• 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)

Hamish Seggie said:
How long before the RCAF - I mean the GoC - purchases "slightly used" Super Hornets?

Forgive me if I seem a bit jaded.

They wont. We need the 10,000 airframe hours with new jets. But with Boeing still getting this business with the US Navy it means the cost of the new Block III Super Hornets wont sky rocket.

I think thats what he was getting at.
 
Really puts in perspective the "USN Woes" in terms of numbers...

Managing the risk of 40 aircraft, out of a fleet of 800...    :o



With the exception of a full scale conflict with China, the USN alone could outnumber & outmatch anybody else on planet Earth, and then some. 

And the USMC with a fleet of approximately 130 Harriers & 150 legacy Hornets.



Just mind boggling numbers to me 
 
CBH99 said:
Really puts in perspective the "USN Woes" in terms of numbers...

Managing the risk of 40 aircraft, out of a fleet of 800...    :o

With the exception of a full scale conflict with China, the USN alone could outnumber & outmatch anybody else on planet Earth, and then some. 

And the USMC with a fleet of approximately 130 Harriers & 150 legacy Hornets.

Just mind boggling numbers to me

As for the USMC, an earlier post:

Factoid: USMC Rules, or, Who’s Got the Big Fighter Force?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/mark-collins-factoid-usmc-rules-or-whos-got-the-big-fighter-force/


Current Marine F-35 plan:

"...The Corps’ approved Program of Record remains 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs.”..
https://news.usni.org/2019/04/04/marines-accelerating-f-35c-procurement-support-carrier-deployments-f-35b-buys-slow

Mark
Ottawa
 
Pushing fighter jet deadline raises questions on which jets can do the work: experts
https://globalnews.ca/news/6600416/canada-fighter-jet-competition/


"The government believes it needs to run a competition, but there're many situations where, in reality, there's only one or two competitors that can actually meet the needs of the Canadian Forces," said Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and an expert on defence.

"So the government's put in a bit of a pickle by its rhetoric where it wants to portray that 'yeah, we're having a competition or we're providing value for money and all these kind of important things for Canada', but in fact knows there's really only one competitor."


"We've got to buy aircraft that can be completely and seamlessly inter-operable with the U.S.," said Dave Perry, vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and an expert on defence procurement.

Perry noted that in the past, questions around how aircraft will operate between Canadian and American systems hasn%u2019t been relevant because Canadian fighter jets have always been American.

Now, with foreign bidders like Sweden's Saab, the onus is on them to demonstrate their jets can actually do the work.

"Saab is the only competitor that is not part of either Five Eyes or Two Eyes and as a result, it would have the greatest amount of work in order to meet the requirements of the Royal Canadian Airforce," said Shimooka.

"Right off the bat, it requires the greatest amount of work for this."

While the government wouldn't say which firm asked for the deadline extension, both Lockheed Martin and Boeing offered statements saying it wasn't them.

A government source speaking on background insisted the extension will not impact the expected decision date. The result of the contest are due in 2022 with expected delivery of whichever jet is chosen beginning in 2025.
 
Bet ya a loonie SAAB knows they are ultimately screwed, if the Eurofighter and Rafale can't compete in Canada then SAAB will just spin their wheels. Why even bother spending the Millions knowing it will come down to the F-35 and Super Hornet? It will essentially be the F-35 by default seeing how the Navy is shutting down Super Hornet production. This stupid little competition is a colossal waste of tax payer dollars.
 
Trudeau will do what he wants, not what's best for Canada, then fruit salad the justification. President Trump should tell him it's the F-35 or you cannot operate with US Forces, anywhere incl NORAD.
 
Quirky said:
Bet ya a loonie SAAB knows they are ultimately screwed, if the Eurofighter and Rafale can't compete in Canada then SAAB will just spin their wheels. Why even bother spending the Millions knowing it will come down to the F-35 and Super Hornet? It will essentially be the F-35 by default seeing how the Navy is shutting down Super Hornet production. This stupid little competition is a colossal waste of tax payer dollars.

And a way for the Liberal party to cover its rear end.
 
Rifleman62 said:
Trudeau will do what he wants, not what's best for Canada, then fruit salad the justification. President Trump should tell him it's the F-35 or you cannot operate with US Forces, anywhere incl NORAD.

Don't worry. That is already happening, on a variety of levels, unofficially.
 
Want to bet the competition will be delayed several years due to the emergency funding and economic downturn reducing funds available?
 
Between his inability to get the pipeline built from Alberta to BC, Teck cancelling it's massive oilsands project (7000+ jobs) - plus was actually extremely environmentally friendly, supported lots of local indigenous communities and had the support of various chiefs - plus the cancellation of the LNG pipelines through Quebec...and now Coronavirus? 

This economy was already taking slug to the chest, repeatedly, before this... downturn in the economy is probably the most polite way one could put it.


How does one expect to finance all these military projects, as well as various other initiatives, when one continues to kill every positive economic boost the country could get?    :facepalm:
 
CBH99 said:
Between his inability to get the pipeline built from Alberta to BC, Teck cancelling it's massive oilsands project (7000+ jobs) - plus was actually extremely environmentally friendly, supported lots of local indigenous communities and had the support of various chiefs - plus the cancellation of the LNG pipelines through Quebec...and now Coronavirus? 

This economy was already taking slug to the chest, repeatedly, before this... downturn in the economy is probably the most polite way one could put it.


How does one expect to finance all these military projects, as well as various other initiatives, when one continues to kill every positive economic boost the country could get?    :facepalm:

Defense projects always have been a good way to create jobs and boost the economy
 
Colin P said:
but not buying jets, building new offices, cutting grass, maybe buy us some more LAV's, staff cars

But jets need new infrastructure, training facilities, etc...
 
Low-risk capability: Boeing says Block III Super Hornet offers Canada proven performance and predictable costing

Jim Barnes admits that when he arrived in Canada in 2012 to take up business development for Boeing Defense, Space & Security, long-term production of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was precarious. By his own estimate, the line that so far has delivered over 600 fighter jets since the mid-1990s appeared ordained to close by 2018 without new customers.

“Now, it is a completely different story because of the U.S. Navy’s commitment to Block III,” he said in a recent interview with Skies. “They need advanced fighters on their carrier decks and the airplane they hoped would be joining that deck isn’t being delivered in a timely manner, so it opened up the opportunity for the Block III.”

Under a multi-year procurement contract, the U.S. Navy will acquire 78 of the advanced aircraft through 2024. Moreover, it has begun a service life modification (SLM) program that will see all or most of its fleet of about 450 Block II Super Hornets upgraded with Block III systems through 2033. The first two were delivered in February.

Boeing will deliver the first Block III testbed aircraft to the U.S. Navy later this spring to begin carrier trials of the computing and networking systems, in advance of the first operational aircraft in early 2021.

“Right now, there is no planned retirement date for the Super Hornet,” noted Barnes, now the director of Fighter Programs in Canada. “It will be a mainstay on carrier decks for decades to come.”

Delays in rolling out Lockheed Martin’s F-35C Lightning II – ‘C’ for carrier variant – undoubtedly spurred renewed interest in the Block III Super Hornet. But the aircraft has also benefited from a collaborative spiral approach to technology development that has ensured new systems are only introduced when they are combat ready. Many of the improved capabilities sought by the Navy for the Block III were first pioneered or trialled on the Block II.

Enhanced capabilities and healthy F/A-18E/F production and SLM lines in St. Louis, Mo., and San Antonio, Texas, are part of a package Boeing hopes will resonate with the Canadian government and Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) when they evaluate the contenders to replace Canada’s 30-year-old legacy F/A-18A/B Hornets.

When the request for proposals (RFP) finally closes on June 30 – it was recently extended from March 30 at the “request of industry,” according to the government – Boeing will propose the equivalent of a U.S. Navy Block III aircraft with an instrumented landing system that was previously integrated on Australian and Kuwaiti variants.

The Super Hornet is among three candidates – the others are the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II and Saab Gripen E – vying to replace the Air Force’s remaining 76 CF-188 Hornets. The acquisition and sustainment project, known as the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP), for 88 advanced fighter jets is valued between $15 billion and $19 billion. The formal RFP was issued on July 23, 2019, and all three supplier teams (which include the aircraft manufacturer and representative government) had to submit preliminary security offers by Oct. 4, outlining how they intend to meet Canada’s 5 Eyes and 2 Eyes security and interoperability requirements.

“The Super Hornet is a low risk program,” said Barnes. “We only integrate [new] technology when it is ready to reduce risk of schedule and cost, and outpace the threat. And what comes with that next-generation capability is predictable and affordable costs, not only for acquisition, but also for the [operational] lifecycle.”

Cost and capability

Comparing aircraft costs is always problematic. The process by which a fighter is acquired can significantly affect the final price, and Canada would buy the Super Hornet under a government-to-government foreign military sale, which can inflate the cost by as much as 30 per cent. But a multi-year procurement for the Block III in the U.S. president’s budget for fiscal 2020 projected a cost of about US$66 million per aircraft, and estimates in the past two years have suggested a price of US$70 million.

“The cost for Canada will depend on how many aircraft they buy and when they are taking delivery, but that’s a great place to start,” said Barnes.

The more important figure for Boeing, though, is the operating cost. The current cost per flight hour for the Super Hornet is around US$18,000, well below the F-35A, which Lockheed Martin officials recently told Skies is above US$30,000 and striving to reach US$25,000 by 2025.

“If you do the math on 88 airplanes flying for 30 years at about 250 hours per year, that is billions of dollars in savings over the life of that platform,” noted Barnes.

The Block III program will also extend the Super Hornet to a 10,000-flight-hour airframe for Navy operations. Given that the RCAF, through life extension programs, has managed to push the CF-188 well beyond its intended 6,000 flight hours, that increased airframe life bodes well for an air force that doesn’t operate in a highly corrosive saltwater environment, slam its jets down on short carrier decks or take off from catapults, noted Ricardo Traven, Boeing’s former F/A-18 Super Hornet chief test pilot and currently the lead test pilot for the 787 Dreamliner. “It is 10,000 [airframe hours] for the Navy; I really don’t know what it could be for an air force. It is one strong airframe.”

The Block III configuration introduces significant upgrades, including conformal fuel tanks (CFT), enhanced coatings to reduce radar signature, advanced mission computers and data links, and a single, customizable wide-area multi-function display. It also includes improvements originally planned for the Block II such as a centreline drop tank with a networked infrared search and track (IRST) sensor and satellite communications (SATCOM) system.

Many of these will be critical to meeting the RCAF’s stated mission requirements, but Boeing is hoping to gain some credit for capabilities that are not specifically part of the RFP.

Side-by-side, the Super Hornet boasts a much larger airframe compared to the legacy Hornet. But that added wing span and extra flex means more fuel, weapons and electronics, and greater manoeuvrability than smaller competitors, said Traven, a former major in the RCAF from southern Ontario.

“You have a bigger airplane that is more manoeuvrable, and can fly slower than the legacy fighter on approach because of those big areas, which is important when coming into land on a short, snowy or wet runway in forward operation locations like Inuvik,” he said. “You don’t have to flare at all, you can plant the airplane on the first few metres of runway on touchdown. And the landing gear is very rugged. The Super Hornet has two nose gear tires – most others have one – and that counts on wet runways and snow.”

The conformal fuel tanks expand the Super Hornet’s standard combat air patrol mission range by about 20 per cent or increase the loiter time by roughly 30 minutes, said Barnes. A clean Super Hornet carries 14,000 pounds of fuel, the same as a legacy Hornet with two extra fuel tanks, noted Traven. “Take away the drag of the pylon and tanks and you can see that the Super Hornet will go significantly farther on a clean airplane.”

At a time when the RCAF has limited strategic tanking and is poised to retire the tactical air-to-air refueling provided by the CC-130H Hercules, the Super Hornet offers a unique feature: It can serve as its own tanker. If tanking isn’t readily available, the possibility of adding a fifth jet to support a four-ship of fighters responding to a NORAD quick reaction alert mission could be “a game changer,” noted Traven.

As part of spiral technology development, the Block III replaces the previous two mission computers with a Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N), an onboard system that when combined with the Navy’s future Targeting Tactical Network Technology (TTNT) will allow data sharing at speeds and volume that greatly exceed current Link 16 tactical data exchange capabilities.

Multiple Block III Super Hornets with DTP-N and the longwave IRST sensor integrated into the centreline nose tank “can solve targeting and the distance equation, which was almost impossible with a single ISRT,” said Traven of what he called an anti-stealth capability. “You can target stealth airplanes at very long range without the radar because you can process its location. First, you can locate it based on the heat signature, and you can process the distance and speed and tracking by having multiple sources talking to each other through this distributed processing targeting network. With the upgraded DTP-N, combined with TTNT, it is checkmate for the whole fifth-gen argument. The amount of information we can share is unbelievable.”

He emphasized that the U.S. military, not aircraft manufacturers, would establish the data protocols by which fighters communicate information and would not permit a closed network dictated by one type of aircraft.

Boeing has long disputed the stealth argument, maintaining the Super Hornet incorporates enough stealthy technology, including enhancements to the Block III, to perform the broad range of missions. Traven said the Navy has taken a pragmatic approach, asking for as much stealth as possible without sacrificing the capabilities that are important to its mission sets.

“That advanced processor, DTP-N, and the advanced data link, TTNT, and the advanced communication, the SATCOM, were all proven on the EA-18G Growler. That is the Super Hornet way of low-risk integration of advanced capabilities,” added Barnes.

Though the debate about one versus two engines has faded in recent years, Traven remains a believer in the twin engine. Based on RCAF experience flying the NORAD mission deep into the Arctic and conducted missions across the North Atlantic, he said that distance and the unexpected remain factors that can trump reliability. While he doesn’t dispute the dependability of next-generation single engines, even the best can’t account for a wayward Canada goose.

“I need two engines because of all the unknowns, especially on approach to Inuvik when you see a [Canada] goose go by that can take out your engine, or the chunk of ice that goes down the intake on takeoff, or the hydraulic line that wasn’t tightened exactly right. All of those things are never included in the engine reliability argument.”

Mission systems and aircraft performance will be paramount in any Air Force evaluation, but the ease of transition from the CF-188 to the Super Hornet may also earn Boeing points. In interviews with Skies at the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Replacement Squadron and at the Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Unit, both in Norfolk, Va., pilots and maintenance technicians described conversion programs from the F/A-18C to the E of about three months for pilots and four to six months for techs, depending on the systems.

“A lot of that training transfers one for one,” observed Traven, noting the similarity of most systems in the cockpit and throughout the aircraft.

Just as important, all the ground support equipment (GSE) and tooling is the same, meaning equipment at operating squadrons and forward bases would not need to be replaced. Both Traven and Barnes observed that while there was mention of infrastructure in the RFP, there was no discussion of the support systems and even runway lengths that might have to change with other aircraft. “I think that has been lost in this whole discussion,” said Traven.

“It is a big deal and I hope they are considering that in an appropriate manner,” added Barnes. “When you are already operating legacy Hornets, the requirement to get current maintainers and pilots up to speed on a Super Hornet is much less than it would be starting from scratch.”

Value proposition

As part of its bid, Boeing has reactivated the team that successfully delivered the CF-188 Hornet in the 1980s, including L3 Harris MAS, Peraton, CAE, Raytheon Canada and GE Canada.

“What we are trying to do is leverage the billions of dollars of investment the government has already made in the fighter support infrastructure and utilize that on the Super Hornet,” said Barnes.

Over the years after the CF-188 was acquired, companies like L3 Harris MAS in Mirabel, Que., developed detailed knowledge about every airframe in the fleet. Boeing is not proposing a wholesale transfer of Block III intellectual property (IP), but rather a gradual handover. “As Canada got more familiar with the [legacy Hornet] platform, more intellectual property was exchanged,” said Barnes. “Our plan would be to do that same approach on the Super Hornet. We’ll do as much as we can on day one, but it will probably be an evolution over time. The Canadian companies certainly understand that.”

Mission system technologies would have to be part of a government-to-government negotiation, he added, but would likely be part of an incremental transfer over time.

The IP discussion is part of Boeing’s proposal to meet Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) obligations. The three bidders will have the option to sign a binding ITB agreement and commit to investing in Canadian content up to 100 per cent of the contract value, or agree to a nonbinding economic benefit agreement.

“We will sign the binding agreement,” said Roger Schallom, senior manager for International Strategic Partnerships.

As part of its value proposition, Boeing will also meet the specific requirements around investment in small- and medium-sized businesses, innovation, skill development and long-term sustainment. Fulfilling a 100 per cent Canadian content value obligation often means spending far more than the actual contract value, said Schallom. On a program valued over $15 billion, manufacturing work packages could translate into as much as $30 billion in actual work for Canadian companies over the 25 years Boeing would have to fulfil its ITB commitment.

For example, Boeing’s ITB obligation for the CH-147F Chinook helicopter program was about $1.3 billion. “We are going to spend in purchase orders about $2.6 billion of work in Canada,” he added.

More important to companies that have supported the CF-188 would be the 30-plus years of guaranteed in-service support (ISS) contracts. “Those are the billions of dollars that could be left on the table if you go with the nonbinding solution,” emphasized Barnes.

“You have to give your ISS companies credit for getting specific sustainment percentages in the RFP,” added Schallom. “They are wielding a pretty big hammer right now. If you go nonbinding, [that economic return] is a big question mark.”

It could be argued Boeing Defense, Space & Security missed an opportunity to claim an edge in the FFCP when, in 2017, the Canadian government withdrew the planned purchase of 18 Super Hornets. The aircraft were being considered to fill an interim capability gap in the RCAF’s ability to simultaneously conduct NORAD and NATO missions, but the purchase was cancelled over a trade dispute between Boeing Commercial and Bombardier’s
C Series airliner program.

But, with the Canadian fighter competition about to finally close, Boeing clearly believes it’s well positioned with an advanced fighter jet that can meet all mission requirements well into the future, while returning significant economic benefits to Canadian industry for a predictable and affordable cost.

It’s an offer Canada will have to weigh carefully.

Chris Thatcher is an aerospace, defence and technology writer, editor of RCAF Today, and a regular contributor to Skies.
https://www.skiesmag.com/features/low-risk-capability-boeing-says-block-iii-super-hornet-offers-canada-proven-performance-and-predictable-costing/
 
The Ties That Bind, Fifth Generation Build

Lockheed Martin drives to provide the F-35 program with more operational readiness at less cost

Midway along the one-mile assembly line at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics’ F-35 Lightning II production facility in Dallas-Fort Worth, Kevin McCormick, business development lead for the program, points to a 50-inch hinge on a wing skin being manufactured for the carrier variant of the fifth-generation fighter. The designated F-35C model has foldable wingtips for storage on the hangar deck and to allow for two aircraft to be simultaneously brought up by elevator to the flight deck.

When not folded to 29-feet, the F-35C has a larger wingspan than the F-35A and F-35B variants – at 43-feet versus 35-feet, respectively – to generate maximum lift when coming off the end of the deck. The larger horizontal surface area of its wings also allows the F-35C to bleed off energy for arrested carrier landings. The F-35C also has the greatest internal fuel capacity of the three F-35 variants, carrying nearly 20,000 pounds of internal fuel for what the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) describes as longer range and better persistence than any other fighter in a combat configuration. The F-35 program is officially run by the JPO to coordinate multi-nation participation, with Lockheed Martin serving as the prime contractor.

Combining its range with the fifth-generation capabilities of stealth and sensor fusion common to the other two variants, JPO notes the F-35C will serve as the U.S. Navy’s future first-day-of-the-war strike fighter – unique in the world as a purpose-built carrier aircraft with very low observability never before deployed at sea. The U.S. Navy is the largest customer receiving F-35Cs, with the U.S. Marine Corps also acquiring the C variant in addition to the F-35B. The B variant is primarily defined by its lift-fan technology for vertical takeoff and landing.

McCormick makes note of a rectangular cutout on the lower wing skin for a B model, which is where some 2,000 pounds of hot gas will be vented off the core of the engine to assist in its short takeoff and vertical landing. Most of the wings – being built vertically to save space – are for the F-35A variant, because seven of the eight international partners and all four foreign military sales customers are currently buying the A-designated model.

“We have A models, B models and C models all coming off the same line and we do not have segregation between domestic or international. It is one of the big selling points here,” says McCormick. “We’ve been doing that for years on the F-16 and other products out of this facility.” Hinting at recent manufacturing advances at the plant, McCormick notes how quiet the production environment is, because, unlike with its previous build of F-16s, there are no rivets used on the F-35 – a key attribute of the aircraft’s very low observability capabilities.

The F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter variant is competing for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP), which aims to procure 88 new generation fighters to replace the country’s ageing CF-188 Hornet fleet. The FFCP competition was launched in late-2017 and now has three aircraft under consideration, including the F-35A, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, and Saab Gripen E.

Dassault and the consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon have pulled out of the competition with both noting Canada’s extensive interoperability requirements with U.S. forces as a primary reason, as well as the RFP’s Industrial Technological Benefits (ITB) obligations. Canada’s evaluation criteria for its Future Fighter procurement is based on technical merit (60 per cent), cost (20 per cent) and economic benefits (20 per cent). In February 2020, the federal government announced it would extend the FFCP submission deadline from March 30 to June 30, but maintained its schedule to choose the winning bid in 2022 and have the first aircraft delivered by 2025.

The 20 per cent weighting toward economic benefits is ultimately defined by dollar-for-dollar obligations – meaning, the fighter supplier provides Canadian companies with revenue opportunities equal to value of the purchased aircraft. Technical merit weighting includes interoperability requirements with NORAD. This would naturally seem to provide more opportunity for U.S.-built fighters to win the contract, but all three of the remaining competitors face past political encumberments tied directly to aerospace business.

Without wading too deep into the political motivations behind what will be an investment of more than $20 billion dollars, there are a clearly a number of reasons why the Trudeau government would support the procurement of the F-35 based on the three pillars of weighted criteria, cost, economic benefit and technical merit.

Canada became an industrial partner of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program in 1997 and there are now more than 110 Canadian companies contributing to the production of the F-35 program, which equates to thousands of jobs and what Lockheed estimates to be more than $1.5 billion in terms of contract value over the life of the program. This includes that 50-inch hinge for the F-35C wing, which was procured from a Canadian company.

McCormick points to the monitors sitting above the aircraft sections being working on in a staging area, which identifies where the JPO is at in terms of the worldwide delivery sequence of F-35s. He notes aircraft number 664 is bound for Australia and next to it is aircraft number 665, which will go to the Marines. More than 455 F-35s had been delivered to customers by November 2019 with the aircraft in operation at 20 bases around the world. (By early 2020, Lockheed announced more than 500 F-35s had been delivered to customers.)

In late November, the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facility in Dallas-Fort Worth was producing lots 11 and 12, which the company also refers to as LRIP 11 and LRIP 12. LRIP stands for Low Rate Initial Production and each lot identifies with when a contract is first awarded. LRIP 11, for example, was contracted in 2017 and those aircraft were being delivered throughout 2019. This lot timing is significant because it ultimately determines the price of each fighter jet for new contracts. If Canada is to name the F-35 as the winning bid, it would likely receive LRIP 15 aircraft, or perhaps from LRIP 16 given the new RFP extension.

As a clean-sheet, fifth-generation fighter, which is primarily defined by stealth and sensor fusion, the initial cost of the LRIP 1 F-35A fighters was just under $250 million per unit (all remaining dollar amounts are presented in U.S. funds). It was not until LRIP 5 when the first nine F-35s were delivered to external customers at a cost of around $125 million per unit.

“We set a target, that by lot 14, LRIP 14, we would get to an $80 million jet. Some folks said it was unattainable but we have reached it a year early. LRIP 13 will be less than $80 million for an A,” says Mike Shoemaker, vice president, customer initiatives at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. Lockheed estimates the average price for the F-35A will be $79.2 million in LRIP 13 and $77.9 million in LRIP 14.

Shoemaker joined Lockheed a year and a half ago after a distinguished 35-year military career, retiring in 2018 as Vice Admiral of the U.S. Navy. Serving as Commander of Naval Air Forces, he was responsible for the combat readiness of all Navy Aviation forces and 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers – 82,000 personnel, 168 squadrons, 2,800 aircraft and a $7.5 billion annual operating budget. He has also accumulated more than 4,400 flight hours, primarily in the A-7E Corsair and F/A-18C Hornet, with 1,066 carrier-arrested landings.

In his new role with Lockheed, Shoemaker is the customer interface for Aeronautics product lines and services, predominantly for the F-35 program, ensuring that the company meets strategic milestones and satisfies both international customer and industrial partner requirements. “We’ve been successful in the cost piece of the program… 77 per cent of the cost of the airplane is in the parts. We’ve been very aggressive and working with partners, trying to get them on long-term contracts, incentivizing them to reduce the costs of the parts that make up the F-35,” says Shoemaker, who also points to cost savings coming from what the company refers to as touch labour. “We’ve had a 75 per cent reduction in touch labour on this airplane since 2010.”

LRIP 13 production will represent a 70 per cent decrease in per-unit cost since LRIP 1. Driven by an increase in assembly-line automation for the F-35, the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facility has essentially doubled its production from 2017, when 66 aircraft were delivered, before reaching 91 aircraft produced in 2018, and holding to its target of 131 aircraft to be delivered by the end 2019.

Lockheed Martin expects that by the end of 2022, the F-35 will reach nearly 30 bases with more than 860 aircraft delivered. Eight services, including the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps, have reached Initial Operational Capability with the F-35. This has resulted in more than 230,000 flying hours for the F-35, with more than 955 trained pilots and more than 8,475 qualified maintenance personnel. Luke Air Force Base in Glendale, Arizona, on February 21, 2020, achieved a major milestone by completing more than 56,000 F-35 flight hours. Canadian pilots would train at Luke if the F-35A Lightning II wins the country’s FFCP.

“This really highlights the opportunities to be part of a growing worldwide fleet, 3,500 to 4,000 aircraft,” says Shoemaker, alluding to the potential for the F-35 to not only satisfy Canada’s FFCP technical requirements with an interoperable, true fifth-generation fighter, but also satisfy Industrial Technological Benefits obligations under the RFP. Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson pegged the F-35 fleet number at 4,000 during the 2019 Paris Air Show. “We may go beyond that. If you look at the number of F-16s we delivered as sort of the de facto NATO fighter years ago, we may replace them with F-35s, but I think the opportunities for a growing worldwide fleet are huge and certainly Canada has been an important part of the production piece so far.”

Shoemaker also notes Canada would have a distinct advantage over other international partners of the F-35 program because the largest F-35 fleet will always be just south of its border. This will include an unprecedented 300 F-35s being delivered to the U.S. National Guard – the first time it is receiving brand new fighters off the production line. Japan currently holds the largest international F-35 fleet with a commitment for 147 jets. Poland recently committed to 32 F-35s and the JPO continues to be involved in Finland and Switzerland procurement competitions.

“What we’re doing here with the F-35 is building a unified fleet,” says Steve Sheehy, director, sustainment strategies and campaigns, Lockheed Martin. “This is a single point of view. We’re pulling all the sustainment data together for that entire fleet, roughly 4,000 aircraft.” Sheehy has been involved in F-35 international logistics program management for more than four years. He is a former Colonel in the U.S. Air Force, where he spent 25 years in a range of maintenance and logistics roles for military aircraft like the F-15, F-16, U-2, RQ-4 and MC-12. In comparing the fleet position of the F-35 with the F-16, he notes the latter airplane has 28 independent fleets being served by 24 different supply chains.

“The F-35 is engineered for sustainment,” he says. “The analytics and data we pull off this jet will allow us to drive to what we call a condition-based maintenance philosophy. We are able to predict what parts are about to fail.” Sheehy explains this predictive health analysis has been a significant factor in helping to drive up Mission Capable (MC) rates for the F-35. The company has a target of reaching an MC of 80 per cent, assuming the remaining 20 per cent will be equally accounted for by non-mission capable maintenance and supply. Sheehy notes the fleet is already seeing many operational cases of customers exceeding an MC of 80 per cent, particularly with the F-35A variant. “It’s also about the R&M of the components of this aircraft. To date, 73 per cent of the parts of the aircraft have not failed. That’s a huge testament to our suppliers.”

In terms of cost per hour, Lockheed Martin states it is targeting the generally accepted rate of $25,000 for a fourth-generation fighter. The JPO recently noted an F-35 rate of around $36,000 per flight hour. The Lockheed team sees this hourly rate trending in the right direction and expects its fifth-generation F-35A to reach $25,000 per hour flight time by 2025. To this end, the government initially asked Lockheed to develop processes that would result in nine maintenance hours per flight hour, but the team has already achieved six maintenance hours per flight hour.

Sheehy describes a range of initiatives that are providing signficiant sustainment cost reductions for the F-35. To a point where the traditional flightline maintenance teams have adopted the term BOLT – Blended Operational Lightning Technician, because they are no longer working in task silos.

A primary tool of cost reduction is the legacy Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is now being updated a new generation. Described as a portable maintenance aid, ALIS is the centrepiece of maintenance tasks and, therefore, operational capability for the F-35. With ALIS running an APU, which eliminates the need to start up the F-35’s powerful Pratt & Whitney engine, and an Integrator Power Package, maintainers are able to work on all F-35 systems from a laptop – with full visibility inside the aircraft control systems, weapons systems and fuel systems.

Leveraging ALIS, a crew chief with a laptop can actually transfer or check the condition of the entire fuel system and quantities per fuel tank, which alone changes the need for six people to just one. Sheehy also points to the how the F-35 uses pneumatics (air pressure) to release armaments from the weapons bay, as opposed to traditional explosive shells, which saves manhours in terms of cleaning carbon out of the systems.

“On the F-35, 95 per cent of our line replaceable units are what we call first-tier removable. There’s nothing in front of them to stop them from being taken out,” explains Sheehy, describing yet another massive manpower reduction provided by the F-35 design. He also notes the F-35 uses six flight control systems driven by independent, self-contained Electro Hydrostatic Actuators (EHAs). “With a single button, in less than a minute, the flight controls on the aircraft are rigged. No one else can do that. Those six EHAs systems are all electronically tied together.”

The F-35 also eliminates traditional steps of legacy fighters in pulling out critical computing hardware. The Communications, Navigation and Identification (CNI) system on the F-35 is actually stored on racks easily accessible from the outside of the aircraft, allowing for single-item swap outs. This again saves maintenance hours, but more importantly also protects the aircraft’s low observability (LO) platform.

“On our aircraft, 86 per cent of the parts you need to get to are behind panels that require no LO restoration,” says Sheehy. “With other stealth aircraft, if you took off a panel on the aircraft, you had hours to restore the LO edges for that panel… There is no LO restoration required at all [on the F-35].” He explains the government asked for nine flight hours between LO maintenance events, but F-35 maintenance teams are now averaging 17 hours before they need to touch the LO system.

Before heading over to the coating facility where the F-35 comes to life in its final stealth skin, McCormick finds an in-production F-35 that is destined for Norway, sitting in a main airframe fixture, where a jet typically stays for 45 days. “Okay – right here, the attach point will be on the aft portion, as well as on the wing’s centre barrel,” he explains, accommodating a request to find a feature that would likely be added to a Canadian F-35 contract. “That is where the doghouse faring for the drag chute will go, as well as the hydraulics that are already plumbed in… the Norwegians opted for the drag chute to slow the aircraft down in icy runway conditions.”
https://www.wingsmagazine.com/ties-that-bind-fifth-generation-build/
 
Covid to slow it down even more

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/04/21/covid-19-latest-hurdle-in-canadas-long-road-to-buying-new-fighter-jets/#.XqBQfEBFyUl
 
Federal government issues another extension for fighter replacement proposals

Public Services and Procurement Canada has extended the deadline for proposals to replace the CF-188 Hornets until July 31, 2020.

The 30-day extension is a response to the coronavirus pandemic that has disrupted business operations globally, especially in the aerospace sector.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is presenting numerous challenges for businesses and their workforce, including the eligible suppliers for the Future Fighter Capability Project,” said a spokesperson for the department in a statement on May 6.

“The unprecedented situation has impacted proposal finalization. To support our commitment to conducting an open, fair, and transparent competition, the extension will ensure all suppliers are able to submit their most competitive offer to Canada.”

Three qualified contenders remain in the competition to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fighter jet fleet: Sweden’s Saab Aeronautics with the Gripen E and the United States-backed Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II. Dassualt Aviation and Airbus Defense and Space withdrew their entrants, the Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon, in 2018 and 2019, respectively.

The project, valued at up to $19 billion, is seeking proposals for 88 advanced aircraft to replace an aging fleet of 76 A and B model Hornets that began entering service in the mid-1980s. The bids will be evaluated on technical capability, worth 60 per cent of the evaluation; acquisition and operating costs (20 per cent); and economic benefit to Canadian industry, also 20 per cent and the highest weighting for economic return on any defence procurement to date.

It’s the second time this year the federal government has prolonged the deadline for the request for proposals (RFP). In February, at the request of one of the suppliers, it granted a three-month extension from March 30 to June 30.

Release of the formal RFP was also pushed back several times before being issued in July 2019, to accommodate changes during the draft RFP process. The project is the largest acquisition in recent Air Force history and has faced numerous schedule changes over the past decade.

This latest change comes a week after Canada submitted an annual payment of US$70.1 million to remain in the F-35 development program, which is being supported by nine partner countries.

To date, the government has invested US$541.3 million since 1997 into the multi-variant, next-generation fighter program. However, Canadian companies have captured US$1.8 billion in work on the fighter.

“This participation provides Canadian industry with contract opportunities that are only available to program participants,” a spokesperson for National Defence told Canadian Press. “Our membership will also allow us preferential pricing and sequencing in the build schedule should the F-35 aircraft be successful in the current future fighter capability program.”

Despite the recent delay because of COVID-19, PSPC still anticipates to award a contract in 2022. The first new aircraft would be delivered in early 2025.

In the interim, the government is acquiring and upgrading 18 operational Australian F/A-18A Hornets to augment the current fleet of 76 Hornets. The RCAF is also finalizing an upgrade package for the 76 fighters that will likely include enhancements to their combat capability.
https://www.skiesmag.com/news/government-extends-fighter-proposal-deadline/
 
Sounds like an excuse to stall to me, or maybe SAAB still hasn't submitted their proposal.
 
MilEME09 said:
Sounds like an excuse to stall to me, or maybe SAAB still hasn't submitted their proposal.

This excuse makes sense to me, many of those companies have all their employees who would be physically compiling all the paperwork for the bids working from home. The earlier extension was the one that seemed fishy to me.
 
Back
Top