• 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)

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,110
Underway said:
5 Eyes isn't a thing either technically AFAIK.  Just faster to say than CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ Eyes Only....

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

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,060
SupersonicMax said:
I don’t think 2 Eyes is a thing.

SECRET // CANUS is very much a thing.

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

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

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,110
PuckChaser said:
SECRET // CANUS is very much a thing.

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

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

CAN/US is.  2 Eyes isn’t.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
My favourite is the US marking “NOFORN”, after they give you the docs, from the very briefing they asked you to give.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,080
Points
1,160
SupersonicMax said:
5 Eyes is a thing.  It’s an intelligence alliance.  Short hand is FVEY.


I'm nitpicking, but actually, I think ECHELON is the "thing," or was, anyways, 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.
 

Iron 1

Guest
Reaction score
2
Points
30
Civilian here...don't beat on me.
In my experience we have always had a "special" relationship with the USA.
This dates back to the 1930's IIRC?
Throughout the early 1950's we made a concerted effort (CF-100 program and investment in Pinetree/Mid-Canada) to prove that we could pull our weight, with regards to the air defense of the North American Continent.
Since this point we have become increasingly servile to our "big brother".
Now our chickens have come home to roost. There are no other options.
If we can't talk to the guy's in Elmendorf (or more importantly? If they don't want to talk to us because it may prove "problematical")

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

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

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,453
Points
1,360
Iron 1 said:
Civilian here...don't beat on me.
In my experience we have always had a "special" relationship with the USA.
This dates back to the 1930's IIRC?
Throughout the early 1950's we made a concerted effort (CF-100 program and investment in Pinetree/Mid-Canada) to prove that we could pull our weight, with regards to the air defense of the North American Continent.
Since this point we have become increasingly servile to our "big brother".
Now our chickens have come home to roost. There are no other options.
If we can't talk to the guy's in Elmendorf (or more importantly? If they don't want to talk to us because it may prove "problematical")

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

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

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

 

Iron 1

Guest
Reaction score
2
Points
30
Humphrey Bogart said:
Aye but Defence is a partisan political issue in Canada.  Thanks for taking an interest in the site my friend. Biggest thing we could do to improve our Defence capability wouls be to educate Canadians but they must want to be educated first.
And therein lies the fundamental issue...

Grrr...
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
Presumably Boeing is offering the Block III Super Hornet to RCAF (it is the only model now in production, for USN)--article over-egging IRST a tad?

IRST gives Super Hornets counter-stealth capability
Infra-red system relies on thermal signature emitted by the target, tracked from a very long distance under adverse visibility

he US Navy has awarded the Boeing company a US$152 million contract to complete the design, development, integration, and testing of the Infra-Red Search Track (IRST) system for the F/A-18E/F Block III, the latest variant of the Super Hornet, Defense Update reported.

A few days later the company received another US$208 million contract to integrate and produce Lockheed Martin’s Legion Pod IRST for the US Air Force F-15C/D fleet.

The new Block II IRST will replace the Block I system which did not meet the Navy’s requirements. This “see first, strike first” capability empowers pilots with greater reaction time, improving survivability.

Development and testing are expected to conclude in 2021, in time for expected Super Hornet Block III deliveries. The first part of this program was an US$89 million order awarded in June 2017. In October, the sensor’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin was awarded US$100 to upgrade the IRST21 sensor for the new Block II standard.

The IRST will enable the Navy fighters to target adversaries beyond visual and radar range, and enhance survivability in radar denied environment, operate against existing and emerging air threats.

Better yet … IRST is completely passive and does not highlight the location of the aircraft, unlike when a pilot decides to use the on-board radar, which can give away its position as radio frequency energy bursts out.

IRST can also work in all weather conditions as it uses the infrared rather than the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

While the US services have yet to embrace IRST technology, some of NATO air forces, as well as Russia and China are employing such systems, as well as Singapore and South Korea on their F-15s.

IRST relies on the thermal signature emitted by the target, tracked from a very long distance. While these tracks are affected by clouds and humidity, the high sensitivity of the Long Wave sensors is optimized for operations even under adverse visibility conditions.

The IRST consists of a passive long-wave infrared receiver, a signal processor, inertial measurement unit and environmental control unit packed into a section of a fuel tank attached to the belly of the Super Hornet, the report said.

It will be part of an avionics upgrade that will prepare the Super Hornet to fight modern adversaries. Other elements of that upgrade include the Distributed Targeting Processor — Networked computer, a new, powerful processor that will increase the capability to process multiple tracks, from on board and remote sources, in real time.

Remote tracks will be delivered over a new, high speed data link known as the Tactical Targeting Network Technology, that enable several Super Hornets flying a loose formation to share many tracks picked by their IRSTs, to passively “fix,” geolocate and determine the range and heading of each target, just like a radar — something a single IRST cannot do.

According to The National Interest, once either China or Russia manages to put together long-wave infrared search and track, high-speed data links, and the computers and algorithms for multi-ship sensor fusion, the ability of US fifth-generation fighters to operate independently will diminish.

That’s bad news for the Pentagon, of course. It suggests, it is only a matter of time before both China and Russia will be able to shoot down F-22s and F-35s.

The Russians — The National Interest reported — have had infrared search and track sensors onboard their fighter aircraft for decades. Even the earliest versions of the Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker have had an IRST system installed.

The Russians have continued to field modern fighters such as the Sukhoi Su-30SM and Su-35S with newer and more modern IRST technology even if the detection ranges are fairly unimpressive. Even the forthcoming Su-57 PAK-FA incorporates the 101KS-V infrared search and track system.

Both Russian and Chinese defense industries have experience building IRST sensors and should be able to develop a long wave infrared search and track pod without too much difficulty.

By the same token, both the Russians and the Chinese have access to airborne data-networking capability. The Russian Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound is equipped with RK-RLDN and APD-518, the later of which can coordinate a flight of four jets.

Newer Russian fighters such as the Su-30SM, Su-35S and the Su-57 also incorporate datalinks — as do their Chinese counterparts. However, the speed and throughput of these datalinks remain in question, but it is all but a certainty that both Moscow and Beijing have the wherewithal to develop high-speed high band airborne datalinks.

Once the Russians and Chinese have the ability to link two or more longwave IRST-equipped jets via a high speed link, they would have most of the ingredients needed to build a counter-stealth capability.

That leaves the question of Russia and China being able to develop advanced sensor fusion algorithms, which is a challenging undertaking even for American defense contractors.

It will take time, but it is likely that both nations have the ability to develop such software and the computing hardware to make it work. Beijing, which has more access to external sources of computing technology, is more likely to be able to develop such an avionics package first in the the relative near term.

However, Russia will also probably be able to develop a similar capability given time — and possibly access to foreign processors from China perhaps if sanctions are not lifted.

Indeed, the U.S. Air Force anticipated this development—the service noted that its F-22 Raptor would be increasingly challenged by the 2030s by new enemy capabilities.

Screen-Shot-2019-09-02-at-1.12.00-PM-900x540.png

The IRST will enable Navy F-18s to target adversaries beyond visual and radar range, enhance survivability in a radar denied environment and operate against existing and emerging air threats. Handout.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/article/irst-gives-super-hornets-counter-stealth-capability/

Mark
Ottawa
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
Will there then by two (more 2 EYES):

Sweden's Saab undecided on whether to bid on Canada's fighter-jet contract

Days after Airbus Defence and Space pulled out of the $19-billion race to replace Canada's aging fighter jets, the only European firm still eligible to compete says it has not decided whether it will.

Saab Canada president Simon Carroll says the Swedish firm is interested in entering its Gripen jet against its two remaining competitors, both of which are from the U.S.: Boeing's Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin's F-35.

However, Carroll told The Canadian Press on Tuesday that his company is still analyzing the competition's nitty-gritty details -- including a security requirement that forced out two other European jet-makers.

All bidders are required to explain by Sept. 20 how they plan to ensure their planes can integrate with the top-secret Canada-U.S. intelligence network known as "Two Eyes," which is used to co-ordinate the defence of North America.

But in announcing its withdrawal from the competition Friday, Airbus said meeting the requirement would place "too significant of a cost" on non-U.S. aircraft. French firm Dassault cited the same requirement when it pulled its Rafale jet in November.

"We are still looking at that security assessment side of things from the Two-Eyes perspective," Carroll said.

"We don't see any major issues with it as this point in time. Having said that, we're still reviewing everything through the whole (request for proposals) at this point in time and we will reserve the right to make our judgment on whether or not we provide a bid."

Airbus also raised concerns about changes to a long-standing policy that requires bidders on military contracts to legally commit to invest as much money in Canadian products and operations as they get out of contracts they win.

Bidders can now instead establish "industrial targets," lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign non-binding agreements promising to make all efforts to achieve them. Such bids do suffer penalties when the bids are scored, but are not rejected outright.

That change followed U.S. complaints the previous policy violated an agreement Canada signed in 2006 to become one of nine partner countries in developing the F-35. The agreement says companies in the partner countries will compete for work associated with purchases of the planes.

While Saab has previously raised its own concerns about the change, saying it would shortchange Canadian taxpayers and industry, Carroll said it was "not a hurdle" and that "we think we have a very good offering for what we can offer in Canada."

Even participating in the competition is not a cheap proposition for fighter-jet makers; while Carroll would not speak to the potential cost to Saab, analysts have previously pegged the cost in the millions of dollars.

While companies are expected to submit their plans to meet the Two-Eyes security requirement on Sept. 20, the government has said it will provide feedback and let bidders amend their submissions.

Final bids aren't expected until next winter, with a formal contract signed in 2022. The first plane won't arrive until at least 2025. Successive federal government have been working to replace Canada's CF-18s for more than a decade.

Carroll praised the government for being transparent as it has worked for years to launch the competition, which followed an aborted attempt between 2010 and 2012 to buy F-35s without a competition.

"We're supportive of the government processes and what they've done moving forward," he said.

"The transparency from the government has been very good. They've given ample opportunity for us to review documents. They've been very open in saying that these are the dates and these are the times."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/sweden-s-saab-undecided-on-whether-to-bid-on-canada-s-fighter-jet-contract-1.4576026

Mark
Ottawa
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,541
Points
1,090
Saab is probably the best contender (IMO) out the Euro's if i recall didn't they offer a full tech transfer? or was that Dassault? regardless Saab and the sweeds usually do not worry to much about throwing money at a problem, much of their domestic military industry is meant to solve their problems. A Contract for 80+ jets to Canada would be icing on the cake for Saab, and I am sure they would be very willing to work with us to set up domestic supply chains for some parts. Who knows maybe they will let Bombardier build them and let some federal party win some votes in quebec.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,110
Except out of the original 5 aircraft we were offered, it is the worst aircraft we could get.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,907
Points
1,010
SupersonicMax said:
Except out of the original 5 aircraft we were offered, it is the worst aircraft we could get.

Well, that should make it nearly certain to win...
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,541
Points
1,090
SupersonicMax said:
Except out of the original 5 aircraft we were offered, it is the worst aircraft we could get.

What makes it the worst option? Age of the design?
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,110
No integrated sensor fusion, a true fourth gen aircraft (vs 4.5 to 5th gen), lower payload, lesser range and endurance than what we have now.  The only benefit compared to what we have now is an AESA radar...
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
567
Points
1,040
Well Bombardier would have a hard time building it and would not have the ability.  There is that.

CRJ to Mitsu
Dash 8 to Longview (Viking)
Water bombers and Twin Otter to Viking plus the Dash 1-7 too
Shorts to Spirit? (maybe)
Training to CAE

Just Lear and Globals are left in Bombardier

 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,541
Points
1,090
SupersonicMax said:
No integrated sensor fusion, a true fourth gen aircraft (vs 4.5 to 5th gen), lower payload, lesser range and endurance than what we have now.  The only benefit compared to what we have now is an AESA radar...

https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen-ef/

Maybe i am misreading but it sounds like the new NG(E/F) model has sensor fusion tech. Half the take off weight is a disadvantage, speed it has a slight edge over the F35. Much of it's negatives seem to be a draw back of the fact its a smaller aircraft thus less internal fuel, takeoff weight, etc.....  Meaning drop tanks would be required in the arctic.
 
Top