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

[MarkOttawa]

Oldgateboatdriver: Thanks--but Air Marshals and LGENs are still three stars.  Another comparison, hope better:
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/armed_forces_ranks.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

Also, he does not mention the Royal Marines traditional rank-up-one when at sea.... I cannot recall where this tradition comes from or why it exists, but it is so.

Probably the same thinking that sees the US Marines as a Department of the Navy -- the Men's  Department.      :stirpot:


I also note a Private rank of "Kingsman."  I thought that was a Secret Service...where "manners make the man."  :nod:



[Can't wait to see the Mods sort out this derail!  op:  ]

 

[Kirkhill]

Probably the same thinking that sees the US Marines as a Department of the Navy -- the Men's  Department.      :stirpot:


I also note a Private rank of "Kingsman."  I thought that was a Secret Service...where "manners make the man."  :nod:



[Can't wait to see the Mods sort out this derail!  op:  ]

Must be Saturday......

 

[Journeyman]

Must be Saturday......

And dog days, at that.  :nod:

 

[McG]

Looks like both Lockheed and Boeing will use the Abbotsford Air Show to market their planes to the Canadian public.

http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/f-35-to-debut-in-canada-at-abbotsford-international-airshow/
&
http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/events/2016-performers/

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Looks like both Lockheed and Boeing will use the Abbotsford Air Show to market their planes to the Canadian public.

http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/f-35-to-debut-in-canada-at-abbotsford-international-airshow/
&
http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/events/2016-performers/

But will it actually perform an aerial routine? The impression I get from the article is that it will be only on static display.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Even if they did fly, it wouldn't show much in terms of capabilities...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Interesting that possible sale to RCAF not mentioned--lots of detail on possible upgrades (not in quote) and note challenge to Danish F-35 selection (Canada?):

Boeing Execs Confident of Turnaround as Jet Fighter Production Slows

The Boeing Co. is hoping that upgrades and international sales of its legendary F/A-18E and F-15 aircraft — as well as an upcoming Air Force trainer program — will keep its jet fighter production lines humming well into the next decade, company executives said Sept. 12.

Despite dwindling production of the F/A-18E Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in recent years, the company is “very confident” that it would continue to produce aircraft for the domestic services and international customers into the 2020s, said Dan Gillian, Boeing vice president and F/A-18 program manager.

“Two years ago, we would have ended production in 2016,” he said. “Now, we’re optimistic about a bright future … well into the next decade.”

The company plans to recommend a series of upgrades for the Navy’s Advanced Super Hornet and Growler fleets and the Air Force’s F-15 Eagle fleet that would extended their ranges and add capabilities to combat emerging threats, Gillian said.

These include the Super Hornet service life extension program, which aims to extend the planes from 6,000 hours of service to over 9,000 miles, he said…

Boeing is currently producing two Super Hornets per month at its St. Louis facilities, but that could change with new U.S. and international orders, Gillian said. Boeing is in discussions at various levels with international customers including Kuwait, Australia and India to buy the Super Hornet, he added [emphasis added.

The company announced Sept. 15 that it would formally challenge the Danish Ministry of Defence's choice to procure Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II for its future fighter jet, rather than the Super Hornet...

“Super Hornets and Growlers will be flying alongside F-35s into the 2040s [emaphasis added, with USN]…”‘
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2300

Mark
Ottawa

 

[BurmaShave]

Interesting that possible sale to RCAF not mentioned--lots of detail on possible upgrades (not in quote) and note challenge to Danish F-35 selection (Canada?):

Mark
Ottawa

Some questions:

So, Boeing is suing Denmark because they think they know the requirements of the Danish MoD better than the Danish MoD does? That sounds odd.

Are the F-15s in the Israel deal new build? I was under the impression that they were surplus USAF ones, no gain to Boeing.

What is an "Advanced Super Hornet" gonna cost? Low price is about the only thing the Rhino has going for it.


And, an observation:

Despite all these expensive prospective upgrades, they're still not going to change the goddamn canted inboard pylons? C'mon, Boeing.

 

[a_majoor]

The Advanced Super Hornet proposes to have a clean airframe by eliminating the need for drop tanks through the addition of conformal tanks, and possibly eliminating the canted wing pylons by carrying ordinance in the low observable "pod" under the centreline. I note that there seems to be no reason not to retrofit other aircraft with this pod (large aircraft like the F-15 might carry one under each wing and one under the centreline), and even stealth aircraft like the Raptor and F-35 would benefit from being able to carry more ordinance than what is possible in the internal bays.

 

[MilEME09]

The Advanced Super Hornet proposes to have a clean airframe by eliminating the need for drop tanks through the addition of conformal tanks, and possibly eliminating the canted wing pylons by carrying ordinance in the low observable "pod" under the centreline. I note that there seems to be no reason not to retrofit other aircraft with this pod (large aircraft like the F-15 might carry one under each wing and one under the centreline), and even stealth aircraft like the Raptor and F-35 would benefit from being able to carry more ordinance than what is possible in the internal bays.

It should also be noted that Boeing claims the radar cross section of the Advanced Super Hornet is 50% less then the super hornet, combined with the weapons pod in theory I would call this a Gen 4.75 aircraft, that would be still viable in todays battle space. If the claims hold up

 

[BurmaShave]

The Advanced Super Hornet proposes to have a clean airframe by eliminating the need for drop tanks through the addition of conformal tanks, and possibly eliminating the canted wing pylons by carrying ordinance in the low observable "pod" under the centreline. I note that there seems to be no reason not to retrofit other aircraft with this pod (large aircraft like the F-15 might carry one under each wing and one under the centreline), and even stealth aircraft like the Raptor and F-35 would benefit from being able to carry more ordinance than what is possible in the internal bays.

Soooo...two of the famous downsides (stores capacity, maneuverability) of the dreaded F-35, in trade for two of the upsides (clean combat radius, and IRST). It'll have 2 engines (yay, political points) and be proven technology (ish). In trade, worse stealthing (no RAM, unstealthy airframe), worse radar (APG-79 instead of APG-81), no sensor fusion, no EODAS (still have to hang the ATFLIR off the shoulders, too)...Boeing's just not doing it for me with this one. Price dependent, but, given the cost of a normal Rhino, plus all these bells and whistles, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

E&OE; I am, after all, a massive noob.

 

[BurmaShave]

It should also be noted that Boeing claims the radar cross section of the Advanced Super Hornet is 50% less then the super hornet, combined with the weapons pod in theory I would call this a Gen 4.75 aircraft, that would be still viable in todays battle space. If the claims hold up

AFAIK (keeping in mind that I am a wee spring chicken), a 50% RCS reduction on the Rhino wouldn't really do much, as a viability thing.

The RCS of a Super Hornet commonly is quoted at 0.1m2 RCS, similar to the rest of the "Gen 4.5" crowd. A 50% reduction (to 0.05) might be enough to write "Gen 4.75" on your brochure, but it's not going to make up much ground against the (published) 0.0015m2 on the F-35, or the (published ("metal marble"), likely lower ("metal fly")) 0.0005m2 of the F-22. You're still going to have a massive detection range deficit against a true stealth aircraft (halving your RCS doesn't halve your detection range, it's non-linear to the 4th power (inverse square law coming and going). You instead reduce your detection range by 16%.). An F-35 with the APG-81 is going to see you 3 times farther away than you'll see him (math via Radar Evaluation Handbook, by Dr. David K. Barton), and, more importantly, is going to be able to engage you while remaining undetected (based on the estimated Rpi of the AIM-120C7 under practical conditions, not Raytheon's ludicrously long range published figure).

In slightly less technical terms, a 50% RCS reduction gives a 16% detection range reduction, which won't really give you a competitive advantage against Gen 4.5 stuff (who can see farther than they can shoot, anyways), and won't save you from being clubbed like a baby seal by Gen. 5 stuff.

Regarding battlefield viability, that's a bit nebulous. If all you want is a Gen 4.5 aircraft (not interested in "near-peer" conflict), sure, it'll be competitive with the EF, Rafale, Gripen, and the like (I don't think a 16% detection range reduction really merits a Gen 4.75 designation, whatever Saab might say about the Gripen NG). Is it a viable substitute for Gen 5 stuff? No.

 

[a_majoor]

And the real deal with the F-35 is the sensor fusion and cooperative targeting. A flight of F-35's is a bit like taking an AWACS and distributing it among multiple airframes, so they can see, fight and better yet command multiple other aircraft and weapons in the battlespace. Gen 4 and 4.5 aircraft will be viable, but if they are able to link into the system, the enemy might have a 16% deficit in detection range but you will know their location, get their marching orders and be set up in the right place to deliver the kill before they are able to respond.

If we don't get CF-35's, I hope we spend the money to buy long range missiles like the MBDA Meteor to carry in the weapons pod. The CF-18s can still be useful as weapons trucks for American air commanders. Indeed the contribution to the alliance may be reduced to being weapons trucks for targets that are detected, prioritized and marked by allies which do have F-35's.

 

[Good2Golf]

AFAIK (keeping in mind that I am a wee spring chicken), a 50% RCS reduction on the Rhino wouldn't really do much, as a viability thing.

The RCS of a Super Hornet commonly is quoted at 0.1m2 RCS, similar to the rest of the "Gen 4.5" crowd. A 50% reduction (to 0.05) might be enough to write "Gen 4.75" on your brochure, but it's not going to make up much ground against the (published) 0.0015m2 on the F-35, or the (published ("metal marble"), likely lower ("metal fly")) 0.0005m2 of the F-22. You're still going to have a massive detection range deficit against a true stealth aircraft (halving your RCS doesn't halve your detection range, it's non-linear to the 4th power (inverse square law coming and going). You instead reduce your detection range by 16%.). An F-35 with the APG-81 is going to see you 3 times farther away than you'll see him (math via Radar Evaluation Handbook, by Dr. David K. Barton)...

If you don't have Skolnik's Radar Handbook, you should get it.  Barton is okay, but Skolnik is the gold standard for all Old Crows.... 

Good work with the numbers, thought. :nod:

Regards
G2G

 

[BurmaShave]

If you don't have Skolnik's Radar Handbook, you should get it.  Barton is okay, but Skolnik is the gold standard for all Old Crows.... 

Good work with the numbers, thought. :nod:

Regards
G2G

Hah, thanks 

Looks like I've got some new bedtime reading, haha.

 

[Good2Golf]

Hah, thanks 

Looks like I've got some new bedtime reading, haha.

Luckily the price has come down.  I bought mine for close to $400...(a 'few' years ago) 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Keeping the Super Hornet line going:

Boeing’s F-15, F/A-18 Deals With Qatar and Kuwait Now ‘Imminent’

The head of Boeing Military Aircraft says fighter deals with Qatar and Kuwait are now “imminent” after clearing all regulatory hurdles.

Qatar wants 36 Boeing F-15s while Kuwait is seeking two squadrons of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with an option for a third group.

The deals are worth an estimated $4 billion and $3 billion, respectively, but have been held up because of concerns about Israel’s security. Both arms sales are now proceeding after the White House approved a ten-year, $38 billion military aid package with Israel, which itself could include funding for more F-15I and Lockheed Martin F-35I squadrons.

“We believe they’re imminent,” Boeing Military Aircraft executive Shelley Lavender said of the Qatar and Kuwait deals during an interview at the company’s headquarters near Washington on Sept. 21. Asked for when she expects those deals will close, she said: “Very soon. We should be over all hurdles.”

Deals for more F-15s and F/A-18s couldn’t come soon enough for Boeing’s fighter factory in St. Louis, Missouri, which needs more orders to keep production humming into the 2020s.

The Strike Eagle deal would extend the F-15 line well beyond 2020, although there could be some gap between the delivery of 94 jets to Saudi Arabia in early 2019 and the start of final assembly for Qatar. There are also F-15SGs in production for Singapore. Boeing has captured additional F/A-18 orders from the Navy, but needs extra orders to remain financially viable beyond late 2018...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-s-f-15-fa-18-deals-qatar-and-kuwait-now-imminent

Reason for pressure on Canada.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Boeing brings up Bombardier (at end):

Canada looking at data in fighter jet purchase: Boeing executive

Canada is assessing data from bidders to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets, a Boeing Co executive said on Monday [Sept. 26]...

While the government has yet to release details on such a competition, it requested data this summer from five companies that have fighter aircraft in production or planned production, including Lockheed and Boeing, which wants Canada to buy its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

The government sought up-to-date information on areas including capabilities and economic benefits.

"The focus on data was very clear, very strong," said Marc Allen, president of Boeing International, the unit which handles Boeing's strategy and operations outside the United States. "It gave all of the suppliers a chance to set down in black and white what it is their platform does."

Since then, Boeing has been engaged in a "ping-pong" set of questions and answers with the government, said Allen.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said the government foresees a growing capability gap in the 2020s and that there is an urgent need to replace the CF-18s.

"They know it's imperative to solve that capability gap," said Allen. "They are moving in a way that says they understand that."

Allen said ordinarily it can take multiple years from when an order is placed to when jets are delivered [but Beoing could be faster?]...

As Boeing campaigns to win the contract, it is citing the work opportunities that would be available to Canadian firms across the country if the federal government were to purchase the Super Hornet

Allen did not rule out giving work to struggling planemaker Bombardier Inc, noting that Boeing always works with its competitors [emphasis added].

"We're not going to rule out anybody from the perspective of who would be a good partner," he said...
http://www.reuters.com/article/cbusiness-us-boeing-canada-idCAKCN11W2JG

Mark
Ottawa

 

[George Wallace]

Just what we need; another cash infusion to an incompetently run Canadian Aviation Company that is moving much of its production off shore.  This brings up the question of CTAT.  What agreements does the US have with Mexico when it comes to holding US technologies?