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

[HB_Pencil]

Our only successful aircraft purchases have been those in service, in operation with other militaries: C-17; C130J; CH-147.  On the other hand, if you want to buy an aircraft "still working out the kinks" may I suggest you look at the CH-148.

Biggest problem with this is the CF-18, which we decided to buy at a much earlier stage comparatively to where the F-35 is now. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Biggest problem with this is the CF-18, which we decided to buy at a much earlier stage comparatively to where the F-35 is now.

If you can trust Wikipedia for dates:

F-18 First Flight:  18 November 1978
CF-188 Introduction: 7 January 1983

F-35 First Flight:        15 December 2006

 

[HB_Pencil]

If you can trust Wikipedia for dates:

F-18 First Flight:  18 November 1978
CF-188 Introduction: 7 January 1983

F-35 First Flight:        15 December 2006

I wouldn't go by first flight, rather time until IOC in this case to understand maturity: Canada decided to purchase the CF-18 in April 1980, USN IOC was in April 1983. If Canada decided today on the F-35 we'd be basically a year after USMC IOC, and a few months before the USAF IOC. In reality this is really a discussion in semantics: the capability's maturity if fairly evident both in comparison to its competitors, and as a comparison with where the F/A-18A was at its development. Canada actually had issues with its original acquisition because it was in some ways ahead of the USN's own transition process, which complicated our own efforts.

 

[dapaterson]

Don't compare the USMC and USAF IOC dates; they are only slightly related aircraft (and a large part of the program problems).

 

[HB_Pencil]

Don't compare the USMC and USAF IOC dates; they are only slightly related aircraft (and a large part of the program problems).

No, they are very relevant. Much of the dissimilarity between the two aircraft are in its structural and propulsion elements. While they may result in some production and sustainability issues, that really ignores the primary cost and capability drivers of the airframe: Avionics. The core of this system is 100% common, and this area accounts for 55% (and perhaps as high as 60%) of the aircraft unit cost. Developmentally, this has been the primary focus of the program for the past few years.

The Marines went to IOC utilizing the 2B avionics package. Probably the best way to describe it is that this capability reflected what a 4th generation aircraft like the F/A-18E would offer for avionics capability, and a very restricted ordnance selection (though it should be noted that the weapons offered account for the majority of weapons deployed by the US military for the last decade). It did not possess sensor fusion, which the USAF (and marines) employ with Block 3I.

Really if the F-35 did not employ Sensor fusion and other advanced information management capabilities, they would have long since been in service: they could have compressed the development times significantly and allowed them to enter service several years ago. However in order to fully test and field the electronic capabilities, they have had to employ this protracted development cycle that has been the source of so much criticism.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Hmm. The Tories are ahead in everything except 'social programs'. Education is a right.

As to the Grit's intentions, you're looking at the Little Thug de Shawinigan's helicopter horseshit all over again. The only change in any of this, from that, is the airframe. So, you'll still not, likely, have a new plane or even a decision by the time the PM gets booted from office. They're just putting it in the closet to be found by the party that gets elected next.

 

[MarkOttawa]

White House approval of Super Hornets for Kuwait would sure help keep the production line going--note also unit cost (RCAF?) implications:

U.S. Air Force urges decision on delayed Mideast fighter jet sales

A top U.S. Air Force official on Sunday urged the U.S. government to speed up consideration of long-standing bids by Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain to buy U.S. fighter jets, citing growing frustration among the key U.S. allies in the Gulf about delays in the process.

Air Force Deputy Undersecretary Heidi Grant said she was trying to reassure those countries that Washington's failure to approve billions of dollars of U.S. arms sales to them would not alter their strong bilateral air force-to-air force relationships with the United States.

"I would like to see a decision soon," Grant told Reuters in an interview on the eve of the Farnborough Airshow in southern England. Grant said she "absolutely" saw growing frustration among officials in the three countries, which have asked to buy a variety of U.S. fighter planes.

"It's caused us to do more to reassure them that this one transaction should not impact the larger relationship ... that they are very valued partners," she said. "Hopefully the delay in this decision to move forward isn’t going to have any impact."

Grant said the three requests were still being worked on "at the highest levels of our government." She declined to comment on what was holding up the decisions.

All three arms sales have stalled amid concerns raised by Israel that equipment sent to Gulf states could fall into the wrong hands and be used against it, and by the Obama administration's desire to integrate arms sales decisions into its broader decision-making on military aid to the Gulf.

The Pentagon and State Department have both have signed off on the sale of 36 F-15 fighter jets to Qatar for about $4 billion, and 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Kuwait for about $3 billion, both built by Boeing Co, according to sources familiar with the matter. A third deal would sell about 16 Lockheed Martin Corp F-16 fighter jets to Bahrain in a deal valued at just under $1 billion.

The White House has not yet approved the sales, although the Kuwait sale at least is expected to see approval before the Obama administration leaves office, the sources said [emphasis added]...

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus last month warned the U.S. Navy could see the cost of new F/A-18E/F Super Hornets rise unless the government approves foreign sales of the jets soon [emphasis added].

Mabus said he was frustrated by delays in approving the sale of the Boeing jets to a close U.S. ally.

Senior U.S. officials have said they are keen to see the Boeing F-15 and F/A-18 production lines in St. Louis, and the Lockheed F-16 line in Fort Worth, Texas, continue, and do not want to foreclose options on fourth-generation aircraft.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-britain-usa-mideast-idUSKCN0ZQ0B2

One is still amazed at how public the US services make their views even when not comfortable for the administration.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

$3B USD for the Kuwaiti deal, about $125M USD an aircraft. Likely $25M of that is support costs that you'd have to pay for any airframe. Super Hornet price keeps climbing, F-35 keeps dropping. Interesting on the F-15 pricetag, under $100M USD a plane. I wonder what model they're getting?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's not likely you'll get a plane, or even a commitment for one, from this government.

All they are doing is dusting off Chretien's helicopter plan and changing the airframe, expecting people to have forgotten about it by now.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So if I get this straight, it's 7 B$ US for the acquisition of 60 Gen. 4 aircrafts.

Meanwhile, the CPC plans for acquisition of 65 Gen. 5 F-35 (and we are allowed to talk about acquisition cost only because the Trudeau Libs said that they would only use those figures from now on so as to not "confuse" Canadians) called for 9 B$ Canadian.

In term of cost, I'd call that a pretty even crap shoot.

 

[PuckChaser]

If we us the current USD, $9B CAD is $6.86B USD. Use the full rate production estimate of $85M USD, add $25M for acquisition costs that I credited the Super Hornet, total of $110M USD per aircraft. Buys us 62 F-35s. Pretty good considering when the $9B cost figure was released, the dollar was at par. Its almost like the Tories are good fiscal planners....

 

[HB_Pencil]

So if I get this straight, it's 7 B$ US for the acquisition of 60 Gen. 4 aircrafts.

Meanwhile, the CPC plans for acquisition of 65 Gen. 5 F-35 (and we are allowed to talk about acquisition cost only because the Trudeau Libs said that they would only use those figures from now on so as to not "confuse" Canadians) called for 9 B$ Canadian.

In term of cost, I'd call that a pretty even crap shoot.

No, that's incorrect. The pure acquisitions' price (recurring flyaway) of the F-35 is actually $6.5 billion dollars. The 2.5 billion on top of that is milcon, project management, initial set up, spares ect. That 7 billion figure for F/A-18Es is the rough equivalent to the 6.0 billion. That's the way its been for the past six years, as puck chaser pointed out.

This has never been about the F-35's cost, or its availability: its purely about politics.

 

[cavalryman]

This has never been about the F-35's cost, or its availability: its purely about politics.

Jean Chretien pulled the same crap with the EH101 a generation  ago.  This kind of short sighted imbecility  must be part of the liberal genetic makeup.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good question:

Replacing the CF-18: What's the plan, Mr. Sajjan?
The government seems to be backing away from an 'interim' fleet. So what does it want?

Just a few weeks ago, the Canadian government seemed poised to acquire a number of interim Super Hornet aircraft to offset a purported imminent “capability gap”, owing to its aging fleet of CF-18 aircraft.

News of this possible plan arose in the midst of public consultations for the government’s Defence Policy Review (DPR), raising more than a few eyebrows. Also noted was the Trudeau government’s less-than-clear stance on whether it ultimately would proceed with an interim fighter, although it certainly seemed ready to prepare the groundwork: Trudeau refused to repeat his promise for an open competition and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was increasingly vocal about problems with the CF-18 fleet.

The idea of an interim or “bridging” fleet proved controversial. Commentators — ourselves included — were quick to question whether we were really facing so pressing a capability gap given the previous government’s plan to extend the service life of the CF-18 fleet by several years. Another concern was the extent to which acquiring interim aircraft could result in the creation of an expensive mixed fleet...

at the recent DPR roundtable with defence industry representatives, Minister Sajjan seemed to take a step back from this possibility. His comments at this meeting were, admittedly, highly generalized. But a careful parsing of his words indicates a possible retreat from the notion of an interim fleet — which would be a highly prudent thing to do.

First, Sajjan admits there will be an upgrade to allow “some” CF-18s to continue operating until 2025. This is an important admission. The previous government had plans for a life extension upgrade to keep the planes flying – a possibility the current government seemed to have largely ignored thus far in favour of an interim fleet. Moreover, these upgrades promise to extend the timeline on when a capability gap will arise until early in the next decade.
open quote 761b1bBy proceeding with renewed industry consultations, it looks like the government is simply repeating what its predecessor did in 2012.

Sajjan also says only “some” CF-18s will be operational by 2025. This still leaves open the possibility that the entire fleet will benefit from a life-extension upgrade. As noted in the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat’s Report, the option of extending the CF-18 service life to 2025 would mean that the first plane would retire by 2021 and the last by 2025.

Second, the defence minister still acknowledges a current capability gap. As he notes, only half of the fleet of 77 CF-18s are available— which isn’t sufficient for NATO and NORAD commitments. This situation promises only to get worse, even with the planned upgrade...

Lastly, Defence Minister Sajjan raised the prospect of aerospace industry consultations over the summer, in which he’ll seek “up to date information from leading manufacturers” on key issues. So it would not be surprising to see the government undertake a new Statement of Requirements (SOR) on the fighter aircraft replacement in the months ahead.

But by proceeding with renewed industry consultations, it looks like the government is simply repeating what its predecessor did in 2012 — when it “reset” the F-35 decision by undertaking renewed industry consultations and an options analysis that compared different capability and cost criteria for a number of aircraft, while putting together an independent panel of experts to look into these issues, with their conclusions proving favourable to the F-35.

The government needs to be clear on how these forthcoming consultations will be distinct from the previous one, and whether it still intends to proceed with an open competition...

Dr. David McDonough is research manager and senior editor at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDA Institute), and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University. Tony Battista is the chief executive officer of the CDA and CDA Institute. Views expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the CDA Institute.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/07/11/replacing-the-cf-18-whats-the-plan-mr-sajjan/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Note JPO angle on Lockheed subcontracting at end:

Fighter Makers Cast Wary, Or Optimistic, Eye On Canada
Long-postponed fighter choice has key manufacturers on edge
...
No matter what fighter aircraft is selected, Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan wants any deal to include local jobs for skilled laborers as well as high-end technology.

Jeff Babione, Lockheed’s F-35 vice president and general manager, says he is confident the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will trounce any rival, as it recently did in Denmark. However, if Canada opts for a stopgap Super Hornet buy, he does not see the country’s industrial participation continuing at today’s level.

Fifteen years after Lockheed was selected to develop the F-35, Canada has not put money down for a single airplane, although it remains a bill-paying member of the JSF program writ large. But in light of the possibility of the country exiting from the program, Lockheed is actively looking at how long it would take another supplier to assume the F-35 work now performed in Canada, Babione says.

“There is a time line where we might have to take a look and say, ‘someone else could do that work,’” tapping in a partner that actually is buying airplanes, Babione said at the Royal International Air Tattoo in the U.K., where the F-35 made its international debut.

Lockheed notes on its F-35 website that Canadian firms have already secured more than $750 million in contracts related to the F-35 program across 200 projects, which is “more than double Canada’s current investment in the F-35 program.”

Lockheed President/CEO Marillyn Hewson says losing 65 orders would not substantially affect the price, and industry remains committed to driving down the F-35A unit cost to $85 million by 2019.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Vice President Orlando Carvalho tells Aviation Week his team is in the process of answering a questionnaire Canada provided to all the potential bidders. He says his company will coordinate with the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) on any workshare adjustments, should Canada decide to abandon ship.

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall says it is up to the prime contractor Lockheed, and not the F-35 JPO, to figure out how the workshare will be divided if Ottawa exits.

“We will have to deal with that as the situation arises,” he says. “I think there would be a pretty strong reaction among the rest of the partners to continuing to provide workshare to a country that’s not participating in buying aircraft.”

The Pentagon has no standard process in place to deal with one partner withdrawing from the program, but future contracts with Canadian industry would likely be up in the air, Kendall says. “I don’t think we would stop any existing work that’s in place; we’re not going to cancel any contracts as far as I’m concerned that are ongoing,” he says...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/fighter-makers-cast-wary-or-optimistic-eye-canada

Mark
Ottawa

 

[childs56]

My understanding is originally Canada had no intent to buy the the F35, but we wanted in on the possibility to buy if the need was there. Canada also wanted in on the R&D, Our Allies wanted us in on the R&D.
If they were to cancel any and all work in Canada towards the F35, Lockheed would be even further behind on their project for delivery. Because the R&D done by Canadian companies is not specifically for the F35 but more so it is towards future fighters. As such the stoppage of work would result in Lockheed having to pretty much start from scratch at a new factory for the specific capability and equipment.

It would be interesting to see how Lockheed figures that they can Hold us or any other country to a intent to purchase if they really have not provided a solid date of delivery many years past their promise.
In the end Canada may loose a few jobs over it, but in the end Lockheed will need Canada for its manufacturing and R&D to continue with future projects.

Right now we need to replace and supplement what we currently have to fill the gaps that will be coming up in the near future not only with operations but also with training. If that means a few new F18s then so be it.
The intent to purchase X amount of F35 should not change if we actually intended to do so, even if we buy another 20-40 different platforms. We need Fast Air, we need it now now another 5-15 years from now.

Buy off the shelf for the next 10 years projection of use. Then buy the F35 or the next next next Gen fighter. 

 

[Good2Golf]

CTD, very interesting point you raise about how LMCO would go about REPLACING production of some key components.  Would be interesting to follow the trail of IP on the various sub-systems that were developed to spec by Canadian aerospace industries...

Methinks it's not a clear-cut, "screw you, you're out, Canada!"

 

[YZT580]

If Canada were to order the F35 now for delivery when available would there really be any significant difference in delivery time between them and new Hornets?  After all neither a/c is available off the lot but must be scheduled and assembled.  I grant you that there would be a greater training period required for the F35 but with operational approval pending would buying hornets gain anything other than allowing Trudeau to make good on a really dumb election promise?

 

[childs56]

My understanding is that the Super Hornet is still in low rate production being delivered to the US. If we were to sign a contract with in six months maybe less we could be seeing our first jet. It would depend on the US and their order at the time. If you want a Jet built and delivered within a short time frame you need to order them now.
Realistically we would not see any sizable amount of F35s until 2020 at the earliest. I think that to is very optimistic as Canada was not a major buyer of this platform. There are many others ahead of the build list.

 

[Good2Golf]

One never knows.

When the Harper government floated the trial balloon of getting four LRIP aircraft as a training nexus, to trade them back in after a few years when the high-rate production block ran, it seemed like JPO and LMCO were all over the deal.  The Liberals were some of the loudest objectors to the plan, and thus it quietly died on the vine...

Funny how even right back to 2002 when Alan Williams noted, as the Government of Canada signatory to the JSF MOU, how JSF was all about Canadian aerospace industry involvement and not about actually getting the aircraft for the military, his rose-coloured glasses failed to appreciate the nuance of the phasing of expectations as the program proceeded - not sure how a highly-experience mandarin could possibly have thought (or believed) that Canada's decision to proceed or not with procuring the F-35 would in no way affect Canadian industry's likelihood of receiving follow-on contracts once things started to get rolling. ???

I think, years down the road, we'll 'on-board' the JSF program, but that Trudeau's combination of Chretien-like hubris (Zip - Zero - Nada!) and Martin's perceived (or earned) ability of dithering, will earn Canadian aerospace industry the "also ran" award, a pat on the head, and significantly less money to industry than those nations that accepted and climbed on, spurs jangling, for the 8-second bull ride on the JSF rodeo.  Canada will have shown itself to be a great self-congratulatory cheering section in the stands, then try to get on the bull only after the JSF cowboys have wrestled the bull back into its stall and let the crowd come up and pat the bull once it's tied up.

I would have love to have been a fly on the wall back in November when the new government was getting its transition briefs and the table went quiet during the JSF brief when they realized that the F-35 was indeed the best plane and would be not only the cheapest for its life-cycle (for it is the next mass-produced F-16) but most capable when it's still flying in 2050-2060...

:2c:

G2G