Author Topic: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)  (Read 691967 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 83,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,833
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2550 on: May 17, 2019, 14:57:59 »
So weird question but why is there no F-15? Or perhaps more importantly why was it never part of the conversation?  What makes the F-18 so much more obvious a choice over the F-15 (which is also in the Boeing inventory).

Boeing doesn’t need Canada’s business to keep the F-15X line open.  It does for the Super Hornet (especially Block 3).

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • New Member
  • *
  • 2,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2551 on: May 17, 2019, 15:01:44 »
Boeing doesn’t need Canada’s business to keep the F-15X line open.  It does for the Super Hornet (especially Block 3).

That’s not true.  The US Navy is rebuilding block 2s and buying new Block 3s. It only has 10 orders thus far for it’s F-15ex.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2552 on: May 17, 2019, 16:03:55 »
I think the problem with the F-15EX is that the Super Hornet is one of four fighters that were "pre-qualified" by the gov't last year to enter the competition (Rafale also was in but Dassault pulled it).  Presumably the gov't would have to agree to do the same for the new Eagle. That would just slow things down yet again.

Quote
Ottawa releases draft tender on purchase of new fighter jets
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airforce-cf18-fighter-jet-replacement-f35-1.4882570

European fighter-jet manufacturer pulls out of Canadian competition to replace CF-18s
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-european-fighter-jet-manufacturer-pulls-out-of-canadian-competition-to/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 83,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,833
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2553 on: May 17, 2019, 18:15:09 »
That’s not true.  The US Navy is rebuilding block 2s and buying new Block 3s. It only has 10 orders thus far for it’s F-15ex.

The F-15SA is considered F-15X.  What I told you came from people in the know (ie: Boeing).

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • New Member
  • *
  • 2,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2554 on: May 17, 2019, 18:16:55 »
The F-15SA is considered F-15X.  What I told you came from people in the know (ie: Boeing).

Fair enough, good sir. Thanks for the info.

Online SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 83,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,833
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2555 on: May 17, 2019, 18:22:12 »
Fair enough, good sir. Thanks for the info.

Just some amplification.

Boeing secured $50B+ already in contracts for the F-15SA/QA/X and only $4B for the Super Hornet Block 3.  The money for Boeing isn’t with the US Armed Forces but with foreign governments.  They want and need to secure the Block 3 line.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2556 on: May 17, 2019, 19:03:42 »
Still need full House plus Senate, doubt there will be problems:

Quote
F-15EX could be delivered as early as 2020: Boeing
...
House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee [controlled by Democrats] included $986 million in a draft FY2020 budget for eight F-15EX aircraft to replace aging F-15C/Ds...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-15ex-could-be-delivered-as-early-as-2020-boeing-458168/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Harrigan

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 175
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2557 on: May 18, 2019, 01:23:25 »
Of the main competitors (even including the F-15X), how do they stack up in terms of the need for new infrastructure, particularly in the north? 

I think that is an underreported issue with the whole new fighter project - most commentators focus on the cost of the aircraft and maintenance, and not the cost of new infrastructure necessary to operate them (possible longer runways, new FOLs, new AAR platforms, new security systems, etc).  I would imagine that some of the aircraft would fit into our existing sites better than others?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,339
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2558 on: May 18, 2019, 09:18:35 »
Of the main competitors (even including the F-15X), how do they stack up in terms of the need for new infrastructure, particularly in the north? 

I think that is an underreported issue with the whole new fighter project - most commentators focus on the cost of the aircraft and maintenance, and not the cost of new infrastructure necessary to operate them (possible longer runways, new FOLs, new AAR platforms, new security systems, etc).  I would imagine that some of the aircraft would fit into our existing sites better than others?

My best guess is that the infrastructure bill is an approximate wash, regardless of the aircraft chosen. Others who have recently been to Cold Lake can probably attest that most everything there (building-wise) was built in the 1950s and is at the end of its life. The Physical security requirements will increase, dramatically.

Offline HB_Pencil

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2559 on: May 18, 2019, 10:36:06 »
Of the main competitors (even including the F-15X), how do they stack up in terms of the need for new infrastructure, particularly in the north? 

I think that is an underreported issue with the whole new fighter project - most commentators focus on the cost of the aircraft and maintenance, and not the cost of new infrastructure necessary to operate them (possible longer runways, new FOLs, new AAR platforms, new security systems, etc).  I would imagine that some of the aircraft would fit into our existing sites better than others?

We had an extended discussion of this a page earlier.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 337
« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 14:02:06 by suffolkowner »

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2561 on: May 18, 2019, 23:00:15 »
My best guess is that the infrastructure bill is an approximate wash, regardless of the aircraft chosen. Others who have recently been to Cold Lake can probably attest that most everything there (building-wise) was built in the 1950s and is at the end of its life. The Physical security requirements will increase, dramatically.

Anyone still in cold lake can look through the main shared drive folder (can’t remember if it’s J or otherwise) and find the next gen fighter PowerPoint folder. In there it has proposed locations for new hangars and support infrastructure in both Cold lake and Bagotville. Both locations aren’t hurting for space to build new buildings.

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,605
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2562 on: May 18, 2019, 23:31:04 »
I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 222,352
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,200
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2563 on: May 18, 2019, 23:44:09 »
I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?


At the current rate we’re going in obtaining a new fighter........I kinda doubt it
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2564 on: May 19, 2019, 01:03:44 »
I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?

Well by comparison the F35 hangar in Miramar broke ground in Mar 2018 and is scheduled to be completed by Jan 2020. So figure around two-three years for one in cold lake taking winter into account.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2565 on: May 28, 2019, 11:37:45 »
Quote
However, application of the current Industrial and Technological Benefits policy and the measure of points awarded for the economic offset portion in the Request For Proposal appears to undermine the primacy of meeting military needs. Thus, leading to the spectre of the Liberal government’s promise that “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber” becoming a reality through other policy means.
https://www.cgai.ca/anatomy_of_a_buy_the_four_dimensions_of_procuring_a_future_fighter_for_canada#Executive

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2566 on: May 30, 2019, 08:06:35 »
Quote
Rival fighter-jet makers warn procurement rule change for F-35 will hurt Canada

OTTAWA — The Trudeau government's plan to loosen federal procurement rules for the F-35 stealth fighter is sparking public warnings from other fighter-jet makers that it will ultimately hurt Canada.

The Liberals revealed earlier this month that they plan to ease industrial requirements for aerospace companies in the $19-billion competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s with 88 new fighter jets.

The government would essentially lift a long-standing requirement that companies bidding on major defence contracts make contractual commitments to spending some of the proceeds on Canadian goods and labour or have their bids tossed out.

The proposal followed U.S. complaints the criteria violated an agreement Canada signed in 2006 to become one of nine partner countries in the development of the F-35, which is being built by Lockheed Martin.

Yet executives from two of Lockheed's rivals, Boeing and Saab, came out swinging against the plan on Wednesday, saying the previous policy has worked well — and that changing it could shortchange taxpayers and Canada's aerospace industry.

"You've got a policy that's been in place for decades and it's been very successful for Canadian industry," said Jim Barnes, director of business development in Canada for Boeing, which builds the Super Hornet fighter jet.

"So why would you deviate from a policy that's been so successful to accommodate a competitor?"

Those lost benefits to the industry could also damage the military's ability to operate whatever fighter jet wins the competition, said Patrick Palmer, executive vice-president of Swedish firm Saab, which builds the Gripen fighter.

"I am concerned both as a Saab executive and also as a Canadian taxpayer that the changes ... may not give Canada the best ability to support and sustain the equipment for the life that we need to be able to support it," he said.

The two, who spoke in separate briefings on the sidelines of the annual Cansec arms-trade show in Ottawa, stopped short of saying the government's proposal will unfairly tilt the upcoming competition in the F-35's favour.

But they did make clear that they had voiced their concerns to the government and were waiting to see how it responded — which could have an impact on whether their companies decide to bid.

"Our position right now is we're going to review the final (request for proposals) and we're going to make that determination," said Palmer. "We have not committed one way or the other."

Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains insisted during a lunchtime discussion at the Cansec show the government would be able to balance the military's requirements with the need for a fair competition while at the same time "maximizing economic benefits."

"These are the principles that have been guiding our decisions," he said.

U.S. officials had threatened not to enter the F-35 into the competition if the industrial-requirement rules weren't changed, noting that under the partnership agreement signed in 2006, companies in each member country instead compete for work.

The threat was contained in one of two letters sent to the government last year and published in a report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank earlier this month.

Canada has contributed more than $500 million over the past 20 years toward developing the F-35, while Canadian companies have won $1.5 billion in contracts associated with the plane. Canada will also be able to buy the plane for less than non-member countries.

Under the new process, bidders can still guarantee that they will re-invest back into Canada if their jet wins the competition and get full points — which is the likely approach for Boeing, Saab and Eurofighter, which build the Typhoon.

Those like Lockheed Martin that can't make such a commitment will be penalized and 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 has said it plans to launch the long-overdue formal competition to select Canada's next fighter jet in July, nearly four years after the Liberals were elected in 2015 on a promise to hold an immediate competition.

Companies are expected to submit their bids next winter, with a formal contract signed in 2022. The first plane won't arrive until at least 2025.
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/05/29/rival-fighter-jet-makers-warn-procurement-rule-change-for-f-35-will-hurt-canada/#.XO-nsS0ZPUK

Quote
A senior government official, speaking on background Wednesday, said the intention once the bids are in will be to narrow down the contenders to two before deciding on a winner.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-sajjan-july-1.5153959
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 08:19:15 by Uzlu »

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2567 on: May 30, 2019, 09:31:15 »
The Government is really kicking this can down the road!

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2568 on: May 30, 2019, 10:45:11 »
So what happens to the CF-18s, will they be sold off eventually or sent to sticks in small Canadian towns?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2569 on: May 30, 2019, 11:11:44 »
Note offsets suggested by Airbus, Saab--want to bet Bombardier would not be involved?

Quote
Airbus open to a fighter plane assembly plant in Quebec ahead of federal bids
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/airbus-open-to-a-fighter-plane-assembly-plant-in-quebec-ahead-of-federal-bids-1.4253284

And Saab says:

Quote
...
Canadian participation could also include some production and assembly processes, but the full Gripen offer and its industrial participation element have yet to be finalised. Saab is, however, "in active dialogue with Canadian industry"...
https://www.janes.com/article/88850/designed-for-the-future-cs19d1

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 177,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,210
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2570 on: May 30, 2019, 12:19:49 »
So what happens to the CF-18s, will they be sold off eventually or sent to sticks in small Canadian towns?

Why not both?
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 134
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2571 on: May 31, 2019, 09:43:08 »
From CANSEC 2019.

Saab wants to build the Gripen in Quebec.
https://www.janes.com/article/88850/designed-for-the-future-cs19d1


Also:
Hungary May Scrap Swedish Jet Deal for US F-35 Over War of Words - Report
Quote
Hungary is considering scrapping its lease agreement for Jas 39 Gripen and replacing the 14 Swedish fighter jets with US-made F-35, which may cost Sweden billions of kronor and thousands of job opportunities, the Swedish news outlet Fria Tider reported.

The bilateral lease agreement is now at stake over Sweden's "constant smear campaign" against the Hungarian government. Specifically, Hungary is considering replacing the lease agreement with a $1 billion deal with US firm Lockheed Martin. The choice is between the latest model of the F-16 or the fifth generation F-35. Sweden's future on the Hungarian defence market currently looks gloomy.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/203053/hungary-may-scrap-gripen-lease-over-war-of-words-_-report.html


I can see the political win here. If Saab won, they'd probably offer up a nice deal on those 14 Gripen's to us (for training, familiarity) until we got the line up and running in Quebec. The cost per airframe, etc.. would be irrelevant if they were built here, judging from our procurement history over the past few decades?

Wouldn't it be embarrasing for us if Hungary bought 5th Generation F-35s while we buy 4th-ish Gen Gripens though?

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 177,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,210
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2572 on: May 31, 2019, 09:55:31 »
Wouldn't it be embarrasing for us if Hungary bought 5th Generation F-35s while we buy 4th-ish Gen Gripens though?

I think "embarrassing" went out the window when we decided to scrap 5th-gen F-35s for 4th-gen Super Hornets, then nothing at all.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Iron 1

  • Guest
  • *
  • 140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2573 on: May 31, 2019, 20:04:50 »
Or "less" than nothing.
Which is the ridiculous "Capability Gap" rhetoric and the Liberal's answer of flushing $1B (on bagged airframes & spare parts from the RAAF) down the toilet (for the sake of "optics"), in support of the facade they created two years ago.

NUTS.
Grrrr.

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2574 on: June 01, 2019, 12:28:54 »
Why not both?

Strip them clean and send them off as Snowbird replacements?


I can see the political win here. If Saab won, they'd probably offer up a nice deal on those 14 Gripen's to us (for training, familiarity) until we got the line up and running in Quebec. The cost per airframe, etc.. would be irrelevant if they were built here, judging from our procurement history over the past few decades

Would create jobs, for a few years at least, then after they are built ("built" likely only means to "assemble" as the modules built elsewhere), bye bye. All these flashy "Built in Canada" headlines are just BS to entice the clueless majority Canadian public. Once they are assembled in Canada all the jobs will be gone the way of GM as the line shuts down. Compare that to the JSF program where Canadian companies have been building components for a decade now... https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation