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

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pooks--thanks.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Interesting Liberal member of new Commons committee:

Fuhr on defence committee

Photo: Facebook
Stephen Fuhr, before his political days.

As someone who flew CF-18 fighter jets for the Canadian Air Force, and spent years training military pilots, Stephen Fuhr knows a thing or two about Canada's military.

This is, no doubt, one of the reasons the Kelowna-Lake Country member of parliament was named to Canada's Standing Committee on National Defence late Friday.

The ten member committee was announced by the federal government along with 26 other committees.

The national defence committee is mandated to review all matters pertaining to the Department of National Defence and the Armed Forces. It is responsible for examining legislation, activities and expenditures of the military and determining the effectiveness of related policies and programs.

The chair of most of the committees have not yet been named, but they will be chosen by a secret ballot by committee members on their first meeting.

Stephen Fuhr, like 200 of the 338 MPs elected in October, is serving his first term in office. Many committee members chosen Friday are rookie MPs.
http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/157429/Fuhr-on-defence-committee

Earlier:

Election 2015: Liberal Stephen Fuhr pulls off massive upset in Conservative stronghold of Kelowna-Lake Country
http://www.kelownacapnews.com/federalelection/334465281.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

I doubt if anybody would confuse me with a Liberal supporter but


With the services of Sajjan, Leslie and Hehr available to the Prime Minister it is going to be pretty difficult to argue that the Liberals don't understand the Defence file.

Maybe the PM doesn't, can't or won't.  Maybe we can debate the choices made (if any are made before the next election).  But it will be hard to say they are uninformed.

A grudging compliment.

 

[MarkOttawa]

SecDef Carter and USN want more new-build Super Hornets (keep that St. Louis line open), to serve for quite a while:

US Navy boosts F-35C and F/A-18 buy in new budget plan

The US Navy says maintaining Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet production in St Louis is "vital" for overcoming a strike-fighter shortfall caused by delays in fielding the Lockheed Martin F-35C.

The navy says its legacy Hornet fleet is aging out faster than it can be replaced through overuse in lengthy campaigns in the Middle East. Now, it is three squadrons or about 35 aircraft short of its fleet requirement, and there aren't enough aircraft available for training and to maintain pilot proficiency. Similar problems are faced by the US Marine Corps as its Hornets and AV-8B Harrier IIs wear down.

Congress funded five Super Hornets and seven EA-18G Growlers in the fiscal year 2016 defence budget, throwing a much-needed lifeline to Boeing's production facility.

Today, navy air warfare division chief Rear Adm Michael Manazir tells a congressional hearing on naval strike fighters that the service needs another “16 Super Hornets or so” on top of an increase in F-35C procurement to fill the remaining gap.

On 3 February, during a tour of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in California, US defence secretary Ashton Carter confirmed the navy will request more F-35s and F/A-18s in next week's budget submission than previously planned. It will reportedly seek 10 more F-35Cs and 16 more F/A-18s over the next five years, as well as more F-35Bs for the marines.

“We're accelerating that buy and we're also accelerating or enhancing our buy of F/A-18s,” Carter says.

Manazir backed that up by saying the navy will buy the F-35C in greater numbers going forward and fund more F/A-18s.

“It is vital to maintain a viable line at St Louis for the Super Hornet for the near term here in order to get those numbers into the air wings and then to extend them through to the 2030s until we get to a predominance of F-35Cs,” he says. “The extra Super Hornets over the next several years covers the slide in initial operational capability of the F-35C to the right.”

Manazir calls the Super Hornet a “vastly capable” compliment to the stealthy F-35C and through life-extensions it will continue to operate well into the 2030s.

“The predominance in numbers until the mid-'30s is going to be in Super Hornets [emphasis added],” he says. “The complimentary capability of those Super Hornets along with the F-35C gives us our striking power and reach off the aircraft carrier.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-seeks-extra-f-35cs-and-fa-18s-in-new-budget-421628/

Earlier:

Boeing Offers New, Rebuilt, Upgraded Super Hornets To U.S. Navy
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-offers-new-rebuilt-upgraded-super-hornets-us-navy

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

US Navy budget request--keep Super Hornet line going:

…
The overall number of manned and unmanned aircraft planned to be purchased for the Navy and Marine Corps in 2017 remains at 94. The most significant aviation plan change is the insertion of 14 F/A-18 Super Hornets planned for 2018, a move directed by Carter that reverses an earlier Navy decision to end procurement of the Boeing-built aircraft.

Buys of the F-35C carrier versions of the Joint Strike Fighter show no overall changes until 2020, when the planned purchase of 12 aircraft jumps to 18, with 24 forecast for 2021. A total of 64 F-35Cs are planned through the FYDP. Buys of the F-35B Marine Corps variant rise by two aircraft in 2017 to 16, but remain as planned in later years, with a total of 97 through 2021…
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2016/02/09/us-navy-absorbing-7-billion-budget-cut/80032964/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Boeing faces choice:

Boeing nears decision to self-fund more F/A-18 fighters

Boeing Co (BA.N) is nearing a decision to invest "a significant amount" to keep a F/A-18E/F fighter jet production line in St. Louis running as it waits for the U.S. government to approve a delayed order by Kuwait for 28 jets, a senior executive said.

Dan Gillian, who runs Boeing's F/A-18E/F and EA-18G electronic attack jet programs, told Reuters the company would decide in coming weeks whether to buy titanium and other materials needed to start work on the jets, even before the Kuwait deal and potential U.S. Navy orders are finalized.

He said Boeing would weigh strong expected demand for the warplanes against the risk that the orders could still fail...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-fighter-exclusive-idUSKCN0VL2JK

Mark
Ottawa

 

[McG]

SecDef Carter and USN want more new-build Super Hornets (keep that St. Louis line open), to serve for quite a while:

US Navy budget request--keep Super Hornet line going:

So, we have threads on the USN, F-35, and what other countries are doing with their money.  Any of those might seem a better fit for these quoted articles as opposed to a thread on a Canadian procurement project.  If trying to make a point in this thread, you could reference the articles.  Otherwise they seem, at best, a tangent.

 

[NavyShooter]

I will harken back to my previous comments on the Scorpion Jet:

http://www.scorpionjet.com/

There's no-one in the world building them, and if it's a mix of 'anything but the F-35' and 'build it in Canada' this might be the only possible solution.

Recognizing that it meets almost NONE of the requirements that have been written for the Fighter Replacement program....but if it supports a new production line in Quebec (buys votes) gives the RCAF some sort of capability to show the flag, and pushes away the problem that the F-35 has become onto a future government, then it will be a 'win win'....and the Scorpion has the potential for overseas Foreign sales, so that'd be a double bonus?

*shrug*

Doubt it'll happen, but it'd be a solution for the Snowbird replacement aircraft too, wouldn't it?

NS

 

[MilEME09]

My money is still on Dassault, the technology transfer would be a win for Canada, we would be able to set up all required production in Canada, meaning we would only need to reply on European suppliers in times of a shortage. Defeats part of the argument to buy American fighters, and by Canadianizing them we can make sure our existing weapons inventory works with them. So long as we can get timely delivery's it is a win for industry, the RCAF and the country.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am uncertain how this would save money.

Apart from the fact that only about 250 Rafales exist world wide, none of the current air weapons we currently (an inventory worth billions?) are compatible with a French aircraft.

What would it cost to buy an entirely new line of missiles, bombs and gun ammo?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

What's old is new again, RCAF wants F-35, we'll get whatever POS a company will let Bombardier build.

We'll probably end up with this.....

;D

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

At least you know it's safe to get into the reactor air intake.  [

 

[MilEME09]

I am uncertain how this would save money.

Apart from the fact that only about 250 Rafales exist world wide, none of the current air weapons we currently (an inventory worth billions?) are compatible with a French aircraft.

What would it cost to buy an entirely new line of missiles, bombs and gun ammo?

The technology transfer means we can make design changes, such as modifying it to accept our current weapons invantory

 

[Colin Parkinson]

fighters aren't need we can just use these and lasers

 

[dapaterson]

The technology transfer means we can make design changes, such as modifying it to accept our current weapons invantory

That is a massive expensive and high probability of failure proposition.

 

[PuckChaser]

The technology transfer means we can make design changes, such as modifying it to accept our current weapons invantory

When has Canadianizing anything made a procurement cheaper? Your Rafales are $94M USD in 2013, likely about $120m CAD now. Throw in technology transfer fees, infrastructure fees to pay for Bombardier's fighter line to produce 65 airframes, and then the cost to Canadianize, and you're likely looking at over $200M CAD an airframe, not including the ridiculous full life cycle costing that the F-35 was subjected to. F-22s were cheaper than what you're proposing.

 

[GR66]

That is a massive expensive and high probability of failure proposition.

The point was made in the CSC thread that there was not much point in focusing on transferring missiles from our existing ships to new ships because the missiles are likely at the end of their lifespan anyway and new missiles will have to be purchased regardless.

To what extent does this apply to our current stock of airborne weapons?  Are we going to have to buy new anyway whichever aircraft we end up purchasing (several years from now)?  Are the European weapons (Mica, Meteor, etc.) as good as what we're using now? 

Maybe we could push Dassault to include certification of our key missiles in their package in order to seal a deal (it would be in their best interest for further export purposes anyway).

 

[Kirkhill]

That is a massive expensive and high probability of failure proposition.

:nod:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

fighters aren't need we can just use these and lasers

That was the first plastic model I built! ;D

 

[Loachman]

Which would have been just as effective as the real thing, but cheaper.