Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets - F35

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 06:46

To keep this on-topic in terms of alternative Canadian procurements to the F-35... I actually would propose a 3rd CFT option for F-15Se - an AAM oriented mission CFT (4x AAM-CFT configured pylon) w/ possible LO pylon design. That would give the F-15Se the full 10,500lb of CFT fuel. Personally... on a later lot, I would conceive an aft-canopy fuel cell as well (for an additional 1.5-2,000lb) and possibly shift the airbrakes above the engine fuselage nacelles. But if you require truly extended range to that configuration, then sure, your twin wing EFTs would the add 7,500lb to that total (taking you upwards to 31k-33,000+ lb gas).

I would also add doable buddy tanking capability to a future F-15. That would save a ton of gas and $$ requiring strategic tanking.

Recon advantages could include: the next-gen Litening SE pod, what I would propose as a strategic Low Observable 11 inch (280mm) LW IRST pod under the centerline and ALQ-218 V 3 pods on the far outboard wing stations. Or interchange the next-gen Elta-Rafael SoJ/EA jam pod on the centerline for your 'flexible' game-changing capabilities. Not quite and EO DAS, but I'd propose a PAWS-3 built into the skin/CFT to cue a future ATDIRCM.

Finally, yes... a back seat, combined with various future air-combat and intel capabilities would be an added 'optional' asset for a small tactical force structure.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 950
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 07:04

geogen wrote:To keep this on-topic in terms of alternative Canadian procurements to the F-35... I actually would propose a 3rd CFT option for F-15Se - an AAM oriented mission CFT (4x AAM-CFT configured pylon) w/ possible LO pylon design. That would give the F-15Se the full 10,500lb of CFT fuel. Personally... on a later lot, I would conceive an aft-canopy fuel cell as well (for an additional 1.5-2,000lb) and possibly shift the airbrakes above the engine fuselage nacelles. But if you require truly extended range to that configuration, then sure, your twin wing EFTs would the add 7,500lb to that total (taking you upwards to 31k-33,000+ lb gas).

I would also add doable buddy tanking capability to a future F-15. That would save a ton of gas and $$ requiring strategic tanking.

Recon advantages could include: the next-gen Litening SE pod, what I would propose as a strategic Low Observable 11 inch (280mm) LW IRST pod under the centerline and ALQ-218 V 3 pods on the far outboard wing stations. Or interchange the next-gen Elta-Rafael SoJ/EA jam pod on the centerline for your 'flexible' game-changing capabilities. Not quite and EO DAS, but I'd propose a PAWS-3 built into the skin/CFT to cue a future ATDIRCM.

Finally, yes... a back seat, combined with various future air-combat and intel capabilities would be an added 'optional' asset for a small tactical force structure.


And all this is supposed to be cheaper than the F-35? You have got to be kidding. Think design, testing, manufacturing, maintenance...

Making an F-15SE nearly as capable as an F-35 is also going to make it cost nearly as much, and it's still going to have basic disadvantages (lots of drag and increased RCS from external pods).

F-15's of any stripe are going to be less survivable than the F-35, especially in 2035. Any EA tricks or whatever magic that's going to make an F-15 more survivable is going to work better on an F-35, since it has a lower signature to start out with and can do more missions while maintaining that signature.

Oh, and can the F-15 fly off of boats? If so, please contact the RN, Marine Corps, and Navy, oh, and I guess the Italians, too.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 07:32

Now consider an actual FY15 budget capable of procuring 25-30 airframes. F-15SE would likely be cheaper per unit given the probable near-term procurement budget reductions. (as opposed to the procurement budgets still officially estimated and expected). That is where strategic planning and thinking comes into play.

No, F-15 won't be flying off boats... an interim USN plan could be to study a joint USAF/USN FA-XX 5.5 gen plan, further upgrade to a cheap block III+ standard SH acquisition complete with new stand-off weapons/systems in the interim and continue developing the carrier-based UCAV concept satisfying long-range VLO mission capabilities. imho.

This is all besides the point of course, in arguing that Canada could consider a long-endurance, flexible, highly long-range situationally aware airframe instead - one costing less to maintain than the current F-15E and one still being fully interoperable with USAF.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6975
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 08:29

First... dude, your "best case scenario" of 25 F-35A's per year is sadly under what it will be. This year it's 23 for crying out lout. Do you think that after SDD id done they will only make another two per year? FY2015 is scheduled for 50 F-35's (with 70 in FY2016).

Second, in no world will a F-15SE loaded with more avionics than even Boeing plans be cheaper than a F-35. Boeing itself said $110 million per copy.

Third, the lifecycle cost of the F-15SE will also be more than the F-35 largely due to fuel costs (twin engines).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 08:56

Spud-dude... be advised, per SecDEF statements: going forward the Defense Buying Power is going to be REDUCED compared to FY11. By FY15/FY16, real budgets will actually be reduced! Now, please factor this into the officially projected and apparently still expected future F-35 procurement budgets!

Now factor in a $4B +/- annual procurement budget into the equation... and yes, an F-15SE PUC cost will be cheaper than block III F-35A PUC cost in FY15, let alone a block IV F-35A. I will be perfectly willing to place a private wager with you (or at least on what the prevailing F-35A PUC cost will be in FY14 vs an FY14 F-15).
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 09:24

Thanks, yet another good thread derailed with talk of more whacky hypotheticals again, there's a suprise!

Is there any thread that doesn't get derailed with 'but XYZ should be bought instead' Geo?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6975
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 17:12

Go look at the FY12 budget docs which JUST CAME OUT an they say 50/70 F-35As in 2015/16.

Yes, the F-15SE & all your additional avionics will likely have a lower PUC than LRIP F-35As.... but, and it's a big one, in any give year when you buy a F-35 vs a F-15SE+, the F-35 will still be cheaper (Annual Total Weapon System Cost). You are including past and future development cost in the F-35 which is mostly sunk and will be spent whether you buy the F-15SE+ or not.

Considering that you are putting this F-15SE+ forward as a stopgap & economical alternative to the F-35A, you are being very disingenuous when tossing out numbers.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2543
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 18:27

geogen wrote:Sir, if you are implying that an IOC F-15SE in 2017 would not be able to operate under a 25 yr upgradeable service life accordingly (to complement the next-gen tactical jet now necessary due to premature F-22 line kill), then I would disagree.

If you are arguing that USAF, procuring 25 F-35A units per yr (best case scenario) under FRP, would be the most feasible and rational 25 yr procurement plan for USAF... then I would highly disagree with you and be willing to place a long-term wager with you on that. And when the future realities become more evident... I will not accept your collection, as I will understand the confusion.


It's not the airframe life that's in question. It's the F-15's ability to operate in the threat environment that will exist in that time frame. As for F-35 procurement, it's a pretty laughable assumption that full rate production, will only add 2 airframes/year.
Offline

skicountry

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2009, 17:12

Unread post02 Mar 2011, 18:42

spazsinbad wrote: F-35 jets right choice for Canada Published On Tue Aug 17 by Paul Manson & Angus Watt

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... cle/848664



While I respect and admire former chief of the air force and chief of general staff Paul Manson, it might be fair to point out that he was president of Lockheed Martin Canada and that he is very active in the Conference of Defense Associations, a powerful defense think tank/lobby group, that has come out strongly in favor of the F-35. He has earned the right to have an opinion, but that opinion is not entirely impartial.

Despite all this, I really fail to see what other purchase the Canadian government can make. A non-US type is not an option, and of the three US aircraft, the F-15SE, F-18E/F, and F-35, only the last provides that type of industrial benefits that got Canada involved in the program in the first place. Canada has a good thing going in terms of defense cooperation with the US and the F-35 will find many more potential buyers over its life than any evolved F-18 or F-15 variants.
Offline

exorcet

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 15:35
  • Location: US

Unread post03 Mar 2011, 03:26

geogen wrote:To keep this on-topic in terms of alternative Canadian procurements to the F-35... I actually would propose a 3rd CFT option for F-15Se - an AAM oriented mission CFT (4x AAM-CFT configured pylon) w/ possible LO pylon design. That would give the F-15Se the full 10,500lb of CFT fuel. Personally... on a later lot, I would conceive an aft-canopy fuel cell as well (for an additional 1.5-2,000lb) and possibly shift the airbrakes above the engine fuselage nacelles. But if you require truly extended range to that configuration, then sure, your twin wing EFTs would the add 7,500lb to that total (taking you upwards to 31k-33,000+ lb gas).

Something like the F/A-18 IN's weapons pod seems doable, though it would still take time. The F-15SE isn't ready for action yet as is. Everything else sounds like a pretty big project though. And if you're going to be running EXT's by default, might as well get the F-15E over the F-15SE and save on buying RAM coatings.

As for the pods, the F-35's IRST is basically a LIGHTNING pod without the drag. The F-35's Passive sensors and AN/APG-81 give it a lot to work with in terms of EW. The F-15 idea could work in a high endurance role, but it sounds like the F-35 would be in service first or with more capability.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 765
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post03 Mar 2011, 12:10

exorcet...... With all do respect both the F-15 and the F-18 are sunset aircraft (at the end of there life) meaning there persepective parts supply will soon run dry or at the very least get extremely expensive. Not to mention both aircraft both aircraft were initally designed on a slide rule.
Offline

slicktry

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2007, 02:15

Unread post04 Mar 2011, 05:49

Well, why not then just give Northrop a call and lets order some CF-23's for Canada. Problem solved! Russia will have no clue what's buzzing their Bear's. Now if we can get them in time to do some training missions over Libya we'll be all set...

God Bless
Jer
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post04 Mar 2011, 06:10

slicktry wrote:Well, why not then just give Northrop a call and lets order some CF-23's for Canada. Problem solved!...


Well, re: the main theme of your post... while you're giving Northrop a call, tell them to also build a prototype AS-14 as well. That could have been a viable joint-service stopgap solution, until a 2030 NGAD phased into the picture. :shrug:
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post04 Mar 2011, 07:41

skicountry wrote:Despite all this, I really fail to see what other purchase the Canadian government can make. A non-US type is not an option, and of the three US aircraft, the F-15SE, F-18E/F, and F-35, only the last provides that type of industrial benefits that got Canada involved in the program in the first place. Canada has a good thing going in terms of defense cooperation with the US and the F-35 will find many more potential buyers over its life than any evolved F-18 or F-15 variants.


Finally, someone with some logical sense from the last dozen posts.

Fact is, Canada is getting the F-35 and thats all there is to it. The F-35 is the best and ONLY 5th generation choice available to us. Purchasing something like the F-15SE or F-18SH would be a colossal waste of time and money.
Offline

exorcet

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 15:35
  • Location: US

Unread post04 Mar 2011, 08:58

alloycowboy wrote:exorcet...... With all do respect both the F-15 and the F-18 are sunset aircraft (at the end of there life) meaning there persepective parts supply will soon run dry or at the very least get extremely expensive. Not to mention both aircraft both aircraft were initally designed on a slide rule.


Well, that depends on the sales of the latest versions. If Boeing can keep finding buyers, I'm sure that both will remain around a bit longer. And while each original design may have come from a slide rule, quite a few newer parts didn't. The Eagle and Hornet are no longer cutting edge, but they certainly aren't useless.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests