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

[Quirky]

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.

We can't even get our uniforms and boots correct, the last thing we need are fighter jet production in the hands of Canadians. Let the experts build the fighters we need.

 

[Loachman]

Thanks.

Now I'll be having nightmares.

 

[CougarKing]

Boeing's chance to sell the Super Hornet to Canada?

Embassy News (Canada)

Boeing, sensing an opening, meets with government on fighter jets

Published: Wednesday, 02/17/2016 12:00 am EST
Last Updated: Wednesday, 02/17/2016 5:34 pm EST

Boeing is ready for an “open and transparent” fighter jet competition from Canadian leaders “committed to cabinet government,” the president of Boeing International says.

Marc Allen was in Ottawa this week speaking with industry partners, commercial customers and government.

Though he wouldn’t confirm whether he had met with Liberal cabinet ministers, he said in an interview with Embassy that meetings were held with a mix of politicians and departmental officials.

After the Liberals committed themselves to an open fighter jet competition, Mr. Allen confirmed that Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter jets were on the table.

Jim Barnes, who heads up Boeing’s Ottawa office, said “this government does seem to be very interested in making sure all the important parties involved get together and talk about this very serious decision, how it affects priorities.”

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Alan Willians at it:

Liberals face dilemma over F-35 fighter jets

last week, speaking at an Ottawa conference, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told an audience of experts and industry representatives that the government would not exclude Lockheed Martin’s F-35s from the competition for a new aircraft, but instead would hold an open and transparent process that would focus on obtaining the right aircraft for Canada. It wasn’t the first time he’s hinted at the possibility of leaving the door open for the F-35s, but it was the first time he’s said so point-blank.

Ensuing media coverage framed the statement as a backtrack of the Liberals’ campaign promise, but according to one procurement expert, excluding the F-35 was never an option to begin with.

Alan Williams was the Defence Department’s assistant deputy minister of materiel in 2002 and signed the initial agreement on behalf of Canada to enter into the joint strike fighter program with the Unites States, eight years before the Conservative decision to purchase the planes. Williams has written extensively on the issues with the Conservatives’ sole-source decision to purchase the jets.

But despite their huge price and capabilities many argue are unnecessary, Williams told The Chronicle Herald that the Liberals have little choice but to include the F-35s in the competition.

“When Trudeau made his comments during the campaign they were nonsensical,” he said. “You can’t on the one hand say you’re going to have an open and fair competition and say it’s going to exclude company A or company B. You can’t prevent anyone from bidding.”

Williams said a trade agreement requires the government to run a competition, unless it can argue that the legislation isn’t applicable and a sole-source contract is required. Prejudging the outcome of the competition by explicitly excluding the F-35 would violate this agreement.

What Williams said the government can do is write requirements that put far less importance on the features the F-35 boasts — such as stealth capabilities — and higher value on what it doesn’t.

“Unlike the old requirements that basically ensure that only the F-35 can compete you could say the primary responsibility is ensure proper control over over Canada and its borders and defence of North America, in which case other requirements become much more valuable than the stealth feature,” Williams said. “Then if you decide in an evaluation to put more weight on price, the likelihood of an F-35 winning becomes dramatically reduced.”

But even with a cheaper plane, Williams said it doesn’t mean the government will have extra money to spend on the navy [how true https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/mark-collins-f-35-and-canadian-election-liberals-loose-with-fighter-costs/ ] ...

Mark
Ottawa
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1343988-liberals-face-dilemma-over-f-35-fighter-jets

 

[Kirkhill]

So he would re-write the SOR to exclude the F-35?

How many lawyers does LockMart have?

 

[MilEME09]

So he would re-write the SOR to exclude the F-35?

How many lawyers does LockMart have?

my thoughts exactly, and even worse right now if the F-35 lost Lockheed could claim bias and political interference cost them the contract. Comments during the election to say anything but the F-35 will cost the libs in the future.

 

[caocao]

Of course they should rewrite the SOR.  The first time around they were written with only the F 35 in mind.  What they need is a document that clearly state what the government expect the RCAF to deliver.

 

[PuckChaser]

Of course they should rewrite the SOR.  The first time around they were written with only the F 35 in mind.  What they need is a document that clearly state what the government expect the RCAF to deliver.

Sunshine, candy kisses and pacifist votes don't sound like weapon systems any fighter manufacturer can deliver...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Quote from: caocao on Today at 16:12:40

Of course they should rewrite the SOR.  The first time around they were written with only the F 35 in mind.  What they need is a document that clearly state what the government expect the RCAF to deliver.

One assumes with the NORAD mission the prime element of the SOR (below based on ret'd RCAF major-general https://www.linkedin.com/in/c-s-%22duff%22-sullivan-88441048 ):

F-35 and Canada: Good for “Discretionary” Missions, But…
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/mark-collins-f-35-and-canada-good-for-discretionary-missions-but/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Mark:

Doesn't the NORAD requirement now encompass the Maritime domain?  Maritime Strike would seem to be an easy inference.  And Maritime Strike is a whole lot closer to Ground Attack than it is Air Intercept.  Ships have radars.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook:

One might have thought that's why the RCN needs those stealthy subs .

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sunshine, candy kisses and pacifist votes don't sound like weapon systems any fighter manufacturer can deliver...

Where there is a will, there is a way

 

[Kirkhill]

Chris Pook:

One might have thought that's why the RCN needs those stealthy subs .

Mark
Ottawa

50 km/h or 1000 km/h.  Reaction times may vary? 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook:

One would have thought our Auroras, USN planes, satellites, and various other ISR assets would have spotted any surface threat long before it came into F-35 range.  Moreover the oceans are still a long way from Bagotville or Cold Lake.  If need aerial force against surface ships surely one could let USN deal with it.

Mark Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Shoot Mark, we could let the Yanks take care of everything. 

And the time from Cold Lake to Dixon Channel Entrance by air is a lot less than the time from Esquimalt on top of or beneath the water.

The probability of any force being needed there is, indeed, slim to nil.  But it would be nice to know that it is possible.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Of course they should rewrite the SOR.  The first time around they were written with only the F 35 in mind.  What they need is a document that clearly state what the government expect the RCAF to deliver.

That'd be nice to have specific guidance from all levels, from the GoC to the Air Div highlighting exactly what is expected of us (and in what context.  Going against China is much different than going after Ethiopia) boil it down to the types of mission we shall train to and then define specific requirements based on that. That would be the only way to make a fair, open competition.

I feel right now we are somewhat making our own mission sets based on experience.  Having said that, I don't think anybody questions the fact that NORAD is our #1 mission.  But it is a fairly simple one and it leaves ample room to train and be proficient in other areas...

 

[Fabius]

I would be interested to see how the RCAF envisions strike operations in the future and how differant platforms with differant munitions could achieve those mission sets. 
What I mean by that is could a Gen 4.5 fighter with long range stand off muntions (JSSAM, KEPD 350, Storm Shadow, etc) provide a similar capability to a Gen 5 Stealth fighter with JDAM/LGBs in terms of its ability to strike targets within a highly advanced air defence enviroment?
It seems that a lot of countries, South Korea, Australia, Poland to name a few are investing in providing their Gen 4 and Gen 4.5 fighters with long range standoff muntions to off set their weaknesses in ability to penetrate hostile airspace.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Flightglobal tea leaves look pretty good for the F-35:

The Trudeau government in Canada has launched the country's largest defence policy review in “over 20 years”  as it considers if and when to exit the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme.

Canadian defence minister Harjit Sajjan, who assumed the cabinet position in November, has appointed a four-member advisory panel to oversee the wide-ranging defence policy review, which seeks input from citizens, experts, parliamentarians, allies and the nation’s closest neighbour and collective security partner, the USA...

“The process to replace the CF-18s is just beginning,” the defence minister’s office said in a 6 April email. “We’ve only been in government for a few months, and are making good progress on this file.”

That process, led by the minister of public services and procurement in partnership with the MoD [sic, DND], will "design" a procurement process “for an aircraft that matches Canada’s defence needs” – and local industrial participation will be key.

“We are committed to ensuring that manufacturing contracts for whichever aircraft is chosen will go to Canadian companies,” the spokesman for Sajjan's office says. “By virtue of our enrollment as a member nation in the F-35 programme [memorandum of understanding], Canadian companies are allowed to compete for F-35 production contracts and have benefitted from these economic opportunities.

"Regardless of which aircraft Canada decides to buy, industrial benefits to Canadian companies will be part of the decision-making process.”..
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canadas-defence-policy-review-wont-delay-cf-18-rep-423949/

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Whole lot of LockMart (and Pentagon) lobbying one presumes plus Canadian industry:
http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=18558

Can Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter or SAAB do better?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

One thing missing in the debate is the fact that *we* will be massively outnumbered in virtually every theater where near peers are operating. Even many decrepit third world air forces have a multitude of old Soviet era fighters and ground attack aircraft. Add a heavy layer of GBAD and there is a serious problem.

A small number of any platform is going to run into issues of generating enough force to penetrate enemy airspace, or carry enough ordinance (even long range stand off ordinance) to punch through to the target. The CAF actually had C-RAM capabilities in the late 1980's with Skyguard/ADATS but (as usual) abandoned that capability; many near peers have that ability so you will need multiple missiles or glide bombs to overwhelm air defense systems.

The frank answer is we need far more than 65 CF-35's, and to get the equivalent ability out of Gen 4 or 4.5 fighters we will need at least 100 of those aircraft to equal 65 CF-35's. (If we actually need at least 100 CF-35's, which I think is about the right number, then we are talking about getting 154 Gen 4 or 4.5 platforms). And of course we will need to be stocking up on much more advanced ordinance to engage at longer ranges and defeat powerful countermeasures.

Somehow I don't see the new government giving any sort of consideration to these numbers at all.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Flightglobal tea leaves look pretty good for the F-35:

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Whole lot of LockMart (and Pentagon) lobbying one presumes plus Canadian industry:
http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=18558

Can Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter or SAAB do better?

Mark
Ottawa

They can, I suspect, if they offer a technology transfer package to Bombardier which obviates the requirement for this government to be seen to be pouring wheelbarows full of cash into a (perceived to be) failing Quebec company ... assembling a fighter here, in Canada, might be the answer to Team Trudeau's political prayers.