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

[GR66]

In mentioning range I was more thinking of the F-15X as an option vs. the F-35 for the NORAD mission. 

As you can see from the article Loachman linked to it's hard to find apples to apples comparisons when it comes to aircraft ranges, but according to this article in The National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-15x-air-forces-next-super-fighter-or-waste-time-28492) the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.

As for multiple aircraft fleets, I absolutely won't argue with you on the high cost of going that route.  Where I may disagree is with the statement that we don't have the budget for it.  Of course you're correct if we keep our military spending priorities as they are now, which frankly result in a relatively weak air force, navy and army.  If we were however to re-prioritize our spending for example to focus on an air force something like I suggested, a navy something like we've been promised and pared down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies then maybe the money could be found to fund such an idea.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Boeing won’t pitch the F-15X.  They already have customers for it.

 

[GR66]

Boeing won’t pitch the F-15X.  They already have customers for it.

You may be right, but I'd imagine they would rather pitch the F-15X and get the contract rather than not get any sales at all if they thought the competition requirements might favour something other than the Super Hornet. 

It's all just a mind game anyway because as I said at the start of my post...it's never going to happen anyway.

 

[MilEME09]

In mentioning range I was more thinking of the F-15X as an option vs. the F-35 for the NORAD mission. 

As you can see from the article Loachman linked to it's hard to find apples to apples comparisons when it comes to aircraft ranges, but according to this article in The National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-15x-air-forces-next-super-fighter-or-waste-time-28492) the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.

As for multiple aircraft fleets, I absolutely won't argue with you on the high cost of going that route.  Where I may disagree is with the statement that we don't have the budget for it.  Of course you're correct if we keep our military spending priorities as they are now, which frankly result in a relatively weak air force, navy and army.  If we were however to re-prioritize our spending for example to focus on an air force something like I suggested, a navy something like we've been promised and pared down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies then maybe the money could be found to fund such an idea.

Or maybe if we didmt have 3 times the required generals and flag officers, wasted money on buttons, bows, patches, and didnt have dozens of project offices moving at snails pace justifying peoples jobs money could be found to be reinvested in all elements.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My guess is that if Trump gets re-elected, Canada is going to be told to poop or get off the pot in regards to the F-35, which means if we don't, those current contracts will be wound down and we will be excluded from them, unless something extraordinary happens.

 

[Loachman]

Canadian companies have won nearly $1.5 billion in contracts associated with the stealth fighter

Bingo!

I am hugely surprised by a Liberal attempt to do it right and acknowledge the money spent in Canada to date, but I don't know if an equitable method can be found to balance two different methods of calculating industrial benefits.

I anticipate legal challenges from all losing bidders no matter what.

 

[daftandbarmy]

My guess is that if Trump gets re-elected, Canada is going to be told to poop or get off the pot in regards to the F-35, which means if we don't, those current contracts will be wound down and we will be excluded from them, unless something extraordinary happens.

Like if Trudeau gets the boot by a Conservative government?

 

[Loachman]

the combat radius of the F-15X is 1,150 miles vs 870 miles for the F-35.

I would suspect with external fuel like the others.

pare(d) down the army to a smaller, well-equipped, expeditionary force and a larger Reserve force for contingencies

The Army is already a smaller, under-equipped expeditionary force. It can't afford any more smallness and under-equippedness. Reforms to the Reserve structure, manning, and equipment have been promised as long as I remember, and I joined in 1973. If it can't be done in forty-six years, I can't see it being done in another or more. Governments always talk big and act small.

 

[Loachman]

My guess is that if Trump gets re-elected

"If"? Barring something catastrophic, it's almost guaranteed.

 

[HB_Pencil]

For anybody who skipped Reply 2485 of this thread at https://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1569208.html#msg1569208, I'd suggest having a read-through of the link, https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/5fv9he/combat_radius_of_western_multirole_fighters/, contained therein:

"In general, the performance of the F-35A is referred to whenever "the F-35" is discussed, because it will be by far the most produced variant. However, it's useful to compare it with the other F-35 variants.

"From all of these sources, a clear picture emerges: The Rafale has a somewhat longer air-to-air combat radius, at around 900 nm. The others (Super Hornet, Typhoon, F-35, Gripen E) all have an air-to-air combat radius of around 750-800 nm.

"However, there are two significant caveats to this. The first is the extent to which these "maximum range" configurations affect each fighter's maneuverability. All fighters except for the F-35 rely on multiple external fuel tanks to reach those ranges. These fuel tanks and their pylons add weight as well as additional drag. For example, for the Super Hornet, those 3 480-gallon external fuel tanks enable it to carry an additional 9792 lb of fuel to augment its 14,000 lb of internal fuel, but they weigh an additional 1143 lb for the tanks themselves and an additional 883 lb for the pylons according to the flight manual, so roughly 20% of the fuel weight. I don't know what the specs are for the other planes, so I will assume the fuel tanks make up 11% and the pylons make up 9% for the other planes. The Rafale carries 3 2000 L tanks, while the Typhoon carries 3 1000 L tanks, and the Gripen E carries 2 450 gal tanks and a 300 gal tank. Granted, some will say that the drop tanks can be dropped in the event of combat, however, this isn't standard procedure except in the event of an emergency, plus the pylons continue to stay on the plane (the tanks impart much more drag than the pylons though)."

See also the various range charts in that article. The "range advantage" is not what you think that it might be. Please tell me how you think that acquiring a mixed fleet, for all of the additional costs, is worthwhile, especially when doing so would also sacrifice the networking capabilities of F35.

So while I agree with your conclusion, the numbers cited by Vanshillar are incorrect. The Super Hornet, even with three tanks, does not outrange the F-35. the only way that this is plausibly possible is if you drop tanks in flight, which is not an option. A quick check of the NATOPS, which were leaked a few years ago can give you that number. Five tanks doesn't actually get you any further because of the drag imposed.

Having spoken to previous members of the NGFC program about this very topic, in all functional respects the F-35 had the most range, and was the only one (with the possible exception of the Typhoon) that could meet what they described as the holy grail mission: the Cold Lake -> Inuvik -> Eielson Weather diversion flightplan. Public numbers on the Rafale and Gripen are not accurate, they do not have the range close to the other options. One likened their claims to being "outside the laws of physics." This was one of the reasons why they were eager to get the F-35 in the first place. Several of them had operated in the north for over a decade, and brought their person experiences to the table when designing the RFPs. They were unequivocal that no other plane was better suited to operate in the north than the F-35. Now the F-15 wasn't an option back then, but I don't think its superior range would tip the scales too much. One: while more fuel capacity is always welcome, anything above the Cold Lake/Eielson profile has less value. Second, the original RFP had the ability to take off and land in no-light conditions as a result of crashes in the 1990s: the F-35 has that ability, the F-15 does not. Thirdly, the drag chute option provides the RCAF a lot more options in the north for FOLs.

Finally as you point out, the networking capabilities are exceptionally valuable. They found that two F-35s could search four times the area as a 4th Generation fighter can because of the sensor fusion system, particularly in the north. Any notational advantage another platform may have is obviated at that point.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Letting F-35A into the competition but making getting points tougher:

Ottawa changes fighter-jet tender rules to address U.S. pressure over F-35

The federal government is opening up the acquisition process for its $26-billion contract for new fighter jets, responding to threats from the U.S. government that it would refuse to sell the stealth Lockheed Martin F-35 unless Ottawa scrapped its quota for aerospace spending.

The changes to the process were presented to potential bidders this week, after it emerged the U.S. government threatened to pull the F-35 from the competition if the requirement for industrial benefits was not modified.

Under the new process, Ottawa will no longer force all bidders to commit 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment on spending in Canada. Instead, manufacturers will lose points in the scoring system if they do not make this commitment, but they will still be allowed to remain in the competition, said federal and industry sources to whom The Globe and Mail granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Before the changes were approved by the federal cabinet, the F-35 could have been automatically disqualified because the international consortium that builds the aircraft doesn’t allow for the provision of traditional industrial benefits. Instead, the F-35 program awards production contracts on a competitive basis in partner countries, without any formal guarantees of investments in those countries...

In the first version of the draft RFP, the government assigned 60 per cent of the points for technological capabilities; 25 per cent for cost; and 15 per cent for industrial benefits.

Under the new process, the government has kept a value of 60 per cent for technical requirements, but gave a value of 20 per cent for cost and 20 per cent for industrial benefits [emphasis added].

The new 60-20-20 formula means that the package of industrial benefits will be given more weight in the final evaluation of the bids than what had been originally contemplated. As such, the government will be giving more points to companies that commit to spending the entire value of the program in Canada, while allowing companies that offer a different type of benefits package to remain in the race...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-changes-fighter-jet-tender-rules-to-address-us-threats-over-f/

Is gov't basically saying to US/LockheedMartin: "You're scoring out of 80 points while others (Boeing, Airbus, Saab) are scoring out of 100?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More, LM could get some of those benefits points--if US willing to go through the bother of competing when our gov't doing its best to stack the deck against F-35A:

Canada looks to loosen requirements for fighter-jet makers in competition to replace CF-18s
...
The proposed new process will see the government evaluate bids on a scale, with 60 per cent of the points based on the plane’s capability, 20 per cent on its full lifetime costs and the remaining 20 per cent on industrial benefits to Canada.

Bidders can still guarantee that they will re-invest back into Canada if their jet wins the competition and get all 20 points – which is the likely approach for Boeing’s Super Hornet, Eurofighter’s Typhoon and Saab’s Gripen.

But those that can’t make such a commitment will be asked to establish “industrial targets,” lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them.

The government will study those plans and assign points based on risk. This is the likely approach for Lockheed Martin and the F-35, which the U.S. has said could provide Canadian companies with billions in work over the next 50 years.

The planned new approach has already stirred complaints from some of Lockheed Martin’s competitors, who question why the F-35 should get points if the company can’t guarantee re-investment back into Canada...

But those that can’t make such a commitment will be asked to establish “industrial targets,” lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them.

The government will study those plans and assign points based on risk. This is the likely approach for Lockheed Martin and the F-35, which the U.S. has said could provide Canadian companies with billions in work over the next 50 years.

The planned new approach has already stirred complaints from some of Lockheed Martin’s competitors, who question why the F-35 should get points if the company can’t guarantee re-investment back into Canada.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5261380/canada-fighter-jet-requirements-cf-18/

FUBAR.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

Letting F-35A into the competition but making getting points tougher:

Is gov't basically saying to US/LockheedMartin: "You're scoring out of 80 points while others (Boeing, Airbus, Saab) are scoring out of 100?

I had to read your comment a few times - I thought you had meant that LM would get their score out of 80 v 100, which would be advantageous to them.

 

[MarkOttawa]

No, that they would getting points out of a maximum of 80 whereas others would be getting from 100. Now looks like LM might have chance to get some of those benefits points--but will US even bid given F-35 program members no-offsets policy? Plus the time and energy dealing with a gov't that clearly is still hostile to the plane and trying to game the competition:
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1571296.html#msg1571296

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Uzlu]

will US even bid given F-35 program members no-offsets policy? Plus the time and energy dealing with a gov't that clearly is still hostile to the plane and trying to game the competition

I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are still interested in putting in a bid.  I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing appear not to have realised that the deck is stacked against them.  Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?  Trudeau’s ego is always more important than the Royal Canadian Air Force.

 

[MTShaw]

I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are still interested in putting in a bid.  I am surprised that Lockheed Martin and Boeing appear not to have realised that the deck is stacked against them.  Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning?  Trudeau’s ego is always more important than the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Or that Airbus did Canada as solid, and they will be rewarded. It’’s likely that MBDA will also benefit.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Why waste time and money on bids that have no chances of winning? 

That's what we consultants do... in our world, it's called 'work'

 

[MilEME09]

I wonder, have F35s for Turkey started production yet? Given the current politucal spat maybe Lockmart will offer a Que jump and take Turkeys spot allowing for faster delivery

 

[MarkOttawa]

Looks like US, with quite some justification (indeed provocation from Justin's gov't) to play serious hard ball:

New Canadian fighter jets will need U.S. certification: DND

American officials will need to certify the fighter jet Canada buys at the end of a multibillion-dollar procurement that’s started and stopped and started again for more than a decade, ensuring that it’s fit to plug into the U.S.’s highest-security intelligence systems.

But, says the Department of National Defence’s top procurement official, they will not get to decide which plane replaces Canadian military’s aging CF-18s.

“Ultimately when we select, when we are into the detailed design, at some point, yes, the U.S. will have a role to play in ultimate certification,” Patrick Finn, the Defence Department’s assistant deputy minister of materiel, told The Canadian Press.

“But the Americans won’t be sitting with us with the evaluation and doing that type of work. It will be us.”

Some industry sources are nonetheless worried the U.S. could use the certification requirement to block Canada from choosing a non-American plane, particularly given the Trump administration’s approach to trade.

The federal government this week laid out the latest iteration of its plan for the $19-billion competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s with 88 new fighters, which is expected to officially launch in July.

While much of the presentation delivered to fighter-jet makers focused on a loosening of industrial-benefit rules (that is, how much the winning bidder will be expected to spend on work and production in Canada), the government also revealed that companies will be asked to show how they plan to meet certain security requirements.

Specifically, companies will have until September to explain how they plan to ensure their aircraft can comply with the standards required for handling top-secret intelligence from two security networks in which Canada takes part, called “Five Eyes” and “Two Eyes.”

The “Five Eyes” network comprises Canada, the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. “Two Eyes” is just Canada and the U.S. and is essential for co-operating in the defence of North America.

Meeting those requirements will pose different challenges for the four plane models that are expected to square off to replace the CF-18s, with the U.S.-made Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing Super Hornet already fully compliant.

The other two expected competitors, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen, will face a tougher time. The Typhoon, which is used by the British military, already meets Five-Eyes requirements, but neither it nor the Swedish-made Gripen meets the Two-Eyes standard [emphasis added].

A U.S. Embassy spokesperson in Ottawa emphasized the importance of technological connections between U.S. and Canadian forces on Friday.

“We look forward to hearing more about Canada’s plans for replacing its current CF-18 aircraft fleet with next-generation aircraft to meet Canada’s ongoing military commitments over the coming decades,” Joseph Crook said by email. “We continue to believe in the importance of NATO and NORAD interoperability as a crucial component of Canada’s acquisition of defence assets.”

Crook said the U.S. hopes its plane manufacturers will get to compete in a fair process.

Finn acknowledged in an interview Friday that both European contenders will have some work to do.

He revealed for the first time that U.S. certification will be required before new aircraft can plug into the two security networks, but he said that will be years away and have no bearing on which plane replaces the CF-18s. He said the Canadian military has in the past bought non-U.S. equipment that needed to be modified to meet American security requirements, such as radios and sensors for ships and drones.

However, industry sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because of a federal gag order on those involved in the fighter project, say there are fears the U.S. could use the security requirements to block Canada from buying a non-American plane.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said those concerns are completely justified given the Trump administration’s penchant for using whatever means necessary to get foreign countries to buy U.S. products [I doubt this has anything specific to do with Trump--all sorts of people in US military and gov't must have had it up to...].

“Ultimately, those aircraft have to plug into American systems, so the American government is going to have play some kind of role,” he said of whatever new fighter jet Canada buys.

“And the concern the Europeans have is whether or not that effectively gives the Americans a veto over us buying their aircraft.”

While unable to rule out the risk entirely, Finn said officials in Washington have consistently said they are open to Canada buying a non-U.S. plane as long as it can meet the security requirements.

“The consistent answer we’ve gotten back is: ‘As long as you meet the criteria, over to you. And we are not going to tell you that a third-party cannot bid. We are telling you obviously it will have to meet our standards and the approach.’ ”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-new-canadian-fighter-jets-will-need-us-certification-dnd-2/

FUBAR.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SupersonicMax]

I am surprised ADM(Mat) came out and publically said the European contenders have “some work to do”.