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

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What's a Rhino? Sounds like a pretty ungainly name for a plane.

Nickname Rhino came because the E/F models have a longer nose than the earlier F-18's and, on the top, have a distinct antenna sticking up, which is a bit like a rhinoceros horn for location. See the picture below.

Additionally, Hamish, it was important to have a nickname/codeword that was radically different than "Hornet" to avoid confusion during traps. You see, on an aircraft carrier, the arresting wires are tensioned differently for each type of aircraft, to account for their landing weight, and basically the resulting kinetic energy to be absorbed. A Rhino is bigger and heavier than a standard F-18 and thus requires higher basic tension on the wires. If the tower calls down to wire control that the next trap is a Super-hornet and wire control doesn't quite get the first part or isn't paying attention, they can get confused and think a regular Hornet is coming, put the wrong tension on and get a disaster (the Super-hornet, at regular Hornet setting would trap and stretch further forward). To avoid that, the E/F's get a completely different name. No confusion possible when the call comes down "next trap, Rhino!"

 

[Rifleman62]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/liberals-need-to-end-the-farce-over-fighter-jets/article36281581/

OPINION

Liberals need to end the farce over fighter jets

RICHARD SHIMOOKA AND DAVID MCDONOUGH - CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL - SEPTEMBER 17, 2017

Richard Shimooka is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute's Centre for Advancing Canada's Interests Abroad. David McDonough is deputy editor at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for the Study of Security and Development.

On Sept. 12, the U.S. government responded to Canada's inquiry on the pricing for 18 Super Hornets. The price tag came back at $6.4-billion. If the sale goes through, it may end up being one of the most wasteful fiascos ever undertaken by a Canadian government. It strips away the Liberals' election claim about managing the defence file better than the Conservatives, while illustrating extreme mismanagement.

So, what do we actually get for $6.4-billion? In addition to the 18 aircraft, the offer includes the ancillary equipment required to operate the aircraft and support from the manufacturers.

The total cost is surprisingly high, especially given the projected cost of replacing the existing CF-18 fleet with 65 F-35s. According to the Department of National Defence's 2014 figures, which remain roughly accurate today, acquiring 65 F-35s with ancillary equipment and support comes to roughly $9-billion. To lend further credibility to these numbers, the Danish government's 2016 assessment showed that acquiring 27 F-35s would cost approximately $3.7-billion.

What accounts for this massive disparity? The first is production scale. Boeing can produce a maximum 36 Super Hornets a year, while Lockheed Martin will produce 90 F-35s next year, and more than 150 in the year after that. This difference results in greater economies of scale, and a lower cost. The F/A-18s also require additional sensors and pods and adapters that come standard with the F-35.

Moreover, the United States charges Canada for the development of the Super Hornet and administering the contract. Those fees are waived for the F-35, as Canada has already invested approximately $455-million to be part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Finally, the Super Hornet would require modifications to make them suitable for Canadian use. Far from being an easy transition, this will only further drive up the cost. With the F-35, Canada had many of those modifications incorporated into the design as a member of the JSF program.

All of these issues, which resulted in the Conservative government's decision in 2010 to bypass the Super Hornet and instead select the F-35, are well-known to senior defence officials. However, this reality did not suit the incoming Liberal government, which made an election promise to exclude the F-35 from any future competition. Of course, that course of action would be illegal. Their decision to then pursue a fleet of interim Super Hornets was based on the dubious claim that they required an aircraft "not in development."

The irony is that in order to make the Super Hornet work for Canada, it requires significant additional development: more so than the F-35 (which concludes its development program this year). Nevertheless, the advice of senior defence officials has clearly been ignored. This was the entire point of a gag order, which sought to muzzle the officials so they could not speak out about the looming boondoggle.

The interim buy comes with added issues, such as extending the life of the current CF-18 fleet until its replacement comes online, sometime in the late 2020s. The last such upgrade undertaken in the 2000s came to around $3-billion, which provides a rough benchmark. This brings the total cost of this misadventure to over $9-billion – or more than the projected cost of replacing the CF-18s outright with 65 F-35s.

Canada will soldier on with a hopelessly obsolete fighter fleet, and still need to spend an additional $9-billion or more procuring its actual replacement, delayed by nearly 15 years. This is the cost to the taxpayers of defending a poorly conceived election promise not to purchase the F-35. There is no military or financial reason for this, except to defend the vanity of this government. Taxpayers should not accept this level of mismanagement.

The Liberals need to immediately cancel the interim buy and pursue a permanent fighter replacement competition. It's about time they put an end to this farce, sooner rather than later.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Hammer down, good excuse to ditch Super Hornet:

...
"We won't do business with a company that's trying to sue us," Trudeau said of Canada's potential purchase of Boeing fighter jets...

Full Boeing, Bombardier and UK PM meeting story:

Justin Trudeau, Theresa May pledge co-operation on Boeing, post-Brexit trade
Canada-EU trade deal can form the basis for a transition after U.K. leaves EU, prime ministers suggest
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-theresa-may-meeting-1.4294515

Meanwhile note italicized bit at end of quote in story about ATR turboprops vs Bombardier Q400:

ATR Scores Sales In Key U.S., Indian And Chinese Markets

ATR CEO Christian Scherer describes himself as an “aviation romantic.” The “creative” (i.e., tortuous) ways some recent sales have been won have thus probably pushed him to his limits. But the deals were in key markets, so Scherer can rest more assured that the future is bright for his company’s regional turboprops. The new contracts illustrate the ongoing cultural change at ATR.

ATR says it holds a 75% share of the regional turboprop market...

...“I want us to be there [in China] before a Chinese investor takes over Bombardier,” Scherer adds [emphasis added]...
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/atr-scores-sales-key-us-indian-and-chinese-markets

Much earlier via AvWeek:

Would Any Canadian Government Let Chicoms Buy Bombardier?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/mark-collins-would-any-canadian-government-let-chicoms-buy-bombardier/

Bombardier Really Bombing? Chicom Combardier?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/bombardier-really-bombing-chicom-combardier/

Apologies for off-topicness but all Bombardier.

Mark
Ottaa

 

[PuckChaser]

Hammer down, good excuse to ditch Super Hornet:

And to save face. The only problem is now they have an invented capability gap and no aircraft to fill it, except for the F-35 bid.

 

[kev994]

And to save face. The only problem is now they have an invented capability gap and no aircraft to fill it, except for the F-35 bid.

Perfect, let's get on with it.

 

[Dale Denton]

I wonder if the Eurofighter is back on the table? Austria is trying to offload its fleet around 2020, why not grab those and sell them to a European/middle eastern (maybe not KSA) country when the permanent fleet arrives?

 

[HB_Pencil]

I wonder if the Eurofighter is back on the table? Austria is trying to offload its fleet around 2020, why not grab those and sell them to a European/middle eastern (maybe not KSA) country when the permanent fleet arrives?

You do realize that those aircraft are basically seen as junk at this stage, and EADS is being sued by the Austrian government for fraud and corruption relating to their sale? I mean what government would saddle its forces with substandard equipment when it had better, cheaper options available....

oh wait.

 

[Loachman]

why not grab those

Why not be honest and recognize the superiority of the F35 and "grab" some of those?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Lunacy:

Air force eyes resale value of Super Hornets even before deal is done
Super Hornet resale considerations add to the 'silliness of the enterprise,' analyst says

If Canada ever buys Boeing Super Hornet jet fighters, it would be better off with the two-seat variant because they would fetch a better price on the resale market, military planners told the commander of the air force earlier this year.

An internal defence department analysis, obtained by CBC News, also spells out clearly that the 18 warplanes Canada hoped to buy would not be kept once a permanent replacement is purchased for the existing fleet of CF-18s.

The Liberal government has been decidedly opaque on that point since announcing last year it was exploring a sole-source deal.

But the documents, dated Jan. 26, 2017, leave no doubt what would happen to the jets.

"Canada would be required to dispose of the Super Hornets once the permanent fighter replacement fleet was acquired for the RCAF," said the analysis. "Initial information suggest that the resale value of the two-seat FA-18F aircraft would be higher than that of the single-seat FA-18E model."

Past attempts to pin down Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on the question of how long the air force would fly the Super Hornets was met with a vague response: "The interim fleet is there for the interim period."

Even though they would be more expensive to purchase, dual-seat Super Hornets would provide the air force "with greater flexibility," particularly in complex bombing missions, the documents said...

Defence analyst Dave Perry said he was surprised that resale value would be a consideration.

"We're not collecting used cars," he said. "This is just adding to the silliness of the enterprise."

Sajjan has insisted the jets are necessary because there is a "capability gap" in which the air force cannot meet both its Norad and NATO commitments simultaneously.

There is, of course, the larger political dimension.

The deal has been "under review" since Boeing launched its trade complaint against Quebec-based Bombardier...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/super-hornet-jet-fighters-sales-1.4297528

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Heaven help me--one of rare times I agree with the very progressive (ex-NDP candidate--smart and knowledgeable but often misleading) professor:

Beating up on Boeing is bad for Canada
MICHAEL BYERS

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia

Justin Trudeau has been far from conciliatory in his dispute with Boeing. "We won't do business with a company that is busy trying to sue us and put our aerospace workers out of business," the Prime Minister said at a press conference on Monday.

Mr. Trudeau might sound tough and principled, but he's playing domestic politics – to the detriment of Canada's wider interests in a rule-based system of international trade.

Politically motivated support for Montreal-based Bombardier is a Canadian tradition. In 2001, the Jean Chrétien government gave the company a $1.7-billion low-interest loan to help secure an order from Air Wisconsin.

I remember having coffee with a retired Liberal cabinet minister the day after the loan was announced. I expressed surprise that the government would act in a manner that so clearly violated World Trade Organization rules.

"The PM doesn't care about the WTO," the ex-minister replied. "This is about jobs and votes."

Brazil promptly challenged the loan on behalf of its national airplane manufacturer Embraer. The WTO confirmed that Canada had acted illegally and authorized Brazil to impose $247-million (U.S.) in retaliatory trade sanctions. As a result, not only did Canadian taxpayers fund the loan to Bombardier; Canadian exporters paid a hefty fine on top of the subsidy.

Fast forward to 2015, when the Quebec government provided Bombardier with an emergency bailout of $1-billion (U.S.). It was cast as an investment, with the province receiving a 49.5 per cent stake in a new limited partnership created specifically for the manufacturing of C Series planes.

However, given the precarious nature of Bombardier's finances, it is unlikely that any commercial investor would have spent $1-billion without insisting on acquiring control of the company.

The Trudeau government knew that Quebec had violated international trade law. This explains why it took 16 months to come up with a different mechanism for providing federal support for Bombardier, via a $372.5-million loan for "research and development."

Yet at the international level, the federal government is also answerable for the actions of provincial governments.

Brazil has already initiated another WTO complaint, arguing – again on behalf of Embraer – that Quebec's 2015 "investment" is an illegal subsidy.

Boeing, for its part, has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial body that advises the U.S. Congress on trade matters. If the International Trade Commission finds that Quebec subsidized Bombardier, Congress will likely adopt trade sanctions. And then, Canada could file a complaint against the U.S. with the WTO.

These dispute-settlement processes are rigorous and objective. This is something that successive Canadian governments have valued, because free trade requires the apolitical application of rules.

Mr. Trudeau, by trying to strong-arm Boeing, is undermining these processes and Canada's long-term interest in an international legal system that protects countries and companies against arbitrary and unfounded actions.

He is also contradicting himself. It was the Trudeau government that fought to keep third-party dispute settlement in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union. It is the Trudeau government that is resisting the efforts of U.S. negotiators to remove third-party dispute settlement from NAFTA. Yet in the Boeing case, Mr. Trudeau wants to pre-empt third-party dispute settlement through economic coercion.

Aggravating matters, Mr. Trudeau has dragged military procurement into a dispute over commercial trade and investment. Yet military procurement has always been treated separately from other economic matters. It is not subject to trade and investment treaties precisely because of the critical importance of military equipment to national security.

By conflating a military procurement with a commercial trade dispute, Mr. Trudeau is damaging Canada's reputation as a reliable procurement partner. This will complicate and further delay procurements that are necessary for the protection of Canadians at home as well as the ability of our soldiers, sailors and pilots to contribute to missions abroad.

The procurement of fighter jets is a case in point. The Trudeau government says there is a "capability gap," since our CF-18s are three decades old. Yet by linking the dispute over Bombardier with the "interim" purchase of 18 Super Hornets, Mr. Trudeau is extending the capability gap that his own government identified.

Beating up on Boeing is bad for Canada. If Mr. Trudeau wants to defend Quebec and Bombardier, he should do so at the WTO, and not on TV.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/beating-up-on-boeing-is-bad-for-canada/article36322185/

Earlier on the prof:

The Canadian Forces, or, The Byers Disarmament Plan
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/mark-collins-the-canadian-forces-or-the-byers-disarmament-plan/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

I'm thinking that Boeing only took action because they believe the protectionist US government would listen, and they were right, after all the mantra is "America First".  It's my understanding that between Air Canada and Westjet, there are currently orders for something in the range of 120+ new Boeing airliners. In fact Air Canada alone has contracts and options to purchase over 100 of the 737 Max with deliveries begining this year. And it's also my understanding that 53% of the parts for every Bombardier C Series Jet sold anywhere in the world are sourced from the USA, and this likey is the case with every other Bombardier jet. I only say this because I've seen it said in a few sources that we need to be careful about how we deal with Boeing, but the point is, it goes both ways.

I don't want us to do anything substantial until these trade issues are resolved and we see how far America First goes. If the playing field needs to be rearranged we are going to need our money then, not before. Also, what trade resolution process would replace the current one, anyone know? No way we want to put that in the hands of America First. Also, $6+B for 18 Super Hornets, are you joking?? I'm currently of the opinion that we may not come to an agreement on NFTA, so then what? We do need to be careful, but in a larger context.

:2c:

 

[CBH99]

Well that $6B does include a lot of other stuff, not just the jets.  Engines, spare engines, radars, missiles, training missiles, communication systems, etc etc....but I don't disagree with you in the slightest.  $6B for an "interim" solution is pretty absurd, for many reasons that have already been expressed quite clearly throughout these forums by people far more qualified to comment than I.

Is there a reason why WestJet & Air Canada have so many orders for the 737 Max, and not the C-Series?  Are there any current large orders for the C-Series?

Just thinking of the Canadian public is pumping tons of money into Bombardier for the C-Series, perhaps Canadian companies should be purchasing the jet.  Or is there a huge difference between C-Series & 737 Max that makes the Boeing product more attractive to airlines? 

 

[AlexanderM]

Well that $6B does include a lot of other stuff, not just the jets.  Engines, spare engines, radars, missiles, training missiles, communication systems, etc etc....but I don't disagree with you in the slightest.  $6B for an "interim" solution is pretty absurd, for many reasons that have already been expressed quite clearly throughout these forums by people far more qualified to comment than I.

Is there a reason why WestJet & Air Canada have so many orders for the 737 Max, and not the C-Series?  Are there any current large orders for the C-Series?

Just thinking of the Canadian public is pumping tons of money into Bombardier for the C-Series, perhaps Canadian companies should be purchasing the jet.  Or is there a huge difference between C-Series & 737 Max that makes the Boeing product more attractive to airlines?

There currently are 360 orders for the C series, including Air Canada. The 737 Max is a bit bigger, it's just an issue of what the airlines need for specific routes, the C Series is better for the smaller routes.

http://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bombardiercom/supporting-documents/BA/Bombardier-Aerospace-20170630-C-Series-Program-Status-en.pdf

 

[dapaterson]

Is there a reason why WestJet & Air Canada have so many orders for the 737 Max, and not the C-Series?  Are there any current large orders for the C-Series?

Just thinking of the Canadian public is pumping tons of money into Bombardier for the C-Series, perhaps Canadian companies should be purchasing the jet.  Or is there a huge difference between C-Series & 737 Max that makes the Boeing product more attractive to airlines?

WJ already has tooling, spares and training for the 737 family, those are significant obstacles for a new vendor to overcome.  Remember, they were built around a single platform (the 737); they are not going to move to another.  Just adding 767s for trans-Atlantic flights has been a huge challenge.

AC has orders in for up to 75 C-series aircraft (http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/newsList/details.bombardier-commercialaircraft-20160628-air-canada-firm-c-series-.bombardiercom.html).

 

[MarkOttawa]

LockMart wants Trudeau to cut to the chase (note Canadian content at end):

Lockheed-Martin urges federal government to consider offers for full fighter-jet replacement

The manufacturer of the F-35 stealth fighter aircraft is urging the federal government to skip its increasingly complicated plans to purchase an interim fleet of rival jets and open up tenders for the full replacement of Canada's CF-18s.

The head of the F-35 Lightning II program said that Lockheed-Martin Corp. could start delivering a full fleet of new jets as quickly as Boeing Co. can produce an interim fleet of 18 Super Hornets for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The interim purchase, which was announced by Ottawa late last year and is now valued at $6.4-billion, would be a stopgap for the Canadian military before the full $19-billion replacement in the next decade.

"We can get F-35s in country just as fast as they can get new Super Hornets, it's that simple," Lockheed-Martin executive vice-president Jeff Babione said in an interview on Wednesday. "We have the airplane, we can deliver it in a manner that meets your timing, and going to a competition more quickly will get you the capability that ultimately, we think, the Canadian government needs."

His comments were made as Ottawa and Boeing are embroiled in a heightening war of words over a trade dispute involving Canadian-based Bombardier Inc. in front of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Boeing is refusing to drop its trade complaint against the Canadian-based aerospace company over allegations of illegal subsidies and dumping in relation to a money-losing sale to Delta Air Lines last year, while Ottawa has retaliated by stalling on its planned procurement of Super Hornets.

Federal ministers have publicly lashed out at Boeing for failing to act as a "trusted" or "valued" partner with the Canadian government in the dispute. This week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the company of trying to kill thousands of jobs in the Canadian aerospace sector with its complaint. A decision in this dispute is expected next week.

The Liberals have also feuded with Lockheed-Martin in the past, with the party promising in the previous election that it would not buy the F-35s that had been favoured by the previous Conservative government.

However, Mr. Babione said the Canadian government can count on Lockheed-Martin for the planned purchase of a full fleet of 88 fighter jets, pointing out his company has already delivered more than 240 F-35s around the world.

"This is an opportunity to reassure the Canadian government that as a trusted partner, Lockheed-Martin is here to help them with their fighter shortfall," he said.

A key decision for the government will be whether it will resume discussions on the acquisition of the Super Hornets if and when the trade dispute is eventually resolved. Ottawa has already said it is looking at other options, including the acquisition of second-hand fighter jets in Australia.

"We continue to look for options on an interim solution because our Forces need to have the equipment that they're supposed to have to fulfill their responsibilities and to serve their country, and we're going to continue to do that," Mr. Trudeau told reporters on Tuesday.

Based in Fort Worth, Tex., Mr. Babione was in Ottawa to hold meetings at the bureaucratic level with officials from the departments of Innovation and Defence, in addition to meeting suppliers in the Canadian aerospace industry.

As it stands, there is approximately $3.1-million in Canadian content in each F-35, or just less than 3 per cent of its fly-away cost. With more than 3,000 aircraft expected to be sold around the world for the duration of the F-35 program, Lockheed-Martin is promising huge benefits for Canadian suppliers if the federal government continues to participate in the program [emphasis added]...
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lockheed-martin-urges-federal-government-to-consider-offers-for-full-fighter-jet-replacement/article36337691/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

I think it was The Department of Public Works, correct me if I'm wrong, that came out with that report back when the Conservatives were in power that the actual cost of the F-35 would potentially be over $40B. If they could come out with a new or revised report saying, we now have more information, we now know the aircraft works and can be purchased for $85-$95 million USD per aircraft, and have a better idea of the operating costs, then the Liberals could say, based on this updated information we can now say it is the right aircraft for Canada. They just need to find the right way to frame a change in policy so they can purchase the aircraft. They could also frame it against that ridiculously expensive Super Hornet deal, no way they can say the Super Hornet is cheaper after seeing those numbers.

If we could purchase the aircraft for $120 Cdn per then 88 aircraft fits nicely within our $19B budget, as long as we don't see a repeat of the Super Hornet deal in which all of the other items increase the cost by double or triple. And yes, I know those other items cost money but they do not double or triple the cost of an aircraft.

 

[Rifleman62]

The irony is purchasing used F-18's from Australia who are replacing their fleet with F-35's.

Years ago the question was asked (and answered) here who/where would our F-35 pilots be trained. If we send our pilots to Luke AFB where all the F-35 pilots are trained it could save money. Other nations do so.

Where would we train the Super Hornet pilots and backseaters? What cost?

IMHO doubt the current government will do the logical and purchase F-35's.

 

[HB_Pencil]

The irony is purchasing used F-18's from Australia who are replacing their fleet with F-35's.

Years ago the question was asked (and answered) here who/where would our F-35 pilots be trained. If we send our pilots to Luke AFB where all the F-35 pilots are trained it could save money. Other nations do so.

Where would we train the Super Hornet pilots and backseaters? What cost?

IMHO doubt the current government will do the logical and purchase F-35's.

Initially China Lake. Will eventually be transferred to Cold Lake.

 

[Dale Denton]

Based in Fort Worth, Tex., Mr. Babione was in Ottawa to hold meetings at the bureaucratic level with officials from the departments of Innovation and Defence, in addition to meeting suppliers in the Canadian aerospace industry.

Correct me if im wrong, but this tells me a 2 things,

- Gov't is looking at LM, suggesting that we may drop Boeing for either the interim or the permanent fleet
- Gov't is trying to scare Boeing by showing they are looking elsewhere, like when we sent people to the UK to look at Helicopters when the Sikorsky deal was in the pooper.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Initially China Lake. Will eventually be transferred to Cold Lake.

There is no training at China Lake.  OTU is in Lemore or Oceana.