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

[Quirky]

As far as the hangers go hopefully we are looking atwhat the US has already done and not reinventing the wheel

That's what I'm worried about, we spend too much time making things Canadian-specific when it's been done by other countries already. The USAF/USN already operates out of environments that covers anything we will experience here in Canada, there is no sense developing something of our own when it's been done already.

Quirky, as an old 104 avionics tech I just wanted to say I make it a point to read your thoughts/comments. Took my 104 course in winter at CYOD and couple of Maple Flags with the Voodoo. So I can relate to the problems and view point from your world.


Cheers

Towing is, by a wide margin, the biggest waster of manpower and time by units. Maint pers spend almost half their day worrying where to put aircraft for future ops and heavy maint. It's just so unnecessary. The hangar set-up is currently an extremely inefficient way of operating, nevermind the sheer waste of overhead space that's required to heat 6 months of the year. I believe the hangars in baggotville are just high enough for a CF-18, though I've never been in one, just from pictures.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Finnish fighter competition--the start and conclusion of a post by Corporal Frisk wherein he points out weaknesses of F-35A bid (high operating costs may limit fleet size to much) and those of Super Hornet, Gripen E (how many decades ahead will there be substantial user bases?)--so don't rule out Eurofighter and Rafale (gone from RCAF competition):

Mark
Ottawa

The start of a comprehensive update from the excellent Finnish blogger Corporal Frisk on the progress of Finland's new fighter competition--they seem a lot more, er, transparent than we are:

The Big Dance that wasn’t to be

It was supposed to be the last big dance of the HX contenders in Finland, with a final air show in the unpredictable June-weather before the decision was to be announced not even a year later in early 2021. But then COVID happened.

The air show was first moved to August, and then the whole program schedule was pushed back with the decision now expected Q4 2021 due to the inability to hold the final pre-BAFO talks in person last spring. As such, the air show in Kauhava this weekend is set to be a somewhat muted affair compared to the expectations. This is obviously a pity, especially as the local enthusiasts in Kauhava were set to have the biggest celebration of the towns aviation heritage since the closure of the air force base in 2014.

Compared to earlier years, the late stage of the program is visible in the fact that few breaking news were published, though there were some interesting stories.

First out in the spotlight was the Finnish Defence Forces and MoD themselves, who published a rather long and surprisingly open interview interview with colonel Keränen (FinAF A3) and Lauri Puranen (MoD program manager for strategic capability projects) in their Radio Kipinä-podcast. The theme was “The HX-program – Mythbusters”, and they spent quite a bit of time explaining why it isn’t possible to replace the fighters with ground-based systems or UAVs, the extremely close cooperation between the politicians making the eventual decisions and the soldiers and officials providing the groundwork, as well as how there are no favourites at this stage. All of these are issues that have been raised in the domestic discussion in Finland, with more or less populist undertones depending on the issue and who’s making the point. However, there were some interesting nuggets for the avgeek community as well.

Keränen made a direct point that the Air Force is not planning on going even in case of war, but that they will strive for a serious kill ratio.

    "We want something like the Brewster, [which] had 32:1 during the Second World War [vs the Soviets 1939-40 and 1941-44, only a Finn could ever say that https://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm]. Of course that is the kind of thing we are aiming for, whether it’s realistic or not is another thing, but if we can reach for example 10:1 that is 600 fighters that we can shoot down. Or bombers, depending on whatever comes."

You’d be excused for feeling this comes off as arrogant, but a quick look into the history books shows that during the jet age such numbers have been well within the realms of possibility...
https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/08/29/the-big-dance-that-wasnt-to-be/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on Saab's Gripen E offer to Finland:

Saab unveils broad package for HX bid

Sweden’s Saab provided an outline of a significant package as part of its bid for Finland’s HX fighter procurement programme on 28 August, including the development of a new lightweight air-launched decoy missile.

As part of the company’s offering for the HX programme, an in-country development and sustainment centre will be established to provide a variety of work including parts production and the assembly of engines and aircraft in Finland through a support and maintenance, repair, and overhaul facility. The company is currently engaged in supporting 10 research projects on microwave technology in Finland, with more than 100 industrial participation programmes agreed in support of the company’s HX bid.

“This presence will be a very good base to support and sustain the Gripen and GlobalEye in operation, ensuring security of supply,” Micael Johannson, President and CEO of Saab, said.

Other research programmes currently supported by Saab in Finland include those for sensors and artificial intelligence.

The new air-launched decoy missile system, which was revealed for the first time during the press briefing, has benefited from substantial development work by the Saab Technology Centre in Tampere, Finland.

“Here we are combining the knowledge, long-term, in Sweden and in Finland, in microwave electronics,” HX programme campaign director for Saab Magnus Skogberg said. Development of the decoy missile will also support an expansion of the facility in Tampere.

Chief of Operations for the Swedish Air Force Colonel Carl-Fredrik Edström said that a Finnish acquisition of the Gripen and GlobalEye will create new possibilities for the two air forces.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/saab-unveils-broad-package-for-hx-bid_11910

Mark
Ottawa

 

[suffolkowner]

It looks like none of the bidders were able to come in on the bid target including Saab which included 2 Globaleyes seems strange

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

It looks like none of the bidders were able to come in on the bid target including Saab which included 2 Globaleyes seems strange

Just to clarify, you're referencing the Finnish budget target, correct?  Not Canadian?

Merci, Matthew.

 

[suffolkowner]

Just to clarify, you're referencing the Finnish budget target, correct?  Not Canadian?

Merci, Matthew.

Yes from the above corporalfrisk site

 

[LiveFightMove]

It looks like none of the bidders were able to come in on the bid target including Saab which included 2 Globaleyes seems strange

What do you mean by this? That none of the bidders were able to keep it within the $12 billion? Or they weren't able to offer enough?

I was wondering about that actually, for Canada's Future Fighter Competition, do the candidates have to use up the entire $19 billion? Or could they offer the 88 jets, and everything else, for say $15 billion to make themselves more competitive?

 

[suffolkowner]

What do you mean by this? That none of the bidders were able to keep it within the $12 billion? Or they weren't able to offer enough?

I was wondering about that actually, for Canada's Future Fighter Competition, do the candidates have to use up the entire $19 billion? Or could they offer the 88 jets, and everything else, for say $15 billion to make themselves more competitive?

From what I understood from corporalfrisk they were all over which is why I found it strange that Saab would offer the Globaleye's but then they are probably a small part of the total.

I would assume that the $19B is an upper limit but didn't Airbus go over on FWSAR? I would think that the bidders would be able to come under the $19B. As $19B divided by 88 jets is $215.9 million and $12B divided by 64 is $187.5 million so there's a fair bit of room, hopefully.

Are we obligated to take the 88 though?

 

[LiveFightMove]

From what I understood from corporalfrisk they were all over which is why I found it strange that Saab would offer the Globaleye's but then they are probably a small part of the total.

I would assume that the $19B is an upper limit but didn't Airbus go over on FWSAR? I would think that the bidders would be able to come under the $19B. As $19B divided by 88 jets is $215.9 million and $12B divided by 64 is $187.5 million so there's a fair bit of room, hopefully.

Are we obligated to take the 88 though?

The Canadian Press · Posted: Jul 05, 2017 7:54 PM ET

The Liberals say the extra fighter jets are required to meet a new policy, adopted in September, that increased the number of warplanes that must always be ready for operations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pilots-jets-fighters-commander-1.4192170

If Canada chooses the F-35A at roughly $104 million CAD per jet, for 88 jets that would be just over $9 billion. Where would the other $9 billion be going towards?

 

[suffolkowner]

If Canada chooses the F-35A at roughly $104 million CAD per jet, for 88 jets that would be just over $9 billion. Where would the other $9 billion be going towards?

Simulators, parts including spare engines, munitions I'm guessing. Is the infrastructure part of this?

 

[LiveFightMove]

Simulators, parts including spare engines, munitions I'm guessing. Is the infrastructure part of this?

I don't think the infrastructer is because they just gave the contract to a company to build in Cold Lake, but perhaps if Lockheed wins the competition they'll have to pay for the specific requirements for the F-35 (probably what you meant).

 

[AlexanderM]

Simulators, parts including spare engines, munitions I'm guessing. Is the infrastructure part of this?

My understanding was that the infrastructure was part of it and for the F-35 it's the most expensive of the 3. I could be wrong. I seem to remember that with the F-35 the runways needed some substantial lengthening.

 

[CBH99]

SupersonicMax tends to know his stuff when it comes to this world... you sniffing around anywhere Max??

 

[suffolkowner]

SupersonicMax tends to know his stuff when it comes to this world... you sniffing around anywhere Max??

Eventually someone who knows what they're talking about will be by to straighten things out

 

[SupersonicMax]

I am pretty sure infrastructure is included in the whole FFCP allocation.  The rest will be used for aircraft/parts/simulators/maintenance/logistics/training etc.

Infrastructure costs are not overly driven by aircraft choice AFAIK (but some aspects will be).

 

[LiveFightMove]

I am pretty sure infrastructure is included in the whole FFCP allocation.  The rest will be used for aircraft/parts/simulators/maintenance/logistics/training etc.

Infrastructure costs are not overly driven by aircraft choice AFAIK (but some aspects will be).

Fixed

 

[LiveFightMove]

Pick the largest aircraft in the running and build to accommodate it, cover your bases. Hangers usually are not for individual aircraft, from talking to friends in cold lake, multiple aircraft are in one, these are massive buildings. Seems like its more a question of how many will fit rather than if they will fit.

This is exactly what they're doing.

They're using the Super Hornet for space requirements and design purposes and are also planning on building hangarettes for 37 fighters in Cold Lake.

 

[STONEY]

Is the writing on the wall.  A few observations First the Gripen can operate from just about any airport in Canada and highways.  The Super Hornet can operate from anywhere our present Hornet can operate from. The f-35 however is a different story, it requires a long runway huge maintenance facilities and special power sources not available at any Canadian base. Some of the countries that are getting them
have found that they  will have to go from several fighter bases to only one base for the f-35 because of the huge outlay for required infrastructure .
    Now we hear that Cold lake & Bagotville are being completely rebuilt (not that they don't need it) into fighter superbases with many new facilities. Is the open and transparent competition a farce or is the writing on the wall???? 

 

[MilEME09]

Is the writing on the wall.  A few observations First the Gripen can operate from just about any airport in Canada and highways.  The Super Hornet can operate from anywhere our present Hornet can operate from. The f-35 however is a different story, it requires a long runway huge maintenance facilities and special power sources not available at any Canadian base. Some of the countries that are getting them
have found that they  will have to go from several fighter bases to only one base for the f-35 because of the huge outlay for required infrastructure .
    Now we hear that Cold lake & Bagotville are being completely rebuilt (not that they don't need it) into fighter superbases with many new facilities. Is the open and transparent competition a farce or is the writing on the wall????

Regardless of the aircraft we pick, our infrastructure is old and needs replacing in order to house a future fighter fleet. Proper planning would allow for more then what we need to anticipate any potential future needs as well.

 

[Quirky]

A few observations First the Gripen can operate from just about any airport in Canada and highways. 

Sure it can.  :