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

[steve2267]

What? F-35 hasn't been paying dividends to the Canaduhian economy for years now?

IMO, should Canaduh go with Boing (or someone else), then they should be dismissed from the JSF program, and those jobs / business be re-distributed to other partners, or other nations that want the jet... Japan and Poland come to mind. Then Canaduh will have to decide if any Boing promises offset the lost F-35 revenues.

[ricnunes]

What? F-35 hasn't been paying dividends to the Canaduhian economy for years now?

IMO, should Canaduh go with Boing (or someone else), then they should be dismissed from the JSF program, and those jobs / business be re-distributed to other partners, or other nations that want the jet... Japan and Poland come to mind. Then Canaduh will have to decide if any Boing promises offset the lost F-35 revenues.

I believe this is just Boeing trying to take advantage and win dividends of the recent NDP "fighter aircraft and jobs, bla bla bla..." together with the Canadian media (or some portions of it) trying to throw sh*t to the fan regarding the F-35 (they were never satisfied with the fact that most if not all of what they said negatively about the F-35 was plain wrong).

Also, remember that (and even the article admits this) that 60% of the total score will be based on capability alone and 20% on price and the $44,000 CPFH mentioned on the article is an outdated value and as such BS.

It's also funny that Boeing thinks that since it "lost" the trade dispute with Bombardier that everything will be "cool" now
LoL, Boeing may have "lost" the trade dispute on paper but in reality the only loser of this dispute was Bombardier itself, since it was basically forced to sell 51% (the majority) of its "flagship" program, the Bombardier Cseries to Airbus (in order to be able to manufacture the aircraft in the US and as such avoid the tax penalties in case Boeing had won - heck this aircraft is now called Airbus A220!) and all this loses forced Bombardier to sell all it's regional jet programs plus the Q400 Turboprop which means that Bombardier which was once the world's 3rd biggest civilian aerospace company is now a company which only have Bizjets as their proprietary aerospace products.
I don't know if the Liberal Government will "forgive this" and then there's the clause where companies that have done harm to the Canadian economy (and I imagine aerospace sector) which I believe can still harm Boeing (despite Boeing claiming otherwise) - see paragraph above!

Finally, it's also funny that Boeing claims that the current Canadian capability to maintain the current Hornet can be switched to maintain the Super Hornet instead like nothing needs to happen or change and as such forgetting that the Super Hornet is in fact a completely different aircraft from the legacy Hornet.

[Corsair1963]

The F-35 contracts are already in place in Canada. So, the risk is well known. This likely leaves Boeings proposal very much up in the air...

[charlielima223]

https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/12/16 ... sion-unit/

The RAAF’s fleet of Classic Hornets will be retired by December 2021. They will be replaced by F-35A Lightning IIs as the RAAF’s main fighter aircraft. 25 of the retired Hornets are to be sold to Canada due to the Royal Canadian Air Force’s protracted procurement process for a replacement for their CF-18 Hornets. 2 Hornets have already been delivered, with the rest to be delivered as retirement of the RAAF fleet progresses

Tred is still good on the tires I guess

[Corsair1963]

Unlike Finland, Canada nixes cold-weather tests, fly-off among competing fighter jets


Finland, which is considering the same aircraft as Canada, for its new jet fleet, is requiring each competing aerospace company to provide two aircraft to test at low temperatures and in real world operating conditions.

Canada won’t conduct a fly-off between fighter jets competing to become the country’s new warplane nor conduct testing to see how such aircraft perform under cold weather conditions.

The decision not to proceed with such tests under Canada’s $19-billion future fighter procurement program stands in contrast to Finland, which is considering the same aircraft as Canada, for its new jet fleet. Each competing aerospace company is required to provide Finland with two aircraft to test at low temperatures and be evaluated in real world operating conditions.

Public Services and Procurement Canada has confirmed that Canada will not do any fly-offs among competing jet or tests for cold-weather operations like Finland has underway.

“We do not have plans for an exercise of this nature,” stated department spokeswoman Stéfanie Hamel.

Finland and Canada are considering the Boeing Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin F-35 and Saab Gripen. The Finnish Air Force is also testing the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, both of which pulled out of the Canadian competition because of worries the process was rigged to favour the F-35.

Finland hopes to buy 64 aircraft. Canada will purchase 88 aircraft.

Canadian aerospace industry representatives say the competing companies as well as allied air forces could provide Canada with results from tests they have conducted on the competing aircraft.

Finland could have taken the same route but its procurement staff want to ensure the country is getting value for money since the project will cost around $14 billion.

Finnish defence ministry program manager Lauri Puranen outlined in a blog post the extensive tests that will be conducted and the reasons for not relying on tests conducted by others. “The Finnish operating environment and operating methods may differ from other users’ weather and lighting conditions,” Puranen stated. “Winter conditions affect the operation of the multi-function fighter and especially the performance of electro-optical systems, but possibly other active and passive systems as well.”

The fighter jet candidates will be tested on the ground, in the air, and during takeoff and landing, he added.

The testing of the competing aircraft is currently underway.

Another series of tests involving the jets taking part in flight operations and a simulated lengthy war game will be conducted by the Finnish Air Force later this year.

Finland expects to select a winner for the aircraft program in 2021. The planes, which will replace Finland’s current fleet of F-18s, are expected in 2025.

The Canadian government expects bids for its fighter jet program to be submitted by the end of March. A winning bidder is to be determined by early 2022. The first aircraft would be delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force by 2025.

Information about how Canada intends to evaluate the jets is limited. But Public Services and Procurement Canada has noted that technical merit will make up the bulk of the assessment at 60 per cent. Cost and economic benefits companies can provide to Canada will each be worth 20 per cent.

Concerns have been raised by Lockheed Martin’s rivals that the competition has been designed to favour the F-35. This newspaper reported last year the requirements for the new jets put emphasis on strategic attack and striking at ground targets during foreign missions. That criteria is seen to benefit the F-35. In addition, the federal government changed criteria on how it would assess industrial benefits after the U.S. government threatened to pull the F-35 from the competition.

The Conservative government had previously selected the F-35 as the air force’s new jet but backed away from that plan after concerns about the technology and growing cost.

During the 2015 election campaign, Justin Trudeau vowed that his government would not purchase the F-35. But at the same time, Trudeau stated his government would hold an open competition for the fighter purchase.

The Liberal government backed away from its promise to freeze out the F-35 and the aircraft is now seen as a front-runner in the competition as it has many supporters in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Many of Canada’s allies plan to operate the plane.

Canada is a partner in the F-35 program and has contributed funding for the aircraft’s development.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... 9Cv02EgXEk

[pushoksti]

Concerns have been raised by Lockheed Martin’s rivals that the competition has been designed to favour the F-35. This newspaper reported last year the requirements for the new jets put emphasis on strategic attack and striking at ground targets during foreign missions. That criteria is seen to benefit the F-35.

How dare we draw up requirements that will allow us to operate modern-threat environments. Maybe the F18 should just be better? The Gripen is just a joke and I hope they pull out this year.

[ricnunes]

Concerns have been raised by Lockheed Martin’s rivals that the competition has been designed to favour the F-35. This newspaper reported last year the requirements for the new jets put emphasis on strategic attack and striking at ground targets during foreign missions. That criteria is seen to benefit the F-35.

How dare we draw up requirements that will allow us to operate modern-threat environments. Maybe the F18 should just be better? The Gripen is just a joke and I hope they pull out this year.

DITTO!

[lukfi]

the requirements for the new jets put emphasis on strategic attack and striking at ground targets during foreign missions

How dare we draw up requirements that will allow us to operate modern-threat environments.

I've been reading up on the selection and purchases of fighter aircraft in various countries that took place in recent years & those currently in progress (Switzerland's "Air2030", Finland's HX and others). In the case of Canada I would expect that whatever plane they buy will be used mainly for guarding their own airspace, so the emphasis on ground attack does not make too much sense to me. With only 88 fighters to police such a huge area, involvement in foreign missions does not seem very likely to me. What do you think? Are air-to-ground capabilities a valid requirement for Canada, or just a way to ensure the F-35 is picked?

[pushoksti]

the requirements for the new jets put emphasis on strategic attack and striking at ground targets during foreign missions

How dare we draw up requirements that will allow us to operate modern-threat environments.

I've been reading up on the selection and purchases of fighter aircraft in various countries that took place in recent years & those currently in progress (Switzerland's "Air2030", Finland's HX and others). In the case of Canada I would expect that whatever plane they buy will be used mainly for guarding their own airspace, so the emphasis on ground attack does not make too much sense to me. With only 88 fighters to police such a huge area, involvement in foreign missions does not seem very likely to me. What do you think? Are air-to-ground capabilities a valid requirement for Canada, or just a way to ensure the F-35 is picked?

Seeing how the last three missions the CF-18s were used, Kosovo, Libya and Iraq/Syria, I don't see why A/G wouldn't be a huge factor in the selection process. The only real threat where A/A was used, was for the 2010 Olympics, but even then, shooting down an airliner can be done with the simplest of fighters. Domestically, NORAD plays a key role, but since there isn't a likely chance of fighters coming over the polar cap undetected, 99% of the time the new fighter would be used for intercepts. In the event of a foreign deployment, A/G capability would play a huge role as by the time we mustered up a force, the US Navy/USAF would have pretty much wiped out any A/A threats.

[ricnunes]

In the case of Canada I would expect that whatever plane they buy will be used mainly for guarding their own airspace, so the emphasis on ground attack does not make too much sense to me. With only 88 fighters to police such a huge area, involvement in foreign missions does not seem very likely to me. What do you think? Are air-to-ground capabilities a valid requirement for Canada, or just a way to ensure the F-35 is picked?

Every shot "fired in anger" (in real combat against a real enemy) by Royal Canadian Air Force fighter aircraft (by CF-18s) were all during ground attack missions, which occurred in several conflicts such as:
- 1991 - Desert Storm (where there was even an episode where one of the CF-18s even fired a sidewinder against an Iraqi Gunboat after expending all gun ammo and since it wasn't equipped with air-to-ground weapons since the original mission was CAP, this to try to destroy the gunboat)
- 1999 - Operation Allied Force (Serbia/Kosovo)
- 2011 - Military intervention in Libya
- 2014 - Military intervention against ISIL in Iraq

The RCAF basically has two (2) main missions and one doesn't exclude the other:
1- Provide support to Allies/Coalitions (namely NATO) in overseas missions
2- Provide protection of the Canadian Airspace namely within NORAD. (like you mentioned)

And even in Air-to-Air missions the advantages of the F-35 over the competitors are massive and have been mentioned in this forum several times over but I'll just to mention one for now: Range!
Canada is a huge country (2nd world largest in terms of area) and as such I believe it's easy to imagine that range is of outmost importance when patrolling the Canadian Airspace and from all competitors the F-35 is (and by far) the aircraft with the longest range of all competitors (aircraft still in the Canadian competition).

[lukfi]

Thanks for the replies, I now see that the air-to-ground requirement does have its basis in past engagements.

the F-35 is (and by far) the aircraft with the longest range of all competitors (aircraft still in the Canadian competition).

Really? I mean, internal fuel capacity is one thing but you can put a lot of drop tanks on a Super Hornet, plus it has buddy refueling capability.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Having done a drag analysis on the Super Hornets drop tanks I can tell you that three tanks gets you almost nothing more than two gives you, and five gives you less range than three.

[steve2267]

I've been reading up on the selection and purchases of fighter aircraft in various countries that took place in recent years & those currently in progress ... <snip> ... What do you think? Are air-to-ground capabilities a valid requirement for Canada, or just a way to ensure the F-35 is picked?

Out of curiousity, when you wrote this, and perhaps even now, what aircraft that is still in production do you think would make the best choice for Canada? And why?

[ricnunes]

the F-35 is (and by far) the aircraft with the longest range of all competitors (aircraft still in the Canadian competition).

Really? I mean, internal fuel capacity is one thing but you can put a lot of drop tanks on a Super Hornet, plus it has buddy refueling capability.

Below you can read that the Super Hornet combat radius for an interdiction mission armed with 4x1000lb bombs, 2xAIM-9 Sidewinders, FLIR pod and two (2) drops tanks is 390 nautical miles:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111026182 ... r/f18.html

Similarly a F-35A combat radius for an interdiction mission armed with 2x2000lb bombs and 2xAIM-120 AMRAAMs (and of course internal fuel only) is proven to be at least 669 nautical miles. Here:
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... c_2017.pdf

So this is at least 279 nautical miles more than the Super Hornet and as you can easily imagine (specially after reading sprstdlyscottsmn's post) that a 3rd drop tank won't compensate such very big (just not to say huge) diference.

[XanderCrews]

Thanks for the replies, I now see that the air-to-ground requirement does have its basis in past engagements.

the F-35 is (and by far) the aircraft with the longest range of all competitors (aircraft still in the Canadian competition).

Really? I mean, internal fuel capacity is one thing but you can put a lot of drop tanks on a Super Hornet, plus it has buddy refueling capability.

Buddy refueling for SH is only used on ships to buy time for more landing attempts or in the event of a fouled deck and they need to keep aircraft aloft until they can try landing again so they don't all fall into the sea.

Think about how much fuel a fighter sized airplane of the same type can actually give another fighter sized airplane... its really not that much. The "extending" SH would have to leave itself enough fuel to get home as well.

You'll note most buddy refueling fighters are carrier based. Harriers don't need it because they can just set down wherever on the deck that isn't fouled.

Having done a drag analysis on the Super Hornets drop tanks I can tell you that three tanks gets you almost nothing more than two gives you, and five gives you less range than three.

this.


And I don't think Canada has had an air to air kill since Korea in the 1950s.