Canada Future fighter capability project (ex-Next Generation Fighter Capability)

I can see a situation where the HAL Tejas could be a suitable fit.

Now you're just trying to wind us up.
 
Avimimus said:
Are you arguing against the F-35? :D
Click to expand...

I said it was a poor reason to choose the F-35C over the F-35A. Not sure how you get anything else out of that.

Avimimus said:
Lower wing loading and a steeper descent is worth it if it shortens the landing roll... have you ever come north and tried driving on our ice?
Click to expand...

I live in Utah. We get plenty of ice here thanks. 100% certain Utah ice is just as slick as Canadian ice. (That doesn't prevent them from operating F-16s and F-35s out of Hill AFB just fine.)
 
Avimimus said:
I find the whole question of requirements quite interesting:

- The F-35A isn't a bad choice if the airforce is intended to act as auxiliaries to larger NATO deployments.

- It is poorly suited to operating in the Canadian Arctic due to the lack of arrester hook (the F-35C would be a better choice in this case), less than exceptional range, and dubious cold weather capabilities, and lack of a twin engined layout (something Canadians tend to be very ideological about). Super-cruise would be very useful in such an environment as well. The Arctic interceptor requirement would really be best filled by an aircraft with specifications matching the Mig-31 (aircraft designed around defending a larger northern area).

- The F-35B could be easily dispersed and would allow a quick counter-attack capability (especially if nuclear capable) in the case of a war with the United States (or Canada being attacked during a hypothetical American civil war). It could also do the tasks of the F-35A pretty well. Note: I'm not endorsing such a purchase or civil war by speculating about it - just doing what militaries always do - contingency planning.
Click to expand...
As a side note; the F-35A does have an arrestor hook for airfield operations, just like the F-16, F-15, etc.

For range, I don't see how it wouldn't meet Canadian requirements; the official 1200nmi range figure is a considerably low-balled figure considering that the jet has an A2G combat radius of 669nmi and an A2A combat radius of 760nmi.

Cold weather capabilities should be fine as well; it doesn't have heaters on its engine stators, but they've been operating fine in Alaska, and if iced-over runways are a concern they can be fitted with drag chutes like Norway's F-35As.

Twin engine would be more desirable for bird strike resistance, but you're unlikely to have a bird strike outside of gliding distance of a runway anyway. Other forms of engine failure are pretty unlikely these days.

Supercruise would also be desirable, but it does eat into your range, plus the F-35 should be able to supercruise a bit better with the upcoming thrust enhancements from the F135 Growth Option 1 or adaptive cycle engines.

As for F-35Bs, ignoring the hypothetical war with the US, they probably wouldn't be ideal; their combat radius is diminished, maintenance requirements and costs increased, physical capabilities (transonic / supersonic acceleration, manoeuvring, etc) are diminished, etc. Distributed operations could be desirable in case of ballistic or cruise missile attacks on Canadian airbases, but you could probably do that with F-35As with the money for the construction of dual-purpose highways, etc coming from the F-35A / F-35B cost difference.
 
First, I wanted to thank you guys for the info, there is stuff I didn't know. I find Dragon029's arguments particularly compelling.

LowObservable said:
I can see a situation where the HAL Tejas could be a suitable fit.

Now you're just trying to wind us up.
Click to expand...

:) Maybe. But only because it is easy.

But I'm actually quite serious that the Tejas makes a lot of sense.

If you are willing to forgo range and twin-engined requirements it provides a lot of capabilities:

The aircraft can be operated off of short-strips. It can achieve the super-sonic speeds needed to intercept high-subsonic patrol aircraft or off-course airliners. It has sufficient air-to-ground capabilities to provide precision air-support during foreign operations. A military contract of that scale with India would also be politically useful. So basically, it could do everything that we'd ask the CF-35 to do at a lower price-point. A major goal for Canada is to maintain experience with operating an air-force in case we should ever need to seriously re-arm and it would accomplish that along with provide the basic air-to-ground role that the CF-188/CF-18 has most often been used for (at least since we stopped intercepting Tu-95s on a regular basis).
 
Why can't Canada go in with Japan on the f-35/22 Hybrid. Both countries want the capability over
The f35. Canada needs a big twin engine fighter like Japan.

Either that, or make do with the Tejas or Gripen.
 
Canada balked at the cost of the F-35. What do you think they would do with the Japanese where they would have to not only chip in for Dev, but also pay at least twice as much for each plane?
 
Canada was complaining about cost because they weren't getting what they really wanted or
They felt was appropriate to their needs.
If cost really is the true problem then Canada should be happy with an F-16V with
Conformal tanks or latest super hornet. Maybe even Tejas or Gripen.
Was just a suggestion about f-22/35 hybrid. Probably never happen.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Canada balked at the cost of the F-35. What do you think they would do with the Japanese where they would have to not only chip in for Dev, but also pay at least twice as much for each plane?
Click to expand...

The present Canadian Government balked ----- but they hit a snag. They found out that Canada already produces parts for the program and would lose that capability if they withdrew. Reason why the PM is sitting on the pot (pun intended) for so long (only campaign promise he's kept so far is making pot legal). My thoughts mingle with the F-35 News Only thread, dump Turkey, and move everything to Canada.
 
It is a bit more complicated.

As I understand it we bought into the program early on in order to ensure subcontracting opportunities for Canadian companies. However, we were a minor partner and had no say in the design specification.

A few governments later the Conservatives decided to replace the CF-18/188 fleet with the CF-35. They bungled selling this decision to the public by not having the airforce prepare a requirement, giving or the appearance of an open competition. They also massively understated the costs while deciding to fund it partly by cutting the replacement of our Search and Rescue capability (even going so far as to claim that the CF-35 could act as a search and rescue aircraft at one point). This seemed suspect and provided an opportunity for opposition to build.

In a later election the competing Liberal government promised to cancel the purchase until a competition had been run, but then quickly settled on the slightly cheaper Super-Hornet (nominally as an interim purchase). However, Boeing decided that attempting to suppress competition from the Bombardier C-series civil jet was a higher priority than the Super-Hornet contract, forcing the Canadian government to make good on its threat to cancel it.
 
Kitnut - To be fair, you should cite the counter-argument, which is that any other fighter would come with a fat package of industrial participation and offsets, whereas F-35 work is subject to re-competition and the primes beating you up on margins.

Avivimus - Looking back, it seems to me that (like many naive stakeholders and commentators) the Harper government made the mistake of believing in the official schedule as it stood at the end of 2009. When the wheels came off in early 2010 (program director fired, replacement finds that all the projections are happy horse**** on an Augean scale) they panicked and tried to engineer a sole-source procurement.

That was the start of all Canada's fighter-procurement problems, now further complicated by the Boeing-Bombardier snafu and Trump's declaration of trade war. In many ways one can't blame Trudeau for kicking as many cans down the road as possible, while waiting for the mid-terms and 2020.
 
LowObservable said:
any other fighter would come with a fat package of industrial participation and offsets
Click to expand...

Exactly what participation/offsets would those be and for how long? If you look at the fact that no matter which platform Canada selects it is likely to result in a total acquisition of around 80 - 100 at most (remember that currently there are only around 70 CF-188s in service and this will not increase even with the bringing on of the ex-RAAF F/A-18s). Therefore,even if Canadian industry was to get a super attractive in-country assembly package including licensed manufacture of components for other users (presumably all future export sales since existing users already have their work done/locked up, the deal is likely to be a short term one with limited growth prospects. if you look at the potential contenders

  • Super Hornet - Whilst there are something like 500-600 around it is unlikely to see many further sales beyond USN. RAAF certainly doesn't plan on any more. Kuwait is getting some but those will be inservice by the time Canada make up its mind. Even if you include all the other near term buyers of fighters as candidates (meaning Boeing had better do some great deals), all those likely contenders will also be looking for industrial participations as well (you can't keep selling the same cake over and over);
  • Rafale - At most, currently something like 400 already ordered. Again though, mostly already done with most export opportunities likely to be done and dusted before Canada gets around to anything. Again, expect other potential candidates for exports to also want industrial participation packages;
  • Typhoon - A bit over 600 already ordered/delivered. Ditto above re the future opportunities;
  • Gripen - 200 - 300 delivered/ordered. Ditto above re the future opportunities - even if Sweden (as the biggest user) decided to totally replace all the earlier in-service versions with the E/F versions this would only likely increase the numbers by around 100 (and in doing so would probably dump all the older ones on the market);
  • F-16 - Sure, lots out there now (4500+) but really? You really think this would offer Canada much after all of these years?
  • F-15E - ditto the last; and
  • Su-27/30/35 family - fat chance Canada will go that way even if the price was right.

Note - I don't include such jokes as the Tejas. Including a Chinese or Russian fighter would be more likely than the Tejas.

Alternatively, looking at the F-35, even if Canada was to get a lower industrial participation portion per plane the fact remains that there are still some 2500 aircraft yet to be produced and supported. Moreover, production is due to continue until at least the 2040s and the aircraft needing sustainment well after that.

At the end of the day, even if Canada were to get a fantastic deal on the participation of any F-35 alternate, it would most likely be tied to the size of the order they place and only be for a relatively short time (3 - 5yrs). Even then the opportunity offered by being a partner in the F-35 program will outweigh that many, many times over and for far longer.
 
You're overlooking the very obvious fact that three of the potential competitors are aerospace companies with broad aircraft business bases. Airbus is already deeply connected to Canada's industry. Dassault is one of the Canadian aerospace industry's largest export customers, and just became larger with the selection of the PW812 for the Falcon 6X. Boeing is the same, as long as management cares enough to mend fences with Canada. Offsets can extend well beyond the fighter program. LM, on the other hand, doesn't have much to offer beyond/outside F-35, and isn't in full control of that work.
 
LowObservable said:
LM, on the other hand, doesn't have much to offer beyond/outside F-35, and isn't in full control of that work.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they just make concessions on the support contracts for the old frigates,
their seemingly inevitable win on the new frigates, CC-130J and Cyclone?
 
With the South Korean deal, they threw in a satellite.
 
SpudmanWP said:
With the South Korean deal, they threw in a satellite.
Click to expand...

That was how they bought their way into a competition they had otherwise lost?
 
No, that's how they satisfied the offsets.

You seemed to forget that the Military wanted a 5th gen platform and other members of the Gov "dumbed down" the contest to get others in without having a 5th gen design. Good thing that the military had the option to override the idiot bean counters.
 
The ROK procurement process was reasonably transparent. The military made its requirements known via DAPA, which made a decision according to the agreed rules. The decision was overruled at a higher political level.

If you have a different story to tell, please do so and provide evidence,
 
The bean counters may have agreed, but the people who's lives agreed upon the decision did not. The fact that they went with the F-35 is proof of that. DAPA was there to "suggest" what can be bought for a certain amount, not to determine what was the best fighter for the price or mission.
 
SpudmanWP said:
The bean counters may have agreed, but the people who's lives agreed upon the decision did not. The fact that they went with the F-35 is proof of that. DAPA was there to "suggest" what can be bought for a certain amount, not to determine what was the best fighter for the price or mission.
Click to expand...

Yet you make no alternative suggestion, I note.

What viable alternative is available to the F-35?

Those that continually criticise the F-35 rarely put forward viable alternatives which have the same features of the F-35. Funny that.
 
DAPA was there to "suggest" what can be bought for a certain amount, not to determine what was the best fighter for the price or mission.

Nope. DAPA was the source selection authority, based on the F-X Phase III requirement and budget set by the ROKAF, and issues and manages all acquisition contracts. So while the term "bean counters" is silly enough as it is (do you think Marillyn Hewson gets Billie Flynn to do her taxes?) it's inapplicable to DAPA. DAPA's decision could not be changed from on high, but was subject to approval or rejection by a the cross-government Defense Acquisition Program Executive Committee (Dapec).

And of course, the president of that Korean government was just tossed in the slammer for 24 years on charges that included bribery. That doesn't mean anything was hinky in the JSF deal but it doesn't indicate sound decision-making.
 
Kadija_Man said:
What viable alternative is available to the F-35?
Click to expand...
For a short time Boeing tried the F-15SE (only claimed front aspect VLO and only for a short time), but they determined that they could not do it and keep costs down so they convinced DAPA to lower the standards.. Funny that B)
 
Seriously??? Try Google

Korea drops key stealth requirements
Seoul has decided to remove two key compulsory requirements initially set for 60 advanced fighter jets that it plans to purchase in an attempt to allow more companies to enter the competition for the nation’s largest-ever arms deal.
Click to expand...
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/116_102739.html
 
Kadija_Man said:
SpudmanWP said:
The bean counters may have agreed, but the people who's lives agreed upon the decision did not. The fact that they went with the F-35 is proof of that. DAPA was there to "suggest" what can be bought for a certain amount, not to determine what was the best fighter for the price or mission.
Click to expand...

Yet you make no alternative suggestion, I note.

What viable alternative is available to the F-35?

Those that continually criticise the F-35 rarely put forward viable alternatives which have the same features of the F-35. Funny that.
Click to expand...

It depends on the requirement doesn't it?

Most of the Euro-canards have adequate short-field and performance, along with multi-role capabilities. The Tejas lacks range and twin-engined performance but could meet most requirements, as could a lot of existing 4th gen fighters.

The F-35 has... greater stealth (providing some improved resistance to third generation SAMs...), as some nice on-board systems (but not essential ones), and the benefit of being an American product (if we value favouring American deals over currying favour with European powers or India).

There is some debate over whether low-observability or supersonic manoeuvrability will be key in dealing with the next generation of SAMs and there has been a trend towards stand-off weapons in any case. What other advantages does it have over 4+ generation types? Enlighten me.
 
Interesting that the last two contenders are single engine anyhow am revisiting the remainers (lol) dedicated websites

Anyone seen this dedicated Gripen for Canada site

www.saab.com

Gripen for Canada | Saab

Canada is choosing a new fighter. A decision that will see a new fighter defend Canada, deter her opponents and meet her international commitments. The decision on which a fighter Canada choses is a once in a lifetime opportunity. One of those choices is Gripen from Saab.
www.saab.com www.saab.com

gripen-canada-white-background.jpg


Sub page

www.saab.com

Built for Canada by Canadians | Saab

Beyond Gripen’s unmatched capability and value, Saab’s firm commitment to provide significant economic and industrial benefits to Canada through an innovative Transfer of Technology and Knowledge programme and global industrial partnerships will have an unprecedented impact on the Canadian...
www.saab.com www.saab.com

And quote

'To make these economic benefits a reality, Saab has assembled a dynamic roster of leading Canadian aerospace companies across multiple regions to offer the best solution for Canada’s future fighter to form the Gripen for Canada Team, including IMP Aerospace and Defence, CAE, Peraton Canada, and GE Aviation. Together, these industry innovators offer a genuine ‘Made in Canada’ solution for that will create long-term, highly-skilled Canadian jobs from coast to coast.'

Then

www.f35.com

Canada

The F-35A is the best value solution for replacing the CF-18 fleet and is available today to meet the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force now and into the future.
www.f35.com www.f35.com

FG19-24659_003%20CanadaIP2.jpg


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=Bz3jViFJrJ4&feature=emb_logo


COuple of my thoughts....

Gripen has been in service for damn near 3 decades operating in the harshest Scandinavian environments successfully. Colder than polar bears rectum and similar to the Canadian harshness. And the ability to operate off main roads in Sweden is also a nice factor.

Then again the Swiss have picked the F-35A to replace their Hornets and Swiss are reknowned for operatng in harsh conditions and off mortorways/autobahns with HASs built into mountains. But ski season cuckoo clocks, fondue, chocolate laden alps probably is not way comparable to Canada.

Wonder how the Finn fighter competition is going to pan out....

Anyone know off hand when Ottawa will make a decision and will it before Santa kicks in?

Cheers
 
You might want to check combat range for Gripen E and F-35. Wiki - for want of a better source - gives 1500 km for Gripen E, 1410 km for F-35A in A2A configuration. Allowing for different ways to compute range, that's in the same ballpark.
 
Arjen said:
You might want to check combat range for Gripen E and F-35. Wiki - for want of a better source - gives 1500 km for Gripen E, 1410 km for F-35A in A2A configuration. Allowing for different ways to compute range, that's in the same ball park.
Click to expand...
1400 km for F-35 is with internal fuel while 1500 km for Gripen E is probably with 3-4 EFT
 

RavenOne said:
the ability to operate off main roads in Sweden is also a nice factor.
Click to expand...
And how often would Canada use that? For that matter how often does Sweden? If one really wanted the away from fixed base capability, just add some F-35Bs...

This will largely come down to industrial benefits and commonality with key allies. In this situation the F-35 wins hands down on both. Moreover, given Canada is already a partner in the F-35 program it would be silly for them to give up those benefits and the money already spent.
 
To be honest, I think SAAB's chances are slim to win this one. To return to the matter of range: Gripen E carries up to 3400 kg of fuel internally, with up to 3537 kg in three external tanks - which configuration gives a ferry range of 4000 km.
 
GTX said:

RavenOne said:
the ability to operate off main roads in Sweden is also a nice factor.
Click to expand...
And how often would Canada use that? For that matter how often does Sweden? If one really wanted the away from fixed base capability, just add some F-35Bs...

This will largely come down to industrial benefits and commonality with key allies. In this situation the F-35 wins hands down on both. Moreover, given Canada is already a partner in the F-35 program it would be silly for them to give up those benefits and the money already spent.
Click to expand...
Early in the F-35 program, dozens of Canadian firms built parts for prototypes.
How much they contribute to the total cost of buying new F-35s is a different question.
Try to remember that buying foreign-built weapons is frightfully expensive for any nation.
Industrial offsets are more about "buying votes at home" than their impact on the total cost of a program.
A classic example was the CF-5s that were built in Montreal. The RCAF struggled to find a combat role for them, eventually relegating them to being lead-in trainers for front-line supersonic fighters (CF-101, CF-104 and CF-18). OTOH Cf-5 contracts employed enough well-paid technicians in Quebec to buy enough votes to prevent the province from separating from the rest of Canada ... which was the real threat. In conclusion, even if Cf-5 was useless as a weapon, it still achieved a political goal.
 
How does range of F-35A (air force) compare with range of the naval F-35C version?
Does the F-35C's larger wing offer any advantage in terms of range or payload?
How do they compare with Gripen?
 
siegecrossbow said:
All the fuss after ditching F-35 and now they are back to square one. Lol.
Click to expand...
Canadian defense purchases are always a mystery to outsiders. Even long-serving soldiers are baffled by decisions made in Ottawa. It is very much a political process with decisions based first upon which program will buy the mast votes. The needs of poor bloody infantry are too often relegated to "priority last."
I have a sneaking suspicion that National Defense Headquarters has offices solely devoted to maintaining stats on proposed purchases. They maintain briefing packages in the the event that a Member of Parliament finds a few spare billion dollars in his budget.
For example. the current RCAF fleet of Airbus tanker/transports were purchased at a bankrupsy auction. The current supply of EH-101 Cormorant spare parts came from a cancelled project for the USMC's "US Presidential Flight."
 
riggerrob said:
siegecrossbow said:
All the fuss after ditching F-35 and now they are back to square one. Lol.
Click to expand...
Canadian defense purchases are always a mystery to outsiders. Even long-serving soldiers are baffled by decisions made in Ottawa. It is very much a political process with decisions based first upon which program will buy the mast votes. The needs of poor bloody infantry are too often relegated to "priority last."
I have a sneaking suspicion that National Defense Headquarters has offices solely devoted to maintaining stats on proposed purchases. They maintain briefing packages in the the event that a Member of Parliament finds a few spare billion dollars in his budget.
For example. the current RCAF fleet of Airbus tanker/transports were purchased at a bankrupsy auction. The current supply of EH-101 Cormorant spare parts came from a cancelled project for the USMC's "US Presidential Flight."
Click to expand...

Agreed likewise when 3 decades ago, they decided to replace the below with the Bell CH-146 Griffin (Bell 412)

Bell CH-136 Kiowa
Bell CUH-1N
Bell CH-118 Huey
Boeing CH-147 Chinook

Did not seem any logic.

So heavy lift went out of the window for a decade and a half till Afghanistan when they realized they needed hence borrowing US Army CH-47D and contracting out for the Russian Helicopters MI26. Then 5 years ago they purchased the latest Foxtrot model, CH-147 and became the first Chinook with built in external fuel tanks.

there were musings that the Canadians wanted dedicated attack helicopter only as recent as 3 years ago but that is not happening anytime soon, instead there is an upgrade to the CH146 fleet to keep it for another couple of decades.

Cheers
 
riggerrob said:
How does range of F-35A (air force) compare with range of the naval F-35C version?
Does the F-35C's larger wing offer any advantage in terms of range or payload?
How do they compare with Gripen?
Click to expand...
The F-35C has an almost equal range to the F-35A; the larger wings improve its lift:drag ratio at lower airspeeds but at transonic (eg: Mach 0.85) cruise speeds the extra drag almost entirely negates the extra fuel. The C has no additional payload capacity either.

Maybe there's an argument to be made for the C's tougher arresting hook for icy runway cable-arrested landings, but the USAF don't see the need when operating out of Alaska, and Norway is happy just adding a drag chute to their jets.
 
Dragon029 said:
riggerrob said:
How does range of F-35A (air force) compare with range of the naval F-35C version?
Does the F-35C's larger wing offer any advantage in terms of range or payload?
How do they compare with Gripen?
Click to expand...
The F-35C has an almost equal range to the F-35A; the larger wings improve its lift:drag ratio at lower airspeeds but at transonic (eg: Mach 0.85) cruise speeds the extra drag almost entirely negates the extra fuel. The C has no additional payload capacity either.

Maybe there's an argument to be made for the C's tougher arresting hook for icy runway cable-arrested landings, but the USAF don't see the need when operating out of Alaska, and Norway is happy just adding a drag chute to their jets.
Click to expand...
good point. at this point I don't see any advantages for any customer to operate the F-35C unless they operate a CATOBAR carrier.
the A offers the range and payload
the B offers strategic flexibility in location
does Canada have any desire to return to carriers or LPD/LHDs with an airwing? I dont think they had a sea based air wing since the late 60s or early 70s
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom