• 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)

Guessing if the Advanced SH+Growler combo is selected, as we stay in the F-35 program. Get some benefits from both. In 30 yrs from now the "F-35Gs" would be available with a proven record which we decide to buy as our allies start ordering "F-36s".
 
N1lOnNQ.jpg


Canada’s Future Fighter Capability: Supplier teams are visiting two Air Force fighter Bases

By Stéphanie Poulin, communications advisor, FFCP / Ottawa

3 Wing Bagotville and 4 Wing Cold Lake are the Royal Canadian Air Force’s two busy fighter bases,  supporting Canada’s domestic needs and international commitments. These are our two main operating bases, or MOB if you want to learn the jargon. Our current fighter fleet is stationed at these two MOBs, and is where our 88 future fighters will be housed. Every time our government makes a decision to send a fighter in support of NATO, NORAD, or a global coalition, one, or both, of these locations sends them off. This means that jets have to be ready at any time, all the time. Efficient workspace becomes crucial to making this happen.

Ideally located for this responsibility, these two high-alert Wings will continue to be the cornerstones of Canada’s air defence. This makes these two locations a key part of the current future fighter capability project and of the bids eligible suppliers are currently preparing.

While Supplier teams are still working on their bids, the three contenders, Sweden-Saab (Gripen E), US-The Boeing Company (F/A-18 Super Hornet) and US-Lockheed Martin (F-35 Lightning II), were invited to visit Bagotville and Cold Lake.

The goal of this visit is for the supplier teams to gain a better understanding of how we operate and sustain our current aircraft, so they can frame their proposals in the Canadian context. The teams are also looking at our current facilities to evaluate future needs should their aircraft be selected. The outcome of the visit won’t decide what infrastructure we will need, but rather allow the three Supplier teams to include how we can make use of Canada’s current fighter infrastructure and if any new or expanded facilities would be required.

This visit is the second occurring within the FFCP process. The first was in November 2018, with the same purpose of providing Suppliers an equal opportunity to understand how we in Canada operate.

Is it too early to think of infrastructure? New aircraft mean new needs for space, training, maintenance, supply, and operations. And fighter jets are among the most complex and advanced equipment in the military that need to be maintained from the moment they are received. Although we have yet to identify our future fighter, it’s necessary to get started on infrastructure planning now, to be ready by the time the first aircraft arrive.

Other RCAF operating locations may also need to be altered to support the new fighters. Bagotville and Cold Lake will remain the permanent homes of our jets, however.

We’ll keep working on all these pieces, while waiting for Suppliers’ proposals, this coming March.

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2019/12/35899
 
Without a question Cold Lake needs a massive infastructure upgrade, from hangars/hangarettes, fueling etc. The current state of the hangar line is just laughable.
 
I agree, I visited Cold Lake last May and noticed how in poor condition the infrastructure is on the Wing. The hangar where by far the worst I’ve seen in all my travel across all RCAF Wings.
 
Other RCAF operating locations may also need to be altered to support the new fighters
= "the new ones might not have much range, because you know...budget cuts".  Fighters don't play much in the war on gender-based violence and other voter-palatable spending.

;D
 
Not sure if already posted, observation from a pilot of both the Hornet and SH.

https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/
 
Thanks for posting that :)

Cool website, definitely some cool articles about fighters.  Great reads!
 
Lockheed Martin awarded $18M for F-35 support for Australia, UK, Canada

Dec. 13 (UPI) -- Lockheed Martin has received an $18 million contract modification for maintenance and operation of the support center that tests the F-35 aircraft for three partner nations.

The deal will fund maintenance and operations at the Australia, Canada, United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

More at the link.
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/12/13/Lockheed-Martin-awarded-18M-for-F-35-support-for-Australia-UK-Canada/5401576266672/?ts_=24
 
Block III Super Hornet (which is what RCAF would get) on the way for USN:

US Navy prepares to receive first Super Hornet Block 3 test aircraft

The US Navy (USN) is soon to receive the first Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block 3 testbed aircraft.

A representative from Boeing told Jane’s on 7 January that the first aircraft will be delivered “on schedule” later in the first quarter of 2020.

In 2019 at Boeing’s St Louis production facility in Missouri, Jennifer Tebo, Director of Development F/A-18 Program, said this schedule had been accelerated by about 12 months to allow the USN to have two test aircraft to start carrier suitability trials of the advanced computing and networking capabilities of the Block 3 platform.

With the first aircraft set to be handed over shortly, Tebo noted that Boeing will begin to deliver full-up Block 3 jets to the navy during late 2020 and early 2021.

Senior programme officials recently outlined the importance of what Boeing terms ‘the evolutionary approach’ to the Hornet platform that has resulted in the latest Block 3 iteration of the McDonnell Douglas aircraft that was first rolled out to the fleet in the early 1980s.

Boeing announced in 2011 that it was developing a USN Flight Plan upgrade path that would run in parallel with an International Roadmap for current and future export customers. With some tweaks, this Flight Plan/International Roadmap became the Advanced Super Hornet in 2013 and the Block 3 Super Hornet in 2017. In the FY 2018 President’s Budget, the USN fully funded the Block 3 development programme. This involves five major changes, or Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), to the aircraft...

p1745869_main.jpg

https://www.janes.com/article/93546/us-navy-prepares-to-receive-first-super-hornet-block-3-test-aircraft

Mark
Ottawa
 
Saab Gripen E: Dark horse

If you have been following the convoluted process of replacing Canada’s aging fleet of CF-188 fighter jets, the continued presence of the Saab Gripen E might seem puzzling in a competition that has seen both Dassault Aviation and Airbus Defence and Space withdraw their entrants.

The Gripen has been mocked as too small by some critics and less capable than the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II or Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the remaining competitors, by others. It’s also, perhaps ironically given the many concerns raised about the F-35, the only fighter still in development and not yet operational.

But to dismiss the single-engine Gripen E as merely a longshot might be a mistake. Because in a project that will be evaluated on capability, cost and economic return to Canada, Saab firmly believes it has a compelling offer to make.

Some of the reasons for that belief became evident when Skies recently toured Saab’s production facilities in Linköping, Sweden, and visited air wings and operational bases where the Gripen C is deployed by the Swedish Air Force and NATO customers to monitor and interdict Russian aircraft skirting, and at times breaching, domestic airspace.

The Gripen was purpose-built for Swedish national defence, but its missions of quick reaction alert (QRA) defensive counter-air along Sweden’s borders and offensive roles during, for example, NATO’s Operation Unified Protector over Libya in 2011, would look familiar to any Canadian CF-188 Hornet pilot. So, too, would the modest defence budget with which it was procured.

And in a Canadian defence procurement system where access to intellectual property (IP) is deemed essential to long-term in-service support and technology upgrades, Saab has demonstrated an approach to foreign sales that can include the wholesale transfer of IP to sustain the aircraft and a commitment to share and invest the knowledge behind that IP with indigenous industry.

To appreciate the strengths of the Gripen, it helps to understand the origins of Saab. An abbreviation for Swedish Aircraft Company, the business is the direct result of an agreement with the Swedish government over 80 years ago to start an aircraft manufacturing company with the sole purpose of being able “to protect Sweden’s borders and people,” explained Jerker Ahlqvist, deputy head of Business Area Aeronautics.

Vastly outnumbered by Russian fighter jets and strategic bombers that reside in Kaliningrad, a short distance from its southern border, Sweden has relied on tactical superiority to achieve combat effectiveness, deploying some of the first datalinks and electronic warfare systems in its fighters, starting with the Saab 35 Draken and more recently the 37 Viggen. That combination of aircraft combat performance, pilot tactics, cost and availability were all baked into the JAS 39 Gripen, said Ahlqvist.

“It is not something you can start to think of once you have designed your fighter.
It needs to be part of the design criteria from the beginning,” he said.

And that philosophy has carried over into the Gripen E, what Ahlqvist called “an even smarter” system of integrated systems. The fighter has two customers at present–Sweden will begin with 60 and Brazil is acquiring 36, eight in the twin-seat F variant–but the aircraft is a contender in at least three fighter replacement competitions globally.

However, unlike the F-16s, F-18s, F-35s and other jets it is up against, the Gripen E is not yet in service.  The test program of four aircraft has accumulated over 150 hours, a majority of those in 2019, achieved 9Gs, broken the Gripen speed record in level flight, validated new flight control software, sensors and electronic warfare systems, conducted a test flight with a new electronic attack jammer pod, flown with the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, and fired the short-range IRIS-T air-to-air missile. Brazil accepted its first flight test aircraft in September and expects to take delivery of its first operational aircraft in 2021.

Investing in superior technology

The enhanced capability of the Gripen E furthers a combat DNA intended to meet an operating environment the Swedish Air Force regards as cluttered, contested, connected, constrained and congested with advanced fighters and air defence systems.

“The Russian QRA behaviour has been changing in the last three to four years. There is more aggressive flying,” explained Col Anders Persson, commander Air Staff.

Russian Sukhoi Su-35, 34 and 27 fighters have frequently flown to within 10 metres of Swedish aircraft in the past 24 months and, in what he said was “a signal to us” earlier this year, a Russian signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft escorted by two fighters flew inside Swedish airspace for a minute. “That had never happened before in Swedish airspace. A fighter, yes, a SIGINT, yes, but never a SIGINT escorted.”

A Swedish defence white paper in May concluded Russian capability and activity, in particular electronic warfare (EW), will continue to increase, necessitating investment in superior technology and tactics. “You are superior in technology if you use the technology in the right way,” Persson emphasized.

As with its predecessors, the Gripen E aims to detect and disrupt threats earlier in the kill chain through an improved avionics system that fuses data from an Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radar system on a swashplate, a passive infrared search and track (IRST) sensor, a tailored datalink and an enhanced EW system, explained Jonas Hjelm, senior vice-president and head of Business Area Aeronautics.

As part of the test program, Saab is trialing what it calls Multi-Functional System EW, part of its Arexis family of airborne EW systems, that incorporates ultra-wideband digital receivers, gallium nitride (GaN) AESA transmitters, digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) devices, precision direction finding and localization, and stealth-enabled countermeasure systems. The onboard signals and data processing are further enhanced by artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms.

The result is far better situational awareness in the cockpit. Ahlqvist described an OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop informed by an electronic support measures system in which the pilot is “quicker to see, quicker to understand, quicker to decide, quicker to act and quicker to adapt. With all the sensors on board, with the data analysis on board … the aircraft will suggest what he should do, so he will be quicker to act.”

Through datalinks, which Saab been developing and employing for over 30 years, “a couple of Gripens can do magic just because of the way the datalink is used,” he said.

While the debate about stealth may feature prominently in the Canadian competition, Saab sees no long-term value in building for short-term stealth. “If you build an airframe with a stealthy design, there are other things you can’t do with that aircraft,” observed Ahlqvist. “We have created another way by, for instance, putting in a very capable electronic warfare system that can make the aircraft invisible.”

“Stealth is much more than the radar cross section,” added Patrick Palmer, executive vice-president and head of Marketing and Sales for Saab Canada. “That is a perishable commodity as technology evolves. Ten years from now, the technology in terms of radar capability will be far more advanced than it is today. What this allows us to do is provide that upgradability, to be forever responding to whatever those new threats are.”

Instead, the goal for the Gripen is to be a “true multi-function aircraft in all aspects,” said Persson. As adversaries advance anti-access/area denial weapon systems and their own stealth capabilities, EW and datalinks for passive sensing and silent networking are an operational necessity to share target information between aircraft. “As soon as we take off, the jamming [from Russia] starts,” he said.

Those onboard systems are “a huge difference maker” for the multi-function Gripen E, said Mikael Olsson, Saab’s chief test pilot. “It is purposely designed for what you see around Sweden (such as the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system in Kaliningrad). That is what it is designed to counter.”

Saab is “building the aircraft around the pilot,” observed BGen Csaba Ugrik, commander of Hungary’s recent Baltic NATO air policing mission in Lithuania, of the systems and human-machine interface in the cockpit. Based at Šiauliai Air Base, Hungary served as lead nation for a three-month rotation from May through August, operating five JAS 39 Gripen C and D aircraft, augmented by Spanish F-18s and United Kingdom Eurofighter Typhoons at Ämari Air Base in Estonia.

Over that time, the Hungarians conducted more than 400 sorties, over 40 of which were actual (Alpha) scrambles in response to Russian Tupolov, Antonov and Sukhoi transports, bombers and fighters, including the Tupolev Tu-142 maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft, transiting to Kaliningrad or flying over the Baltic Sea. “If they don’t want to see us too close to the aircraft, they are doing manoeuvres,” he noted.

Consequently, the Gripen Link 16 datalink was critical to ensuring situational awareness. “If you are running the APU here and you turn on the Link 16, you will have the information already on the ground, and you can move the maps and see what is going on 300 kilometres away… and you can prepare for the fight,” he said. “That is a good advantage of the aircraft.”

Capt David Szentiendrei, a graduate of the NATO Flying Training in Canada program in 2012, said the Gripen worked well with non-NATO fighters and excelled at maintaining and sharing situational information fused from its sensor suite.

Both Airbus and Dassault withdrew from the Canadian fighter competition citing, in part, their concerns about the NORAD security requirements and the need for Two Eyes (United States and Canada) interoperability. Though Sweden is not a member of NATO, Saab has designed the Gripen to meet Sweden’s requirement to be fully interoperable with NATO, and in particular with the U.S., working on same or similar datalinks. “We have our own mission planning but the data format transfers into the NATO system,” said Persson.

With the technology behind onboard sensor systems poised to change almost as rapidly as the applications in a smartphone, Saab has attempted to “future proof” the Gripen by designing the avionics “in such a way where the software is more or less hardware independent,” said Ahlqvist. “The threat environment changes quickly and you will need to make changes in a much faster way then you have done in the past. Gripen E allows for that.”

By separating the hardware layer from the software layer, and the flight critical applications from the mission critical or tactical, “we are ready for novel algorithms like artificial intelligence in the future,” explained Johan Segertoft of Saab, noting that even in the development phase of the E model, multiple software changes were required because computing power improved during that span.

“This is a major problem in a fighter jet,” he observed, adding that the exponential increases in computing power make it difficult to predict how technology will be affected. “Computer power translates to tactical power…[T]he key is how you harness the evolution of computing power.”

The separation of church and state also means that every change no longer requires re-testing and certification. “The vision was, program in the morning, fly in the afternoon,” he added. “You can code once and deploy everywhere. We can now do a change in a matter of days.”

Knowledge transfer

From the outset, Saab built the Gripen E with international customers in mind. And it has demonstrated a willingness to transfer technology in a manner that might seem unusual to some. Besides Sweden, four countries currently operate the Gripen C — South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand (the U.K. Empire Test Pilots’ School also uses the platform). But as the first foreign customer for the Gripen E, Brazil provides an interesting case study on how that technology and knowledge transfer could work.

“One of the aspects that makes us unique is our willingness and ability to share technology,” said Mikael Franzén, vice-president and head of the Gripen Brazil business unit. “We understand the importance of national industry and national independence.”

Saab has recognized IP without knowledge has limited value. Under a “train the trainer” model over a 10-year period, 350 professionals from local partner companies and the Brazilian Air Force will receive theoretical and on-the-job training in Sweden for anywhere from six months to two years. Already, over 190 Brazilians have completed their technology transfer program and are now working on teams in the Gripen Design and Development Network.

The offer to Canada would be similar, said Palmer. “This illustrates what the realm of the possible is. In the case of Brazil, they had a very specific focus in terms of what they wanted to accomplish from a [technology transfer] perspective … [We] will be completely responsive to the RFP. We have been working with suppliers and partners in Canada for the last 24 months or so, and we will have a very attractive proposition.”

He acknowledged that one of the strengths of the current CF-188 sustainment program was early engagement with Canadian industry and access to IP. “Our vision is to have companies and capability early in the process so that you don’t have this huge wall at the end where you are not able to get over it.”

Whether that willingness to transfer critical IP negates any of the concerns raised by the NORAD security requirements remains to be seen. But Palmer said Two Eyes interoperability is not a technical issue, but rather a process and procedure challenge. “We see it more as where is that data going, what is it touching, who has access to it, and how is that controlled.”

No discussion of fighter jets would be complete without an attempt to pin down costs. Comparing price tags is problematic because different companies and countries often use different metrics to define unit flyaway costs, cost per flight hour and long-term sustainment. Saab officials were coy about an exact number, but the sale of 36 Gripen E/F aircraft to Brazil, including related systems, support and equipment, was valued at around US$4.5 billion.

“I think it is a fact that we are the most cost-efficient solution,” said Eddy De La Motte, vice-president and head of the Gripen E/F business unit. “That goes both for acquisition and flight hour costs.”

If there is a feature Saab hopes might intrigue Canadians, it’s the Gripen’s ability to operate in Arctic conditions. Sweden’s most northern air base is above the Arctic Circle, so the Gripen “was designed from the beginning to cope with very cold conditions and to be operated with no hangars in open airfields, short takeoff and landing on ordinary roads, even in winter time,” said Ahlqvist.

It’s an operating concept that has been in place since the country first introduced fighter jets. In fact, the Gripen can operate from an 800-metre road that is just 17 metres wide, and can be refuelled, rearmed and checked in under 10 minutes by a team of five conscript soldiers and a technician. More impressive, with just a few more personnel, a small team can replace an engine in one hour in the same frigid conditions.

And it is something that the Swedish air force regularly trains. “Every time we have an exercise, we [operate] on dispersed basing,” assured Persson.
https://www.skiesmag.com/features/saab-gripen-e-dark-horse/
 
Uzlu said:
https://www.skiesmag.com/features/saab-gripen-e-dark-horse/

Thanks for sharing this!

I have a thought/question for anyone who might be able to answer;

Why is it that Canada is only going about purchasing 88 Fighter Jets? Didn't the government purchase around 130 CF-18's? Being an aircraft technician, I know that the total number of aircraft you have doesn't mean those are serviceable at all times. That number ranges due to snags, heavy/periodic maintenance, and staggers (not flying certain aircraft even if it's serviceable because you don't want to use the hours remaining before another aircraft).

Another note, with aviation being dangerous in general, these machines will unfortunately malfunction and crash (after a good ejection Lord willing). That number of 88 total aircraft in time will drop to possibly 80 or less...

Do you think 88 Fighter Jets is a good number with the different roles Canada has with regards to airpower?

Another thought... do you think SAAB would increase that number from 88 to say 100 or so to increase their chances of winning? Or is that something Canada would even consider...

Just some thoughts! Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • rcaf gripen.jpg
    rcaf gripen.jpg
    62.1 KB · Views: 107
  • F18E-BlockIII_Canada_lg.jpg
    F18E-BlockIII_Canada_lg.jpg
    279.5 KB · Views: 97
Drallib: 138 Hornets were acquired because we needed to proved significant numbers of fighters for both our air force in Germany with NATO at height of the Cold War, and for NORAD.

Then USSR collapsed, Cold War ended, and CAF were brought home from Germany as threat of NATO war with Russia thought essentially non-existent. Size of fighter force essentially allowed to be halved to high 70s.

For many years NORAD has been far and away main commitment of RCAF fighters with a few supposedly available for NATO when needed (or a coalition as vs ISIS). Now that relations with Russia are not easy it makes sense to increase the overall fleet to have some more available for NATO purposes.

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa: Thanks for the reply.

Another thing too is that the CF-18s have been in service for 30+ years now, and by the time we get the new Fighters it will be even more. One reason they've been able to be pushed this far is because of the amount of Fighters we had to fly, therefore lowering the hours per aircraft.

I suppose there's many factors in play, like the new Block III Super Hornet having an airframe life of 10,000 hours compared to the Legacy Hornet's 6,000 hours.

I'm sure the government has put a lot of thought into all of this.

What are you hoping the RCAF goes with?
 
This is what the Army wants...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H346eSUs3Z0
 
Drallib said:
MarkOttawa: Thanks for the reply.
...
What are you hoping the RCAF goes with?

Would go with new F-15EX as best for NORAD mission, far and away the most important one for RCAF. Plane is much faster than F-35A, greater range, much greater missile load (up to 22! https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30705691/f-15ex/) than F-35A even when it's carrying externally and is non-stealthy. Both are expected to cost around US $80 million in 2025 (https://www.airforcemag.com/article/F-15EX-vs-F-35A-/)

Would think a key point is whether Russian bombers might have fighter escorts, in which case stealth for defending fighter approaching the Russians would be important. But when stealthy F-35A will only be able to carry 6 missiles (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-sidekick-invention-lets-f-35-carry-six-missiles-instead-four-79781), enough to deal with any cruise missiles that get launched? If they can even be tracked by current North Warning System that badly needs big modernization (https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/senior-officer-warns-norad-cant-detect-russian-bombers-in-time-needs-upgrades).

As for escorted bombers, an earlier post:

NORAD (RCAF) vs Bears…and Foxhounds–and Nukes
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/mark-collins-norad-rcaf-vs-bears-and-foxhounds-and-nukes/

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Would go with new F-15EX as best for NORAD mission, far and away the most important one for RCAF. Plane is much faster than F-35A, greater range, much greater missile load (up to 22! https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30705691/f-15ex/) than F-35A even when it's carrying externally and is non-stealthy. Both are expected to cost around US $80 million in 2025 (https://www.airforcemag.com/article/F-15EX-vs-F-35A-/)

Would think a key point is whether Russian bombers might have fighter escorts, in which case stealth for defending fighter approaching the Russians would be important. But when stealthy F-35A will only be able to carry 6 missiles (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-sidekick-invention-lets-f-35-carry-six-missiles-instead-four-79781), enough to deal with any cruise missiles that get launched? If they can even be tracked by current North Warning System that badly needs big modernization (https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/senior-officer-warns-norad-cant-detect-russian-bombers-in-time-needs-upgrades).

As for escorted bombers, an earlier post:

Mark
Ottawa
I would be very happy to see the F-15 chosen, but can they be offered, or does Boeing have to go with the SH? I think I remember that the F-15 is Max's #1 choice and who am I to argue.
 
F-15EX isn't bidding, so we're not getting it. Boeing is only pushing Super Hornets to keep that line open.
 
Slightly off topic, but why can't we express interest in the F-15X?

Not to slow the process down any further, I'm happy to see any progress made.  And the fact that both the F-18 and F-15 now have airframes with 10,000hrs instead of 6,000hrs prior to a SLEP is a big deal.


But if we feel like the F-15 might be the best choice, and it fits within the budget.  Can we not tell Boeing "Hey, interested in buying some of these..."  ??


Why does Boeing get to decide what our options are? 
 
Back
Top