Author Topic: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)  (Read 724959 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline BurmaShave

  • New Member
  • **
  • 2,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 45
  • Hates lines.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2625 on: August 03, 2019, 21:39:37 »
FAcT does not include FLIT which will be a different program altogether.

Yeah, but the good idea fairies were trying to explain to lil ole me how their plans for FaCT could be leveraged for Ph IV/FLIT. Nothing official, I was just a chatty student talking to tours.

Still, it struck me as weird. Especially cause they also tried to convince me the majority of my course could be delivered in the sim, which I strenuously disagreed with.
YQR Pirep from DH8: And it’s hard to fly an airplane, in the cold November rain

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,169
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2626 on: August 04, 2019, 02:38:53 »
Ah yes, the “our sim is so good we can do everything but the graduation ticket ride in the sim” bit.  Still hard to get some off that position and  accept its not like the commercial aviation world.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,169
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2627 on: August 04, 2019, 02:43:51 »
Ah yes, the “our sim is so good we can do everything but the graduation ticket ride in the sim” bit.  Still hard to get some off that position and  accept its not like the commercial aviation world.

SkyAlyne and Babcock will likely offer similar platforms since they are the incumbents in Canada and UK/France respectively. If Lockheed-Martin, I’d figure KT-1 / T-50 pairing, notwithstanding that FLIT is currently not within FAcT. King Airs and Bell product for Multi/Rotary Ph3 likely.  I doubt rotary will entertain Airbus spinning the rotor the opposite way as all the RCAF single-rotor helos. No idea where Ph.1 will go.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,737
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2628 on: August 04, 2019, 06:42:22 »
Dumb question: What does FLIT stand for?
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,169
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2629 on: August 04, 2019, 06:48:39 »
Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.   Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter.

Regards
G2G

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,737
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2630 on: August 04, 2019, 07:37:50 »
Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.   Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter.

Regards
G2G

Thank You.
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 249,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,895
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2631 on: August 04, 2019, 11:14:57 »
Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.   Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter.

Regards
G2G

As a tangent for you, when I was hiking through chunks of the Lake District, in Lancashire, last month I had a good chance to see both types of aircraft in use by, I presume, the RAF.

I'm not sure of the makes or models involved, but their turboprop plane was a pretty cool little number. During high winds you couldn't hear them coming until they were alomost overhead.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,169
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2632 on: August 04, 2019, 13:18:33 »
As a tangent for you, when I was hiking through chunks of the Lake District, in Lancashire, last month I had a good chance to see both types of aircraft in use by, I presume, the RAF.

I'm not sure of the makes or models involved, but their turboprop plane was a pretty cool little number. During high winds you couldn't hear them coming until they were alomost overhead.

RAF (or to be more accurate, Babcock under contract to the RAF) uses the Textron/Beech Texan II (T-6C) and the BAE Hawk.  Similar versions to what CAE operates for the RCAF/NFTC.

Regards
G2G

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 225,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,912
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2633 on: August 30, 2019, 12:35:22 »
Article Link

Airbus pulls out of Canada's fighter jet competition


Company claims the cost of meeting NORAD requirements was too steep


One of the companies in the race to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 jet fighters has dropped out of the competition.
 
Airbus Defence and Space, which was pitching the Eurofighter Typhoon, notified the Liberal government Friday that it was not going to bid.
 
The decision was made after a detailed review of the tender issued by the federal government in mid-July.
 
The move leaves only three companies in the contest: Lockheed Martin Canada with its F-35; Boeing with the Super Hornet; and Saab, which is offering an updated version of its Gripen fighter.
 
Simon Jacques, president of Airbus Defence and Space Canada, made a point of saying the company appreciated the professional dealings it had with defence and procurement officials.
 
"Airbus Defence and Space is proud of our longstanding partnership with the Government of Canada, and of serving our fifth home country's aerospace priorities for over three decades," Jacques said in a statement. "Together we continue in our focus of supporting the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, growing skilled aerospace jobs across the country and spurring innovation in the Canadian aerospace sector."
 
Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America.
 
It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make."
 
A controversial evaluation process
 
After complaints from the Trump administration, the Liberal government revised the industrial benefits portion of the tender to make it more fair to Lockheed Martin.
 
The changes to the evaluation process irked some competitors.
 
Under long-established military procurement policy, the federal government demands companies spend the equivalent of a contract's value in Canada as a way to bolster industry in this country.
 
The F-35 program is not structured that way. It allows Canadian companies to bid on the aircraft's global supply chain contracts.
 
There is, however, no guarantee that they'll get any of those contracts.
 
The recent revision ensures that Lockheed Martin will not be severely penalized for having a different system.
 
Last spring, Boeing executives voiced their concerns publicly during a defence trade show in Ottawa.
 
"I was surprised by the recommended changes," said Jim Barnes, the director of business development in Canada for Boeing Defence, Space & Security. "We believe we can put a really compelling offer on the table.
 
"You have a policy that's been in place for decades that has been very successful. The minister has mentioned this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, so why would you deviate from a policy that has been so successful to accommodate a competitor?"
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 12:41:23 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 228,677
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,329
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2634 on: August 30, 2019, 21:53:34 »
I'm just a retired infantry guy here so small words and short sentences please.

So with Airbus backing out and Saab being the other Euro contender, would it not make more sense to purchase something from our continent?

Just a thought and not all that original either.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,618
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2635 on: August 31, 2019, 09:38:19 »
Eurofighter and benefits, 2 EYES problem:

Quote
...
Not a surprise, says expert

David Perry, vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute who specializes in defence procurement issues, said the decision by Airbus did not come as a surprise, especially given the company’s concerns over the recent changes by the Liberal government to the industrial benefits portion of the tender to make it more fair to Lockheed Martin.

“If somebody had asked me which of the four companies were most likely to drop out, I would have guessed Airbus,” Perry told Radio Canada International.

“Their sense was they had really spent a lot of time emphasizing the ITB (Industrial and Technological Benefits) offering that they had and so when the government made the change, which I think it made for the right reasons, to allow Lockheed or anybody else to bid under an adapted economic offset package model, they had certainly expressed that they thought that would really change the rules of the game.”

Reaching full interoperability difficult for European aircraft

Another concern the company had mentioned in its press release was the difficulty and the cost of establishing the 2-EYES interoperability with U.S. systems that Canada is looking for, Perry said.

To reach the level of interoperability that Canada requires to be able to fulfil its NORAD obligations, it needs to have aircraft that can work seamlessly with American aircraft, which means being integrated into the U.S. intelligence sharing systems, Perry said.

These systems allow the aircraft not only to communicate with each other and the ground controls but also access highly sensitive intelligence data that the U.S. jealously guards.

“What it means is that you have to have a connection between your intelligence feed and the equipment on the aircraft,” Perry said. “Our intelligence is largely American-driven and having that match with American equipment is very easy because it’s U.S. national systems and the American equipment comes to Canada previously connected, because the American government connects it.”

This creates a big hurdle for European plane makers, he said.

“Their equipment isn’t always automatically connected to American systems,” Perry said.

Some analysts have argued that this question of interoperability essentially gives Lockheed Martin and Boeing an edge over their European competitors.

“Ultimately for us to buy a fighter aircraft and make it effective, it has to work seamlessly with the U.S. government, not just the U.S. Air Force but the rest of the U.S. government,” Perry said.

“And I think the general sense is that the United States has said that it will work with whatever aircraft Canada buys, but ultimately we need to make those aircraft work with very sensitive American intelligence systems.”
https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/08/30/airbus-withdraws-from-canadian-fighter-jet-completion/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,863
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2636 on: August 31, 2019, 09:39:48 »
Eurofighter and benefits, 2 EYES problem:

Mark
Ottawa

I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 962
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2637 on: August 31, 2019, 10:38:48 »
I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.

5 Eyes isn't a thing either technically AFAIK.  Just faster to say than CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ Eyes Only....
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 10:47:28 by Underway »

Online Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,202
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2638 on: August 31, 2019, 11:09:56 »
Maybe they were referring to NORAD?  Or the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, referred to by IC in this 2018 document: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/h_ad03978.html
Living the lean life

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,384
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2639 on: August 31, 2019, 11:52:31 »
I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.

I'm guessing he means CANUS EYES ONLY.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,863
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2640 on: August 31, 2019, 12:08:03 »
5 Eyes isn't a thing either technically AFAIK.  Just faster to say than CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ Eyes Only....

5 Eyes is a thing.  It’s an intelligence alliance.  Short hand is FVEY.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 923,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,204
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2641 on: August 31, 2019, 13:54:19 »
I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.

SECRET // CANUS is very much a thing.

As is the already stated FVEY, and rarely used 4EYES (CAN/US/UK/AUS).

You don't need "EYES ONLY" after a caveat unless its CANADIAN EYES ONLY. Its implied that CANUS means only Canada and US...

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,863
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2642 on: August 31, 2019, 14:15:22 »
SECRET // CANUS is very much a thing.

As is the already stated FVEY, and rarely used 4EYES (CAN/US/UK/AUS).

You don't need "EYES ONLY" after a caveat unless its CANADIAN EYES ONLY. Its implied that CANUS means only Canada and US...

CAN/US is.  2 Eyes isn’t.

Online Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,202
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2643 on: August 31, 2019, 14:59:05 »
My favourite is the US marking “NOFORN”, after they give you the docs, from the very briefing they asked you to give.
Living the lean life

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,618
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2644 on: August 31, 2019, 15:46:26 »
SuperSonicMax:

Quote
CAN/US is.  2 Eyes isn’t.

Maybe a thing is born.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 228,677
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,329
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2645 on: August 31, 2019, 19:22:00 »
SuperSonicMax:

Maybe a thing is born.

Mark
Ottawa

Like an Alien 👾?
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 487,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,398
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2646 on: August 31, 2019, 19:47:48 »
5 Eyes is a thing.  It’s an intelligence alliance.  Short hand is FVEY.


I'm nitpicking, but actually, I think ECHELON is the "thing," or was, anyways, 20ish years ago, and 'Five eyes' etc is just a way to refer to it. AFAIK, ECHELON still exists, on the "books," so to say. It began as a codwwork for a system and it evolved into a whole, formal, five nations programme.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Iron 1

  • Guest
  • *
  • 210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2647 on: August 31, 2019, 20:36:06 »
Civilian here...don't beat on me.
In my experience we have always had a "special" relationship with the USA.
This dates back to the 1930's IIRC?
Throughout the early 1950's we made a concerted effort (CF-100 program and investment in Pinetree/Mid-Canada) to prove that we could pull our weight, with regards to the air defense of the North American Continent.
Since this point we have become increasingly servile to our "big brother".
Now our chickens have come home to roost. There are no other options.
If we can't talk to the guy's in Elmendorf (or more importantly? If they don't want to talk to us because it may prove "problematical")

Where do we really sit in terms of providing our slice of the NORAD pie?
We need to buy the F-35 and we should have done it ten years ago under Harper's original plan.

Or something like that... butts would be in seats if it was already a done deal.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,889
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2648 on: August 31, 2019, 20:41:47 »
Civilian here...don't beat on me.
In my experience we have always had a "special" relationship with the USA.
This dates back to the 1930's IIRC?
Throughout the early 1950's we made a concerted effort (CF-100 program and investment in Pinetree/Mid-Canada) to prove that we could pull our weight, with regards to the air defense of the North American Continent.
Since this point we have become increasingly servile to our "big brother".
Now our chickens have come home to roost. There are no other options.
If we can't talk to the guy's in Elmendorf (or more importantly? If they don't want to talk to us because it may prove "problematical")

Where do we really sit in terms of providing our slice of the NORAD pie?
We need to buy the F-35 and we should have done it ten years ago under Harper's original plan.

Or something like that... butts would be in seats if it was already a done deal.

Aye but Defence is a partisan political issue in Canada.  Thanks for taking an interest in the site my friend. Biggest thing we could do to improve our Defence capability wouls be to educate Canadians but they must want to be educated first.


Offline Iron 1

  • Guest
  • *
  • 210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2649 on: September 02, 2019, 22:27:49 »
Aye but Defence is a partisan political issue in Canada.  Thanks for taking an interest in the site my friend. Biggest thing we could do to improve our Defence capability wouls be to educate Canadians but they must want to be educated first.
And therein lies the fundamental issue...

Grrr...