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

[Quirky]

We can't even afford 14 missiles, this ad is misleading

Even if we could, that would take a load crew around 6-8 hours to get them all on. War will be over by then.

 

[Uzlu]

Lockheed Martin promises $16.9B injection to Canadian economy with F-35s

Fighters up against Boeing's Super Hornet, Saab's Gripen in bid to replace aging warplanes

One of the companies vying to build the air force's next generation of warplanes promises it can inject as much as $16.9 billion into the Canadian economy, even though its pitch to the Liberal government falls somewhat outside traditional boundaries.

Lockheed Martin Canada is offering the F-35, which has a controversial political history in this country, as a potential replacement for the military's nearly 40-year-old fleet of CF-18 jet fighters.

Three bids in the often-delayed $19 billion competition were delivered Friday and the federal government expects to narrow the field to two by next spring, with the first fighters not scheduled for delivery until 2025.

The other contenders are Boeing, which is offering the latest version of its Super Hornet, and Saab with the updated version of its Gripen jet.

Under longstanding federal procurement policy, defence contractors are essentially expected to match the value of the contract and deliver an equal share of benefits to the Canadian economy.

The worldwide F-35 program is different in the sense that partnership in the program means Canadian companies are allowed to bid on fleetwide contracts and there is no dollar-for-dollar guarantee.

Lockheed's pitch

In a slick video presentation Thursday, Lockheed Martin put on display its Canadian partner companies that are already working on the program, supplying a diverse range of parts and systems with testimonials from employees about how proud they are to be working on the F-35.

Steve Callaghan, Lockheed Martin's vice-president of F-35 business development, said he is confident the company has delivered a solid pitch to the Canadian government despite the difference and the possible handicap it faces.

"We're delighted to be part of this competition," he said during a remote media availability on Thursday. "We understand the rules. We understand the way the competition is structured and the requirements."

The company conducted an analysis on the impact of its program in Canada and estimates over the lifetime of the F-35, it will pour $16.9 billion into the gross domestic product and that there is the potential for more as sustainment contracts for the warplane eventually come on stream.

Lorraine Ben, the chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin Canada, said the fighter jet program is important to the country's economic recovery from the pandemic because it delivers high-skilled, high-paying jobs.

Should Canada not choose the F-35, Callaghan said, the existing contracts, which are currently worth $2 billion, would be honoured for the duration of their commitment but might go elsewhere.

"Future contracting would likely be placed using industries and best value for those nations that are procuring the F-35," he said. "Canadian industry is truly embedded in the global supply chain today and brings great value to the program and of course great value to Canada and Canadian industry. We really do look forward to Canadian industry continuing their contribution."

Controversial history

It has been a decade since the former Conservative government set off a political firestorm when it signalled it intended to sole-source the purchase of 65 F-35s.

After searing reports from both the auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Office, which questioned the cost and how much homework the federal government had done in terms of competition, the plan was shelved.

The Liberals, prior to being elected in 2015, promised not to buy the F-35 and instead purchase a cheaper aircraft and plow the savings into the navy.

The Trudeau government eventually relented and allowed Lockheed Martin into the competition, and even bowed to pressure from the Trump administration to make sure the playing field was level in terms of evaluation of the economic benefits.

Callaghan steered clear of the politics on Thursday.

"We're really focused on this competition and providing the information Canada needs to make its decision," he said.

Critics have often complained that the F-35 — a stealth fighter with advanced sensing technology — will be too expensive to maintain over the long term.

At the moment, it costs $25,000 per hour to fly, according to figures released Thursday by the company.

Callaghan says the plan, using a variety of methods including artificial intelligence and robotics, is to cut that figure in half in the coming few years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lockheed-martin-f35-canadian-economy-1.5676643

 

[Uzlu]

ALEX McCOLL: Fudging F-35 figures a lobbyist stealth tactic

A CBC report on Aug. 6 contained some revealing remarks from Steve Callaghan, an executive at Lockheed Martin — one of three bidders on the multi-billion-dollar contract to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets.

In touting the merits of his next-generation F-35A stealth aircraft, Lockheed’s vice president of business development said his company’s plan was to reduce the cost per flight hour from $35,000 “to at least $25,000 per flying hour in the coming few years.”

The CBC reported this as if he were speaking in Canadian dollars. He was not.

If a lobbyist omits pertinent details in an interview, and perhaps smirks while the CBC relays a beneficial false assumption, that is legal in Canada.

However, it is illegal in the United States for the chief financial officer (CFO) of a publicly traded company to deliberately mislead institutional investors.

Which makes the following very interesting.

On May 14, Goldman Sachs hosted a webcast with Ken Possenriede, executive vice president and CFO of Lockheed Martin.

The presentation began with a 979-word disclosure slide outlining how his statements were “pursuant to the safe harbour provisions of the Federal Securities Law.”

Early in the presentation, Possenriede outlined the plan to get F-35A costs down “to $25,000 (USD) per flight hour by 2025.”

Possenriede repeated the marketing language multiple times: “We have committed to drive the price of sustaining the airplane per flight hour down to $25,000 (USD) by 2025.” But when it came to long-term revenue growth, the sustainment story started to change: “We see sizable growth opportunities in sustainment.”

The Goldman Sachs moderator wanted to know how the F-35 could become cheaper for the taxpayer while also increasing revenues for Lockheed Martin. Possenriede’s answer should be required reading for anyone who writes about military procurement:

“We still see sustainment growing, and one point I’d make is — not many folks understand this — but that $25,000 per flight hour, that’s in 2012 dollars, and I’m not suggesting that it’s going to ramp up dramatically, but to get to 2025, the benchmark is in 2012 (US) dollars. So, we have to escalate that to some extent to get to current-year dollars and then ultimately then-year dollars. But I think with the modernization, the sparing that’s going to be required, the continued activation and the repairing, with or without a PBL concept, I think you’re going to see sustainment continue to grow.”

Using the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics average annual rate of inflation from 2012 to 2020, one can estimate the 2025 cost per flight hour at just under $31,000 (USD). At current exchange rates, that means a cost per flight hour of over $41,000 Cdn. 

In her 2009 book, Ivanka Trump shared the following business advice: “Perception is more important than reality… This doesn’t mean you should be duplicitous or deceitful, but don’t go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage.”

Do you believe what the salesperson told the CBC, or do you believe what the CFO told investors?

The CBC also reported that Lockheed Martin’s estimate of industrial benefits could be worth “as much as $16.9 billion into the Canadian economy.”

Even if Lockheed Martin delivers “as much as” they claim — doubtful considering how it has delivered only 44 per cent of the investment it promised Italy — at such a high sustainment cost, well over half of all Canadian taxpayer dollars would flow to the United States. All for a jet that must be sent back to Texas for upgrades.

Now let’s look at the competition.

The F-35 bid stands in stark contrast to the full industrial offsets, complete technology transfer, and assembly in Nova Scotia offered by rival Saab on its Gripen-E bid. (Saab recently announced a partnership with IMP to assemble Gripen fighter jets at the Halifax airport if their bid is successful.)

The “Gripen for Canada Team” includes leaders in Canada’s aviation industry that would create jobs across Canada. 

While a number of those companies are also component suppliers for the third bidder — Boeing’s Super Hornet — a reliable industry source (not authorized to speak on the record) stated that Boeing’s package — American assembly, only partial technology transfer, and indirect offsets — add up to a more expensive jet that creates fewer supplier jobs in Canada.

It’s worthy of note that the Trump administration has been pressuring Boeing and Lockheed Martin to centralize fighter component manufacturing in the United States.

Boeing includes existing seven-series component jobs as part of their benefits package. Is this really new investment, or is it an unspoken threat that Boeing would close its massive factory in Winnipeg unless Canada buys American?

The Trump administration also re-imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum exports this month. These are not the actions of an honest trade partner.

Now let’s look at affordability.

The 2018 auditor general report on Canada’s current complement of CF-18 fighter jets made it clear that sustainment funding was insufficient to maintain even the relatively affordable CF-18.

One of the main problems “was the shortage of technicians to maintain the (CF-18).”

F-35 proponents are quick to point to the F-35’s seemingly low flyaway cost. This number is only relevant for estimating the cost of replacing jets lost in accidents. Buying squadrons of fighter jets is not like buying a sports car; it’s like buying a full racing team. One must include the entire cost of weapon-system procurement, including spares, tools, training, weapons, and upgrades to existing facilities. Anyone who focuses on the flyaway cost should be met with the skepticism normally reserved for used car salesmen.

Here’s the bottom line, which should be of great concern to people in Nova Scotia.

The significant increase in costs and the number of technicians required to sustain the F-35A makes the plane utterly unaffordable without sizable cuts to the navy’s new frigate program. Much of that shipbuilding effort is concentrated in Halifax.

Add in the COVID-19 deficit, and it becomes possible that Canadian F-35s would rust on the ground even after slashing the navy into a glorified coast guard.

There are precedents for this.

When Austria replaced its affordable Saab Draken fighter jets with expensive Eurofighters, it did not adequately increase the sustainment budget. With too little funding left over for new missiles, bombs, night vision or key system upgrades, Austria’s Eurofighters are a barely-armed token force of lawn ornaments.

Next door, the Czech Republic has well-trained pilots that fly modernized, well-armed, Saab Gripen-C/D jets that regularly pull their weight on NATO missions.

Canada’s aviation industry has not built a truly cutting-edge fighter jet since the Avro Arrow was cancelled in 1959. Not only does the JAS-39 Gripen-E closely resemble the Arrow, but it shares the Arrow’s ability to fly at twice the speed of sound.

Renamed the CF-39 Arrow II and made in Halifax, the Saab Gripen would represent a major advancement in combat capability, a significant investment in Halifax, and would become a source of national pride for a new generation of Canadians.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/local-perspectives/alex-mccoll-fudging-f-35-figures-a-lobbyist-stealth-tactic-484927/

 

[PuckChaser]

Only took half way through the article to find out the real reason Alex McColl wrote it: Sell the Gripen built in Canada concept. Unfortunately he's used his own "lobbyist stealth tactic" in neglecting the astronomical costs of starting a 1-off production line in Canada that would dwarf the flyaway of a F-35A or even Super Hornet. We definitely should strive to be the Czech Republic of the 5EYES community and NORAD...

Steve Callaghan isn't doing a slight of hand with numbers, literally everyone in the world buying the US aircraft see the numbers in USD.

 

[MilEME09]

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/us-navy-starts-development-of-next-generation-manned-fighter-to-replace-the-f-a-18e-f-super-hornet-and-ea-18g-growler-aircraft/?fbclid=IwAR1wBpBKEQGW-MVV0Bifc3qzgiaQ3BnhlQcDsC_wqPuaI_mYCiG14h5i5T4

US navy has started a program to replace the Super Hornet and Growler fleet, next decade. Another nail in the confin for the super hornet in my opinion.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Aussie thinking now a generation or more ahead of where RCAF is at, or will be, for some time; this is getting embarrassing and Canadian Forces will not benefit from PM Trudeau's effort to re-make Canada. Start of a post at think tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute, further links at original:

Australia’s air force should already be planning to replace the F-35

Australia’s 2020 defence strategic update and accompanying force structure plan outline the next 20 years of development for the Royal Australian Air Force’s strike and air combat capability [see here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-02/australias-new-defence-strategy-strategic-shift-foreign-policy/12412650]. Some notional funding streams are provided in the force structure plan that define the priorities for capability development and raise some intriguing questions for future planners to consider.

At the centre of the plans for the RAAF, of course, are the F-35A fighter jets, which are due to achieve final operational capability by the end of 2023. The force structure plan also allocates funds for ‘additional air combat capability’ between 2025 and 2030. It doesn’t specify what that additional capability will be, though it says that the government ‘is committed to … support of the F/A-18F Super Hornet strike aircraft, and acquiring enhanced air launched munitions’.

The Super Hornet remains an important capability, given that it will be the initial primary launch platform for the AGM-158C long-range anti-ship missile, or LRASM.

The F/A-18F fleet could be upgraded to ‘Block III’ standard, allowing the jets to remain in service into the mid-2030s. That makes sense from a risk-management perspective, because the government wouldn’t be betting everything on the long-term effectiveness of the F-35’s stealth. China’s continued development of quantum sensors and use of artificial intelligence could erode that advantage in coming years.

Defence’s 2016 integrated investment program contemplated acquiring a fourth squadron of F-35s, stating that:

"the Super Hornet fleet has been extended beyond its initial bridging capability timeline and is now planned to be replaced around 2030. Its replacement could include either a fourth operational squadron of Joint Strike Fighters or possibly a yet to be developed unmanned combat aerial vehicle. The decision on the replacement of this air combat capability will be best undertaken post-2020 when technology and emerging threat trends are better understood [emphasis added]."

The 2020 plan doesn’t mention a fourth F-35 squadron, but elevates support for what it calls ‘teaming air vehicles’. It anticipates their acquisition between 2025 and 2040, which would fit in with decisions being made on the future of the F/A-18F versus an additional squadron of F-35s.

Boeing’s loyal wingman drone for its ‘airpower teaming system’, being developed in Australia, could emerge as a good solution to the RAAF’s long-range-strike requirements by the end of this decade [emphasis added]. It could be evolved into a more capable platform, with greater range, payload and speed, from its current prototype design. It wouldn’t be the equivalent of acquiring the B-21 Raider stealth bomber, but an evolved loyal wingman would represent something closer to a true long-range-strike platform than simply purchasing another squadron of F-35s, without all the political, financial and strategic challenges associated with the B-21.

Alongside achieving final operational capability for the F-35 and teaming vehicles, the force structure plan seems to focus on long-range missiles as the centrepiece of a ‘strike’ option for the RAAF. But thinking needs to go further than simply bolting long-range munitions onto F-35s and F/A-18Fs, and a future strike capability will need to extend beyond the RAAF.

For example, any new capabilities will need to rely heavily on the Defence Intelligence Group, established on 1 July to ensure that platforms have access to the latest intelligence to maximise their combat effectiveness. That could bring in a host of non-airpower capabilities, ranging from unmanned surface vessels equipped for maritime surveillance such as the Ocius Bluebottle, through to surveillance satellites in low-earth orbit that are to be acquired through Defence Project 799, Phase 2 [emphasis added].

The 2020 plan also suggests that the RAAF must consider a replacement for the E/A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft between the late 2020s and 2040. Keeping the Growlers operating alongside the Super Hornets makes good sense. But if the Super Hornets are retired by the mid-2030s, that would be an ideal time to explore new approaches to electronic warfare and attack. Once again, the sensible solution would be to take full advantage of unmanned systems wherever possible. One option might be for Australia to team up with the United States to develop a stealthy and highly survivable variant of the loyal wingman, with the US supplying the complex and classified electronic warfare payload on board.

Looking further into the future, the plan mentions the period between 2035 and 2040 as the beginning of a process for considering a replacement for the F-35. In fact, something would be amiss if the RAAF weren’t discussing the F-35 replacement right now and thinking about how Australia could work with the US, the UK and other allies on fielding new types of air combat platforms much sooner. For example, the US is no longer speaking about ‘sixth-generation’ fighters, and recognises the risks of slow, decades-long acquisition cycles for a future fighter. The focus of its next-generation air dominance program is now on a ‘digital century series’ approach of rapid development of small numbers of several types of airframes over short periods, as few as five years [emphasis added].

It would be a mistake for the RAAF to embark on another 20-year acquisition project to eventually replace the F-35 from the late 2040s, yet that’s exactly what the force structure plan implies. Waiting until 2035 to begin developing a replacement ignores the clear trends that suggest a desire for faster capability acquisition.

The F-35 has taken two decades to develop, at great expense, and the approach of a common airframe for multiple tasks means it can’t be optimised for a single role. Going back to platforms optimised for a specific role—air dominance, long-range strike and electronic attack, or intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—that can be acquired faster might be a better path.

The RAAF shouldn’t wait until 2035 to get started on developing these types of capabilities. Its plans to complement, and then replace, the F-35 can be accelerated, and it would make sense to promote collaboration with the US and the UK in this endeavour to boost the RAAF’s air combat capability sooner.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-air-force-should-already-be-planning-to-replace-the-f-35/

Thank goodness the RCAF does not have a long-range strike role.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

With due respect Mark (and I do genuinely mean that - I think we all appreciate the articles you post) -- this article is probably well intentioned, but mostly hot air. 

While the Aussies do seem to invest not just the resources, but the time efficiency of common sense, into the air force - asking them to start looking at a replacement for the F-35 now is next to impossible.

We truly don't know what the next generation of combat aircraft will look like, after the F-35 and other 5th gen fighters.



Manned or unmanned?  Elon Musk suggests unmanned, and I'd have to agree.  But, the USAF is thinking manned / optionally manned.

What could they do that the 5th generation fighters can't? 

Is the F-35 eventually going to end up like the F-15 or F-16 line?  Constantly upgraded models being produced, and still one of the top fighters decades after it's introduction?

What kind of weaponry exists in the air-to-air realm in the 2040's and 2050's?  I'm guessing very efficient direct energy weapons, which will literally change the entire game in every single way.



It's good that the author wants the RAAF to think that far down the road.  But realistically, they can't.  Technology improves too quickly, and new technologies are on the horizon that will change the way things are made, done, performed, and executed. 

 

[suffolkowner]

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/government-awards-design-contract-for-future-fighter-infrastructure-in-cold-lake.html

seems like a quick decision. I wonder how fighter specific they need to be

 

[SupersonicMax]

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/government-awards-design-contract-for-future-fighter-infrastructure-in-cold-lake.html

seems like a quick decision. I wonder how fighter specific they need to be

All contenders have mandatory requirements that they need to meet that drive the design of the facilities.

It was anything but a quick decision.  This has been in the works for a couple of years and this is only the design contract.

 

[dapaterson]

The design contracts include build options, which can speed up the process but also gives offramps if the contractor is unable to deliver adequately.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Personally, I think this is a 'nice to see happening' event. 

 

[Quirky]

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/government-awards-design-contract-for-future-fighter-infrastructure-in-cold-lake.html

seems like a quick decision. I wonder how fighter specific they need to be

I’m sure the design will be Canadian specific (3x more expensive) that meets our unique requirements than no other country faces, like cold weather. If construction is to start summer 2022 and the aircraft isn’t chosen, then how is the infrastructure supposed to accommodate X aircraft? Will they flip a coin and build a hangar to house the F35 or Super Hornet?

 

[QV]

Trudeau promised to not buy the F35 so that narrows it down. I suppose they’re building hangars for some version of an F18. Whether they’re old Aussie F18s or, if he’s feeling generous maybe a few Super Hornets.

 

[MilEME09]

I’m sure the design will be Canadian specific (3x more expensive) that meets our unique requirements than no other country faces, like cold weather. If construction is to start summer 2022 and the aircraft isn’t chosen, then how is the infrastructure supposed to accommodate X aircraft? Will they flip a coin and build a hangar to house the F35 or Super Hornet?

Pick the largest aircraft in the running and build to accommodate it, cover your bases. Hangers usually are not for individual aircraft, from talking to friends in cold lake, multiple aircraft are in one, these are massive buildings. Seems like its more a question of how many will fit rather than if they will fit.

 

[CBH99]

One of the coolest things I ever experienced while in the military was getting a tour of CFB Cold Lake, and having our guide take us to one of the hangers.

Walked in a side door... and...   


CF-18's.  Everywhere.  So damn cool. 


Didn't realize how big the buildings were until that moment, and how much technical expertise resides in the RCAF.  Made us grunts feel like monkeys... watching all the technicians and maintenance folks working away. 

I always enjoyed the limited opportunities I had to work with air force folks.  But that moment was an instant "Oh, wow...we really under-appreciate just how smart these folks are" moment for me 

 

[dimsum]

Trudeau promised to not buy the F35 so that narrows it down. I suppose they’re building hangars for some version of an F18. Whether they’re old Aussie F18s or, if he’s feeling generous maybe a few Super Hornets.

It was a campaign promise, and we all know how much those get fulfilled.

The F-35 is definitely still one of the three contenders.

I always enjoyed the limited opportunities I had to work with air force folks.  But that moment was an instant "Oh, wow...we really under-appreciate just how smart these folks are" moment for me 

Hell, I'm in the Air Force and I'm blown away at how much tech expertise we have, esp when you start talking to folks in 1 CAD and Ottawa.  We have some really, really smart people.

 

[suffolkowner]

I’m sure the design will be Canadian specific (3x more expensive) that meets our unique requirements than no other country faces, like cold weather. If construction is to start summer 2022 and the aircraft isn’t chosen, then how is the infrastructure supposed to accommodate X aircraft? Will they flip a coin and build a hangar to house the F35 or Super Hornet?

My understanding is that infrastructure design for the F-35 has already been done down south and one of the major consideration is the different electrical supplies necessary. I believe I've posted some of those links previously but I can look again. Maybe its just a matter of spacing and pulling different wire? Cold shouldn't be an issue as the frame of the building should accommodate any insulation system or better yet insulated panels. I'm curious about the fireproofing requirements though, are your hangers already using a spray applied cementitious fire proofing?

The RFP was issued on May 20th for Cold Lake and June 17th for Bagotville so I'm assuming another announcement is imminent

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fighter-jets/future-fighter-capability-project.html

 

[Quirky]

are your hangers already using a spray applied cementitious fire proofing?

The really thick stuff that's all deyhdrated and falls off when the doors are opened/closed? I think that's it.

Pick the largest aircraft in the running and build to accommodate it, cover your bases. Hangers usually are not for individual aircraft, from talking to friends in cold lake, multiple aircraft are in one, these are massive buildings. Seems like its more a question of how many will fit rather than if they will fit.

Not really the space so much as the power requirements for aircraft electrical systems. You want to run and set-up wiring/plugs etc right the first time. Space may be an issue as the F-35s wings do not fold while the Super Hornets does. Having a hangar too small means you need to find space up to 4 aircraft, like with our current fleet. The current hangars were not designed for the F-18s so units frequently have to store them outside of their own building. If you are scattering your a/c all over the base it makes for inefficient use of maintenance resources.

I hope the new plan includes hangarettes on the flightline for flying, while keeping the bulk of the heavy maintenance at the main unit hangar. This is how all the fighter bases in the US operate, we need to run the same style. Towing aircraft in/out every day for flying wastes time and manpower.

 

[suffolkowner]

The really thick stuff that's all deyhdrated and falls off when the doors are opened/closed? I think that's

Yeah that'll be the stuff, unfortunately it can fall off/fail for a variety of reasons and good luck getting the manufacturer to do anything but blame the applicator

As far as the hangers go hopefully we are looking atwhat the US has already done and not reinventing the wheel

 

[observor 69]

I hope the new plan includes hangarettes on the flightline for flying, while keeping the bulk of the heavy maintenance at the main unit hangar. This is how all the fighter bases in the US operate, we need to run the same style. Towing aircraft in/out every day for flying wastes time and manpower.

Quirky, as an old 104 avionics tech I just wanted to say I make it a point to read your thoughts/comments. Took my 104 course in winter at CYOD and couple of Maple Flags with the Voodoo. So I can relate to the problems and view point from your world.


Cheers