RCAF Hornet replacement.

[unmanned_droid]

I read on Flight Global today that Boeing didn't turn up for a day with the RCAF Hornet replacement team and that Boeing are still deciding if they'd like to offer the Super Hornet to the Hornet replacement competition (whilst stating that its clearly the best option...). Obviously this doesn't sit in isolation from the other problems Boeing and Canada have had just recently.

So, if no F35 due to cost and if no Super Hornet due to politics....what then? Could Typhoon have a shot?

[Davef68]

Did you see the statement from the Canadians that effectively said any bidder should not be seen to be damaging Canada's interests?

Maybe Boeing thinks it's US airliner market is more lucrative than the Canadian fighter one?

I still think it will be F-35

[BEagle]

Rafale stands a reasonable chance....

[unmanned_droid]

Did you see the statement from the Canadians that effectively said any bidder should not be seen to be damaging Canada's interests?

Maybe Boeing thinks it's US airliner market is more lucrative than the Canadian fighter one?

I still think it will be F-35

I didn't want to make that issue so in your face, in case the thread went down that path. Problem is, its almost certainly a massive part of this bid.

Boeing might compete and never actually have a hope of winning regardless of the performance of their aircraft. Boeing might not compete and therefore would definitely not win.

I am actually genuinely interested in whether the Typhoon suits. I understand that it would be introducing a different 'ecosystem', but is that so terrible?

[unmanned_droid]

Rafale stands a reasonable chance....

That would be interesting...

[unmanned_droid]

Reported previously on the F-35 thread. Canada is buying the old Australian F-18s to extend the life of the current fleet.

It delays the decision over the replacement and allows a new competition between the Typhoon, Rafale, FA-18E/F/G and F-35 and a decision until the fuss over Bombardier and the F-35 argument has gone away.

Come back in 5-10 years.....

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us

Apologies, yes I should have said that RAAF airframes were being bought so as to offset the decision on a replacement airframe to the right.

If you were buying which one would you go for?

[ORAC]

Canada's CF-18s to fly until 2032 as new fighter jets expected to be slowly phased in (http://nationalpost.com/news/canadas-cf-18s-to-fly-until-2032-as-new-fighter-jets-expected-to-be-slowly-phased-in)

Canada will squeeze even more flying time out of its aging CF-18s, keeping the jets operating for another 15 years. There had been plans to take the jets out of service shortly after 2025. But representatives from companies who took part in a Jan. 22 industry day outlining the Liberal government’s program to buy new fighter planes were told the RCAF will now keep the CF-18s operating until 2032.....

In November 2016, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledged that the CF-18s might have to keep flying longer than planned, suggesting they could even continue until 2030 or perhaps beyond. The briefing to industry representatives was the first official government confirmation that the RCAF would stretch out the life of the aircraft until 2032.

The Liberals have committed to buying 88 new fighter jets in a program that could cost as much as $19 billion. That price-tag does not include long-term maintenance. Troy Crosby, director general of defence major projects at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said in an interview with Postmedia that a request for proposals from companies for the new fighter jets is expected to be issued in spring 2019. A contract would be signed in late 2021 or early 2022.

[ORAC]

Canada to buy more used Australian fighter jets ? number goes from 18 to 25 | Ottawa Citizen (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canada-to-buy-more-used-australian-fighter-jets-number-goes-from-18-to-25)

Canada to buy more used Australian fighter jets - number goes from 18 to 25

The Liberal government originally announced it would buy 18 used Australian F-18 jets to augment the Royal Canadian Air Force’s CF-18s until new aircraft can be purchased in the coming years. But it has added seven more used Australian F-18 aircraft to the deal, the Department of National Defence has confirmed. Those extra aircraft will be stripped down for parts, Dan Blouin, a spokesman for the DND, said Friday. It is not known yet if the seven aircraft will be flown to Canada or shipped, he added.

The exact cost of purchasing the 25 aircraft, along with weapons and other equipment is not yet known as negotiations are still underway on the deal, Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough recently told journalists. The Liberal government has set aside up to $500 million for the project. An Australian Senate hearing was recently told that Canada was presented with a cost proposal from the Australian government last year. “They accepted our offer in December, but they have also put in a further request for some seven aircraft for system testing, training and spares,” Australian Air Vice Marshal Cath Roberts told the hearing.

The U.S. government is examining the deal and will have to give its approval to Australia before that country can sell the F-18s to Canada. Approval is needed because the F-18s were built in the U.S. with American technology. Canada is hoping for the U.S. approval sometime in the summer........

[Bob Viking]

I love Canada for many reasons (I ought to, they let me become a citizen!).

Right now I especially love Canada because they enable me to feel a little less irked by our own (UK) procurement system.

What a mess they have got themselves into. Once again.

BV

[BEagle]

It certainly looks like the RCAF is being messed abooot, eh BV?

[F-16GUY]

I love Canada for many reasons (I ought to, they let me become a citizen!).

Right now I especially love Canada because they enable me to feel a little less irked by our own (UK) procurement system.

What a mess they have got themselves into. Once again.

BV


Not to worry BV. Although I thought Denmark postponed the decision for an awful looooong time, Canada will too, when the time is right, chose the F-35. Trust me, its the only aircraft that will do the job, from now and 40+ years onward.

[ORAC]

https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1JH2IA-OCABS

Exclusive: Canada could make it harder for U.S. to win fighter bid

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2018/10/30/canada-to-accept-bids-for-new-fighter-jet-in-may-here-are-the-potential-competitors/

Canada to accept bids for new fighter jet in May

VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canada expects to accept formal bids for a new fighter jet in May, with the first aircraft delivered by 2025, according to Canadian government procurement officials.

A draft bid package for 88 fighters was issued to companies for their feedback by the end of this year, said Pat Finn, assistant deputy minister for materiel at the Department of National Defence. From there, the final bidding instructions for the CA$16 billion (U.S. $12 billion) procurement (https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2018/10/05/us-clears-helicopters-for-iraq-aircraft-for-canada/)will be issued and bids required by May 2019, he added.

The aircraft will replace Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. The aircraft expected to be considered include Lockheed Martin’s F-35, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, Saab’s Gripen and the Boeing Super Hornet.

The Canadian government will require a robust package of guaranteed industrial benefits or offsets from the winning bidder, government officials said. But that could be a problem for the F-35, as Canada is still a partner in that program, which does not guarantee participating-nations contracts. Work on the F-35 program is based on best value and price. Canadian industrial participation in the F-35 program has reached $1 billion, as more than 110 Canadian firms have landed contracts related to the aircraft program.

Jeff Waring, director general for industrial benefits policy at the federal Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, said the country sees the fighter jet program as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity for the Canadian economy.” But he noted the industrial benefits policy is flexible. “It is a market-driven approach,” he said. “It encourages suppliers to make investments that make sense to them.”

The issue of industrial benefits has already been discussed with companies interested in bidding on the project, and those talks will continue as feedback is received on the draft bid package, government officials said.

[KenV]

The Canadian government will require a robust package of guaranteed industrial benefits or offsets from the winning bidder, government officials said. But that could be a problem for the F-35, as Canada is still a partner in that program, which does not guarantee participating-nations contracts. Work on the F-35 program is based on best value and price.So Canada is already a partner on the F-35 program and reaping economic benefits from that partnership. Buying F-35 will not increase/improve those economic benefits. But buying another fighter, be it European or American, will likely bring new economic benefits to Canada while not effecting Canada's existing F-35 partnership?

[spannermonkey]

So Canada is already a partner on the F-35 program and reaping economic benefits from that partnership. Buying F-35 will not increase/improve those economic benefits. But buying another fighter, be it European or American, will likely bring new economic benefits to Canada while not effecting Canada's existing F-35 partnership?


not exactly true

[Grizzz]

All items defense procurement related are in a shambles with the current govt. in office. Far too many political considerations getting priority over common sense and reason. The Trudeau gang has messed with many contracts, for purely political purposes, which always costs more in the long term than just going with earlier choices would.

[KenV]

not exactly trueI did not make a statement. I asked a question. How can a question be "not exactly true?"

[ORAC]

Putting a question mark at the end of a statement doesn’t make it a question - except in the case of a rhetorical question.

The question would, presumably, have been:

”But will buying another fighter, be it European or American, will likely bring new economic benefits to Canada, not adversely effecting Canada's existing F-35 partnership?”

To which the answer is obviously yes - but leaves open whether the end result will be more or less advantageous.

[glad rag]

<devils advocate mode on>Bae don't want more Typhoon orders far more $$$ to be made selling off UK real estate and binning skilled workers.<off>

[spannermonkey]

I did not make a statement. I asked a question. How can a question be "not exactly true?"

Statement - Not entirely correct
Question response - No, not entirely correct

Happy? (question). Some people need to be a little less sensitive (statement).

[TBM-Legend]

How about something unusual? They need the RCAF to be equipped with the best aircraft that meets their mission requirements!

[KenV]

Statement - Not entirely correct
Question response - No, not entirely correct
Happy? (question). Some people need to be a little less sensitive (statement).Goodness, now I'm more confused than ever. Or does that make me too sensitive?

In any event, what is the answer to my ("not entirely correct") question? Specifically:
Will buying another fighter, be it European or American, likely bring new economic benefits to Canada while not effecting Canada's existing F-35 partnership?

[glad rag]

Not to worry BV. Although I thought Denmark postponed the decision for an awful looooong time, Canada will too, when the time is right, chose the F-35. Trust me, its the only aircraft that will do the job, from now and 40+ years onward.

on one engine...

[India Four Two]

on one engine...

Good point, glad rag. I have been wondering what the CF-18 drivers at Cold Lake and Bagotville have to say about flying over miles and miles of nothing on one engine.

[TBM-Legend]

Well the Canucks flew F-86's and CF-104's in Canada and Europe for eons...F-16's/Grippens roam around on one donk in many many nations and conditions. The Norwegians operate in the extreme high latitudes and chose the F-35 e.g.

[golder]

Good point, glad rag. I have been wondering what the CF-18 drivers at Cold Lake and Bagotville have to say about flying over miles and miles of nothing on one engine.
Probably the same thing as the RAF, USN and any of the other partners and purchasers.,
Would we include the F-16 guys flying out of Alaska?

[Bob Viking]

I spent 3.5 years at Cold Lake not so long ago. I was flying the Hawk in a training role. I used to hear the twin engine argument trotted out with predictable monotony.

I understand their point. Canada is huge and bloody cold in the winter.

I always felt, however, that the viewpoint was a little outdated. Indeed, I believe it was probably a hang up from an old Mcdonell Douglas advertising campaign from when it was competing with the Lockheed F16 to become Canada’s new fighter back in the late 70’s.

RCAF jets do not routinely (ie on a daily basis) operate way out in the frozen wastelands. They deploy (operationally) to Inuvik and Iqaluit for NORAD taskings.

During normal day to day operations they operate from a base with co located SAR.

Is Inuvik any worse than Syria or Iraq?

Plenty of nations seem happy enough to send their pilots into operational theatres in single engine jets.

Maybe it’s time Canada re-evaluated it’s twin engine obsession. Saab and LM seem happy enough to offer their jets up for the procurement competition so they must be confident their jets single engine must offer the reliability and safety that Canada requires for Arctic operations.

Just my take as a guy who has operated at (albeit usually within 100-150 miles of) Cold Lake through several winters. Also, knowing the dangers, it didn’t stop me flying my Hawk over the Rockies on cross country flights even in the winter.

BV

[ORAC]

One of those unwinnable arguments.

Accepting that engine failures are increasingly rare events, and most of those who eject will be recovered anyway, there will still be increased airframe loses and some aircrew loses over hostile or inhospitable terrain or water.

I remember figures being produced to show that, if one offsets the costs of only buying half the number of engines and account for lifetime fuel consumption and maintenance, then even with the increased number of loses an F-16 fleet would be cheaper over its life than an F-18 fleet. I presume the replacement aircrew recruitment and training costs were included in the calculations.

Whilst an emotive argument, I don’t believe it will be a significant factor in the privy rent d3cision - but perhaps in defending it.

[TBM-Legend]

RAAF Hawk 127 fleet of 33 aircraft after 17 years in service, ~200,000 fleet flight hours, used for LIF/fleet support, advanced training and other missions is still 33 aircraft - single engine....

[Big Pistons Forever]

The elephant in the room is the F35 sustainment costs. Buying it is the cheap part it is owning it that is the killer. USAF leadership are already on record that they won’t be able to operate the aircraft they are going to get without cutting capability elsewhere. If the USAF can’t afford it then I don’t see how Canada can.

Finally the F35 is a first strike weapon optimized to achieve airspace battlefield supremacy as part of a elaborate and comprehensive networked system to deliver air effects in the mostly highly contested areas. Canada’s foreign policy states will not do first strike operations and Canada does not have any of the network enablers that make the F35 special.

Before Canada buys a new fighter it is time to answer some fundamental questions, like why do we have an airforce and what does the government intend to do with it. Define the tactical air effects desired and then buy the airframe best suited.

[LowObservable]

Canadian industrial participation in the F-35 program has reached $1 billion,

Errm, no, According to the (wholly objective) F-35.com website, that's the total for "opportunities", which reminds me of the (offensive and unrepeatable) joke about the difference between "actually" and "potentially".

[rjtjrt]

Canadian industrial participation in the F-35 program has reached $1 billion,

Errm, no, According to the (wholly objective) F-35.com website, that's the total for "opportunities", which reminds me of the (offensive and unrepeatable) joke about the difference between "actually" and "potentially".

From the site you ref ( https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation ), it seems more than just “opportunities”, but contracted, if that site is correct.

“Canadian industry has more than $1 billion in industrial opportunities already contracted for the F-35 Lightning II program - .......”

[India Four Two]

RCAF jets do not routinely (ie on a daily basis) operate way out in the frozen wastelands. They deploy (operationally) to Inuvik for NORAD taskings.

During normal day to day operations they operate from a base with co located SAR.

Bob,

Thanks for your detailed reply. That makes sense to me.

[LowObservable]

rjtjrt - What that literally means is that Canadian companies have been awarded contracts that will be worth $1 billion at some point, depending on the number of airplanes built.

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation

[BEagle]

One wonders whether the operational experience of the RCAF working with NATO allies in recent conflicts will have any influence on the ultimate decision, or whether the political and industrial groups will have a bigger say?

If operational experience has any impact, then I would rate the contestants in the order:

Super Hornet
Rafale
Typhoon
F-35C
F-35A
Gripen

Perhaps the French Canadian politicians might look kindly on Rafale if they can secure a good deal from leur amis across the pond?

[Bob Viking]

I’m not sure why anyone who doesn’t own a carrier would buy F35C?!

Most RCAF FJ pilots I know expect and want F35 (A model specifically).

I’m not saying it’s what they need or indeed should have. Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that Trudeau will not want to backtrack on his stated opposition to F35.

All that being said, it would be a huge departure for Canada to buy something not built in North America.

BV

[glad rag]

As a matter of interest what missions do you fly Bob and what are the weather limits?

[Bob Viking]

I’m not in Canada any more so I can’t quote them chapter and verse.

It depends on aircraft type and mission. A Hawk on a training mission and a Hornet on a live scramble will have subtly different limits.

I guess what you're after are temperature limits. From what I remember the lower limit is -35C ambient (might be -30C) with a wind chill limit of -40 I think. Basically bloody cold and a CO can authorise lower if required for operational reasons. CRFI or JBI limits are also key but not really relevant to this conversation. Unless you buy F35B I guess then friction doesn’t matter. That is a joke by the way.

What I meant to add to my previous post was a point about requirements.

Several years ago the Canadian government selected F35. You don’t accidentally choose F35 if what you wanted was a conventional fighter. The requirement must have been for 5th gen characteristics otherwise F35 would not have been selected.

So, assuming the requirement hasn’t changed, how can the answer be any different this time around? Super Hornet and Gripen NG may claim next gen capabilities but I don’t know if they are on a par with F35.

Anyway, just hot air from me really because I don’t know the answer and it doesn’t affect me either way. Although as a Canadian citizen I am, of course, outraged by the flawed and protracted procurement process of my (joint) adopted land.

BV

[KenV]

Saab and LM seem happy enough to offer their jets up for the procurement competition so they must be confident their jets single engine must offer the reliability and safety that Canada requires for Arctic operations.Ummmm, I'm quite confident that SAAB and Lockheed did not design their jets with Canada in mind at all. Indeed the F-35 was mandated by the US government to be single engine totally independent of the needs or the desires of USAF or USN. USMC's STOVL requirement totally drove the single engine decision.

[Bob Viking]

Where exactly did I say what you have insinuated?

I’m quite aware of each jets characteristics and history. I shan’t repeat what I said previously. May I politely suggest you re-read it instead?

BV

[glad rag]

I’m not in Canada any more so I can’t quote them chapter and verse.

It depends on aircraft type and mission. A Hawk on a training mission and a Hornet on a live scramble will have subtly different limits.

I guess what you're after are temperature limits. From what I remember the lower limit is -35C ambient (might be -30C) with a wind chill limit of -40 I think. Basically bloody cold and a CO can authorise lower if required for operational reasons. CRFI or JBI limits are also key but not really relevant to this conversation. Unless you buy F35B I guess then friction doesn’t matter. That is a joke by the way.

What I meant to add to my previous post was a point about requirements.

Several years ago the Canadian government selected F35. You don’t accidentally choose F35 if what you wanted was a conventional fighter. The requirement must have been for 5th gen characteristics otherwise F35 would not have been selected.

So, assuming the requirement hasn’t changed, how can the answer be any different this time around? Super Hornet and Gripen NG may claim next gen capabilities but I don’t know if they are on a par with F35.

Anyway, just hot air from me really because I don’t know the answer and it doesn’t affect me either way. Although as a Canadian citizen I am, of course, outraged by the flawed and protracted procurement process of my (joint) adopted land.

BV

Thanks for that.

[KenV]

i’m quite aware of each jets characteristics and history. I shan’t repeat what I said previously. May I politely suggest you re-read it instead?Reread it. Multiple times. And I think I see my error. You're saying the jets as designed (with zero input of Canadian arctic requirements) nevertheless meet those arctic requirements. That may be true but I find that highly unlikely. I believe it's more likely that the Canadian government hasn't even really considered the Canadian arctic requirements. I believe it's more likely this was a political decision much more than a requirements driven decision. The fact that Canada is buying a stealth aircraft specifically designed for first-day-of-war operations penetrating an area defended by an integrated air defense system when Canada has zero plans to do such a thing, and zero plans to buy all the other military infrastructure to engage in such operations makes me believe this was NOT a requirements driven procurement decision.

[BEagle]

F-35C can refuel from Canada's CC-150T and CC-130 tankers, which F-35A cannot unless Canada wants to be raped by LM to pay for a probe-equipped F-35A and no doubt the associated R&D + OT&E costs....

F-35C also carries more fuel than the -A model - and the tailhook would be quite useful if landing on some contaminated short RW somewhere north of Buttfuk-middle-of-nowhere-Saskatchewan?

[melmothtw]

F-35C also carries more fuel than the -A model - and the tailhook would be quite useful if landing on some contaminated short RW somewhere north of Buttfuk-middle-of-nowhere-Saskatchewan?

True, but it's also heavier and draggier. Don't have the figures to hand, but IIRC the A has the greater range/endurance of the three variants.

The A has a tailhook for emergencies - https://theaviationist.com/2016/05/20/the-f-35a-has-started-tailhook-testing-at-edwards-afb/ , or the Canadians could opt for the braking parachute fitted for the Norwegians.

You're quite correct on the aerial refuelling issue though - no easy way to square that circle for Canada without opting for the C.

The fact that Canada is buying a stealth aircraft specifically designed for first-day-of-war operations penetrating an area defended by an integrated air defense system when Canada has zero plans to do such a thing, and zero plans to buy all the other military infrastructure to engage in such operations makes me believe this was NOT a requirements driven procurement decision.

To be fair, that could be said for all of the F-35 customers save the US, UK and maybe one or two others.

Agree on the single-twin-engine debate. If a single-engine Gripen or F-16/F-35 is good enough for flying over the high-north of Sweden or Norway, the I dare say it is good enough for Canada also.

[KenV]

F-35C also carries more fuel than the -A model - and the tailhook would be quite useful if landing on some contaminated short RW somewhere north of Buttfuk-middle-of-nowhere-Saskatchewan?F-35A (along with other USAF fighters like F-15, F-16, F-117, F-22) have tail hooks for that very reason (indeed even Typhoon has a tail hook). They just aren't rated for the loads imposed by an arrested carrier landing.

[glad rag]

F-35A (along with other USAF fighters like F-15, F-16, F-117, F-22) have tail hooks for that very reason. They just aren't rated for the loads imposed by an arrested carrier landing.
I would have never of thought that.

[Bob Viking]

...possibly.

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/dassault-pulls-rafale-from-fighter-replacement-project/

BV

One other thing. For BEagles’ benefit. Aside from the fact that, as already mentioned, every jet I can think of has a tail hook nowadays. Any jet landing in your ‘middle of nowhere’ might be lucky to find a runway with a cable in the first place. And there aren’t many asphalt runways in the middle of nowhere anyway.

I understand your point about drogue refuelling but I still don’t think anyone would buy the F35C if they did not plan to put it on a carrier. The A model, even unrefuelled, has pretty good range. Add external fuel tanks (fine for a Q scramble) and it’ll be even better.
The NORAD tasking could easily justify the use of a USAF tanker and anywhere else they can rely on the US anyway. Or maybe buy some new tankers.

Again, this is only semi uninformed ramblings not scientific fact so please take it at face value.

[melmothtw]

Add external fuel tanks (fine for a Q scramble) and it’ll be even better.

The F-35 does not come with the option of external fuel tanks, though test pilot Billie Flynn (a Canadian himself suitably enough) doesn't seem to think it will be a problem. https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1007660507459981318

[Bob Viking]

My bad. Good spot.

Assumption on my part. You know what happens when you assume...

BV

[ORAC]

IIRC the wing pylons were originally planned to be wet, but the piping was removed as part of the weight saving program.

I believe the IAF F-35s have the piping installed and that Cyclone have a contract to provide 480g underwing tanks and Elbit to provide conformal fuselage tanks.

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336925615844218041/

[West Coast]

F-35A (along with other USAF fighters like F-15, F-16, F-117, F-22) have tail hooks for that very reason (indeed even Typhoon has a tail hook). They just aren't rated for the loads imposed by an arrested carrier landing.

Knew the others did, didn’t know the F-117 had a hook.

[glad rag]

IIRC the wing pylons were originally planned to be wet, but the piping was removed as part of the weight saving program.

I believe the IAF F-35s have the piping installed and that Cyclone have a contract to provide 480g underwing tanks and Elbit to provide conformal fuselage tanks.

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336925615844218041/

Holds breath awaiting sight of these stealthy force multipliers....hang that's a mirage tank LOL!!

[BEagle]

Surely there's a considerable difference between a tailhook which will allow an approach end engagement and the smaller version which will allow a slow end engagement in the event of brake failure etc...?

[SpazSinbad]

Knew the others did, didn’t know the F-117 had a hook.
Diagram F-117A TailHook Location from: https://0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf (7Mb)https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1902x1439/under_f_117_tail_hook_f_22_r11_segment_12_tifed_60f03b5b218a 5e09f059b652d8cb1478fca94aa9.gif

[SpazSinbad]

There are plenty of stories about 'cold/hot' weather testing of an F-35B in the CLIMATIC Chamber at Eglin AFB with LM Test Pilot Billie Flynn. Also the three variants underwent mission testing at Eielson AFB Alaska at beginning of year along with Brake Chute testing on their icy runways.

https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/how-it-works-f-35a-drag-chute-system & http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20180216_Battlefield_Airmen_Integrate_with_F-35.pdf
OR http://www.eielson.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1432771/jott-conducts-f-35-pre-iote-cold-weather-testing-at-eielson/

F-35 Lightning II Hot/Cold WX Testing Test Pilot Billie Flynn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScdSjuoDgmg

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Surely there's a considerable difference between a tailhook which will allow an approach end engagement and the smaller version which will allow a slow end engagement in the event of brake failure etc...?

Does it say somewhere that it can’t handle an approach end engagement? There have been plenty of approach end engagements in various jets with a ‘USAF-style’ hook. Even did a few myself, and it wasn’t a problem.

[Commander Taco]

Latest is Dassault won’t be competing with the Rafale due to the difficulty in incorporating the interoperability required by the contract terms.

[SpazSinbad]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1976x1217/f_35aemergencyhookengagedzoom_b64d4c3d1ae07d8c17f5601d7f1174 2a614ed9c3.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/160505_f_zz999_413_c893b8439d6f3e69bf4b077131c00dcc007b42b6. jpg
Does it say somewhere that it can’t handle an approach end engagement? There have been plenty of approach end engagements in various jets with a ‘USAF-style’ hook. Even did a few myself, and it wasn’t a problem.
JSF Tail Hook Testing Begins at Edwards AFB 2016
"The JSF Integrated Test Force here conducted the first set of tests for the F-35A's tailhook. F-35s have landed using a tailhook before [2010], but not at the speeds and weights being tested now....

...The initial testing included powering the F-35A at 180 knots over the ground; about 200 miles an hour.... [2016] " http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160511_Tailhook.pdf (113Kb)
Same story here: https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/803667/jsf-tailhook-testing-begins-at-edwards/
PHOTO: https://media.defense.gov/2016/May/11/2001537009/-1/-1/0/160505-F-ZZ999-413.jpg (406Kb)

[KenV]

Surely there's a considerable difference between a tailhook which will allow an approach end engagement and the smaller version which will allow a slow end engagement in the event of brake failure etc...?Indeed there is. The tailhooks on USAF aircraft are essentially single-use devices meant for emergency use only. Once deployed they cannot be stowed (in flight) and once used for an arrested engagement they need to be removed and replaced before the next flight.

[johnwill]

Indeed there is. The tailhooks on USAF aircraft are essentially single-use devices meant for emergency use only. Once deployed they cannot be stowed (in flight) and once used for an arrested engagement they need to be removed and replaced before the next flight.

Not true. I was General Dynamic structures engineer for F-16 arresting hook engagement tests at Edwards AFB in 1979. We did approximately 95 engagements at various weights, speeds, and offset distance with no hook change. The hooks are also used to restrain the airplane during ground engine runs. The hook is fully qualified for full airplane lifetime of emergency and engine run use. The hooks are not deployed in flight. Flight manual procedure is to land, lower the nose gear to the ground, then deploy the hook. Hook engagement with nose gear off the ground can slam the nose down hard enough to exceed the nose gear limit load.

The big difference in Navy carrier hook and Air Force emergency hook design strength is due to the difference in cable run out, 200 - 250 ft for carrier, 1000 ft for land based emergency arrestment.

[cf100mk5]

Declining combat capability of CF-18's not as big an issue as too few aircraft technicians and pilots. The interim Super Hornets would not have addressed this issue neither will buying used Australian hornets.

[Grizzz]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ag-cf-18s-1.4912813

F-35's primary sin in Canada is Justin did not choose it!

[Davef68]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ag-cf-18s-1.4912813

F-35's primary sin in Canada is Justin did not choose it!

Sounds like the EH101 in the Maritime Helo contract

[Phil_and_Sand]

IIRC the wing pylons were originally planned to be wet, but the piping was removed as part of the weight saving program.

I believe the IAF F-35s have the piping installed and that Cyclone have a contract to provide 480g underwing tanks and Elbit to provide conformal fuselage tanks.

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336925615844218041/
Why would a stealthy aircraft want huge external tanks? The only reason is for a ferry, but if you are AAR capable the justification weakens. How much gas does it take to lift 960g to ferry altitude? More than you might think... How much additional drag do large tanks add during a ferry (even 'coke bottle' tanks)? Quite a lot ... How much additional cost, complexity and weight does installing wet pylons & buying the tanks incur? Definitely some... How much additional range does 2 x 480g tanks give you? Not very much at all! Are external tanks worthwhile? Most people would say, Nope...

[unmanned_droid]

Why would a stealthy aircraft want huge external tanks? The only reason is for a ferry, but if you are AAR capable the justification weakens. How much gas does it take to lift 960g to ferry altitude? More than you might think... How much additional drag do large tanks add during a ferry (even 'coke bottle' tanks)? Quite a lot ... How much additional cost, complexity and weight does installing wet pylons & buying the tanks incur? Definitely some... How much additional range does 2 x 480g tanks give you? Not very much at all! Are external tanks worthwhile? Most people would say, Nope...

There are a lot of assumptions about variables in that post. I think I would like the option to choose if a particular profile worked better with external tanks. I might only have AAR close to home, so I might launch with empty tanks and I might want to fuel them up at the start of the cruise, for example.

[F-16GUY]

Why would a stealthy aircraft want huge external tanks? The only reason is for a ferry, but if you are AAR capable the justification weakens.

Seriously? Most missions flown will not require stealth. And in most scenarios flown, longer legs or increased loiter capability will be a force multiplier. I would like the flexibility. Tanks off for first strike missions, and then tanks mounted for everything else once air superiority is established and stealth is no longer needed. If the need arises during the mission, tanks can always be jettisoned (even though some part of the tank pylon will remain on the wing, stealth to some degree will be re-established).

[Bob Viking]

Are you, or were you ever a, FJ pilot?

I would love to watch you try and convince every FJ pilot that ever lived that they would have been better off without drop tanks.

I think we could all give you numbers from previous aircraft types to convince you otherwise. I’m pretty sure that, if F35 were to ever be fitted with drop tanks, it would follow a similar pattern.

F16 Guy and UD, I agree with your points about stealth vs DTs.

BV

[Asturias56]

Bob is right - it would be interesting to list fighters that HAVEN'T had drop tanks since they were invented - - maybe the F-22 is the only one that springs to mind.............

[ORAC]

There are times stealth matters.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/140310_f_ng006_007_1ab5762e1a22a8bb4293e65a7d1dd5bcbdf9cefb. jpg


Other times not so much........

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/534x401/f35israel_66365677509258d05df0d50ddd7802789d3283a7.jpg

[F-16GUY]

Bob is right - it would be interesting to list fighters that HAVEN'T had drop tanks since they were invented - - maybe the F-22 is the only one that springs to mind.............
It too have tanks...

https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/F-22-fuel-tanks-jettison.jpg

Well the above does not have them any more, but those in the link below still have them....

Got pictures of the F-22 with drop tanks? - General F-22A Raptor forum (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11667)

[F-16GUY]

The hooks are not deployed in flight. Flight manual procedure is to land, lower the nose gear to the ground, then deploy the hook.

johnwill,

That has changed at some point between the time when you worked it and now. For as long as I have been flying the F-16, in case you plan on an arrested landing or in case of some electrical failures, the -1 and -1 Checklist states that the hook is to be lowered before landing. In case of some electrical issues it even states that the pilot is to lower the hook early, to avoid the possibility of loosing that capability due to later on loss of DC power (partial electrical failures with loss of some/all of the battery buses, which might also render the wheel brakes unserviceable).

[spannermonkey]

Are you, or were you ever a, FJ pilot?

I would love to watch you try and convince every FJ pilot that ever lived that they would have been better off without drop tanks.

I think we could all give you numbers from previous aircraft types to convince you otherwise. I’m pretty sure that, if F35 were to ever be fitted with drop tanks, it would follow a similar pattern.

F16 Guy and UD, I agree with your points about stealth vs DTs.

BV

BV,

While I'm not of that breed (I chose the far more glorious life of engineering :ok:), even I can see what they offer in terms of flexibility.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/08/us-canada-talks-underway-to-decide-if-the-f-35-will-be-pulled-from-canadas-fighter-competition/

US, Canada talks underway to decide if the F-35 will be pulled from Canada’s fighter competition

VICTORIA, British Columbia — The U.S. is threatening to pull the F-35 from Canada’s fighter jet competition (https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2018/10/30/canada-to-accept-bids-for-new-fighter-jet-in-may-here-are-the-potential-competitors/) if the ally to the north doesn’t change requirements for the winning bidder to stipulate specific industrial benefits for domestic firms. The U.S. government is arguing that since Canada is a partner in the F-35 program it cannot request guaranteed industrial benefits for its companies.......

The Canadian government plans to purchase 88 new jets to replace its aging CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet. Canada will require that a robust package of guaranteed industrial benefits or offsets be provided by the winning bidder, government officials have said. But the U.S. government has objected to that, as Canada is still a partner in the F-35 program, which does not guarantee participating nations a set number of contracts. Work on the F-35 program is based on best value and price.

U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Mathias Winter, program executive officer for the Joint Strike Fighter, wrote Canadian procurement officials Dec. 18, 2018, pointing out that the F-35 agreement prohibits partners from imposing requirements for industrial benefits. “We cannot participate in an offer of the F-35 weapon system where requirements do not align with the F-35 Partnership," he noted in his letter.......

The letter has prompted ongoing discussions between Canadian and U.S. procurement officials in an effort to work out some kind of solution, multiple industry and government sources told Defense News. But the Canadian government will also respect any decision by the U.S. to not bid the F-35 if an agreement can’t be reached, sources added.......

[ORAC]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-look-to-ease-requirements-for-fighter-jet-makers-after-u-s-complaints-1.4416420

Feds look to ease requirements for fighter-jet makers after U.S. complaints

[Asturias56]

TBH I doubt the US cares WHAT the Canadians buy - sure it would be good for LM and everyone in the F-35 programme to sell a few more but for the USA it doesn't matter as they will just buy more F-18's instead

In factt here's probably a significant number of US military who would like to see the F-18 programme continued as long as possible - it gives them an alternative, it's lower cost and it keeps the pressure on LM

[Bob Viking]

I will admit that I haven’t been keeping up to date on the RCAF fighter issue and I am too lazy to read back through the thread. However, I believe I am right in saying that, due to a prior dispute, Boeing are currently not planning to enter the process.

I have talked previously about the Canadian obsession with twin engined jets. As it stands, the only twin engined jet expected to enter the process is Typhoon.

BV🤭

[ORAC]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airbus-canada-fighters-1.5265665

Airbus pulls out of Canada's fighter jet competition

One of the companies in the race to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 jet fighters has dropped out of the competition.

Airbus Defence and Space, which was pitching the Eurofighter Typhoon, notified the Liberal government Friday that it was not going to bid. The decision was made after a detailed review of the tender issued by the federal government in mid-July.

The move leaves only three companies in the $19 billion contest: Lockheed Martin Canada with its F-35; Boeing with the Super Hornet; and Saab, which is offering an updated version of its Gripen fighter.

Simon Jacques, president of Airbus Defence and Space Canada, made a point of saying the company appreciated the professional dealings it had with defence and procurement officials. “Airbus Defence and Space is proud of our longstanding partnership with the Government of Canada, and of serving our fifth home country's aerospace priorities for over three decades," Jacques said in a statement. "Together we continue in our focus of supporting the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, growing skilled aerospace jobs across the country and spurring innovation in the Canadian aerospace sector."

In a statement, Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said she accepted Airbus's decision. “We understand that participation in this competition represents a significant commitment for suppliers, and we respect this business decision," she said. "We would like to thank the U.K. Government and Airbus Defence and Space for their participation and thoughtful feedback during this process."

Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD intelligence security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America. It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make.".........

One defence expert said few people who have been following the file are surprised by the decision. Dave Perry, a military procurement specialist at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said that at times Airbus appeared to be "the least enthusiastic of the remaining four" bidders. “I do have the sense they had reservations," he said.

The company's reference in its departure statement to NORAD security issues is significant, he said.

Saab is now the only European bidder among the competitors. Sweden, where Saab is based, does not have a preferred intelligence-sharing arrangement with Canada and the U.S. If Britain, which backed the Eurofighter bid, believes it cannot meet the stringent NORAD intelligence-sharing measures without significant cost, Perry wonders what that does to Saab's bid.

"It'll be interesting to see if they can put forward a proposal that the Canadian government thinks is workable," Perry said.......

[Willard Whyte]

Pity. I was thinking Rafale for Quebec and Typhoon elsewhere.

[Ascend Charlie]

Must be a nuisance, having to make every label in the cockpit in English and French, take up a lot of space...

[Davef68]

Have the Candians and Boeing made up yet?

[Finningley Boy]

It too have tanks...

https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/F-22-fuel-tanks-jettison.jpg

Well the above does not have them any more, but those in the link below still have them....

Got pictures of the F-22 with drop tanks? - General F-22A Raptor forum (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11667)

To be honest, the EE/BAC Lightning didn't have them, the mark 6 had overwing tanks, but they couldn't be carried as a matter of course.

FB

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2020/07/31/these-three-companies-submitted-bids-for-canadas-fighter-competition/

These three companies submitted bids for Canada’s fighter competition

WASHINGTON — The bids are in for Canada’s fighter competition (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/07/23/canadas-final-solicitation-for-its-next-gen-fighter-is-out-who-will-bid-for-the-contract/), and three companies will go head-to-head for the chance to build 88 new jets.

The Canadian government on Friday confirmed (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-receives-three-bids-as-fighter-jet-competition-closes-final/) that the field is down to two American entrants — Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/08/us-canada-talks-underway-to-decide-if-the-f-35-will-be-pulled-from-canadas-fighter-competition/)and Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/tv-next-episode/2019/01/14/canada-finalizes-fa-18-buy-from-australia/) — as well as Swedish aerospace manufacturer Saab’s Gripen E. All companies submitted proposals before the July 31 deadline.....

[ORAC]

Oops….

https://twitter.com/helofresh/status/1463972252815437836?s=21

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/thedewline/status/1466155026125148165?s=21

[Bob Viking]

After all this time it comes down to two completely different aircraft. Both of which are single engined (please re-read the thread for why I bring that point up again).

As I have said before, you don’t include F35 in your competition unless you want fifth gen. So how can Gripen (even the NG model) ever compete?

After all these years Justin must be getting his spin doctors wound up into a proper frenzy to work out how to play this one. Is he just hoping that the world will forget that he cancelled the F35 purchase all those years ago? Lucky the media have a short memory I guess…

BV

[Bob Viking]

On a separate, but related, note. Has anyone heard any rumblings about how Canada plan to replace or extend the NFTC programme?

They’re kind of running out of time on that as well.

BV

[chopper2004]

Interesting that the last two contenders are single engine anyhow am revisiting the remainers (lol) dedicated websites



Anyone seen this dedicated Gripen for Canada site



https://www.saab.com/markets/canada/gripen-for-canada



https://res.cloudinary.com/dkkd45ayz/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto,dpr_auto/w_1980,h_1114,c_fill,g_auto/w_2048,h_1152,c_scale/episerver/d920707b-90d7-4a29-9b2a-60fc91fa8021/gripen-canada-white-background.jpg



Sub page



https://www.saab.com/markets/canada/gripen-for-canada/built-for-canada-by-canada



And quote



'To make these economic benefits a reality, Saab has assembled a dynamic roster of leading Canadian aerospace companies across multiple regions to offer the best solution for Canada’s future fighter to form the Gripen for Canada Team, including IMP Aerospace and Defence, CAE, Peraton Canada, and GE Aviation. Together, these industry innovators offer a genuine ‘Made in Canada’ solution for that will create long-term, highly-skilled Canadian jobs from coast to coast.'



Then



https://www.f35.com/f35/global-enterprise/canada.html



https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/images/global-participation/FG19-24659_003%20CanadaIP2.jpg



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=Bz3jViFJrJ4&feature=emb_logo



COuple of my thoughts....



Gripen has been in service for damn near 3 decades operating in the harshest Scandinavian environments successfully. Colder than polar bears rectum and similar to the Canadian harshness. And the ability to operate off main roads in Sweden is also a nice factor.



Then again the Swiss have picked the F-35A to replace their Hornets and Swiss are reknowned for operatng in harsh conditions and off mortorways/autobahns with HASs built into mountains. But ski season cuckoo clocks, fondue, chocolate laden alps probably is not way comparable to Canada.



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

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Wonder how the Finn fighter competition is going to pan out....


Not a cat in hells chance the Typhoon will win the Finnish contest.

I’ll bet Canada also go with F35.

[Commander Taco]

I’ll bet Canada also go with F35.

…..if the current PM can be forced to actually make a decision, something he really dislikes doing. He much prefers making bold, but empty statements of “what this country will always stand for”. His words are wind.

[typerated]

Not a cat in hells chance the Typhoon will win the Finnish contest.
.

Price and lack of support for Typhoon?

Or just LM level of bribery is leagues above everyone else - allegedly

[GeeRam]

Price and lack of support for Typhoon?

Or just LM level of bribery is leagues above everyone else - allegedly

Well, LM must have a big archive of reference material for the latter in an old filing cabinet marked 'F-104 sales and marketing'.......:E

[Beamr]

Price and lack of support for Typhoon?

Or just LM level of bribery is leagues above everyone else - allegedly

I dont know FL's reasoning, but I would be very surprised if the choice would be Typhoon. It's much of what is provided besides the airframes that doesn't give much chance to Typhoon. My runner ups would be F35 and Gripen with Super Hornet as a black horse in the game. Then Typhoon and last Rafale. But hey, I'm not making the decisions and am not involved in the process. But while others provide growlers, globaleyes, loyal wingmen, already have a tech development center in Finland and opportunity for sharing the defense command chain (Saab), more investments in jobs and more likely viability up till 2060's (esp. F35), the Rafale and Typhoon can't be seen as ideal, unless others have c*cked up in their offers. But that is apparently a possibility so all the bets are open. However, the chance of quessing the winner is 20%, so it is more likely than winning in a lottery.
Then there's the politics, who plays with whom and how much and why doesn't play with the others and to where do the promised jobs appear to.

What comes to the Canadian tender, I'd surely like to know what dropped Boeing out of the game and eventually would it have any echo on the Finnish tender.

[Davef68]

What comes to the Canadian tender, I'd surely like to know what dropped Boeing out of the game and eventually would it have any echo on the Finnish tender.

They might deny it publicly, but I think Boeing is still a dirty word in the Canadian Govt after the A220 farago

[Beamr]

They might deny it publicly, but I think Boeing is still a dirty word in the Canadian Govt after the A220 farago
Thanks, although I reckon there should be some tender related did-not-meet-criteria reason too...

[Bob Viking]

Have you read the rest of the thread? The competition is literally down to F35 and Gripen. Everybody else has withdrawn. So it is not a 20% chance of guessing correctly anymore.

I would say the odds are massively in favour of F35 despite Justin’s dilemma.

If the RCAF end up with Gripen I can see an awful lot of disgruntled and disappointed Canadian pilots in the near future. Its not that Gripen isn’t a great jet. It’s just that I wouldn’t view it as a huge upgrade over Hornets.

BV

[Beamr]

Have you read the rest of the thread? The competition is literally down to F35 and Gripen. Everybody else has withdrawn. So it is not a 20% chance of guessing correctly anymore.



BV

BV, I have, and I was addressing the question regarding Finnish tender, as the question was raised by chopper2004, Foghorn Leghorn and typerated. I am aware that the Canadian tender has only two contestors left.

[Bob Viking]

Roger. Back in my box.

BV

[Foghorn Leghorn]

If the RCAF end up with Gripen I can see an awful lot of disgruntled and disappointed Canadian pilots in the near future. Its not that Gripen isn’t a great jet. It’s just that I wouldn’t view it as a huge upgrade over Hornets.

BV

I agree, BV, I’d be astonished if F35 didn’t win. However, regarding Gripen not being a huge upgrade, those RCAF Hornets have been absolute heaps of crap for a long time now and they’re also classic models. Gripen with AESA would be quite a large leap forward; but I know what you mean when compared to a 5th gen aircraft.

[rattman]

I agree, BV, I’d be astonished if F35 didn’t win. However, regarding Gripen not being a huge upgrade, those RCAF Hornets have been absolute heaps of crap for a long time now and they’re also classic models. Gripen with AESA would be quite a large leap forward; but I know what you mean when compared to a 5th gen aircraft.

Maybe its only buy a small amount like 20 or so and allow themselves to kick the can down the street again for another couple of years

[henra]

But while others provide growlers, globaleyes, loyal wingmen, already have a tech development center in Finland and opportunity for sharing the defense command chain (Saab), more investments in jobs and more likely viability up till 2060's (esp. F35), the Rafale and Typhoon can't be seen as ideal, unless others have c*cked up in their offers.

Very good point!
Typhoon is an excellent Airframe (especially A2A). It's supremely fast, powerful and agile. With AESA, Meteor and IRIS/ASRAAM a mighty Air Superiority platform that can sweep the airspace. On the other hand the Product Support and continued development is rather lackluster compared to F-35 or even Rafale. A2G Typhoon is still behind Tornado in many cpabilities and it is not VLO to compensate for this. There are no 'cool' additions exactly as you mentioned with Loyal wingman&Company. At the same time Typhoon and Rafale are amongst the very most expensive Fighter aircraft on the current market. Honestly, I also don't see big chances in any of the remaining competitions, being it Canada or Finland. And I can't even really blame them.

[GlobalNav]

They might deny it publicly, but I think Boeing is still a dirty word in the Canadian Govt after the A220 farago
Not just in Canada.

[Petit-Lion]

Maybe its only buy a small amount like 20 or so and allow themselves to kick the can down the street again for another couple of years
Can already kicked. Canada is buying second-hand Hornets from Australia "for parts".

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Very good point!
Typhoon is an excellent Airframe (especially A2A). It's supremely fast, powerful and agile. With AESA, Meteor and IRIS/ASRAAM a mighty Air Superiority platform that can sweep the airspace. On the other hand the Product Support and continued development is rather lackluster compared to F-35 or even Rafale. A2G Typhoon is still behind Tornado in many cpabilities and it is not VLO to compensate for this. There are no 'cool' additions exactly as you mentioned with Loyal wingman&Company. At the same time Typhoon and Rafale are amongst the very most expensive Fighter aircraft on the current market. Honestly, I also don't see big chances in any of the remaining competitions, being it Canada or Finland. And I can't even really blame them.

I’m intrigued to know how Typhoon is still behind Tornado in air to surface capabilities?

[Timelord]

I’m intrigued to know how Typhoon is still behind Tornado in air to surface capabilities?

No back seat!

[rattman]

Can already kicked. Canada is buying second-hand Hornets from Australia "for parts".


Yes but 20-30 gripens would allow the can to be kicked even further down the road. The 25 ex RAAF hornets of which 7 are for parts gets you down <10 years, 20ish gripens might get you down the road for 10 + years and still be usable after they eventually select the F-35 which we all know they will have to at some stage

[Bob Viking]

Buying 20 Gripens is not a case of kicking the can down the road. It would effectively be stomping on the can and throwing it on the bin.

Firstly an interim bit of new aircraft would take up all the money that might otherwise be available to buy F35.

Secondly (and it’s the aspect that politicians never seem to appreciate fully) the RCAF simply couldn’t provide the manning to do it.

If you are suggesting that Gripen work alongside the remaining Hornets (which I guess you are because 20 jets could not meet the RCAF taskings) then you would need two fleets of pilots/engineers etc. Unless something has drastically changed in Canada, that just isn’t going to happen.

The purchase of the RAAF jets was to recognise the fact that they could augment the knackered fleet of RCAF jets without making two fleets. Even an interim Super Hornet purchase would have created two fleets.

Anyway, I may be wrong but with the competitors left in the process F35 is the inevitable choice. I just cannot wait to see the kicking that Justin will get in the press and maybe the polls.

BV

[rattman]

Buying 20 Gripens is not a case of kicking the can down the road. It would effectively be stomping on the can and throwing it on the bin.


Never said it was good plan, its a political plan, you can get the headlines "Canada to by new non american fighter" most of the public wont even bother to read any further, even less will look at the details on what makes it a good or bad plans.

He will get his headlines and photo ops when the first plane is delivered, meanwhile the RCAF get more screwed

[Bob Viking]

I love your blue-sky thinking but I think we’ll agree to disagree on its’ likelihood.

Even Justin would struggle to put a positive spin on that plan.

BV

[typerated]

So plus points about the Gripen:

Gripen serviceability will be better – two conscripts and a screwdriver keep it flying – F-35 not so much.
Its a Saab aircraft so designed to fly from austere places – F-35 I imgine is more limited in places you would want to deploy to.
Gripen will be cheap to own, fly and upgrade – F-35 will be on the other end of the spectrum
Canada’s tankers have hose and drogue – surely no air force would be stupid enough to buy airplanes their tankers can’t refuel?? Oh :)
US units will be queuing up to do DACT with Canadian Gripens - - not so with F-35.
As most of the western world will fly F-35 – if Canada buys Gripen it will bring something different to the mix when they deploy.
Gripen is not American - which my be a big plus for some politicians.

On the flip side – LM use lots of $’s to be persuasive with the right people - Saab dont

[vascodegama]

TR The chosen RCAF tanker (MRTT) has boom and wing pods-pity we didn’t think ahead!

[typerated]

Thanks - Didn't know the tankers were due to be replaced too.

[kimono1950]

The perfect plane for Canada is the Rafale F4, all others than the Rafale is just a wast of money.

[Bob Viking]

Might we infer from your sales pitch that you are French per chance?

BV

[Foghorn Leghorn]

The perfect plane for Canada is the Rafale F4, all others than the Rafale is just a wast of money.

It turns out the Rafale isn’t in the running, otherwise I’m sure it would have been a huge success.

[GeeRam]

The perfect plane for Canada is the Rafale F4, all others than the Rafale is just a wast of money.

So perfect in fact, that Dassault chose to withdraw from the competition at the end of 2018....

[M609]

On the flip side – LM use lots of $’s to be persuasive with the right people - Saab dont

You mean Saab don´t until they are caught in the act, like the South Africa and Brazil deals? 😬

……yes I know, BAE had som part in that mess……

[Davef68]

It will all come down to politicians trying to make it look like they are making a reasoned decision to buy the aircraft that was previously cancelled.

[henra]

I’m intrigued to know how Typhoon is still behind Tornado in air to surface capabilities?
No HARM/ALARM, no Kormoran/Sea Eagle. Currently the JDAM (GBU-38/54) is not yet fully implemented.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

No HARM/ALARM, no Kormoran/Sea Eagle. Currently the JDAM (GBU-38/54) is not yet fully implemented.

I think we are talking nation specific here. ALARM had all but gone from GR4’s inventory towards the end. Sea Eagle had not been in the inventory for over a decade by the end and GR4 never used JDAM. At the moment, I’m still struggling to see how the UK Typhoon is behind Tornado GR4 (noting GR4 is no longer in service).

[downsizer]

I suppose you could argue it has no PW3 or raptor pod?

About the only difference I can think of.

[chopper2004]

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-05/finland-is-said-to-pick-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-iltalehti

By chance today is their national holiday as it’s their Independence Day…

cheers

[SLXOwft]

Interesting slant on RCAF thinking by Dr. Richard Goette (who is an air power academic and Canadian Air Force historian. In the Department of Defence Studies at the CFC [Canadian Forces College] in Toronto, he lectures on command, air power and the RCAF. Richard also teaches CFC’s Joint Command and Staff Programme and National Security Programme and is a Master of Defence Studies supervisor.)

https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/mdn-dnd/D2-420-2020-eng.pdf

However it was SEAD capability that took me there (though Gripen would offer the option of RBS-15 Mk IV anti ship missile if Canada wanted to introduce such a capability :E):
For instance, suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD) is an important prerequisite for a successful air campaign to ensure the safety of air crews and freedom of action for operations. Notably, in recent air campaigns SEAD is usually achieved before RCAF assets are employed either because a) there are minimal enemy air defences to begin with (i.e., in the case of Op IMPACT) or b) allied air forces have already suppressed most enemy air defences before the arrival of RCAF assets in theatre (i.e., Op MOBILE). Operating in an A2/AD campaign against integrated air defences in which SEAD efforts have not been completely successful and air superiority is still being contested offers a variety of challenges for the RCAF. For one, it would necessitate a robust defensive suite and/or low-observability capabilities for its platforms to shield them from threats. For another, it would also require capabilities to exploit the electromagnetic spectrum to protect RCAF forces and degrade those of the enemy.

If the Canadian government follows this thinking and believes it may deploy aircraft to operate in a contested airspace with (even partially) intact defences then I can't see how it can go with anything but F-35s.

(Thread Drift Follows)
It strikes me that UK thinking has long been the same in respect of SEAD, no sustained specialist SEAD platform, no ARM to replace ALARM (the deletion of the Typhoon ALARM requirement saved a staggering:ugh: £21 Million). If SPEAR(3)-EW does materialise it will be a persistent jamming platform, and any kinetic suppression will rely on allies or acurate target identification to use munitions which are not targeted on emissions. However effective Typhoon's DASS is, Germany still sees a need for a SEAD platform. The French (in public anyway) put great faith in Rafale's SPECTRA but as this RAND report (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA200/RRA231-1/RAND_RRA231-1.pdf) (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA200/RRA231-1/RAND_RRA231-1.pdf) points out their lack of SEAD capabilities severely constrains their freedom of action. I would have thought that one lesson of the Falklands War that is still relevant is, that in order to use your air assets to their maximum effectivity, you need to be able to locate and surgically remove the enemies ability to observe their movements. I have always assumed that LO will have a limited lifespan just like any other techological advantage in war fighting.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I suppose you could argue it has no PW3 or raptor pod?

About the only difference I can think of.

True, Downsizer. Though GR4 didn’t have PW3 either at the end.

[fitliker]

Those Hornets should last until the Tempests come on line :)

[Bob Viking]

I wonder if recent events will cause Justin to pull his finger out and make a decision?

BV

[Bug]

Probably not.

[Davef68]

I wonder if recent events will cause Justin to pull his finger out and make a decision?

BV

Only if they can work out how to avoid the embarrassment of ordering the same thing again (like Chimo/Cormorant) or if they are so determined not to order it they choose something else (Petrel/Cyclone)

[Avtur]

I wonder if recent events will cause Justin to pull his finger out and make a decision?

Bob; JT is usually more preoccupied with apologizing for historical failures than focusing on what's best for Canada's future. Current events will likely have zero impact on the speed of decision, but happy to be proved wrong.

[ORAC]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-picks-us-made-f-35-fighter-jet-as-next-warplane/

Canada picks U.S.-made F-35 fighter jet as next warplane, source says

The Canadian government has selected Lockheed Martin Corp., the American manufacturer of the F-35 fighter jet, as its preferred bidder in a $19-billion search for a new warplane.

The announcement will be made today, a source told The Globe and Mail. They were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

This development means Canada starts negotiating solely with Lockheed Martin on a contract for the combat aircraft.

If negotiations are successful, Canada could start taking delivery of new fighters as early as 2025, the source said.

[Bksmithca]

ORAC
Didn't expect anything different given the amount of money Canada has poured into the F35 program. Is it the right choice???

[Commander Taco]

Is it the right choice???

If you wish to operate in contested airspace, then yes, it is.

[NutLoose]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x381/image_4803c0885931aa609c9a962ddee9eb7560dd9beb.png

[Lonewolf_50]

Welcome back, ORAC. :)

I noted some links to the recent (announced) USN/USMC procurements for FY 2023 ~ they reduced the intended buy of E/F Hornets from 24 to 12 (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44954/air-force-wants-to-retire-33-f-22s-buy-more-f-15exs-in-new-budget). (And the apparently didn't really want any, but someone on Capitol Hill decided to reduce rather than zero out the order).
Does that leave an opening for the Aussies, for example, to maybe pick up a dozen Hornets at a small discount, or is that not really an opportunity? (And is the configuration to far apart on the export model to make that a realistic opportunity?)

As for Canada, might the looming F-35 contract negotiations get extended, perhaps leaving open a chance to plus up the Hornet fleet?
he old "we'll have these new jets in this FY" line so often encounters delays ...
Anyway, just a thought.


The Navy is again looking to stop buying new F/A-18E/F Super Hornets (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42529/the-navy-has-received-its-first-block-iii-f-a-18-super-hornets) in this new budget request as it pushes to shift focus to its own Next Generation Air Dominance (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42941/the-navy-just-released-its-vision-for-its-future-f-a-xx-next-generation-strike-fighter) (NGAD) program, which is separate from the Air Force's effort of the same name.

The service did not request funds for any additional Super Hornets in the 2022 Fiscal Year, but Congress subsequently approved funding for 12 of these aircraft as part of a supplemental omnibus spending package (https://news.usni.org/2022/03/09/last-minute-fy-22-728-5b-defense-bill-funds-13-navy-ships-12-f-a-18s-saves-3-lcs-from-decommissioning).
How much funding the Navy is then requesting for its NGAD effort is classified, but it "goes up fairly dramatically (https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1508537800961966085)" over the next five years, according to the service.

[rattman]

Does that leave an opening for the Aussies, for example, to maybe pick up a dozen Hornets at a small discount, or is that not really an opportunity? (And is the configuration to far apart on the export model to make that a realistic opportunity?)

As for Canada, might the looming F-35 contract negotiations get extended, perhaps leaving open a chance to plus up the Hornet fleet?


Canada absolutely not, while I do think F-35, Super Hornets and growlers are best bucks per bang combo available atm. Canada will shoot itself in the foot instead of buying boeing.

[golder]

Does that leave an opening for the Aussies, for example, to maybe pick up a dozen Hornets at a small discount, or is that not really an opportunity? (And is the configuration to far apart on the export model to make that a realistic opportunity?)
Even though we are updating our Shornets to block III. We don't want any more of them. At this stage, in 2030, we retire the Shornet and 2035, we retire the Growler. 2025 will decide if we get more F-35, to take us from 72 to100.

[melmothtw]

Australia only ever acquired the SH as a stop-gap until the the F-35 came online. I doubt they will look to buy any more now that F-35 deliveries are well underway.

[India Four Two]

Minister defends 'rigorous' process that brought government back to F-35s
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2017239107693

The current government promised to scrap the F-35 program in 2015

[Video Mixdown]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2017239107693

The current government promised to scrap the F-35 program in 2015
No political position can be preserved in aspic. If subsequent information shows it to have been wrong it is only common sense to change it.

[Buster Hyman]

How many production lines of F-35's are there? Seems to be an awful lot of new customers...could take a while.

[GeeRam]

How many production lines of F-35's are there?

Three....in theory.

Fort Worth, Italy and Japan.

I think though that the first complete production one off the Italian line wasn't that long ago (last year or late 2020?) and first one off the Japanese line might be this year or was late last year?

[Lonewolf_50]

Even though we are updating our Shornets to block III. We don't want any more of them. At this stage, in 2030, we retire the Shornet and 2035, we retire the Growler. 2025 will decide if we get more F-35, to take us from 72 to100. Thank you. With the F-15 getting a new lease on life (there's a "mature" aircraft, eh?) with the X version (that was related to the S version for the Saudis), I wasn't sure if a similar "SHornet revival" might be in progress.
I guess not.

[Beamr]

Three....in theory.

Fort Worth, Italy and Japan.

I think though that the first complete production one off the Italian line wasn't that long ago (last year or late 2020?) and first one off the Japanese line might be this year or was late last year?
UK?

https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/f35-production

[henra]

Thank you. With the F-15 getting a new lease on life (there's a "mature" aircraft, eh?) with the X version (that was related to the S version for the Saudis), I wasn't sure if a similar "SHornet revival" might be in progress.

Doubt it.
I think the X has a mission (Large Missile Carrier for VLO Fighters) which only very few big air forces can afford. One such carrier is probably enough for those few air forces (USAF, IAF?) which can and will afford such a mix. In Europe, typically the EF will take over this role for those Air Forces which are big enough for a mixed fleet (RAF, Aeronatica Militare, In future to some extent GAF) and are having/getting the F-35.

[henra]

How many production lines of F-35's are there? Seems to be an awful lot of new customers...could take a while.
I don't know if Vlad' had bought huge amounts of LM stocks... !?
In any case he's due for a nice Christmas Gift by LM this Year and the 'best Salesman of the Year' award.

[GlobalNav]

I don't know if Vlad' had bought huge amounts of LM stocks... !?
In any case he's due for a nice Christmas Gift by LM this Year and the 'best Salesman of the Year' award.

I have a few suggestions. 😏

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/01/09/canada-strikes-deal-to-buy-f-35s-from-lockheed-as-cf-18s-retire/

Canada strikes deal to buy F-35s from Lockheed, as CF-18s retire

WASHINGTON — Canada on Monday announced plans to buy 88 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/12/30/f-35-deliveries-halted-after-texas-mishap-new-contract-finalized/) for CA$19 billion (U.S. $14 billion).

Defence Minister Anita Anand said in an online briefing the Royal Canadian Air Force would receive its first four Lockheed Martin-made F-35s in 2026, with the next six in 2027 and another six in 2028. The remainder would come in subsequent years.

The fifth-generation fighters will replace Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 Hornets, the Royal Canadian Air Force’s version of the F/A-18, Anand said. Canada expects the full F-35 fleet to be delivered in time for the service to phase the older fighters out by the end of 2032….

Canada will ensure its F-35s have drag chute capabilities to land on “short, icy, wet Arctic runways,” Anand said, and that its fighters have true north navigation capabilities, rather than magnetic north, to allow it to fly accurately deep into the Arctic.

Anand said Canada will build operational and training squadron facilities, including maintenance bays and simulator training, at two of its military bases: Bagotville in Quebec and Cold Lake in Alberta.

Anand also said Canada is investing in a series of infrastructure upgrades nationwide to better support North American Aerospace Defense Command and F-35 operations….

[BEagle]

If they're going to fly 'deep into the Arctic', presumably they'll need some AAR support?

So will the CC-150T be phased out early in favour of a new boom-equipped Canadian tanker? Or will the CF-35A fleet be fitted with probes?

[Commander Taco]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2017239107693

The current government promised to scrap the F-35 program in 2015

Yes, India. In 2015 Trudeau stated that Canada would “never buy the F-35”. Clever lad that he is, he has made a significant contribution to physics by defining precisely how long in time “never” actually is. It would appear to be about 7.5 years. :)

[SpazSinbad]

If they're going to fly 'deep into the Arctic', presumably they'll need some AAR support?
So will the CC-150T be phased out early in favour of a new boom-equipped Canadian tanker? Or will the CF-35A fleet be fitted with probes?
11 Aug 2022: Canada unveils planned deadline to buy four Airbus tanker aircraft (defensenews.com) (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/08/10/canada-unveils-planned-deadline-to-buy-four-airbus-tanker-aircraft/#:~:text=The%20Air%20Force%20wants%20the,the%20Royal%20Canad ian%20Air%20Force.)

[West Coast]

How hard has Canada been working it’s current tanker fleet that its already replacing them?

[Bob Viking]

It’s a boom or drogue tanker vs your F35 variant of choice issue. CF18s use drogue and Canada have ordered F35A which doesn’t.

BV

[BEagle]

According to the reports, Canada expects its first CF-35A at least 2 years before its 4 x A330MRTT (contract yet to be placed) could be in service.

[ORAC]

According to LM the fuselage space used by the probe in the B has been left vacant in the A so a probe can be installed if requested by a customer. What price they’d charge for an6 flight testing would doubtless be added to their bill.

I am sure the US would be happy to provide AAR to cover any capability gap until new tankers arrive if asked.

[melmothtw]

According to LM the fuselage space used by the probe in the B has been left vacant in the A so a probe can be installed if requested by a customer. What price they’d charge for an6 flight testing would doubtless be added to their bill.

I am sure the US would be happy to provide AAR to cover any capability gap until new tankers arrive if asked.

Given the ongoing KC-46 debacle, I'm really not sure how happy the USAF would be with covering Canada's AAR requirements.
Norway had the drag chute installed at its own expense, but doubtless an internal AAR probe would be more complex/expensive and not worth the investment given the new MRTTs aren't that far off.
Omega Air has a boom-equipped KDC-10, so perhaps that might be an option.

[West Coast]

It’s a boom or drogue tanker vs your F35 variant of choice issue. CF18s use drogue and Canada have ordered F35A which doesn’t.

BV

Thanks BV, that explains away ditching the relatively youthful airframes, especially when compared to their KC135 cousins.

[ORAC]

I’d point out the CF-35 in the original proposed contract had both chute and probe. Canada has ended up without either at, presumably, a higher price.

On the other hand, as early models can’t be upgraded to Block 4 standard, they may actually have ended up with a better deal….

[Davef68]

How hard has Canada been working it’s current tanker fleet that its already replacing them?

Although only been used as tankers for about 14 years, they've been in RCAF service since 1992 as transports, and were second hand then (Delivered mid 80s IIRC) so they are not youthful airframes

[ORAC]

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/australia-starts-looking-beyond-f-35-next-gen-fighter-needs

Australia Starts Looking Beyond The F-35 For Next-Gen Fighter Needs

Australia has started looking for options beyond the Lockheed Martin F-35A for its future fighter fleet, as interest in the next generation of air combat technology increasingly encroaches on funding available for existing aircraft.

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) currently operates four fighter squadrons, with three already flying F-35As and the fourth composed of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The last in that list had been expected to be replaced by a fourth squadron of F-35As to be ordered and delivered by the end of the decade, but that plan is no longer guaranteed.

“What the fourth squadron of F-35s has become is the Super Hornet replacement, not just [a plan to buy] the fourth squadron of F-35s,” RAAF Air Marshal Robert Chipman told Aviation Week at the Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference in London July 12-13.

Instead, the RAAF plans to upgrade and extend the service life of the Super Hornet squadron before replacing those aircraft in the mid-2030s. The new replacement schedule means the RAAF will have more options than only F-35As, including a new generation of uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) and crewed fighters scheduled to be fielded in the mid-2030s by the U.S. and a UK/Italy/Japan consortium.

“We will look at the F-35, and we’re very, very comfortable and very happy with the capability of the F-35,” Chipman said. “But it would be remiss of me not to look at what else is available for us to replace our Super Hornets in the future.”

The options include the U.S. Next-Generation Air Dominance program and the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), which in 2022 merged the UK-led BAE Systems Tempest and Japan’s Mitsubishi F-X projects into a common aircraft system. The French/German/Spanish Future Combat Air System program plans to field a crewed fighter in 2040, which is possibly beyond Australia’s ideal time frame.

Through the tripartite AUKUS security pact, Australia is already partnered with the U.S. and UK to receive nuclear-powered submarines and collaborate on certain advanced technologies, such as hypersonic propulsion, autonomy, quantum technologies, cybertools and electronic warfare.

GCAP officials also view the AUKUS pact as a potential path for sharing next-generation combat aircraft technology from the UK to Australia, Richard Berthon, the UK Defense Ministry's director of Future Combat Air, said in addressing the same conference.

“I think there’s an interesting future in which you can see combat air and GCAP developing,” Berthon said. “I think AUKUS is a fantastic foundation, obviously focused in a different domain to what we are focused on today, but the nations are considering opportunities for broadening the partnership.”…..