• 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)

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
124
Points
710
News release from Finnish air force on choice of F-35A--how much will our government tell us about reasons for choosing new RCAF fighter (whenever they get around to it)?



Mark
Ottawa
At The Drive's "War Zone":

Here’s How Finland Justified Its Decision To Buy 64 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters The Finnish competition judged the Joint Strike Fighter the most cost-effective option to replace the Hornet.​


Mark
Ottawa
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
233
Points
530
Good mention G2G! I forgot about the CC-295. So the first digit can be something other than a '1' which I can see the Lighting II being CF-335 (or something along those lines).

If they follow the pattern they used when numbering the F-18 the CF-188 it would be the CF-355
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
Corporal Frisk on the HX decision


and a bit of an explanation on the difference in operating budgets

"The obvious issue is that it never is an apples versus apples comparison. Switzerland famously include VAT in their costings, something that the FDF avoids. The Swiss also present indexed average costs adjusted for inflation, while the Finnish figure is given in 2021 Euros. The USAF also include a number of basing costs in their figures (and notable is that a USAF base include quite a bit more than a Finnish air force base). But Finland is also paradoxically assisted by jumping aboard the train at a relatively late stage, as the US don’t charge for non-recurring costs, and the partner nations – although they get a share of the license cost when fighters are sold abroad – have obviously invested significant sums throughout the program which now show up in their LCC. But there are a number of other key issues as well. Finland will fly approximately 9,000 hours annually, which is in line with the current Hornet flight hours. However, with the relative large number of aircraft that actually mean that the Finnish fleet flies 140 flight hours per aircraft annually – approximately half of what the USAF does. This naturally create less wear and lower maintenance cost per aircraft and year. Notable is also that the 2 Bn EUR in upgrades are placed outside of the 254 MEUR annual operating costs, a relic from the Hornet-era where upgrades were major MLU-style projects. Another key difference between Finnish and many other European air forces is that Finland plan to shift training from the US back to Finland at a relatively early stage – following their good experiences with the current (cost-effective) proptrainer – Hawk – Hornet pipeline. Keeping pilots at home instead of paying for them living abroad usually turns out to be cheaper (have you seen the real estate prices in Rovaniemi lately?), and we haven’t even mentioned the conscript mechanics. At the end of the day, all bids had roughly similar annual operating costs."
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,162
Points
1,060
At The Drive's "War Zone":


Mark
Ottawa

From that article, three thoughts:

1 possibility of the Finns not taking delivery of all 64 aircraft in one tranche - therefore operating a smaller fleet over a longer time with upgrades

“The production work will continue for more than 20 years, and the F-35 sustainment work will continue into the 2070s.”
The discussion also talks about buying some A2A weapons immediately and then acquiring more A2A and A2G munitions "as planes come on line ... avoiding mass obsolescence"
This would fit with the comment about the Finn's budget of 250 million Euros only providing $4.4 million per aircraft for operations and maintenance vs the US standard of $7 million. 64x4.4/7= 40 Aircraft operational with 24 to be delivered at a later date.
This would explain the importance of security of supply up to and beyond 2050. Something that SAAB and BOEING would have greater difficulty guaranteeing.

So 32 to 40 out of the 64 delivered immediately.

2 possibility of more hours on the ground

3 possibility of more flight simulators (permitting more hours on the ground).


Edit - just saw Suffolkowner's comments. Snap.
 

RaceAddict

Jr. Member
Reaction score
94
Points
330
Speaking of number designations... whichever aircraft is selected, what do you suppose the number designation will be?

Can two different types of aircraft share a number designation? For example, the Twin Huey had the aircraft designation CH-135. With the F-35 being a Fighter aircraft, would it be allowed to use CF-135 for it's aircraft designation?

And do RCAF aircraft need to start with '1' or could the F-35 use CF-335.

The Gripen would have the same issue with the Jetranger using aircraft designation CH-139.

If the F/A-18 became the (C)F-18(8), and the C-17 became the (C)C-17(7), I'd think they'd go with CF-355 for the JSF.

The Gripen is a little more complicated... "JAS" is the Swedish acronym for Fighter/Strike/Recce. (Nevermind that gripen is Swedish for griffin.) So a JAS 39 would technically be an RFA-39, abbreviated to F-39, or in Canada CF-399.

Am I other thinking this? o_O
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
From that article, three thoughts:

1 possibility of the Finns not taking delivery of all 64 aircraft in one tranche - therefore operating a smaller fleet over a longer time with upgrades

“The production work will continue for more than 20 years, and the F-35 sustainment work will continue into the 2070s.”
The discussion also talks about buying some A2A weapons immediately and then acquiring more A2A and A2G munitions "as planes come on line ... avoiding mass obsolescence"
This would fit with the comment about the Finn's budget of 250 million Euros only providing $4.4 million per aircraft for operations and maintenance vs the US standard of $7 million. 64x4.4/7= 40 Aircraft operational with 24 to be delivered at a later date.
This would explain the importance of security of supply up to and beyond 2050. Something that SAAB and BOEING would have greater difficulty guaranteeing.

So 32 to 40 out of the 64 delivered immediately.

2 possibility of more hours on the ground

3 possibility of more flight simulators (permitting more hours on the ground).


Edit - just saw Suffolkowner's comments. Snap.
It doesn't really explain away Norway's budget number of $19.5M

Finland $4.4M
USA $7M
Norway $19.5M

budgeting witchcraft by accountants I guess. I'm still hoping the F-35 comes out on top in Canada though. I mean it's not like it's my money, oh wait🤔
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,162
Points
1,060
It doesn't really explain away Norway's budget number of $19.5M

Finland $4.4M
USA $7M
Norway $19.5M

budgeting witchcraft by accountants I guess. I'm still hoping the F-35 comes out on top in Canada though. I mean it's not like it's my money, oh wait🤔

Norway has lots of money, wants access to the US market (Nammo, NASAMs, JSM/NSM), and wants to be sure that Washington will send the Marines when necessary.

It is in their interest to show as much money as possible being transferred to Washington's books. The locals don't miss the extra cash and in exchange Washington buys Norwegian technology.

As you suggest - accountants and their witchery.



Edit - and I forgot about Kongsberg and their RWS technologies.
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,563
Points
1,140
It doesn't really explain away Norway's budget number of $19.5M

Finland $4.4M
USA $7M
Norway $19.5M

budgeting witchcraft by accountants I guess. I'm still hoping the F-35 comes out on top in Canada though. I mean it's not like it's my money, oh wait🤔
Norway stuck a lot of additional goodies into its program - airfields being one that jumps out...
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
All nations account for procurement differently, and include / do not include different things in their acquisition costs.
Yes it makes it difficult to compare

Norway

$10.68B for aircraft and associated equipment/spares(munitions?)
$790M for Orland base infrastructure(main base)
$210M for Evenes base infrastructure (FOB)
$450M for management/implementation/administration
$770M budgeted for blk 4 upgrades
$870M for Joint Strike Missile integration (UK weapons integration is stated as $472M)

The stated operations cost is $19.5M per year per aircraft

Finland

$4.7B for aircraft
$1.58B for munitions
$2B for upgrades excluding blk 4 as delivered aircraft will be blk 4
$484M for infrastructure (corporal frisk) ?
$777M for infrastructure (the drive)?
$579M for transition
$2.9B for spares etc...

there's a bit of duplication there as its from multiple sources the infrastructure being the most obvious one but totals $12.3B so close

so again we are looking at

$ 7 B = 88 F35A's x $79M
$ 14 B = initial spares, munitions, simulators etc...
$ 1 B = management/admin/implementation
$ 1 B = Bagotville infrastructure
$ 1 B = Cold Lake infrastructure
?????? = infrastructure updates at FOL's and other bases

total = $24 Billion plus

$ 63B = operating costs 88 x $19.5M x 37 years or $34B for 20 yrs
$ 26B = operating costs 88 x $8M x 37 years or $14B for 20 yrs
$ 14.5B = operating costs 88 x $4.5 x 37 years or $8B for 20 yrs

interesting that Ellis Don got $12 million for Bagotville and only $9 million for Cold Lake. Is Bagotville bigger?

from $32B to $87B depending on 37 yrs or 20yrs and what operating cost model we fit into lol
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,162
Points
1,060
And thus the only thing you can firmly compare is the FOB cost of the aircraft at the factory gate.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,840
Points
1,360
And thus the only thing you can firmly compare is the FOB cost of the aircraft at the factory gate.
…if the contract actually breaks it out like that. It’s usually a package deal that doesn’t have the same OEM fly-away cost as the US buys them in its appropriation system.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,162
Points
1,060
…if the contract actually breaks it out like that. It’s usually a package deal that doesn’t have the same OEM fly-away cost as the US buys them in its appropriation system.

As a recovering sales engineer I can authoritatively say that salesmen, and their managers, hate writing proposals that can be compared line item by line item. :D
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,373
Points
1,040
As a recovering sales engineer I can authoritatively say that salesmen, and their managers, hate writing proposals that can be compared line item by line item. :D
As a customer I say that I absolutely want proposals or estimates to give me a line item breakdown.

As a lawyer my quotes to clients were usually: My hourly rate is $mumble mumble and I have absolutely no idea how much time this will end up taking mumble, mumble, variables, mumble mumble other side has a vote mumble mumble it will be a lot less if you settle mumble mumble If I had to take a wild assed guess it would be anywhere between Smumble mumble thousand and $mumble mumble thousand.

😁
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
670
Points
1,060
Hopefully we get a decent breakdown on the cost after the contract award, but I'm sure the Auditor General will comment on the program one more time. I still think we should have more access to the technical results as well


Be nice if we could acquire our F-35's with the adaptive engines early on and introduce choice and competition from the engine standpoint again


A 30% increase in range would be nice from over 1200nm to over 1500nm
 

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
If they follow the pattern they used when numbering the F-18 the CF-188 it would be the CF-355
If the F/A-18 became the (C)F-18(8), and the C-17 became the (C)C-17(7), I'd think they'd go with CF-355 for the JSF.

The Gripen is a little more complicated... "JAS" is the Swedish acronym for Fighter/Strike/Recce. (Nevermind that gripen is Swedish for griffin.) So a JAS 39 would technically be an RFA-39, abbreviated to F-39, or in Canada CF-399.

Am I other thinking this? o_O


You’re both absolutely correct, my mistake. It would most likely be CF-355 if going by how they’ve numbered aircraft in the past.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
123
Points
630
Hopefully we get a decent breakdown on the cost after the contract award, but I'm sure the Auditor General will comment on the program one more time. I still think we should have more access to the technical results as well


Be nice if we could acquire our F-35's with the adaptive engines early on and introduce choice and competition from the engine standpoint again


A 30% increase in range would be nice from over 1200nm to over 1500nm
Or even the Enhanced Engine Package, as described here, would be a pretty good upgrade: Pratt Pushes Alternative to New Adaptive Engine for F-35 - Air Force Magazine
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,815
Points
1,110
As a customer I say that I absolutely want proposals or estimates to give me a line item breakdown.

As a lawyer my quotes to clients were usually: My hourly rate is $mumble mumble and I have absolutely no idea how much time this will end up taking mumble, mumble, variables, mumble mumble other side has a vote mumble mumble it will be a lot less if you settle mumble mumble If I had to take a wild assed guess it would be anywhere between Smumble mumble thousand and $mumble mumble thousand.

😁
Are you sure you never worked in Corrections? :sneaky: ;)
 
Top