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

[PuckChaser]

I realize Boeing isn't "offering" the Super Hornet, but could Canada not request that it be offered?  If it was seriously being considered, in an alternative dimension, would Boeing really give up the chance to sell 88 planes to us if we wanted the new F15 instead of the updated F18?

Not how our system works. Its up to the manufacturers to bid the aircraft they think best meets the requirements.

 

[Baz]

Not how our system works. Its up to the manufacturers to bid the aircraft they think best meets the requirements.

... and meets the current business plan of the company.

 

[Uzlu]

Erratic flight path: Canada’s fighter procurement plan

The path towards procuring a replacement fighter for the CF-188 Hornet has been one with many twists and turns due to political gamesmanship and strategic business marketing, causing much public misunderstanding.

This short article aims to put a few things into perspective as the competitors complete their analysis and response to the government’s request for proposal (RFP) issued July 23, 2019, for the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).

Eligible suppliers

Of the original five qualifying suppliers, only the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III, Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II, and Saab Gripen E fighters remain in the competition.

The Dassault Rafale and Airbus Eurofighter Typhoon were both pulled from consideration, with company officials citing “that NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] security requirements continue to place too significant of a cost on platforms whose manufacture and repair chains sit outside the United States-Canada 2-EYES community.”

Given that the Canadian government identified the first two principal roles of the Canadian Armed Forces as ensuring Canadian sovereignty and the defence of North America, the requirement to be fully functional and integral within NORAD is mandatory.

The reality today is that fighters are not simply weapons platforms, but flying computers that also function as airborne sensors that are designed to be integrated into command and control computer networks. Thus, the challenge for non-American manufacturers is to overcome both sensitive commercial and U.S. national security concerns when they are required to integrate and support U.S. information-sharing equipment in their platforms.

A second reason given for Airbus’s departure was the eleventh-hour modification to the RFP that relaxed the expected industrial technological benefits (ITB) obligations. To attract more than three suppliers and ensure a competition, the government originally stuck to its standing ITB policy of “requiring the winning supplier to make investments in Canada equal to the value of the contract.” However, this effectively eliminated the F-35 due to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program agreement – signed by Canada – that forbade such a demand. To provide latitude to all bidders, the final RFP was modified into a two-phased proposal to allow non-American companies to address 2/5-EYES challenges up front, while also applying rated criteria for economic offset potential of stated ITB requirements, to keep the F-35 within the bidding process. Additionally, five per cent was shifted from cost to economic criteria to compensate for changes in the original draft ITB policy. The proposals will now be assessed on 60 per cent technical merit, 20 per cent cost and 20 per cent economic benefits.

Current bidders

In recent years, the Saab Group expanded globally by offering industrial partnerships that combined local production and capital-heavy ventures with national customer partners.

Saab’s approach with the Gripen E bid in Canada follows this successful formula of maximizing national economic benefits with an economical product; however, Saab also faces the challenges that Airbus determined to be too difficult to overcome. Additionally, the Gripen E is still in development; its first production flight occurred on Aug. 26, 2019, meaning issues of proven performance and systems maturation need to be factored in during bid evaluation. According to the firm, this first fighter will be used as a test aircraft in a joint Swedish/Brazilian test program, the only two customers for the Gripen E to date.

Given that the Eurofighter bid was sponsored by the U.K. government, a member of the 5-EYES community that decided it could not meet the information-sharing requirements, Saab will need to be innovative and cost-conscious in its proposal if it is to surmount this mission-critical criteria.

As for the Super Hornet, Boeing promised to invest $18 billion in ITBs under the failed 2017 purchase agreement for 18 fighters, and it is anticipated that the company will follow its established approach to investing in Canada as per previous ITB commitments.

Concern over the so-called Boeing Clause, “to allow only companies that it deems ‘trusted partners’ to bid on major capital programs,” has faded away and Boeing is confident that it can mount a competitive bid,  particularly now that the U.S. Navy’s (USN) commitment to future purchases will keep the production line open until 2033.

By incorporating leading-edge technology into the Block III to meet adversarial advances, Boeing has ensured the Super Hornet will meet Canadian requirements. Although still in development as well, a major question for government decision-makers has to do with sustainability. At present, only the USN and Kuwait will operate the Super Hornet Block III, while Australia has plans to upgrade their Block II version. As Australia expects to retire its fleet in the early 2040s and the USN in 2045, the challenge for Boeing will be in meeting the stated lifecycle expectancy of Canada’s future fighter in a cost-effective manner.

Since 2015, the much-maligned F-35 has proven itself in combat and counts Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the three U.S. services as customers. As the only fifth generation fighter, it contains technological advances that are designed into the aircraft and cannot be replicated in fourth generation platforms.

The overall architectural concept regards the F-35 as more than just a weapons platform, but also as a forward sensor that is fully integrated into the developing multi-domain command and control system. Initial airframe costs have been significantly reduced and early sustainment issues are being resolved; however, the F-35 remains the most costly platform to own and operate at the moment.

With a projected lifetime production run of over 4,000 fighters, lifecycle support is guaranteed, and Canadian industry stands to gain substantially from Canada’s early investment in the co-operative JSF Program. However, according to reports, manufacturers will lose points in the ITB element formula scoring system if they do not make a 100 per cent commitment to the contract value, which Lockheed-Martin is prohibited from doing by JSF contractual agreement.

Arctic

Interestingly, all remaining competitors can lay claim to being Arctic platforms. Canada has already proven the F/A-18’s credentials in the high North, the U.S. will base two combat F-35 squadrons in Alaska, and Sweden has developed the Gripen with Arctic operations in mind.

The issue of one versus two engines has never been a significant issue for Arctic operations except in Canada. Originally, two engines was one of the many discriminators used in choosing the F/A-18 over the F-16 in 1979. Recently, the Standing Committee on National Defence’s shaping of the narrative in 2016 to promote the sole-source purchase of the Super Hornet reintroduced the idea that operations in the Arctic demanded two engines.

As with commercial aviation where transatlantic flight once required four-engine passenger planes, the advancements in engine technology have led to standard two-engine models today. Engine reliability is not a concern with any of the competing fighters. However, operations in Canada’s Arctic are unique and risky in an inhospitable region that is 11 times the size of Sweden. Other discriminators, such as continuous communications and tracking, become equally or more important to survival.

Stealth

One of the unfortunate aspects of American F-35 global marketing efforts with respect to the FFCP is the issue of stealth technology. Although the idea of penetrating, first strike operations sells well in the U.S., stealth is a much maligned and misappropriated concept in Canada.

Stealth technology is all about maximizing self-protection and increasing survivability by disrupting the ‘kill-chain’ through low observability. This concept is no different from the tactical advantages that I used while flying the CF-104 in Germany during the Cold War. The Starfighter had a one-square-metre cross-section nose-on, making the adversary’s initial radar detection difficult and target acquisition and identification questionable, delaying force commitment to the target. This complicated the decision and order to attack the target, and finally upon weapons release, the low radar cross-section shrunk the available radar weapons envelope needed for destruction of the fighter. The CF-104’s speed significantly exacerbated the adversary’s kill-chain difficulties.

The CF-188 Hornet I flew later required a Defensive Electronic Countermeasures suite that masked the larger aircraft radar cross-section, and electronically intervened and complicated a more advanced kill-chain.

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) will significantly decrease ambiguity and decision-making time in the near future. Whether built into the design or strapped on later, some form of self-protection is required to protect the pilot and the fighter asset that will either be defending Canadian territory or operate in foreign contested airspace when the government commits its fighter force.

The question is one of application and the cost effectiveness of self-protection measures used by each platform and how they are expressed in the bid proposal.

Costs

Costing is a nebulous exercise outside evaluation of the final bids due to the many variables. Although airframe costs are most often thrown around, the government must consider the airframe, operating, infrastructure, sustainment and other related costs as a package, balanced against the capability being purchased.

A good example of the intricacies involves the way the fighter fleet is bought. The Super Hornet must be purchased through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, where the U.S. government acts as the broker. Generally, a 30 per cent mark-up is charged for research and development (R&D) and administrative fees.

In the case of the F-35, as a JSF partner, these costs are reduced for Canada through common funding. The costs for R&D have already been shared by the membership pool, and partners pay the same price for the weapons system as the U.S. services.

Future upgrades become additional FMS expenses for the Super Hornet, whereas upgrade developments are shared by JSF members.

Each of the competitors is being asked to provide 88 fighter aircraft within the $19 billion funding envelope and the old adage of “you get what you pay for” is very applicable.

Each of these platforms brings a different level of current and future combat capability that needs to be judiciously weighed. If the fighter is to reach the government’s goal of flying until 2060, each needs to be flexible and adaptative to evolving technology. More significantly, 70 per cent of lifecycle costs are in sustainment and therefore the fighter chosen must be cost-effectively supported for the next 40 years.

The next leg

In the lead-up to the RFP, it has been evident that national security factors have been competing with economic benefit interests. With the election this fall, the next government (whatever form this takes) will no doubt want to review the project and put its own stamp of approval on the process that it has inherited.

Hopefully this will not further delay the decision on the replacement of the CF-188 fleet and the Royal Canadian Air Force will finally be able to move ahead with the best fighter aircraft Canadians can provide to the women and men who are putting their lives in harm’s way.

Alan Stephenson (Col ret’d) holds a PhD from Carleton University and is a former CF-188 pilot with 3,600 hours flying fighters. He is currently an aviation consultant and a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

https://www.skiesmag.com/features/erratic-flight-path-canadas-fighter-procurement-plan/

 

[Iron 1]

As Stevenson notes, The 104 was an absolute beast and an ongoing nightmare for the "bad guys".
There were just not a lot of ways to interdict them unless the intercept profiles were impeccably flown and the PVO's radar net was able to maintain contact.
I have no seat time in fast air, but I do have decades of time spent learning about the period.
IOW? I'm a Cold War era base brat with an unremitting interest in the subject.
A new build CF-104 (boom AAR capability, composite construction, avionic upgrades, and an F-135; 35,000 lbs of thrust) would probably be an effective solution and something we could do here.

Thinking outside of the box...

Kelly's basic air frame is still as valid today as it was in 1952...

Whether you could cram it all into the limited internal space is the question.

Regardless? If it could be done... it would turn the world upside down.
You don't need to turn and burn because missiles are (finally) delivering on the promises from the 60's.
Imagine a "snake" in the weeds with 35,000lbs pushing it.
OEL7 (J-79-11...etal.) was 10,000 dry and 15,800 wet.
Build it and see what happens...?
We could probably sell 2 or 3 thousand to tin pot regimes, in a dummied down version with an OEL-7.

Or not?

I really believe that Kelly Johnson hit the mark with the F 104.

 

[SupersonicMax]

As Stevenson notes, The 104 was an absolute beast and an ongoing nightmare for the "bad guys".
There were just not a lot of ways to interdict them unless the intercept profiles were impeccably flown and the PVO's radar net was able to maintain contact.
I have no seat time in fast air, but I do have decades of time spent learning about the period.
IOW? I'm a Cold War era base brat with an unremitting interest in the subject.
A new build CF-104 (boom AAR capability, composite construction, avionic upgrades, and an F-135; 35,000 lbs of thrust) would probably be an effective solution and something we could do here.

Thinking outside of the box...

Kelly's basic air frame is still as valid today as it was in 1952...

Whether you could cram it all into the limited internal space is the question.

Regardless? If it could be done... it would turn the world upside down.
You don't need to turn and burn because missiles are (finally) delivering on the promises from the 60's.
Imagine a "snake" in the weeds with 35,000lbs pushing it.
OEL7 (J-79-11...etal.) was 10,000 dry and 15,800 wet.
Build it and see what happens...?
We could probably sell 2 or 3 thousand to tin pot regimes, in a dummied down version with an OEL-7.

Or not?

I really believe that Kelly Johnson hit the mark with the F 104.

With an endurance of 10 minutes...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yeah, but it would be a pretty epic ten minutes.

Kind of like those guys flying  Me 163 Komets in 1945. Except without the cool ability to glide once the fuel ran out...

 

[Good2Golf]

Yeah, but it would be a pretty epic ten minutes.

Kind of like those guys flying  Me 163 Komets in 1945. Except without the cool ability to glide once the fuel ran out...

Oh it could glide, I’m sure....with a 0.00035:1 glide ratio...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Oh it could glide, I’m sure....with a 0.00035:1 glide ratio...

I glide better than that when I fall off ladders...

 

[Good2Golf]

I glide better than that when I fall off ladders...

Yep. :nod:

 

[NavyShooter]

Here's the thing about a 'reborn CF-104' - what is the role they'd be used in? 

In the Cold War, they were a nuke delivery device - Zip in, flip toss, boogey away from the 'big boom'. 

That's not how we use our fighters now. 

So....if we were to get a 'rebuilt' -104, it'd be an answer to a question we're not asking.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's the thing about a 'reborn CF-104' - what is the role they'd be used in? 

In the Cold War, they were a nuke delivery device - Zip in, flip toss, boogey away from the 'big boom'. 

That's not how we use our fighters now. 

So....if we were to get a 'rebuilt' -104, it'd be an answer to a question we're not asking.

Ditch the pilot and you have a 1000 knot UAS.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ditch the pilot and you have a 1000 knot UAS.

And fewer widows...

 

[Kirkhill]

And fewer widows...

Not if the UAS is doing its job right. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Head's up to potential contractors - you need security clearances to work on designing and building places to keep the fighter we haven't decided on yet ...

...Purpose of this Advance Procurement Notice

This is not a bid solicitation. This is an advance notice of potential projects with anticipated security requirements to provide interested Consultants/Contractors and Sub-consultants/Sub-Contractors an opportunity to apply for security clearances. Note that there is no guarantee that this project will proceed.

Description of the Project

The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) requires infrastructure that can support a Future Fighter Capability (FFC) that will maintain the Defence of Canada, fulfill the role of a strong & reliable partner in the Defence of North America, and provide Canada with an effective and modern air capability for international operations. The infrastructure must provide shelter and a working environment capable of supporting the operation and maintenance of a yet to be determined advanced fighter aircraft. The infrastructure must also be capable of supporting operations at high security classifications and utilizing advanced technologies and equipment to enable the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to execute control of Canadian Airspace and contribute to Alliance/Coalition operations.

Description of the Services

If approved, work associated with the FFCP infrastructure could include concept development, design, renovation and/or new construction of operations, storage, maintenance, training and administrative facilities at the Main Operating Bases (MOBs) in Cold Lake and Bagotville and may include similar work at numerous other locations throughout Canada including the following:

- Deployed Operating Bases (DOBs): Comox, Winnipeg, Trenton, Greenwood, Goose Bay;
- Forward Operating Locations (FOLs): Inuvik, Iqaluit, Yellowknife; and,
- Combined Air Operations Centres (CAOCs): North Bay, Winnipeg.

The FFCP infrastructure work at the above locations is projected to occur between 2020 and 2030 ...

 

[dimsum]

Head's up to potential contractors - you need security clearances to work on designing and building places to keep the fighter we haven't decided on yet ...

No surprise here - the infrastructure has to be secret (or higher) if the aircraft is going to be secret (or higher). 

 

[Good2Golf]

No surprise here - the infrastructure has to be secret (or higher) if the aircraft is going to be secret (or higher).

Dimsum, that’s not necessarily a point hoisted aboard by all contractors... :nod:

 

[a_majoor]

Going a bit sideways, but if there is a willingness to look at UCAVs (much like other air forces are doing), we might consider something based on the MQ-25 "Stingray".

We have lots of area to cover, so an aircraft with long range is certainly a big plus. The Stingray was designed as a "tanker", so it has a great deal of internal volume, which could be repurposed for a variety of other things. It could act as a large sensor platform, carry a considerable load of bombs or missiles or even more futuristic weapons (not that far in the future) such as lasers or hypersonic missiles. A "Stingray" that can fight with a laser of hypersonic missile really has little need to be able to fly at supersonic speeds, or even be much of a dogfighter.

For now, such an aircraft would be under the control of a nearby CF-18 in the manner of the "Loyal Wingman" concept the USAF is looking at. How autonomous these aircraft could be is an open question, certainly there is no possibility of making them completely autonomous with current or near term technology, but perhaps the need for a human controller close at hand might be lessened over the coming years.

 

[Uzlu]

Job guarantees for aerospace workers a must: Federal NDP

REGARDLESS of which company wins the CF-18 fighter replacement contract, Trudeau’s Liberal government must make sure there are job guarantees for aerospace workers here in Canada and strong economic benefits for the Canadian public, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said at a press conference on Wednesday in Ottawa with NDP Deputy Leader Alexandre Boulerice and Yvon Payment from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW).

“This case has been dragging on for years. It’s starting to get ridiculous. In 2015, the Liberals promised to fix the tendering process and four years later, nothing has happened,” said Boulerice. “In Mirabel, men and women are working miracles to make the CF-18s work. Without the knowledge and ingenuity of this group of workers, the government would be in trouble. At the very least, [Prime Minister] Justin Trudeau and his new ministers must respond quickly to this issue and make sure these workers continue to do this work.”

For 37 years, the repair and maintenance of Canadian CF-18s has been carried out in Quebec. Today, the work done on Canadian fighter aircrafts at L3-Harris in Mirabel provides employment for about 600 people. To date, it is impossible to know whether the government intends to obtain the necessary guarantees to protect jobs in the country or to know the extent and type of industrial and technological economic benefits that will come from the contract to manufacture 88 Royal Canadian Air Force fighter jets.

“The contract is valued at $19 billion. At this price, it would be inconceivable not to ensure that we obtain the necessary means to maintain and create jobs here and obtain positive benefits for the country,” said Yvon Paiement, President of Local 712 of the Machinists. “The vagueness in which this dossier is being conducted is further proof that we need an industrial strategy for the aerospace sector, which is well thought out in the long term and economically coherent, which places our interests as a society, as citizens and as workers in the award of public contracts.”

The NDP said it intends to engage the new minister of defence on this issue at the beginning of the parliamentary session in Ottawa.

https://www.voiceonline.com/job-guarantees-for-aerospace-workers-a-must-federal-ndp/#

 

[daftandbarmy]

https://www.voiceonline.com/job-guarantees-for-aerospace-workers-a-must-federal-ndp/#

Funny, during the recent election he said not much about jobs... which is weird for an NDP 'big Union' guy.

 

[Uzlu]

Boeing Offers Industrial Benefits Package in Canadian Fighter Jet Bid

Boeing is offering a multi-billion dollar industrial benefits package as part of its fighter jet pitch to Canada, in hopes that support for domestic industry will give the company an edge in the competition.  The contractor says Canadian companies could receive up to CAD30 billion ($22.5 billion) in work if Ottawa selects the F/A-18 Super Hornet as its next fighter.  Canada wants to buy 88 aircraft to replace its existing CF-18 Hornets.

It was only earlier this month that Boeing confirmed its participation in the competition, as Ottawa recently changed the program’s industrial benefits parameters in order to allow Lockheed Martin’s F-35 to remain in the competition.  Lockheed is unable to guarantee domestic work because of how the F-35 program is structured, which would normally be a problem because Canada’s defense procurement system requires domestic offsets.  The change allows Lockheed Martin to participate without guaranteeing work for domestic manufacturers.  Canadian firms have received CAD1.3 billion ($980 million) in F-35 work over the last 12 years, and Lockheed argues that opportunities will increase as F-35 fleets around the world grow in size.

Boeing’s more direct industrial benefits package will certainly boost to the company’s offering, but economic benefits only make up 20 percent of the bid evaluation.  Cost will make up another 20 percent.  Lockheed has been gradually bringing down the F-35 unit cost, but long-term maintenance costs are still higher than legacy aircraft.  The remaining 60 percent of the bid evaluation will be based on technical merit.  Critics have argued that the technical portion of the program favors the F-35, as the solicitation places an emphasis on strategic attack and ground attack overseas.

Saab’s Gripen fighter is also in the running, but the European aircraft is considered an underdog.  Airbus pulled the Eurofighter Typhoon from the competition earlier this year, citing the industrial benefits policy changes and additional costs that would have been incurred due to NORAD security requirements.  Dassault withdrew its Rafale fighter last year.

Final bids are due in the spring, and a winner will be selected by early 2022.  Deliveries are expected to commence in 2025, assuming the program remains on track

https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2019/11/21/boeing-offers-industrial-benefits-package-in-canadian-fighter-jet-bid/