Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

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

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post09 Jul 2019, 18:50

Wow, Boeing and Airbus are really pulling out all the stops.

They're not the most likely to leave the program - they're trying to make sure that Lockheed does.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5873
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 04:02

Boeing reassures it’s still in the Canadian fighter competition

09 July, 2019
| SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com
| BY: Garrett Reim
| Los Angeles


After a news report that said it might pull out of Canada’s fighter competition, Boeing says it’s still participating in the process and hasn’t made any final decisions.

Boeing and Airbus, which are respectively offering Ottawa the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, have complained in letters to Canada’s Department of National Defence that its procurement competition is unfairly favouring Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter, according to a report by Reuters. Boeing declines to comment specifically on the reported complaints.

“We appreciate the transparent nature of this competition, specifically the multiple opportunities to provide formal comments to the government of Canada on draft request for proposals (RFP),” says Boeing. “We continue to be very confident in the Super Hornet Block III capabilities to meet the defence needs of Canada and Boeing’s ability to bring unmatched benefits to the Canadian economy through the aerospace sector.”

The company also noted its commitment to share part of the contract work and value – 88 jets for a reported C$15 billion to C$19 billion. As part of its offset policy, called the Industrial and Technology Benefits (IBT) Obligation, Ottawa plans to score bids partially based on their ability to funnel work to local businesses.


However, Lockheed Martin has argued that it cannot provide offset contracts to Canadian businesses because as a member of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme the nation’s companies have already been given more than $1 billion contracts, and thus further accommodations would be in breach of the partnership agreement. Canadian F-35 suppliers include Curtis Wright Controls, which makes the aircraft’s radar single-board computer, and Magellan Aerospace, which makes the “A” variant’s horizontal tail.


Despite being a member of the Joint Strike Fighter programme and initially planning to buy the 65 examples F-35, Ottawa has dithered on whether or not to buy the stealth aircraft over the past decade. Nonetheless, the country has officially included Lockheed Martin as a qualified bidder in its latest fighter competition.

One other reported area of disagreement are Royal Canadian Air Force requirements that emphasise the ability to carry out first strikes on foreign targets, a role which favours the radar evading abilities of the F-35 stealth fighter. In place of stealth abilities, Boeing has pitched the F/A-18E/F’s longer, unrefuelled flight endurance and larger weapons carrying capacity as capabilities that enable the fighter to make missile strikes from stand-off distances, outside the range of enemy radar and air defences.

Ultimately, Boeing says its decision will be based on the final RFP, due out by the end of this summer.

“We look forward to continuing to provide comments, reviewing the final RFP, and determining next steps at that time,” says the company.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-459552/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 09:53

Corsair1963 wrote:One other reported area of disagreement are Royal Canadian Air Force requirements that emphasise the ability to carry out first strikes on foreign targets, a role which favours the radar evading abilities of the F-35 stealth fighter.


So these companies (such as Boeing) think they know better than the RCAF what should be the requirements for the Canadian future fighter aircraft, LoL!
Oh lord, Canada does indeed have a "ball-less" government... :roll:


Corsair1963 wrote:In place of stealth abilities, Boeing has pitched the F/A-18E/F’s longer, unrefuelled flight endurance and larger weapons carrying capacity as capabilities that enable the fighter to make missile strikes from stand-off distances, outside the range of enemy radar and air defences.


Longer unrefuelled flight endurance than what?? Than the F-35A? Good luck with that :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 13:29

hb_pencil wrote:Wow, Boeing and Airbus are really pulling out all the stops.

They're not the most likely to leave the program - they're trying to make sure that Lockheed does.


Explain?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 17:16

ricnunes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:In place of stealth abilities, Boeing has pitched the F/A-18E/F’s longer, unrefuelled flight endurance and larger weapons carrying capacity as capabilities that enable the fighter to make missile strikes from stand-off distances, outside the range of enemy radar and air defences.[/b]


Longer unrefuelled flight endurance than what?? Than the F-35A? Good luck with that :roll:


For range I think for range they are assuming CFTs & EFTs along with a "minimum" weapons load.

For "larger weapons carrying capacity", I think they are talking about the variety of weapons it can carry vs a Block 3F F-35. They are completely ignoring the fact that Canada will be getting Block 4+ jets so...
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 18:54

SpudmanWP wrote:For range I think for range they are assuming CFTs & EFTs along with a "minimum" weapons load.


Even with that, it's doubtful.
The Super Hornet on air interdiction missions with 4x1000lb bombs plus EFTs (plus air-to-air missiles) is said to have a combat radius of 390 nm:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111026182 ... r/f18.html

According to some sources it is expected that EFT could increase the Super Hornet range by 260 nm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/ ... per_Hornet
Even with the very optimistic figure above (and I have very strong reservations/doubts about it) we would have a combat radius for the same interdiction profile of around 650 nm, this for the Super Hornet.
A F-35A with a similar internal loadout (of 2x2000lb plus 2xAMRAAMs) has a combat radius of 669 nm. Even with minimalistic loadouts, the F-35A should also maintain its range advantage over the Super Hornet with CFTs+EFTs and this again using the same very optimistic values from above (regarding the Super Hornet).


SpudmanWP wrote:For "larger weapons carrying capacity", I think they are talking about the variety of weapons it can carry vs a Block 3F F-35. They are completely ignoring the fact that Canada will be getting Block 4+ jets so...


Yes, that's what I thought hence why I didn't commented about the above. However in this case the English is wrongly put. It should be something like "larger weapon variety" or something along those lines.

However and just to add to what you mentioned above, Boeing also seems to forget that Canada has and (unfortunately) always had a very minimalistic approach in terms of weapon variety for its combat aircraft fleet. Just look at the current CF-18 air-to-ground weapon inventory:
- Only Paveways and JDAMs. There's no cruise missiles like the Harpoon or land attack cruise missiles (like the SLAM, JASSM, etc...), no HARM missiles, etc... in the Canadian inventory. And I would seriously bet that this won't change with the new fighter aircraft! So the only aircraft that can remain survivable when facing future threats and when armed with a minimalistic weapon pool is the F-35 and only the F-35.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 19:38

luke_sandoz wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:Wow, Boeing and Airbus are really pulling out all the stops.

They're not the most likely to leave the program - they're trying to make sure that Lockheed does.


Explain?


Do you think you'd like to spend X Million dollars to participate in a competition where you start off with a 20% disadvantage in the points and have multiple other barriers to win, many of which deliberately diminish your major advantages?

F-35 isn't the favourite in this competition, it wasn't from the start either. Should have been pretty clear when those letters were leaked a few months back.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 19:47

Boeing project's it's range values on having the EPE engine (unfunded and unscheduled) but somehow does not give the F-35 credit for future engine upgrades.
Attachments
CUrnNuT[1].png
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 21:54

hb_pencil wrote:F-35 isn't the favourite in this competition, it wasn't from the start either. Should have been pretty clear when those letters were leaked a few months back.


According to several sources apparently the F-35 is indeed the favorite in this competition, hence the news like that last one.

The F-35 is also by far the favorite within RCAF and also the favorite within the Canadian aerospace industry as a whole.
Heck, it was even the Liberals that signed Canada to join the JSF program.

The only thing playing against the F-35 was a dork called Justin Trudeau who in a moment of mental diarrhea said years ago before he got elected that Canada didn't need expensive Stealth Fighter aircraft, a.k.a. the F-35. Now I'm pretty sure that even he acknowledges that the F-35 is the best option although he will admit it in public.
This kinda reminds me of the Surface Combatant project where some/many said that the Type 26 would never win (because it wasn't still built, unproven designed, etc, etc, etc...) but in the end who won? Yeah that right, the Type 26.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5873
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 00:21

ricnunes wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:F-35 isn't the favourite in this competition, it wasn't from the start either. Should have been pretty clear when those letters were leaked a few months back.


According to several sources apparently the F-35 is indeed the favorite in this competition, hence the news like that last one.

The F-35 is also by far the favorite within RCAF and also the favorite within the Canadian aerospace industry as a whole.
Heck, it was even the Liberals that signed Canada to join the JSF program.

The only thing playing against the F-35 was a dork called Justin Trudeau who in a moment of mental diarrhea said years ago before he got elected that Canada didn't need expensive Stealth Fighter aircraft, a.k.a. the F-35. Now I'm pretty sure that even he acknowledges that the F-35 is the best option although he will admit it in public.
This kinda reminds me of the Surface Combatant project where some/many said that the Type 26 would never win (because it wasn't still built, unproven designed, etc, etc, etc...) but in the end who won? Yeah that right, the Type 26.


Justin Trudeau is nothing short of an idiot. Which, could careless for the Canadian Taxpayer or Warfighter! One day the majority of Canadian will learn what actually happen.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 04:52

ricnunes wrote:
citanon wrote:Airbus and Boeing threatening to quit:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... SKCN1U32EX


What a wonderful news!
Boeing and Airbus, please do quit from the Canadian competition :wink:

And if it isn't asking too much, can I ask Saab to quit from the Canadian competition as well? Thanks in advance :mrgreen:


Oh hell no, I want the Gripen to get another L.

I hope Saab stares into the light at the end of the tunnel until it's too late to realize it's a train
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 15:22

SpudmanWP wrote:Boeing project's it's range values on having the EPE engine (unfunded and unscheduled) but somehow does not give the F-35 credit for future engine upgrades.


I see reference to a "weapons pod". Is that not unfunded and unscheduled as well?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 15:48

Corsair1963 wrote:Justin Trudeau is nothing short of an idiot. Which, could careless for the Canadian Taxpayer or Warfighter! One day the majority of Canadian will learn what actually happen.


You're absolutely right.


XanderCrews wrote:
Oh hell no, I want the Gripen to get another L.

I hope Saab stares into the light at the end of the tunnel until it's too late to realize it's a train


LoL :mrgreen:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 15:49

mixelflick wrote:I see reference to a "weapons pod". Is that not unfunded and unscheduled as well?


Yes, that's right. The "Stealth Weapons Pod" is currently unfunded and unscheduled and apparently cancelled.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 17:14

mixelflick wrote:I see reference to a "weapons pod". Is that not unfunded and unscheduled as well?

That is correct, no weapons pod in the cards although having it on the F-35 would be nice :)
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests