecting a new fighter jet.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> They're not just used for combat missions.
> 
> And no, not a good thing we waited.  We had trained operational crews in Afghanistan.  Now...not so much.


I had hoped my sarcasm would shine through here lads.  

Ofcourse it isn’t a good thing we waited.  My sarcasm was implying that _it’s a good thing we waited, so we could spend our money on even better ones that are coming online._

It isn’t a good thing we had a pipeline for UAV crews & developed that capability, and then let it degrade afterwards.  


My sarcasm was trying to convey that Canada is actually quite intentionally playing the long game, but just secretly not admitting it.  

By dithering on a fighter replacement, we’ve allowed our allies (the US) to work out software fixes, identify problem with stealth coating, and find/fix other bugs before we purchased any.  

And by denying ourselves a UAV capability (in regards to MALE type aircraft) we’ve secretly set ourselves up to use that money towards the next generation, instead.  


Pure sarcasm.  Although - and this isn’t a point of pride by any means - our dithering in things does sometimes work in our favour in the oddest ways.  Pure luck, mind you.


----------



## KevinB

At this rate Canada will be in line to get an obsolete fighter.  
   But hey maybe you could get a deal on 20+ year old F-35’s…


----------



## Prairie canuck

KevinB said:


> At this rate Canada will be in line to get an obsolete fighter.
> But hey maybe you could get a deal on 20+ year old F-35’s…


Japan is looking for a partner(s) to help it develop it's own Gen6 fighter. Ground floor opportunity. 








						Why Japan Is Building Its Own Sixth Generation Stealth Fighter
					

Can Tokyo manage the high costs of such advanced technology?




					nationalinterest.org


----------



## CBH99

Prairie canuck said:


> Japan is looking for a partner(s) to help it develop it's own Gen6 fighter. Ground floor opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Japan Is Building Its Own Sixth Generation Stealth Fighter
> 
> 
> Can Tokyo manage the high costs of such advanced technology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org


Kind of like the F-35 was….  

(No sarcasm this time)


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> Kind of like the F-35 was….
> 
> (No sarcasm this time)


The difference was F-35 is a Gen 5, built by a company (and country) that had already built Gen 5 aircraft 
   F/A XX NGASF is a 6 Gen we are working on now based on what we learned from F-22 etc. 

Japan is trying to build a Gen 6 with no Gen 4 or 5 base, realistically they will probably end up with a Gen 5.1 AC 

It’s kind of like Sweden saying they are building thr Grippen-E Gen 5 fighter - but really building a Gen 4.5 ish


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> They're not just used for combat missions.
> 
> And no, not a good thing we waited.  We had trained operational crews in Afghanistan.  Now...not so much.


 Libya.  

Iraq/Syria.  

Not to mention domestic ops…


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> They're not just used for combat missions.
> 
> And no, not a good thing we waited.  We had trained operational crews in Afghanistan.  Now...not so much.



<Maintaining an operational Airborne capability - if even on a very limited scale - enters the chat>


----------



## Edward Campbell

He's usually pretty well informed.


----------



## dapaterson

Canada, as a participant in the Joint Strike Fighter MOU, has privileged access to the program should the Govt decide to purchase the F35.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Until they arrive on the tarmac with a RCAF roundel on it, I am not holding my breath


----------



## Spencer100

As the government slides this across the finishing line......



			Ottawa entering final talks to procure Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets: minister


----------



## brihard

CTV’s got it now too









						Questions swirl as Canada launches negotiations for F-35 stealth fighter
					

Canada's decade-long search for a new fighter jet to replace its aging CF-18s came full circle on Monday as the Liberal government announced negotiations with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin to purchase the F-35.



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## armrdsoul77




----------



## Remius

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508463204439150600


----------



## armrdsoul77

Botswana might be getting some pretty sweet hornets with aesa radar.


----------



## Remius

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508476511891955714


----------



## Czech_pivo

Remius said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508476511891955714


88 is not enough planes - within 20yrs we will be in the exact same situation that we are currently in - not having enough planes to meet current NORAD/NATO needs and have anything of substance left over to contribute to anything external after taking attrition into account. That 88 plane contract must have an option to purchase another 8-12 planes over the next 20yrs. 

Also, by purchasing only 88 planes I guess any increase in military spending towards meeting 2% will not include any additional fighter plane capability.


----------



## Remius

Czech_pivo said:


> 88 is not enough planes - within 20yrs we will be in the exact same situation that we are currently in - not having enough planes to meet current NORAD/NATO needs and have anything of substance left over to contribute to anything external after taking attrition into account. That 88 plane contract must have an option to purchase another 8-12 planes over the next 20yrs.
> 
> Also, by purchasing only 88 planes I guess any increase in military spending towards meeting 2% will not include any additional fighter plane capability.


I think the original number was 65.   88 is a bit better.  And I think it makes us the 4th largest purchaser of F35s. 

I’m not an expert on what we actually need but more is always good.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Remius said:


> I think the original number was 65.   88 is a bit better.  And I think it makes us the 4th largest purchaser of F35s.
> 
> I’m not an expert on what we actually need but more is always good.


We bought 138 F-18's 40yrs ago. Today we are buying 35% less planes than we did 40yrs ago, plus we bought another 18 used F-18's from Australia, when you factor those planes into the equation its 41% less  - does that make sense to you?  Yes, we no longer station planes in Germany, but I'm not sure how someone can justify buying 35% less.


----------



## dapaterson

Part of the JSF concept is that the production line remains open for future purchases.

The purchase of 88 represents an increase over the number planned by the previous government.


----------



## Remius

Czech_pivo said:


> We bought 138 F-18's 40yrs ago. Today we are buying 35% less planes than we did 40yrs ago, plus we bought another 18 used F-18's from Australia, when you factor those planes into the equation its 41% less  - does that make sense to you?  Yes, we no longer station planes in Germany, but I'm not sure how someone can justify buying 35% less.


Again I don’t know what the need is so I can’t comment.   Can an F35 do more than an F18?   How many planes do we need?  Numbers are arbitrary unless a need is a established which I assume has been done.  Maybe it isn’t what we need but I don’t know.  

But 88 is more than 65. Which is a good thing.   The government could have just stuck to the original number but increased it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

dapaterson said:


> Part of the JSF concept is that the production line remains open for future purchases.
> 
> The purchase of 88 represents an increase over the number planned by the previous government.


The number 88 has been talked about since 2017 - does it reflect the current world threat assessment?  Does it reflect the new, upcoming 'requests' that are more than likely coming down the pipeline from NATO, from the US here in NORAD? Does it take into account the potential conflict with China 20+yrs in the future?  Does it add to our existing 4 squadrons and allow us to contribute more elsewhere?  Does it take into account loss of planes over 20yrs? Over 30yrs? Over 40yrs?

Today, 40yrs on, we have only 72 planes operational - 72 planes out of 150 purchased (initial purchase plus 2nd hand Aussie planes) - less than 50%.  What will be our operational level 20yrs out, 30yrs?

On the face of it, it looks like Canada is once again bringing an open bag of chips to the party.


----------



## Czech_pivo

dapaterson said:


> Part of the JSF concept is that the production line remains open for future purchases.
> 
> The purchase of 88 represents an increase over the number planned by the previous government.


We had options to purchase 20 additional CF-18's built within the original contract, we never bothered to exercise them, what makes you think this time will be different?


----------



## JLB50

What plans do our government have for the F-18s once the new fighters (assuming it will be the F-35) start arriving?  Will they sell them to, say, some South American country?  Or is there still a lesser role they could serve by keeping, say, a squadron of them?  Or will they be too out of date and expensive to maintain?


----------



## dapaterson

Given the significant US content, any sales to a third party will require US approval.


----------



## dapaterson

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508509153509228562


----------



## DBNSG

dapaterson said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508509153509228562


I tell you I am shocked, SHOCKED. My my what would have possessed this government to come to its senses. Justin probably had the riot act read to him last week and no one wanted to see his socks.


----------



## Czech_pivo

dapaterson said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508509153509228562


It only took 11yrs and over 8 months for this to happen. 
If this was just a one off, it wouldn't be so sad, but this is the norm.


----------



## NavyShooter

The thing that few people recall is that this is NOT the first competition for this aircraft....the competition for the F-35 started almost 20 years ago with the JSF Project where the XF-32 and the XF-35 competed against each other.

It makes me ponder what things would have looked like if Boeing had ended up winning that competition with their F-32 airframe.  To be honest, the F-32 in a non-S/VTOL platform would probably still make a decent attack bird, and with Boeing's experience in mass production, it would probably have been cheaper in just a 'fixed wing' non-carrier based platform than the F-35.  

That said, the goal of the JSF program was to have a 'everything to everyone' airplane, so that would go directly against the grain...but suppose Boeing resurrected the F-32 as a Stealth-ish 5th generation platform for land basing only....and pursued that as their next generation Growler platform...capable of interacting with the F-35.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Helicopters, fighters, whatever.  Did we at least manage not to pay half-a-billion in extra costs this time?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Brad Sallows said:


> Helicopters, fighters, whatever.  Did we at least manage not to pay half-a-billion in extra costs this time?


No, but we still have time.


----------



## Happy Guy

The Public Services and Procurement Canada website for the Future Fighter Capability Project has now been updated to reflect that the GOC has entered the final phase of the procurement process with the US Gov't and Lockheed Martin.  The earliest delivery date is 2025.  I wonder when we might hear news that the contract has been signed?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Tuesday, for sure.


----------



## IKnowNothing

Any chance that the 3 year time frame will be expedited with a lease and replace with the US similar to when we added the Leo 2's?


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:


> We bought 138 F-18's 40yrs ago. Today we are buying 35% less planes than we did 40yrs ago, plus we bought another 18 used F-18's from Australia, when you factor those planes into the equation its 41% less  - does that make sense to you?  Yes, we no longer station planes in Germany, but I'm not sure how someone can justify buying 35% less.


You shouldn’t add the RAAF buy…that stunt (aside from a waste of time and effort) was pure Maskirovka-like drama and ass-covering politics to try to feebly justify the government’s 2015 election ‘promise’ to not buy the F-35.


----------



## Halifax Tar

So we don't need the F35, JT cancels our order for 65.  Now not only was it the right plane in the first place but we're buying 88. 

What a circus.


----------



## KevinB

IKnowNothing said:


> Any chance that the 3 year time frame will be expedited with a lease and replace with the US similar to when we added the Leo 2's?


Extremely unlikely - you maybe able to get some training time on some down here - but everyone who wants them isn't going to want to wait.
Unlike the Leo2 no one has any F-35's just sitting around collecting dust -- that would be like trying to get a Leo 2 today when Germany is going to take everything they can build for the next 5-10 years...


----------



## Dana381

It will be interesting to see if when the dust settles did dragging our asses save us any money?


----------



## IKnowNothing

KevinB said:


> Extremely unlikely - you maybe able to get some training time on some down here - but everyone who wants them isn't going to want to wait.
> Unlike the Leo2 no one has any F-35's just sitting around collecting dust -- that would be like trying to get a Leo 2 today when Germany is going to take everything they can build for the next 5-10 years...



True. But I wonder about a backroom deal with the States specifically.  A squadron or two out of their stock as a good faith/ quid pro quo to upping defense investment (with some strings tied to something like NORAD committments, a NATO deployment, or maybe spilling into that ground kit arrangement you keep bringing up..


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:


> You shouldn’t add the RAAF buy…that stunt (aside from a waste of time and effort) was pure Maskirovka-like drama and ass-covering politics to try to feebly justify the government’s 2015 election ‘promise’ to not buy the F-35.


But if you don't include the Aussie planes, then our current level of 72 operational planes would be 72-X = ? operational planes - this strengthens the argument to buy more than 88 planes.


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> It will be interesting to see if when the dust settles did dragging our asses save us any money?


I'd be more interested in whether the delays will cost any lives --


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> I'd be more interested in whether the delays will cost any lives --



Yes I thought of that also but i was hoping it won't. Unlike the Seaking fiasco.

That was actually my motivation for asking, if we didn't save any money then it makes the risk less worth it. I guess part of me still holds hope the GOC will smarten up someday. Stupid me I know. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Dana381

armrdsoul77 said:


> Botswana might be getting some pretty sweet hornets with aesa radar.



Any chance they cancel the expensive radar upgrade now? Has the work started yet?


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> Yes I thought of that also but i was hoping it won't. Unlike the Seaking fiasco.
> 
> That was actually my motivation for asking, if we didn't save any money then it makes the risk less worth it. I guess part of me still holds hope the GOC will smarten up someday. Stupid me I know. 🤷‍♂️


Not just pilots - anywhere the RCAF didn't go due to having an old dog where they could have had a role...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dana381 said:


> It will be interesting to see if when the dust settles did dragging our asses save us any money?


Why save money when the GoC wants to increase spending? This method requires no extra procurement/technical staff.

If your only metric is how much you spend as part of your GDP, procurement inefficiencies is a great way to bump up your stats.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Why save money when the GoC wants to increase spending? This method requires no extra procurement/technical staff.
> 
> If your only metric is how much you spend as part of your GDP, procurement inefficiencies is a great way to bump up your stats.



Smashing that nail.


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:


> But if you don't include the Aussie planes, then our current level of 72 operational planes would be 72-X = ? operational planes - this strengthens the argument to buy more than 88 planes.


There is no “argument” needed to be made in order to buy 88 jets.  

88 is a figure of record, first messaged in Summer 2017 by the Liberal Government and formalized in the Dec 2017 release of _Strong, Secure, Engaged _defence policy. 

Any argument to buy more than 88 aircraft may come in the future as Canada at some point either validates or refutes the extant requirement of 88 aircraft.


----------



## McG

I like the idea of grabbing a few extra F-35 to demonstrate a little more resolve against authoritarian powers. If we can figure out how to train pilots on a reasonable timeline, then this might be my suggestion:


----------



## Czech_pivo

McG said:


> I like the idea of grabbing a few extra F-35 to demonstrate a little more resolve against authoritarian powers. If we can figure out how to train pilots on a reasonable timeline, then this might be my suggestion:
> View attachment 69769


Yes, someone who gets it.


----------



## Quirky

McG said:


> I like the idea of grabbing a few extra F-35 to demonstrate a little more resolve against authoritarian powers. If we can figure out how to train pilots on a reasonable timeline, then this might be my suggestion:
> View attachment 69769



How much PLD for 2 Wg? Also "europe" is pretty broad. 2 Wing Anywhere Germany, sign me up. 2 Wing Romania or Latvia? Pass.


----------



## SupersonicMax

McG said:


> I like the idea of grabbing a few extra F-35 to demonstrate a little more resolve against authoritarian powers. If we can figure out how to train pilots on a reasonable timeline, then this might be my suggestion:
> View attachment 69769


AETE doesn’t own aircraft, beyond a single Griffon that is being managed by 438 Sqn.  We don’t need our own training squadron.  We can train in the US (we wouldn’t require 16 aircraft for this).  The real question is where will you find air and ground crew to fly and fix the aircraft??


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> AETE doesn’t own aircraft, beyond a single Griffon that is being managed by 438 Sqn.  We don’t need our own training squadron.  We can train in the US (we wouldn’t require 16 aircraft for this).  The real question is where will you find air and ground crew to fly and fix the aircraft??


The Sim for the F-35 is pretty impressive - so your training squadron could also double as a demonstration team


----------



## Quirky

KevinB said:


> The Sim for the F-35 is pretty impressive - so your training squadron could also double as a demonstration team



I wonder how close they are to remote flying a F-35 with the sim.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Quirky said:


> How much PLD for 2 Wg? Also "europe" is pretty broad. 2 Wing Anywhere Germany, sign me up. 2 Wing Romania or Latvia? Pass.


You need to spend some time in Romania - the skiing is great and the Black Sea coast is wonderful in the summer.  It's not the same country as it was say in 1990.  You'd live like a King in Romania and a pauper in Germany.

Latvia would be cold and damp, but you've got Sweden/Finland a short ferry ride away.  

Germany would be my last choice of the 3.  I'd be poor and surrounded by way too many people.  Romania would be my first choice, if I could.


----------



## McG

SupersonicMax said:


> AETE doesn’t own aircraft, beyond a single Griffon that is being managed by 438 Sqn.


The 2018 info graphic that I looked at showed 2x Hornet, 2x Griffon, and 6x Tutor.  I guess that changed with the move?



SupersonicMax said:


> We don’t need our own training squadron. We can train in the US


That seems a little parasitic but okay.  Why did we bother doing it ourselves with the Hornets if outsourcing to the US is an option?



SupersonicMax said:


> The real question is where will you find air and ground crew to fly and fix the aircraft??


Shiny new planes, European postings, and a recent Top Gun sequel should bring people to the CFRCs.


----------



## Remius

I am still wondering about the requirements.  How many is enough and how many more would be better?  

I’m not knocking the 88 one way or another. 

I legit want to know what we actually need.  Can we man our NORAD commitments and still have enough for expediationary purposes if that were to be the case?

Anyone know?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Czech_pivo said:


> You need to spend some time in Romania - the skiing is great and the Black Sea coast is wonderful in the summer.  It's not the same country as it was say in 1990.  You'd live like a King in Romania and a pauper in Germany.
> 
> Latvia would be cold and damp, but you've got Sweden/Finland a short ferry ride away.
> 
> Germany would be my last choice of the 3.  I'd be poor and surrounded by way too many people.  Romania would be my first choice, if I could.



I whole heartedly agree.  I would take Romania, Bulgaria or Estonia over Germany any day.


----------



## Good2Golf

Remius said:


> I am still wondering about the requirements.  How many is enough and how many more would be better?
> 
> I’m not knocking the 88 one way or another.
> 
> I legit want to know what we actually need.  Can we man our NORAD commitments and still have enough for expediationary purposes if that were to be the case?
> 
> Anyone know?


It’s in the FFCP SOR, which is not publicly available.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> I am still wondering about the requirements.  How many is enough and how many more would be better?
> 
> I’m not knocking the 88 one way or another.
> 
> I legit want to know what we actually need.  Can we man our NORAD commitments and still have enough for expediationary purposes if that were to be the case?
> 
> Anyone know?



I'm no SME but a country with our geographic footprint seems to need more than 88.  But again, I'm no SME.


----------



## Underway

What are the calculation criteria the military uses when it goes through calculating how many jets we need?

I'm assuming something along the lines of:  

X hours are required for NORAD missions.  
6 pack for multinational missions.  
Maintenance time required per hour of flying.  
Number hours required for training
hours of other expected missions
Plug into computer... get 88 aircraft.

I could see the number of aircraft the CPC wanted 65 going to 88 as a function of two things.  Better information of maintenance time (aka longer time in maintenance then originally expected) and/or government direction on mission changes (more NORAD hours, a 12 pack deployability instead of a 6 pack etc...).

The SOR details aren't required here. More of a big hand small map sort of overview.


----------



## IKnowNothing

Remius said:


> I am still wondering about the requirements.  How many is enough and how many more would be better?
> 
> I’m not knocking the 88 one way or another.
> 
> I legit want to know what we actually need.  Can we man our NORAD commitments and still have enough for expediationary purposes if that were to be the case?
> 
> Anyone know?


I'm no expert,  and going of wiki here.  But for reference the original 98 single seat and 40 double seat equipped 7 squadrons (3 in Germany, 2 each Bagotville and Cold Lake) plus the training squadron.  We currently operate 4 + training.  If training is being outsourced 88 might be enough to add a squadron?


----------



## KevinB

Remius said:


> I am still wondering about the requirements.  How many is enough and how many more would be better?
> 
> I’m not knocking the 88 one way or another.
> 
> I legit want to know what we actually need.  Can we man our NORAD commitments and still have enough for expediationary purposes if that were to be the case?
> 
> Anyone know?


I was hoping for 140 personally.

 WRT NORAD, if the RCAF was to want to dispatch all of the F-35 (once available) for an expeditionary force inside a US Coalition - I am sure the USAF would gladly cover the gaps.
   That sort of tit for tat is done all of NATO, and I am sure it wouldn't be an issue for a short term NORAD requirement...


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> The Sim for the F-35 is pretty impressive - so your training squadron could also double as a demonstration team


I have flown the sim of the CTOL version a fair amount and the STVOL version a bit.  They are great.  We don’t need an F-35 demonstration squadron.


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> I have flown the sim of the CTOL version a fair amount and the STVOL version a bit.  They are great.  We don’t need an F-35 demonstration squadron.


Snowbirds have entered the chat -- I hear they are burning an effigy of you currently...


I was just being snarky with the Demo team comment earlier.


----------



## Dana381

SupersonicMax said:


> I have flown the sim of the CTOL version a fair amount and the STVOL version a bit.  They are great.  We don’t need an F-35 demonstration squadron.



Maybe the cf-18 will go to the demonstration squadron and keep them able to be called up to fight if needed.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Snowbirds have entered the chat -- I hear they are burning an effigy of you currently...
> 
> 
> I was just being snarky with the Demo team comment earlier.


But there probably would be an F-35 solo demo plane, like what we have now with the CF-18.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> But there probably would be an F-35 solo demo plane, like what we have now with the CF-18.


WTF - does anyone care to see a 40 year old plane - other for the train wreck factor that it may drop out of the sky?


----------



## suffolkowner

McG said:


> I like the idea of grabbing a few extra F-35 to demonstrate a little more resolve against authoritarian powers. If we can figure out how to train pilots on a reasonable timeline, then this might be my suggestion:
> View attachment 69769


cell phone thumbs


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> WTF - does anyone care to see a 40 year old plane - other for the train wreck factor that it may drop out of the sky?


The 60 year old Tutors still put on a great show


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> The 60 year old Tutors stillput on a great show


Clearly you haven't seen an F-22 team put on a show...


----------



## lenaitch

Too soon?



KevinB said:


> I was hoping for 140 personally.
> 
> WRT NORAD, if the RCAF was to want to dispatch all of the F-35 (once available) for an expeditionary force inside a US Coalition - I am sure the USAF would gladly cover the gaps.
> That sort of tit for tat is done all of NATO, and I am sure it wouldn't be an issue for a short term NORAD requirement...



We operated over 400 CF-100s in the '50s and '60s, then about 130 CF101s in the '60s-'80s (along with CF-5s and CF-104s).  The price tag goes up - the numbers come down.  At some point in the future, out sole plane and pilot will be busy.



KevinB said:


> The Sim for the F-35 is pretty impressive - so your training squadron could also double as a demonstration team


It was my understanding all along that training (and major maintenance) would be done in the US.  Could be wrong.


Now, about in-air refueling . . .


----------



## lenaitch

KevinB said:


> Clearly you haven't seen an F-22 team put on a show...


Difference between zoom-zoom and aerial ballet.


----------



## GR66

KevinB said:


> The Sim for the F-35 is pretty impressive - so your training squadron could also double as a demonstration team


What's the point of an "invisible" fighter for a demonstration team...kinda defeats the purpose, no?


----------



## dimsum

lenaitch said:


> Now, about in-air refueling . . .


It was downselected to the Airbus A330 MRTT a while ago.  That aircraft can do both boom and probe/drogue.


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> Clearly you haven't seen an F-22 team put on a show...



No, I almost saw the F-35 at London 2019. We left and were almost to the car when I saw it flying above the Diamond building. the 2.5 seconds I saw was impressive. I was so dissapointed, we left because for some reason I don't remember we thought the show was over.


----------



## suffolkowner

Czech_pivo said:


> But if you don't include the Aussie planes, then our current level of 72 operational planes would be 72-X = ? operational planes - this strengthens the argument to buy more than 88 planes.


I dont think thats right, did we not have 76 before the Austrailian purchase raising it to 94 total. So we add 18 and lose 22?


Remius said:


> I am still wondering about the requirements.  How many is enough and how many more would be better?
> 
> I’m not knocking the 88 one way or another.
> 
> I legit want to know what we actually need.  Can we man our NORAD commitments and still have enough for expediationary purposes if that were to be the case?
> 
> Anyone know?





Underway said:


> What are the calculation criteria the military uses when it goes through calculating how many jets we need?
> 
> I'm assuming something along the lines of:
> 
> X hours are required for NORAD missions.
> 6 pack for multinational missions.
> Maintenance time required per hour of flying.
> Number hours required for training
> hours of other expected missions
> Plug into computer... get 88 aircraft.
> 
> I could see the number of aircraft the CPC wanted 65 going to 88 as a function of two things.  Better information of maintenance time (aka longer time in maintenance then originally expected) and/or government direction on mission changes (more NORAD hours, a 12 pack deployability instead of a 6 pack etc...).
> 
> The SOR details aren't required here. More of a big hand small map sort of overview.


The numbers are derived from a RCAF availability and sustainability metric.(80% and 70% I dont remember which is which real life performance will obviously vary) When you multiply those two numbers together you will get the 65 fighters needed to provide the 36 fighters for NORAD. One expeditionary six pack rises the total to 77 and two six packs to 88



lenaitch said:


> Now, about in-air refueling . . .


The Airbus 330 MRTT has already been preselected as I understand it as the KC-46 didnt make the cut so easy peasy


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> WTF - does anyone care to see a 40 year old plane - other for the train wreck factor that it may drop out of the sky?



Not as funny as it might be.

2010 Lethbridge Alberta Airshow Practice



			https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2315028330


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> I dont think thats right, did we not have 76 before the Austrailian purchase raising it to 94 total. So we add 18 and lose 22?
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers are derived from a RCAF availability and sustainability metric.(80% and 70% I dont remember which is which real life performance will obviously vary) When you multiply those two numbers together you will get the 65 fighters needed to provide the 36 fighters for NORAD. One expeditionary six pack rises the total to 77 and two six packs to 88
> 
> 
> The Airbus 330 MRTT has already been preselected as I understand it as the KC-46 didnt make the cut so easy peasy


This article quotes 75, both single and double seaters.








						It's Official: Canada's CF-18 Hornet Fighters Are Set To Get New Advanced Radars
					

AN/APG-79(V)4 radars are part of a badly needed upgrade package for Canada's legacy Hornets as the country continues to struggle to buy new fighters.




					www.thedrive.com
				




Someone else on here provided information earlier that the numbers was sitting at 72.

My point is, we bought 138 F-18s 40yrs ago (when we had only 25m pop.). Now we are buying only 88 (and now we have 38m population, 50% higher). 

Do you know think that those 88 will be down to under 75 in say 25, 30yrs time? Why do we always, always buy the absolute bare minimum, unreal.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

brihard said:


> CTV’s got it now too
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberals-expected-to-launch-negotiations-to-bu



[QUOTE="brihard, post: 1734109, member: 3429"]
y-f-35-fighter-jets-1.5837647[/QUOTE]


Spencer100 said:


> As the government slides this across the finishing line......
> 
> 
> 
> Ottawa entering final talks to procure Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets: minister


According to the article it's not a done deal yet and could still fall through. Not likely mind you, but possible. And if I'm not mistaken it still has to.go before Parliament for final approval. I'm sure the NDP and BQ might have a say.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> I dont think thats right, did we not have 76 before the Austrailian purchase raising it to 94 total. So we add 18 and lose 22?
> 
> The numbers are derived from a RCAF availability and sustainability metric.(80% and 70% I dont remember which is which real life performance will obviously vary) When you multiply those two numbers together you will get the 65 fighters needed to provide the 36 fighters for NORAD. One expeditionary six pack rises the total to 77 and two six packs to 88


I feel like with this information I can make a logical deconstruction of the entire "numbers" situation.  The availability metric and sustainability metric is the entire basis for these varying numbers based on government direction to the RCAF on their missions.

Canada requires 36 fighters for NORAD.  This was the CPC COA.   The entire fleet replacement was coming during/on the heels of a big economic downturn.  The NSPS was already announced and another big ticket purchase was likely not politically palatable.  Thus when the RCAF presented their COA's the CPC went for the lowest cost options (I don't know for sure this is all supposition).

Like @suffolkowner stated:  36/.80/.70= 64.3 planes or 65 planes to ensure the NORAD mission parameters are met.

Strong Secure Engaged stated that Canada must meet its "NORAD and NATO" commitments. I know a lot of people don't put much stock in this document but for all intents and purposes, it's direction for the CAF to follow. NATO commitments meant that the calculation needed to change by 6 aircraft at a minimum but 12 is much more robust. (again supposition on closed door thinking)

 Again from @suffolkowner calculation:  48/.80/.70= 85.7 or 86 aircraft.  88 is pretty close to that number.

So there is the reasoning behind the numbers.  Do we need more aircraft for our missions?  Nope.  Not unless we expand the missions by the looks of things. Which of course we could do.  But given that it meets the assumed mission parameters why go out and get more?  At least initially we'll probably have a challenge just looking after 88.


----------



## Underway

An addendum to my post above.

FINALLY!  Getting new jets.


----------



## DBNSG

I was under the impression that Trudeau's friend Gerry had the RCAF fighter requirement study removed from the internet before he left the PMO. I however remembered the simple formula. Take the total number of A/C multiplied by 80%.That sounds correct as deep maintenance removes 1 in 5 A/C from day to day operations. My Dad used to be an RCAF transportation Officer helping to run AMU's at Shearwater and Ottawa and explained the 
CC 137 scheduling to me when I was a kid. 4 flying 1 deep fix.

 Day to day snags reduce the availability to 70% of the remaining A/C . Using that formula with the complete 138 Ship CF -18 fleet got Canada down to 77 active Fighters which I believe is what the Central European Conventional Arms treaty allowed Canada to contribute to the European theatre. 

 Will Trudeau's government commit say 12 F -35's to Lakenheath in England? 
That would improve recruitment. Base two of the coming KC -30's to Brize Norton and poof 
a NATO contribution.


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> Difference between zoom-zoom and aerial ballet.


Nope. The 22 is a ballet with some Zoom. 
  I saw the demo team in Chile several year ago.   180 turns on a dime, near hover pivots and then turn 90 to the sky hit burner and disappear upwards. 

It was the first time I had ever been in total awe at an aircraft capability.   It seemed unreal.


----------



## SupersonicMax

DBNSG said:


> I was under the impression that Trudeau's friend Gerry had the RCAF fighter requirement study removed from the internet before he left the PMO. I however remembered the simple formula. Take the total number of A/C multiplied by 80%.That sounds correct as deep maintenance removes 1 in 5 A/C from day to day operations. My Dad used to be an RCAF transportation Officer helping to run AMU's at Shearwater and Ottawa and explained the
> CC 137 scheduling to me when I was a kid. 4 flying 1 deep fix.
> 
> Day to day snags reduce the availability to 70% of the remaining A/C . Using that formula with the complete 138 Ship CF -18 fleet got Canada down to 77 active Fighters which I believe is what the Central European Conventional Arms treaty allowed Canada to contribute to the European theatre.
> 
> Will Trudeau's government commit say 12 F -35's to Lakenheath in England?
> That would improve recruitment. Base two of the coming KC -30's to Brize Norton and poof
> a NATO contribution.


Lakenheath? Pass.


----------



## suffolkowner

This is one of the studies I got the fleet numbers from, cant find the other right now but yes it was removed by Trudeau government


----------



## MilEME09

If we placed any in Europe my bet would be either Poland, or France.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Nope. The 22 is a ballet with some Zoom.
> I saw the demo team in Chile several year ago.   180 turns on a dime, near hover pivots and then turn 90 to the sky hit burner and disappear upwards.
> 
> It was the first time I had ever been in total awe at an aircraft capability.   It seemed unreal.


I saw the F22 at the Sheppard AFB air show. I literally could not believe what I was seeing. It seemed to defy physics.


----------



## FSTO

Listening to the minister of procurement dance around the question of picking the same plane the PM didn’t want just makes me feel that our Byzantine Procurement System is now set in cement and will never ever change.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> I saw the F22 at the Sheppard AFB air show. I literally could not believe what I was seeing. It seemed to defy physics.


The F22 air demo profile has significantly evolved over the years.  The Flanker was thrashed, and quite impressively to be sure, from the first air show it flew.  Smart folks did a pretty quick capability evaluation of the -27.  I think the -22’s display was deliberately watered down for years to keep folks guessing…but more recently now that others have seen it ‘do its thing’, it’s been allowed to do its thing openly more recently…very impressive!


----------



## AlexanderM

So, it's the F-35 then??









						Canada edges closer to F-35 jets deal with Lockheed Martin worth up to $15 billion | CNN
					

Canada has picked Lockheed Martin Corp as the preferred bidder to supply 88 new fighter jets, Procurement Minister Filomena Tassi said Monday, in a clear sign the US company is set to win the multibillion-dollar contract.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## RangerRay

McG said:


> Shiny new planes, European postings, and a recent Top Gun sequel should bring people to the CFRCs.


If you build it, they will come.


----------



## MilEME09

RangerRay said:


> If you build it, they will come.


well selecting a fighter does mean if we want to we could speed up some infrastructure, new air to air refueling, once the contract is signed, start sending pilots down to the states to begin training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

“88 planes isn’t enough”.

We replaced 31 Argus (that had 24+ hour endurance and significant weapon carriage capacity) with 18 Auroras (that managed just over 17hours endurance with no kill/search stores onboard).  Of those 18, 14 survived and will be Block 4 aircraft.

18 Auroras wasn’t enough.  14 is definitely not enough.

80 some tanks aren’t enough.  14 frigates and 3
Subs isn’t enough.  

Point?  The question is never how many are enough…fighters included.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> “88 planes isn’t enough”.
> 
> We replaced 31 Argus (that had 24+ hour endurance and significant weapon carriage capacity) with 18 Auroras (that managed just over 17hours endurance with no kill/search stores onboard).  Of those 18, 14 survived and will be Block 4 aircraft.
> 
> 18 Auroras wasn’t enough.  14 is definitely not enough.
> 
> 80 some tanks aren’t enough.  14 frigates and 3
> Subs isn’t enough.
> 
> Point?  The question is never how many are enough…fighters included.


we tend to keep wanting to do more with less, cause "oh this dohickey can do the same job as 4 thingamabobs" except it cannot be in four places at once. Look at logistics, we keep getting less trucks that carry more, looking at ukraine, this is showing why that is a very bad idea if your logistics are exposed to any attacks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> An addendum to my post above.
> 
> FINALLY!  Getting new jets.


Are we? Or is it a cunning plan to appear to be doing something to impress the neighbours and then declare an agreement could not be reached and further study of other options are needed. Which kicks that can down the road in the hops that the European Crisis has passed and can get on with more critical things like Climate Change Champion awards.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yup.  Someone mentioned above, “the more prices increase, the lower the number of replacements ordered becomes”.  Words to that effect.


MilEME09 said:


> we tend to keep wanting to do more with less, cause "oh this dohickey can do the same job as 4 thingamabobs" except it cannot be in four places at once. Look at logistics, we keep getting less trucks that carry more, looking at ukraine, this is showing why that is a very bad idea if your logistics are exposed to any attacks.



Sniper round…politicians aren’t SMRT enough to get this concept.


----------



## Maxman1

McG said:


> Shiny new planes, European postings, and a recent Top Gun sequel should bring people to the CFRCs.



If only we could also get an aircraft carrier like the Italian _Cavour _to go with the F-35s, either built in Italy or under license in Canada.


----------



## Weinie

KevinB said:


> Nope. The 22 is a ballet with some Zoom.
> I saw the demo team in Chile several year ago.   180 turns on a dime, near hover pivots and then turn 90 to the sky hit burner and disappear upwards.
> 
> *It was the first time I had ever been in total awe at an aircraft capability. *  It seemed unreal.


My remark was, upon a similar viewing, "It's bending the sky."


----------



## Czech_pivo

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup.  Someone mentioned above, “the more prices increase, the lower the number of replacements ordered becomes”.  Words to that effect.
> 
> 
> Sniper round…politicians aren’t SMRT enough to get this concept.


Just to put things into perspective. 
Our cost for the 138 F-18’s was 4$ billion USD and that was way before the magical accounting voodoo that is done today to inflate the initial purchase cost. Adjusting the 4$ billion USD 1982 dollars for inflation to today’s dollars works out to be 12$ billion USD.
If I divide the 138 F-18’s by 12$ billion USD we get a purchase price of 87.59$ million USD/plane.  What’s the purchase price per F-35 going to be for us? About that price, correct? 

If I take the 4$ billion in costs for the 138 F-18’s and divided that out by the 25m people who lived in Canada in 1982, it works out to be 480$/person in costs.

If I take the 17$ billion in costs for the 88 F-35’s and divide that out by the 38m people who live in Canada today, it works works to be 447$/person in costs.

It’s all bull crap. We are just the cheapest SOB’s in the world.


----------



## WLSC

Colin Parkinson said:


> Are we? Or is it a cunning plan to appear to be doing something to impress the neighbours and then declare an agreement could not be reached and further study of other options are needed. Which kicks that can down the road in the hops that the European Crisis has passed and can get on with more critical things like Climate Change Champion awards.


I would be so not surprised...


----------



## suffolkowner

I'll be pretty happy getting 88 F-35's. We have our work cut out for us just replacing the kit we have before we get carried away on some sort of Australian style expansion of capabilities


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> Listening to the minister of procurement dance around the question of picking the same plane the PM didn’t want just makes me feel that our Byzantine Procurement System is now set in cement and will never ever change.



I watched that too and it was loud and clear that that minister is the physical manifestation of everything that is wrong with our procurement system.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> I watched that too and it was loud and clear that that minister is the physical manifestation of everything that is wrong with our procurement system.


PROCESS, PROCESS, PROCESS! WE MUST PROSTRATE OURSELVES BELOW THE ALTER OF PROCESS. ALL HAIL THE PROCESS!!!!!!


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> PROCESS, PROCESS, PROCESS! WE MUST PROSTRATE OURSELVES BELOW THE ALTER OF PROCESS. ALL HAIL THE PROCESS!!!!!!



Her unfailing devotion to the preeminence of the process was utterly disgusting to witness.  

That's best example I have ever seen of how bad our procurement system is.


----------



## Quirky

Halifax Tar said:


> Her unfailing devotion to the preeminence of the process was utterly disgusting to witness.
> 
> That's best example I have ever seen of how bad our procurement system is.



Do not question the process of the state, Comrade. Government knows best. Maybe she can use her masters in religious education to pray for more equipment.


----------



## Underway

Honestly, I think she was between a rock and a hard place no matter what she said.  I was not impressed by the interview and I agree totally that a focus on process is ridiculous but we all know the true answer.

Liberals made a campaign promise to cancel the sole source and hold a competition.  I don't remember the JT soundbite exactly but "Canada doesn't need a stealth fighter that is too expensive and won't fly" or something like that.  At the time there were plenty on this website who had similar concerns.  The JSF was overcosted (per unit cost), had maintenance problems, stealth materials were peeling off, etc...

It got them votes in some places (Quebec and Manitoba) and served to differentiate them from the CPC.  And it was sufficiently different that drawing the line between a replacement competition and the cancelation of the Sea King was harder.

After their win as devout followers of deliverology, it was low-hanging fruit to pick.

Of course then after all that work to have a competition they didn't make the same mistake they did with the MH replacement and ordered a different aircraft intentionally to avoid political fallout.  They made a new mistake and got the exact same aircraft they canceled in sole sourcing.

So the minister (I would say poor minister but she's paid enough) is shoved in front of the cameras to try and make an excuse for this, and all she has is to grab onto is "fair competition to ensure money is spent correctly".  She's not wrong, no one can actually say that competition is worse than sole source.  But it still looks (and is) incredibly stupid to cancel something, spend money to see if it's correct, and then restart it.

After spending money on used CF-18 to prop up the fleet.  What were the savings we could have had if we didn't get those extra planes from Australia?


----------



## Good2Golf

Meh, they knew it was the right aircraft even before they said they’d cancel it during the 2015 campaign.

I’m just waiting for Alan Williams to now come out saying, “this makes the most sense, even though I said earlier that just because I recommended joining the JSF program in 2003 didn’t mean we would actually buy the aircraft…” blah, blah, blah.

Politics and common sense don’t often result in R=1.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> Honestly, I think she was between a rock and a hard place no matter what she said.  I was not impressed by the interview and I agree totally that a focus on process is ridiculous but we all know the true answer.
> 
> Liberals made a campaign promise to cancel the sole source and hold a competition.  I don't remember the JT soundbite exactly but "Canada doesn't need a stealth fighter that is too expensive and won't fly" or something like that.  At the time there were plenty on this website who had similar concerns.  The JSF was overcosted (per unit cost), had maintenance problems, stealth materials were peeling off, etc...
> 
> It got them votes in some places (Quebec and Manitoba) and served to differentiate them from the CPC.  And it was sufficiently different that drawing the line between a replacement competition and the cancelation of the Sea King was harder.
> 
> After their win as devout followers of deliverology, it was low-hanging fruit to pick.
> 
> Of course then after all that work to have a competition they didn't make the same mistake they did with the MH replacement and ordered a different aircraft intentionally to avoid political fallout.  They made a new mistake and got the exact same aircraft they canceled in sole sourcing.
> 
> So the minister (I would say poor minister but she's paid enough) is shoved in front of the cameras to try and make an excuse for this, and all she has is to grab onto is "fair competition to ensure money is spent correctly".  She's not wrong, no one can actually say that competition is worse than sole source.  But it still looks (and is) incredibly stupid to cancel something, spend money to see if it's correct, and then restart it.
> 
> After spending money on used CF-18 to prop up the fleet.  What were the savings we could have had if we didn't get those extra planes from Australia?



Do you mean to sound like an apologist ? 

The easy thing to do here would have been to say we we wrong and we should have done this all along.  We own it and were moving forward.  

Anything else is just smoke and mirrors to try save some political clout.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Halifax Tar said:


> Do you mean to sound like an apologist ?
> 
> The easy thing to do here would have been to say we we wrong and we should have done this all along.  We own it and were moving forward.
> 
> Anything else is just smoke and mirrors to try save some political clout.


You must come from the generation where parents raised you to own up to your mistakes, learn from them and continue to move forward. 

Sadly the trait of 'ownership' and 'responsibility acceptance' is no longer passed on from generation to generation.  This loss of maturity is leading  us to where we are today.


----------



## Quirky

Underway said:


> She's not wrong, no one can actually say that competition is worse than sole source.



We sole sourced the C-17, C-130J and now the A330MRT is heading that way. The F-35 doesn't have a true competitor in it's generation, the closest competitor was the F-22. The F-35 pick was just a formality and the competition was a complete waste of time.


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:


> the A330MRT is heading that way


They did have a competition though - just that the competitor (KC-46) was deemed not satisfactory.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> Do you mean to sound like an apologist ?


I don't appreciate the snarky inference.



> The easy thing to do here would have been to say we we wrong and we should have done this all along.  We own it and were moving forward.
> 
> Anything else is just smoke and mirrors to try save some political clout.



What do you think procurement is?  Politics.

Owning a mistake and winning an election is not normally in the overlapping part of the Ven Diagram.  It detracts from the message.  The message here is 88 new fighter jets during a war in Ukraine and when NATO wants spending to increase to 2%.  All that other stuff that happened before was about winning votes then.  This is about winning votes now.


----------



## Good2Golf

^ This.

Once people realize that procurement is first and foremost about votes and a government working to stay in power, everything else just falls into place. 

#cynicalbuttrue


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> I don't appreciate the snarky inference.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think procurement is?  Politics.
> 
> Owning a mistake and winning an election is not normally in the overlapping part of the Ven Diagram.  It detracts from the message.  The message here is 88 new fighter jets during a war in Ukraine and when NATO wants spending to increase to 2%.  All that other stuff that happened before was about winning votes then.  This is about winning votes now.



I calls em likes I sees em. 

I know full well the volume of political interference that's in our procurement process.

And it disgusts me, hence my statement(s).  And we won't get better until we demand better.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> I don't appreciate the snarky inference.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think procurement is?  Politics.
> 
> Owning a mistake and winning an election is not normally in the overlapping part of the Ven Diagram.  It detracts from the message.  The message here is 88 new fighter jets during a war in Ukraine and when NATO wants spending to increase to 2%.  All that other stuff that happened before was about winning votes then.  This is about winning votes now.


Yup, it has nothing to do with protecting Canada/NA, giving our people the best tools for the job at hand now and 30+yrs into the future. It's all a bunch of crap being run by people who actually would love nothing more to than completely dismantle and remove the CAF from existence and go back to pontificating about the latest trend of the day.


----------



## YZT580

Halifax Tar said:


> Do you mean to sound like an apologist ?
> 
> The easy thing to do here would have been to say we we wrong and we should have done this all along.  We own it and were moving forward.
> 
> Anything else is just smoke and mirrors to try save some political clout.


you are asking the impossible: an honest response!


----------



## GR66

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup.  Someone mentioned above, “the more prices increase, the lower the number of replacements ordered becomes”.  Words to that effect.


I totally agree with what you're saying, but if we're being totally honest woe be to anyone that suggests purchasing a cheaper, 80% solution alternative to the latest and greatest piece of kit that we might be able to buy more of.


----------



## suffolkowner

I dont know how we can argue against following the process from one side of our mouth and from the other side complain about political interference?

To my knowledge this is only the third procurement following the "new" process but after and throughout there remains much confusion about the steps and the decision making

MSVS-SMP
FWSAR
F35

Will we ever see anything that details on what basis the F35 was chosen?


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> I dont know how we can argue against following the process from one side of our mouth and from the other side complain about political interference?
> 
> To my knowledge this is only the third procurement following the "new" process but after and throughout there remains much confusion about the steps and the decision making
> 
> MSVS-SMP
> FWSAR
> F35
> 
> Will we ever see anything that details on what basis the F35 was chosen?


If you can get a job in the PMO you've got a 50/50 chance of finding out. Other option, start dating Katie Telford.


----------



## FSTO

Czech_pivo said:


> If you can get a job in the PMO you've got a 50/50 chance of finding out. Other option, start dating *Katie Telford*.


She's available?


----------



## MTShaw

FSTO said:


> She's available?


I hope we’re not going down that road.


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> I totally agree with what you're saying, but if we're being totally honest woe be to anyone that suggests purchasing a cheaper, 80% solution alternative to the latest and greatest piece of kit that we might be able to buy more of.


Better a smaller well equipped Military than a large useless one. Just ask the Russians


----------



## dapaterson

suffolkowner said:


> I dont know how we can argue against following the process from one side of our mouth and from the other side complain about political interference?
> 
> To my knowledge this is only the third procurement following the "new" process but after and throughout there remains much confusion about the steps and the decision making
> 
> MSVS-SMP
> FWSAR
> F35
> 
> Will we ever see anything that details on what basis the F35 was chosen?


The RFP included evaluation criteria.  Even without any classified annexes, you can probably make some reasonable inferences.


----------



## GR66

KevinB said:


> Better a smaller well equipped Military than a large useless one. Just ask the Russians


Just like most things it's not all Black and White.  For some things you need the quality or very bad things can happen.  For other things you need the quantity...or again very bad things can happen.

HIMARS and Excalibur rounds without a crap ton of regular HE to back it up?  Patriot without a bunch of Stingers?  Four nuclear subs vs ten AIP?


----------



## suffolkowner

dapaterson said:


> The RFP included evaluation criteria.  Even without any classified annexes, you can probably make some reasonable inferences.


Is the RFP available for viewing? The only thing I have read is the 60% technical merit 20% cost and 20% economic benefits. Categories so broad and general without knowing how things are weighted as to be borderline useless


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> I dont know how we can argue against following the process from one side of our mouth and from the other side complain about political interference?
> 
> To my knowledge this is only the third procurement following the "new" process but after and throughout there remains much confusion about the steps and the decision making
> 
> MSVS-SMP
> FWSAR
> F35
> 
> Will we ever see anything that details on what basis the F35 was chosen?



I will stipulate the process.  Presumably they are now happy with the steps in the process.  Let us now codify the process so that it is reproducible and transparent and known to all.   Amen.

Now, in the name of godalmighty can we pick up the pace and reduce 15 years by a day and half?


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> Better a smaller well equipped Military than a large useless one. Just ask the Russians



I don't think equipped matters as much as training. Russia seems to have good equipment but they don't know how to use it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Nicely laid out - calls a spade a spade.


John Robson: The Liberals behaved like fools over F-35 jets for years









						Google News
					

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.




					news.google.com


----------



## Halifax Tar

Czech_pivo said:


> The Liberals behaved like fools over F-35 jets for years



That's pointy


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dana381 said:


> I don't think equipped matters as much as training. Russia seems to have good equipment but they don't know how to use it.



Both matter, to be truthful.  Good operators using crappy kit also have the risk of critical mission failure.   Planes that can’t take off, AFVs that can’t make it to/past the LOD, ships that can’t sail…these are all serious concerns as well.  

You can Sim-train the blood out of me, but I’m not much good if the plane can’t launch.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> Both matter, to be truthful.  Good operators using crappy kit also have the risk of critical mission failure.   Planes that can’t take off, AFVs that can’t make it to/past the LOD, ships that can’t sail…these are all serious concerns as well.
> 
> You can Sim-train the blood out of me, but I’m not much good if the plane can’t launch.


Yeap, and in the weapons world you see a lot more crazy sh*t when a barrel is forced through its entire life span in only a few short days of high intensity combat


----------



## Maxman1

We should also look at the new T-7 Red Hawk trainer to replace the CT-114 Tutor and CT-155 Hawk.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FSTO said:


> PROCESS, PROCESS, PROCESS! WE MUST PROSTRATE OURSELVES BELOW THE ALTER OF PROCESS. ALL HAIL THE PROCESS!!!!!!


Is sad because is true 

For the record, our info-machine's version of "the talk" between CAN & USA yesterday (highlights mine) ....


> *Minister Anand updated Secretary Austin on Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project, and in particular, the Government of Canada’s decision to enter the finalization phase of the procurement process with Lockheed Martin and the United States government for 88 new F-35 fighter aircraft. Through a competitive and independent procurement process, all bids were rigorously assessed on capability, cost, and economic benefit. The F-35 emerged as the top bidder, and has proven to be a mature, capable, and interoperable aircraft.*
> 
> *Minister Anand stated that this procurement represents the most significant investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force in more than 30 years. Canada’s new fleet of fighter jets will ensure that Canada is well-equipped to defend North America into the future, and that Canada can continue to meet its commitments to NORAD and NATO.*
> 
> Minister Anand and Secretary Austin strongly condemned Russia’s ongoing attack against Ukraine, and agreed that Canada and the United States will continue to coordinate their efforts to provide Ukraine with comprehensive military assistance.
> 
> At this crucial time for global stability, Minister Anand and Secretary Austin agreed that Canada and the United States will continue to work closely together on ensuring the security of the Arctic and the North American continent more broadly.
> 
> Minister Anand reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to _the Canada-U.S. Joint Statement on NORAD Modernization_, which was issued on August 14, 2021, and discussed plans to move forward with implementation. Minister Anand stated that NORAD modernization is a key priority for the Government of Canada. Minister Anand and Secretary Austin will continue to work closely on plans to modernize NORAD – the cornerstone of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship – and Minister Anand reiterated her commitment to present a robust package to modernize NORAD in the short-term.


.... vs their info-machine's version 


> Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and his Canadian counterpart, Minister of National Defence Anita Anand, met in Brussels on March 17, 2022, to discuss their shared commitment to the strength of the NATO alliance and their unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine. Both leaders reaffirmed the close defense relationship between the United States and Canada, and agreed on the importance of strategic investments in defense capabilities.
> 
> The two leaders agreed on the importance of continued support to Ukraine as it defends itself against Russian aggression. Secretary Austin thanked Minister Anand for Canada’s prompt contributions to NATO deterrence and defense on the Eastern Flank, as well as Canada’s willingness to impose strict sanctions on Russia.


----------



## kev994

The Bread Guy said:


> Is sad because is true
> 
> For the record, our info-machine's version of "the talk" between CAN & USA yesterday (highlights mine) ....
> 
> .... vs their info-machine's version


Oh good, it’s mature now. Way better than back when it was canceled because it allegedly couldn’t fly.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

Does this mean they are creating a  CF 355 ( CF 188)  production line in Quebec some where soon and quickly?


----------



## dimsum

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Does this mean they are creating a  CF 355 ( CF 188)  production line in Quebec some where soon and quickly?


Canada already makes parts for the F-35 already - Boeing Winnipeg being one of the sites.  

I would be shocked if LM allows final assembly to be anywhere other than the US.


----------



## Spencer100

dimsum said:


> Canada already makes parts for the F-35 already - Boeing Winnipeg being one of the sites.
> 
> I would be shocked if LM allows final assembly to be anywhere other than the US.


There are already two FACO's Final Assembly and Check Out facilities.  One in Italy and one Japan.  Canada could have one and LM would do it but the cost!!


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> Canada already makes parts for the F-35 already - Boeing Winnipeg being one of the sites.
> 
> I would be shocked if LM allows final assembly to be anywhere other than the US.



As Dimsum says:



> According to the 2020 OMX Economic Impact Study, approximately 150,000 jobs will be supported in Canada through the selection of the F-35. To date, Canadian companies have been awarded high value contracts as part of the F-35 global supply chain amounting to $2 billion USD as a result of Canada’s partnership in the F-35 program. The Canadian economy is anticipated to benefit by more than $16.9B CAD over the life of the program.
> 
> Canada has been an industry partner on the F-35 program for nearly 20 years and has nearly 200 projects identified in the Industrial Participation Plan.
> 
> 110 Canadian companies have already been awarded contracts and have contributed to the development and production of the F-35. Thus far, Canadian companies invested approximately $120 million in capital investment for facility upgrades to win F-35 and maintain modern production equipment. Yet to be measured is the export opportunities already realized by small and medium-sized companies stemming from the expertise they have gained as an F-35 supplier. Being part of developing and producing the F-35 is without doubt a once in a generational experience for Canadian suppliers, innovators and aviators.








> Canadian industry has more than $2 billion USD in industrial opportunities already contracted for the F-35 Lightning II program – more than double Canada’s current investment in the F-35. Canadian companies have played a large part in the development and production of the F-35, resulting in hundreds of Canadian jobs. According to an OMX report, the program will continue to bring manufacturing and production opportunities to Canada, with an estimated 150,000 jobs supported over the life of the program.
> 
> As the F-35 transitions into full-rate production, opportunities for Canadian industry will evolve and endure throughout the life cycle of the program. Canadian industry has the opportunity to produce and sustain components and systems to a fleet that is expected to grow to more than 3,500 aircraft.












						Canada
					

The F-35A is the best value solution for replacing the CF-18 fleet and is available today to meet the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force now and into the future.




					www.f35.com
				




The economic benefits were baked in to the original programme 20 years ago.  And Canadians have been cashing that cheque ever since.


----------



## Kirkhill

My error - 25 years ago, if you want to give Chretien, the Liberals and Alan Williams credit.  Only 15 years ago if you want to give Harper and the Tories credit.




> Canada has been a participant in the F-35 JSF program since 1997. This early involvement has been providing Canadian industry with the opportunity to become a part of the F-35 JSF supply chain.
> 
> In 2006, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada signed Memoranda of Understanding containing industrial participation plans with each of the prime contractors (Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney). These agreements allow Canadian companies to compete for work on the JSF program, including the airframe, systems, engines and associated services. Opportunities include providing a wide range of manufacturing and services in areas such as major structural assemblies, electronic systems, advanced composites, high speed machining, simulation and training, tooling, and sustainment.








						F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program
					

Links to information on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter




					www.ic.gc.ca


----------



## MarkOttawa

dimsum said:


> Canada already makes parts for the F-35 already - Boeing Winnipeg being one of the sites.
> 
> I would be shocked if LM allows final assembly to be anywhere other than the US.


F-35 final assembly is done in both Italy and Japan:








						Work paused at F-35 facility in Japan due to coronavirus, Pentagon says
					

A F-35 fighter-jet factory has paused work due to ongoing concerns over the coronavirus. The F-35 jets are made at a Lockheed Martin factory in Texas but allies assemble jets for themselves at two final assembly and check out facilities in Japan and Italy.




					www.cnbc.com
				




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509020007824388096


----------



## Underway

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509020007824388096


Lost opportunity cost is a thing.  But I don't disagree with anything said there from the manufacturing and technology maturity perspective.

I guess we just dithered and bumbled our way into a good result...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Underway said:


> Lost opportunity cost is a thing.  But I don't disagree with anything said there from the manufacturing and technology maturity perspective.
> 
> I guess we just dithered and bumbled our way into a good result...


Except that from an operations point of view, we’re a decade behind our allies.  We have 0 experience in employing 5th Gen platforms.


----------



## Czech_pivo

SupersonicMax said:


> Except that from an operations point of view, we’re a decade behind our allies.  We have 0 experience in employing 5th Gen platforms.


What about the loss of X% of talent - in terms of pilots/ground crew  - who made the decision to leave over the last decade, who might have stayed, because they didn't see the future containing us flying the F-35? 

There is also the cost in money/time/resources spent obtaining the 20+ used Aussie F-18's over the last decade and begin bringing them online.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> Except that from an operations point of view, we’re a decade behind our allies.  We have 0 experience in employing 5th Gen platforms.



Hey!  Dont get in the way of mobile goal posts and spinning stories!


----------



## lenaitch

dimsum said:


> But there probably would be an F-35 solo demo plane, like what we have now with the CF-18.



I am assuming that a future CF-35 demo flight won't have the special paint and graphics that changes every year.


KevinB said:


> Nope. The 22 is a ballet with some Zoom.
> I saw the demo team in Chile several year ago.   180 turns on a dime, near hover pivots and then turn 90 to the sky hit burner and disappear upwards.
> 
> It was the first time I had ever been in total awe at an aircraft capability.   It seemed unreal.



Although I have not seen one, no doubt it is an impressive airframe,  but ballet typically is a troupe, so I prefer multiple aircraft in close formation to demonstrate flying skills. 


*****

I know little of the process, but doesn't being a member of the 'partnership' mean that we pay the current set price/aircraft?  Also, I read somewhere that being a member of the partnership precluded us from negotiating additional industrial offsets.  If either/both of these are true,  what in the world would 'final negotiations' that will apparently take a minimum of seven months entail?  I can't image a whole lot of 'Canadianization' - which we love to do - or a ton of options, beyond perhaps the drag chute that was developed for Norway.  There was some talk about a probe for the A model but don't know if that went anywhere.


----------



## dapaterson

Negotiations could include sequencing of deliveries, ancillary equipment, training slots, permanently posting pilots as instructors to training establishments...  (Note that this is my conjecture, I haven't seen any specifics).

Lots of small details that will have to be ironed out.


----------



## Underway

SupersonicMax said:


> Except that from an operations point of view, we’re a decade behind our allies.  We have 0 experience in employing 5th Gen platforms.


Hence my lost opportunity cost comment.  One hand giveth (unintentionally) and the other taketh away (intentionally).

There are costs that are not maintenance/maturity related and understand there is a lot of work and costs to catch up.

Same situation with a lot of our equipment/experience.  I expect the various RPAS programs will have the same sort of gap in usage problems.


----------



## SupersonicMax

lenaitch said:


> I can't image a whole lot of 'Canadianization' - which we love to do - or a ton of options, beyond perhaps the drag chute that was developed for Norway.  There was some talk about a probe for the A model but don't know if that went anywhere.


There is no point in getting a probe-equipped aircraft.  The A330 will be fitted with both refueling systems and US tankers used for NORAD can either be fitted with a drogue OR a boom (some can be dual use but they are few and far between), not both, which really is a problem when conducting NORAD operations with the US.  We need almost twice as many tankers…


----------



## Quirky

Czech_pivo said:


> What about the loss of X% of talent - in terms of pilots/ground crew - who made the decision to leave over the last decade, who might have stayed, because they didn't see the future containing us flying the F-35?



I never heard of technicians leaving because the gov didn't commit to the F-35. Fighter base location out in the sticks, along with all the issues surrounding it and discussed ad nauseum, was always a contributing factor. No new fighter will solve the retention issue, it might help, but there are bigger fish to fry.


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> I am assuming that a future CF-35 demo flight won't have the special paint and graphics that changes every year.
> 
> 
> Although I have not seen one, no doubt it is an impressive airframe,  but ballet typically is a troupe, so I prefer multiple aircraft in close formation to demonstrate flying skills.


The F-22 demo team flew 6 AC when I saw it, blew anything I have seen from the Snowbirds, Thunderbirds, or Blue Angles away - the ability for the aircraft to almost hover in one spot - then then do acrobatics including pivot turns while wing to wing is insane.

Seeing a lot of other AC do things makes me really sad we didn't make at least double the amount of F-22's, F/A-XX NGASF has some pretty big shoes to fill when it comes on line.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Not committing to purchase fighters earlier allowed us to pretend we have money to buy trucks or ships that we aren't going to commit to buying at the expected time of their predecessors' replacement either.


----------



## Quirky

KevinB said:


> The F-22 demo team flew 6 AC when I saw it..... then then do acrobatics including pivot turns while wing to wing is insane.



6 F-22s in formation at an air display? I didn't know that was even a thing.


----------



## KevinB

Quirky said:


> 6 F-22s in formation at an air display? I didn't know that was even a thing.


Sometimes the USAF likes to brag /power project. It was a Military show in Chile. The whole inventory of craft came down. Thunderbirds demo was right after. People actually ignored most of it.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Sometimes the USAF likes to brag /power project. It was a Military show in Chile. The whole inventory of craft came down. Thunderbirds demo was right after. People actually ignored most of it.


Ahhhhh….FIDAE.  Good times, and a great show!


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Ahhhhh….FIDAE.  Good times, and a great show!


I got stuck in meetings for half of it -- but I will say both the Chileans and the Argentinians know how to do Wine and Steak 👍
  I have a slew of contempt for their Militaries - but the food - would go again


----------



## Good2Golf

Santiago restaurants are amazing! 🥩 🍷


----------



## Grimey

KevinB said:


> but I will say both the Chileans and the Argentinians know how to do Wine and Steak


Best steak I've ever had by far was in a winery outside of Valparaiso.  The melt in your mouth variety.  The wine wasn't half bad either.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LRP trip planners be like…


----------



## OceanBonfire

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/aerospace-company-builds-parts-for-f-35-jet-lunenburg-1.6409329


----------



## dapaterson

Late entry into the competition:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1517222087173107712


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> Late entry into the competition:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1517222087173107712


Huh, Arabian hunting falcons are going extinct because the Saudi's are over-harvesting their wild populations.

The US however can build as many F-35's as it needs.


----------



## armrdsoul77

F35 still not out of the woods yet. 20 years since 1st flight.770 F35s delivered.

"...the F-35 continues to fall short of prescribed mission-capable rates, is consistently missing reliability targets and its maintenance costs have doubled."

Blistering Highlights From The Latest F-35 Sustainment Hearing


----------



## MarkOttawa

RCAF F-35A contract, first delivery, look like slipping right as, e.g., CAE demands a cut:



> *F-35 Decision Unleashes Demands For More Spending In Canada*
> 
> A fighter aircraft selection in March by the Canadian government has some aerospace suppliers ramping up for a long-deferred financial windfall, while others are lobbying Ottawa to protect training and depot maintenance capabilities that may otherwise disappear.
> 
> Contract negotiations may stretch into 2023
> First F-35 deliveries could slip one year to 2026
> The selection of the Lockheed Martin F-35A to replace a fleet of Boeing CF-18s also lets the Department of National Defense move forward with a growing list of supporting capabilities, such as similarly deferred acquisitions for tankers, training jets, uncrewed aircraft systems, maritime patrol aircraft and the modernization of the North Warning System.
> 
> A contract signing for 88 F-35As for the Royal Canadian Air Force is still months away. Filomena Tassi, minister of public services and procurement, assured a Cansec exhibition audience on June 2 that final negotiations would be complete by the end of the year. But J.R. McDonald, _Lockheed’s vice president for F-35 business development, told reporters during the event that the government-to-government talks could stretch to early 2023, with first aircraft deliveries potentially deferred by a year to 2026_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Any further detail may seem trivial compared to the 20-year search for a CF-18 replacement, however. Then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a plan to buy 65 F-35As. But the opposition Liberal Party objected to a selection without a competition, rejecting Harper’s argument that the choice flowed out of Canada’s decision in 2002 to join the F-35 development program. In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau launched a five-year competitive bidding process, which reaffirmed the predecessor’s choice 12 years after the fact.
> 
> That decade of indecision put Lockheed’s F-35 Canadian suppliers in a difficult position. Production contracts for parts and services continued and in some cases expanded, but Canadian industry remained locked out of the lucrative sustainment phase of the F-35 program.
> 
> “There were no opportunities there, but I think it will open up now,” says Shaun Horning, president and CEO of Gastops, which supplies sensors for the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine.
> 
> For its part, Lockheed is open to expanding the program’s global network of suppliers in all phases of the program. The ongoing expulsion of Turkey’s industry from the F-35 supply chain has created voids and reinforced Lockheed’s appreciation for supplier diversity.
> 
> “We have to expand our vision, so to speak, for production providers,” Lockheed’s McDonald says.
> Some Canadian industry officials are concerned that the selection of the F-35 imperils certain industrial strengths. _CAE, for example, leveraged its role as the training system supplier for the CF-18 into a global franchise and continues to operate the NATO Flying Training in Canada center in Cold Lake, Alberta. Lockheed’s internal simulator systems division, however, provides turn-key training services for the F-35. As the CF-18 fleet retires, CAE’s role as a locally based training supplier is at risk _[emphasis added].
> 
> On the eve of the Cansec exhibition, CAE executives called on the Canadian government to demand the establishment of a global F-35 training center as part of final contract negotiations with the U.S.-led Joint Program Office. Such work is often set aside as an industrial offset in international fighter deals, but the terms of Canada’s membership in the international F-35 development, production and follow-on sustainment program prohibit such non-competitive set-asides.
> 
> A _training center, which could leverage Canada’s existing training ranges and vast airspace, could be established if Trudeau’s governent ims willing to pay for more than just a CF-18 replacement_ [emphasis added].
> 
> “If you want something unique in your country, you have to ask for it,” says Jacques Morin, CAE’s vice president of business development and strategy. “If you don’t ask for it, you’re not going to get it.”
> 
> But committing to spend more on services and support for the F-35 could be difficult. In addition to a long list of airborne refueling, surveillance and air defense needs, Ottawa is also developing a new class of Canadian Surface Combatant ships for the Royal Canadian Navy and acquiring a new fighting vehicle for the army.
> 
> In 2017, Trudeau’s “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defense policy committed the Liberal government to a 70% boost in military spending over a decade. The policy paid for the new fighters, ships and fighting vehicles now in development but kept overall expenditures at around 1.4% of GDP. The government is currently updating the defense policy and must decide if a second wave of spending increases is necessary.
> https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/f-35-decision-unleashes-demands-more-spending-canada
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

The Sopwith Camel looks better and better


----------



## Kirkhill

> But committing to spend more on services and support for the F-35 could be difficult. In addition to a long list of airborne refueling, surveillance and air defense needs, *Ottawa is also* developing a new class of Canadian Surface Combatant ships for the Royal Canadian Navy and *acquiring a new fighting vehicle for the army.*



Hunh?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Kirkhill said:


> Hunh?


That also got my attention and this is what I managed to dig up.

On 2019/07/18 an RFI (W6399-19KH53/A)  was issued for "_*Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is requesting Industry feedback regarding the Next Generation Fighting Vehicle (NGFV) project for the Department of National Defence (DND) for use by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)*_."

On 2020/05/26 an update (W6399-19KH53/B)  was issued to the 2019 RFI. As part of is a demonstration of suppliers took place:

_From October 28 to November 14, 2019, vehicle demonstrations occurred in Petawawa with 4 suppliers. Each supplier was provided with the opportunity to see the demonstration route one day in advance and to participate to a two (2) day engagement (totalling 8 hours), which included the One-on-One meeting with Canada. Representatives of Canada including representatives from the Department of National Defence (DND), Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC) and an independent fairness monitor (FM) attended the One-on-One meetings and the vehicle demonstrations._

Then in 2021/07/22 a "Tender Notice - Letter of Interest (LOI)/Request for Information (RFI) (W6399-19KH53/D)" was issued. However, this time the recipientent was not the CF, but CANSOFCOM:

_The NGFV project will deliver the fighting vehicle platform component of Initiative 60 to CANSOFCOM and will replace its existing fleet of 68 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) which has been in-service since 2005 and will soon reach the end of its service life.(1)_

And finally, back in April we get another "Letter of Intent(W6399-19KH53/E) ." This time its and Invitation to Qualify (ITQ):

_1.2.1 Overview of the Procurement Process 

This ITQ is the first phase of a procurement process lead by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)5 for the NGFV Project. The purpose of this ITQ is to qualify Suppliers that have the ability to propose solutions for the NGFV Project to Canada. Interested Suppliers who can demonstrate they meet the 5 The legal name of the Department is "Department of Public Works and Government Services". “Public Services and Procurement Canada” and “PSPC” as well as "Public Works and Government Services Canada" and "PWGSC" are the common usage names. Invitation to Qualify Next Generation Fighting Vehicle Project W6399-19KH53/E Page 5 of 21 requirements at article 1.3 are invited to respond to this ITQ. (2)_

(1)ABES.PROD.PW__BL.B299.E28290.EBSU000.PDF 
(2)ABES.PROD.PW__BL.B299.E28658.EBSU000.PDF

So appears that the original RFI was for a NGFV for the CF as a whole, but somewhere along it morphed into just CANSOFCOM. And you may have noticed that while W6399-19KH53/C is not listed above; it was W6399-19KH53/C was issued but apart from saying that the tender issued 2020/11/27 had expired and doesn't say much else.


----------



## Kirkhill

Retired AF Guy said:


> That also got my attention and this is what I managed to dig up.
> 
> On 2019/07/18 an RFI (W6399-19KH53/A)  was issued for "_*Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is requesting Industry feedback regarding the Next Generation Fighting Vehicle (NGFV) project for the Department of National Defence (DND) for use by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)*_."
> 
> On 2020/05/26 an update (W6399-19KH53/B)  was issued to the 2019 RFI. As part of is a demonstration of suppliers took place:
> 
> _From October 28 to November 14, 2019, vehicle demonstrations occurred in Petawawa with 4 suppliers. Each supplier was provided with the opportunity to see the demonstration route one day in advance and to participate to a two (2) day engagement (totalling 8 hours), which included the One-on-One meeting with Canada. Representatives of Canada including representatives from the Department of National Defence (DND), Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC) and an independent fairness monitor (FM) attended the One-on-One meetings and the vehicle demonstrations._
> 
> Then in 2021/07/22 a "Tender Notice - Letter of Interest (LOI)/Request for Information (RFI) (W6399-19KH53/D)" was issued. However, this time the recipientent was not the CF, but CANSOFCOM:
> 
> _The NGFV project will deliver the fighting vehicle platform component of Initiative 60 to CANSOFCOM and will replace its existing fleet of 68 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) which has been in-service since 2005 and will soon reach the end of its service life.(1)_
> 
> And finally, back in April we get another "Letter of Intent(W6399-19KH53/E) ." This time its and Invitation to Qualify (ITQ):
> 
> _1.2.1 Overview of the Procurement Process
> 
> This ITQ is the first phase of a procurement process lead by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)5 for the NGFV Project. The purpose of this ITQ is to qualify Suppliers that have the ability to propose solutions for the NGFV Project to Canada. Interested Suppliers who can demonstrate they meet the 5 The legal name of the Department is "Department of Public Works and Government Services". “Public Services and Procurement Canada” and “PSPC” as well as "Public Works and Government Services Canada" and "PWGSC" are the common usage names. Invitation to Qualify Next Generation Fighting Vehicle Project W6399-19KH53/E Page 5 of 21 requirements at article 1.3 are invited to respond to this ITQ. (2)_
> 
> (1)ABES.PROD.PW__BL.B299.E28290.EBSU000.PDF
> (2)ABES.PROD.PW__BL.B299.E28658.EBSU000.PDF
> 
> So appears that the original RFI was for a NGFV for the CF as a whole, but somewhere along it morphed into just CANSOFCOM. And you may have noticed that while W6399-19KH53/C is not listed above; it was W6399-19KH53/C was issued but apart from saying that the tender issued 2020/11/27 had expired and doesn't say much else.



So 68 runabouts for CANSOFCOM.  I wouldn't put that into the same category as any of the RCN or RCAF projects.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:


> So 68 runabouts for CANSOFCOM.  I wouldn't put that into the same category as any of the RCN or RCAF projects.


Still it is significant. Not as big as jets or ships but to the troops that crew the vehicles.


----------



## dimsum

Unsurprisingly, Saab is complaining.  

Although why they didn't complain in March when LM became the "preferred bidder" and chose to wait 7 months is beyond me.









						Swedish jet maker complains Ottawa not following rules with F-35 negotiations
					

Swedish fighter-jet maker Saab is accusing Ottawa of not following the rules when it comes to its plan to purchase 88 F-35s.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## MTShaw

dimsum said:


> Unsurprisingly, Saab is complaining.
> 
> Although why they didn't complain in March when LM became the "preferred bidder" and chose to wait 7 months is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swedish jet maker complains Ottawa not following rules with F-35 negotiations
> 
> 
> Swedish fighter-jet maker Saab is accusing Ottawa of not following the rules when it comes to its plan to purchase 88 F-35s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


If i remember correctly, Alion’s whining when they lost the CSC com was shut down using national security law. Saab will be sent packing for the same reason.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Unsurprisingly, Saab is complaining.
> 
> Although why they didn't complain in March when LM became the "preferred bidder" and chose to wait 7 months is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swedish jet maker complains Ottawa not following rules with F-35 negotiations
> 
> 
> Swedish fighter-jet maker Saab is accusing Ottawa of not following the rules when it comes to its plan to purchase 88 F-35s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


And Leonardo complained when the Chinook was bought, though they had a hard time explaining how they were going to lift a howitzer that was a tonne heavier than their hook capacity…


----------



## YZT580

Good2Golf said:


> And Leonardo complained when the Chinook was bought, though they had a hard time explaining how they were going to lift a howitzer that was a tonne heavier than their hook capacity…


Too bad someone didn't scream when the Kingfisher was selected


----------



## suffolkowner

YZT580 said:


> Too bad someone didn't scream when the Kingfisher was selected


they did and a helicopter contract came out of it only to be cancelled/stalled


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:


> they did and a helicopter contract came out of it only to be cancelled/stalled


Kingfisher is the CC-295 SAR aircraft


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:


> Too bad someone didn't scream when the Kingfisher was selected


It was all over at that point.  The RCAF had already been dragged across the coals for implying that the C-27 was the best for the job.  Smacked down and shaped for an outcome.  One could almost hear the words…”I’ll
Take my pen and write down a number of C-27 Spartans we’ll buy…Zip! Zilch! Nada! Zero C-27s!”  

Zero ‘elicopters…

Zero C-27s…

Zero [insert capability intimated by CAF/service as being the best capability, while not suiting the politicians’ desires]…


----------



## calculus

Germany announced they were thinking of buying these things this past spring, and now have a signed agreement. WTF are our numbskulls waiting for??? Every one of these announcements moves us back further for delivery dates. 






						Germany officially joins F-35 programme with signing of LOA
					

Germany has formally joined the international Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme, with the signing of a letter of offer and acceptance...



					www.janes.com


----------



## Quirky

It doesn’t matter anyway, we don’t have the manpower to support a new fighter.


----------



## NavyShooter

That's a bit of a self-licking ice-cream cone.

No new fighter - no new people.

No new people, no ability to support legacy fighter.

No ability to support legacy fighter, no one will stay.


----------



## OldSolduer

NavyShooter said:


> That's a bit of a self-licking ice-cream cone.
> 
> No new fighter - no new people.
> 
> No new people, no ability to support legacy fighter.
> 
> No ability to support legacy fighter, no one will stay.


It is apparent that the current GoC will dither until its too expensive to purchase new fighters. DO NOT expect anything from this government UNLESS it provides jobs  bribes for a certain area of Canada that whines every time it feels it is being ignored. AND its not Alberta.....try a few provinces further east. Its fujcking disgusting.


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:


> Kingfisher is the CC-295 SAR aircraft


missed this at the time. Leonardo did challenge the decision but dropped it and managed to get a Comorant deal at the same time. Status of Comorant upgrade/fleet expansion?


----------



## NavyShooter

OK...I'll bite...we're going to continue to operate museum pieces...?









						Vought OS2U Kingfisher - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dana381

calculus said:


> Germany announced they were thinking of buying these things this past spring, and now have a signed agreement. WTF are our numbskulls waiting for??? Every one of these announcements moves us back further for delivery dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany officially joins F-35 programme with signing of LOA
> 
> 
> Germany has formally joined the international Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme, with the signing of a letter of offer and acceptance...
> 
> 
> 
> www.janes.com



They have after all saved a ton of money and a lot of teething pains by waiting so long to buy the F35.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

There's an election looming. I doubt anyone, of any political stripe, is going to take this poisoned peach on without a solid majority.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Intense Video Emerges Of Today's F-35B Crash At Fort Worth


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1603466654704406530


----------



## dimsum

armrdsoul77 said:


> Intense Video Emerges Of Today's F-35B Crash At Fort Worth
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1603466654704406530


Different variant.  We're looking at the F-35A, not the F-35B (with V/STOL capability).

Part of the issue with calling the F-35 program a huge waste of money is that it is essentially 3 types of aircraft bundled together:

F-35A:  Conventiional takeoff and landing (USAF, etc)
F-35B:  V/STOL (USMC, RN)
F-35C:  Naval variant with strengthened gear, etc (USN)

So, yes it costs tons, but would it be less than designing 3 different aircraft?  Probably, because of commonality.

Right now the vast majority of international orders is for the F-35A.  The teething pains and issues were more in the B and C models.


----------



## Spencer100

calculus said:


> Germany announced they were thinking of buying these things this past spring, and now have a signed agreement. WTF are our numbskulls waiting for??? Every one of these announcements moves us back further for delivery dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany officially joins F-35 programme with signing of LOA
> 
> 
> Germany has formally joined the international Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme, with the signing of a letter of offer and acceptance...
> 
> 
> 
> www.janes.com


Trudeau is going to have an election next year and doesn't what this in the news.  He said No F-35 but will have to eat his words in an election. So put off signing anything till after.   I would assume behind the scene things are moving along.  Everything drawn up and plans made just get though the election etc.


----------



## FJAG

Better hurry or there won't be any left.   



> Germany Becomes Latest Country to Join the F-35 Lightning II Global Team
> 
> 
> Germany Becomes Latest Country to Join the F-35 Lightning II Global Team
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadiandefencereview.com



🍻


----------



## CBH99

Spencer100 said:


> Trudeau is going to have an election next year and doesn't what this in the news.  He said No F-35 but will have to eat his words in an election. So put off signing anything till after.   I would assume behind the scene things are moving along.  Everything drawn up and plans made just get though the election


If words had calories, Trudeau would be a total fatass


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:


> Better hurry or there won't be any left.


The US is trying to make the F-35 like this generation's F-16.  I don't see them closing the line anytime soon.

Of course, I prob just jinxed it and LM will announce its closure tomorrow


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> The US is trying to make the F-35 like this generation's F-16.  I don't see them closing the line anytime soon.
> 
> Of course, I prob just jinxed it and LM will announce its closure tomorrow


You go to parties and kill conversations don't you?  No worries I'm similar.


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> You go to parties and kill conversations don't you?  No worries I'm similar.


_pushes glasses up _

Well ackshually…

🤣


----------



## FSTO

Soon, there will be an announcement soon, believe me, very soon there will be an announcement. Trust me!



			Canada will wrap fighter jet contract in ‘very short term,’ says minister


----------



## CBH99

FSTO said:


> Soon, there will be an announcement soon, believe me, very soon there will be an announcement. Trust me!
> 
> 
> 
> Canada will wrap fighter jet contract in ‘very short term,’ says minister


"Replacing our fighter jets is one of the top priorities of this government, and we will be looking to do that very soon..."

$600B in new spending since the pandemic, $200B was spent directly on Covid-related things.  (CERB, CRB, Vaccines, etc etc)

So that leaves $400B.  

We couldn't have used $9B of that to buy the jets SOONER, JT?  That was like 2.3%...

(but then again, if we did then he'd have to eat those words again!)


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> Soon, there will be an announcement soon, believe me, very soon there will be an announcement. Trust me!
> 
> 
> 
> Canada will wrap fighter jet contract in ‘very short term,’ says minister


I hope so. Otherwise you'll get upgraded Sopwith Camels with frickin laser beams.


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> I hope so. Otherwise you'll get upgraded Sopwith Camels with frickin laser beams.


Low radar cross section, advanced armament…

I don’t see a negative side here 😏


----------



## dapaterson

The acquisition of a next-Gen fighter for the CAF has a large number of challenges not discussed in most public spaces.  For example, the designers and builders of the a/c are VERY particular about its protection - so facilities and on-site security will be greatly enhanced, and must be in place before any F35 with a RCAF roundel parks in Cold Lake of Bagotville.

Add to that the iterative improvements made in the production line - early build F35s will never be FOC capable.  Buying early a/c might have had hidden costs and risks.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> The acquisition of a next-Gen fighter for the CAF has a large number of challenges not discussed in most public spaces.  For example, the designers and builders of the a/c are VERY particular about its protection - so facilities and on-site security will be greatly enhanced, and must be in place before any F35 with a RCAF roundel parks in Cold Lake of Bagotville.
> 
> Add to that the iterative improvements made in the production line - early build F35s will never be FOC capable.  Buying early a/c might have had hidden costs and risks.


Surely we are well beyond early production issues by now? 

As for security, so the jets can never be forward deployed to austere barebones places like Yellowknife or Iqaluit? (Not sure if the Hornets operated there but we've got a big area to cover)


----------



## Quirky

dapaterson said:


> The acquisition of a next-Gen fighter for the CAF has a large number of challenges not discussed in most public spaces. For example, the designers and builders of the a/c are VERY particular about its protection - so facilities and on-site security will be greatly enhanced, and must be in place before any F35 with a RCAF roundel parks in Cold Lake of Bagotville.



This is a great opportunity to re-locate the fighter base out of cold lake. What a shit hole. Attach the new base to either Edmonton or Saskatoon airports, we need to stop hiding from the public. 



FSTO said:


> (Not sure if the Hornets operated there but we've got a big area to cover)



Let the satellites and polar bears cover the area.


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> Soon, there will be an announcement soon, believe me, very soon there will be an announcement. Trust me!
> 
> 
> 
> Canada will wrap fighter jet contract in ‘very short term,’ says minister


Why? Have they run out of announcements on Arbour Report Implementation and Logistik Unicorp programs?

😖


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:


> This is a great opportunity to re-locate the fighter base out of cold lake.


I wish I was as optimistic as you.



Quirky said:


> Attach the new base to either Edmonton or Saskatoon airports, we need to stop hiding from the public.


That's assuming that Edmonton and Saskatoon airports want the extra traffic, noise, infrastructure, weapons depots, etc.  I can already imagine the complaints that "the jets are too loud".  

Fun fact - the F-35 is a very loud aircraft.  









						Noise Level Comparisons: F-35 and other Aircraft
					

F-35 is 4 Times Louder than F-16 (Maximum Loudness) According to the Air Force EIS Vermont  This data has not been made available for Truax EIS F-35 Final EIS Volume 1 from 2013 The Air Force did n…




					www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org


----------



## Quirky

dimsum said:


> That's assuming that Edmonton and Saskatoon airports want the extra traffic, noise, infrastructure, weapons depots, etc.



And boost to local economy that comes with it. Who wants money right.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> As for security, so the jets can never be forward deployed to austere barebones places like Yellowknife or Iqaluit? (Not sure if the Hornets operated there but we've got a big area to cover)


The Hornets can operate out of there, as well as Inuvik.  They are Forward Operating Locations.


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> Low radar cross section, advanced armament…
> 
> I don’t see a negative side here 😏


Another thought - the original stealth fighter/bomber/recce a/c - The Mosquitoe.


----------



## MTShaw

Quirky said:


> This is a great opportunity to re-locate the fighter base out of cold lake. What a shit hole.


Cold Lake is a shit hole, and so is the base. Thank you for your service my ass.






						An Examination of Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake (4 Wing)—Report - Canada.ca
					

ombudsman, national defence, canadian armed forces, government of canada, defence team, defence community, caf, dnd, report




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Dana381

dapaterson said:


> The acquisition of a next-Gen fighter for the CAF has a large number of challenges not discussed in most public spaces.  For example, the designers and builders of the a/c are VERY particular about its protection - so facilities and on-site security will be greatly enhanced, and must be in place before any F35 with a RCAF roundel parks in Cold Lake of Bagotville.
> 
> Add to that the iterative improvements made in the production line - early build F35s will never be FOC capable.  Buying early a/c might have had hidden costs and risks.



You might be on to something,

Maybe the reason the F35 contract isn't signed yet is because the Americans don't trust our security? After all our PM idolizes the Chinese dictator and we have had a significant number of security leaks in the last decade.

It wasn't that long ago we had Chinese military personal watching our training








						WARMINGTON: Communist Chinese troops observed military exercises on Canadian soil
					

The Department of National Defence has confirmed China’s People’s Liberation Army was indeed on Canadian soil in February of 2018 for the Canadian Armed Forces…




					torontosun.com


----------



## suffolkowner

I thought they already signed the contracts to begin building new base infrastructure for Cold Lake and Bagotville


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> The Hornets can operate out of there, as well as Inuvik.  They are Forward Operating Locations.


Will the F35 need more infrastructure if they are to operate at these forward locations?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

FSTO said:


> Will the F35 need more infrastructure if they are to operate at these forward locations?



A lot of the FOLs were last updated at the tail end of the Cold War. They also have become staging areas for everyone from our ARCGs, the Rangers, the RCMP, the local Cadet Corps, and anyone else. 

I imagine many communities would be not too happy to have armed presence patrols because .......F-35


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Dana381 said:


> You might be on to something,
> 
> Maybe the reason the F35 contract isn't signed yet is because the Americans don't trust our security? After all our PM idolizes the Chinese dictator and we have had a significant number of security leaks in the last decade.


I'm pretty sure that every country that is flying the F-35 (or ordered the F-35) has at one time or another had spy scandals where military/politicians/security personnel were discovered to be spying for the Russians or Chinese or in one US case the Israelis.


----------



## Good2Golf

Dana381 said:


> Maybe the reason the F35 contract isn't signed yet is because the Americans don't trust our security? After all our PM idolizes the Chinese dictator and we have had a significant number of security leaks in the last decade.


I think it’s because he’s trying to kick the cam down the road past the Spring election…we’ll end up getting them, no question.  Trudeau just wants it to appear a soft acquisition, not an “I just signed the contract” albatross around his neck for the election.


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:


> I think it’s because he’s trying to kick the cam down the road past the Spring election…we’ll end up getting them, no question.  Trudeau just wants it to appear a soft acquisition, not an “I just signed the contract” albatross around his neck for the election.


With a recurring 18-month election cycle the next election is always just around the corner.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> I think it’s because he’s trying to kick the cam down the road past the Spring election…we’ll end up getting them, no question.  Trudeau just wants it to appear a soft acquisition, not an “I just signed the contract” albatross around his neck for the election.


But he also has to balance how it will play out when a CF-18 falls out of the sky killing a bunch of people…


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> But he also has to balance how it will play out when a CF-18 falls out of the sky killing a bunch of people…


Knowing Trudeau, he’d figure a way to blame it on law-abiding gun owners.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> But he also has to balance how it will play out when a CF-18 falls out of the sky killing a bunch of people…


I wrote a letter to the editor over 30 years ago when the RCAF or whatever the air guys were called were looking to replace the Sea Kings. I stated the PM should have to address personally the family of the crews that died when they were killed in crashes because of mechanical failure due to age. I still feel the same today WRT to the 18s.


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> I wrote a letter to the editor over 30 years ago when the RCAF or whatever the air guys were called were looking to replace the Sea Kings. I stated the PM should have to address personally the family of the crews that died when they were killed in crashes because of mechanical failure due to age. I still feel the same today WRT to the 18s.


And the lack of GBAD, ATGM’s, plus the Frigates etc.


----------



## Quirky

KevinB said:


> But he also has to balance how it will play out when a CF-18 falls out of the sky killing a bunch of people…



There is no immediate danger of that happening.



MTShaw said:


> Cold Lake is a shit hole, and so is the base. Thank you for your service my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Examination of Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake (4 Wing)—Report - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> ombudsman, national defence, canadian armed forces, government of canada, defence team, defence community, caf, dnd, report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca



Heard it got a Starbucks though.   Cold Lake would be an excellent FIFO FOL for 2 week stints.....out of main operating base.


----------



## CBH99

Quirky said:


> This is a great opportunity to re-locate the fighter base out of cold lake. What a shit hole. Attach the new base to either Edmonton or Saskatoon airports, we need to stop hiding from the public.
> 
> 
> 
> Let the satellites and polar bears cover the area.


AMEN 🙏

I've thought that for ages.  Build a separate military part to the airports of either city, like many American airports have.  

Make sure they have their own runways & all that still so they don't impede civilian traffic, and can be used in an emergency if a plane needs to land & can't wait for ground traffic to clear.

Not only would the public profile of the RCAF go way up, the attrition rate would drop dramatically.


(Edmonton airport is surprisingly tiny for being the international airport for a decent sized city.  I know they are modestly expanding it currently, but they could double the size of it & it would still be on the smaller side.)




dimsum said:


> Fun fact - the F-35 is a very loud aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noise Level Comparisons: F-35 and other Aircraft
> 
> 
> F-35 is 4 Times Louder than F-16 (Maximum Loudness) According to the Air Force EIS Vermont  This data has not been made available for Truax EIS F-35 Final EIS Volume 1 from 2013 The Air Force did n…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org


Holy crap! 😳  4 times louder?  

Okay, that's not N illegitimate concern when it comes to noise then...

Guess building the new facilities at CFB Edmonton it is then!



(Goodbye Cold Lake.  Good riddance.  The local economy will do just fine without us there)


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Guess building the new facilities at CFB Edmonton it is then!


If only the Army hadn’t built all its buildings on the Space Shuttle’s alternate runway.. 🙄


----------



## armrdsoul77

I visited Cold Lake over the summer for the airshow. The community seems very proud and supportive of the base. It  has natural security with black fly police for the summer and brutal cold for the winter. Being close to a big air weapons range must mean more actual training time(jets would return 30-40 mins after taking off due to low fuel I imagine).


----------



## MTShaw

armrdsoul77 said:


> I visited Cold Lake over the summer for the airshow. The community seems very proud and supportive of the base. It  has natural security with black fly police for the summer and brutal cold for the winter. Being close to a big air weapons range must mean more actual training time(jets would return 30-40 mins after taking off due to low fuel I imagine).


A series of governments has let Cold Lake down. The people there are wonderful. The infrastructure, quarters etc are horrible. The place lined with asbestos an a wall can’t be opened with the huge effort to keep the asbestos friable that nothing gets fixed. Etc etc.

That‘s what I meant by Shit Hole. I wasn’t personal. And not mean’t as such. 

People living in an around that base deserve better.  One of our most important base therefore some of the most important people. 

I’m actually not an asshole in person.


----------



## Spencer100

Is not the future worry more going to be coming from West coast than over the top?  Russia won't be a threat in the future as their Armed Forces are gutted.  Yes they will have a few TU-95 (May be not) to fly around but they are a going to be a spent force for sometime.  

What would be the attack flight of the PLAAF H-20?  Over top like airliners? Or something different?


----------



## MilEME09

Apparently the first 16 have to be ordered by the end if the year to stay  schedule









						Defence Department gets OK to spend $7 billion on 16 F-35 fighter jets: CP sources
					

The Department of National Defence has quietly received approval to buy 16 F-35 fighter jets and related gear for a price tag of $7 billion.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:


> Apparently the first 16 have to be ordered by the end if the year to stay  schedule
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defence Department gets OK to spend $7 billion on 16 F-35 fighter jets: CP sources
> 
> 
> The Department of National Defence has quietly received approval to buy 16 F-35 fighter jets and related gear for a price tag of $7 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


Quietly is the important part......that is one of the biggest clue we are going to have an election in 2023.   When does the government not make a big deal out of spending money?  But this file is Kryptonite.  You would think they would make a big deal about Canada's commitment to NATO etc.   Nope.....Between, "No f-35", Boeing/Bomber, 2 eyes and most bidders pulling out.  They have made a hash of the whole file.  

Oh and the ordering in batches......what's the over/under on getting the whole 88? 

And yes I get that the production of the F-35 is in lots so batches may make sense.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> Oh and the ordering in batches......what's the over/under on getting the whole 88?


It says in the article that ordering in tranches/batches isn't a new thing.

I don't think them releasing it quietly would mean an election is near.  Commitment to NATO would be a great reason for LPC to announce it publicly, and saying something like "after further understanding of what the F-35 brings to the table, the GoC believes it is the best choice" yadayada.

The stuff about other bidders isn't necessarily political either.  CANUS is a thing and some of the bidders would have had more of a challenge meeting the requirements.


----------



## MTShaw

Spencer100 said:


> Quietly is the important part......that is one of the biggest clue we are going to have an election in 2023.   When does the government not make a big deal out of spending money?  But this file is Kryptonite.  You would think they would make a big deal about Canada's commitment to NATO etc.   Nope.....Between, "No f-35", Boeing/Bomber, 2 eyes and most bidders pulling out.  They have made a hash of the whole file.
> 
> Oh and the ordering in batches......what's the over/under on getting the whole 88?
> 
> And yes I get that the production of the F-35 is in lots so batches may make sense.


Every expensive Program is dynamite. Why would there be an election in 2023?


----------



## OldSolduer

MTShaw said:


> A series of governments has let Cold Lake down. The people there are wonderful. The infrastructure, quarters etc are horrible. The place lined with asbestos an a wall can’t be opened with the huge effort to keep the asbestos friable that nothing gets fixed. Etc etc.
> 
> That‘s what I meant by Shit Hole. I wasn’t personal. And not mean’t as such.
> 
> People living in an around that base deserve better.  One of our most important base therefore some of the most important people.
> 
> I’m actually not an asshole in person.


I have been to Cold Lake three times, only to visit. I found the PMQs to be not so good, the base itself isolated. It is not where I would like to go.


----------



## Spencer100

MTShaw said:


> Every expensive Program is dynamite. Why would there be an election in 2023?



The clue is that the government is keeping it so quiet.  The missteps on this file can be traced straight back to the current PM.  Can not say its Harper fault when you buying that same damn thing with a seven years delay. (that may have been a good thing in some ways IE the first ones are not combat coded)  Then the Boeing Bombardier thing is not a good look as all it did was see the end of the 3 third largest OEM implode.  Bombardier is not a winning name for the electorate outside of Quebec. So bring that up is a non starter.   Then lastly if this was a good file for the PM the Liberals would be announcing it from the rooftops as they are fulling their NATO, NORAD commitments seeing that they are not is a big tell.  They don't want this file to see light but they also have to move on it from an international point of view.   If there was no election 2023 they would have announced it knowing that by 2025 everyone will have forgotten.


----------



## MTShaw

Spencer100 said:


> The clue is that the government is keeping it so quiet.  The missteps on this file can be traced straight back to the current PM.  Can not say its Harper fault when you buying that same damn thing with a seven years delay. (that may have been a good thing in some ways IE the first ones are not combat coded)


 Mixed blessing. To be fair, the Harper government had their 6 years too. Many people in Canada believe that defence is an option, whether a idealistic staunch conservative or painfully naive NDP followers. 


Spencer100 said:


> Then the Boeing Bombardier thing is not a good look as all it did was see the end of the 3 third largest OEM implode.



It did prevent from the RCAF flying around in F-18s forever. The government will call an election when it sees fit, of course. I don’t know if the public is as senstive to sticker shoc/m as it war in 2009 (300-400 billion frigate program as an example).


----------



## MTShaw

Spencer100 said:


> The clue is that the government is keeping it so quiet.


They may have leaked by accident on purpose. Being a leak on this file could seriously f@ck up your life. Military and all. I worked for the the government and am still at risk for prosecution under  Security of Information Act. I wouldn’t leak a thing without explicitly told to do it In writing. 

And I retired in 2016.


----------



## MilEME09

MTShaw said:


> They may have leaked by accident on purpose. Being a leak on this file could seriously f@ck up your life. Military and all. I worked for the the government and am still at risk for prosecution under  Security of Information Act. I wouldn’t leak a thing without explicitly told to do it In writing.
> 
> And I retired in 2016.


It's Ottawa, the wall have ears, and the ears have ears


----------



## CBH99

MTShaw said:


> Every expensive Program is dynamite. Why would there be an election in 2023?


What Spencer said, plus Liberal MP’s were quietly told the Friday before last to start fundraising after the holidays, as there will most likely be an election in the spring.  

But 🤫🤐 mum is the word…

(Confirmed by a friend of mine who is currently a Liberal MP & hates Trudeau’s guts


----------



## MTShaw

CBH99 said:


> What Spencer said, plus Liberal MP’s were quietly told the Friday before last to start fundraising after the holidays, as there will most likely be an election in the spring.
> 
> But 🤫🤐 mum is the word…
> 
> (Confirmed by a friend of mine who is currently a Liberal MP & hates Trudeau’s guts


Like I said, the current government can do it in the fall of 2024 if they think they can win.

OK guys, none of us are fans of our current PM. We should, however, leave the vitriol and bile. It will scare away left leaning people who are interested in defence in general and the F-35 specifically who could be allies In the future. 

I made that mistake on then JSS sub-forum and pushed a person away. I won’t do that again.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> What Spencer said, plus Liberal MP’s were quietly told the Friday before last to start fundraising after the holidays, as there will most likely be an election in the spring.
> 
> But 🤫🤐 mum is the word…
> 
> (Confirmed by a friend of mine who is currently* a Liberal MP & hates Trudeau’s guts*



You know what, being a good Canadian (mostly politically agnostic), a person like that would probably get my vote


----------



## suffolkowner

$7B for 16 seems like a lot. Im not too worried about the 88 its going to take time to get there and we need to find the people


----------



## Maxman1

Hopefully that includes all the other equipment, training and lifetime support, rather than just the base aircraft.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

suffolkowner said:


> $7B for 16 seems like a lot. Im not too worried about the 88 its going to take time to get there and we need to find the people


That includes the new hangars we have to build, plus weapons and spares.


----------



## dimsum

Maxman1 said:


> Hopefully that includes all the other equipment, training and lifetime support, rather than just the base aircraft.


From the article:



> The Treasury Board approval covers an initial set of 16 F-35s, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, as well as spare parts, weapons and various startup costs associated with obtaining new jets, such as building new facilities.


----------



## suffolkowner

For some reason I thought they were doing the infrastructure separately.  Its a funny way of accounting are the other 72 not going to have the infrastructure proportioned to them?


----------



## MTShaw

suffolkowner said:


> For some reason I thought they were doing the infrastructure separately.  Its a funny way of accounting are the other 72 not going to have the infrastructure proportioned to them?


I didn’t think that Air and Infra swapped logs  There used to be separate programs for new Hangars under the blueprint Infra in the DCA settings. Those programmed are no longer under Infra or air.






						Project by Defence Capability Investment Area - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

Defence Capability Investment Areas (DCIAs) are smaller constituent components of DCAs. For example, avionics are a DCIA of the Air DCAs. Projects often include several DCIAs




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca
				




The short and medium range missiles are still present under Missile Systems, though the BVRAAM program is not there. The former two might get subsumed. Who knows.






						Project by Defence Capability Investment Area - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

Defence Capability Investment Areas (DCIAs) are smaller constituent components of DCAs. For example, avionics are a DCIA of the Air DCAs. Projects often include several DCIAs




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca
				




I haven’t seen this much change this quickly since I started checking in on these things.


----------



## SupersonicMax

suffolkowner said:


> For some reason I thought they were doing the infrastructure separately.  Its a funny way of accounting are the other 72 not going to have the infrastructure proportioned to them?


Some parts of the infrastructure are under FFCP, parts under DCFI and a couple of standalone (but important) items as part of base projects. It is a bit of a mess but at least the money is there.


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> $7B for 16 seems like a lot. Im not too worried about the 88 its going to take time to get there and we need to find the people


It’s not…if it includes infra, FSims, initial provisioning and in-service support for the first 20 years.

Reference point: $5B for 15 CH-147F Chinooks….just big green helicopter without missiles. 

$7B for 16 5th Gen fighters isn’t bad at all…


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:


> Some parts of the infrastructure are under FFCP, parts under DCFI and a couple of standalone (but important) items as part of base projects. It is a bit of a mess but at least the money is there.


It's a bit of a mess....

Bug?  Or feature?


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> It’s not…if it includes infra, FSims, initial provisioning and in-service support for the first 20 years.
> 
> Reference point: $5B for 15 CH-147F Chinooks….just big green helicopter without missiles.
> 
> $7B for 16 5th Gen fighters isn’t bad at all…


When do we get the Poseidons and Wedgetails?


----------



## OldSolduer

I have a question:

How much fuel does this thing use in an hour? Just curious.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> You know what, being a good Canadian (mostly politically agnostic), a person like that would probably get my vote



Moi aussi!  If the Libs would chuck Trudno and Freeland in the trash, they would have me sold that they have what it takes to effectively run this Country.



OldSolduer said:


> I have a question:
> 
> How much fuel does this thing use in an hour? Just curious.


You don't want to know 😉.


----------



## Ostrozac

OldSolduer said:


> I have a question:
> 
> How much fuel does this thing use in an hour? Just curious.


According to an estimate published in the Norwegian media — 5600 litres an hour.









						The Next Threat to the Stealth F-35? Global Warming.
					

Norwegian environmentalists are complaining that the country’s new F-35s, which will replace Norway’s aging fleet of F-16 fighters, will generate too many greenhouse gases.




					nationalinterest.org


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> When do we get the Poseidons and Wedgetails?


Soon, at least the P-8s.  E-7s would be added capability, but we’ll see how the direction from our remote overlords plays out.


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> When do we get the Poseidons and Wedgetails?


When the 737 line is closing and our order is pending.  

So the answer is never.


----------



## Quirky

Ostrozac said:


> According to an estimate published in the Norwegian media — 5600 litres an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Next Threat to the Stealth F-35? Global Warming.
> 
> 
> Norwegian environmentalists are complaining that the country’s new F-35s, which will replace Norway’s aging fleet of F-16 fighters, will generate too many greenhouse gases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org



F*cking hippies. Its a fighter jet not a honda.


----------



## OldSolduer

Quirky said:


> F*cking hippies. Its a fighter jet not a honda.


Don’t forget the climate change preachers


----------



## MTShaw

Ostrozac said:


> According to an estimate published in the Norwegian media — 5600 litres an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Next Threat to the Stealth F-35? Global Warming.
> 
> 
> Norwegian environmentalists are complaining that the country’s new F-35s, which will replace Norway’s aging fleet of F-16 fighters, will generate too many greenhouse gases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org


Wow. Those hippies pot is extra strong.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Soon, at least the P-8s.  E-7s would be added capability, but we’ll see how the direction from our remote overlords plays out.



Or perhaps we will continue to man NORAD and NATO AWACS?



> Another unique aspect of NORAD is the fact that Canadian and U.S. personnel are spread throughout units that support the NORAD mission on both sides of the border. In the three regions, there are USAF personnel stationed at CANR headquarters, and Canadians at CONR, ANR and NORAD headquarters.* Canadians are also posted with squadrons flying the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma and Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska*, working with the air defence sectors in CONR and serving in units at other bases across the U.S. The same is true for Americans serving in CANR – it is truly an integrated system between the two militaries.








						NORAD: Canada’s role in the most integrated defence partnership of the modern age - News Article  - Royal Canadian Air Force - Canada.ca
					

What is NORAD, and what do we really know about it? More importantly for Canadians, what impact does it have on Canada?




					www.canada.ca
				












						Home
					

The E-3A Component is NATO's first integrated, multi-national flying unit, providing rapid deployability, airborne surveillance, command, control and communication for NATO operations.




					awacs.nato.int
				













						It’s the Wedgetail: Air Force to buy E-7 to replace AWACS
					

Boeing's Wedgetail, now flown by the Royal Australian Air Force, has long been seen as the top contender for the job.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## CBH99

OldSolduer said:


> I have a question:
> 
> How much fuel does this thing use in an hour? Just curious.


According to Wikipedia, it burns 2.3 metric f**ktons per hour while airborne


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Soon, at least the P-8s.  E-7s would be added capability, but we’ll see how the direction from our remote overlords plays out.


There hasn’t been any real commotion about Canadian needs for E-7’s down here that I’ve heard voiced anywhere (unlike the P-8).  I suspect that is an asset we don’t see a need for you to have.
   The AWACS duties in Canada have been always conducted by USAF NORAD tasked AC.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> There hasn’t been any real commotion about Canadian needs for E-7’s down here that I’ve heard voiced anywhere (unlike the P-8).  I suspect that is an asset we don’t see a need for you to have.
> The AWACS duties in Canada have been always conducted by USAF NORAD tasked AC.


I was wondering about its ELINT and SIGINT capacity as well as its Battle Management  for surface application rather than its pure AWACS role.


----------



## CBH99

Kirkhill said:


> I was wondering about its ELINT and SIGINT capacity as well as its Battle Management  for surface application rather than its pure AWACS role.


If the CP-140 can do ISR stuff over land now, I'm assuming the P8 could also perform that role if required?

(RCAF types, how well is the 140 doing in that role so far?)


----------



## FJAG

Ostrozac said:


> According to an estimate published in the Norwegian media — 5600 litres an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Next Threat to the Stealth F-35? Global Warming.
> 
> 
> Norwegian environmentalists are complaining that the country’s new F-35s, which will replace Norway’s aging fleet of F-16 fighters, will generate too many greenhouse gases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org


Which is miniscule and inconsequential compared to the fuel burned by commercial airliners every day.

🍻


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> It’s not…if it includes infra, FSims, initial provisioning and in-service support for the first 20 years.
> 
> Reference point: $5B for 15 CH-147F Chinooks….just big green helicopter without missiles.
> 
> $7B for 16 5th Gen fighters isn’t bad at all…


So I am curious what the next batch will go for. With a price of $80M will it just include what is needed spares wise for the aircraft? So Down to $3.5Billion for the next batch of 16? Seems like a funny way of accounting/announcing


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> There hasn’t been any real commotion about Canadian needs for E-7’s down here that I’ve heard voiced anywhere (unlike the P-8).  I suspect that is an asset we don’t see a need for you to have.
> The AWACS duties in Canada have been always conducted by USAF NORAD tasked AC.


You would think the Liberals would want us to have some E-7's, it means being able to contribute without any messy combat and you get to sit near the adult table.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> I was wondering about its ELINT and SIGINT capacity as well as its Battle Management  for surface application rather than its pure AWACS role.





Colin Parkinson said:


> You would think the Liberals would want us to have some E-7's, it means being able to contribute without any messy combat and you get to sit near the adult table.


Yes probably something that Canada should have invested in in the past as well. 

I don’t think it’s an easy capability to just try to grow from scratch though, and frankly I suspect it would cut into the much needed P-8 acquisition.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Yes probably something that Canada should have invested in in the past as well.
> 
> I don’t think it’s an easy capability to just try to grow from scratch though, and frankly I suspect it would cut into the much needed P-8 acquisition.



@Eye In The Sky 

I got the sense that the CP-140s had been tottering along that path over Syria and Iraq.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> @Eye In The Sky
> 
> I got the sense that the CP-140s had been tottering along that path over Syria and Iraq.


The P-8 can do that too.   But I’d say a RQ-4 could probably do that better… 

   There are many other aspects the E-3 and E-7 offer than the 140 and P-8 don’t do, but again Canadians fly on USAF NORAD AWACS already.


----------



## kev994

suffolkowner said:


> So I am curious what the next batch will go for. With a price of $80M will it just include what is needed spares wise for the aircraft? So Down to $3.5Billion for the next batch of 16? Seems like a funny way of accounting/announcing


I suspect it’s more palatable as a bunch of small purchases. Doesn’t seem as newsworthy.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> The P-8 can do that too.   But I’d say a RQ-4 could probably do that better…
> 
> There are many other aspects the E-3 and E-7 offer than the 140 and P-8 don’t do, but again Canadians fly on USAF NORAD AWACS already.



There's a difference between riding shotgun for your buddy and driving your own car.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> There's a difference between riding shotgun for your buddy and driving your own car.


We don’t think you have a license


----------



## Kirkhill

kev994 said:


> I suspect it’s more palatable as a bunch of small purchases. Doesn’t seem as newsworthy.



Buy them in 6 packs of <500 Million a piece and nobody will notice.  Add in a new hangar from time to time.  A new simulator.  A batch of spares.  A refit.  An upgrade....

All penny ante stuff that happens every day without fanfare unless the PMO needs a press release.


----------



## suffolkowner

kev994 said:


> I suspect it’s more palatable as a bunch of small purchases. Doesn’t seem as newsworthy.





Kirkhill said:


> Buy them in 6 packs of <500 Million a piece and nobody will notice.  Add in a new hangar from time to time.  A new simulator.  A batch of spares.  A refit.  An upgrade....
> 
> All penny ante stuff that happens every day without fanfare unless the PMO needs a press release.


So if you take at least some estimates of $19 Billion for the 88 fighters subtract the $7B for 16 and are left with $12B for 72. Seems more palatable. Just another case of our muddled procurement communication


----------



## kev994

suffolkowner said:


> So if you take at least some estimates of $19 Billion for the 88 fighters subtract the $7B for 16 and are left with $12B for 72. Seems more palatable. Just another case of our muddled procurement communication


But if I do this it’s contract splitting. 🙄. Maybe we only require 16, and maybe next year we have a different requirement for 16 more.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> If the CP-140 can do ISR stuff over land now, I'm assuming the P8 could also perform that role if required?



Yup.  it can, understanding it isn’t specialized for it like the USN P-3 AIP or LSRS variants.



CBH99 said:


> (RCAF types, how well is the 140 doing in that role so far?)



It can do it and did in Libya, Iraq and Syria but isn’t as capable as more modern(ized) crewed aircraft and RPAs (in some aspects for RPAs).

** just to clarify, the CP140 does limited (in comparison to specialized ELINT) ELINT and does not do SIGINT.  The 140 does not do AW&C.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> We don’t think you have a license



Many a true word spoke in joke....


----------



## MilEME09

kev994 said:


> But if I do this it’s contract splitting. 🙄. Maybe we only require 16, and maybe next year we have a different requirement for 16 more.


Apparently we needed to place this order to stay on schedule? Maybe with all these other nations cutting orders we had an opportunity to cut the line? And get jets sooner?


----------



## Quirky

Getting them sooner doesn’t work when all the hangars aren’t built yet, never mind training pilots and maintainers that we don’t have. If we are going to model our support around the USAF, we will need hundreds of new people. I don’t think the RCAF is ready for this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

…unless you’re keeping them at your father-in-laws place and putting people there…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup.  it can, understanding it isn’t specialized for it like the USN P-3 AIP or LSRS variants.
> 
> 
> 
> It can do it and did in Libya, Iraq and Syria but isn’t as capable as more modern(ized) crewed aircraft and RPAs (in some aspects for RPAs).
> 
> ** just to clarify, the CP140 does limited (in comparison to specialized ELINT) ELINT and does not do SIGINT.  The 140 does not do AW&C.



I meant to say does not do COMINT vice SIGINT.


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> Buy them in 6 packs of <500 Million a piece and nobody will notice.  Add in a new hangar from time to time.  A new simulator.  A batch of spares.  A refit.  An upgrade....
> 
> All penny ante stuff that happens every day without fanfare unless the PMO needs a press release.


And the PMO doesn't want this press release. As stated above.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:


> …unless you’re keeping them at your father-in-laws place and putting people there…



I believe that most of the countries that bought F35s originally took delivery of their first aircraft in the US at a US training establishment.   And have left them there while their people are trained on US soil.   And the first UK F35B pilots flew off USMC and USN decks.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> I believe that most of the countries that bought F35s originally took delivery of their first aircraft in the US at a US training establishment.   And have left them there while their people are trained on US soil.   And the first UK F35B pilots flew off USMC and USN decks.


So what your saying is the RCAF already has the 4 seasons somewhere in California booked


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:


> So what your saying is the RCAF already has the 4 seasons somewhere in California booked


That was the first line item.  

But joking aside.  I would think a large part of the future training will be moved down south.


----------



## MilEME09

Spencer100 said:


> That was the first line item.
> 
> But joking aside.  I would think a large part of the future training will be moved down south.


Makes sense to me , a JSF air training plan to pool training resources would save cost


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> So what your saying is the RCAF already has the 4 seasons somewhere in California booked


More like Arizona.

Luke AFB.


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Makes sense to me , a JSF air training plan to pool training resources would save cost


Agreed.  Makes sense to me too.  

A pool of well qualified instructors now, a pool of simulators, and soon (enough) will have enough seasoned instructors from partner nations that will have different lessons to share with the rest.  

For example, lessons learned by Japanese pilots about their interactions with Chinese systems will potentially be different than lessons learned by British pilots interacting with Russian systems, etc - will make for a much richer training environment than we could ever offer if we trained our pilots up here on our own.

Same benefits will be found when it comes to systems security as well, with lots of crucial information to be shared & lessons to be learned.  


_People can rag on the US all they want, but they really are the leader that forces the western world to get its crap together_


----------



## childs56

MilEME09 said:


> Apparently we needed to place this order to stay on schedule? Maybe with all these other nations cutting orders we had an opportunity to cut the line? And get jets sooner?


The manufacturer always stated they could and would ramp up production lines for us if made the order. The US was willing to modify their delivery schedule if required for us to get delivery faster. Makes one wonder if they want us to get some jets, kick the crap out of them, hour them out and use our lessons learned to make things better, similar to the Hornets.


----------



## OldSolduer

Quirky said:


> Getting them sooner doesn’t work when all the hangars aren’t built yet, never mind training pilots and maintainers that we don’t have. If we are going to model our support around the USAF, we will need hundreds of new people. I don’t think the RCAF is ready for this.


I said a good number of years ago to the leadership of every unit in 38 Bde that you can buy all the kit an army needs - but are no good if you have no troops to use them. 
I should have said that to a few more people.

Anyways - shit or get off the pot. Your greatest resource is the people.


----------



## Rifleman62

I was living in the area close to Luke AFB during the Winters. Tons of community support for the F-35 training program. Every day 2, 3, 4 sometimes 6 aircraft flew over my house several times. Occasional sonic boom. Old article., 2019.

Here's why the skies around Luke Air Force Base are getting noisier

GLENDALE (Phoenix) 
Here's why the skies around Luke Air Force Base are getting noisier​The Republic | azcentral.com *5 Feb 2019*







As skies around Luke Air Force Base get busier and noisier, the base wants West Valley residents who live nearby to know that this is the new norm. The base's F-35 program is growing, as planned. With more planes and more pilots to train, there's more training flights each day, and the time between flights — and noise from an overhead plane — is shrinking.

*The base hit a milestone in January.* For the first time, *there were more than 1,000 F-35 flights from the base in one month*, said Becky Heyse, a base spokeswoman. Also last month, *the base saw a dramatic increase in noise complaints* from those living around the base, Heyse said. She declined to provide the number of complaints in January. In all of 2018, there were about 80, according to numbers provided by Luke near the end of the year. The number of complaints coming in so far this month seem more normal, Heyse said.

But the number of flights, and the noise, will continue to grow as the program grows. Luke officials are asking residents for their continued support, Heyse said. "The program has been as successful as it has been because we have this community support," she said.



Five years into F-35 program

Luke is located north of Camelback Road and west of Litchfield Road in west Glendale. It was a mainstay for F-16s during that jet's heyday. The base is now* phasing out its F-16 program as its F-35 program grows*. In the last few months, it reached another milestone: The number of F-35s surpassed the number of F-16s on base. After receiving its first F-35 in 2014, *the base is now up to 85 F-35s*. *The plan is to build out the inventory to a total of 144 F-35s. *The base has 77 F-16s after dropping from a peak of more than 200.

Luke trains pilots from around the world, and, in total, *trains 70 percent of the world's F-35 pilots. *The pilots are trained on planes from all of the F-35 partner countries, which are the U.S., Australia, Norway, Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands. The base is also training pilots from the Republic of Korea. On Friday, it received its first Dutch F-35, Heyse said.

The base graduates about 105 F-35 pilots per year, and about 98 F-35 maintainers per year, according to November data provided by Luke. Luke, along with the rest of the U.S. Air Force, faces a shortage in pilots and pilot instructors.



Noise doesn't bother some

Surprise (Phoenix) Councilman Chris Judd, who has lived near the base for about 15 years, said he hasn't noticed an increase in flights lately. He said noise from the flights is "just part of living" in his district. *F-35s are louder than the F-16s* that long-time residents may have been used to. Luke officials aren't sure why complaints jumped last month, but they have their guesses, Heyse said.

It was colder, and planes sound louder when it's cold. The base shut down one of two runways for construction in January, which may have changed what certain residents heard. And there weren't as many flights taking place in December during the holidays, so in January residents may have been more inclined to notice when flights picked back up again. Judd said his neighbors don't complain to him about the noise. In fact, he said, *complaining about it is "almost socially unacceptable."*

*It's common in the communities around Luke to refer to it as the sound of freedom.*


----------



## kev994

I love the sign at the main gate of MCAS Cherry Point:


----------



## Quirky

The key to noise complaints is to ignore them.


----------



## Good2Golf

Quirky said:


> The key to noise complaints is to ignore them.


Or complain at your peril…






						Honor: Capt. Jeremy Fresques, USAF (KIA)
					

Got this in my inbox this morning. Bet Mr. MacRae wishes he had not written this letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic. THE QUESTION Letter appearin



					www.military-quotes.com


----------



## calculus

Seems like there is a new radar planned for the F35. Wonder if our first batch of 16 will have it? I guess it depends on if we get Block 4s for those first 16...









						F-35 Will Get New Radar Under Massive Upgrade Initiative
					

The new AN/APG-85 advanced active electronically scanned array radar will be compatible with all variants of the new Block 4 F-35s.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Dana381

Protest held in Montreal against purchase of F-35 fighter jets - Montreal | Globalnews.ca
					

Activists are holding rallies across the country to oppose Canada's plan to buy several new fighter jets. In Montreal, a demonstration took place downtown.




					globalnews.ca
				




😡😡😡

Maybe it's time we organize a protest to BUY the F-35 quickly, and in much larger numbers. This is ridiculous. Why does no one seem concerned about our security?


----------



## Quirky

Dana381 said:


> Why does no one seem concerned about our security?



Fortress North America baby!


----------



## CBH99

Dana381 said:


> Protest held in Montreal against purchase of F-35 fighter jets - Montreal | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Activists are holding rallies across the country to oppose Canada's plan to buy several new fighter jets. In Montreal, a demonstration took place downtown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 😡😡😡
> 
> Maybe it's time we organize a protest to BUY the F-35 quickly, and in much larger numbers. This is ridiculous. Why does no one seem concerned about our security?


I think we should have an F-35B (or two) slowly hover across the protest, high enough that nobody can throw
 anything at it 😈🤷🏼‍♂️


So these people are protesting us getting fighter jets at all, I’m guessing?

That’s okay.  Stupid people will be stupid.  Let the sheep protest the farmer’s purchase of sheepdogs if they wish…


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Dana381 said:


> Protest held in Montreal against purchase of F-35 fighter jets - Montreal | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Activists are holding rallies across the country to oppose Canada's plan to buy several new fighter jets. In Montreal, a demonstration took place downtown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 😡😡😡
> 
> Maybe it's time we organize a protest to BUY the F-35 quickly, and in much larger numbers. This is ridiculous. Why does no one seem concerned about our security?



Hey, those 23 peoples' opinions matter a lot to this decision. Obviously...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dana381 said:


> Protest held in Montreal against purchase of F-35 fighter jets - Montreal | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Activists are holding rallies across the country to oppose Canada's plan to buy several new fighter jets. In Montreal, a demonstration took place downtown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 😡😡😡
> 
> Maybe it's time we organize a protest to BUY the F-35 quickly, and in much larger numbers. This is ridiculous. Why does no one seem concerned about our security?



Organize a protest to protest protestors…that’ll learn ‘em!


----------



## Dana381

rmc_wannabe said:


> Hey, those 23 peoples' opinions matter a lot to this decision. Obviously...



"As for the coalition, organizers are planning to hold rallies in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Ontario from Friday to Sunday.

They will also unfurl a banner on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill."

Our government is all about public opinion. Remember that Trudeau rules by opinion poles. If no one speaks against this then he will believe Canadians are on board.


----------



## suffolkowner

calculus said:


> Seems like there is a new radar planned for the F35. Wonder if our first batch of 16 will have it? I guess it depends on if we get Block 4s for those first 16...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 Will Get New Radar Under Massive Upgrade Initiative
> 
> 
> The new AN/APG-85 advanced active electronically scanned array radar will be compatible with all variants of the new Block 4 F-35s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com











						Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Finalize Lot 15-17 Agreement, Capping a Year of International Growth
					

/PRNewswire/ -- The F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin have finalized the contract for the production and delivery for up to 398 F-35s for $30...




					www.prnewswire.com
				




"Lot 15-17 aircraft will be the first to include Technical Refresh-3 (TR-3), the modernized hardware needed to power Block 4 capabilities. TR-3 includes a new integrated core processor with greater computing power, a panoramic cockpit display and an enhanced memory unit."

"The agreement includes 145 aircraft for Lot 15, 127 for Lot 16, and up to 126 for the Lot 17 contract option, including the first F-35 aircraft for Belgium, Finland and Poland."

as near as I can figure the APG-85 will be introduced at the end of the lot 17 contract option which along with lot 16 looks like LM might want to bump up and that from lot 15/2023 forward block 4 will be supported. So maybe we can get in on the 2025 action  for the APG-85? 

2023-lot 15-145-TR3
2024-lot 16-127-TR3
2025-lot 17-126-TR3 and APG-85 (for 7?)


----------



## FJAG

> Defence Department gets OK to spend $7 billion on 16 F-35 fighter jets: CP sources
> 
> 
> The Department of National Defence recently received quiet approval to spend $7 billion on 16 F-35 fighter jets and related gear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca



🍻


----------



## FJAG

> Canada officially buying F-35 fighter jet for $19B to replace CF-18s
> 
> 
> Defence Minister Anita Anand says Canada is officially buying the F-35 fighter jet to replace its aging CF-18s, ending the years-long search where it first began. Canada had announced plans to buy the F-35 back in 2010, before politics and government mismanagement scuttled that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca



🍻


----------



## ArmyRick

Eye In The Sky said:


> Organize a protest to protest protestors…that’ll learn ‘em!


Of all the things the woke activist crowd protest these days, I don't think stopping the F35 is really on their radar. This seems to be a very small group. Not to mention most Canadians I know nowadays have no delusional belief that we "peacekeepers". Our participation in the Afghanistan war changed that. 
Now if we were talking a protest for indigenous people, the climate, anti-hate, against anything conservative than I assure you much of the left will support that. 

Add to it, most Canadians are pretty disgusted at Putins invasion of the Ukraine and might actually look favourably at purchasing new fighter jets. Obviously the average Canadian has no problem with excessive government spending (or Trudeau would have been booted by now)


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:


> 🍻


Infographic from the announcement 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1612476995325284354

Some reporter actually asked why we need 88 of them, like wow, frankly 88 isn't enough, 4 years until first delivery also means we have time to get our infrastructure in order before they arrive.


----------



## Remius

MilEME09 said:


> Some reporter actually asked why we need 88 of them, like wow, frankly 88 isn't enough, 4 years until first delivery also means we have time to get our infrastructure in order before they arrive.


People have no concept of how much or why.  It needs to be properly explained.  Best argument I once used was that we needed them because if we weren’t prepared to protect our airspace someone else would.  That pretty much shut down the conversation.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Well... This didn't age well 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Well... This didn't age well
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791


----------



## RaceAddict

Vancouver woman starts petition to have social justice assessment of F-35 purchase
					

'The procurement of these fighter jets is antithetical to feminist foreign policy and diverts public funds away from necessary social programs like healthcare, education and housing,' said BC resident Sarah




					www.westernstandard.news
				






> “The procurement of these fighter jets is antithetical to feminist foreign policy and diverts public funds away from necessary social programs like healthcare, education and housing,” said Rohleder in a Thursday petition.


----------



## MTShaw

RaceAddict said:


> Vancouver woman starts petition to have social justice assessment of F-35 purchase
> 
> 
> 'The procurement of these fighter jets is antithetical to feminist foreign policy and diverts public funds away from necessary social programs like healthcare, education and housing,' said BC resident Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.westernstandard.news


Even if we wanted to listen to these assholes, the Americans have a much longer petition. 

They are an insult to principled liberalism.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Everybody has freedom of expression in Canada.  No matter how much I scratch my head at their expressing.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RaceAddict said:


> Vancouver woman starts petition to have social justice assessment of F-35 purchase
> 
> 
> 'The procurement of these fighter jets is antithetical to feminist foreign policy and diverts public funds away from necessary social programs like healthcare, education and housing,' said BC resident Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.westernstandard.news



Supervisor of CAF Staff Officer who (allegedly) did GBA+ analysis on the file be like....


----------



## calculus

Deal for 88 F-35s inked. The interesting part, found at the bottom of the following article, is we will apparently be getting the Block 4 versions,



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769


----------



## Czech_pivo

daftandbarmy said:


> Supervisor of CAF Staff Officer who (allegedly) did GBA+ analysis on the file be like....


Hmmm, Go Fund Me page to raise airfare for her to fly to Iran and protest there?


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> Infographic from the announcement
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1612476995325284354
> 
> Some reporter actually asked why we need 88 of them, like wow, frankly 88 isn't enough, 4 years until first delivery also means we have time to get our infrastructure in order before they arrive.


88 is no where near enough - simply apply the 'normal' number of attrition to fighter aircraft over a 30yr period and see how many will be servaible 15yrs out, 20yrs out, etc etc.


----------



## MTShaw

Halifax Tar said:


> Everybody has freedom of expression in Canada.  No matter how much I scratch my head at their expressing.


absolutely


----------



## Quirky

Czech_pivo said:


> 88 is no where near enough - simply apply the 'normal' number of attrition to fighter aircraft over a 30yr period and see how many will be servaible 15yrs out, 20yrs out, etc etc.



To think the original purchase was 65...


----------



## Czech_pivo

Quirky said:


> To think the original purchase was 65...


Makes the Liberals look like warmongers, lol.....


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> 88 is no where near enough - simply apply the 'normal' number of attrition to fighter aircraft over a 30yr period and see how many will be servaible 15yrs out, 20yrs out, etc etc.


144 was the original Hornet number was it not?
  and that was way too low...

Admittedly 88 F-35 and then 100 F-15EX would be fairly decent.

If you can find the pilots


----------



## Quirky

KevinB said:


> If you can find the pilots



...and techs. We don't have nearly enough for our F-18s alone.


----------



## Kirkhill

MTShaw said:


> Even if we wanted to listen to these assholes, the Americans have a much longer petition.
> 
> They are an insult to principled liberalism.



If so they have been insulting principled liberalism for a long time - at least since the days of Gladstone and MacDonald.

Some of the leading lights were to be found in the Women's Christian Temperance Movement, The United Church of Canada, The Women's Institute and the Suffrage Movement.  They have their mainstream supporters.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> 144 was the original Hornet number was it not?
> and that was way too low...
> 
> Admittedly 88 F-35 and then 100 F-15EX would be fairly decent.
> 
> If you can find the pilots


138.


R2D2 would fly it….and comes with a pre-approved call-sign!


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> 144 was the original Hornet number was it not?
> and that was way too low...
> 
> Admittedly 88 F-35 and then 100 F-15EX would be fairly decent.
> 
> If you can find the pilots


138 CF18's - 40 of which where 2 seater trainers, leaving 98 for the primary role of fighter/interceptor. 

They've had roughly a 15% attrition rate in terms of crashes over the years.  Apply that to 15-20yrs in the future and we'll not have enough left for NORAD or NATO requirements. 

During GW1 we deployed 26 CF18's, Kosovo conflict we deployed 18, Libya it was 7 , 6 to Iraq for dealing with ISIS and now to Romania we deploy 6 - notice a trend here?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> 88 is no where near enough - simply apply the 'normal' number of attrition to fighter aircraft over a 30yr period and see how many will be servaible 15yrs out, 20yrs out, etc etc.


You know they did the math on this right?

Somewhere on this very thread is the breakdown of the numbers needed.  Enough to constantly do training, the NORAD mission and multiple six pack deployments overseas.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> 88 is no where near enough - simply apply the 'normal' number of attrition to fighter aircraft over a 30yr period and see how many will be servaible 15yrs out, 20yrs out, etc etc.



Is the F35 going to be the right solution 30 years out from now?  If it is will it still be in production (probably based on current policy and the F16 history).

I'm more interested now in the purchase of munitions of all types, including air launched missiles but also surface launched systems (Ground and Sea).

Considering where we are 88 isn't bad.
We also need
Tankers and Strategic Transports - CC150 replacements
LRPA - CP140 replacements
Cargo Aircraft - CC130, A400M, CC177s, 777X
Uninhabited Aircraft
Satellites

SAR aircraft (CH-149/CC-138/CC-115/CC-295/CC-130H replacements)

Rotary Wing aircraft

And, of course, munitions.

88 doesn't sound bad from here.

Especially when other nations are operating their F35s in small patrols, from small squadrons and not launching them in swarms.


----------



## QV

Underway said:


> You know they did the math on this right?
> 
> Somewhere on this very thread is the breakdown of the numbers needed.  Enough to constantly do training, the NORAD mission and multiple six pack deployments overseas.


Well they probably forgot to account for attrition, repairs, etc. Just like how other units forgot to account for leave, injuries, courses, and deployments when they did the math on staffing level minimums at certain units...


----------



## Underway

QV said:


> Well they probably forgot to account for attrition, repairs, etc. Just like how other units forgot to account for leave, injuries, courses, and deployments when they did the math on staffing level minimums at certain units...


You're assuming that the number is wrong. I posit that whatever numbers us random plebs on this site come up with are wrong.


----------



## dapaterson

With the F35 program ongoing, there is the ability, in the future, to buy replacement aircraft from the production line to replace attrition.


----------



## CBH99

Dana381 said:


> "As for the coalition, organizers are planning to hold rallies in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Ontario from Friday to Sunday.
> 
> They will also unfurl a banner on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill."
> 
> Our government is all about public opinion. Remember that Trudeau rules by opinion poles. If no one speaks against this then he will believe Canadians are on board.


Uuuuhhhhh…bruh…

We are onboard.  Like all of us are onboard...


----------



## CBH99

RaceAddict said:


> Vancouver woman starts petition to have social justice assessment of F-35 purchase
> 
> 
> 'The procurement of these fighter jets is antithetical to feminist foreign policy and diverts public funds away from necessary social programs like healthcare, education and housing,' said BC resident Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.westernstandard.news


She wrote a petition to start an 'analysis on the social justice impact of buying fighter jets...'

If ever a cat thought it was a dog...


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> You're assuming that the number is wrong. I posit that whatever numbers us random plebs on this site come up with are wrong.


Garbage in = Garbage out.
  Meaning I’m sure the number works for the rationale. I just think the rationale sucks.


----------



## Furniture

Underway said:


> You're assuming that the number is wrong. I posit that whatever numbers us random plebs on this site come up with are wrong.


You have far more faith in the system than I do if you think the lower number is based on anything but a start point of "What is the highest number we can argue for that is going to be politically acceptable", rather than "What is the number we need to actually do the things the GoC expects us to do over the next 40 years, while also accounting for attrition through training and combat losses".


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> Garbage in = Garbage out.
> Meaning I’m sure the number works for the rationale. I just think the rationale sucks.


The original from the Conservatives was what... 65 or something?

The current number is 88 aircraft.

The calc IIRC was based on something like this:
Edit:  see below for the calculations... went back in time to find the info...


----------



## Underway

Found the post...  It was from @suffolkowner and I did the math on the requirements.

The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

Cut and paste below on the math...

@suffolkowner 's info


> The numbers are derived from a RCAF availability and sustainability metric.(80% and 70% I dont remember which is which real life performance will obviously vary) When you multiply those two numbers together you will get the 65 fighters needed to provide the 36 fighters for NORAD. One expeditionary six pack rises the total to 77 and two six packs to 88



my math...


> I feel like with this information I can make a logical deconstruction of the entire "numbers" situation. The availability metric and sustainability metric is the entire basis for these varying numbers based on government direction to the RCAF on their missions.
> 
> Canada requires 36 fighters for NORAD. This was the CPC COA. The entire fleet replacement was coming during/on the heels of a big economic downturn. The NSPS was already announced and another big ticket purchase was likely not politically palatable. Thus when the RCAF presented their COA's the CPC went for the lowest cost options (I don't know for sure this is all supposition).
> 
> Like @suffolkowner stated: 36/.80/.70= 64.3 planes or 65 planes to ensure the NORAD mission parameters are met.
> 
> Strong Secure Engaged stated that Canada must meet its "NORAD and NATO" commitments. I know a lot of people don't put much stock in this document but for all intents and purposes, it's direction for the CAF to follow. NATO commitments meant that the calculation needed to change by 6 aircraft at a minimum but 12 is much more robust. (again supposition on closed door thinking)
> 
> Again from @suffolkowner calculation: 48/.80/.70= 85.7 or 86 aircraft. 88 is pretty close to that number.


----------



## Quirky

Assuming 410 is stood down and all training is done on sims and in-units, that leaves 22 aircraft per gun squadron. I’m not a betting man, but that’s awfully close to having more aircraft than pilots to fly them.


----------



## QV

You’re right. That number is probably right for the fighter force Canada intends to have going forward considering what Canada thinks it needs to do with a fighter force.


----------



## lenaitch

RaceAddict said:


> Vancouver woman starts petition to have social justice assessment of F-35 purchase
> 
> 
> 'The procurement of these fighter jets is antithetical to feminist foreign policy and diverts public funds away from necessary social programs like healthcare, education and housing,' said BC resident Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.westernstandard.news


Wow. 36 signatures!  With a bullet.

She wants a government study and the purchase cancelled.  So why the study?  I'll bet she works for a non-profit and has a degree in women's studies.


----------



## Quirky

It’s something about fighter jets that makes people go all rheeeeeeee!

Reply from the same website:









						KRAYDEN: Thank God the F-35 is coming because defence should not be about politics or Trudeau
					

"But this is about national defence and the Royal Canadian Air Force and we need to applaud the fact that the feds are going to spend $19 billion for 88




					www.westernstandard.news


----------



## brihard

Quirky said:


> ...and techs. We don't have nearly enough for our F-18s alone.


Out of curiosity, any sense of whether a ‘cool, new’ fighter might promote retention, or help attract new techs who may then stick it out?


----------



## Quirky

brihard said:


> Out of curiosity, any sense of whether a ‘cool, new’ fighter might promote retention, or help attract new techs who may then stick it out?



Depends on individual situations and how dedicated they are to shiny new toys, at least with the CF18 you had the incentive to ride in the back. That’ll be gone with the F-35. Will a new fighter be enough to offset the shitty posting to cold lake? Doubt it. You still come back to all the issues the CAF is dealing with, plus the isolation in Cold Lake. Can’t speak for Bagotville, but I don’t believe they have the same problems.  Cold lake will always be cold lake and I don’t see a Starbucks or Wendy’s improving quality of life for everyone.

Even hockey players have cities they won’t play in, despite the millions teams offer. Why play in Edmonton when Dallas or Florida is calling?


----------



## brihard

Quirky said:


> Depends on individual situations and how dedicated they are to shiny new toys, at least with the CF18 you had the incentive to ride in the back. That’ll be gone with the F-35. Will a new fighter be enough to offset the shitty posting to cold lake? Doubt it. You still come back to all the issues the CAF is dealing with, plus the isolation in Cold Lake. Can’t speak for Bagotville, but I don’t believe they have the same problems.  Cold lake will always be cold lake and I don’t see a Starbucks or Wendy’s improving quality of life for everyone.


Yeah, fair. I hadn’t considered that aspect of it. Do you guys specialize early in your career into one airframe, and spend the bulk of your time as working techs on that same airframe? Or is there opportunity to switch it up (and get out of Cold Lake)? Are Anglophones still able to work the airframe in Bagotville or is bilingualism required?


----------



## Quirky

brihard said:


> Yeah, fair. I hadn’t considered that aspect of it. Do you guys specialize early in your career into one airframe, and spend the bulk of your time as working techs on that same airframe? Or is there opportunity to switch it up (and get out of Cold Lake)? Are Anglophones still able to work the airframe in Bagotville or is bilingualism required?



There are always opportunities to get out, but it seems cold lake is a minimum 10 years before you are even considered for a posting. At the 10 year mark you should be at least a MCpl and a SME in your field. At that point you can be posted anywhere as either a tech, instructor, CFLRS, recruiting, etc. Pte- Cpl you are pretty much stuck, those ranks see the worst attrition rate.

I don’t know the official language profile for Bagotville, but the anglos I know that went learned French anyway. Most people that leave Cold Lake are tired of the fighter (CF-18) world. F-35 could change that.


----------



## brihard

Quirky said:


> There are always opportunities to get out, but it seems cold lake is a minimum 10 years before you are even considered for a posting. At the 10 year mark you should be at least a MCpl and a SME in your field. At that point you can be posted anywhere as either a tech, instructor, CFLRS, recruiting, etc. Pte- Cpl you are pretty much stuck, those ranks see the worst attrition rate.
> 
> I don’t know the official language profile for Bagotville, but the anglos I know that went learned French anyway. Most people that leave Cold Lake are tired of the fighter (CF-18) world. F-35 could change that.


Thanks for the insight- it’s a part of CAF I know practically nothing about.

10 years in Cold Lake? Yeah… Not calculated to promote retention.


----------



## RDBZ

lenaitch said:


> Wow. 36 signatures!  With a bullet.
> 
> She wants a government study and the purchase cancelled.  So why the study?  I'll bet she works for a non-profit and has a degree in women's studies.


It might seem a little judgemental to say "only in Canada," but seriously, only in Canada......


----------



## RangerRay

Halifax Tar said:


> Well... This didn't age well
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791


One promise I’m glad he broke. Just wish he didn’t dither about it.


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> Thanks for the insight- it’s a part of CAF I know practically nothing about.
> 
> 10 years in Cold Lake? Yeah… Not calculated to promote retention.


Look at it this way though, the F-35 is the cutting edge tech, unlike the F-18, how much better does it look on civi street to have that under your belt vs other aircraft? Let's be realistic we can't keep people long term but maybe 10 years is enough? Set them up for a civi career we can't compete with any way pay wise.


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:


> I don’t know the official language profile for Bagotville, but the anglos I know that went learned French anyway. Most people that leave Cold Lake are tired of the fighter (CF-18) world. F-35 could change that.


There is no specific language requirement for Bagotville.  I know folks who had near-zero French who got posted there.

It was a rough go until they (and their families) learned French, or just stuck around the Anglos.  That being said, those who did learn French really liked the area.


----------



## calculus

This infographic is interesting. Note the version we'll be getting will have the capability to internally load 6 AMRAAM, versus the 4 carried in the current version.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> You know they did the math on this right?
> 
> Somewhere on this very thread is the breakdown of the numbers needed.  Enough to constantly do training, the NORAD mission and multiple six pack deployments overseas


I'm sure it's the same 'logic' that says 15 CSC will be able to replace 4 destroyers and 12 frigates. Or the same logic that thinks 2 AOR's across 2 oceans is enough for 15 CSC, 6 AOPS, 4 Vic's and a dozen Kingstons?  

I have zero reason to believe that the F35's will not be asked to fly the same number of years as the CF18's have been.  As its been pointed out we bought 138 of them - 98 single seaters and another 40 for training.  In addition we went out and bought another 18 from Australia for a grand total of 156 planes.  Of that number we have approximately 76 serviceable - less than 50%. If we follow that trend 45yrs out from now we'll have around 40 F35's serviceable - is 40 enough for us to meet NORAD and NATO commitments? Of the 40, how many are airworthy at any one time - half? 2/3? 1/3? 

Churchill asked Air Vice Marshall Park at the peak of the Battle of Britain - 'What other reserves have we?' Park replied - 'There are none.' 

As for the 6 pack deployments - 30yrs ago we deployed 26 to Kuwait and then 18 Kosovo 10yrs later.  Now we are down to deploying 6 planes - notice the trend?  Does 6 planes allow us to sit with the adults or will the kiddies? Does 6 planes do much towards keeping us in the G7?  In 5 Eyes, which is quickly morphing into 3 Eyes because us the Kiwi's are not pulling our weight?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Found the post...  It was from @suffolkowner and I did the math on the requirements.
> 
> The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
> 
> Cut and paste below on the math...
> 
> @suffolkowner 's info
> 
> 
> my math...


We went from the original batch of 138, added another 18 from Australia for a total of 156 - we have around 76 considered operational now - that's over 50% of the planes written off.  

With no reason to suggest that things will be different 40yrs from now in terms of how future governments and the CAF run things, we'll be down to about 40 F35's.  Will those 40 odd planes meet NORAD and NATO needs then?  Of those 40 odd planes, how many of them would be in 'deep maintenance' on a daily basis?  How many on a daily basis would be under 'light maintenance'? Leaving how available to be scrambled or deployed on any given day?


----------



## ArmyRick

Can we hire soon to be retired Captain (Navy) Pete "Maverick" Mitchell who is soon retiring from the United States Navy to be like the head of the F35 fighter pilot training program? He is got a pretty good resume and can totally rock a pair of mirror sunglasses.


----------



## dimsum

ArmyRick said:


> Can we hire soon to be retired Captain (Navy) Pete "Maverick" Mitchell who is soon retiring from the United States Navy to be like the head of the F35 fighter pilot training program? He is got a pretty good resume and can totally rock a pair of mirror sunglasses.


Nope - he wasn’t qualified on the F-35 in the movie 😏


----------



## ArmyRick

dimsum said:


> Nope - he wasn’t qualified on the F-35 in the movie 😏


Wasn't he? Or did I miss something? I thought they didn't use the F35 because it was GPS reliant or some wizardy thing like that?


----------



## desindarfur

Maybe this shows my age. The F35 purchase reminds me of the Sea King/EH101 fiasco of the Nineties. There was a signed contract to replace the Sea Kings with the Westland EH101. The problem was the deal had made by the Mulroney PCs. The Liberals cancelled the deal after they came to office, and paid a substantial penalty ($150 million?). The Sea King was already well past it's best before date at the time. The Liberals dithered for the rest of the decade before buying an air/sea rescue verson of the EH101. They eventually bought a Sea King replacement from Sikorsky.


----------



## NavyShooter

King Solomon is purported to have said:

"There is nothing new under the sun."

I think we're seeing another example of this here...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thankfully our adversaries/potential adversaries are limiting their #s to match ours so we won’t have any issue just buying 88.


desindarfur said:


> Maybe this shows my age. The F35 purchase reminds me of the Sea King/EH101 fiasco of the Nineties. There was a signed contract to replace the Sea Kings with the Westland EH101. The problem was the deal had made by the Mulroney PCs. The Liberals cancelled the deal after they came to office, and paid a substantial penalty ($150 million?). The Sea King was already well past its best before date at the time. The Liberals dithered for the rest of the decade before buying an air/sea rescue verson of the EH101. They eventually bought a Sea King replacement from Sikorsky.



I thought it was $500 million.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Thankfully our adversaries/potential adversaries are limiting their #s to match ours so we won’t have any issue just buying 88.
> 
> 
> I thought it was $500 million.


 Four Hundred and seventy-eight million dollars to be precise.


----------



## Dana381

$887,531,339.56 in todays money!


----------



## CBH99

brihard said:


> Out of curiosity, any sense of whether a ‘cool, new’ fighter might promote retention, or help attract new techs who may then stick it out?


My sense is that it certainly won’t hurt…

It may even attract more techs to the RCAF, but on short term contracts, as they get experience on next generation aircraft before leaving for the private sector.

(Kids are taught basic coding in school now, and basic coding & cyber jobs with the GoC _start_ at $100,000 a year…I have a hunch the F-35 and it’s various upgrades over the decades will lend some valuable experience to people getting into those fields.)

🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## CBH99

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm sure it's the same 'logic' that says 15 CSC will be able to replace 4 destroyers and 12 frigates. Or the same logic that thinks 2 AOR's across 2 oceans is enough for 15 CSC, 6 AOPS, 4 Vic's and a dozen Kingstons?
> 
> I have zero reason to believe that the F35's will not be asked to fly the same number of years as the CF18's have been.  As its been pointed out we bought 138 of them - 98 single seaters and another 40 for training.  In addition we went out and bought another 18 from Australia for a grand total of 156 planes.  Of that number we have approximately 76 serviceable - less than 50%. If we follow that trend 45yrs out from now we'll have around 40 F35's serviceable - is 40 enough for us to meet NORAD and NATO commitments? Of the 40, how many are airworthy at any one time - half? 2/3? 1/3?
> 
> Churchill asked Air Vice Marshall Park at the peak of the Battle of Britain - 'What other reserves have we?' Park replied - 'There are none.'
> 
> As for the 6 pack deployments - 30yrs ago we deployed 26 to Kuwait and then 18 Kosovo 10yrs later.  Now we are down to deploying 6 planes - notice the trend?  Does 6 planes allow us to sit with the adults or will the kiddies? Does 6 planes do much towards keeping us in the G7?  In 5 Eyes, which is quickly morphing into 3 Eyes because us the Kiwi's are not pulling our weight?


As the next generation of military tech comes online, it’s inevitably more expensive.  

Ignoring inflation, what was used in something as recent as Vietnam isn’t even in the same league as stuff arming the world’s militaries today.  

In peace time, we can only expect governments to care so much & invest so much.


The one thing we can all hope for is there is a ‘loss replacement program’ of sorts put into place sometime in the near future.  (Impossible to do with orphan fleets)

With the sheer number of F-35’s slated to roll off the lines over the next decade or two, hopefully we can arrange for the odd replacement when needed 🤞🏻🙏🏻


----------



## FSTO

All I can say is that the verbal contortions the Minister and other cabinet members are doing these days to justify by the same plane their boss rejected in 2015 would make Rex Murphy proud.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> All I can say is that the verbal contortions the Minister and other cabinet members are doing these days to justify by the same plane their boss rejected in 2015 would make Rex Murphy proud.


Has the PM said anything though?


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> basic coding & cyber jobs with the GoC _start_ at $100,000 a year


The ones I know of require a Bachelors in Computer Science - some friends of mine were looking to apply a while back but they had the college diploma.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> Has the PM said anything though?


He’ll likely say “Have you read “Spare” yet?”


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> Has the PM said anything though?



What can he say ?  This must be embarrassing.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> What can he say ?  This must be embarrassing.


For a guy who has three ethical conduct strikes against him and counting, I think ‘embarrassing’ Is a word not found in his vocabulary.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> For a guy who has three ethical conduct strikes against him and counting, I think ‘embarrassing’ Is a word not found in his vocabulary.



You're probably right, I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> You're probably right, I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.


I did in the early days, but then he ran my benefit of the doubt tank dry…


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

The US Air Force has already expanded the life span of the F35 frame to 2070,  wanna bet that Canada will sur pass the 2070s? 

The USMC F35B is already having life span issues due to structural problems, looking at 2026  as retirement dates for block block 2 frames, and spare parts shortages.  8000 hr life expectancy but 2100 hour life is being considered . 

www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26102065/f-35s-unflyable/

But I have great faith in the government of Canada to push beyond 2070,  2095 or better is my guess


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> You're probably right, I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.


As much as I hate to say this I figured he’d turn out like this. Senior was a weasel as well.

My apologies to the weasels.


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> The ones I know of require a Bachelors in Computer Science - some friends of mine were looking to apply a while back but they had the college diploma.


I work with a guy on my weekend job.

He just finished a condensed ‘Cyber Security’ diploma (not sure if that’s exactly what it was called) - that the government paid for, and is now waiting for an application to work its way through for one of those positions.

Starts at $110,000 😳  (Not bad for a guy in his early 20’s!)

They really are taking the cyber security thing seriously.


----------

