• 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)

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
I found the information on DWAN intranet that they’re building the facilities to be able to fit the largest airframe. The 3D images included were Super Hornets.

Message me your last name and initials and I can send you the link from SharePoint if you’re curious.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
Physical size is one of many factors that is taken into account when talking about aircraft fitting in a hangar.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,554
Points
1,090
Physical size is one of many factors that is taken into account when talking about aircraft fitting in a hangar.
Which, without a fighter picked we have to accommodate the largest design, if a smaller one gets picked, perfect, more space for other things
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,709
Points
1,140
The Super Hornet is the largest airframe of the 3.
In Over all: Length Width and Height
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,554
Points
1,090
Perfect. Just like our current hangars, filled with useless crap unrelated to operations. I swear we could film a few episodes of hoarders in some units.
My new CQ has the mentality if it's older than 6 months and not moved or used its going back to depot. To many units horde things, cause it was useful before so they keep it, even if to never use it.
 

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
Physical size is one of many factors that is taken into account when talking about aircraft fitting in a hangar.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I think you’re saying is that another aircraft, like say the F-35, may require specialized AMSE that takes up more space.

The diagram I saw had these aircraft pretty close together, so if was probably a servicing/storage hangar where aircraft are towed in and out often, or they have a snag. Also the hangarettes that are on the flight line.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
Which, without a fighter picked we have to accommodate the largest design, if a smaller one gets picked, perfect, more space for other things
No, we need to accomodate the largest, the one with the most stringent security requirements, the loudest one, the one with the most power generation requirements, the one with the most complex networking requirements, etc. Just saying the hangars need to accommodate the largest aircraft is only a fraction of the truth.

Not knowing what we buy drives considerably the price up because the worst-case factors are not all shared by the same aircraft.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
719
Points
1,040
No, we need to accomodate the largest, the one with the most stringent security requirements, the loudest one, the one with the most power generation requirements, the one with the most complex networking requirements, etc. Just saying the hangars need to accommodate the largest aircraft is only a fraction of the truth.

Not knowing what we buy drives considerably the price up because the worst-case factors are not all shared by the same aircraft.
What you mean there other considerations that can't be simplified in one sentence?

My new CQ has the mentality if it's older than 6 months and not moved or used its going back to depot. To many units horde things, cause it was useful before so they keep it, even if to never use it.
Well only after the SM says it can come back ;)
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
131
Points
710
What the Global Eye AEW&C plane brings to Saab's Gripen E bid for new Finnish fighter--very informative post by Corporal Frisk. Pity no-one like him in Canada. And pity our competition so much more secretive (I believe contending companies very, very limited in what can say publicly, practically gagged--but would our major media even be interested in such a detailed, technical briefing and report it without serious political spin?). Couple of excerpts, well worth the whole read:

One Last Hurrah – Finnish Media visits an HX-contender
...here we are, perhaps a month away from the decision [emphasis added].
...the Gripen sports a number of nice features from a Finnish point of view, but what really sets Saab’s offer apart from the rest is the inclusion of not one but two airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft. The capability in itself would bring a huge shift in Finnish air operations regardless of whichever fighter would be at the other end of the chain (no, your favourite fighter isn’t a “mini-AWACS” just because it has a nice radar, you still won’t leisurely be cruising around on 10 hour missions gathering intelligence and keeping an up to date air picture while paying biz-jet operating costs). The value of the kind of persistent situational picture provided by a modern AEW&C platform is hard to overstate, especially in a Finnish scenario where the attacker will have numerical superiority (meaning that the decision about when and where to send Finnish fighters will have to be calculated carefully to ensure it is possible for them to do something that actually has an impact on the battle), the flat and forested nature of the country (meaning that there is a lack of suitable mountaintops on which to place groundbased sensors, instead anyone operating at very low levels will enjoy lots of radar shadows from which they can sneak up on Finnish targets), and the very joint nature of any major conflict stemming from the long land-border and the right flank and rear being composed of water (meaning that any higher-level situational picture need to take into account all three domains)....
Interlude: in some of the darker places of aviation forums there have been people claiming that Saab is trying to sell a fighter that in fact isn’t the best one out there through packaging it with an AEW&C platform. Regardless of whether it is correct or not, that is a completely moot point. The Finnish Air Force isn’t looking for the best fighter, the Finnish Defence Forces is looking for the best capability they can get for 10 billion Euro (and 250 MEUR in annual operating costs), and if pairing 64 JAS 39E Gripen with two GlobalEyes provide a greater combat capability than the competing packages, how Gripen fares in one-on-one air combat against some other fighter isn’t interesting in the slightest to Puranen or his team.

The GlobalEye is more or less everything you would expect from it...

With the Norwegian budget figures having raised more questions than the Swiss decision answered for the F-35, and the US Navy trying to kill off the Super Hornet production line faster than you can get a hornets nest fully cleaned out from a redcurrant shrub (which for me is approximately two weeks of time based on empirical testing), the Finnish skies are perhaps looking ready to accept a non-US fighter again. In that scenario, the Gripen is certainly a more likely choice than the two larger eurocanards, but at the same time questions of maturity surround the aircraft that is bound to reach IOC with an operational unit only in 2025 – the same year the first HX fighters are to be delivered. Basing the 39E on the proven 39C/D-platform certainly helps, and the decoupling of flight critical software from other systems seems to have been a winning concept considering the pace at which the test program has advanced (this includes software updates on flying aircraft every four weeks on average up to this point of the program). However, with nine aircraft operational and the first Batch 2 (series production standard) already off the production line, Saab just might be able to cut it in time.
One Last Hurrah – Finnish Media visits an HX-contender

Mark
Ottawa
 
Last edited:

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
Not knowing what we buy drives considerably the price up because the worst-case factors are not all shared by the same aircraft.

There's two scenarios that could play out.

Either they down-select to 2 bidders, and allow the infrastructure teams to focus design efforts on the down-select bidders, with some risk (or extra cost) until an agreement is made with the top-bidder.

Or, decision to down-select to 1 bidder (the top ranked bidder) moving directly to the finalization phase which would allow construction to commence as soon as possible.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
There's two scenarios that could play out.

Either they down-select to 2 bidders, and allow the infrastructure teams to focus design efforts on the down-select bidders, with some risk (or extra cost) until an agreement is made with the top-bidder.

Or, decision to down-select to 1 bidder (the top ranked bidder) moving directly to the finalization phase which would allow construction to commence as soon as possible.
Or option 3: build everything to the « worst » case.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,554
Points
1,090
But if they build the hangers to suit the Gripen, then won't they be too small if we end up buying the Super Hornet???

:cool:
Just take the wings off it will be fine....like air force NASCAR if they have to scramble
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,709
Points
1,140
Well, they do have the best air-to-air combat record of any of the contenders:

Air-to-Air Kills:
F-35 --> 0
Gripen --> 0
Super Hornet --> 1
Sopwith Camel --> 1,294
Was there only three bidders?
I would think there are a few other A/C that make the requirements in the SOW.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,940
Points
1,260
Was there only three bidders?
I would think there are a few other A/C that make the requirements in the SOW.
There were 5.

Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale decided not to continue their bids.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,709
Points
1,140
There were 5.

Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale decided not to continue their bids.
Can't say I blame them -- I mean historically the CAF doesn't exactly have a track record.
Admittedly I was always curious from the very start about the single engine aspect of the F-35, that was a deal breaker back in the day for the F-16 when the 104 and Voodoos got replaced with the Hornet.
Which always struck me as odd, given the justification used about having an engine go down over Canada's North - when the US had F-16's in Alaska (I guess the USAF has more faith in the engine, or their SAR...)
 
Top