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

[helmutkohl]

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?

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.

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

 

[Foo Fighter]

Perhaps an A with the big wing.

 

[perttime]

...


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

The Finnish Minister of Defence has stated that the results of the Air Force evaluation are in.
The promise is that the Government decision will be made before Christmas.

 

[GTX]

The F-35C has an almost equal range to the F-35A

To be clear, the F-35C has essentially the same if not slightly greater range than the F-35A (it does carry slightly more fuel). That said, such numbers are dependent upon the exact profile flown and also become a moot point when considering AAR.

 

[GTX]

Perhaps an A with the big wing.

Go for a new variant means much greater cost

 

[GTX]

Try to remember that buying foreign-built weapons is frightfully expensive for any nation.

And in Canada's case the alternative is what? It's not like they are going to develop a home grown fighter.

Industrial offsets are more about "buying votes at home" than their impact on the total cost of a program.

And did anyone declare otherwise? The point is that the jobs aspect is something that decision makers will factor in even if it is less overtly discussed.

 

[riggerrob]

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

The Royal Canadian Navy scrapped HMCS Bonaventure during the late 1960s. While the RCN had tried to maintain a fighter wing: with Sea Fires, Sea Furies and MD Banshees, a fighter proved too expensive.
During her last few voyages, HMCS Bonaventure only carried ASW Trackers and Sea King helicopters.
Since then Canada's only naval air assets have been Sea King helicopters launched from the flight decks of destroyers. I bent wrenches on the flight decks of HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Iroquois during the 1980s.
We doubt if the RCN be able to afford light carriers in the future. Light carriers will only be able to operate STVOL fighters.
We also doubt if the RCAF will ever buy STVOL fighters in the foreseeable future because they are tied to a handful of fighter bases with long runways (CFB Bagotville, Cold Lake, Comox and Gander. STVOL fighters will not have sufficient range to patrol the high arctic until drone tankers become widespread.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Perhaps an A with the big wing.

Go for a new variant means much greater cost

How will sticking the C variant wing on the A variant or lightening the C variant be hugely expensive?

 

[GTX]

You are kidding me aren't you? Any new development, regardless of how seemingly minor, will drive additional costs since it will be a unique model.

 

[Fluff]

You are kidding me aren't you? Any new development, regardless of how seemingly minor, will drive additional costs since it will be a unique model.

Any change to anything would be massively expensive.

even a new paint colour:

whats in it
Where is it from
How does it deal with:
Radar/RAM
Fire
Ice
Heat
High altitude
Salt water spray
Freezing salt water spray
etc etc

As for aerodynamic changes, the C wings will have been designed for the C, not the B or A, may be same mountings but are the rest of the load bearing the same? etc etc.

This is why on operational aircraft, changes are 'modifications' and they take years to design, test, and implement, even something as simple as say a handle for the back seater to hold onto during air combat. Because it may interfere with other controls, ejecting, NVG, another modification thats coming down the line.

 

[bring_it_on]

Why would the Canadians now all of a sudden consider an F-35A with the C's wings? The bids have come in, and they have been accepted as compliant offers. The F-35A has a better combat radius than the Gripen it is competing against, and will have EFT's integrated eventually to further enhance that over time. If they needed the sort of range that disqualified the F-35A and forced LM to offer something with even longer legs they would have also likely DQ'd every other potential offer.

 

[kitnut617]

On that note, I wonder why a certain model aftermarket company released a set of 'Canadian' wheels for said RCAF F-35. I've had a good look around the internet and not found any news that if/when Canada does buy the F-35 that it would have different wheels. Can anyone enlighten me ?

 

[eagle]

The F-35C has an almost equal range to the F-35A

To be clear, the F-35C has essentially the same if not slightly greater range than the F-35A (it does carry slightly more fuel). That said, such numbers are dependent upon the exact profile flown and also become a moot point when considering AAR.

The requirements were 590 nm combat radius, USAF profile for the F-35A and 600 nm combat radius, USN profile for the F-35C.
Most likely the USN profile includes much higher fuel reserves. So in an equal setting, I guess the C outranges the A by quite a bit, certainly more than 10 nm.
But that's all academic as no one will buy the F-35C let alone a new hybrid variant.

Apparently, Israel is working on 600 gal fuel tanks. If Canada wants more range, that would be a realistic option.

 

[Arjen]

Gripen E already has the EFTs needed for additional range.

 

[riggerrob]

I suspect that Gripen and F-35 are the only remaining contenders because of their high-capacity data-links. Fancy data links are expensive and complex to maintain, but what I really worry about is a junior pilot over-loaded with too much data and being pestered by distant commanders to complicate his/her mission while already up to his/her @$$ in alligators.
Hah!
Hah!

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

In the mid future adaptive engine F-35 can increase range of jet, Gripen cannot give this opportunity for Canadian AF

https://www.airforcemag.com/ge-new-engine-for-f-35-possible-by-2027-not-stovl-version/

 

[RavenOne]

Rumor mill just now from local press suggests Finland has picked the F-35…

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...d-to-pick-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-iltalehti
By chance today is their national holiday as it’s their Independence Day…

cheers

 

[Avimimus]

I'm still in the camp that a Canadian fighter should be twin-engined Now that twin-engined SAAB offering, along with technology transfers... would be attractive.

the ability to operate off main roads in Sweden is also a nice factor.

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.

Well, if the U.S. ever became a threat we'd need to disperse our aircraft pretty quickly. That said, mobile SRBMs might be the better solution in that case!

More seriously though - being able to operate off of short runways in Northern Canada would be very useful for being able to patrol the high arctic. Forward air refuelling points without the full facilities of an airfield... it would make up for the 'short legs' of all of the aircraft being offered. So, yes, there is a use (even from an American perspective). It is one reason why I always thought the F-35C (or even F-35B) would be a better fit for Canada.

As for the money spent - a lot of that was to open the way for Canadian firms to be subcontractors - and that has already succeeded... but now we face increasing amounts of 'Buy America' legislation... which means we potentially can't sell to America (and makes it less appealing to have to buy from America)... so part of me favours the Gripen for purely political reasons. It'd ultimately do the same thing for a lower price though, so there are practical reasons too - and we can be sure the winterisation will be robust.

 

[Josh_TN]

This seems like a slam dunk for F-35 given the commonality it allows with NATO nations. It also brings a lot of extra electronic warfare capability for what is considered a 'fighter'.

 

[TR1]

Aside from being single engine, these aircraft are absurdly different, shocking a competition comes down to such divergent competitors.

 

[perttime]

Rumor mill just now from local press suggests Finland has picked the F-35…

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...d-to-pick-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-iltalehti
By chance today is their national holiday as it’s their Independence Day…

cheers

I've been wondering.....
Just a few days ago, the choice was supposed to very hush hush, until officially released - and any leak would be considered a criminal act. Now we have a newspaper getting "confirmation from a number of sources".

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Just a few days ago, the choice was supposed to very hush hush, until officially released - and any leak would be considered a criminal act. Now we have a newspaper getting "confirmation from a number of sources".

While I suspect the F-35 is the obvious winner, let's wait for official word on the matter.

 

[Avimimus]

Aside from being single engine, these aircraft are absurdly different, shocking a competition comes down to such divergent competitors.

We're a small country (~1/10th the population of the United States) with no nearby rivals (excluding the United States and the occasional illegal trawler) to motivate defence spending... fighter aircraft exist for Canada to 'do its part' in NATO rather than serve a domestic requirement (other than a nominal anti-shipping capability to defend Canadian territorial waters).

Given that, buying the Gripen would send a signal that we're aligned with European NATO powers, not just axillaries for the U.S. within NATO... it'd send a diplomatic message.

In fact, retaining Saab this long does send a diplomatic message - and gives us a bit more leverage with Lockheed-Martin. If we just buy whatever the newest American export fighter happens to be, it doesn't give us much room to negotiate the contract - if we put that in doubt it gives us some room to negotiate and also gives a bit more leverage with the U.S. Administration on trade.

That said, I suspect they'll go with the F-35... I'm just a bit surprised that we even dared to thumb our noses by having what almost appears to be a fair competition.

 

[Ainen]

That said, I suspect they'll go with the F-35... I'm just a bit surprised that we even dared to thumb our noses by having what almost appears to be a fair competition.

It really smells "ridiculous second option which is there to never be chosen".

 

[kaiserd]

The Gripen is credible alternative in that it is quite the different aircraft than the F-35 - different capabilities but at a different cost point (at least in terms of overall life costs - may not be that different up front sticker prices). Some of the other options may have been perceived as just as expensive as the F-35 but overall not as capable.
The Canadians can decide if the Gripen is sufficient for their requirements or if they are satisfied to pay more for more with the F-35. This is not to disparage the Gripen E/F, it is an excellent aircraft and the Canadians may consider that in the round it is the best overall aircraft for them.

 

[GTX]

More seriously though - being able to operate off of short runways in Northern Canada would be very useful for being able to patrol the high arctic. Forward air refuelling points without the full facilities of an airfield... it would make up for the 'short legs' of all of the aircraft being offered.

Funny how the Canadians went for the F/A-18 (over the AV8B presumably) and survived with it for all these decades and yet now somehow there is a perceived need by some for operating away from major bases...

And as for "short legs", may I suggest a comparison with the F/A-18 again:

F/A-18A (CF-18)	F-35A
Combat range: 290 nmi (330 mi, 540 km) hi-lo-lo-hi	Combat range: 669 nmi (770 mi, 1,239 km) on internal fuel

 

[GTX]

buying the Gripen would send a signal that we're aligned with European NATO powers, not just axillaries for the U.S. within NATO... it'd send a diplomatic message.

European NATO Operators of F-35	European NATO Operators of JAS-39
Belgium (34 F-35A planned) Denmark (27 F-35A planned) Italy (90 F-35A/B planned) Netherlands (46 F-35A planned) Norway (52 F-35A planned) Poland (32 F-35A planned) UK (138 F-35A/Bs planned)	Czech Republic (14 C/D models) Hungary (14 C/D models) Note: No E/F operators thus commonality limited.
TOTAL: 419 not including US or other	TOTAL: 28

Hmmm....

 

[Avimimus]

Honestly, the fact that most European NATO countries use the F-35 is pretty immaterial - the fact is that domestically (and perhaps internationally) going with a Euro-Canard would be seen as moving Canada closer to Europe - the fact that it'd be buying them from a non-aligned non-NATO country also probably doesn't matter. I never claimed that Canadians are more rational than anyone else.

P.S. Regarding the 'long-legs' - I never said that the CF-18/CF-188 was particularly well suited - although the carrier landing equipment was very useful up North. If Canada was large enough in population to develop our own interceptor it'd fall more in the Su-27/Mig-31 category - our requirements are more like those of the Russians due to geography. Maybe our traditional favouring of twin-engined designs and the PVO's favouring of twin engines isn't unrelated either? Have you tried walking home across the Canadian Shield let alone Muskeg?

 

[perttime]

The F/A-18 can be used from highway bases, if you want to.

 

[GTX]

Honestly, the fact that most European NATO countries use the F-35 is pretty immaterial - the fact is that domestically (and perhaps internationally) going with a Euro-Canard would be seen as moving Canada closer to Europe - the fact that it'd be buying them from a non-aligned non-NATO country also probably doesn't matter.

You were the one who stated that "buying the Gripen would send a signal that we're aligned with European NATO powers". I just pointed out the fact that few European NATO powers use the Gripen in any form and in fact that many more use/plan to use the F-35 thus a f-35 buy would arguably be seen as aligning more.

 

[Avimimus]

Honestly, the fact that most European NATO countries use the F-35 is pretty immaterial - the fact is that domestically (and perhaps internationally) going with a Euro-Canard would be seen as moving Canada closer to Europe - the fact that it'd be buying them from a non-aligned non-NATO country also probably doesn't matter.

You were the one who stated that "buying the Gripen would send a signal that we're aligned with European NATO powers". I just pointed out the fact that few European NATO powers use the Gripen in any form and in fact that many more use/plan to use the F-35 thus a f-35 buy would arguably be seen as aligning more.

Logically, the F-35 would maximise interoperability with European NATO powers yes - I agree with you.

I was just trying to explain some of the domestic/international political context (going with a European fighter could be read as a sign the United States couldn't take Canada for granted), and the potential use of the contracts as political leverage. There is a broader context to how defence money is spent that isn't always directly tied to the actual performance of the product purchased... we all know this.

Of course there are more rational reasons - the Gripen might have lower life-cycle costs, as well as better short-field and winter-operating capabilities. So I'm sure there are rational reasons for considering it beyond sending a message that 'we don't always have to buy American'.

 

[TomcatViP]

Remain to be seen how the higher price per unit and dwarfed tail nbr would favorably impact ownership costs.

Last but not least, as written months ago, I think that there is a third path for Canada in that choice... By not choosing.

A mixed fleet of Gripen and F-35 could be a well balanced deal in terms of economics, readiness and politics.
The partnership b/w Sweden and Canada could be beneficial for the left over industrial network that wasn't tasty enough for Airbus (there are some striking potential synergies).

Having F-35 will also save costs in building a credible defense posture much faster than curing all the deficiencies built upon the 90's and early 21st century. The mixed fleet alleviating also the need for a LIFT aircraft such as are facing the USAF.

 

[GTX]

alleviating also the need for a LIFT aircraft such as are facing the USAF.

Soon to be resolved with T-7

 

[kitnut617]

Aside from being single engine, these aircraft are absurdly different, shocking a competition comes down to such divergent competitors.

We're a small country (~1/10th the population of the United States) with no nearby rivals (excluding the United States and the occasional illegal trawler) to motivate defence spending... fighter aircraft exist for Canada to 'do its part' in NATO rather than serve a domestic requirement (other than a nominal anti-shipping capability to defend Canadian territorial waters).

You seem to be oblivious to the huge aggressive country that isn't too far from our northern shore --- and a direction that has long been identified as the route it would take in an attack, the shortest distance ---

 

[Le Crap]

F35 makes sense in more ways than one vis a vis gripen..... One thing to note is the multiple countries from where Gripen is actually sourced from. Must be a headache for maintenance and logistics.

 

[Ainen]

Aside from being single engine, these aircraft are absurdly different, shocking a competition comes down to such divergent competitors.

We're a small country (~1/10th the population of the United States) with no nearby rivals (excluding the United States and the occasional illegal trawler) to motivate defence spending... fighter aircraft exist for Canada to 'do its part' in NATO rather than serve a domestic requirement (other than a nominal anti-shipping capability to defend Canadian territorial waters).

You seem to be oblivious to the huge aggressive country that isn't too far from our northern shore --- and a direction that has long been identified as the route it would take in an attack, the shortest distance ---

(1)That country is actually quite far. Far enough that choice of tactical fighter isn't hugely important, at least, not from this perspective.
(2)If the threat of that country actually mattered for Canada, no Canadian choice since that Avro aircraft-that-must-not-be-named makes any sense whatsoever.
Because b/n F-35A and JAS-39E I honestly struggle to name the aircraft less suitable to deal with most likely Russian units it will ever encounter - nuclear submarines and strategic bombers.

p.s. also, that aggressive country has bombed fewer countries than peace-loving Canada. Which reinforces the case for the F-35a.

 

[riggerrob]

Ottawa is not in the habit of making quick decisions when it comes to weapons. They just spent a few billion dollars to update the CF-18A fleet for the next decade.

As for why Ottawa is finally talking about fighters with enough range to defend our high arctic ... with global warming and arctic ice melting, the Northwest Passage will soon be navigable for ships from dozens of countries.
Heck! Even Communist China claims "observer" status to Artic conferences.
The difficult part of defending Canada's high arctic is stationing white men (European ancestry) in the high arctic. Few white men enjoy those long winter nights. Also supplying them with be prohibitively expensive.
Hint: I spent a summer at CFS Alert ... doing construction work.

 

[apparition13]

Has the RCAF actually flown both aircraft? Preferably in the winter from icy runways, just to be sure?

 

[Apophenia]

Canada is obligated through its NORAD agreement to defend its Arctic airspace. Controlling the Northwest Passage is another matter ... since the governments of Canada and the US have diametrically opposed views on the status of the NWP.

Having been stationed at CFS Alert, riggerrob is a member of a select club. For southerners (and foreigners) the geography involved in Canada's Arctic is almost as mind-numbling as the Nunavut cold. CFS Alert sits at ~82.5°N. For comparison ... Point Barrow, AK is at 71.38°N; Cape Chelyuskin is 77°N. Only the uninhabited island of Qeqertaat, Greenland (83°N) is further north than Alert.

The distances are staggering - it is 4,300 km air distance from CFB Trenton to CFS Alert - although routing through AB Thule (76°N) used to be the norm. What really puts it into perspective is that old Cold War saw: CFS Alert is closer to Moscow than to Ottawa!

In Canada, The North is defined as anything 'above' 60°N. The High Arctic is anything 'above' the Arctic Circle (~66°33'N). The RCAF has four Forward Operating Locations in the Arctic, each able to accommodate a half dozen CF-18s. But only one Forward Operating Location is in the High Arctic - FOL Inuvik (~68°N). The others are FOL Iqaluit (63.75°N), Rankin Inlet (62.8°N), and Yellowknife (62.45°N).

So, if a 4 Wing fighter from CFB Cold Lake is detached to FOL Inuvik, the pilot faces a 1,955 km transit made over largely unpopulated tundra. It is easy to see why that single- versus twin-engined debate kept emerging ...

 

[helmutkohl]

Ottawa is not in the habit of making quick decisions when it come sot weapons. They just spent a few billion dollars to update the CF-18A fleet for the next decade.

As for why Ottawa is finally talking about fighters with enough range to defend our high arctic ... with global warming and arctic ice melting, the Northwest Passage will soon be navigable for ships from dozens of countries.
Heck! Even Communist China claims "observer" status to Artic conferences.
The difficult part of defending Canada's high arctic is stationing white men (European ancestry) in the high arctic. Few white men enjoy those long winter nights. Also supplying them with be prohibitively expensive.
Hint: I spent a summer at CFS Alert ... doing construction work.

would it be easier to station local people there who are used to those long winters.. say locals of Nunavut?
I dont know how Canada works, but in the US the national guard tends to be comprised mostly of locals of the state they represent.