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

[MarkOttawa]

French being realistic (can they find a Bombardier angle too?):

After Indian Success, France Targets Malaysia For Rafale Jet Sales
...
The Malaysian procurement is [also] considered a good opportunity by Boeing which manufactures the F/A-18. Malaysia is retiring older versions of F/A-18s in service with its Air Force. Saab which has sold its Gripen fighters to Thailand is also considered a good bet especially when it beat the French in the deal to sell jets to Brazil.

Regarding Canada, which re-opened the competition after public pressure to reject the super-expensive F-35, the French are not so optimistic given ‘American pressure’ on its northern neighbour...
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17180/After_Indian_Success__France_Targets_Malaysia_For_Rafale_Jet_Sales#.V-r6gyRqDIV

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GR66]

I wonder if a European design (FREMM?) were selected for the CSC if it would provide any boost to the Rafale due to some commonality in missiles?

 

[RaceAddict]

Just what we need; another cash infusion to an incompetently run Canadian Aviation Company that is moving much of its production off shore.

There's a lot of their admin going offshore as well... pain in my backside.  :

 

[MarkOttawa]

US OKs Super Hornet sale to Kuwait:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/09/28/white-house-approves-boeing-lockheed-fighter-sales-to-gulf-states/#3460d96a774b

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

Price for the Super Hornets with the options as indicated is $98B CAD per aircraft. (40 planes, $3B USD total value, current currency rates 1USD:1.31CAD)

 

[MilEME09]

unfortunately all of our hens are coming home to roost. We have pushed off a lot of defense spending, and now its going to cost us, a lot, to get what we need I anticipate a price tag no less then $7B once the contract is actually signed.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Making the pitch:

F-35 JPO PEO Goes to Ottawa
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/mark-collins-f-35-jpo-peo-goes-to-ottawa/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Excerpts from an implicitly pro-F-35 piece at the CGAI:

Symbolism and the CF-18 Replacement

The release of the Standing Committee on National Defence’s Report on Canada and the Defence of North America: NORAD and Aerial Readiness last month was, as argued in the Official Opposition’s dissenting opinion, another example of the government’s desire to be portrayed as consulting Canadians yet shaping the issues to align with predetermined party ideas.1 In toto, the report is a decent analysis of the contemporary landscape regarding the defence of North America, however, the conclusions with respect to aerial readiness are inconsistent with the stated scope that limited the study geographically. How does the committee square-the-circle by conflating the high-density threat environment of Canada’s commitments to NATO into the relatively benign Arctic sovereignty mission as a procurement template for the CF-18 replacement in its recommendations?..

...By using the narrowly defined scope of the study, the committee members were able to shape the discussion on the requirements for fighter operations to feed into a predetermined narrative – one that focussed on stealth, number of engines, immediacy of replacement and flyaway costs. This, unfortunately, was a continuation of the politicization of the whole procurement saga...

...the immediacy of a replacement decision (recommendation three) should not be used as a premise for sole-sourcing or narrowly defining the requirement as the CF-18s will last until 2025 and the government is in a good position to quickly conduct a competitive process given the 40,000 person hours of analysis already conducted by government bureaucrats.3 Finally, the first recommendation’s identification of a replacement fighter having “well-defined capital and sustainment costs” and “working .. [within] ... existing infrastructure” shortchanges the true question of economics – that is, the economic logic of an interim 20-year solution versus a long- term 40-year solution.

A fourth-generation fighter will have a life-cycle of roughly 20-25 years before it will become prohibitively expensive to maintain. The fifth-generation fighter will have growing pains (as did the CF-18 in the 1980s), but will evolve with the times and technology with the potential to last for 40 years. Having flown both a third-generation fighter (CF-104) and the fourth-generation CF-18, I can personally attest to the paradigmatic shift in both government strategy and operational tactics that accompanies such a dynamic change in fighter technology. However, only an objective competitive process can fully ascertain the factors within the political and economic dimensions needed to determine the best value for money... 

Alan Stephenson is a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, holds a PhD from Carleton University, and is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces with 3600 fighter hours flying third generation CF-104 Starfighters and fourth generation CF-18 Hornets. He has held senior appointments in National Defence Headquarters, NATO and NORAD.
http://www.cgai.ca/symbolism_and_the_cf_18_replacement

But see from 2014:

F-35 and Canada: Good for “Discretionary” Missions, But…

…its “capabilities…are not a good fit for Canada’s non-discretionary missions.”  So writes (near end of link) a recently retired RCAF major-general...
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/mark-collins-f-35-and-canada-good-for-discretionary-missions-but/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

So some Super Hornets after all as "interim measure"?  How many, any Growlers (good for expeditionary)?  Further to this,

Canada to Sole-Source Some Super Hornets for RCAF After All?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/mark-collins-canada-to-sole-source-some-super-hornets-for-rcaf-after-all/

is the fix in?  Anonymice abound:

Cabinet could decide fighter jet plan as early as Tuesday [Nov. 22], industry sources say

Industry sources expect the Liberal government to decide as early as Tuesday whether to purchase a new fighter jet without a competition.

Federal cabinet ministers are reportedly considering three options for replacing Canada's CF-18s, one of which they are expected to pick during their weekly closed-door meeting on Parliament Hill.

The options include holding a competition, buying a new warplane without a competition, or purchasing an "interim" aircraft as a stop-gap measure until a future competition.

The government was eyeing the third option in the spring, with the intention of buying Boeing Super Hornets, until an outcry from industry and the opposition forced them back to the drawing board.

But while Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan held consultations with different industry players in the summer, industry sources say the interim option is back as the preferred choice [emphasis added, i.e. a limited number of Super Hornets].

Sajjan's office refused to comment on Monday, with a spokeswoman saying only that a decision still has not been made...

Sajjan would only say that the government had done "a considerable amount of work" on the file.

"We will make a decision on replacing the fighters and will pick a process that will meet the needs of Canada."..
http://www.brandonsun.com/national/breaking-news/cabinet-could-decide-fighter-jet-plan-as-early-as-tuesday-industry-sources-say-402327245.html?thx=y

Perish the thought that the Liberal Party's political needs might be another consideration.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Has anyone heard any opinions on whether 2nd seat for UCAV control-jamming (Growler) is becoming a priority?  With the rapid advancement of those technologies it would seem like a wise investment, even though it would require training up 2nd crew members.

 

[PuckChaser]

Estimate successfully situated. Orphan fleet of 18 Super Hornets to be purchased as per Mercedes Stevenson:

https://twitter.com/CTVMercedes/status/801123175488778240

Total cost for the Super Hornets will likely be in the neighbourhood of $5B, if compared to Kuwait's recent order of 48 airframes.

Fighter competition starts at ground zero sometime within this government's mandate. I wonder how many extra aircraft we would have been able to purchase without wasting money on 2 extra useless competitions?

 

[Canuck_Jock]

Estimate successfully situated. Orphan fleet of 18 Super Hornets to be purchased as per Mercedes Stevenson:

https://twitter.com/CTVMercedes/status/801123175488778240

Total cost for the Super Hornets will likely be in the neighbourhood of $5B, if compared to Kuwait's recent order of 48 airframes.

Fighter competition starts at ground zero sometime within this government's mandate. I wonder how many extra aircraft we would have been able to purchase without wasting money on 2 extra useless competitions?

WTF?? So, it's costing us $5bn for the government to avoid making a decision? What a shambles! Australia made the decision to acquire Super Hornets to bridge JSF - but that was 9 years ago.

We know what the answer is, just buy the damned ac.  :facepalm:

EH-101 clusterf*ck redux.

 

[Kirkhill]

My sense?

No purchase.  Lease of US aircraft with training and maintenance in the US.  Details, like dollars, to be negotiated.  4th Down and Punt.

Edit - Particularly like the 5 year competition.2021

Post 2019 election here, post Brexit also ca 2019, post Trump 2020 if they're lucky.

 

[Inspir]

Super Hornets to be purchased as a stop gap measure. You else has a feeling we will be using the Hornet and Super Hornet for the next 30 years while they still try to figure this out?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Anyone get the sense they don't even have a deal negotiated with Boeing at this point? 

 

[George Wallace]

Please do not listen to the Prime Minister on Question Period airing at the moment.  You will be very disappointed. 

 

[George Wallace]

EH-101 clusterf*ck redux.

My immediate thoughts as well.

 

[MilEME09]

My immediate thoughts as well.

My two cents is the typical liberal mind set of kicking the ball down the road for someone else to deal with it. Now they are saying we wont have a finished competition until after the next election. So first delivery's of new aircraft around 2030 lets say that means out Hornets (if any of the non-super are still around then) will be almost 50 years old. Congrats we now of the fighter version of the Sea King, and in the end this will cost us more, a lot more.

 

[George Wallace]

Shall we now start referring to the Hornets as the RCAF "Deuce and a Halfs"?

 

[Inspir]

You would think NATO would have some sort of membership rule stating 'own up to the 2% GDP or you're out'. Do you think if NATO started talking about booting nations out it would really sway the government to start taking Defense spending more seriously?