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

[MilEME09]

100% and that is why we cant have nice things

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Loachman]

With any luck, that will scuttle this nonsense.

 

[jmt18325]

Boeing will have no trouble doing that, considering they have operations here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Canada

I agree though, it would be far better for us to get nothing for a decade or so.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I would love it if LM stepped up with a public release that they'd be willing to provide the 100% IRB, as well.

Something for the media to chew on....

"So, how come you're not putting this up for bid again?"


:warstory:

 

[PuckChaser]

Considering how much of the F-35 contracts have already gone to Canadian companies, I'm willing to bet they're very near or at the threshold. They've exported production to Israel and I believe Australia, wouldn't cause much heartache if they offered to do the final assembly in Canada to cover off the remaining offset. Boeing has an established SH line and would have to export all or nothing, unless it offered to build some other aircraft here.

 

[George Wallace]

Meanwhile:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Liberals put Super Hornet purchase plan in writing
Ottawa says deal to include requirement for Boeing to invest 100% of the contract value in Canada
By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Mar 14, 2017 8:05 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 14, 2017 8:05 PM ET

The Trudeau government has formally asked Washington to facilitate the sole-source purchase of a handful of Super Hornet jet fighters for the air force.

Public Works and Procurement Services, in a statement, said a letter of request was submitted to the U.S. Department of Defence on Monday that outlined Canada's requirements, capabilities, schedule and expected economic benefits.

The Liberal government has been quietly negotiating the deal to buy 18 of the jets since early in the year after announcing last fall that the military needed an interim set of fighters until the entire fleet of aging CF-18s is retired.

Since the Liberals have chosen to buy through the U.S. government, rather than a commercial deal, federal officials say they've made it clear to Washington that they intend to invoke the "Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy."

That means suppliers will be expected to make investments in Canadian businesses equal to 100 per cent of the of the contract value.
It's an attempt to ensure that aerospace companies in this country can participate in the procurement.

"This will ensure that the potential procurement of interim aircraft will help grow Canada's aerospace and defence sector, create high-value jobs and support Canadian innovation," the statement said.

Under the rules of foreign military sales, the benefits will have to be negotiated.

Earlier this winter, Boeing officials said the company was prepared to deliver an offset equal to the purchase price the U.S. navy pays, roughly $85 million ($65 million US) per aircraft.

It's now up to the Pentagon to negotiate with Boeing and come up with an official proposal for Canada.

The deal will also have to be approved by the U.S. Congress.

The statement says it will be the fall of this year before Canadian officials can review the proposal and potential costs.

"We will assess whether an interim Super Hornet fleet purchase will help ensure Canada remains a credible and dependable ally for many years to come," Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said in a statement on Tuesday.

Up to $7B price tag

One set of internal estimates at National Defence, shared with CBC News by anonymous sources in January, suggested the price tag for taxpayers could run between $5 billion and $7 billion over the lifetime of the aircraft.

Boeing officials, in an interview at that time, suggested a contract would take up to year to negotiate, but that Canada had already signalled it would like to see the first aircraft arrive in 2019, which would coincide with the next election.

Given that the company already has contracts from the U.S. navy and Kuwait, Boeing's vice-president of the FA-18 program, Dan Gillian, said the company is looking at how production of Canadian jets can be slotted alongside existing orders.

Additionally, the Liberal government will have to negotiate an in-service support contract and consider buying training simulators for both pilots and perhaps mechanics.

More on LINK.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Fun With Maths:

If the "life cycle cost" of 18 interim F-18F for , basically a 15 years gap, is 5 to 7 b$, what is the equivalent cost for 65 aircrafts over a full period of double that duration (still shorter than the 35 years of the PBO report on the F-35)?

Well, guess what: It would be between 36 and 50 b$, which is more than the forecasted 25 to 40 b$ for the F-35 that led to its cancellation by the Conservatives and the irrational decision to not even consider the F-35 by the Trudeau Liberals.

 

[dimsum]

Fun With Maths:

If the "life cycle cost" of 18 interim F-18F for , basically a 15 years gap, is 5 to 7 b$, what is the equivalent cost for 65 aircrafts over a full period of double that duration (still shorter than the 35 years of the PBO report on the F-35)?

Well, guess what: It would be between 36 and 50 b$, which is more than the forecasted 25 to 40 b$ for the F-35 that led to its cancellation by the Conservatives and the irrational decision to not even consider the F-35 by the Trudeau Liberals.

Now I *know* you said this tongue-in-cheek, but when has "rational" ever come up when politics gets involved in military procurement?

 

[MilEME09]

Now I *know* you said this tongue-in-cheek, but when has "rational" ever come up when politics gets involved in military procurement?

somewhere between September 1 1939, and August 14 1945?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Boeing has dropped the price a bit so that will help, I know we are struggling now manpower wise, but that is fixable if there is a will, but if we are going to do this, lets get about 30 and then get 50 F-35. That would give us 80 modern fighters. Buying 18 is just dumb.

 

[a_majoor]

While this is about the Eagle, for Super Hornets or even Advanced Super Hornets to be more than marginally useful in a modern air war context, they will have to be fitted out as bomb and missile trucks for the controlling (i.e. USAF or NATO or even Japanese and Korean, depending on the theater) F-35's. The stealthy weapons pod for the F-18 might go some way to making this a viable option for the Super Hornet:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25656/eagle-2040c-next-generation-f-15/

The Next Generation F-15 Is Packed With Missiles
Eagle 2040C carries up to sixteen air-to-air missiles and sports a slick new paint job.
By Kyle Mizokami
Mar 13, 2017 

A proposed upgrade for the F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter now has a slick promotional video to show it off. The so-called Advanced Eagle, or F-15 2040C, would team up with fighters like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to take on numerically superior fleets of enemy aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force has traditionally relied on a mixture of larger, more expensive air superiority fighters and lighter, cheaper multi-role fighters to establish air supremacy. The F-15 Eagle and later the F-22 Raptor were designed with one job in mind: air-to-air combat. Unfortunately the best doesn't come cheap. The high cost of the F-22, combined with the end of the Cold War, an economic downturn, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, forced the Pentagon to trim its orignal buy of 750 Raptor fighters to a mere 187.

An emphasis on stealth and staying off enemy radar means the F-22 and F-35 must rely on internal weapons and fuel to get the job done. The F-22 Raptor carries up to six AMRAAM medium range air-to-air missiles and the F-35 up to four. While both planes can carry additional missiles and fuel on their wings, doing so ruins their carefully shaped profiles, increasing their radar signatures. External stores also increase aerodynamic drag, lowering flight performance.

The relatively small number of F-22s in service makes it more likely the F-22 would be outnumbered in any future fight. But there are hundreds of F-15s still in service. Boeing's solution: Make the F-15 a missile truck with more than a dozen AMRAAM missiles. The Advanced Eagle 2040C upgrade would be most useful applied to F-15s updated to the so-called "Golden Eagle" standard, which fits a new AN/APG-63(V)3 active synthetically scanned array (AESA) air-to-air radar to the fighters.

In one possible air-to-air combat scenario, Advanced Eagles would operate with their newer counterparts to rapidly identify and take down larger enemy air fleets. The easier-to-detect and more vulnerable F-15s would hang back, quickly darting forward to launch their missiles at targets identified by F-22s and F-35s. Once their missiles are exhausted the F-15s would turn and head home and the F-22s and F-35s would then use their own built-in armament to continue the fight.

The Advanced Eagle upgrade consists of four so-called "quad pack" hardpoints on the wings, each capable of carrying four AMRAAM missiles for a total of 16. The upgrade also increases the F-15's range with conformal fuel tanks, fuel storage reservoirs that are attached to the body of the aircraft to lower drag.

Probably the most important upgrade is the Talon HATE sensor and communications pod. Currently in testing, Talon HATE allows the F-15 to receive data from F-22s without the enemy picking up on the transmissions. Designed in the 1990s, the F-22 Raptor can only share data with other Raptors via the Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL). In addition to being an infra-red search and track sensor, Talon HATE allows an aircraft equipped with it tap into the IFDL and receive Raptor sensor data. The pilot can see incoming data, along with that from other sources, via a new central touchscreen cockpit display.

F-22s and F-15s are already training to operate together with impressive results. In recent exercises held at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, four F-22s operating alongside four F-15s have achieved a kill ratio of 41 to 1 against 14 simulated enemy aircraft. (Enemy aircraft were allowed to respawn during the exercise.) Upgrading the Eagles to Advanced Eagle status would likely keep the dynamic duo viable into the near future.

The upgraded F-15s would also be useful in taking on less technically advanced air forces. The North Korean Air Force, for example, is numerically large but technologically inferior. Advanced Eagles would do well against such an opponent, freeing up F-22s and F-35s to operate against complex North Korean air defenses or operate in other theaters deterring more powerful potential adversaries.

The Advanced Eagle upgrade would also be useful for other countries that fly the F-15, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Japan. The Japanese F-15J would particularly benefit from a larger missile capability, as the Chinese Air Force rapidly grows in numbers and technology. Japan scrambled fighters 944 times in 2016 to intercept foreign aircraft nearing its airspace, twice as often as in previous years, and recently began to double the number of F-15s sent on intercept missions. Advanced Eagles would allow the Japanese to fly sortie fewer planes, reducing operating costs and wear on already aging airframes.

 

[dimsum]

While this is about the Eagle, for Super Hornets or even Advanced Super Hornets to be more than marginally useful in a modern air war context, they will have to be fitted out as bomb and missile trucks for the controlling (i.e. USAF or NATO or even Japanese and Korean, depending on the theater) F-35's. The stealthy weapons pod for the F-18 might go some way to making this a viable option for the Super Hornet:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25656/eagle-2040c-next-generation-f-15/

I've said this before and I'll say it again; if being a missile truck and staying (relatively) far behind friendly air cover is the goal, then a P-3 or similarly large (size and endurance) platform would be better than an F-15 or SH that still has to AAR every couple of hours. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Missile truck as in AAMs?

Nice try but no.

 

[George Wallace]

Missile truck as in AAMs?

Why not?  It is not as if this has not been done before, with even larger vehicles than the current missiles we have;

The concept is 'sound', don't you think; or is it the 'jet jockey' in you thinking that their job may become redundant?

 

[dimsum]

Missile truck as in AAMs?

Nice try but no.

No, air-to-surface.  Maybe HARMs to supplement Growlers/Prowlers.  Obviously something like a P-3 won't be tangling with fighters.

If we're going to spitball, maybe have one of those larger platforms be a C2 node for UCAVs as well.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The original Missileer, none built:

The Douglas F6D Missileer
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2015/10/the-douglas-f6d-missileer.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

The issue I have with current ideas like using a B-52 as an arsenal plane is the thing is much bigger, has a very obvious signature and is far too slow to keep up with the stealth F-22 and F-35's roaming ahead to target (as well, a missile launched at low speeds has a much shorter range).

Using Super Hornets or rebuilt F-15's (especially Strike Eagles with their enormous conformal tanks) in this role provides a platform with similar flight characteristics to the targeting aircraft, is more robust (losing one Eagle does not deny the use of the extra munitions, while losing a B-52 negates the entire arsenal plane + targeteer package), and if the package is being overwhelmed by superior numbers, you still have a force of full fledged fighters to deal with it.

It would also be interesting to see the missile trucks outfitted with ultra long range missiles like the Chinese missiles reported to have 300 mile ranges, nothing like being able to reply in turn. Of course Strike Eagles also have the ability to carry large amounts of ground attack munitions, so if they are part of the "bomb truck" package, the enemy will be in for a pretty exciting time. (for some values of exciting).

 

[GR66]

...
It would also be interesting to see the missile trucks outfitted with ultra long range missiles like the Chinese missiles reported to have 300 mile ranges, nothing like being able to reply in turn. Of course Strike Eagles also have the ability to carry large amounts of ground attack munitions, so if they are part of the "bomb truck" package, the enemy will be in for a pretty exciting time. (for some values of exciting).

A long range bomb truck with long range missiles would fit in very well with what I think should be a primary role for the RCAF in a war with Russia, which would be to take out their bombers before they can launch on the ships bringing the all important US reinforcements to Europe.  They would also fill the role of taking out Russian bombers at long distance before they can launch their missiles on North America for those that see that as the primary threat/role.

Either way though, we'd need something far forward to do the detecting for us so that we could detect the targets to launch at.  The F-35 might be the best current platform, but does it really have the operational range required to negate the huge range of Russian missiles? 

Personally I'd prefer to have our own F-35's do the detecting rather than relying on another nation to select our targets for us, so that would suggest a mixed fleet with all the negatives that comes with.  It also suggests that we (the West) really need to invest more in developing longer range missiles for our aircraft.

 

[HB_Pencil]

A long range bomb truck with long range missiles would fit in very well with what I think should be a primary role for the RCAF in a war with Russia, which would be to take out their bombers before they can launch on the ships bringing the all important US reinforcements to Europe.  They would also fill the role of taking out Russian bombers at long distance before they can launch their missiles on North America for those that see that as the primary threat/role.

Either way though, we'd need something far forward to do the detecting for us so that we could detect the targets to launch at.  The F-35 might be the best current platform, but does it really have the operational range required to negate the huge range of Russian missiles? 

Personally I'd prefer to have our own F-35's do the detecting rather than relying on another nation to select our targets for us, so that would suggest a mixed fleet with all the negatives that comes with.  It also suggests that we (the West) really need to invest more in developing longer range missiles for our aircraft.

The operational radius with 4500 lbs internal ordinance (basically two 2000lbs JDAMs and 2 -120s) is 625 Nautical miles... with lets say 1000lbs (4 Aim-120s) it would be closer to 700nm.

Also remember that with sensor fusion, the detection and tracking ability of the F-35 is significantly improved over other aircraft. On something like the F/A-18E with a federated system you're basically limited to the detection range of any particular sensor. With F-35, the data from all the different onboard and off board sensors is brought together to detect and track... so a potential target what would be undetectable for any one sensor on a 4th gen, is detectable because intermittent data from multiple sensors can create a track on the F-35.

I've said this before, but you can basically do the work of 3 or 4 aircraft with one F-35. You don't get 20-1 kill ratios in Red Flag for no reason.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Lengthy piece--Liberals clearly ballsing things up, but blame for senior officers too then and now?

‘Interim’ fighter aircraft purchase
Stroke of genius or sorry drama?
http://defence.frontline.online/article/2017/1/6609-%E2%80%98Interim%E2%80%99-fighter-aircraft-purchase

Mark
Ottawa