• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

F-35 for Canada

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
12
sferrin said:
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?
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.)
I see that your winters average 7.9 degrees Celsius. So, I'm not entirely sure I buy this argument. Ice changes its properties considerably depending on the temperature range and ice at -10 Celsius can have very different surface interactions under pressure compared to ice at -30 Celsius. That said, it tends to get less slippery at colder temperatures. So well I question your experience, it doesn't work in my favour. I'd still like to see an actual study of aircraft tire friction at temperatures of less than -20 degrees Celsius though... because things may scale differently at higher weights, higher impact speeds etc. I'm always sceptical without good scientific/engineering data.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
12
Well I'm questioning things...

...can anyone enlighten me as to why we'd no longer benefit from having twin-engines? I've heard arguments about increased reliability... but how much of an increase are we talking about? Would aircraft in dispersed strips with reduced maintenance regimes really have such low failure rates that we wouldn't encounter any losses during the entire life of our service fleet? What are the actual odds in service? Are there any reasons why the traditional demand for twin-engines is a 'red herring'?

Thanks!
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Avimimus said:
sferrin said:
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?
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.)
I see that your winters average 7.9 degrees Celsius. So, I'm not entirely sure I buy this argument. Ice changes its properties considerably depending on the temperature range and ice at -10 Celsius can have very different surface interactions under pressure compared to ice at -30 Celsius. That said, it tends to get less slippery at colder temperatures. So well I question your experience, it doesn't work in my favour. I'd still like to see an actual study of aircraft tire friction at temperatures of less than -20 degrees Celsius though... because things may scale differently at higher weights, higher impact speeds etc. I'm always sceptical without good scientific/engineering data.

I don't know if you looked at this:

https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/ogden-hill-afb/utah/united-states/usut0188

but it shows the average winter temps as somewhat lower than what you list. That's for Hill AFB specifically. Apparently (or so pilots at Hill have said), where the base sits on a plateau near the mouth of a canyon notorious for it's winds, it gets colder than most surrounding areas. One other thing about Hill AFB is it sits at about 4200 feet.

F-16s also regularly operate out of Alaska, North Dakota, and other very cold locations that aren't Canada. And let's not forget Sweden's Gripen is a single-engine aircraft.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
23
Thanks, Spud - But that change didn't rule the F-15 in or out - it just gave Boeing a less expensive option. And it also allowed EF in.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
Which is exactly what I said.

VLO RCS was a "requirement", Boeing designed the F-15SE (and found out how expensive it would be), then the requirement was removed in order to make the Boeing bid competitive.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
12
sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
sferrin said:
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?
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.)
I see that your winters average 7.9 degrees Celsius. So, I'm not entirely sure I buy this argument. Ice changes its properties considerably depending on the temperature range and ice at -10 Celsius can have very different surface interactions under pressure compared to ice at -30 Celsius. That said, it tends to get less slippery at colder temperatures. So well I question your experience, it doesn't work in my favour. I'd still like to see an actual study of aircraft tire friction at temperatures of less than -20 degrees Celsius though... because things may scale differently at higher weights, higher impact speeds etc. I'm always sceptical without good scientific/engineering data.

I don't know if you looked at this:

https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/ogden-hill-afb/utah/united-states/usut0188

but it shows the average winter temps as somewhat lower than what you list. That's for Hill AFB specifically. Apparently (or so pilots at Hill have said), where the base sits on a plateau near the mouth of a canyon notorious for it's winds, it gets colder than most surrounding areas. One other thing about Hill AFB is it sits at about 4200 feet.

F-16s also regularly operate out of Alaska, North Dakota, and other very cold locations that aren't Canada. And let's not forget Sweden's Gripen is a single-engine aircraft.
True. I just quickly googled that State wide average... because I was curious and should learn more geography mainly :)

I believe the twin-engined requirement has to do with the longer search and rescue times expected for many areas of operation up north (a larger area being patrolled than Alaska). I know the USN relaxed its twin-engined requirement, but U.S. Carrier groups might have a closer, more efficient, and more read search and rescue capability than we have in most of the Arctic.

I know that one of the reasons why the Russian airforce has turned down all proposals for single-engined fighters was related to survivability, but I suspect reliability when operating over Siberia is also a consideration. I don't really know though. Maybe someone whose an expert on Russian/Soviet doctrines or who speaks the language can provide more info!
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
355
Reaction score
2
If your typical jet engine runs y hours between unscheduled maintenance, doesn't having a twin-engine fleet mean you're more likely to have planes unavailable due to unscheduled maintenance or have an in-flight mishap? Do you go through more commonly-replaced parts? Does that reflect a higher operating cost or logistical headaches?


I don't know much more than "it's all ball bearings nowadays" when it comes to day-to-day turbine maintenance, but these seem like they could be reasonably inferred to be true?
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
23
The Navy was argued out of a twin-engine JSF version with the help of studies from JHU (Navy-related) and GTRI (USAF-linked). I think we can agree that the cost-side inputs were not real (the commonality was over-estimated and I doubt that anyone in 1994-95 predicted that one JSF engine would cost more than two F414s). I don't know what credit was given for prognostics, but those would work through ALIS. And we know about ALIS.

At a different level: there are indeed situations, on land and at sea, where rescue can be many hours away at best. That may not be good enough.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
The F-35s share commonality in the most important areas, long-term O&S costs related to software, avionics, engines, LRUs, etc. Most parts in production that are not "identical" are mostly "cousin" parts that come from the same companies on the same production lines.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
https://youtu.be/tQ12O4cFFLA

https://youtu.be/lE3h8yImm4U
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
The weapon pod, EPE engines, Internal IRST, MAWS, etc did not make it into the Block3 upgrade plan.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
Avimimus said:
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.
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.
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.
Well, that wasn't the question that I asked, now was it?

The f-35 is the baseline to which the alternatives need to be compared to.

The alternatives need stealth, AESA radar, super-cruise, advanced ECM and optical systems, internal carriage of weapons, V/STOL.

I cannot think of an alternative which offers all those systems in the one package. Can you?
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
23
The alternatives need stealth, AESA radar, super-cruise, advanced ECM and optical systems, internal carriage of weapons, V/STOL.

Why? Nothing offers all those attributes.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
12
Kadija_Man said:
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.
Well, that wasn't the question that I asked, now was it?

The f-35 is the baseline to which the alternatives need to be compared to.

The alternatives need stealth, AESA radar, super-cruise, advanced ECM and optical systems, internal carriage of weapons, V/STOL.

I cannot think of an alternative which offers all those systems in the one package. Can you?
[/quote]

I was under the impression that we were talking about Canadian requirements, not what aircraft are exact copies of the F-35?

V/STOL: The F-35A (i.e. the CF-35) as equivalent or even inferior capabilities to EuroCanards and even the LCA.

AESA: EuroCanards, Tejas, CF-18s all carry some form of AESA

ECM/Optics: All of the aircraft mentioned can carry fairly good optics pods, can support upgrades, and the EuroCanards tend to have pretty good ECM/defense suits.

Supercruise: The EuroCanards all have superior supercruise ability. Furthermore, sustained high speed flight requires substantial fuel reserves (even with supercruise) and for long range work over the Canadian Arctic and oceans this would push the requirement in the direction of needing unusually large (Su-27 level) ranges. So, something like a EuroCanard with saddle tanks,

So, with the exception of stealth/internal weapons, the competition is more than adequate, and in most areas superior (optics/ecm might be the only area were the F-35 would offer any advantage).

As for internal weapon stowage: It has limited utility if you have to carry drop-tanks or anti-ship missiles externally.

As for stealth: That goes back to my original post (see above) regarding benefits against third generation SAM systems (I'm not convinced it is needed for overseas deployments, I'm not convinced that F-35 levels of stealth will be able to defeat the next generation of SAMs reliably, and without prolonged super-cruise and all aspect stealth the ability to use energy to defeat SAMs or BVR attacks is much reduced - particularly a problem if you are planning on deploying small numbers of aircraft over large areas where they can't effectively support each other - the high Arctic is different from Western Germany!)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Avimimus said:
I'm not convinced that F-35 levels of stealth will be able to defeat the next generation of SAMs reliably, and without prolonged super-cruise and all aspect stealth the ability to use energy to defeat SAMs or BVR attacks is much reduced - particularly a problem if you are planning on deploying small numbers of aircraft over large areas where they can't effectively support each other - the high Arctic is different from Western Germany!)
The plane you describe is not available today.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
With all other things being equal, a VLO fighter will always be better at attacking a target in a advanced SAM environment. It's simply a matter of options and what is required to protect the fighter from the SAM. The VLO fighter will always be able to get closer before being detected which will allow it to gather better intel on the target, employ smaller weapons to get the job done, give his weapons a better pK, etc.

I think this graphic says it best.

 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
23
I think this graphic says it best.

Why am I not surprised that you do?

With all other things being equal, a VLO fighter will always be better at attacking a target in a advanced SAM environment.

Correct. But all other things are never equal in the real world. A Mach 2.8 fighter/bomber is pretty good too. But all things not being equal, you pay more, get fewer assets, have penalties in other areas....
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
Please show me a mach 2.8 fighter-bomber that is in operation that can penetrate a modern A2AD network.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
12
SpudmanWP said:
Please show me a mach 2.8 fighter-bomber that is in operation that can penetrate a modern A2AD network.
Wasn't there a British study recently that concluded that a high-speed high-altitude platform would be the most survivable bomber (better than subsonic low observable design) when facing modern air-defenses? I don't think the debate is fully settled (although I find it surprising myself - I'd assume a stealthy platform with stand-off weapons would be maximally survivable). It is a bit off-topic - but I can try to find it if you'd like.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
Fast & high altitude was proven unachievable back in the early '80s which is why the B-1B was changed from a high&supersonic bomber to a low&fast one. SAMs have only gotten nastier in the last 30 years.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,280
Reaction score
54
I suppose it depends on how high and how fast. Letsinger's inference from consultations with Lockheed
amongst others was that it's Mach 7 and above 100,000 ft with no signature reduction.

The other knees in the survivability curve (he infers) are for a supersonic cruiser in the Mach 2.5 - 3.5
range with extensive signature reduction and a hypersonic cruiser (Mach 5 - 6) with moderate signature reduction.

(previously posted in the SR-72 topic)
 

Attachments

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
If you can build a plane that goes mach x then you can build a weapon that can go mach x. Not being seen is the best option.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
Avimimus said:
I was under the impression that we were talking about Canadian requirements, not what aircraft are exact copies of the F-35?
Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here?

I am discussing the stock-standard F-35 which I understand Canada was considering for it's requirements? Am I mistaken?

The F-35 has V/STOL options, an AESA radar, advanced ECM and Optical systems (which render the aircraft "invisible" to the pilot and automatically detect missiles launched at the aircraft, etc.), internal carriage of weapons, super-cruise and stealth. I am unaware of any other aircraft on offer has all these, do you know of such a fighter that the Canadians would purchase?
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
Canada is considering the F-35A which does not have VSTOVL (that is the F-35B) but can come with a drag chute for icy runways. Otherwise, yes.... you are correct.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
SpudmanWP said:
Canada is considering the F-35A which does not have VSTOVL (that is the F-35B) but can come with a drag chute for icy runways. Otherwise, yes.... you are correct.
So, we can remove the V/STOL capability.

You still haven't offered a viable alternative, you realise?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Kadija_Man said:
Avimimus said:
I was under the impression that we were talking about Canadian requirements, not what aircraft are exact copies of the F-35?
Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here?

I am discussing the stock-standard F-35 which I understand Canada was considering for it's requirements? Am I mistaken?

The F-35 has V/STOL options, an AESA radar, advanced ECM and Optical systems (which render the aircraft "invisible" to the pilot and automatically detect missiles launched at the aircraft, etc.), internal carriage of weapons, super-cruise and stealth. I am unaware of any other aircraft on offer has all these, do you know of such a fighter that the Canadians would purchase?
Re. the F-35 and supercruise, what is supercruise? Sure, technically it's Mach 1.01 and above without afterburner. But in this context what is considered, "useful supercruise". The ATF requirement was for Mach 1.5. The highest I've ever heard for the F-35 (with unknown loading) was Mach 1.2.
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Avimimus said:
I was under the impression that we were talking about Canadian requirements, not what aircraft are exact copies of the F-35?
Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here?

I am discussing the stock-standard F-35 which I understand Canada was considering for it's requirements? Am I mistaken?

The F-35 has V/STOL options, an AESA radar, advanced ECM and Optical systems (which render the aircraft "invisible" to the pilot and automatically detect missiles launched at the aircraft, etc.), internal carriage of weapons, super-cruise and stealth. I am unaware of any other aircraft on offer has all these, do you know of such a fighter that the Canadians would purchase?
Re. the F-35 and supercruise, what is supercruise? Sure, technically it's Mach 1.01 and above without afterburner. But in this context what is considered, "useful supercruise". The ATF requirement was for Mach 1.5. The highest I've ever heard for the F-35 (with unknown loading) was Mach 1.2.
The velocity is more a function of drag than weight... That's why Tomcat A's were so bloody fast even though they were underpowered. I am more curious to know at what minimum altitude is that 1.2 achievable.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
You still haven't offered a viable alternative, you realise?
I think that you are confusing me with someone else. Why would I think there needs to be an alternative? I feel it was the right choice.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
SpudmanWP said:
You still haven't offered a viable alternative, you realise?
I think that you are confusing me with someone else. Why would I think there needs to be an alternative? I feel it was the right choice.
Really? Therefore I apologise.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
7
SpudmanWP said:
Fast & high altitude was proven unachievable back in the early '80s which is why the B-1B was changed from a high&supersonic bomber to a low&fast one. SAMs have only gotten nastier in the last 30 years.
Minor aside:

As I remember it, it wasn't so much that fast and high wasn't achievable on the B-1 as cost and a change in tactics. Had the B-1A continued, it was planned to finish the supersonic testing, but production B-1As in peacetime would have had the variable ramps retained but normally disabled, which would limit the plane to ~ M1.5 or so. This would still be enough for training and proficiency in supersonic flight. In times of war the ramps would be reactivated and full performance would be available . This would save a good amount in mmh and O&M costs. The exact same thing was done with the F-14D for the same reasons, limiting it to M1.88 vs, M2.4.

BTW, to my understanding the B-1A was just 0.7M slower down low than the B-1B and maybe a bit more agile, since it was lighter.

When the plane was resurrected as the B, the philosophy had changed somewhat. It was considered much more important to reduce RCS. The ramps were permanently fixed. In addition to reducing costs, this permitted the application of techniques for reducing radar return within the nacelles and from the engines. Since speed was permanently lowered, the wing's internal strength was also reduced since with a max of M1.25 not all that internal strength was needed and this saved weight, which when practical is always a good thing. From what I've read over the past few years, they don't fly the B-1B supersonically any more because its not needed and this helps extend airframe life.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
John Ivison: Auditor's F35 lightning to strike twice — and this time the Liberals may get burned

What rejoicing there must be in the twin towers at National Defence HQ at the news Canada’s auditor general is going to investigate the fighter jet “capability gap” claim used as justification for sole sourcing the purchase of 18 shiny, new Boeing Super Hornets.

At last, the prospect of vindication against allegations made by out of touch former air force commanders and cynical pundits that the entire “capability gap” excuse was a load of trumped up codswallop designed to push off the purchase of the next generation of fighters until after the next election, thereby living up to the campaign commitment not to buy Lockheed Martin’s F35 Lightning stealth jet.

How Harjit Sajjan, the defence minister, and Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, are going to enjoy a dish of cold revenge, a full two years after their claims that the country faced an urgent shortage of fighter jets and was unable to fulfill its commitments to both NATO and NORAD.

Unless, of course, the auditor Michael Ferguson finds that the entire tangled web was woven in the minister’s office, with the connivance of the military, in order to deceive the public and avoid political embarrassment.
More at the jump

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/politics/john-ivison-auditors-f35-lightning-to-strike-twice-and-this-time-the-liberals-may-get-burned/wcm/a9ed2b7a-c660-435c-ace6-6849dd55eef0
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
F-14D said:
SpudmanWP said:
Fast & high altitude was proven unachievable back in the early '80s which is why the B-1B was changed from a high&supersonic bomber to a low&fast one. SAMs have only gotten nastier in the last 30 years.
Minor aside:

As I remember it, it wasn't so much that fast and high wasn't achievable on the B-1 as cost and a change in tactics. Had the B-1A continued, it was planned to finish the supersonic testing, but production B-1As in peacetime would have had the variable ramps retained but normally disabled, which would limit the plane to ~ M1.5 or so. This would still be enough for training and proficiency in supersonic flight. In times of war the ramps would be reactivated and full performance would be available . This would save a good amount in mmh and O&M costs. The exact same thing was done with the F-14D for the same reasons, limiting it to M1.88 vs, M2.4.

BTW, to my understanding the B-1A was just 0.7M slower down low than the B-1B and maybe a bit more agile, since it was lighter.

When the plane was resurrected as the B, the philosophy had changed somewhat. It was considered much more important to reduce RCS. The ramps were permanently fixed. In addition to reducing costs, this permitted the application of techniques for reducing radar return within the nacelles and from the engines. Since speed was permanently lowered, the wing's internal strength was also reduced since with a max of M1.25 not all that internal strength was needed and this saved weight, which when practical is always a good thing. From what I've read over the past few years, they don't fly the B-1B supersonically any more because its not needed and this helps extend airframe life.
What are your references for making the wing less strong in the B? Low and fast and heavy has a set of structural requirements that can be more severe than thin air at high altitude. The B uses more light weight and cheaper materials than the A throughout. But I can't imagine making a wing less strong. I knew someone who flew photographic chase on the B and was very knowledgeable about the AC. Never heard about a less strong wing . Doesn't mean you're wrong, but never heard that and there is nothing online...

The entire air force is old except for 180 raptors and 200 lightnings. The bone isn't the only aircraft with restrictions for life extension.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,647
Reaction score
30
Website
beyondthesprues.com
New Canadian Fighter Contest

RFP released.

Future Fighter Capability—Formal Supplier Engagement
(Source: Public Service and Procurement Canada; issued Oct 25, 2018)

On October 26, 2018, Canada achieved yet another milestone toward replacing Canada’s fighter fleet, with the release of the draft Request for Proposals to eligible Suppliers for their review and feedback.

Suppliers will have about eight weeks to provide feedback. This feedback will be used to refine and finalize the formal Request for Proposals. The entire process is being reviewed by both an independent fairness monitor and an independent third-party reviewer.

Ensuring suppliers have an opportunity to provide input is critical to the overall success of this procurement and for selecting the right fighter aircraft to meet Canada’s needs, while leveraging economic benefits for Canada.

The government is working diligently to ensure this open and transparent competitive process remains on schedule.

(ends)
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,647
Reaction score
30
Website
beyondthesprues.com
French firm Dassault pulls out of fighter-jet competition: Sources

by LEE BERTHIAUME, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Posted Nov 6, 2018 4:39 pm EST Last Updated Nov 6, 2018 at 6:40 pm EST

OTTAWA – The long effort to replace Canada’s aging fighter jets took another surprise twist on Tuesday, as multiple sources revealed that French fighter-jet maker Dassault is pulling out of the multibillion-dollar competition.

The decision comes just over a week after the federal government published the military’s requirements for a replacement for Canada’s CF-18s as well as a draft process by which a winning supplier will be chosen.

Dassault had repeatedly pitched its Rafale aircraft to Canada over the years as successive governments in Ottawa have wrestled with selecting a new fighter jet. Dassault’s pitch included significant promises, including that it would assemble the planes in Canada.

But sources tell The Canadian Press that Dassault’s decision to withdraw was related to the fact France is not a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, which counts the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada as members. The five members have very specific requirements for how their equipment works together.


The French government, which had been closely working with Dassault as the most recent iteration of Canada’s fighter-replacement program has inched along over the past year, was preparing to notify Ottawa of the company’s withdrawal.

The move leaves four companies — U.S. aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing, European competitor Airbus and Swedish firm Saab — competing for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada’s 76 CF-18s with 88 new fighters.

A contract isn’t expected to be awarded until 2021 or 2022, with delivery of the first new aircraft slated for 2025. In the meantime, the government is planning to upgrade its CF-18s and buy 25 used fighters from Australia as a stopgap.

Dassault faced several significant challenges in meeting Canada’s requirements for a new fighter, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and while they weren’t insurmountable, they would have cost time and money.

Those challenges included meeting those Five-Eyes intelligence-sharing requirements, which Perry said put Dassault at a distinct disadvantage in the competition when compared to Lockheed Martin, Boeing and, to a certain degree, Airbus.

“For any of the non-American companies, solving the Five-Eyes interoperability issues is going to be challenging,” he said, noting that the U.S. in particular is very sensitive about data-sharing.

“And it costs companies a lot of money to mount and pursue bids. So if they think at this point in time that it’s not a realistic prospect, then pulling out is pretty understandable.”

That could explain why Dassault never established a strong presence in Canada during the many years when it was trying to sell the Rafale as a replacement for the CF-18, he added.

The CF-18s are about 35 years old. Canada’s attempts to buy a new fighter jet have dragged on for nearly a decade after the previous Conservative government announced in 2010 that Canada would buy 65 F-35s without a competition, with the first to be delivered in 2015.

But the Tories pushed the reset button in 2012 after the auditor general raised questions about the program and National Defence revealed the jets would cost $46 billion over their lifetimes.

After campaigning on a promise not to buy the F-35s, the Trudeau Liberals announced in November 2016 they would take their time with a competition to replace the CF-18s, and buy 18 “interim” Boeing Super Hornets without a competition because Canada needed more fighter jets badly.

But then Boeing’s trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier saw the Liberals scrap their plan to buy Super Hornets and instead begin talks to buy 18 used fighter jets from Australia. A contract for those used planes is expected in the coming weeks.

The formal competition to replace the CF-18s is scheduled to begin next spring.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
Here is a slide about Five(2)-Eyes and the Canadian fighter requirement.

 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
172
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canadas-cf-18s-miss-norad-pledge-due-to-personnel-s-453792/

The Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of CF-18 fighters is unable to meet the nation's commitments to NATO and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) due to a lack of pilots and technicians, according to a report by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

The problem is exacerbated by Ottawa’s ageing fleet of 76 CF-18 aircraft, which were purchased in the 1980s, are in some cases nearly 20 years past their original expected replacement date and have not received a significant combat upgrade since 2008. What’s more, the Department of National Defence has no plan to upgrade the combat capability of the CF-18 fleet even though the aircraft are expected to fly until 2032, the date by which the RCAF expects to have replaced its fleet with new fighters.

[snip]
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
79
Ottawa’s ageing fleet of 76 CF-18 aircraft, which were purchased in the 1980s, are in some cases nearly 20 years past their original expected replacement date and have not received a significant combat upgrade since 2008. What’s more, the Department of National Defence has no plan to upgrade the combat capability of the CF-18 fleet even though the aircraft are expected to fly until 2032
That sentence, really... so, 2032 ? Well, by this time, the only way to fly those creaky things will be be to throw them into the air using a giant (medieval ?) catapult - a trébuchet, or whatever the english word for that.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,370
Reaction score
588
Archibald said:
Ottawa’s ageing fleet of 76 CF-18 aircraft, which were purchased in the 1980s, are in some cases nearly 20 years past their original expected replacement date and have not received a significant combat upgrade since 2008. What’s more, the Department of National Defence has no plan to upgrade the combat capability of the CF-18 fleet even though the aircraft are expected to fly until 2032
That sentence, really... so, 2032 ? Well, by this time, the only way to fly those creaky things will be be to throw them into the air using a giant (medieval ?) catapult - a trébuchet, or whatever the english word for that.
English for trébuchet is trebuchet :)
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
12
Well... analysis of airframe fatigue, spares etc. Certainly, it has been done before (look at the B-52s)
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
23
And the French for trebuchet is "Fetchez la vache!"
 
Top