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

[SupersonicMax]

A radar in itself isn't worth much if it isn't integrated properly with all the other sensors in the aircraft.  If we buy SH then we need to go with what the US Navy has:  The APG-79.  Anything different would be a nightmare in integration, as we have learned the hard way with some of our upgrades.

 

[Journeyman]

In my opinion the Liberals are still squirming, looking for a way out of the F-35 without getting sued or being hit with a NFTA claim worth billions....

Wow, it's been almost  two whole weeks since you dragged out the same tired, old line.  You must have been on vacation.

Quote from: AlexanderM on July 15, 2016, 11:12:36
Possible grounds for legal action against Canadian government?

Quote from: AlexanderM on June 08, 2016, 20:10:43
Look, we aren't buying all F-35's, JT won't allow it, yet if they walk away from the F-35 they could get hit with legal action or a trade board ruling costing Canada billions.

Quote from: AlexanderM on June 09, 2016, 19:33:21
....if we walk away from the F35 we may face legal action or a trade board ruling that could cost Canada billions  ....

Quote from: AlexanderM on June 27, 2016, 20:18:00
TransCanada files $15 billion NFTA claim over Keystone, turns the tables a bit considering LM could do the same to us over the F-35  ....

Quote from: AlexanderM on July 06, 2016, 19:30:36
Not sure that will save them from legal action by LM or a NFTA claim worth billions.

Quote from: AlexanderM on July 09, 2016, 13:02:56
....we could end up losing all the F-35 contracts and get hit with a NFTA claim ruling or legal action that could cost Canada billions.  

We get it.  Honest.    :stars:

 

[Altair]

Wow, it's been almost  two whole weeks since you dragged out the same tired, old line.  You must have been on vacation.


We get it.  Honest.    :stars:

Would LM still sue the Canadian goverment if we bought the 16V?

 

[PuckChaser]

Would LM still sue the Canadian goverment if we bought the 16V?

Production line is set to close end of next year without new orders. We won't have a SOR made by then. Cost for 8 F-16 block 52 models is also $700M USD, or $87.5M USD an aircraft. Hardly a discount from any other airframe.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-long-running-f-16-line-in-fort-worth-goin-423293/

 

[AlexanderM]

Wow, it's been almost  two whole weeks since you dragged out the same tired, old line.  You must have been on vacation.


We get it.  Honest.    :stars:

It's all about holding onto hope for the F-35.

 

[PuckChaser]

It's all about holding onto hope for the F-35.

Hope is not a valid COA.

 

[AlexanderM]

Hope is not a valid COA.

And if the Liberals can't squirm out of the F-35 without consequences they may not have any other valid course of action, as the political consequences would be huge. As far as I'm concerned this is not over until we order jets that are not F-35's, which has not yet occurred. It's a political mess that requires a political solution.

 

[dapaterson]

Simple solution?  Restrict the RCAF fighters to NORAD.  Voila.  F35's advantages (once functional) become less critical.  Plus you'll need fewer aircraft, and can refocus the RCAF on air mobility, tactical aviation and maritime patrol.  In many parts of the world (Canada included), more transport and ISR would be tremendous assets.

 

[PuckChaser]

Simple solution?  Restrict the RCAF fighters to NORAD.  Voila.  F35's advantages (once functional) become less critical.

You mean advantages like BVR engagement of threats and ability to engage before being detected? Yep, sure sound like those wouldn't be critically important trying to defend airspace against bombers with fighter support....

 

[SupersonicMax]

Simple solution?  Restrict the RCAF fighters to NORAD.  Voila.  F35's advantages (once functional) become less critical.  Plus you'll need fewer aircraft, and can refocus the RCAF on air mobility, tactical aviation and maritime patrol.  In many parts of the world (Canada included), more transport and ISR would be tremendous assets.

That would be extremely shortsighted.  You can't plan for today's threat and theater.  You need to project into the future what your potential threat and operating environment may be.

Essentially nixing the fighter force would remove a capability that cannot be regained without a significant investment (a lot more than you would save) if you wanted to re-activate some of its mission sets. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Essentially nixing the fighter force would remove a capability that cannot be regained without a significant investment (a lot more than you would save) if you wanted to re-activate some of its mission sets.

Like integral infantry mortar platoons, assault pioneers, GBAD, SPGs, but with extra 0s at the end of the price tag. We have an amazing history of short-sighted procurements.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It would be akin to saying "we'll train and equip the Army for the NEO role only".  It's not shortsighted as in a bad decision.  It's shortsighted as in the security of our Country and oir ability to project any force quickly would dissapear.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Like integral infantry mortar platoons, assault pioneers, GBAD, SPGs, but with extra 0s at the end of the price tag. We have an amazing history of short-sighted procurements.

Off topic, but since we maintained officer and Bdr-WO training active for AD and maintained the ASCC capability we only need to buy a new system and train the lower level ranks to fire them, so the costs of reintegrating GBAD are relatively low to what they would have been had we just completely nixed the AD. Self propelled guns are largely the same... once dets are trained to operate them, the remainder of the artillery system works relatively the same. So the costs are replacing them are relatively similar to what they would have been had we bought a new system right off the bat....

 

[jmt18325]

According to the Toronto Star, all 5 major fighter manufactures have responded to Canada's call for information.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

According to the Toronto Star, all 5 major fighter manufactures have responded to Canada's call for information.

Lockheed
Boeing
Eurofighter?
Dassault?
Saab?

 

[PuckChaser]

Yep, that was them.

 

[PuckChaser]

Here's an article on that questionnaire, including the questions themselves:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/business-equipment/industry-consultation-questionnaire.pdf (the link on the Toronto Star page is broken, I fixed it here)

Five aerospace companies battle to replace Canada's CF-18s
Five aerospace companies respond to Ottawa's call for info, offering their fighter jets as potential replacement for aging CF-18s.

By Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau
Sat., July 30, 2016

OTTAWA—Five aerospace companies are offering their fighter jets as potential replacement for Canada’s fleet of aging CF-18s, including Lockheed Martin’s F-35, the very jet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged not to buy.

The federal government had set Friday as the deadline for potential suppliers to respond to a detailed questionnaire outlining the costs and capabilities of their jets, as well as benefits that would flow to Canadian companies.

The defence department said Saturday that five companies responded: Boeing Company, Dassault Aviation, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab Group.

“Government officials are now reviewing and analyzing information received to date to inform the way forward over the coming months,” a department spokesperson told the Star in an email.

A Boeing executive said his company is offering its F/A-18 Super Hornet as a “great fit” for Canada, saying the purchase and operating costs for its jet rank as among the lowest of its competitors

“With respect to capability, cost . . . we’ve really put a good offer on the table,” Jim Barnes, a Canadian development executive for Boeing Defense, Space and Security, said Friday.

Despite Lockheed Martin’s sales pitch that its F-35 is a more advanced and newer design, Barnes said the Boeing jet easily meets the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

“I would argue that all capability you need is in the Super Hornet,” he said in an interview.

Lockheed Martin confirmed that its F-35 is also in the mix.

The F-35 has been dogged by controversy but company officials said the program has turned a corner, noting that the U.S. Air Force expects this year to declare the jet as “operational,” an important milestone that means the F-35 is ready to undertake missions.

The questionnaire demanded extensive details from the manufacturers. For example, it asked them to detail the cost of new weapons if the current stockpile of ammunition, missiles and bombs for the CF-18s is incompatible with their aircraft.

It also asked the jet makers to outline potential missions, notably in Canada’s north, flying from places such as Inuvik and Iqaluit.

The companies were also required to outline how they should share economic benefits with Canadian businesses.

Defence analyst Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said the aerospace firms were given a very narrow window to respond to a complex request, suggesting the government is in a hurry to find a fix for the aging fighters.

“It was a crazy request in a crazy time frame . . . It’s a lot of stuff to ask for pretty quickly,” he said in an interview.

More in article here: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/30/five-aerospace-companies-battle-to-replace-canadas-cf-18s.html

 

[Kirkhill]

Suppliers are to assume the aircraft are purchased by Canada and not leased.

From the questionnaire -

Here's an interesting one.

In the same way that I discovered that people engaged in bestiality and sodomy from the bible I am left wondering if the government may also be considering leasing.  Why else do you need to forbid something.  You don't forbid things that aren't possible.

With the F35 there is some justification for just leasing the aircraft, probably more so than with any other platform we have acquired previously.  That is due to the nature of the software licensing, as I understand it.  If we can't modify the software ourselves, and are only allowed to employ the aircraft on missions that are approved by the US, then why not just lease the aircraft.  In fact, why not go one step further, why not just supply Canadian pilots for a US supplied squadrons for NATO and NORAD missions and have the Americans supply the infrastructure to maintain the capability.  We could make a token cash contribution and maybe get some Canadian flyers some sea time as well.

In point of fact any agreement that we enter into is likely to be backstopped by US infrastructure and limited by US restrictions. 

By the way, I still don't see a reason for employing any of the European options on lease or purchase.  While we might reduce the restrictions we would increase the domestic infrastructure requirement.

 

[Journeyman]

Five aerospace companies battle to replace Canada's CF-18s

WARNING:  Sheer madness follows

Imagine.....if you can, just imagine,  if we had a clearly-articulated foreign affairs and security policy.... in which we'd nest an actual Defence White Paper....that would rationally inform such a competition.    :stars:

It also asked the jet makers to outline potential missions, notably in Canada’s north, flying from places such as Inuvik and Iqaluit.

I thought this was worded particularly poorly -- to the point of "WTF?" -- before I looked at the actual questionnaire, to see they're looking at capabilities within different configurations, and not "tell us what missions we should be conducting in the north."  ~whew~

 

[GR66]

I don't claim any expertise in the deep, dark hidden meanings and biases written into procurement requirements but this bit in the section on interoperability seemed very interesting to me:

a. State how your aircraft is seamlessly interoperable
with the following US Air Force assets including
Air Refuelling assets
a. F-15C, F-16C, F22A, KC-135
b. Is your aircraft’s datalink system currently
compatible with the following US Air Force fighter
aircraft:
a. F-15C, F-16C, F-22A

I know that technically the F-35 hasn't yet achieved IOC (but from what I've read here it is imminent) and it is some time off before it achieves FOC but since the F-35 will be the primary fighter of the USAF going forward does it not seem strange that interoperability with it is not even mentioned in the document?  Wouldn't that actually be a key requirement in properly fulfilling the NORAD role for any new RCAF fighter?