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

[GR66]

I've got a very general question about the costs of modern fighter aircraft.  There is often the argument heard that F-15s and F-18s don't make sense because they are basically 70s technology at the same or higher cost than the F-35.

Why are these older aircraft not any cheaper than they are?  Are the production methods used on the F-35 that much more efficient than that of the older aircraft?  Hasn't Boeing had 40 years of experience in production of these airframes to optimize their production (i.e. maximize their profit on each unit), or is it simply a matter of low-rate production costs vs. high-rate production costs?  Are the efficiency differences really that great between the two (Lockheed and Boeing) production lines?

Or is it because the actual airframe itself is not the major cost in the production of the aircraft and the major price component comes from the electronics and avionics installed in the aircraft?  So if you're installing the latest and greatest AESA radar and advanced combat information systems in ANY aircraft you're likely to be pushing $100 million per copy whether it's installed in an F-35, and F-15, a Scorpion or a Twin Otter?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ostrozac: On Bears (and Blackjacks) and fighter escorts, see latter part here:

Who Needs Fifth Generation (Stealth) Fighters? But Escorted Russian Bombers?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/mark-collins-who-needs-fifth-generation-stealth-fighters-but-escorted-russian-bombers/

Janes360 story link no longer works but the piece can be seen here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/mig-31-interception-russia-changing-offensive-operations.63747/

More on MiG-31 escorts:

NORAD (RCAF) vs Bears…and Foxhounds–and Nukes
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/mark-collins-norad-rcaf-vs-bears-and-foxhounds-and-nukes/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jmt18325]

I think he means provide a source 

Like, I said, I'm not that committed to this position.  Take this opinion piece for what you will:

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/

 

[jmt18325]

And for the NORAD role, do we really care about the relative quality of the air to air capability? Last I heard, Russian doctrine was that Bears were operating without fighter escort. Air to air capability seems more important for the expeditionary role (self-escort strike, enforcing no-fly zones, etc...).

That's the same reason we really don't need the F-35.  Even the Russians can't make it that distance with a large enough number of fighters to pose that big of a threat to a few Super Hornets.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It has better wing loading and thrust ratios than almost any competitor.  I'm not overly committed to this idea, I'm just going by what I've read.  I think, on balance, it's not a good solution for Canada.  It is, apparently, a very good air to air fighter, which is why almost every country that has bought it uses it for border security.

So you are telling my that wing loading and thrust/weight ratio are more important than weapons, sensors and fusion in Air Superiority?

Got it.  You don't really know what makes a good air-air platform...

 

[jmt18325]

So you are telling my that wing loading and thrust/weight ratio are more important than weapons, sensors and fusion in Air Superiority?

Got it.  You don't really know what makes a good air-air platform...

I don't pretend to be an expert. Like I said, I can only go by what I read. Most sources consider the F-35 to be a less than capable platform for air engagements.  The Typhoon can go faster, further, and carry more weapons to a fight.  The F-35 does have the advantages of stealth and advanced sensor fusion that only the Super Hornet comes anywhere near.  It's not an easy comparison, and like I said I'm no expert and have never portrayed myself as such.

 

[PuckChaser]

If you're not an expert, be extremely careful making sweeping generalizations. A Eurofighter is also $140M CAD, good luck justifying that cost, when you turned down a ~$110M CAD F-35.

I also strongly doubt the Super Hornet will be able to hold a candle to the sensors/fusion that the F-35 brings to the fight.

 

[jmt18325]

If you're not an expert, be extremely careful making sweeping generalizations. A Eurofighter is also $140M CAD, good luck justifying that cost, when you turned down a ~$110M CAD F-35.

I didn't mean to sound as if I was making a definitive statement.  In my opinion, based on what I read, I though that to be true.  I also didn't advocate for the purchase of said aircraft, as it isn't the best fit for Canada (again, IMO).

I also strongly doubt the Super Hornet will be able to hold a candle to the sensors/fusion that the F-35 brings to the fight.

It won't be as good.  It will apparently come within a reasonable distance, but, then again those are Boeing claims, to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[WingsofFury]

I don't pretend to be an expert. Like I said, I can only go by what I read. Most sources consider the F-35 to be a less than capable platform for air engagements.  The Typhoon can go faster, further, and carry more weapons to a fight.  The F-35 does have the advantages of stealth and advanced sensor fusion that only the Super Hornet comes anywhere near.  It's not an easy comparison, and like I said I'm no expert and have never portrayed myself as such.

Suggestion from someone like you who isn't an expert; any Strike Eagle variant can meet Canada's needs when it comes to air to air and air to ground combat, complete with weaponry and sensors that make it viable in any global theatre.

Only thing is, Boeing wants to sell us the Super Hornet instead....ask yourself why they want to sell us an inferior aircraft that hasn't won any competition it's been involved in.

Answer is simple; because we'll be stupid enough to buy it.

 

[Pilot-Wannabe]

Also not an expert; but one big factor behind the Super Hornet pitch over the Eagle is that we already have legacy Hornets. 

Dont get me wrong I love the F-15 but it is an expensive plane, both to purchase and to operate. Purchase cost is comparable to the F-35 at over 110-120M per airframe and its hourly operating costs may not necessarily be more than the F-35 but definitely a higher hourly cost than the Hornet.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Regardless of what the experts say, it will be people with very little knowledge that will make the final decision, they will look at a 3 page briefing note, listen to what a flurry of contradicting experts say and then make a political decision. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And the political decision will not include the F-35 no matter what ... 'cause we, at Wesayso Corporation said so. So there 

Personally, I say go for the Gripen NG and start holding training "deployments" everywhere in Canada's countryside on stretches of roads and highways of  1 Km or more (preferably in Liberal ridings), just to annoy the hell out of canadians so they get back to their government on the issue  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

I appears to me, in appointing Paula Folkes-Dallaire to head a new (or reconfigured) office to oversee procurement, that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has taken a leaf from Prime Minister Harper's playbook: he will let the bureaucrats "break trail" and find a path out of the current mess and into something akin to "daylight."

Mme Folkes-Dallaire has the title (rank) of senior director ~ it may not sound like much but the last person with whom I dealt who had that title was the chief-of-staff to one of the most powerful deputy ministers in Ottawa and he, the senior director, dealt directly, with other, lesser, DMs and with ADMs as a near equal.

Mme Folkes-Dallaire has a solid résumé (her LinkedIn profile is down for refurbishment), she was a director general in her last job, and I'm 99.99% certain that she is well known as an able, politically sensitive manager with some experience at (successfully) handling difficult, complex and politically dangerous files.

 

[WingsofFury]

Also not an expert; but one big factor behind the Super Hornet pitch over the Eagle is that we already have legacy Hornets. 

Dont get me wrong I love the F-15 but it is an expensive plane, both to purchase and to operate. Purchase cost is comparable to the F-35 at over 110-120M per airframe and its hourly operating costs may not necessarily be more than the F-35 but definitely a higher hourly cost than the Hornet.

Just because we have legacy Hornets doesn't mean they are at all similar to Super Hornets.  Matter of fact, many believe that our current legacy Hornets are actually better than Supers....

So while an Eagle may cost more, it's definitely a better platform that a Super Hornet.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Wings of Fury: But does the RCAF need a better aircraft than one the USN is going to fly until 2040 (plus?):

The RCAF’s New Fighter and Long-Term Sustainability: What About the US Navy?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/mark-collins-the-rcafs-new-fighter-and-long-term-sustainability-what-about-the-us-navy/

US Navy: Slow F-35C Arrival=Super Hornet Life Extension
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/mark-collins-us-navy-slow-f-35c-arrivalsuper-hornet-life-extension/

How Long Will the F/A-18E/F Line Growl On?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/mark-collins-how-long-will-the-fa-18ef-line-growl-on/

And can anyone really say what the role and effectiveness of the manned fighter--even the F-35--will be in the 2040s?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Wings of Fury: But does the RCAF need a better aircraft than one the USN is going to fly until 2040 (plus?):

And can anyone really say what the role and effectiveness of the manned fighter--even the F-35--will be in the 2040s?

Mark
Ottawa

Does the US Navy do NORAD?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good2Golf: No, but fleet protection (somewhat similar, obviously not the same).  For me the real NORAD question is whether Russian fighters will escort bombers, in which case stealth makes sense for continental air defence:
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1401357.html#msg1401357

And there is that affordability question esp. with the new government--though F-35 at some point may not be too bad:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/mark-collins-f-35-and-canadian-election-liberals-loose-with-fighter-costs/

Rafale line though now looking pretty secure for some time--note UAE in "Comments" along with BAE curtailing Typhoon production:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/mark-collins-french-rafale-fighter-on-really-big-roll-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Good2Golf: No, but fleet protection (somewhat similar, obviously not the same).  For me the real NORAD question is whether Russian fighters will escort bombers, in which case stealth makes sense for continental air defence:
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1401357.html#msg1401357

Not sure Russian fighters would have the legs that Tu-160, Tu-95 or Tu-22 would have, thus not sure fighter escort is even in play.  Response speed and range, and ability to 'prosecute threats' by RCAF interceptors within CANR is Job 1.  You would likely have a hard time finding anyone saying that an F-15SE wouldn't be the Silver Standard...Gold is the F-22 Raptor, but no one other than the Americans get the Gold standard.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G

 

[WingsofFury]

Wings of Fury: But does the RCAF need a better aircraft than one the USN is going to fly until 2040 (plus?):

And can anyone really say what the role and effectiveness of the manned fighter--even the F-35--will be in the 2040s?

Mark
Ottawa

If we're expected to fly and maintain as a sole country the fighter for an additional 15 -20 years after the US Navy retires theirs, then yes, we do need a better aircraft.  The Eagle is slated to be in service until the 2050's and perhaps even into the 2060's in countries that are considered hot by anyones standards; why should we have less of a capability, given that we are fully expecting a Russian incursion at some point. As well, why not have a platform that is capable not only in air to ground and air to air scenarios, but can perform CAS against maritime vessels as well?

As to a manned platforms role and effectiveness beyone 2040...seriously? The UAV world isn't anywhere near coming up with something that will perform in the capacity of frontline manned fighters. That's why platforms are being bought now with the expectation that they'll be around for another 30, 40, or perhaps 50 years...even the US Navy knows that the -35C is the best option as they continue testing on the X-47.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good2Golf: No disagreement but money, money, money--plus no Raptors to be had for love or money.

Fighter escort matter with refueling worth serious watching methinks, esp. with Russian nuclear "de-escalation" doctrine and new stealthy cruise missiles (Kh-102 http://missilethreat.com/missiles/kh-101-102/ -- Kh-101 just used in Syria http://www.janes.com/article/56062/russia-launches-long-range-air-sorties-into-syria ):

https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation/

Mark
Ottawa