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

[Sub_Guy]

Going for the Gripen is not only a poor choice knowing it's capabilities, and lack there of, but also just plain stupid.

Gripen it is!

While I agree that the F-35 is the only choice.  I feel there could be pressure in the near future to create “jobs, jobs, JOBS!”.  Which is what the Gripen brings to the table.... 

 

[LiveFightMove]

Gripen it is!

While I agree that the F-35 is the only choice.  I feel there could be pressure in the near future to create %u201Cjobs, jobs, JOBS!%u201D.  Which is what the Gripen brings to the table.... 

A very short term benefit for a long term mistake... hopefully the fact that Canadians have already made money from the F35 plays a factor.

 

[MilEME09]

A very short term benefit for a long term mistake... hopefully the fact that Canadians have already made money from the F35 plays a factor.

Agreed, with the F35 we get industrial benefits from day 1. Not so much with any other aircraft, plus with so many other users, spare parts will be common, our pilots can go train in the US while ours are built vs having to go to Sweden.

 

[dimsum]

Agreed, with the F35 we get industrial benefits from day 1. Not so much with any other aircraft, plus with so many other users, spare parts will be common, our pilots can go train in the US while ours are built vs having to go to Sweden.

Don't forget that if we need spares in the US/UK/wherever, we can probably get them from the Americans or Brits or whoever.  Not so much with the Gripen.

 

[STONEY]

F-35,F-35, F-35  is it all hype.  Been in development for over 20 years yet still is not in full scale production.  Has more defects now than 10 years ago. Needs more maintenance per flight hour than the Sea King. Cost per flight hour many times than any other fighter. Computer does not work as expected and is due for replacement. Only one version has a gun and that one does not  work satisfactorily, the other versions require a gun pod that nullify stealth. If flown over speed of sound several times its stealth coating needs repair.  Needs special hangers with power source not available at any Canadian base and cannot operate from any of our satelite bases. Has the longest turn around time of all fighters. Cannot carry extra fuel tanks so range not great . It is slower than other A\C and dog fighting is worse than competition. The list goes on and on. When it is compared to the top 5 western fighters in several operational areas it comes out 5Th. The competing fighters looking better all the time at least you know what your getting.

CHEERS 

 

[CBH99]

I know your not trying to troll, given your posting history.  But literally ALMOST every single point you made was incorrect...  :facepalm:

 

[observor 69]

Response to STONEY:

God your comments on the F-35 p... me off! Perhaps because it lacks context.  This aircraft excels in areas that exploit its systems in the battlespace. I could quote online sources but I assume you can also.
Whether it is the right aircraft for Canada is a complex military-political matter to be addressed by those with the appropriate background and knowledge. 

 

[Navy_Pete]

Dog fighting?  Is that just in time for the next Top Gun?  I thought that went out with OTH missiles and sensors. Maybe they can fly within visual and yell 'pew pew' at each other before being sad about Goose all over again to get the full experience.

 

[CBH99]

Dog fighting?  Is that just in time for the next Top Gun?  I thought that went out with OTH missiles and sensors. Maybe they can fly within visual and yell 'pew pew' at each other before being sad about Goose all over again to get the full experience.

Hey now, I have high hopes for this new Top Gun movie...

 

[LiveFightMove]

F-35,F-35, F-35  is it all hype.

Mmm... the pilots who fly it seem impressed.

Been in development for over 20 years yet still is not in full scale production.

Walk before you run.

Has more defects now than 10 years ago.

Source?

Needs more maintenance per flight hour than the Sea King.

Now you're comparing the most advanced Fighter in the world to a helicopter.... from 1960.

Cost per flight hour many times than any other fighter.

If it wasn't then people would ask why, being so advanced.

Computer does not work as expected and is due for replacement.

Good thing we wont be getting it for another 5 years. And we'll have it for 40 years after that. Lots of computer changes albeit.

Only one version has a gun and that one does not  work satisfactorily, the other versions require a gun pod that nullify stealth.

Good thing we're getting the version that has a gun. I'm sure if it didn't work, they wouldn't be deploying them.

If flown over speed of sound several times its stealth coating needs repair.

Every aircraft has it's limitations, like speed and alititude.

Needs special hangers with power source not available at any Canadian base and cannot operate from any of our satelite bases.

Lockheed, Boeing, and SAAB all visited Cold Lake, so if they said "Hey, we can't give you what you need" then I don't think they would still be in the competition.

Has the longest turn around time of all fighters. Cannot carry extra fuel tanks so range not great .

External Fuel Tanks https://www.airforcemag.com/lockheed-looking-at-extending-the-f-35s-range-weapons-suite/

It is slower than other A\C and dog fighting is worse than competition.

Fighter pilots don't like to admit it, but the F35 is redefining what it means to be a Fighter Pilot.

The list goes on and on. When it is compared to the top 5 western fighters in several operational areas it comes out 5Th. The competing fighters looking better all the time at least you know what your getting.

I'd like to see that statistic of coming 5th... depends what you're rating it on too. It is the newest kid on the block.

CHEERS

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Response to STONEY:

God your comments on the F-35 p... me off! Perhaps because it lacks context.  This aircraft excels in areas that exploit its systems in the battlespace. I could quote online sources but I assume you can also.
Whether it is the right aircraft for Canada is a complex military-political matter to be addressed by those with the appropriate background and knowledge.

That 'military/political' thing reminded me of why the British named their new fighter the 'Typhoon': because the Germans started WW2

 

[MTShaw]

Thing is, the Avenger isn't really in production - it has no customers.  Even the USAF isn't buying any, which would mean that if we were to get it we would be the launch customer...we've been down that road before with the Cyclone.

We have some unique requirements. Range being the big one. We have updated our MPAs without pooping our pants.

Yup it will cost, but sharing the  air frame of the A330 MRTT will help alleviate some of the costs. Or a P-8 in a 777 airframe?

But we need something that will traverse the North West Passage at minimum.

I’ll End it here being at risk of hijacking this sub forum.

 

[dimsum]

We have some unique requirements. Range being the big one. We have updated our MPAs without pooping our pants.

Having known some folks in that community, I'm not sure I totally agree.  But I digress.

...back to fighters.

 

[OceanBonfire]

Boeing renews its public pitch to replace Canada's CF-18 fleet

Posted: Jun 25, 2020

One of the companies bidding to sell Canada a new fleet of fighter jets made a public pitch today highlighting its long-standing, cross-country economic relationships and history of delivering high-paying aerospace jobs.

The presentation by Boeing executives and an independent research firm arrives against a background of a pandemic-ravaged economy and a looming federal deadline to submit bids to replace the air force's aging CF-18 fleet.

...

Boeing plans to pitch its Super Hornet fighter. The most up-to-date version of the jet, known as the Block 3, was delivered recently to the U.S. Navy for use on aircraft carriers.

In its presentation, the company estimates the value of its direct economic activity in Canada — both commercial and defence — at $2.3 billion, resulting in 11,000 jobs across the country. The independent report estimates that when indirect spending is taken into account, the U.S. multinational contributes $5.3 billion and 20,700 jobs to Canada's economy.

Boeing's decision to make its case publicly is significant in part because federal finances are reeling under the weight of an anticipated $252 billion deficit and staggering levels of unemployment brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

...

Jim Barnes, a senior Boeing executive, told a conference call of reporters on Thursday that there is no planned retirement date for the Super Hornet. He claimed the warplane offers the most economical solution for Canada in terms of the cost of flying and operating fighter aircraft.

He said he foresaw the fighter being in service with the U.S. Navy for "decades to come."

The company's argument was recently given a boost when Germany decided to buy 45 Super Hornets as a replacement for its Tornado fighters.

The deadline for final submissions in Canada's competition is now July 31, after it was pushed back on at least two occasions.

Barnes said Boeing is ready to submit and will meet the deadline. He acknowledged the company asked for the latest extension because of the pandemic.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-jet-fighters-cf18-1.5627353

 

[Uzlu]

Boeing validates economic impact in Canada

If there were lingering doubts about Boeing’s contribution to the Canadian economy, company executives attempted to lay them to rest as the Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer prepares to submit its proposal for Canada’s future fighter jet next month.

Boeing directly invested $2.3 billion in Canada in 2019, primarily through its aerospace composite manufacturing operation in Winnipeg, and generated about 11,000 jobs, according to an economic impact assessment conducted by Ottawa-based consulting firm Doyletech Corporation. Those figures climbed to around $5.3 billion and 20,000 jobs once indirect spending was factored in.

“That is an extremely good result,” Rick Clayton, a partner with Doyletech, told a media briefing on June 25. A more than two-for-one return on every dollar spent is “one of the best [results] we have had.”

Moreover, 95 per cent of what Boeing generates is exported. “That’s about as high as we have ever seen,” he said.

The assessment also captured Boeing’s investments in Canadian supplier and technology development, making the company what he called an “agile producer” able to capitalize on both Canadian resources and “smarts.” Technology developed by many suppliers often involves systems integration, an added value over aircraft components.

Investments and direct participation in industry-university networks, centres of excellences, and even a learning factory incorporating big data, machine learning and artificial intelligence — “sort of like a teaching hospital, only for manufacturing,” according to Clayton — are influencing the next cadre of advanced manufacturing workers.

Boeing and its two competitors, Lockheed Martin and Saab, have until July 31 to submit their bids for 88 advanced fighters to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fleet of CF-188 Hornets.

The bids will be evaluated on technical merit, cost and economic benefit to Canada. They will also be assessed on the “bidders’ impact on Canada’s economic interests.”

That provision, dubbed by media as the Boeing clause, was inserted into the procurement process after the U.S. government, following a complaint by Boeing, issued almost 300 per cent duties on the sale of Bombardier C-Series aircraft to U.S. customers. The federal government retaliated by cancelling a $6 billion interim plan to buy 18 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to fill a capability gap and said it would assess “economic behaviour” in evaluating any future bids.

In addition to its sizeable economic footprint at 13 sites across Canada and through around 500 suppliers, Boeing also emphasized its commitment to the government’s Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) policy.

The company has delivered on $11 billion in ITB obligations over the past 25 years as part of the sale of the CF-188 and upgrade programs, CH-147F Chinook helicopters, CC-177 Globemaster III strategic lift aircraft, ScanEagle unmanned aircraft and satellites.

For the future fighter project, the three bidders will have the option to sign a binding ITB agreement and commit to investing in Canadian content up to 100 per cent of the contract value, or agree to a nonbinding economic benefit agreement.

“Boeing will firmly commit to a 100 per cent ITB obligation,” said Jennifer Seidman, the recently appointed lead for international strategic partnerships in Canada.

That value proposition will include further investment across what the government has identified as key industrial capabilities in the defence sector and new efforts to build diversity in the aerospace and defence workforce, “starting with STEM related efforts targeting Canadian youth and continuing through to the support of professionals in businesses of all sizes across all regions of the country,” she said.

Boeing will propose the F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet to replace the RCAF’s legacy Hornets. The first of two in the new Block III configuration were delivered to the U.S. Navy in mid-June for flight testing and carrier suitability and integration testing of all mission system components.

The USN intends to acquire 78 of the advanced aircraft under a multi-year procurement contract and has begun a service life modification program that will upgrade about 450 Block II Super Hornets with Block III systems.

The Block III integrates enhanced displays, processing and data link technology “to provide an open architecture mission system with advanced networking that continue to evolve at a pace that exceeds the current plans of our competitors,” said Jim Barnes, director of fighter programs for Canada.

The Block III program has extended the aircraft’s airframe to 10,000-flight-hours for Navy operations, and introduced upgrades, including conformal fuel tanks, a centreline drop tank with a networked infrared search and track (IRST) sensor and satellite communications (SATCOM) system.

The USN expects to take delivery of the first aircraft by 2021 and have a squadron per carrier wing by 2024, a year before the RCAF will receive the first of its new fighters, he noted.

At a time when the Canadian government is facing a ballooning deficit, Barnes reminded media that operational costs far exceed the acquisition price, and the Super Hornet has the lowest operational flight costs among U.S.-built fighters, according to the U.S. government, at about $18,500 per flight hour. A Super Hornet fleet would also allow the RCAF to “leverage existing physical and intellectual infrastructure, significantly reducing aircrew and maintenance training requirements,” he added.

Canada would not be a lone operator either. Barnes noted that the USN does not have a planned retirement date for the Super Hornet fleet, despite the gradual integration of Lockheed Martin F-35C fighters onto carrier decks. Boeing is also competing the Super Hornet in Finland and Switzerland. And in April, the German Armed Forces indicated an interest in the procurement of 93 new Eurofighter Typhoons and 45 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to bridge between its Tornado fleet, set to retire by 2030, and the next-generation Future Combat Air System likely to enter service around 2040.

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/boeing-validates-economic-impact-canada/

 

[PuckChaser]

100% ITB as new investment in Canada, or just count current operations towards that ITB level? Devil is in the details, but seems like they're on a full court press PR mode now.

 

[CBH99]

<Slowly zips up my flame retardant HAZMAT suit, in preparation for the well deserved ordinance coming my way>


Just to clarify, I am a big supporter for the F-35 for our future fighter, for a myriad of reasons.  By the time we get our platforms, it will have matured into a very capable fighter (even moreso than it is now) and a lot of the bugs will have be ironed out the hard way by our allies.  I am pro F-35.


However...allow me to play devil's advocate here for a moment.  ;D


The Boeing guy does make some good points about leveraging existing infrastructure and operating costs. 

The operating cost of the F-35, as it stands now, is higher than a Super Hornet.  I'm not sure if that includes touch-ups or maintenance of the outer skin, which unlike other aircraft, is a high tech machine in and of itself.

So while the purchase price may be similar to a Super Hornet, the operating cost could bite a country like ours in the butt, especially post COVID economy.



In terms of leveraging existing infrastructure, he has a point there also.  While I'm sure the cost of building new hangers & support facilities has been costed and looked at in detail, it can't be cheap. 

The USN, as it currently stands, looks to upgrade/procure approximately 650 Super Hornets bk.3, and additional sales/upgrades may be in the works for Germany as well as some Middle East customers.



So... given the operating costs, costs of new or refurbished infrastructure, etc.  Would the new Super Hornet be that bad of an option for us?  Given our current budgets, post COVID finances, and ease of transitioning to the new jet?


(My own personal opinion...the $862 million just spent to upgrade 36 of our Hornets should have just been spent on purchasing new jets/infrastructure for new jets instead.)  :2c:

 

[SupersonicMax]

With any potential bidder, we will need to upgrade our facilities.  We can’t house this kind of technology in 1950’s hangars that have largely not been worked on.

 

[MilEME09]

With any potential bidder, we will need to upgrade our facilities.  We can’t house this kind of technology in 1950’s hangars that have largely not been worked on.

What better way to jump start the economy the massive defense infrastructure

 

[CBH99]

What better way to jump start the economy the massive defense infrastructure

Agreed.  Lots of construction work, safety tickets for workers, catering opportunities, supplying of construction materials, etc.