Army.ca Forums

Air-Force.ca => Fixed-wing Aircraft => Topic started by: WingsofFury on October 19, 2015, 16:10:00

Title: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: WingsofFury on October 19, 2015, 16:10:00
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 19, 2015, 16:26:10
Some fancifying on how a PM Trudeau might finagle the F-35 with President Obama:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on October 19, 2015, 16:31:17
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: WingsofFury on October 19, 2015, 16:56:45
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Spencer100 on October 19, 2015, 17:40:00
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 19, 2015, 18:53:58
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Dimsum on October 19, 2015, 19:08:01
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: dapaterson on October 19, 2015, 19:56:26
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Downhiller229 on October 19, 2015, 21:20:09
The Hawks are leased to Bombardier by a federal entity. Not our problem to maintain, totally our problem to replace.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 19, 2015, 21:20:12
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 19, 2015, 21:23:07
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: dapaterson on October 19, 2015, 21:25:16
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: WingsofFury on October 20, 2015, 00:32:45
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 20, 2015, 00:35:17
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Downhiller229 on October 20, 2015, 01:26:09
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: dapaterson on October 20, 2015, 01:41:41
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on October 20, 2015, 01:51:01
Sopwith Camel

Or a upgraded Mosquito
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 20, 2015, 03:55:19
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.


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.

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.

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.

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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 20, 2015, 09:21:34
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 20, 2015, 09:26:10
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Cloud Cover on October 20, 2015, 10:13:46
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. 

.       
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on October 20, 2015, 10:51:16
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. 

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Colin P on October 20, 2015, 11:05:17
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: FSTO on October 20, 2015, 11:24:58
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on October 20, 2015, 12:57:49
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 20, 2015, 13:15:25
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 20, 2015, 13:41:31
Canada's pervious government

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

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 20, 2015, 13:48:30
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Cloud Cover on October 20, 2015, 14:09:48
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.


   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: YZT580 on October 20, 2015, 15:02:43
"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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Colin P on October 20, 2015, 15:19:12
They get sub-contracts but not airframes, unless they build a Hawk 2 as our primary fighter.  8)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: YZT580 on October 21, 2015, 10:21:35
Perhaps?  https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-enhanced-f-16v-makes-first-flight-418014/
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 21, 2015, 10:25:06
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 10:40:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 21, 2015, 10:48:26
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 10:55:01
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 21, 2015, 11:21:32
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 21, 2015, 11:30:51
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 11:58:11
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: AlexanderM on October 21, 2015, 12:02:33
The Rafale is not a single engine fighter.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 12:28:44
The Rafale is not a single engine fighter.

Well then - better than an outside chance.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 21, 2015, 12:43:08
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?)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Colin P on October 21, 2015, 13:15:51
and we would end up paying to have it certified to carry US made weapons, which would also help oversea sales.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: AlexanderM on October 21, 2015, 13:32:56
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 21, 2015, 17:35:31
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 17:41:25
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: reverse_engineer on October 21, 2015, 17:44:23
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 17:53:13
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 21, 2015, 18:33:05
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 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-faces-attacks-over-former-campaign-co-chair-dan-gagnier/article26860513/). 

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews2%2Fbackground%2Fgroupaction%2Fgfx%2Fchretien_gomery_ball.jpg&hash=862f0a4dd321527489337c6bf6282f7a)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 20:01:18
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 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-faces-attacks-over-former-campaign-co-chair-dan-gagnier/article26860513/). 

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews2%2Fbackground%2Fgroupaction%2Fgfx%2Fchretien_gomery_ball.jpg&hash=862f0a4dd321527489337c6bf6282f7a)

There was nothing scandalous about Gagnier, other than what was manufactured. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 21, 2015, 20:20:46
We will have to disagree I guess.   :)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 21, 2015, 20:26:05
There was nothing scandalous about Gagnier, other than what was manufactured.
Hahahaha... Oh, you were serious?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 21, 2015, 20:51:06
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on October 21, 2015, 21:54:29
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on October 21, 2015, 21:56:19
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on October 21, 2015, 22:00:26
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 21, 2015, 22:06:46
Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: reverse_engineer on October 21, 2015, 22:14:28
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...

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Dimsum on October 21, 2015, 22:25:07
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...

:whistle:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 21, 2015, 22:41:47
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: AlexanderM on October 21, 2015, 22:51:01
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 21, 2015, 23:01:39
What is easiest is for them to buy nothing, just like they did before...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 23:06:02
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 21, 2015, 23:12:39
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!
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 21, 2015, 23:14:45
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: trampbike on October 21, 2015, 23:19:11
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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: YZT580 on October 21, 2015, 23:25:20
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 21, 2015, 23:32:40
Holy frig, what is it "Gullible Day" in Canada?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: reverse_engineer on October 21, 2015, 23:37:16
Holy frig, what is it "Gullible Day" in Canada?

That was the 19th.  ;D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 23:39:33
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 23:41:27
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2015, 23:46:18
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 22, 2015, 00:02:20
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 22, 2015, 00:06:04
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 22, 2015, 00:07:49
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 22, 2015, 00:08:39
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 22, 2015, 00:17:46
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...

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstorage.torontosun.com%2Fv1%2Fdynamic_resize%2Fsws_path%2Fsuns-prod-images%2F1297664761213_ORIGINAL.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bsize%3D420x&hash=b1f238c7f81fdde926a3efea78e8c5d7)

Replace EH101 with F35,  and Labrador with FWSAR.




Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 22, 2015, 00:20:34
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: AlexanderM on October 22, 2015, 00:21:03
Trudeau promised an open competition.  There will be one.
The other fighters are expensive.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 22, 2015, 00:30:07
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PPCLI Guy on October 22, 2015, 00:38:28
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 22, 2015, 00:57:48
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 22, 2015, 01:11:33
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 22, 2015, 01:16:46
I guess I'm silly in that I need evidence first.
Truthiness requires no such evidence.

Get on board man.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 22, 2015, 01:40:57
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 22, 2015, 01:45:26
Let's pretend we are neighbors;

The thing about people is, they aren't dogs...and we aren't neighbours.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 22, 2015, 01:48:05
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 22, 2015, 02:02:00
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.   ::)

* notice the word predictor, not guarantee.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 22, 2015, 02:06:02
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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 22, 2015, 02:07:55
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 22, 2015, 02:10:27
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 22, 2015, 02:14:32
How about we stay on track and avoid the  :duel: stuff?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Altair on October 22, 2015, 02:23:41
Yes sir.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on October 22, 2015, 07:06:50
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Baz on October 22, 2015, 07:57:54
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 22, 2015, 15:00:02
AvWeek's Bill Sweetman:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 24, 2015, 14:20:31
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/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Ostrozac on October 24, 2015, 14:31:20
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: milnews.ca on October 24, 2015, 14:31:50
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 (http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/f-35/) ....
Quote
We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.
Accuracy.  Brevity.  Clarity. 
For better, or worse.
Meanwhile, "we're still here" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/idUSP6N12L00420151022)  ;D ....
Quote
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 ....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 24, 2015, 14:37:09
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 24, 2015, 14:47:00
....
Meanwhile, "we're still here" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/idUSP6N12L00420151022)  ;D ....

Aye.....no deid yet.  ;D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 24, 2015, 14:48:03
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 24, 2015, 15:41:02
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 24, 2015, 15:59:02
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....?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 24, 2015, 16:06:36
Because that would be a complete waste of time and money.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 24, 2015, 16:08:46
In naval terms, it would be like building a new run of Mackenzie Class DDE....

Pointless.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Underway on October 24, 2015, 18:38:56
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 24, 2015, 19:38:56
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....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 24, 2015, 20:01:13
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 24, 2015, 20:04:55
No, it was an example...that specific aircraft appears to be up for sale on the civilian market right now.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: cavalryman on October 24, 2015, 20:05:14

What's next - reinvented Shermans for the Armoured guys?
If it's got a frikkin' laser cannon, why not  ;D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Technoviking on October 24, 2015, 20:23:29
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?

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 24, 2015, 20:53:00
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 24, 2015, 21:04:58
Soooo....back to the CF-5...?  ;-)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Technoviking on October 24, 2015, 21:14:59
Soooo....back to the CF-5...?  ;-)
:rofl:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eland2 on October 24, 2015, 22:25:58
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Technoviking on October 24, 2015, 22:53:32
The CF-116 "Freedom Fighter" was also used in the recce role.  It was employed in this role during Op SALON in 1990.


Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 24, 2015, 23:01:20
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Old Sweat on October 24, 2015, 23:04:00
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Ostrozac on October 24, 2015, 23:49:17
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eland2 on October 25, 2015, 00:16:37
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: CBH99 on October 25, 2015, 04:12:38
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.   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Technoviking on October 25, 2015, 07:33:07
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 25, 2015, 11:45:57
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







Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on October 25, 2015, 14:28:08
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 25, 2015, 14:39:40
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: GR66 on October 25, 2015, 15:34:19
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/ (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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 25, 2015, 17:00:03
Some USAF, USN views on stealth etc.:

Quote
…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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eland2 on October 25, 2015, 21:52:13
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Technoviking on October 25, 2015, 21:54:55
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.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Russian_Bear_'H'_Aircraft_MOD_45158140.jpg)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Dimsum on October 25, 2015, 22:10:54
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 25, 2015, 22:40:02
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PPCLI Guy on October 25, 2015, 22:52:14
TANSTAAFL...

The Arctic, like the moon, is indeed a harsh mistress.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 25, 2015, 23:15:00
well played, good sir!

 :salute:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 25, 2015, 23:16:50
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on October 25, 2015, 23:44:35
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  :(
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on October 26, 2015, 09:09:12
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
 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 26, 2015, 09:24:02
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 26, 2015, 10:38:18
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.





Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 26, 2015, 10:43:03
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Baz on October 26, 2015, 10:50:16
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 26, 2015, 11:09:58
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) (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/general-atomics-attracts-first-customer-for-avenger-uav-claims-338541/) or AESA (Predator (http://www.defense-unmanned.com/article/496/predator-uav-demos-galileo-aesa-radar,-other-sensors.html)), swarm technology (Scan Eagle (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-08-18-Boeing-Demonstrates-Swarm-Reconnaissance-with-Unmanned-Aircraft)) and sensor fusion (the hard bit they are still trying to work out with the F-35s?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 26, 2015, 11:27:21
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).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Baz on October 26, 2015, 11:44:02
If they want Sense with out Act then why not UAVs equipped with the F-35s EOTS (Avenger) (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/general-atomics-attracts-first-customer-for-avenger-uav-claims-338541/) or AESA (Predator (http://www.defense-unmanned.com/article/496/predator-uav-demos-galileo-aesa-radar,-other-sensors.html)), swarm technology (Scan Eagle (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-08-18-Boeing-Demonstrates-Swarm-Reconnaissance-with-Unmanned-Aircraft)) 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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 26, 2015, 11:44:45
Sure...

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

Prolly....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Baz on October 26, 2015, 11:46:54
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 26, 2015, 12:40:08
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Colin P on October 26, 2015, 12:42:51
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....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 26, 2015, 13:27:04
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 26, 2015, 14:01:17
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!
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Baz on October 26, 2015, 14:03:49
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: CBH99 on October 26, 2015, 14:04:40
I was gonna say....the way that was worded, you bound to be right no matter what they do!    ;)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 26, 2015, 17:08:14
That's my point - what they say to get elected is meaningless.

I would not bet any money either way.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Underway on October 26, 2015, 21:50:19
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Technoviking on October 26, 2015, 22:15:14
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:

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2F7860aa18a1086834a05942dcc486c8cc%2Ftumblr_n218vvbOsu1so2h9go1_1280.jpg&hash=7cabf1e62abe4b4835363cee007c4bc1)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MilEME09 on October 27, 2015, 05:27:08
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 27, 2015, 06:19:37
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: milnews.ca on October 27, 2015, 08:29:36
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:

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2F7860aa18a1086834a05942dcc486c8cc%2Ftumblr_n218vvbOsu1so2h9go1_1280.jpg&hash=7cabf1e62abe4b4835363cee007c4bc1)
Well expressed!
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 27, 2015, 08:47:42
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 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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 27, 2015, 08:49:43
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 27, 2015, 09:46:50
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 (https://www.iridium.com/), 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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 27, 2015, 11:50:41
Quote
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwolfuas.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2Fscan-eagle_1-300x197.jpg&hash=2f0e6726536792cfe37e786fd68968d2)
http://www.insitu.com/systems/scaneagle - for specs

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cotsjournalonline.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2F165%2F101130-32_cots0912sf_lead2_large.jpg&hash=5fff4d271607ea93f951c8251aed8ebd)
http://www.insitu.com/systems/integrator - for specs

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

Quote
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 (http://optics.org/news/3/7/31)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paulineneild.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fgreen4large.jpg&hash=af41c5bf83bf69b12f3c9a37f906a177)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: GR66 on October 27, 2015, 12:38:11
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 27, 2015, 13:11:07
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).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: kev994 on October 27, 2015, 14:10:08
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 27, 2015, 14:16:42
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Colin P on October 27, 2015, 16:26:04
has anyone flown UAV's in the arctic yet and how do they handle icing?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 27, 2015, 16:27:05
Start small and build.... etcetera etcetera etcetera

This is all very nice until you factor reality into your proposal.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 27, 2015, 16:30:39
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 27, 2015, 17:24:49
In the spirit of mind games then.....

What if....

Forget surveillance and recce - howabout just nav and comms?

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 27, 2015, 17:31:23
has anyone flown UAV's in the arctic yet and how do they handle icing?

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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/
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 27, 2015, 17:45:19
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)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 27, 2015, 17:52:48
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 27, 2015, 18:00:02
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.militaryaerospace.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fetc%2Fmedialib%2Fnew-lib%2Fmae%2Fonline-articles%2F2011%2F05%2F93268.res%2F_jcr_content%2Frenditions%2Fpennwell.web.420.270.jpg&hash=c9c49a6c182ac0d0d7283de86b6eb17c)


Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: reverse_engineer on October 27, 2015, 18:08:45
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...



Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on October 27, 2015, 19:04:35
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 27, 2015, 19:54:49
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 27, 2015, 23:23:52
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. 



Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Underway on October 27, 2015, 23:44:42
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Dimsum on October 27, 2015, 23:56:00
+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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Underway on October 28, 2015, 00:03:09
.....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?? (https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/mark-collins-canadian-election-isis-the-f-35-justin-trudeau-and-potus/)

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 28, 2015, 00:03:45
.....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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Furniture on October 28, 2015, 06:19:53
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 28, 2015, 09:15:51
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 28, 2015, 09:34:54
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 28, 2015, 09:40:49
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 28, 2015, 10:13:35

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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 28, 2015, 10:28:58
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 28, 2015, 10:49:41
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 28, 2015, 12:36:02
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---
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 28, 2015, 12:39:10
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 28, 2015, 16:30:47
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  >:D) , 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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 28, 2015, 20:37:17
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/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scrapping-f-35-fighter-jets-may-not-lead-to-big-savings-experts-say/article27012886/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 28, 2015, 21:48:37
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/ (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?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgUemV4brDU)

We may revisit this part of the thread in a few weeks/months time...  :nod:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on October 28, 2015, 21:50:31
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/ (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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Dimsum on October 28, 2015, 22:07:16
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."   ???
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 28, 2015, 22:08:07
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: AlexanderM on October 28, 2015, 22:10:46
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 28, 2015, 22:15:46
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Ostrozac on October 28, 2015, 22:23:38
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: dapaterson on October 28, 2015, 22:46:24
AOPS and CSC are Irving in Nova Scotia.  JSS is Seaspan in BC.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 28, 2015, 22:53:15
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 28, 2015, 22:55:54
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: dapaterson on October 28, 2015, 22:57:12

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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 28, 2015, 22:59:47
As will Trudeau (pere) to others.

Yes.  But that is justified......
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on October 28, 2015, 23:08:07
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."   ???

Yes, Minister - 2:29  "Surely a decision's a decision?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgUemV4brDU)

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

Try this:  Go straight to 2:29 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgUemV4brDU&t=146)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 28, 2015, 23:52:28
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 28, 2015, 23:54:14
That's not true - there is a contract for 3 OFSV.  I'm not sure if the 1 OOSV contract has yet been signed.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 29, 2015, 00:01:51
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 29, 2015, 11:16:32

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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on October 29, 2015, 11:59:18
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 29, 2015, 12:55:45
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 29, 2015, 13:58:01
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 (largeish) NORAD squadrons, one or two (smaller) expeditionary squadrons and a training/OTU squadron, etc.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 29, 2015, 16:15:18
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 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/07/13/ten-signs-the-f-35-fighter-program-is-becoming-a-smashing-success/)

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.


Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: GAP on October 29, 2015, 16:29:39
What about a mix of F35's and Rafale Aircraft? is that feasible?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: George Wallace on October 29, 2015, 16:34:09
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 29, 2015, 16:40:33
What about a mix of F35's and Rafale Aircraft? is that feasible?

Why?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: GAP on October 29, 2015, 17:46:00
Better some than none.....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 29, 2015, 17:59:49
Chris Pook:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: GR66 on October 29, 2015, 18:33:23
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 29, 2015, 19:19:01
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on October 29, 2015, 20:34:29
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: milnews.ca on October 31, 2015, 16:30:35
Indeed (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-canada-fighters-73a87d4a-7f0b-11e5-bfb6-65300a5ff562-20151030-story.html) ....
Quote
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 ....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on October 31, 2015, 17:20:23
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).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 31, 2015, 21:41:00
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MCG on October 31, 2015, 23:28:48
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 01, 2015, 08:12:15
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!
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Old Sweat on November 01, 2015, 08:21:35
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 01, 2015, 16:56:15
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on November 03, 2015, 22:56:54
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:   >:D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: daftandbarmy on November 04, 2015, 02:50:21
Oxymoron? :witch:

Nicely done, sir.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Ditch on November 04, 2015, 11:28:57
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:   >:D
That airframe and idea has been scrapped - watched it being done at DM.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on November 04, 2015, 12:36:15
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 04, 2015, 15:41:34
National Fighter Procurement Secretariat gone poof, many months ago:

Quote
...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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 05, 2015, 18:49:30
If Congress votes the money:

Quote
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 06, 2015, 21:50:53
USN thinking:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 07, 2015, 13:13:56
Kuwait to help keep Super Hornet line going?

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 07, 2015, 13:49:02
So, $107M each huh.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 07, 2015, 14:14:44
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 07, 2015, 14:17:51
That was for US Navy SH.   I suspect international customers pay a little more...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 07, 2015, 14:21:13
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 07, 2015, 15:02:04
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on November 10, 2015, 01:35:09
Well, here is a solution that should satisfy everyone  >:D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: dapaterson on November 10, 2015, 08:52:00
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 10, 2015, 09:49:36
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 10, 2015, 09:51:00
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 10, 2015, 10:20:10
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 10, 2015, 11:00:14
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: NavyShooter on November 10, 2015, 11:01:30
Well, here is a solution that should satisfy everyone  >:D

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

;-)

http://www.scorpionjet.com/

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FScorpion-New-Look.png&hash=d4c3953a1126dd08f67fa12cddd0e4b6)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 10, 2015, 11:05:11
Quote from: dapaterson on Today at 07:52:00

Quote
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Kilo_302 on November 10, 2015, 13:51:18
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?



Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: dapaterson on November 10, 2015, 14:02:49
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Loachman on November 10, 2015, 14:43:48
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MCG on November 10, 2015, 16:05:21
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 10, 2015, 17:36:40
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f-106deltadart.com%2Fphoto_gallery%2Fvar%2Falbums%2F87th-FIS%2F590091%2520Bear%2520Intercept%2520Keflavik%25201978.jpg&hash=81d5a35ebea74fa5931f9b7b4ab52818)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 10, 2015, 18:00:10
Or these?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/CF-104_Starfighters_of_417_Sqn_in_flight_near_Cold_Lake_1976.jpg/450px-CF-104_Starfighters_of_417_Sqn_in_flight_near_Cold_Lake_1976.jpg)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: winnipegoo7 on November 10, 2015, 18:28:11
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?

 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 10, 2015, 19:43:26
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: winnipegoo7 on November 10, 2015, 20:39:24
CP

I didn't know that. Thanks.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on November 11, 2015, 00:15:21
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).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 12, 2015, 12:41:49
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 12, 2015, 13:43:39
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. 
Title: BAE cutting Eurofighter Typhoon production in half
Post by: S.M.A. on November 12, 2015, 13:50:12
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 (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/11/12/bae-curtailing-typhoon-production/75640236/)

Quote
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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: AlexanderM on November 12, 2015, 15:13:04
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 12, 2015, 15:16:57

Quote
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

Quote
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

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

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

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).





Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 12, 2015, 17:32:50
Chris Pook:

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

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

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 12, 2015, 20:02:04
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 12, 2015, 21:16:28
CP,

You should be the RCAF Comd!  You understand the matter AND are able to put it into coherent words!
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 12, 2015, 22:16:14
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 14, 2015, 11:26:32
The Liberals’ defence platform says this (p. 3 PDF):

Quote
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…

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 14, 2015, 11:41:55
A dumb decision is a dumb decision even when it is a decision.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Pat in Halifax on November 14, 2015, 14:24:45
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....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Colin P on November 16, 2015, 14:14:03
Well that solution would fit the rest of the forces back to the past trend.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airteamimages.com%2Fpics%2F88%2F88647_800.jpg&hash=4ccb95a881a717879af337ada4eb6c7b)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on November 16, 2015, 15:58:31
A bit more futuristic, and turbine powered to boot:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 16, 2015, 16:06:45
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 16, 2015, 16:41:27
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/

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTa2LIbvPGzZCr2kI94RsxkevXtV07WRcwGmEJ-FJ6mvEyG5YLi)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQNJjgq2nCfBwVR6ta-fDTsVZY-z51ysKBao2XxX9O3hDBHvEVOuA&hash=1840dab6c08835534c91b35282f4d868)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 17:24:35
I'm not a pilot, nor an AERE officer ...

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

     (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.harrispublications.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F8%2F2014%2F08%2Ftextron-airland-scorpion.jpg&hash=1c52d208ed4523984ca7aef8832032ad)
     Textron Scorpion

Over this:

     (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwordlesstech.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fthe-future-of-attack-helicopters.jpg%3Fw%3D560&hash=05551545d426adb0039670f58f686b94)
     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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Colin P on November 16, 2015, 18:04:07
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 16, 2015, 19:01:41
I'm not a pilot, nor an AERE officer ...

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

     (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.harrispublications.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F8%2F2014%2F08%2Ftextron-airland-scorpion.jpg&hash=1c52d208ed4523984ca7aef8832032ad)
     Textron Scorpion

Over this:

     (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwordlesstech.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fthe-future-of-attack-helicopters.jpg%3Fw%3D560&hash=05551545d426adb0039670f58f686b94)
     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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: GR66 on November 16, 2015, 19:28:02
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 (http://www.koreaaero.com/english/product/fixedwing_t-50.asp)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 16, 2015, 19:33:30
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 (http://www.koreaaero.com/english/product/fixedwing_t-50.asp)

I think it's more likely we'd buy the newest F-16.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Dimsum on November 16, 2015, 19:35:54
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 16, 2015, 19:40:12
Well that solution would fit the rest of the forces back to the past trend.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airteamimages.com%2Fpics%2F88%2F88647_800.jpg&hash=4ccb95a881a717879af337ada4eb6c7b)

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

(https://www.backtonormandy.org/media/com_mtree/images/listings/m/typhoon.jpg)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 16, 2015, 19:48:15
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 16, 2015, 19:58:25
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 16, 2015, 20:00:43
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 16, 2015, 20:16:26
Chris Pook:

Tee hee:

Quote
...
How about an RCAF Typhoon instead?  CBC will never know the difference.
(https://www.backtonormandy.org/media/com_mtree/images/listings/m/typhoon.jpg)
...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 16, 2015, 20:26:17
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 16, 2015, 22:47:19
It's a better air interdiction fighter by far.

Please substentiate. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 16, 2015, 22:56:14
Please substentiate.

How dare you suggest such a thing!  Everyone knows the discussion revolving around the F35 is all about conjecture.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Infanteer on November 16, 2015, 23:58:05
It's clear that he's flown a Typhoon in air-to-air combat against an F-35 to see the results first hand!
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 17, 2015, 00:01:06
It's clear that he's flown a Typhoon in air-to-air combat against an F-35 to see the results first hand!

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myabandonware.com%2Fmedia%2Fscreenshots%2Fj%2Fjetfighter-ii-advanced-tactical-fighter-12r%2Fjetfighter-ii-advanced-tactical-fighter_4.png&hash=0c19b6106a6cccda94282ede972654e1)

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!
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 17, 2015, 00:54:25
I think I dozed off, did we already address classic Harvard with hard points?   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 17, 2015, 01:21:57
Fits with the both the modern Training meme AND the Tradition thing.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 17, 2015, 02:03:34
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 17, 2015, 08:17:41
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 17, 2015, 09:17:02
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 17, 2015, 10:39:59
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 17, 2015, 10:40:53
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  :P

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Ostrozac on November 17, 2015, 10:59:27
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...).

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: GR66 on November 17, 2015, 11:08:09
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 17, 2015, 12:46:33
Ostrozac: On Bears (and Blackjacks) and fighter escorts, see latter part here:

Quote
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 17, 2015, 12:58:37
I think he means provide a source  :P

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/
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 17, 2015, 13:00:13
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 17, 2015, 19:57:56
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 17, 2015, 20:59:29
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 17, 2015, 21:34:48
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 17, 2015, 21:40:32
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).

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 18, 2015, 07:32:17
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Pilot-Wannabe on November 18, 2015, 09:40:25
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Colin P on November 18, 2015, 11:21:13
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.   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 18, 2015, 11:56:06
And the political decision will not include the F-35 no matter what ... 'cause we, at Wesayso Corporation said so. So there  :P

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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 18, 2015, 12:07:23
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 18, 2015, 15:30:38
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 18, 2015, 17:33:27
Wings of Fury: But does the RCAF need a better aircraft than one the USN is going to fly until 2040 (plus?):

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 18, 2015, 17:37:27
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 18, 2015, 18:03:49
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/index.php/topic,120786.msg1401357.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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 18, 2015, 18:09:17
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/index.php/topic,120786.msg1401357.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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 18, 2015, 18:19:24
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 18, 2015, 18:26:13
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 18, 2015, 18:56:12
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 18, 2015, 20:38:09
Good2Golf: A  Sept. 2014 telegram on possible escort fighters:

Quote
...
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 18, 2015, 21:08:11
How does the F-35 not have a anti-cruise missile capability again?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 18, 2015, 21:19:44
PuckChaser: If stealthy carries:

Quote
...
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 18, 2015, 21:29:05
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 18, 2015, 21:46:01
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 (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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2FF-35A-Weapons-Carriage.jpg&hash=b69b197ad1d4119f327979c564f9f80a)
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheaviationist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2FWeapons-Stations-Capacity_v1.jpg&hash=2b6da0621eeb8fbdaf102989278b9f93)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 18, 2015, 22:12:12
It will, at some point, be able to carry 6 internally.  There is room for 2 AAM in space for the heavy weapons. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 18, 2015, 22:16:54
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Fighter (Post 2015 Election Thread)
Post by: Thucydides on November 18, 2015, 23:06:32
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: S.M.A. on November 20, 2015, 12:57:11
As expected, Canada pulls out:

Air Recognition (http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-news-2015/november/2144-canada-reopens-tender-for-new-fighter-aircraft.html)

Quote
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)

Title: Re: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on November 20, 2015, 13:20:44
Air Recognition (http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-news-2015/november/2144-canada-reopens-tender-for-new-fighter-aircraft.html)
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.
Title: Re: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 20, 2015, 15:23:48
So much for basing procurements on a thorough Foreign Policy/Defence review.

To perform the review, don't we first need to set goals?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on November 20, 2015, 15:26:43
To perform the review, don't we first need to set goals?
So, you are saying we skipped at least two steps?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 20, 2015, 15:35:52
As expected, Canada pulls out:

Air Recognition (http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-news-2015/november/2144-canada-reopens-tender-for-new-fighter-aircraft.html)

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. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 20, 2015, 17:19:18
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.   >:D

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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on November 20, 2015, 17:35:54
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 20, 2015, 17:36:40
Ah! Chris. Nice to see that staid Scotsmen such as you still remember the Auld Alliance.

Nice French, my friend.
 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 20, 2015, 20:36:35
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.....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 20, 2015, 20:47:57
That's why the English never worry about Scots insults ... no one can ever understand them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-JlvBCl3A).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 20, 2015, 21:40:26
That's why the English never worry about Scots insults ... no one can ever understand them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-JlvBCl3A).

Ach, awa' wi' ye, ye glaikit scunner.  Hev ye gaun gyte, Wull? 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: cavalryman on November 20, 2015, 21:45:19
Ach, awa' wi' ye, ye glaikit scunner.  Hev ye gaun gyte, Wull?
Gesundheit! [:)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on November 21, 2015, 08:24:58
As expected, Canada pulls out:

Air Recognition (http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-news-2015/november/2144-canada-reopens-tender-for-new-fighter-aircraft.html)
Not quite yet, if Reuters (http://yhoo.it/1OkxgKJ) is to be believed -- also note the not wanting to talk about the F-35 thing -- highlights mine ....
Quote
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 ....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 21, 2015, 12:32:55
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frequirements+for+the+next+jet+and+insisted+the+selection+process+would+%5Bcolor%3Dyellow%5Dbe+%26quot%3Bopen+and+transparent.%5B%2Fcolor%5D%26quot%3B&hash=ba16f6f95edf04f4d92132063a95ed29)

Nothing the Trudeau Liberals have done since taking office has been open and transparent. Why start now?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 21, 2015, 14:15:12
US starting to talk fairly tough, at high Pentagon level:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 22, 2015, 14:33:13
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frequirements+for+the+next+jet+and+insisted+the+selection+process+would+%5Bcolor%3Dyellow%5Dbe+%26quot%3Bopen+and+transparent.%5B%2Fcolor%5D%26quot%3B&hash=ba16f6f95edf04f4d92132063a95ed29)

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.....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 22, 2015, 16:28:15
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 22, 2015, 16:35:08
I have no faith in the Liberals, but still it's a tad early to start hammering them. they need more rope
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 22, 2015, 16:56:03
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 22, 2015, 20:19:08
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"...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 22, 2015, 21:38:32
...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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on November 22, 2015, 21:55:58
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 22, 2015, 22:00:27
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 22, 2015, 22:08:55
The mandate letters were clearly designed for our consumption vice the minister's.

 :brickwall:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 22, 2015, 22:25:31
:brickwall:

Ditto
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 23, 2015, 07:51:45
At the risk of  :deadhorse: and   :bla-bla:  may I remind members of this (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,106748.msg1158374.html#msg1158374).

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: ...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: GAP on November 23, 2015, 08:06:04
 :goodpost:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on November 23, 2015, 10:58:01
At the risk of  :deadhorse: and   :bla-bla:  may I remind members of this (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,106748.msg1158374.html#msg1158374).

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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 23, 2015, 11:13:09
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 23, 2015, 13:39:40
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 23, 2015, 14:00:26
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 23, 2015, 14:07:26
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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 23, 2015, 14:12:13
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 24, 2015, 10:16:16
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 24, 2015, 11:08:50
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on November 24, 2015, 14:01:26

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Lumber on November 24, 2015, 14:09:03
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 24, 2015, 14:33:24
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: cavalryman on November 24, 2015, 15:31:58
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on November 24, 2015, 15:46:03
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

Quote
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
 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 24, 2015, 16:20:57
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 24, 2015, 21:43:27
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 24, 2015, 22:22:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 24, 2015, 23:39:47
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on November 24, 2015, 23:45:09
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 24, 2015, 23:52:55
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on November 25, 2015, 00:38:16
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).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 17, 2016, 16:28:29
US Navy really wants to keep Super Hornet/Growler line alive, note mention of Canada (lots of further links at original):

Quote
Mabus: Get Moving On That F-18 Sale To Kuwait [/color]

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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2016, 17:50:42
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 18, 2016, 13:18:34
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2016, 13:39:00
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 18, 2016, 15:43:08
Chris Pooks--thanks.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 31, 2016, 15:08:40
Interesting Liberal member of new Commons committee:

Quote
Fuhr on defence committee

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castanet.net%2Fcontent%2F2016%2F1%2F10488172_1466528570258061_3752433583456737448_n_p3102625.jpg&hash=33b810a0a9b824dbe8a55e0e148117bc)
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:

Quote
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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on January 31, 2016, 16:06:53
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 05, 2016, 17:23:31
SecDef Carter and USN want more new-build Super Hornets (keep that St. Louis line open), to serve for quite a while:

Quote
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 09, 2016, 15:32:08
US Navy budget request--keep Super Hornet line going:

Quote

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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 15, 2016, 12:35:19
Boeing faces choice:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on February 15, 2016, 19:08:59
SecDef Carter and USN want more new-build Super Hornets (keep that St. Louis line open), to serve for quite a while:
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: NavyShooter on February 15, 2016, 19:23:22
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scorpionjet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F07%2FJuly-2015-Scorpion-in-maritime-surveillance-demo-flights-with-UK-Royal-Navy-3.jpg&hash=3d80dacef8c22c944a44452f5725bcbf)

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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on February 16, 2016, 03:52:38
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 16, 2016, 10:30:50
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 16, 2016, 14:32:46
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.....

(https://www.scalemates.com/projects/img/3959-12192-15-p.jpg)

 ;D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 16, 2016, 14:47:30
At least you know it's safe to get into the reactor air intake.  [:D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on February 16, 2016, 17:53:29
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on February 16, 2016, 17:57:06
fighters aren't need we can just use these and lasers

(https://tce-live2.s3.amazonaws.com/media/media/fe8757c3-dd58-4969-92f1-316d16aa4e6c.jpg)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on February 16, 2016, 17:59:12
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on February 16, 2016, 18:24:10
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: GR66 on February 16, 2016, 18:28:00
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).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on February 16, 2016, 18:41:25
That is a massive expensive and high probability of failure proposition.

 :nod:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 16, 2016, 19:53:47
fighters aren't need we can just use these and lasers

(https://tce-live2.s3.amazonaws.com/media/media/fe8757c3-dd58-4969-92f1-316d16aa4e6c.jpg)

That was the first plastic model I built! ;D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on February 16, 2016, 23:41:13
Which would have been just as effective as the real thing, but cheaper.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Quirky on February 17, 2016, 01:42:04
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on February 17, 2016, 16:02:57
Thanks.

Now I'll be having nightmares.
Title: Boeing representative meets with govt. officials on Super Hornets
Post by: S.M.A. on February 19, 2016, 13:42:04
Boeing's chance to sell the Super Hornet to Canada?

Embassy News (Canada) (http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2016/02/18/boeing-sensing-an-opening-meets-with-government-on-fighter-jets/48251/?mlc=1074&muid=31518)

Quote
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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 23, 2016, 17:03:26
Alan Willians at it:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on February 23, 2016, 17:07:20
So he would re-write the SOR to exclude the F-35?

How many lawyers does LockMart have?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on February 23, 2016, 17:12:07
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: caocao on February 23, 2016, 17:12:40
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on February 23, 2016, 18:03:51
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 23, 2016, 18:12:41
Quote from: caocao on Today at 16:12:40

Quote
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 ):

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on February 23, 2016, 18:36:46
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 23, 2016, 18:42:38
Chris Pook:

One might have thought that's why the RCN needs those stealthy subs ;).

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on February 23, 2016, 18:51:30
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

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carrierbuilders.net%2Fgallery%2F20100913_Toilet_Bomber%2FIMG_0258.JPG&hash=4a2f622d9c462d48655472af1d783e46)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on February 23, 2016, 18:57:38
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?  :D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 23, 2016, 20:06:44
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on February 23, 2016, 20:26:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on February 23, 2016, 20:50:49
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Fabius on March 10, 2016, 14:05:55
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 06, 2016, 23:12:55
The Flightglobal tea leaves look pretty good for the F-35:

Quote
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




Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on April 07, 2016, 01:40:08
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 07, 2016, 08:55:40
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on April 07, 2016, 12:34:38
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 19, 2016, 12:24:47
Looks like Kuwait (and likely USN) will keep Super Hornet line going awhile:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: FSTO on April 19, 2016, 13:56:57
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on April 22, 2016, 10:18:26
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 27, 2016, 16:24:52
Super Hornet line continuing:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 11, 2016, 14:17:46
More Super Hornet--and F-35--support at US House of Representatives:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on May 11, 2016, 19:30:41
$8.3B for 74 F-35s... Cheaper and cheaper every day.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on May 12, 2016, 02:01:26
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on May 12, 2016, 02:06:36
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on May 12, 2016, 02:35:27
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on May 12, 2016, 08:00:34
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 18, 2016, 14:07:19
Danish F-35A selection and Canada:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 19, 2016, 13:46:28
Looks like more Super Hornets for USN:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 24, 2016, 13:26:35
From the company's mouth:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on May 24, 2016, 15:28:04
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.   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on June 17, 2016, 12:15:01
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?

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 18, 2016, 11:39:35
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 18, 2016, 12:49:46
If Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party actually expands our fighter fleet, I will need to re-examine everything I thoughts was true.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 19, 2016, 12:35:49
US Navy backroom ally of Trudeau gov't?

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on June 19, 2016, 13:55:46
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 19, 2016, 14:21:10
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.





Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 22, 2016, 19:04:04
Politics, politics all is politics:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 22, 2016, 19:28:51
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 22, 2016, 19:54:43
Except the RCAF, they get stuck with an inferior aircraft built by a second rate manufacturer. Standard Liberal pork barrel procurements.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 22, 2016, 21:38:53
Politics, politics all is politics:

Sigh.  Or hurl.

Mark
Ottawa

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Triple_Portrait_of_Cardinal_de_Richelieu_probably_1642%2C_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg/330px-Triple_Portrait_of_Cardinal_de_Richelieu_probably_1642%2C_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg)

comme il faut
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on June 22, 2016, 23:39:05
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 22, 2016, 23:46:08
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on June 22, 2016, 23:49:03
Nobody wants the C-series right now,

Assuming the 300 they've sold don't count, sure.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on June 22, 2016, 23:57:22
How many combat aircraft has Bombardier built, ever?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_Sabre
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Dimsum on June 23, 2016, 00:28:44
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 23, 2016, 00:39:11
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2016, 01:16:53
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 23, 2016, 10:28:08
I wonder if the brakes will squeak.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on June 27, 2016, 02:05:13
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 27, 2016, 09:45:39
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 27, 2016, 12:01:03
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):

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 27, 2016, 13:42:22
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on June 27, 2016, 14:11:43
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on June 27, 2016, 17:41:27
taxpayers who are uninformed about the costs of buying canadian

And on the other side, those who don't understand the benefits.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 27, 2016, 18:41:03
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2016, 19:05:08
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 27, 2016, 21:41:21
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2016, 23:27:19
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 27, 2016, 23:59:19
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 28, 2016, 02:38:06
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on June 28, 2016, 03:19:31
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 28, 2016, 15:53:57
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

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fnews%2F2016%2F06%2F28%2FIssues_Facing_Britain_by_party_June2016-large_trans%2B%2BI4i1a-7tqjMxGle8m6q3UPDKzotPu4Oh-37FX2r8mxI.JPG&hash=61de9d49caa2ab71231f17cf523de4bc)

For Tories it is number 5 on the list.

For Labour it is number 7.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 28, 2016, 16:36:00
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

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fnews%2F2016%2F06%2F28%2FIssues_Facing_Britain_by_party_June2016-large_trans%2B%2BI4i1a-7tqjMxGle8m6q3UPDKzotPu4Oh-37FX2r8mxI.JPG&hash=61de9d49caa2ab71231f17cf523de4bc)

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 *** about.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 28, 2016, 16:59:38
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 28, 2016, 18:05:48
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on June 28, 2016, 19:03:32
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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 28, 2016, 19:10:14
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Larry Strong on June 28, 2016, 20:22:53
Boeing looking to sweeten the offer.......

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-canada-idUSKCN0Z9222


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 28, 2016, 23:51:20
Call it something unassailable.  Veterans and serving members support tax.

The Veterans Renewal Tax - To Guarantee a Steady Supply of Veterans?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 28, 2016, 23:59:49
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2016, 01:33:18
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Sailorwest on June 29, 2016, 01:48:16
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2016, 02:10:18
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Inspir on June 29, 2016, 04:01:17
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".
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2016, 06:27:42
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 29, 2016, 09:51:59
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: milnews.ca on June 29, 2016, 10:41:36
No white paper + massive money dump = recipe for disaster.
QFTT -- like pouring more water into a leaky bucket without fixing the leaks.
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".
As long as we're this close to/interconnected with these guys ...
(https://fvmstatic.s3.amazonaws.com/maps/m/US-EPS-01-0002.png)
... we're never REALLY on our own - for better, and for worse.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 29, 2016, 11:46:57
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 ...
(https://fvmstatic.s3.amazonaws.com/maps/m/US-EPS-01-0002.png)
... we're never REALLY on our own - for better, and for worse.

The Semi-Autonomous Region of Canada.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: milnews.ca on June 29, 2016, 13:25:12
The Semi-Autonomous Region of Canada.
Like it or not ...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on July 01, 2016, 11:51:47
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 (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627125140.htm#)

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.  >:D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 01, 2016, 13:31:16
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 (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627125140.htm#)

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.  >:D

Shares in coffee pots and hotels just took a hit.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on July 04, 2016, 18:31:35
Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on July 04, 2016, 21:26:07
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...   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on July 04, 2016, 21:36:10
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 (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627125140.htm#)

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.  >:D

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 04, 2016, 21:54:42
I'd like to know how big the PC was to compute everything that fast. Definitely not a desktop size.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 05, 2016, 15:49:25
By a former CF-104 and CF-18 pilot--exceprts:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 05, 2016, 22:08:24
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 (http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/07/05/defence-minister-set-to-lay-out-next-steps-to-replace-aging-fighter-jets-3/#.V3xZgTWq0sR)

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 06, 2016, 13:59:14
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 (http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/07/06/defence-minister-insists-jets-must-be-replaced-soon-but-cant-give-timeline-2/#.V304JjWq0sR)

Quote
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 (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."
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: George Wallace on July 06, 2016, 14:24:24
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 (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 (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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 06, 2016, 14:51:06
A new study/process is a valid looking COA that provides a secure buffer from the next step;  doing something/spending money.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 06, 2016, 15:56:08
A new study/process is a valid looking COA that provides a secure buffer from the next step;  doing something/spending money.

 :nod:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 06, 2016, 18:07:04
"Farce, flipping farce. The endless Canadian Procurement Gong Show!":

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 06, 2016, 20:27:13
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on July 06, 2016, 20:30:36
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on July 06, 2016, 21:22:00
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on July 06, 2016, 21:25:55
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on July 06, 2016, 21:33:00
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on July 06, 2016, 21:40:45
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).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BobSlob on July 06, 2016, 21:46:01
Define the requirement as an a/c in service, and the F35 falls off the eligible list.

The Marines declared it IOC last year.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on July 06, 2016, 21:54:51
The Marines declared it IOC last year.

IOC is not combat ready.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on July 06, 2016, 22:04:50
And the Marines fly the VTOL version.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 06, 2016, 22:32:33
IOC is not combat ready.

http://www.defencetalk.com/us-air-force-says-f-35a-nearly-combat-ready-67741/? (http://www.defencetalk.com/us-air-force-says-f-35a-nearly-combat-ready-67741/?)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on July 06, 2016, 22:39:46
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 06, 2016, 23:02:16
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on July 06, 2016, 23:25:29
According to an article I posted in the past few months, it could be 2022 before the F-35 is combat ready.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 06, 2016, 23:27:38
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 06, 2016, 23:36:39
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.

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on July 06, 2016, 23:42:02
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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 06, 2016, 23:49:56
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 (http://www.acc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/5725/Article/808248/10-questions-on-the-f-35a-lightning-ii.aspx)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on July 07, 2016, 00:18:04
And when that happens, great.  It hasn't happened yet.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on July 07, 2016, 00:42:27
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: George Wallace on July 07, 2016, 11:12:23
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).   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 07, 2016, 13:12:57
And when that happens, great.  It hasn't happened yet.

As the Vicar said to the actress.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: YZT580 on July 07, 2016, 13:39:41
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 07, 2016, 20:46:42
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:
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcasmuseum.techno-science.ca%2Fimg%2Fartifacts%2Fcasm%2Fartifact-avro-canada-cf-100mk5d-100757.jpg&hash=2ddf35d6289c601071e7bd0cebf9e2b2)

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: HB_Pencil on July 07, 2016, 21:33:46
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 07, 2016, 21:40:40
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: HB_Pencil on July 07, 2016, 22:44:52
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on July 07, 2016, 22:53:02
Don't compare the USMC and USAF IOC dates; they are only slightly related aircraft (and a large part of the program problems).
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: HB_Pencil on July 07, 2016, 23:14:24
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 08, 2016, 00:41:17
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fnews%2F2016%2F06%2F28%2FIssues_Facing_Britain_by_party_June2016-large_trans%2B%2BI4i1a-7tqjMxGle8m6q3UPDKzotPu4Oh-37FX2r8mxI.JPG&hash=61de9d49caa2ab71231f17cf523de4bc)

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 11, 2016, 15:37:07
White House approval of Super Hornets for Kuwait would sure help keep the production line going--note also unit cost (RCAF?) implications:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 11, 2016, 20:15:24
$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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 11, 2016, 21:27:17
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 11, 2016, 21:45:21
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.


Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 11, 2016, 21:55:12
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 $9B cost figure was released, the dollar was at par. Its almost like the Tories are good fiscal planners....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: HB_Pencil on July 12, 2016, 00:56:17
So if I get this straight, it's 7 B$ 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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: cavalryman on July 12, 2016, 01:13:44


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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 12, 2016, 15:30:11
Good question:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2016, 17:24:08
Note JPO angle on Lockheed subcontracting at end:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CTD on July 14, 2016, 18:08:14
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on July 14, 2016, 18:22:06
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!"
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: YZT580 on July 15, 2016, 00:57:34
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CTD on July 15, 2016, 02:20:52
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on July 15, 2016, 09:34:15
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: HB_Pencil on July 15, 2016, 10:58:11
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: HB_Pencil on July 15, 2016, 11:15:43
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 15, 2016, 11:44:26
....

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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on July 15, 2016, 12:12:36
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CTD on July 15, 2016, 16:39:48
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.

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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 20, 2016, 18:10:46
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on July 20, 2016, 19:48:28
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 20, 2016, 20:04:41
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on July 20, 2016, 20:53:14
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on July 20, 2016, 23:35:19
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on July 20, 2016, 23:54:08
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 21, 2016, 00:00:00
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on July 21, 2016, 00:12:29
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 21, 2016, 00:21:25
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on July 21, 2016, 00:36:29
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 21, 2016, 00:42:12
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: QV on July 21, 2016, 01:02:19
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on July 21, 2016, 01:16:59
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on July 21, 2016, 01:22:25
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on July 27, 2016, 19:55:50
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/ (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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on July 27, 2016, 20:01:10
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on July 27, 2016, 20:56:53
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
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on July 27, 2016, 21:05:46

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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 27, 2016, 21:10:52
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/ (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-long-running-f-16-line-in-fort-worth-goin-423293/)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on July 27, 2016, 21:18:00

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 27, 2016, 21:24:01
It's all about holding onto hope for the F-35.

Hope is not a valid COA.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on July 27, 2016, 21:56:16
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on July 27, 2016, 22:01:32
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 27, 2016, 22:07:06
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....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on July 27, 2016, 22:12:41
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 27, 2016, 22:40:46
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on July 27, 2016, 22:43:59
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on July 27, 2016, 22:45:06
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....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on July 30, 2016, 22:54:58
According to the Toronto Star, all 5 major fighter manufactures have responded to Canada's call for information.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 31, 2016, 12:35:30
According to the Toronto Star, all 5 major fighter manufactures have responded to Canada's call for information.

Lockheed
Boeing
Eurofighter?
Dassault?
Saab?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 31, 2016, 13:36:03
Yep, that was them.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 01, 2016, 12:26:22
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 (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)

Quote
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 (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/30/five-aerospace-companies-battle-to-replace-canadas-cf-18s.html)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 01, 2016, 12:48:29
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on August 01, 2016, 12:56:06
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:



Quote
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~
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: GR66 on August 01, 2016, 13:33:28
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:

Quote
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on August 01, 2016, 13:52:37
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.   :whistle:


[Great.   Civic holiday, so I can't buy more stock in tinfoil  >:(  ]
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 01, 2016, 13:54:10
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: GR66 on August 01, 2016, 13:57:52
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 01, 2016, 14:22:57
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on August 01, 2016, 15:20:43
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: GR66 on August 01, 2016, 15:38:36
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 01, 2016, 15:45:11
USAF F-35As will be with NORAD in Alaska--our fighters will work with them:

Quote
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Harrigan on August 02, 2016, 07:42:44
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
Title: Re: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 02, 2016, 12:15:10
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.
Title: Re: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on August 02, 2016, 12:38:44
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?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on August 02, 2016, 12:40:40
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on August 02, 2016, 12:42:41
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 02, 2016, 12:52:00
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.
Title: Re: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 02, 2016, 12:56:30
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
Title: Re: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 13:10:09
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 13:13:23
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.
Title: Re: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on August 02, 2016, 15:24:55
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?
Title: Re: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 15:35:07
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 02, 2016, 15:41:35

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

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  ::)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 02, 2016, 15:49:10
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 16:21:40
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 16:25:01
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 02, 2016, 16:57:30
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.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 02, 2016, 17:09:24
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.

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:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 17:19:14
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 17:21:31
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 02, 2016, 17:26:54
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.

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. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 17:49:12
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.   
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 02, 2016, 18:15:41
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 02, 2016, 18:21:35
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 18:24:16
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 02, 2016, 18:26:34
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Harrigan on August 03, 2016, 03:08:25
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: YZT580 on August 03, 2016, 10:00:10
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.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on August 03, 2016, 10:07:09
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on August 03, 2016, 12:15:36
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".
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 03, 2016, 12:23:47
YZT580:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 03, 2016, 12:38:54
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?  ???
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BobSlob on August 03, 2016, 13:04:55
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Harrigan on August 03, 2016, 15:36:44

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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on August 03, 2016, 15:50:28
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"  >:D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 03, 2016, 20:11:28
F-35C for RCAF (cf. naval Hornet?

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 03, 2016, 20:46:31
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 20:58:54
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....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 03, 2016, 21:08:02
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 21:17:56
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 03, 2016, 21:47:13
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 21:51:24
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 03, 2016, 22:05:33
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Harrigan on August 04, 2016, 05:56:23
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
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 04, 2016, 12:01:31
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?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 04, 2016, 12:20:57
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?

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 04, 2016, 12:27:10
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 04, 2016, 12:32:13
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 04, 2016, 13:37:18
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 04, 2016, 13:39:12
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 04, 2016, 13:40:26
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 04, 2016, 13:42:14
"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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 04, 2016, 14:05:55
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?  ???
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 04, 2016, 14:23:25
... 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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 04, 2016, 15:25:22
Thirty-six RCAF fighters for NORAD, no fixed NATO commitment (new government porkie?):

Quote
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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on August 04, 2016, 16:09:16
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?

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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Quirky on August 04, 2016, 16:16:34
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 04, 2016, 16:17:44
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 04, 2016, 16:18:45
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 04, 2016, 17:29:18
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on August 04, 2016, 18:09:43
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on August 04, 2016, 18:14:55
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 04, 2016, 19:10:34
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".
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 04, 2016, 20:14:17
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on August 04, 2016, 22:10:21
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on August 04, 2016, 22:23:31
???

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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on August 04, 2016, 23:13:16
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on August 04, 2016, 23:20:23
Sorry for the tangent?  Pretty polite post.

Man, if that's what you consider a tangent....   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on August 04, 2016, 23:22:27
Sorry for the tangent?  Pretty polite post.

Man, if that's what you consider a tangent....

I am having an off day... ;)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 04, 2016, 23:24:42
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on August 05, 2016, 00:01:07
Didn't offend me.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 05, 2016, 00:11:11
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 05, 2016, 06:05:04
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on August 05, 2016, 08:36:17
I think the NORAD requirement is 36 fighters, which is how we arrive at a fleet 65.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 05, 2016, 10:09:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 05, 2016, 10:11:25
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: NavyShooter on August 05, 2016, 10:21:20
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on August 05, 2016, 11:56:41
Perhaps as Defence Policy Review comes to completion, the process will be allowed to run its course and we'll see ....
"Perhaps"    :pop:    (please forgive the lack of 'holding breath')
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 05, 2016, 12:01:56
"Perhaps"    :pop:    (please forgive the lack of 'holding breath')

That's as optimistic as I can be...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 05, 2016, 13:23:39
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? 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: GR66 on August 05, 2016, 13:24:13
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on August 05, 2016, 13:29:39
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?


Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 05, 2016, 13:42:28
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 05, 2016, 13:44:21
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BobSlob on August 05, 2016, 13:57:56
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 05, 2016, 13:58:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 05, 2016, 14:07:42
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on August 05, 2016, 14:25:14
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: AlexanderM on August 05, 2016, 15:12:52
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 05, 2016, 17:10:04
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 05, 2016, 17:31:25
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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 05, 2016, 17:41:41
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 05, 2016, 20:55:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 05, 2016, 21:03:13
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 05, 2016, 21:04:32
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 05, 2016, 21:48:49
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 05, 2016, 22:10:46
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 05, 2016, 22:30:07
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 05, 2016, 22:45:20
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. 

(https://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/103239/63/1032396349.jpg)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jamestown.org%2Fuploads%2Fpics%2FJin_SSBN.jpg&hash=b602c81545d9643a95fec2df7e2accef)

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 05, 2016, 22:46:35
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 05, 2016, 23:23:03
The other place that I advocate spending more money is the Navy - you'll get no argument from me on that.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on August 06, 2016, 00:41:24
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

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 06, 2016, 01:01:09
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?   ???
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 06, 2016, 01:02:25
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 06, 2016, 01:06:39
...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???







Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on August 06, 2016, 01:11:19
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on August 06, 2016, 01:15:32
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 06, 2016, 01:26:24
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on August 06, 2016, 02:04:03
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on August 06, 2016, 02:13:22
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 06, 2016, 02:37:57
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...  ;)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 06, 2016, 12:14:13
MilEME09: Air Marshal=LGEN:
http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/help/TTDASearchTipsSpecial3Help.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 06, 2016, 12:27:16
...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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 06, 2016, 13:34:17
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.
 
 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 06, 2016, 13:51:03
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on August 06, 2016, 13:53:48
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!  :pop:  ]
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 06, 2016, 14:23:23
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!  :pop:  ]

Must be Saturday......
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on August 06, 2016, 14:49:38
Must be Saturday......
And dog days, at that.   :nod:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MCG on August 06, 2016, 16:15:52
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/f-35-to-debut-in-canada-at-abbotsford-international-airshow/)
&
http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/events/2016-performers/ (http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/events/2016-performers/)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 06, 2016, 20:18:28
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/f-35-to-debut-in-canada-at-abbotsford-international-airshow/)
&
http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/events/2016-performers/ (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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on August 06, 2016, 20:45:34
Even if they did fly, it wouldn't show much in terms of capabilities...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 16, 2016, 14:50:50
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?):

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BurmaShave on September 16, 2016, 15:40:14
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on September 16, 2016, 19:23:57
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on September 16, 2016, 20:32:58
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BurmaShave on September 16, 2016, 20:52:18
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BurmaShave on September 16, 2016, 21:51:30
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on September 17, 2016, 00:39:47
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 17, 2016, 10:21:50
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 (https://www.amazon.ca/Radar-Handbook-Third-Merrill-Skolnik/dp/0071485473).  Barton is okay, but Skolnik is the gold standard for all Old Crows....  ;)

Good work with the numbers, thought. :nod:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BurmaShave on September 20, 2016, 22:13:57
If you don't have Skolnik's Radar Handbook, you should get it (https://www.amazon.ca/Radar-Handbook-Third-Merrill-Skolnik/dp/0071485473).  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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 21, 2016, 07:27:36
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)  :o
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 22, 2016, 15:22:55
Keeping the Super Hornet line going:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 27, 2016, 14:07:52
Boeing brings up Bombardier (at end):

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: George Wallace on September 27, 2016, 14:20:29
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?

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 27, 2016, 20:06:18
French being realistic (can they find a Bombardier angle too?):

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: GR66 on September 27, 2016, 22:26:17
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: RaceAddict on September 28, 2016, 15:30:13
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.  ::)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 28, 2016, 18:13:06
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on September 28, 2016, 19:40:30
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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on September 28, 2016, 19:45:17
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 28, 2016, 17:18:42
Making the pitch:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 09, 2016, 16:47:59
Excerpts from an implicitly pro-F-35 piece at the CGAI:

Quote
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…

Quote
…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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 21, 2016, 20:45:47
So some Super Hornets after all as "interim measure"?  How many, any Growlers (good for expeditionary)?  Further to this,

Quote
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 22, 2016, 09:28:35
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 22, 2016, 14:07:44
Estimate successfully situated. Orphan fleet of 18 Super Hornets to be purchased as per Mercedes Stevenson:

https://twitter.com/CTVMercedes/status/801123175488778240 (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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 22, 2016, 14:34:31
Estimate successfully situated. Orphan fleet of 18 Super Hornets to be purchased as per Mercedes Stevenson:

https://twitter.com/CTVMercedes/status/801123175488778240 (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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 22, 2016, 14:51:42
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Inspir on November 22, 2016, 15:01:13
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 22, 2016, 15:06:25
Anyone get the sense they don't even have a deal negotiated with Boeing at this point? 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: George Wallace on November 22, 2016, 15:30:01
Please do not listen to the Prime Minister on Question Period airing at the moment.  You will be very disappointed. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: George Wallace on November 22, 2016, 15:31:45

EH-101 clusterf*ck redux.

My immediate thoughts as well.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 22, 2016, 15:43:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: George Wallace on November 22, 2016, 15:46:20
Shall we now start referring to the Hornets as the RCAF "Deuce and a Halfs"?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Inspir on November 22, 2016, 15:49:07
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: George Wallace on November 22, 2016, 15:54:56
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.   [:D
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Technoviking on November 22, 2016, 16:08:10
4th Down and Punt.
That will be our plan, and then realize just before sending out the punt squad that this is the CFL...  :P
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Jay4th on November 22, 2016, 16:34:45
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on November 22, 2016, 16:54:55
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 22, 2016, 17:09:42
Quote
...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:  [>:( !!!
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Inspir on November 22, 2016, 17:47:58
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:  [>:( !!!

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 22, 2016, 17:52:55
That will be our plan, and then realize just before sending out the punt squad that this is the CFL...  :P

Still play football in Canada?

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 22, 2016, 18:00:22
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 22, 2016, 18:22:18
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Rifleman62 on November 22, 2016, 18:37:57
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 22, 2016, 18:40:33
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 22, 2016, 18:57:52
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: caocao on November 22, 2016, 19:29:50
Talking about infra, do our hgrs in CL and Bagot able to support the SH or are we going to need new hgr doors?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 22, 2016, 19:45:13
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on November 22, 2016, 19:50:13
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Downhiller229 on November 22, 2016, 20:03:41
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: CBH99 on November 22, 2016, 20:32:05
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BurmaShave on November 22, 2016, 20:56:07
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)?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 22, 2016, 21:21:21
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
   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: ArmyVern on November 22, 2016, 21:42:58
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 22, 2016, 21:52:52
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on November 22, 2016, 21:56:31
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 22, 2016, 22:00:39
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 Pugliese 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"
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: ringo on November 22, 2016, 22:18:53
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 22, 2016, 22:30:14
trying this, first time list of cf18 hours
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 22, 2016, 22:32:06
What are the headers? First column looks like tail number?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 22, 2016, 22:38:08
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Inspir on November 22, 2016, 22:47:09
Talking about infra, do our hgrs in CL and Bagot able to support the SH or are we going to need new hgr doors?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 22, 2016, 22:48:18
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 22, 2016, 22:57:06
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 22, 2016, 23:38:49
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 (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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: ModlrMike on November 23, 2016, 01:16:07
So we're replacing the F-18 with the F-18? That makes sense.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 23, 2016, 03:25:37
It doesn't say anything about replacements.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 23, 2016, 03:39:56
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 23, 2016, 04:20:04
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/ (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/10/14/norway-may-become-first-country-f-35-block-buy/)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 23, 2016, 04:55:13
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/ (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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Halifax Tar on November 23, 2016, 06:36:53
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Dimsum on November 23, 2016, 07:46:40

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 23, 2016, 07:48:06
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 23, 2016, 09:51:10
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 23, 2016, 11:19:06
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 23, 2016, 11:45:08
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  :).
 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on November 23, 2016, 11:52:37
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:

Quote
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 23, 2016, 12:03:41
So wait, are some of you arguing against keeping the air force at ~80 aircraft?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 23, 2016, 12:39:03
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 23, 2016, 12:40:53
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Altair on November 23, 2016, 12:51:50
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 23, 2016, 13:49:36
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: kev994 on November 23, 2016, 14:02:16
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on November 23, 2016, 14:02:55
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.

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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 23, 2016, 14:12:19
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 23, 2016, 14:32:46
Even if we had no fighters at all, the a** f**ce would still have more than eighty aircraft.

You knew what I meant. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: STONEY on November 23, 2016, 15:31:08
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 23, 2016, 15:59:33
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on November 23, 2016, 16:14:52
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on November 23, 2016, 17:12:47
You knew what I meant.

Not necessarily - there is a good chunk of the fighter community who seem to think along those lines.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 23, 2016, 17:32:06
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 ...   
 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 23, 2016, 17:44:00
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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 23, 2016, 18:35:46
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 23, 2016, 18:40:31
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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 23, 2016, 19:10:30
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 23, 2016, 19:11:32
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 23, 2016, 19:12:56
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 23, 2016, 19:23:16
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 23, 2016, 20:21:01
...
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Quirky on November 23, 2016, 23:58:48
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.

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Scoobs on November 24, 2016, 00:44:51
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.


Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Quirky on November 24, 2016, 01:11:11
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.  :o

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 24, 2016, 03:45:47
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 24, 2016, 07:49:52
Todays Bruce MacKinnon cartoon on the subject.   :nod:

Chronicle Herald Cartoon (http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2016-11-24-editorial-cartoon)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: suffolkowner on November 24, 2016, 08:59:50
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 24, 2016, 09:58:14
Todays Bruce MacKinnon cartoon on the subject.   :nod:

Chronicle Herald Cartoon (http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2016-11-24-editorial-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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Rifleman62 on November 24, 2016, 10:13:23
Canuck_Jock:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 24, 2016, 11:10:37
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 24, 2016, 11:18:19
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Thucydides on November 24, 2016, 12:25:55
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on November 24, 2016, 12:45:59
.... 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.....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 24, 2016, 13:37:36
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 (http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/11/23/former-military-procurement-chiefs-slam-liberals-fighter-jet-plan/#.WDck01yq3Nh)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 24, 2016, 14:36:12
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 (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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 24, 2016, 14:39:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on November 24, 2016, 14:41:14
...I'd be crying fowl right now if I was any one but Boeing....
"...God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly ... "   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 24, 2016, 14:50:24
"...God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly ... "

If you throw them off the peace tower they will
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 24, 2016, 15:11:25
/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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on November 24, 2016, 15:12:47
"...God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly ... "

For those that have never seen the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3mgmEdfwg
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 24, 2016, 15:18:18
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: "
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: FSTO on November 24, 2016, 16:19:15
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on November 24, 2016, 17:10:50
/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 "
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 24, 2016, 19:57:37
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 24, 2016, 20:14:32
/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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 24, 2016, 20:44:44
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: NavyShooter on November 24, 2016, 22:16:03
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



Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 24, 2016, 23:15:42
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 25, 2016, 00:28:04
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: GR66 on November 25, 2016, 01:13:14
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 25, 2016, 04:19:26
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?)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Larry Strong on November 25, 2016, 08:40:43
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


Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: NavyShooter on November 25, 2016, 09:16:52
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

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: NavyShooter on November 25, 2016, 09:23:42
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 25, 2016, 09:29:37
At that point those are more the oh crap 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)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 25, 2016, 09:36:59
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Journeyman on November 25, 2016, 09:57:35
"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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 25, 2016, 10:20:04
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 25, 2016, 11:17:36

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. :-(
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 25, 2016, 11:31:19
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 25, 2016, 12:08:50
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
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journal.forces.gc.ca%2Fvo7%2Fno3%2Fimages%2FStou-6.jpg&hash=048311341a467879afcee09f12378444)

Norad - CF-101
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/McDonnell_CF-101_in_air_show.jpg/300px-McDonnell_CF-101_in_air_show.jpg)

NATO - CF-104
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Fphotos%2Fairliners%2F9%2F7%2F4%2F1849479.jpg%3Fv%3Dv40&hash=d92dbc5e36c2d78d9e0b79b74c27f7b4)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Ostrozac on November 25, 2016, 12:26:07
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Canuck_Jock on November 25, 2016, 12:57:31
RCAF 2030: Ground Attack:

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-MJIwDydp0VU%2FTgyKptOIvlI%2FAAAAAAAACyY%2FWJNVHOLd_04%2Fs1600%2FSomeone%252Bget%252Bhim%252Ba%252Bdog%252Btag%252BHilarious%252Bcollection%252Bof%252Bphotos%252Bof%252Bsoldiers%252Bseeing%252Bthe%252Bfunny%252Bside%252Bof%252Blife%252Bon%252Bthe%252Bfrontline%252B12.jpg&hash=a1873b398fd172ba85f0e5cd4a1fe2f4)

RCAF 2030: Air Defence:

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Mcf9GpqjSLM/hqdefault.jpg)

As much use as a 'Scorpion' but far more classy (and the aircraft too...):

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f8/80/4a/f8804a49999218755bc61d4bab0a5078.jpg)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 25, 2016, 13:27:08
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: George Wallace on November 25, 2016, 13:41:22
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 25, 2016, 13:44:50
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Dimsum on November 25, 2016, 13:46:43
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on November 25, 2016, 13:57:27
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Ostrozac on November 25, 2016, 14:06:14
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 25, 2016, 15:43:56
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 (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:

Quote
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
 (http://www.darpa.mil/program/system-of-systems-integration-technology-and-experimentation)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darpa.mil%2Fddm_gallery%2F%282AD3%29%2520Global%2520Nav%2520-%2520About%2520Us%2520-%2520Offices%2520-%2520STO%2520-%2520STO%2520Featured%2520Content%25202_287_228.png&hash=ae01b53f37fa7c6271fe1fd804c77bce)
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Colin P on November 25, 2016, 15:57:45
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. 
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Dimsum on November 25, 2016, 20:30:47
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Quirky on November 25, 2016, 21:09:14
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 26, 2016, 00:05:52
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: BurmaShave on November 26, 2016, 00:29:16
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 26, 2016, 07:50:04

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: kev994 on November 26, 2016, 09:02:06


I can predict with nearly one hundred percent certainty that all 18 will go to one Sqn.
In Quebec
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Dimsum on November 26, 2016, 09:54:33
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?   >:D

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Good2Golf on November 26, 2016, 11:04:19
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: dapaterson on November 26, 2016, 11:34:05
I say we retire the Tutors and use the 18x SH for the display team... no point wasting the shiny new stuff on operations...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 26, 2016, 11:39:46
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 26, 2016, 12:17:46
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 26, 2016, 12:22:30
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 26, 2016, 12:26:09
The lack of a blue suit at the press conference was noticeable

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 26, 2016, 12:55:19
Gotta respect Comd RCAF. He knows he's not getting to CDS now, and refuses to pass on a lie for political gain.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 26, 2016, 13:18:39
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 26, 2016, 13:37:33
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 *** covering, but he stuck to his position that he did not see a capability gap before 2025.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 26, 2016, 13:58:21
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: QV on November 26, 2016, 14:48:17
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Dimsum on November 26, 2016, 15:16:52
What some (most?) aren't talking about - the Arctic interoperability problem.  Good points by Matthew Fisher.

Quote
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
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 26, 2016, 15:42:08
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/ (https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/science-and-scientists/)

Quote

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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Quirky on November 26, 2016, 18:41:21
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: HB_Pencil on November 26, 2016, 18:46:33
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 (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
 (http://www.darpa.mil/program/system-of-systems-integration-technology-and-experimentation)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darpa.mil%2Fddm_gallery%2F%282AD3%29%2520Global%2520Nav%2520-%2520About%2520Us%2520-%2520Offices%2520-%2520STO%2520-%2520STO%2520Featured%2520Content%25202_287_228.png&hash=ae01b53f37fa7c6271fe1fd804c77bce)

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: NavyShooter on November 26, 2016, 19:06:11
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....
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 26, 2016, 19:08:57
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 26, 2016, 21:29:57
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:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 26, 2016, 21:34:26
There are plenty or arguments against the Super Hornet, maintenance is not one of them.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Dimsum on November 26, 2016, 22:10:53
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?   
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Old Sweat on November 26, 2016, 22:14:08
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Quirky on November 26, 2016, 23:41:31
And that's why we have flight incidents....

Warranty voids on wheels up.  ;)

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 27, 2016, 11:09:35
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 frig 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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 27, 2016, 11:17:31
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.

Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: FSTO on November 27, 2016, 14:21:01
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 27, 2016, 16:28:29
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: FSTO on November 27, 2016, 17:08:20
12 to 18 months from now is realistic, I think.

 :Bday Dancer:
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 27, 2016, 23:54:09
:Bday Dancer:

51 years after the sea king was introduced
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 28, 2016, 02:02:17
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...
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 28, 2016, 03:06:12
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?"
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: FSTO on November 28, 2016, 08:05:22
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."
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 29, 2016, 00:51:12
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: MilEME09 on November 29, 2016, 01:03:43
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: PuckChaser on November 29, 2016, 01:11:25


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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 29, 2016, 01:24:48

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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Dimsum on November 29, 2016, 01:28:54
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?
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: jmt18325 on November 29, 2016, 01:52:40
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.
Title: Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
Post by: Loachman on November 29, 2016, 06:35:19
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 incre