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

[Drallib]

After reading about the F-35 delays and issues, and the whole argument about single engine, and also single nose wheel, I'm still not sure who Canada will decide on. I was leaning heavily to the F-35 because of it's capabilities and everyone else choosing it.

 

[Drallib]

Boeing Rolls Out First F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet Strike Fighter

The first F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet test jet has rolled out of final assembly at Boeing's factory in St. Louis, Missouri, the company announced on May 8, 2020.

This is the first of two F/A-18 Block III test jets headed to the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy will use these jets for carrier testing of Block III capabilities. Upgrades include the advanced cockpit system’s new 10-by-19 inch touchscreen display. Boeing is set to deliver the two test jets to the U.S. Navy in the coming weeks.

Boeing received a whopping $4 Billion U.S. Navy contract in March last year for multi-year procurement of 78 F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet strike fighters (61 single-seat E and 17 two-seat F), delivered through 2024.

The Block III configuration adds capability upgrades that include enhanced network capability, longer range, reduced radar signature, an advanced cockpit system and an enhanced communication system. Boeing started converting existing Block II Super Hornets to Block III this year. The fighter’s life will be extended from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours.

The Block III Super Hornet has shoulder mounted conformal fuel tanks. They can carry 3,500 pounds of additional fuel and they reduce drag, allowing the aircraft to operate longer, go faster and/or carry more weight.

Inside the cockpit, the advanced cockpit system has replaced the buttons and knobs, similar to a large tablet. The new 10-by-19 inch touchscreen display provides the pilot with the capability to see, track and target multiple long range targets generated by the common tactical picture.

The block II IRST will be able to detect threats at long range without having to depend on radar which may be jammed. The block II IRST will generate a multi-ship, common tactical picture at long range, allowing the Super Hornet to operate as a smart sensor node on the network.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/05/boeing-rolls-out-first-f-a-18-block-iii-super-hornet-strike-fighter/

 

[dimsum]

After reading about the F-35 delays and issues, and the whole argument about single engine, and also single nose wheel, I'm still not sure who Canada will decide on. I was leaning heavily to the F-35 because of it's capabilities and everyone else choosing it.

What's the problem with a single nosewheel?

 

[Drallib]

What's the problem with a single nosewheel?

Wet/icy runways.

I know that icy runways shouldn't happen because of flight planning and everything, and maybe it wouldn't even matter. Another thing is cost per flying hour. So many factors. At this point, I'll be happy with either the F35 or F18 Block III.

 

[Drallib]

Boeing with the visuals. Looks good.

 

[dimsum]

Boeing with the visuals. Looks good.

No two-seater variant? 

Although I suppose there probably wouldn't be many ACSOs jumping at a Cold Lake posting.  Maybe Bagotville though.

 

[MilEME09]

No two-seater variant? 

Although I suppose there probably wouldn't be many ACSOs jumping at a Cold Lake posting.  Maybe Bagotville though.

Boeing has made a 2 seater version for every other hornet, I doubt they would stop now.

What I would be interested in is if the new weapons pylons they designed for the latest F-15s are compatible with the Block III F-18 super hornets. Those Pylons enabled the F15 to carry upto 32 AIM-120's, toss that on a F-18, and if we end with with them at would atheist be a force multiplier to carry a large amount of munitions as a smaller airforce.

 

[blacktriangle]

Maybe someone truly informed can weigh in, but I seem to remember F-15s having a pretty strong payload capability...that's why they have had so much utility as bomb trucks in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Wet/icy runways.

I know that icy runways shouldn't happen because of flight planning and everything, and maybe it wouldn't even matter. Another thing is cost per flying hour. So many factors. At this point, I'll be happy with either the F35 or F18 Block III.

Having flown the Hornet on icy runways, I can tell you with certainty that the aircraft still becomes a curling rock, despite the dual nosewheel.  Vipers operate in Northern countries with, gasp, a single nosewheel without difficulty.

 

[Drallib]

Having flown the Hornet on icy runways, I can tell you with certainty that the aircraft still becomes a curling rock, despite the dual nosewheel.  Vipers operate in Northern countries with, gasp, a single nosewheel without difficulty.

Thanks for the insight. I was making the point after reading the post by Uzlu titled “Low-risk capability“ in the 19th paragraph. I still hope the RCAF goes with the F35A.

 

[Good2Golf]

Technically, higher tire pressure actually makes a plane less susceptible to hydroplaning in standing water. Vaq = 9 x ground speed (kts) x Sqrt tire pressure (psi).  Generally, single tire assemblies run higher pressure than dual assemblies, so they’ll be less prone to aqua planing.

 

[Uzlu]

All three candidates—Gripen E, Block III Super Hornet, and F35A—are new jets with probably lots of new-jet problems still to be worked out.

EDITORIAL: When it comes to the F-35 stealth fighter, buyer beware

Amidst the welter of cash flying out of Ottawa over the past few weeks, you might not even have noticed US$70 million that flew south to help design and build a fighter jet Canada isn’t committing to buying yet.

The federal government is in the midst of sorting out a contract for a new fighter to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s, and the U.S.-built F-35 stealth fighter is one of the three candidates.

But, whatever aircraft wins, we’re already spending money on the F-35. The US$70 million was just the latest contribution.

There are good reasons for spending the money, even though we haven’t committed to buying any of the aircraft: being part of the team of countries involved in the development of the aircraft means Canadian manufacturers can bid on contracts related to the now US$428 billion aircraft construction project. (The entire acquisition and operations budget for the aircraft is now US$1.6 trillion.)

Buying in could be seen as simple government pragmatism; Canada’s put US$541.3 million into the stealth fighter’s development since 1997, but the government says that spending has landed US$1.8 billion in contracts for Canadian companies.

Pragmatism aside, the F-35 is a fascinating business case. That’s because the aircraft and its failures, delays and budget overruns have kept U.S. federal government watchdog auditors very busy.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office issued its latest report on the aircraft’s troubles last Tuesday. The GAO pointed out the U.S. Defence Department “began development of the F-35 aircraft in 2001 without adequate knowledge of its critical technologies or a solid design, as we reported in March 2005.”

Testing on the aircraft found 3,200 deficiencies in the aircraft’s weapons systems. The GAO also found that the aircraft was not meeting its reliability and maintainability performance targets, meaning aircraft would need more hours of maintenance than expected for every hour of operation. The aircraft also had multiple cyber-security vulnerabilities.

But biggest of all? A key component of the aircraft doesn’t work properly and is being replaced. Not an engine, or a weapons system — but the hardware and software that are needed to track maintenance, training, mission planning and a host of other systems.

Users of the aircraft break its main component parts down into the airframe, engines and the aircraft’s Autonomous Logistics Information system. Even though 550 of the aircraft have already been delivered (even before completing full testing) the ALIS is now going to be replaced with a new Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN).

Right now, the development of ODIN is only in the planning stages, and its costs are unknown.

It might be a good thing to stay part of procurement team.

Going a step further and buying the aircraft?

Maybe it’s better to wait until all the bugs are worked out.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/regional-perspectives/editorial-when-it-comes-to-canadas-new-fighter-jets-buyer-beware-449633/

 

[Uzlu]

Trump: make all F-35 parts in US

No F-35 parts should be made abroad, U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday.

“We get parts from all over the place, it’s so crazy,” Trump said during an interview with Fox that aired Thursday morning. “We should make everything in the United States.”

While the president no doubt had politics in mind, politics is part of the reason why the F-35 draws upon a global supply chain — and for that matter, why nearly every U.S. state makes something for the fifth-generation combat jet. Doling out lucrative work to potential customers and to many lawmakers’ constituents helped get the massive program off the ground and keep it going through controversy.

But even before the pandemic, this vast supply chain had proved unwieldy. Getting spare parts for F-35s has been a problem for years. A May 12 Government Accountability Office report found that in 2019, F-35 suppliers “struggled to meet increased production demands…and, as a result, the program witnessed increased rates of late deliveries or parts shortages.”

In other words, the suppliers delivered parts late to Lockheed Martin, which assembles the bulk of F-35s in Fort Worth, Texas. That’s prompted Lockheed to reconfigure its assembly line, making it less efficient.

Further complicating F-35 production: the U.S. has kicked Turkey, which makes more than 1,000 of the plane’s parts, out of the program last year after Ankara received S-400 interceptors from Russia. Pentagon acquisition officials planned to remove all Turkish suppliers by March, but then said Turkey would continue making some parts through the end of the year.

A Pentagon acquisition official told GAO that Turkish companies would continue supplying parts through “the end of lot 14 deliveries” — scheduled in 2022. This is being done “in part, to avoid disruptions to aircraft deliveries and additional cost growth from standing up new suppliers.”

About those new suppliers. It’ll take time for them stand up manufacturing facilities and certify new parts. Lockheed representatives told GAO “it would take over a year to stand up these new suppliers, with lead times dependent on several factors, such as part complexity, quantity, and the supplier’s production maturity.”

And again, all of the estimates in GAO’s report were done before coronavirus.

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/05/global-business-brief-may-14-2020/165407/

 

[Good2Golf]

Turkey as an exceptional case obviously within the F-35 global supply chain and operational community, the entire basis of the JSF Program was as the next generation of F-16...the “go-to” international light fighter with strike capabilities.  His apparent belief that you can rewrite the entire basis of international collaboration to build several thousand “5th-gen F-16 replacements” with all the program future value to accrue to the US while the multiple billions that the Tier 1, 2 and 3 (Canada being Tier 3 I believe) JSF Program member nations contributed is transactionally ignorant and risks the overall success of the program.  The harm to international programs that are significantly different than real estate development, boggles the mind. Perhaps it will take closing out all nations from the supply chain and seeing the damage that does to the program would be enough for some to dissuade POTUS if continuing down this line of thinking.  It’s not a case of Air Force one, where he held all the cards and Boeing essentially had to accept a non-contractual “here, I’m taking xxxx off the price, take it or you’ll pay the price.”  Here, many nations, although they definitely wouldn’t be happy, would be able to revise their programs. Then we probably really would see Eurofighter, Rafale and Grippen numbers increase.

 

[GR66]

I'm certainly not one to take President Trump's many random musings as any indication of change to US official policy, but he certainly hasn't been shy in including Canada in his targets for his "America First" policies in the past (steel and aluminum imports being one example). 

Hypothetically, if he were to instruct LM to begin repatriating parts production for the F-35 to the US then I'd imagine it would be a boost to the Gripen bid to replace the CF-18's.  After all, if the US is willing to exclude F-35 parts production from allies, then who says he wouldn't also be willing limit industrial offsets that military contractors are permitted to provide to other countries?  Gripen with MBDA missiles to ensure continued supply, support (and investment in Canadian industry) sure wouldn't be a good thing for NORAD in my mind.

That being said, I think a LOT of people in the US would sit the President down before that and explain to him why what he's suggesting really is a BAD idea.

 

[Good2Golf]

We’d go Rafale before we went Gripen.  At the cost of oversimplification and raising some people’s ire, the Gripen is just a 2-gen improvement on the CF-5. 

NORAD would have some serious challenges, but I don’t think the current Government would look at the gains with Stronger ties with France and complete tech transfer and license build of Dassault’s Rafale in Mirabel (oops, I pre-judged the prefered COA, my bad) over the loss of the questionable by many current string integration of Canada and America with continental air defence/defense.  If Trump is really aiming for a ‘Fortress America’, there certainly couldn’t be a better* Government in place in Canada to help him with his wish. (* assumption that neither the NDP nor Green Party will ever form a sitting Govermnent in Canada).

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Quirky]

After reading about the F-35 delays and issues, and the whole argument about single engine, and also single nose wheel, I'm still not sure who Canada will decide on. I was leaning heavily to the F-35 because of it's capabilities and everyone else choosing it.

The single engine hasn't been an issue in fighters in a long time now.

The F-18L concept did use a single front nose tire. The entire aircraft looks kinda funny just sitting there. Reminds me of that dude in the gym that never does legs. In retrospect, it would've made sense to have that gear for the RCAF. The amount of time spent maintaining an unnecessarily complicated landing gear system that doesn't get fully utilised could be spent elsewhere. Not to mention the cost and weight savings. Lets hope we don't make the same mistake and buy Navy, carrier landing designed, fighters again.

That being said, I think a LOT of people in the US would sit the President down before that and explain to him why what he's suggesting really is a BAD idea.

By the time we choose anything Trump will be done his 2nd term and won't be an issue anymore.  ;D

 

[AlexanderM]

Very sexy.

 

[MilEME09]

Very sexy.

I wonder if we bought Growlers too would they be built to the block III standard? If we didn't get the F-35 and it's stealth, to me, and my limited knowledge  investing in an EW package to support them would be the next best thing, that is to say Super Hornets plus a squadron of growlers.

 

[Drallib]

I wonder if we bought Growlers too would they be built to the block III standard? If we didn't get the F-35 and it's stealth, to me, and my limited knowledge  investing in an EW package to support them would be the next best thing, that is to say Super Hornets plus a squadron of growlers.

The US Navy is planning to upgrade all their 160 Block I Growlers to Block II (Block III Super Hornet equivalent) but some systems wont be ready until 2025. I'm not sure when Boeing would be rolling out brand new Block II Growlers.

I just realized the US Navy has almost double the amount of Electronic Attack aircraft than we will have for an entire Fighter fleet. Sigh

New capabilities for the Growler Block II

the Super Hornet Block III, including the Advanced Cockpit System and conformal fuel tanks,%u201D Tebo says, adding that remaining upgrades will be specific to the electronic attack suite. It is to note that in the Growler the shift from drop tanks to conformal ones not only will increase the time on station and reduce the radar cross section, but it will also avoid interfering with the central EW pod. The mission system will also be upgraded in order to improve the information distributing process, reducing the crew workload thanks to the new software and the cockpit touch screen. The Growler Block II will also integrate a number of programmes of record, such as the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) that is split in three different systems, the Mid-Band, 2-6 GHz, already in development, the Low-Band (100 MHz-2 GHz) which Request for Information was issued in early June, and the High-Band (6-18 GHz), which has yet to be started. These systems should be ready by 2025, when Boeing expects to deliver the first Growler Block II. The Tactical Targeting Network Technology will definitely be installed, in order to exchange information with Block III Super Hornets as well as E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/new-capabilities-for-the-growler-block-ii