• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Doesn't make much sense for a government that has already once disavowed itself (in the middle of a successful air campaign) from the use of airpower as foreign policy enforcement/support tool. Air observation/targeting seems to be more their appetite. Are we sure these are not Growlers?
 
The Growlers are not observation and targeting birds.

Funny enough, however, the Growlers are designed to do that which the stealth aspect of the F-35's is there to do: Deny the enemy the use of the electro-magnetic spectrum over their own territory so they cannot know that you are coming, or figure out what you are doing, or use the spectrum to target you for attack.
 
http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2016/11/28/liberals-changed-fighter-jet-requirement-says-air-force-commander.html

News / Canada

Liberals changed fighter jet requirement, says air force commander

By: Lee Berthiaume The Canadian Press Published on Mon Nov 28 2016

OTTAWA - Opposition critics accused the Liberal government of trying to manufacture a crisis Monday after the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force pulled back the curtain on Canada's apparent fighter-jet shortage.

Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood told the Senate defence committee the Liberals recently changed the number of jet fighters he is required to have ready at any given time for NATO missions and to defend North America.

The change was made after he testified in April that he was "comfortable" with the air force's current fleet of CF-18s, Hood said.

As a result, the current number of CF-18s available is now insufficient, Hood said, while Canada will also need to buy more new planes than originally expected.

The previous Conservative government had planned to purchase 65 F-35 stealth fighters.

"Certainly the policy of the government of Canada would mean that 65 is not sufficient," Hood said, later adding: "They've changed the policy of the number of aircraft I have to have."

The fatal crash of a CF-18 fighter jet near Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake in Alberta cast a shadow over Hood's appearance before the committee, with the meeting cut short after he confirmed the pilot had died.

But while expressing condolences for the family of the pilot, who had not yet been identified, the air force commander said he didn't see any link between the crash and the debate over the fighter jet fleet.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan pointed to the policy change on aircraft numbers when he announced last week that Canada planned to buy 18 Super Hornet jets as an "interim" solution to the air force's "capability gap" until a competition to replace the CF-18s could be held.

Hood shed some more light on it on Monday, saying the Liberals increased the number of jets the air force is required to have available at a moment's notice.

Asked the reason for the change after the committee meeting, Hood said: "I'm not privy to the decisions behind the policy change."

The minister previously said the Liberals are not comfortable with the same level of "risk" as the previous government because Canada was not capable of meeting both NORAD demands and NATO demands at the same time.

Critics immediately latched onto Hood's comments as proof the Liberal decision to buy Hornets now and delay a competition to replace the CF-18s for five years is part of a larger plan to avoid buying the F-35.

"He's confirmed the numbers required was a political decision," said Conservative defence critic James Bezan. "This is a hoax and completely politically driven."

Hood revealed to reporters that the change implemented by the government since April relates to Canada's relationship with NATO.

Until recently, Canada committed a certain number of fighter jets as well as ships, troops and other military equipment on a voluntary basis each year. Any fighter jets committed were drawn from the stock providing defence of North America, Hood said.

But under the new policy, Canada will have what Hood described as a "firm" commitment to NATO in terms of the number of aircraft that it must provide. While he did not reveal specifics, Hood said the result is that he can't draw upon those defending the continent.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute questioned why the government would change the policy when it was still in the midst of a comprehensive defence review.

"The change in policy makes what they're doing on fighters seem a lot more rational," he said.

"But it's interesting that change happened outside of the defence policy review, which is looking at all of our defence policies."

Perry also asked whether the Liberal government would shore up Canada's other commitments to NATO, notably to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product.
 
Could they make a "firm" commitment  to NATO for warships too, so we can have a frigate/destroyer gap to fill with "18 interim purchases".

:nod:
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-policy-forcing-need-for-new-jets-rcaf-head/article33085693/

Liberal policy forcing need for new jets: RCAF head

Daniel Leblanc

OTTAWA - The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Nov. 28, 2016 11:18PM EST
Last updated Monday, Nov. 28, 2016 11:26PM EST

Canada needs an interim fleet of fighter jets only because the Liberal government created a policy that increased the number of aircraft that must be available for NORAD and NATO missions at the same time, the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force says.

The Liberals invoked a long-standing “capability gap” last week to justify the sole-source purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornets, but Lieutenant-General Michael Hood on Monday said the need for new jets was caused by the recent policy change.

"Previously … we were comfortable as an armed forces in meeting those [NORAD and NATO commitments] with our extant fleet," Lt.-Gen. Hood told reporters after appearing at a Senate committee.

"That policy has changed with a requirement to be able to meet both of those concurrently, as opposed to managing them together, thus the requirement to increase the number of fighters available," he said.

Lt.-Gen. Hood spoke shortly after a CF-18 from the current fleet crashed in Saskatchewan during a routine training mission near the air-force base in Cold Lake, Alta.

"The pilot did not survive the crash," the head of the RCAF said. "It’s a very, very sad day for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and our hearts go out to the family of our fallen member."

The government has refused to put a firm price on its plans to acquire the 18 new fighter jets, stating it did not want to tip its hand before negotiations with Boeing and the U.S. government.

Still, Lt.-Gen. Hood said that in addition to the acquisition budget, he is trying to determine the costs related to expanding the number of air-force pilots and technicians. He added he has a commitment from Ottawa and the Chief of the Defence Staff for the resources necessary to achieve the government’s goals.

"Certainly I will need more people and I will need more funding to deliver on the additional flight hours for an interim fleet," he told senators.
When it announced plans to buy the "interim" fleet of Super Hornets, the government also said it will launch an open competition next year for a full fleet of fighter jets to replace the 76 remaining CF-18s.

The competition is expected to last five years, with the fleet being fully operational in the late 2020s. The two main contenders are expected to be the Super Hornet and the Lockheed-Martin F-35 stealth fighter jet.

Lt.-Gen. Hood said the previous Conservative government’s plan to buy 65 F-35s would not meet Canada’s new policy in terms of international commitments.

Lt.-Gen. Hood refused to say how many aircraft will be needed, but indicated the number would exceed the current CF-18 fleet, which suggests that acquiring the new fleet will be much more expensive than expected.

"The policy of the government of Canada at present would mean that 65 aircraft aren’t sufficient as the final size of the fleet," he told the committee. "Suffice to say that the [76] that we presently have are incapable of delivering that number."

Opposition critics and defence analysts have criticized the Liberals for invoking a capability gap, with Conservative MP James Bezan saying the government has a "credibility gap."

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has often said that if the capability gap widens, Canada would no longer have a functional fighter jet fleet. Last week, he gave the terrorist attacks of 2001 as an example of why the Super Hornets are needed.

"If anybody thinks we are not going to have any unforeseen situations, think about 9/11, when we had to put every single fighter up in the air," Mr. Sajjan said.

However, Ken Pennie, who was deputy commander of NORAD at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the plan will exacerbate the situation as the RCAF expends resources integrating the Super Hornets.

"It takes time to train people and put everything in place," said Mr. Pennie, a retired lieutenant-general and former head of the air force. "The capability gap is going to get bigger."

******

Ken Pennie was my first Flight Commander when I arrived at 427 Squadron in 1982. He remains one of the finest Officers that I have ever known.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Could they make a "firm" commitment  to NATO for warships too, so we can have a frigate/destroyer gap to fill with "18 interim purchases".

That's next week's surprise.

The following week, it'll be boots that work.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-meetings-1.3866445

Boeing met federal officials 7 times as often as Lockheed Martin in lead-up to fighter deal

'We regularly meet with Canadian government officials' and not always about fighters, says Boeing executive

By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Nov 24, 2016 6:18 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 24, 2016 6:18 PM ET

The U.S. manufacturer set to win the sole-source fighter jet deal had more recorded face time with senior federal officials than its rivals, raising questions about how level the playing field really was in the run-up to this week's announcement. 

The federal lobbyist registry indicates that Chicago-based Boeing, which will provide 18 Super Hornet jets to the air force, had roughly seven times as many official meetings with federal staff since the beginning of the year as rival Lockheed Martin, the maker of the F-35.

The breadth and scope of the access are also extraordinary.

Lobbyists representing Boeing Operations International and Boeing Global Sales met 23 times with federal officials, including with Defence, Industry, Public Services and Procurement and even senior staff in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office.

Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Md., the world's largest defence contractor, had only three recorded meetings, according to the registry.

A spokesman for Boeing was unable to say how many of meetings revolved around the fighter jet decision, but noted the company has wide-ranging business with the federal government and a number of projects on the go, including the recent delivery of industrial benefits under the C-17 heavy lift transport program. 

"We regularly meet with Canadian government officials as part of the normal course of business," said Scott Day, Boeing's international vice-president of communications, who noted the company fielded questions from Canadian officials last summer following a survey of all potential bidders.

Officials at Lockheed Martin did not return messages.

Was there another solution?

But NDP defence critic Randall Garrison says the number of recorded meetings raises questions about whether the Liberals had anything else in mind other than an "interim" sole-source purchase.

It also makes him wonder even more about the kind of open competition the Liberals are planning to run over the next five years.

"They stalled for a year and it looks like they intend to sole-source jets, just like the Conservatives did," he said. "The Liberals are behaving like the Conservatives. The Conservatives had a favourite jet. Now the Liberals have a favourite jet."

Senior federal officials, who are close to the file but asked for anonymity, argued not to read too much into the lobbyist registry, saying it does not capture the full picture.

The officials, who would only speak on background, said there were instances when senior aerospace executives, who are not registered lobbyists, sought and obtained meetings.

One of those times was last summer, according to documents obtained by CBC News under Access to Information legislation.

Ministerial face time

All five potential competitors for the replacement of the air force's CF-18s managed to meet with Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote at the Farnborough International Airshow in Britain last July.

She rarely met with defence contractors interested in specific programs, according to her staff.

In fact, the documents show her officials recommended she avoid meeting directly with competitors and focus on talking with industry groups.
But they made an exception for the annual air show, considered one of the premier aerospace events in the world.

According to a July 7, 2016, memo, officials went out of their way to encourage Foote to take a meeting requested by Lockheed Martin Canada's chief executive and an international vice-president, both of whom were not registered lobbyists.

Foote may not have been taking meetings about the fighter replacement, but public service and procurement documents show her officials met three times with representatives of Boeing, once with Lockheed Martin and once with Dassault, the French aircraft maker that hopes to sell its Rafale jet to Canada.

The federal registry shows lobbyists for Dassault met eight times in total with federal officials, most of the time at National Defence.

Senior executives of both Lockheed Martin and Boeing sought meetings with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan during the annual aerospace summit a few weeks ago, prior to cabinet's approval of the plan.

But officials say they were turned down because of the proximity to the decision. Instead, they were offered sessions with senior officials and only Boeing seized the opportunity.

Regardless of who initiated the meetings, Garrison said he believes the process has now been tilted in favour of Boeing.

"When you buy a third of your fleet from one manufacturer, you no longer have a level playing field for any further competition," he said. "I think that's quite clear."
 
So the liberals have seemed to have enlarged the corner their leader painted them into.

To justify the no F35's they invented the "Capability Gap"
To fill the Capability Gap they sole sourced F18 SH (but only 18)
To justify the sole source they kicked the "open and fair" competition 5 years down the road
To justify the delay they now state they need more new fighters!

But then the sticker shock will hit in about a year followed by "Presto!" GENERAL ELECTION! and......................
Sorry RCAF/CAF no money in the kitty.



This is all from my conspiracy mind and has no basis in fact, but it is fun to speculate the spin going on at the PMO.
 
Loachman said:
That's next week's surprise.

The following week, it'll be boots that work.
I'll be even more surprised if the troops get said mythical unicorn-leather boots ...
 
FSTO said:
This is all from my conspiracy mind and has no basis in fact, but it is fun to speculate the spin going on at the PMO.

I am sure your conspiracy theory is based on precedence set several times over the past century of RCAF aircraft procurement.  >:D
 
Dimsum said:
"Larger" and "more capable" aren't necessarily the same thing.  As mentioned in the NP article, if the countries using F-35s don't let the Super Hornets anywhere near them as they aren't stealthy (not to mention the lack of sensor fusion) and can blow their cover, then what's the point of having them in a coalition environment?

Well.....You can look at it the same way as a runner doing a 'Bear Drill'.  All you have to do is not be the slowest runner.    >:D

In the case of the F-35, just not be the most obvious target.  The others would act as 'bait'.
 
George Wallace said:
Well.....You can look at it the same way as a runner doing a 'Bear Drill'.  All you have to do is not be the slowest runner.    >:D

In the case of the F-35, just not be the most obvious target.  The others would act as 'bait'.

Using sensor fusion and off board cuing/targeting, F-35's can scout ahead, identify targets and set up shots for the following Gen 4 aircraft. This would reduce the role of the RCAF to bomb and missile trucks for USAF targeteers and flight leaders (stop and contemplate the implications of that for a moment), but even then, it is contingent on the other air assets having capable log range weapons for the USAF to take advantage of that. If the case of an RCAF constrained by a mixed fleet of Hornets and Rhinos, each aircraft *should* be carrying the "Stealth pod" (shown of the enhanced Super Hornet demonstrator) carrying long range weapons like the MBDA Meteor AAM or GBU-53/B (Small Diameter Bomb II), allowing them to reach targets 100+ km away.

Of course, since the reason for having an air force seems to have escaped the government's decision makers, the sorts of ordinance being carried isn't going to get proper attention either.
 
Thucydides said:
Using sensor fusion and off board cuing/targeting, F-35's can scout ahead, identify targets and set up shots for the following Gen 4 aircraft. This would reduce the role of the RCAF to bomb and missile trucks for USAF targeteers and flight leaders (stop and contemplate the implications of that for a moment)

If you're talking legal/sovereignty implications, then the Canadian red-card holder (and up the chain) will accept/reject the target on behalf of the CDS, like during OP IMPACT when we had fighters there.  I'm not sure if NORAD works the same way though.
 
From the National Post:

Michael Den Tandt: Super Hornet purchase leaves ‘brave men and women in uniform’ where they’ve always been — last on the list of priorities

It’s truly remarkable, given how Liberal and Conservative MPs speak so often and sincerely of their sacred covenant with the “brave men and women in uniform,” that this country’s air force is obsolete and decrepit, and has been so for as long as anyone now living can remember.

You’d think, given the volume of talk in the House of Commons over the past decade on their behalf, that RCAF pilots – one of whom died Monday, tragically, in a training accident in Cold Lake, Alta. – would be flying X-wing fighters out of Star Wars by now, and not a ragtag fleet of 1980s-vintage refurbs that were new when many members of the current parliament were children.

The Liberal government, with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan leading the charge, has pledged redress with a sole-source purchases of 18 Boeing Super Hornets – the updated version of Canada’s CF-18. So grievous is the “capability gap,” of the Royal Canadian Air Force, we’re told, there’s no time for competitive bids. That’s for later, perhaps as many as five years hence when, with due deference to best practices and Treasury Board guidelines and other such guff that means a lot until cabinet decides it means nothing, the actual next RCAF fighter will be chosen.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II fighter-bomber will be among the competitors at this pageant, gainsaying the Liberals’ 2015 election pledge to nix the vaunted “fifth generation” stealth fighter entirely. But never mind: Five years from now is another term, another cabinet, possibly another government. In political terms it may as well be another universe on another planet. 

Politically, it is all quite clever – which is why the howls of outrage have been muted to non-existent, unlike the state of affairs in late 2012, when the former Conservative government got mauled over its own sole-source plan to buy 65 F-35s, and later shelved it. The reason for the soft landing is twofold.

First, the RCAF really does badly need new fighters. In an increasingly uncertain geopolitical climate, the opposition Conservatives are in no position to argue forcefully against any purchase that makes the Canadian military more capable in the short-term. Second is the aerospace contracts, tied to Canada’s continuing membership in the F-35 consortium.

Those contracts, held by more than 30 Canadian companies that contribute to Lockheed-Martin’s supply chain, are worth more than $600-million. Any final decision to ditch the F-35 would put them at risk – particularly now, we have to assume, with a protectionist U.S. Congress and a protectionist U.S. president on the ascendant.

Kicking this can further down the road keeps Lockheed in the game, at least technically: Since last year, the U.S. weapons manufacturer has lobbied simply for inclusion in an eventual competition, a guarantee it now apparently has.

Political cleverness aside, this is egregiously dishonest, on several fronts.

First, the “capability gap.” It emerged this week that the cabinet, not the RCAF, had arbitrarily changed the definition of how many planes it needed in order to fulfill its basic mandate of protecting Canadian air space and meeting NATO commitments.

This makes sense when you consider the 77 functioning CF-18s are up for another refurb, price tag about $500-milion, that will keep them flying until 2025. There may indeed be a looming emergency that requires Canada to have 95 working fighters (77 plus 18) heading into the next decade. If so, what emergency? And at what budgetary cost?

Had the Conservatives dared to quietly grow the RCAF fighter fleet by 23 per cent, at a cost of $65-$70-milion per plane, the Liberals would have called them warmongers and spendthrifts. To be sure, the Liberals may be embarrassed by the very mention of the CF-18 – having made such a to-do about withdrawing them last spring from the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Having beaten swords into ploughshares, they’re now buying more swords. How awkward.

More disingenuous still is the claim that a proper, open fighter competition is impossible in short order. The five possible selections are the F-35, Boeing’s Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab’s Grippen, and Dassault’s Rafale. The specs, per-unit and operating costs of all these aircraft are known. Given an abridged new statement of requirements, a competition could have been run and a new fighter selected in 2017, industry sources tell me.

Follow the Liberal strategy to its conclusion and you end up with this: A mixed fleet, comprising some CF-18s, 18 newish Super Hornets, and years hence, long after the punters have forgotten Campaign 2015, the F-35 – by which time it, too, will likely be obsolete.

It boils down to this: The “brave men and women in uniform” will get the barest minimum the government can get away with providing, until another military crisis on the scale of the Afghan war forces its hand, after which it will buy whatever equipment it can find, in a panic. It’s how we roll, here in Canada.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-super-hornet-purchase-leaves-brave-men-and-women-in-uniform-where-theyve-always-been-last-on-the-list-of-priorities

c8ijeUx.gif
 
The F-35 won't even be fully combat capable until 2021, when we're set to pick our new fighter.  It'll hardly be obsolete.  More sensationalist media, just like the story about Canada being forced out of the north. 
 
The F-35 is fully combat capable right now.

The fact that not all capabilities are fully developed doesn't mean it can't fight. It can, and the USAF has them in operational squadrons right now.

Besides, 2021 is like tomorrow in materiel timelines, whereas the Liberals want to push the decision of even holding a (fair and open???) competition to 2021.

Do you know what that means, jmt18325? I'll tell you from experience: It means that the actual first delivery is in 2035. What basis do I have for this? It's called the Chretien helicopter fiasco. We went from a signed contract that would have replaced the SeaKings between 1998 and 2004 to still waiting for an operational helicopter today, with probably 12 to 18 months to go before I.O.C.

I suspect that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The F-35 is fully combat capable right now.

How many combat missions have they undertaken?  There's nothing wrong with the F-35 - I'm not one of those people.  It's just not quite ready yet.

The fact that not all capabilities are fully developed doesn't mean it can't fight. It can, and the USAF has them in operational squadrons right now.

Yeah, it can do some things. It's not ready yet to do what it's advertised to do.

Besides, 2021 is like tomorrow in materiel timelines, whereas the Liberals want to push the decision of even holding a (fair and open???) competition to 2021.

I'm not sure that's the way I read it.  I read it as a competition taking until 2021.  But yes, you're right, some of the CF-18s will need to fly until ~2030 (as late as 2032).  That's apparently not a problem.  The USN will just be retiring the last of theirs before that, and the Super Hornet will still be the bulk of their fleet.

In fairness, we're only here because the Conservatives took the easy way out and punted this.  The could have just bought the F-35, like they said they would.

I suspect that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I suspect that you don't either, and that you're just pulling things out of thin air.  I'll go with quoted sources over that any day.
 
Back
Top