Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
The U.S. State Department has cleared Canada to purchase a package of upgrades for its fleet of CF-18 Super Hornets, including upgraded radars and weapons, intended to serve as a bridge between the legacy fleet and Canada’s future fighter.
...
Among the upgrades included in this potential package: 50 Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II tactical missiles; 38 APG-79(V)4 active electronically scanned array radars; 38 APG-79(V)4 AESA radar A1 kits; 46 F/A-18A wide-band RADOMEs; upgrades to the Advanced Distributed Combat Training System; and technical assistance to support the upgraded jets.
...
LightningZ71 wrote:The update also addresses the fact that they had the helmet mounted queuing system for hihg off bore targeting for the AIM-9X sidewinders, but had none of them actually in inventory.
thedrive.com has a decent article on this whole transaction, though the raw details aren't any different from the defensenews article.
LightningZ71 wrote:Canada had also gained the right to purchase the new AIM-120D AMRAM missiles a few years ago, but couldn't fully take advantage of the additional range of those missiles because the older radar on their CF-18 fighters didn't have sufficient engagement range for them. This addresses that deficiency. Maybe they will now actually make that AIM-120D purchase?
The Defence Team has been hard at work over the last several months. We’ve opened bidding on design and construction contracts for new fighter aircraft facilities at 3 Wing Bagotville and 4 Wing Cold Lake, our two main operating bases for Canada’s fighter aircraft. This infrastructure will support the long-term operation and maintenance of 88 new aircraft that will be procured for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) through the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).
These infrastructure investments will have a significant economic impact in Alberta and Quebec – combined, we expect these construction contracts to total over $500 million, and create more than 900 jobs over the next several years. We’re planning to award the design-build contract for the Cold Lake fighter aircraft facility in August 2020, with Bagotville following in September 2020.
Through the $19 billion Future Fighter Capability Project, the Government of Canada will procure a replacement for the CF-18. However, the requirement that the future fighter be “seamlessly interoperable” with key allies calls into question whether the competitive selection process can be run in good faith. This study argues that contemporary Canadian defence policy is oriented around partnerships with other states, especially the US, and that interoperability would therefore best be attained through the selection of a fifth-generation American platform. However, it is unclear that the FFCP evaluation criteria, which include mandatory and rated technical requirements as well as pillars for cost and industrial offsets, account for high-end tactical networking and new allied technical standards. The FFCP may result in the acquisition of a type that prevents the CAF from interoperating “seamlessly” with allies over its lifecycle. This risk undermines Canada’s reliance on partnerships for national defence.
The bids are in for Canada’s fighter competition, and three companies will go head-to-head for the chance to build 88 new jets.
The Canadian government on Friday confirmed that the field is down to two American entrants — Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet — as well as Swedish aerospace manufacturer Saab’s Gripen E. All companies submitted proposals before the July 31 deadline.
The contest is scheduled to be decided in 2022, with the first aircraft delivery projected in 2025. Up to CA$19 billion (U.S. $14 billion) is up for grabs.
...
744SPX wrote:If they could get the SH block III WITH the F414 EPE (which for some reason the Navy refuses to adopt) then the F-18E/F is a viable option. Otherwise the F-35 is the only aircraft that makes sense. So, the F-35 is the only choice as the upgraded F414 which should have been introduced 10 years ago will clearly never be purchased by the US and therefore not be available to Canada except at great cost.
Oroka wrote:744SPX wrote:If they could get the SH block III WITH the F414 EPE (which for some reason the Navy refuses to adopt) then the F-18E/F is a viable option. Otherwise the F-35 is the only aircraft that makes sense. So, the F-35 is the only choice as the upgraded F414 which should have been introduced 10 years ago will clearly never be purchased by the US and therefore not be available to Canada except at great cost.
Initial numbers I have seen puts the Block 3 Rhino at $70M each... with the F-35A at $77.9M, the Super Hornet isnt that much of a deal any more. With the Gripen E coming in at around $85M each with lower performance... other than to save a few bucks, I cant see why they would buy the F/A-18E/F.
Boeing would perform final assembly of its F/A-18 Block III Super Hornets in the United States rather than Canada if it wins Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) competition.
Jim Barnes, Boeing Defense, Space, and Security director of business development in Canada, on 27 October cited the small production run for performing final assembly in St. Louis, Missouri, where the Super Hornet is built. Canada will purchase 88 advanced fighters as part of its competition with the first aircraft anticipated for 2025. The procurement is expected to be worth USD11-14 billion.
“It was decided that the benefits of standing up these types of operations in Canada were not worth the investment,” Barnes said. “We are concentrating on the decades of life cycle support for our partners’ work share, including potential work on US Navy Super Hornets.”
...
Ozair wrote:Boeing is trumpeting their large investment with Canadian Aerospace...
art wrote:Ozair wrote:Boeing is trumpeting their large investment with Canadian Aerospace...
Unlike the investment they made in destroying the largest Canadian aerospace player.
rubberdogdo wrote:Canada needs the Super Hornet. It’s a common platform the CAF is familiar with , even though it’s a big step forward in capability , it will integrate well with the USAF , and its 2 engines are a must for operating in the Arctic theater and beyond. Canada will be well served with this newer and more advanced F-18.
Leslieville wrote:Of the three options, I think it's a choice between the F-35 and the Gripen, with the former being most likely but the later being my preference.
What appeals about the Gripen is its pedigree and design intent: a physically robust, combat- and cost-effective aircraft from a resource-constrained northern nation that offers a balance of sufficient-and-upgradable EW and weapons capabilities with low operating costs. It's the F-5 of the current fighter options and that holds a lot of appeal to me, with features like STOL from rough fields and improvised runways, the longest legs of the field, maintainer-focused design, high agility, super-cruise and high-mach sprint speeds (important for our vast geography). The complete technology transfer and full choice of EW suite to fit Canadian-NORAD-NATO requirements and proposed domestic production goes a long way to alleviate concerns about interoperability and industrial benefits (with neither the F-35 or Super Hornet having a Canadian FAL). I have no issue in the slightest with it being a single-engine aircraft, which seems to be a uniquely Canadian fixation.
One thing I do worry about, though, about buying the Gripen is the limited global fleet size and limited military relationship with Gripen's current model operators (Hungary and Czech Republic in NATO, let alone Sweden, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, etc.). As capable as it is, the Gripen is never going to remotely approach the production numbers and deployment of the F35, which is on track to become the defacto strike aircraft of NATO. The F35's lethargic runway requirements, lack of super-cruise, short legs and dependence of tankers, and extensive ground support requirements are all considerations of not small importance. On the other hand, low radar observability and its EW system, particularly datalinks, are critically important for mission effectiveness and survivability in contested airspace.
Leslieville wrote:Fundamentally, I think the Gripen is a better choice for Canada's domestic NORAD defense missions (sovereignty patrols, interception, sustained deployment in harsh environments) while the F35 is a better choice for Canada's NATO defense missions (overseas strike missions, interoperability within a coalition-controlled airspace environment, and even all-out conventional warfare against a technological near-pear). Of these two missions, I personally put more importance on the former. The purpose of the RCAF is, first and foremost, to conduct missions leading up to and including warfighting to defend the territorial and political integrity of Canada as a sovereign nation. Projecting power overseas as part of a coalition of allies may be the best way to preempt the emergence of conditions where the first mission of direct national defense is required, but it is a secondary mission. I have every confidence that the Gripen would allow Canada to be a full partner in an overseas NATO coalition and undertake AAD and strike missions as part of a multi-national coalition and utilize standard NATO ordnance and strike mission profiles.
Leslieville wrote:^ FWIW, I was using various websites, including the RAAF and Wikipedia, entries on the aircraft to come to my conclusions in my original post.
Leslieville wrote:F35A combat range: 1,239km (on internal fuel) per Wikipedia, 1,093 km on the RAAF website
JAS 39E combat range: 1,500km Wikipedia
Leslieville wrote:F35A takeoff distance: the only source I found was a somewhat dubious blog that quotes 8,000 ft and links to a defunct Government of Australia webpage that's now missing
JAS 39E takeoff distance: 500m Wikipedia
Leslieville wrote:
Leslieville wrote:^ Not feeling at all like you're having a go at me. I'm genuinely thrilled at the quality of your reply and the depth of your knowledge. I, clearly, have a superficial knowledge about these aircraft and don't have the subject matter expertise to even know when something sounds off, or the manufacturer is really stretching the truth with its metrics. Based what you've shared (and I'm in the process of reading the RAND report about European contributions to air power that was previously linked to in this thread), I enthusiastically agree that the F35 sounds like a better fit for Canada than the Gripen. Thank you for your responses and info.
744SPX wrote:If I was Canada and ordering the F-35A, I would request the F-135 growth version 1/2 from Pratt (which has been available for a while now) and Meteor capability. The improved thrust, fuel efficiency and long range engagement capability would be ideally suited to the amount of territory there is to cover.
...
Regarding the fighter competition, the plan is to either downselect to two jets in 2021, or make a final decision in 2022. Where does that decision stand? How has the coronavirus pandemic impacted the timing and size of the program?
I’m very happy with the progress of the selection for our next fighter. And it’s gone to a very good stage where we actually have three companies. I don’t know exactly — because the team there that does the analysis is independent — which direction they’ll go, of downselecting or how that’s going to happen. So we’ll see how the progress moves ahead.
I can turn to your direct question regarding COVID-19. We initially, obviously, just like anybody, had some minor delays because we had to shift a lot of the resources to the pandemic fight. But we were able to shift our people back into dealing with our procurement very quickly because, as you know, defense is an essential service, and making sure that those jobs continue was very important to us. So the delays were actually very minor. And all the updates that I’ve reviewed so far [shows] that things are actually progressing extremely well.
So you don’t see any delays for that program likely coming as a result of COVID-19 or anything else?
Right now I’m confident that we’ll be able to make up any time because the shift that we made. [We have some] very good people [who] are running these very large projects, so we needed to shift some of that talent to the COVID-19 fight initially, for good reason. But in a few months, we were able to shift those people back to this program.
...
Canada's protracted search for a new fighter aircraft to replace its aging CF-188 Hornets has narrowed to a field of three competitors. We paid a visit to Swedish contender Saab to learn if its Gripen E offering has the requisite muscle to give the other entrants a run for their money.
...
RJMAZ wrote:Selection comes down to the requirements. Defence can easily create a list of requirements that allows the Gripen to satisfy and it will get selected as the cheapest life cycle cost on paper. Combat air patrol, interception and point defence could make up 90% of the requirement. Compared to the classic Hornet the Gripen can perform all the same missions in the same way. The Gripen can fly slightly further, faster and it will have lower per hour costs.
RJMAZ wrote:However, only a fool would ignore that the F-35 would have double the capability for a very minor cost increase. Some even argue a lower purchase price and in 10 years the Gripen might be unsupported by the manufacturer putting the maintenance costs up. The F-35 performs missions and uses tactics that are different to 4th gen aircraft so hopefully the requirements do not discriminate here.
Saab is offering to open two new aerospace centres as part of its Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project.
The aerospace facilities, the Gripen Centre and the Aerospace Research & Development Centre, would be based in the greater Montreal region, the company announced at Aero Montreal’s International Aerospace Innovation Forum 2020 on 14 December.
Mission system software and hardware development, as well as integration, for the proposed Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Gripen E would be done at the Gripen Centre.
The Aerospace Research & Development Centre would focus on a variety of aerospace technologies, including automation, artificial intelligence and “greening” technologies. That work may or may not be directly related to the Gripen E. Rather, the research and development would focus on next-generation aerospace technologies more generally.
...
We paid a visit to Swedish OEM, Saab, to learn if its Gripen E offering to replace Canada's aging CF-188 Hornets has the requisite muscle to give the other entrants a run for their money.
“Gripen E meets and/or exceeds all of the Canadian requirements. It’s an efficient, modern fighter, and it’s the latest development on the market.” So says Anders Håkansson, Saab’s deputy campaign director for the company’s participation in Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).
Canada’s protracted search for a new fighter aircraft to replace its aging McDonnell Douglas CF-188 Hornets has narrowed to a field of three competitors. The U.S. manufacturing giants of Boeing and Lockheed Martin are respectively offering the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-35A Lightning II, with Sweden completing the trio with Saab’s latest incarnation of Gripen — the single-seat E variant.
...
744SPX wrote:Again, I think the only way the Gripen E can be seriously competitive is if it came with the F414EPE. I don't know if that would be enough to motivate GE to produce it though. They will certainly get no help from the USN on that one as they've had at least 12 years to order that engine and haven't moved on it.
744SPX wrote:Again, I think the only way the Gripen E can be seriously competitive is if it came with the F414EPE. I don't know if that would be enough to motivate GE to produce it though. They will certainly get no help from the USN on that one as they've had at least 12 years to order that engine and haven't moved on it.
OTTAWA — The federal government has told Boeing that its bid to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s with a new fleet of the American company’s Super Hornet fighter jets did not meets its requirements.
Three sources from industry and government say the message was delivered Wednesday as the other two companies competing for the $19-billion contract — U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Swedish firm Saab — were being told they did meet the government’s requirements.
johns624 wrote:Meanwhile, the F/A18s are getting older every day...
j-bird wrote:F-35 is just too expensive to operate for Canada, and the Saab more than satisfies our real requirements. Let's face it - Canada isn't going to invade anyone, is never going to undertake an air campaign without partners, will never be in the first wave of any coalition air campaign, and doesn't really need to defend Canadian airspace - if there's a real threat, the US will do it in a second. Sad but true, so why spend the $$....
RJMAZ wrote:j-bird wrote:F-35 is just too expensive to operate for Canada, and the Saab more than satisfies our real requirements. Let's face it - Canada isn't going to invade anyone, is never going to undertake an air campaign without partners, will never be in the first wave of any coalition air campaign, and doesn't really need to defend Canadian airspace - if there's a real threat, the US will do it in a second. Sad but true, so why spend the $$....
I actually think the F-35 will be the cheapest option by far. Canada can skip maintenance on the stealth coatings to keep costs low. They can fit a pair of Israeli 600 gallon drop tanks and they'll have a fighter that can cover as much territory as a pair of Gripens.
j-bird wrote:To me, this announcement (which isn't Boeing being formally bumped, but told they "don't meet requirements", so same thing), is a shocker. I actually expected the SH to come up the middle and take this competition. Hard to tell if it's a genuine requirement issue (and it should be interesting speculation to think about what requirement was...), or politics (keeping the appearance of a level playing field until the F-35 is selected).
j-bird wrote:Let's face it - Canada isn't going to invade anyone, is never going to undertake an air campaign without partners, will never be in the first wave of any coalition air campaign, and doesn't really need to defend Canadian airspace - if there's a real threat, the US will do it in a second. Sad but true, so why spend the $$....
rlwynn wrote:Buying the SAAB would help a US partner that needs sales.
rlwynn wrote:Buying the SAAB would help a US partner that needs sales.
art wrote:rlwynn wrote:Buying the SAAB would help a US partner that needs sales.
From what I have read the weightings for criteria for evaluation are:
20% industrial offsets
20% cost
60% performance
Does the performance criterion make the F-35 the inevitable choice? Even if the Gripens were assembled in Canada, that offset would not count for so much since Canada makes parts for F-35 (and that would stop, I presume, if Canada rejected F-35).. Agreed, on cost Gripen E would win hands down.