• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,916
Points
1,360
Hamish Seggie said:
I don't think so, unless you have some inside info you can't share.

They have gone through this before. G2G might be able to shine some light on the inner workings of the RCAF and the Snowbirds.

Mr. Seggie, not as tied in as I once was, but the Snowbirds steeds have been steadily diverging from a reasonably supportable platform for decades and it's only a matter of time before SARP (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2016/aerospace-systems-347.page) or son-of-SARP and their mantra of "must be interchangeable with the training fleet" becomes indeterminate, because the training fleet will be supplied by a civilian consortium and as yet unknown.  The RCAF has (not so) secretly wished for the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle to become the F-35's lead-in fighter (Korean Aerospace worked hand in hand with Lockheed during the development of the T-50) and then it would order 'a few more' T-50s for the SBs, paint them red and white, and "Presto!" new Snowbird aircraft...

For the Defence Acquisition Guide - 2016 plan below, is no more (at least publicly). 

Snowbird Aircraft Replacement Project

Replace Existing Systems with Newer or Different System

Objective

To satisfy the requirement to provide the mandated Government of Canada aerobatic air demonstration capability to Canadian and North American audiences.

Requirements

This project will continue the proud tradition of Canada’s Snowbirds as an air display capability and a key recruitment tool for the Canadian Armed Forces. Snowbird Aircraft Replacement Project (SARP) is linked to the CT-114 Life Extension Beyond 2020 project and may also be linked to the solution for Future Pilot Training, which is due to replace NATO Flying Training in Canada in the 2020 period. The chosen platform must be configurable to the 431 (AD) Squadron standard, including a smoke system, luggage capability and a unique paint scheme. The platform must also be interchangeable with the training fleet to ensure the hard demands of show performances can be distributed throughout the aircraft fleet.

Preliminary Estimate

$500 million to $1.5 billion
Anticipated Timeline

2019 to 2020 Options Analysis
2022 Definition Approval
2020 to 2026 Implementation Approval
2025 Request for Proposal Release
2026 to 2036 Contract Award
2026 to 2036 Final Delivery


Now, nothing on the (public) books, and Future Aircrew Training (FAcT) in the current Defence Capabilities Blueprint has nothing noted regarding the Snowbirds.

Future Aircrew Training

Project Type - Project Replace

Objective
The project will develop and implement a relevant, cost-effective, flexible, and efficient aircrew training program to meet future aerospace requirements of the CAF.

Requirements
The project must ensure a seamless transition with existing aircrew training delivered by programs like NATO Flying Training Canada, Contracted Flying Training and Support, and the training provided by 402 Squadron. The project must deliver agile and flexible courses to meet the future needs of the CAF. Aircrew standards and control of training content will be maintained by the RCAF. The training must meet the unique challenges of the Canadian environment, exploit technical advances to maintain relevant and cost effective training, and maximize simulation and emulation to create efficiencies and provide the best value for Canada. FAcT is envisioned as an acquired service contract, though the procurement strategy has yet to be finalized.

Funding Range
$1 billion to $4.99 billion

Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)
Completed Start Options Analysis
2019/2020 Start Definition
2022/2023 Start Implementation
2023/2024 Initial Delivery
2028/2029 Final Delivery

My guess?  CAE wins the FAcT award in 2022, and includes a "costed option" to the RCAF to provide an additional capability depth to cover the Snowbirds...

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,227
Points
1,090
If the Snowbirds are that much of priority for "Canada's BACK!" Have the Liberal Party of Canada fund the goddamn things!
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
Good2Golf: What plane(s) likely for CAE/KF Aerospace "SkyAlyne" bid for FAcT?
https://www.janes.com/article/80419/partners-target-future-training-cansec18d1

From gov't:

Future Aircrew Training Program
...
List of qualified suppliers

On December 10, 2018, Canada established a list of qualified suppliers that demonstrated their ability to meet Canada’s needs, as defined in the Invitation to Qualify.

Here is the list of qualified suppliers (in alphabetical order):

    Airbus Defence and Space
    Babcock Canada Inc.
    Leonardo Canada
    Lockheed Martin Canada Inc.
    SkyAlyne Canada Limited Partnership
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/snac-nfps/ffpn-fact-eng.html

Mark
Ottawa
 

BurmaShave

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
130
MarkOttawa said:
Good2Golf: What plane(s) likely for CAE/KF Aerospace "SkyAlyne" bid for FAcT?
https://www.janes.com/article/80419/partners-target-future-training-cansec18d1

From gov't:

Mark
Ottawa

PC-21 and King Air 350 seem likely. No idea for Ph I, Ph IV/FLIT, or helo. Planes change as we juggle requirements. When the actual bidding time comes around, we'll see what they go for.

I've heard some interesting (and not the good kind of interesting) ideas from some of the players. Things like the Grob 120TP, doing FLIT on prop aircraft, and VR goggle-based sims. There was even talk of a scalable aircraft (can dial up/down the horsepower and systems for Phase I/II/II). Hopefully CAE/KF can avoid the good idea fairy, seeing as they've been delivering aircrew training for a while now and know what works.
 

BurmaShave

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
130
SupersonicMax said:
FAcT does not include FLIT which will be a different program altogether.

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

Still, it struck me as weird. Especially cause they also tried to convince me the majority of my course could be delivered in the sim, which I strenuously disagreed with.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,916
Points
1,360
Ah yes, the “our sim is so good we can do everything but the graduation ticket ride in the sim” bit.  Still hard to get some off that position and  accept its not like the commercial aviation world.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,916
Points
1,360
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
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,916
Points
1,360
Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.  Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter.

Regards
G2G
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
165
Points
710
Good2Golf said:
Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.  Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter.

Regards
G2G

Thank You.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,438
Points
1,160
Good2Golf said:
Fighter Lead-In Trainer.  Basically a simplified jet aircraft to transition pilots from a turboprop trainer to a front line fighter jet.  Currently the CT-155 Hawk, previously the CF-116(F-5) Freedom Fighter.

Regards
G2G

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

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

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,916
Points
1,360
daftandbarmy said:
As a tangent for you, when I was hiking through chunks of the Lake District, in Lancashire, last month I had a good chance to see both types of aircraft in use by, I presume, the RAF.

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

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

Regards
G2G
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,788
Points
1,060
Article Link

Airbus pulls out of Canada's fighter jet competition


Company claims the cost of meeting NORAD requirements was too steep


One of the companies in the race to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 jet fighters has dropped out of the competition.

Airbus Defence and Space, which was pitching the Eurofighter Typhoon, notified the Liberal government Friday that it was not going to bid.

The decision was made after a detailed review of the tender issued by the federal government in mid-July.

The move leaves only three companies in the contest: Lockheed Martin Canada with its F-35; Boeing with the Super Hornet; and Saab, which is offering an updated version of its Gripen fighter.

Simon Jacques, president of Airbus Defence and Space Canada, made a point of saying the company appreciated the professional dealings it had with defence and procurement officials.

"Airbus Defence and Space is proud of our longstanding partnership with the Government of Canada, and of serving our fifth home country's aerospace priorities for over three decades," Jacques said in a statement. "Together we continue in our focus of supporting the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, growing skilled aerospace jobs across the country and spurring innovation in the Canadian aerospace sector."

Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America.

It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make."

A controversial evaluation process

After complaints from the Trump administration, the Liberal government revised the industrial benefits portion of the tender to make it more fair to Lockheed Martin.

The changes to the evaluation process irked some competitors.

Under long-established military procurement policy, the federal government demands companies spend the equivalent of a contract's value in Canada as a way to bolster industry in this country.

The F-35 program is not structured that way. It allows Canadian companies to bid on the aircraft's global supply chain contracts.

There is, however, no guarantee that they'll get any of those contracts.

The recent revision ensures that Lockheed Martin will not be severely penalized for having a different system.

Last spring, Boeing executives voiced their concerns publicly during a defence trade show in Ottawa.

"I was surprised by the recommended changes," said Jim Barnes, the director of business development in Canada for Boeing Defence, Space & Security. "We believe we can put a really compelling offer on the table.

"You have a policy that's been in place for decades that has been very successful. The minister has mentioned this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, so why would you deviate from a policy that has been so successful to accommodate a competitor?"
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,865
Points
1,110
I'm just a retired infantry guy here so small words and short sentences please.

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

Just a thought and not all that original either.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
Eurofighter and benefits, 2 EYES problem:

...
Not a surprise, says expert

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

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

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

Reaching full interoperability difficult for European aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark
Ottawa
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,848
Points
1,040
SupersonicMax said:
I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.

5 Eyes isn't a thing either technically AFAIK.  Just faster to say than CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ Eyes Only....
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
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
 
Top