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

[PuckChaser]

Because that's how our system works. We list mandatory and recommended specs/ abilities and the companies get to pick what they think will win the contract. We can't write the SOR for what we want/need, it has to be broad enough to let other companies bid. We could always go sole source, but that requires a boatload of justification for $200 radio antennas, I can't imagine what it would take for TB to approve a multi billion sole source purchase.

 

[MilEME09]

Because that's how our system works. We list mandatory and recommended specs/ abilities and the companies get to pick what they think will win the contract. We can't write the SOR for what we want/need, it has to be broad enough to let other companies bid. We could always go sole source, but that requires a boatload of justification for $200 radio antennas, I can't imagine what it would take for TB to approve a multi billion sole source purchase.

Operational necessity or national security?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Operational necessity or national security?

Or Pork Barrel politics?  :nod:

<cough>lastyear'spre-electiondirectawardofa$2BcontracttogeneraldynamicsfortheLAV<cough>

 

[Bearpaw]

More F-35 woes:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/01/f-35-pilots-are-mostly-not-allowed-to-fire-25mm-gun-and-it-is-inaccurate-when-used.html

Bearpaw

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Hard to take the article seriously when it reads like it was written by a 5th grader.

The grammer is terrible. The logical flow of "premise, premise, conclusion", is absent.

The thesis (if one can find one) seems to be that Elon Musk is awesome- ask him to build fighters.

:

 

[Cloud Cover]

But, but, but .... “Brian Wang is a prolific business-oriented writer of emerging and disruptive technologies. He is known for insightful articles that combine business and technical analysis that catches the attention of the general public and is also useful for those in the industries. “.  :waiting:

 

[LiveFightMove]

Wow, I never even heard of the F-15EX! Looks like some serious business with 22 missiles!

Seriously, with what Canada uses the CF-18 for, I don't think the F-35 is the right choice for a few reasons...

- All together new system which would require a LOT of logistic changes, training for technician, etc...
- Maintenance times for the F-35 is a lot more extensive I believe? Also, I think most of it would be out of country.
- Cost per flight hour is around $40,000 compared to the Block III Super Hornets $18,000?
- Because the F-35 is a stealth fighter, it had to sacrifice flight performance.

With regards to missions, what does Canada do when intercepting foreign aircraft? They fly right next to them and wave saying "GOO'DAY, B'Y!"

Boeing is offering jobs in Canada, familiar platform, AND I'm pretty sure the F-35's internal weapons bay is extremely limited to what it can carry, so if you wanted more, it would have to carry external weapons, therefore sacrificing stealth.

Sure, the F-15EX can carry 22 missiles but (and it doesn't really matter since the F-15EX isn't being offered) for the necessity of needing an aircraft with Fighter and Attack capabilities, I think overall the Block III Super Hornet is the obvious choice.

We'll find out in 2 years. Love me some new planes regardless what it is.

 

[Weinie]

Hard to take the article seriously when it reads like it was written by a 5th grader.

The grammer is terrible. The logical flow of "premise, premise, conclusion", is absent.

The thesis (if one can find one) seems to be that Elon Musk is awesome- ask him to build fighters.

:

Haven't we all had problems with grammar

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Haven't we all had problems with grammar

You will note that I said nothing about spelling. 

 

[LiveFightMove]

Haven't we all had problems with grammar

You will note that I said nothing about spelling. 

 

[MilEME09]

Given the current government created a capability gap, and given that even with the used australian fighters we do not have the numbers the liberals say we need to meet norad and international commitments. A government could ram through a sole source contract based on urgent national security requirements which if we moved quickly could mean jets within two years instead of a contract within 2 years.

 

[LiveFightMove]

Given the current government created a capability gap, and given that even with the used australian fighters we do not have the numbers the liberals say we need to meet norad and international commitments. A government could ram through a sole source contract based on urgent national security requirements which if we moved quickly could mean jets within two years instead of a contract within 2 years.

Does a sole source contract mean simply there wouldn't be a competition? If that's the case then the companies wouldn't offer the best they could, would they not?

With that being said I think 2 years is a long time to pick a winner but I don't know everything that's involved in that sort of thing.

 

[CBH99]

A sole source contract is when the government is able to purchase specific equipment without the need to solicit bids from a variety of companies, usually due to something called an UOR - or Urgent Operational Requirement.

For example, when Afghanistan was in full tilt, it was easier for the military to simply buy what it wanted, quickly, by stating it was needed due to an UOR.  (Leopard 2 tanks, CH-147D models for interim, C-17's to move cargo, etc.)


Usually, however, the government is required to open the purchase up to a variety of bidders who feel they can offer the capability the government is looking for within the price the government has set.  And once that process starts, that's where time slows right down...rrriiigghhhhttttt dooowwwnnnnn....



(And yes, 2 years to evaluate the same options we've had for the past 10 years is absurdly long.  Nobody wants to simply take the lead, make a decision, and execute.  So until then, it's evaluate, evaluate, evaluate...)

 

[Good2Golf]

...at least the Liberals bought a watered-down EH-101 a few years after Jean Chretien’s “No ‘elicoptairs!  Zip! Zero! Nada!” 1993 campaign promise.

This is getting downright shameful...in the sense of further shame...following the shame Harper should have for not moving ahead with the JSF in 2014/2015.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So apparently the real reason we are short of pilots and maintainers is that they are all at a secret base maintaining and flying 6 1959 Avro Arrows that were not actually destroyed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjuL9IM-1T0

 

[SeaKingTacco]

:tsktsk:

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!

 

[SupersonicMax]

This is EXACTLY how an intercept goes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjuL9IM-1T0

 

[WingsofFury]

Seriously, with what Canada uses the CF-18 for, I don't think the F-35 is the right choice for a few reasons...

- All together new system which would require a LOT of logistic changes, training for technician, etc...
- Maintenance times for the F-35 is a lot more extensive I believe? Also, I think most of it would be out of country.
- Cost per flight hour is around $40,000 compared to the Block III Super Hornets $18,000?
- Because the F-35 is a stealth fighter, it had to sacrifice flight performance.

With regards to missions, what does Canada do when intercepting foreign aircraft? They fly right next to them and wave saying "GOO'DAY, B'Y!"

Boeing is offering jobs in Canada, familiar platform, AND I'm pretty sure the F-35's internal weapons bay is extremely limited to what it can carry, so if you wanted more, it would have to carry external weapons, therefore sacrificing stealth.

Sure, the F-15EX can carry 22 missiles but (and it doesn't really matter since the F-15EX isn't being offered) for the necessity of needing an aircraft with Fighter and Attack capabilities, I think overall the Block III Super Hornet is the obvious choice.

Any new platform is going to come with a lot of logistical changes and training, it doesn't matter what plane we get.
Yes, cost per flight is more -- that happens when you put a stealth coating on an airplane.
Sacrifice flight performance because of stealth? Just curious what was sacrificed and why it's important. How do you feel about the weapon pylons on the Super Hornet impacting its flight performance?

What do you expect them to do, shoot them down?

I'm sure you don't mean extremely limited...the weapon bays can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Paveway series of bombs, the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Brimstone, SPEAR 3 anti-tank missiles, and cluster munitions (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser). How is that limited?

Super Hornet carries 18,000lbs of ordnance externally on pylons and stations -- F-35 carries 22,000lbs combined internally and externally. Super Hornet would be dead if there were any SAM installations present...not the case with the F-35. Survivability goes a long way.

I still don't understand how you think the Block III SH is the obvious choice...please explain?

 

[AlexanderM]

I am of course kidding but if Japan did this, I'd be thinking let's partner up with them, buy some SH for the present.

Once again, I am kidding, but this would be the type of aircraft that I think would do a great job covering all of our real estate.

https://news.yahoo.com/japans-black-widow-stealth-fighter-070000408.html

 

[LiveFightMove]

Any new platform is going to come with a lot of logistical changes and training, it doesn't matter what plane we get.
Yes, cost per flight is more -- that happens when you put a stealth coating on an airplane.
Sacrifice flight performance because of stealth? Just curious what was sacrificed and why it's important. How do you feel about the weapon pylons on the Super Hornet impacting its flight performance?

What do you expect them to do, shoot them down?

I'm sure you don't mean extremely limited...the weapon bays can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Paveway series of bombs, the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Brimstone, SPEAR 3 anti-tank missiles, and cluster munitions (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser). How is that limited?

Super Hornet carries 18,000lbs of ordnance externally on pylons and stations -- F-35 carries 22,000lbs combined internally and externally. Super Hornet would be dead if there were any SAM installations present...not the case with the F-35. Survivability goes a long way.

I still don't understand how you think the Block III SH is the obvious choice...please explain?

The Block III is "stealthier" than previous F/A-18s. How much more and how effective is the question...

Also, how much stealth does the F-35 sacrifice when it does carry weapons externally? And if the F-35 got noticed or engaged, would it be able to put up a fight?

I listened to a podcast called "The Fighter Pilot Podcast" and the host Vincent Aiello (retired Navy F/A-18 pilot) interviewed an F-35 pilot who talked about the jet open and honestly. Because of the design of the aircraft for it's stealth capabilities meant they had to shape and size things a certain way. Because of this, when the F-35 went toe-to-toe with 4th-Gen Fighter Jets, it didn't measure up the best. If the F-35 is never spotted, terrific. But as soon as it's spotted and say it uses it's 4 to 6 missiles in "stealth-mode", not very good  :not-again:

And by the internal weapon bay being limited, it can carry either; a) 4x AIM-120 or b) 2x AIM-120 with 2x JDAM.

Obvious choice? Maybe not... poor choice of wording on my part. And yes, regardless of which aircraft the RCAF recieves, there will be training and logistical changes, but the changes to an F-35 will be more of a change. Although, now I wouldn't use this point as an argument anymore. In the grand scheme of things this greater change in training and logistics is a small price to pay.

Hmm... after some further reading, if you want Stealth ability, you can have it. If you want "beast mode" you can have it too. Maybe have a couple F-35s penetrate defenses in stealth mode and a couple further out in "beast-mode".

Another questions... if Canada does go ahead with the F-35, do you think the B variant (STOVL) is the appropriate choice? Or would the A variant (CTOL) be a better option. Doesn't the F-35A have more range?