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

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

steve2267

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3068
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post06 Nov 2021, 04:01

hornetfinn wrote:Yes and it's not like all the F-35s would need to be in full VLO stealth air-to-ground configuration in such a confrontation. If we have 40 F-35s facing 120 advanced 4th gen aircraft, you could have say 16 F-35s in full VLO stealth with 6 AMRAAMs/Meteors. That'd give 96 MRAAMs, which could kill third of the whole enemy force with less than 50% pK. Then you could have 24 F-35s in "Beast Mode" air-to-air configuration with say 10 MRAAMs and 2 AIM-9X/ASRAAMs to face the 80 remaining (and definitely disoriented) enemy aircraft. That'd give additional 240 MRAAMs and 48 AIM-9X/ASRAAMs. Even with just 20% pK, they'd pretty much wipe out the whole enemy force. Like you said, they'd still be working closely together with those 16 VLO F-35s and besides they'd themselves still be much harder to detect and track than any 4th gen fighter in any configuration. They'd have significantly higher RCS than VLO F-35, but far lower than 4th gen jets. After shooting those external weapons, they'd not be that far away from VLO configuration.


This discussion is pointless. What I want to know is who gets credit for the kill? The launching beastie, or the guiding sneakie guy?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post06 Nov 2021, 22:00

steve2267 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Yes and it's not like all the F-35s would need to be in full VLO stealth air-to-ground configuration in such a confrontation. If we have 40 F-35s facing 120 advanced 4th gen aircraft, you could have say 16 F-35s in full VLO stealth with 6 AMRAAMs/Meteors. That'd give 96 MRAAMs, which could kill third of the whole enemy force with less than 50% pK. Then you could have 24 F-35s in "Beast Mode" air-to-air configuration with say 10 MRAAMs and 2 AIM-9X/ASRAAMs to face the 80 remaining (and definitely disoriented) enemy aircraft. That'd give additional 240 MRAAMs and 48 AIM-9X/ASRAAMs. Even with just 20% pK, they'd pretty much wipe out the whole enemy force. Like you said, they'd still be working closely together with those 16 VLO F-35s and besides they'd themselves still be much harder to detect and track than any 4th gen fighter in any configuration. They'd have significantly higher RCS than VLO F-35, but far lower than 4th gen jets. After shooting those external weapons, they'd not be that far away from VLO configuration.


This discussion is pointless. What I want to know is who gets credit for the kill? The launching beastie, or the guiding sneakie guy?


They share the kill. This happened in Vietnam when two pilots would get a hit on the same target.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Nov 2021, 11:45

kimjongnumbaun wrote:The PK rate for the F-35 is likely higher because of the LPI radar, the F-35 can also sneak in to the NEZ, and that it can position itself from angles where it won't be detected.

If you're flying and you have 3 seconds to react when a missile goes pitbull and finally your RWR is going off, you're probably dead before you've gained SA.

If you can imagine flying and focusing on your radar scan, and suddenly bitchin Betty says, "Missile 3 O'clock"...That's already burned a second. Then you are probably going to check your instruments. At that point your wingmen are dying around you if you haven't been killed yourself. The sheer shock of the first salvo would be psychologically devastating.


I actually think the worse the air-to-air missile performance is, the more it benefits F-35. It will be able to sneak well into the NEZ due to VLO stealth which includes very low RCS, low thermal signature and very low RF emissions. So the missile pK when fired from F-35 will be far higher than a missile launched from 4th gen fighter which has to shoot missiles as soon as it can and try to avoid counterfire (which could include other enemy fighters and enemy SAMs). I'd say that any 4th gen fighter will expend a lot more missiles than F-35 to get similar amount of air-to-air kills.

Another point is that F-35 carries pretty similar number of air-to-air missiles as most 4th gen fighters normally do. Normally they carry 4 to 6 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs. Some can carry more but usually don't. Even F-15s don't carry much more than that as it impairs their performance and reduces missile service life. It's often claimed that F-35 carries less missiles than other fighters, but that's not really the case at all. Carrying 2 AMRAAMs in VLO air-to-ground configuration gives very good self-defence capability and 4-6 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs in (at least close to) VLO air-to-air configuration is very comparable to any other fighters and most of them are nowhere near VLO then. Even much bigger competing 5th gen fighters like J-20, Su-57 and even F-22 don't carry more. And none of those will are produced in the thousands like F-35 is.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 987
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post18 Nov 2021, 10:32

Downselect likely delayed from this month.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... out-delays
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4596
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Nov 2021, 14:11

hornetfinn wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:The PK rate for the F-35 is likely higher because of the LPI radar, the F-35 can also sneak in to the NEZ, and that it can position itself from angles where it won't be detected.

If you're flying and you have 3 seconds to react when a missile goes pitbull and finally your RWR is going off, you're probably dead before you've gained SA.

If you can imagine flying and focusing on your radar scan, and suddenly bitchin Betty says, "Missile 3 O'clock"...That's already burned a second. Then you are probably going to check your instruments. At that point your wingmen are dying around you if you haven't been killed yourself. The sheer shock of the first salvo would be psychologically devastating.


I actually think the worse the air-to-air missile performance is, the more it benefits F-35. It will be able to sneak well into the NEZ due to VLO stealth which includes very low RCS, low thermal signature and very low RF emissions. So the missile pK when fired from F-35 will be far higher than a missile launched from 4th gen fighter which has to shoot missiles as soon as it can and try to avoid counterfire (which could include other enemy fighters and enemy SAMs). I'd say that any 4th gen fighter will expend a lot more missiles than F-35 to get similar amount of air-to-air kills.

Another point is that F-35 carries pretty similar number of air-to-air missiles as most 4th gen fighters normally do. Normally they carry 4 to 6 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs. Some can carry more but usually don't. Even F-15s don't carry much more than that as it impairs their performance and reduces missile service life. It's often claimed that F-35 carries less missiles than other fighters, but that's not really the case at all. Carrying 2 AMRAAMs in VLO air-to-ground configuration gives very good self-defence capability and 4-6 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs in (at least close to) VLO air-to-air configuration is very comparable to any other fighters and most of them are nowhere near VLO then. Even much bigger competing 5th gen fighters like J-20, Su-57 and even F-22 don't carry more. And none of those will are produced in the thousands like F-35 is.


True, especially regarding the F-35's ability to continue the attack even as its missiles miss.

Makes me wonder though, how many will really be necessary to finish the job. Reading a book about F-15's vs. Mig-23's and 25's recently, the Sparrow's performance (mostly 7M's) was dismal. In one case, 3 failed in a row as a USAF F-15 attempted to uncork on a Mig-25. First one didn't even separate/got hung up. 2nd the motor didn't fire and I think the 3rd one went wonky after launch. Fortunately, his 4th found the mark.

The sidewinder wasn't much better, with a 50% kill rate (2 out of 4 shot). Assuming those stats, an F-15C with 4 sparrow/4 sidewinder could be expected to down 2 or 3 enemy aircraft. Under 50%. And yes I realize this was 1991, but I also read where the "experts" told them "it's different this time... the missiles work much, much better."

I expect the AMRAAM to be better, but not perfect. FWIW, the Iraqi's had similar experiences with the R-40. About at 20% hit rate (Speicher's F/A-18C).
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 Nov 2021, 08:27

We have pretty good idea about how well AMRAAM works against similar targets as Sparrow in actual combat. It has been used to shoot down MiG-29s, MiG-25, MiG-23, Su-24M, Su-22, Soko J-21 Jastreb, L-39 and unfortunately also UH-60. Against those targets kill probability has been somewhere between 50 and 80 percent depending on how we calculate things. For example there were number of AMRAAMs fired at very long ranges during the enforcement of no-fly zone in Iraq in late 1990s. Those were more like warning shots than actual combat engagments, so do we take them into account? How about Pakistan vs India where it's very unclear what actually happened?

AIM-9X now has 0% combat effectiveness as it missed in the only known combat it has been fired. However as there is only that one incident, we can't draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the missile. Same would be true if that one missile had hit.

50% kill rate is actually pretty damn good. Especially so if you can prevent the enemy from achieving similar kill rate. 5th gen fighters are designed to do that by improving survivability in very significant way over any 4th generation fighter. 4th gen BVR combat with similar weapons will very likely result in mutual destruction. Even if enemy has somewhat inferior weapons, it might still result in that. For example your fighter fires at 40 nm away when enemy can do the same from 30 nm away. However the time of flight of the missile is so long that enemy can press on (enemy might not even know that missile is on the way) until they can fire their missiles. Your missile hits, but enemy missile is also coming to get you after that (if they are all fire-and-forget missiles).
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 194
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post25 Nov 2021, 21:58

If this is true, Boeing are out of the competition in Canada, and it's F-35 and Gripen left.

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.
A Boeing spokesperson said the company would reserve comment pending official notification from the government.
https://www.timescolonist.com/national- ... ts-4798748

Looks like anything can happen in Canada. 8)
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post25 Nov 2021, 22:03

Boeing told its bid to sell fighter jets to Canada did not meet Ottawa's requirements

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.

Companies had been ordered to show that their fighter jet was able to meet the military’s requirements for missions at home and abroad, but also that winning the contract would result in substantial economic benefits to Canada.

News that one of the two U.S. companies competing for the contract failed to meet one or more of those requirements is the latest twist in what has been already been a long and often unpredictable road toward replacing Canada's CF-18s.

Many observers had seen the Super Boeing and F-35 as the only real competition, especially after two other European companies dropped out of the race.

While Boeing’s failure to meet the requirements would appear to disqualify the Super Hornet from the competition, leaving only Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and Saab’s Gripen fighter jet in the running, none of the companies have been told whether they are still in or out.

The three sources were all granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss these matters publicly.

A Boeing spokesperson said the company would reserve comment pending official notification from the government.

https://www.timescolonist.com/national- ... ts-4798748
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1528
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post25 Nov 2021, 22:55

Gripen for the win.....It is Canada of course. I still can't see how Boeing was tossed and Gripen got through. They wouldn't still be upset about Bombardier.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 194
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post25 Nov 2021, 23:04

optimist wrote:Gripen for the win.....It is Canada of course. I still can't see how Boeing was tossed and Gripen got through. They wouldn't still be upset about Bombardier.

Wasn't the Bombardier story in 2017? It will be interesting to hear more about what they will say, but I still think the story from 2017 will be part of it. Even if they don't say so.
Offline

go4long

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 125
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post25 Nov 2021, 23:19

optimist wrote:Gripen for the win.....It is Canada of course. I still can't see how Boeing was tossed and Gripen got through. They wouldn't still be upset about Bombardier.


The way I read it is a little different. People (mostly the uninformed) insist that the F-35 didn't meet the required economic offset portion of the agreement. By saying that both the remaining contenders meet all the requirements it really comes down to a straight shoot out between the Gripen and the F-35, with it's minimum compliance guaranteed, we're left with the weighting which we know...60% performance, 20% economic benefit, 20% cost. If we can say for certain that the F-35 at least meets the required Economic benefit portion, and we know it should hold its own on cost...then it's really down to performance, and that should not be close.

Eliminating the Boeing also gives them political cover in Quebec for the bombardier spat, and further cover from the non-existent $65 Million Super Hornet claims.

I think this is good news personally, it saves us from at least one of the stupid decisions.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3540
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Nov 2021, 23:23

pron wrote:
optimist wrote:Gripen for the win.....It is Canada of course. I still can't see how Boeing was tossed and Gripen got through. They wouldn't still be upset about Bombardier.

Wasn't the Bombardier story in 2017? It will be interesting to hear more about what they will say, but I still think the story from 2017 will be part of it. Even if they don't say so.


Yes, I hope it's because Bombardier.
While the Boeing/Bombardier dispute happened in 2017, one has to remember that before this dispute Bombardier was the 3rd largest aerospace manufacturer in the civilian market of airliners and bizjets (after Boeing and Airbus). Because of such dispute Bombardier's loses were so big (for example it was forced to sell its CS-100/CS-300 airliners production line to Airbus) that nowadays Bombardier only builds bizjets.

P.S.- I fully agree with go4long's post!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 910
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post26 Nov 2021, 01:00

Breaking News...

Canada tells Boeing its bid for C$19 bln fighter jet contract falls short - source

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/canada-rules-boeing-out-c19-bln-fighter-jet-contract-canadian-press-2021-11-25/

OTTAWA, Nov 25 (Reuters) - In a surprise move, Canada has told Boeing Co (BA.N) that its contender for a multi-billion dollar fighter jet contract does not meet the required standard, a defense source said on Thursday.

This means only Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and Sweden's Saab AB (SAABb.ST) are left in the race to supply 88 jets. Ottawa says it intends to make a decision next year on a contract that could be worth up to C$19 billion ($15 billion).

Boeing had entered its F-18 Super Hornet. The Canadian Press was the first the report the news.

Defense analysts had been certain Ottawa would exclude Saab's Gripen plane. Unlike Canada, Sweden is neither a member of NATO or NORAD, the North American defense organization.

Canada belongs to the consortium that developed Lockheed Martin's F-35 jet, which defense sources say is the preferred choice of the air force.

The competition is being overseen by the office of Procurement Minister Filomena Tassi, which did not respond to a request for comment.

Lockheed Martin declined to comment. No one at Saab was available for comment. Boeing spokesman Paul Lewis said by email that the company would reserve comment pending official notification from Ottawa.

Boeing clashed with Canada in 2017 after it complained Ottawa was unfairly subsidizing a passenger jet made by Montreal-based rival Bombardier.

Canada responded by saying it would look less favorably on a fighter jet bid from a company that had harmed national interests, but nonetheless allowed Boeing to take part.

The Liberals took power in 2015 vowing not to buy the F-35 on the grounds that it was too costly, but have since softened their line.

Canada has been trying unsuccessfully for more than a decade to replace its aging F-18 fighters. The former Conservative administration said in 2010 that it would buy 65 F-35 jets but later scrapped the decision, triggering years of delays and reviews.

Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 910
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post26 Nov 2021, 01:06

Ottawa declines Boeing's bid to replace Canada's aging fighter jet fleet

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing ... -1.6262851

U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Swedish firm Saab still in contention for contract.

Boeing has been told 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 meet the federal government's 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 told they met the government's requirements.

The three sources were all granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss these matters publicly.

The Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada, which is managing the competition on behalf of the federal government, did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

Companies had been ordered to show their fighter jet was able to meet the military's requirements for missions at home and abroad, but also that winning the contract would result in substantial economic benefits to Canada.

But while Boeing's failure to meet the requirements would appear to disqualify the Super Hornet from the competition — leaving only Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Saab's Gripen fighter jet in the running — none of the companies have been told whether they are still in or out.

A Boeing spokesperson said the company would reserve comment pending official notification from the government.

News that one of the two U.S. companies competing for the contract failed to meet one or more of the requirements is the latest twist in what has already been a long and often unpredictable road toward replacing Canada's CF-18s.

Many observers had seen the Super Hornet and F-35 as the only real competition because of Canada's close relationship with the United States, which includes using fighter jets together to defend North American aerospace on a daily basis.

Those perceptions were only amplified after two other European companies dropped out of the competition before it even started, complaining that the government's requirements had stacked the deck in favour of their U.S. rivals.

Sweden is not a member of NATO or the joint Canadian-American defence command known as NORAD, which is responsible for protecting the continent from foreign threats. That had prompted questions about the Gripen's compatibility with U.S. aircraft.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said that while Boeing's failure to meet the government's requirements is surprising, it could also boost the government's assertion that it is running a fair and unbiased competition to replace the CF-18s.

"It indicates it was genuinely a competitive procurement, which Canada had put an awful lot of effort into ensuring was the case," he said.

"There was a lot of speculation about whether a non-American fighter could actually be a real contender, given Canada's requirements for interoperability with the United States. If they're still in the mix, Saab has obviously met that mark."

Federal government to spend hundreds of millions more to keep CF-18s fighting fit
Most of the used fighter jets bought by Canada are still not in service, MPs hear
But Jeff Collins, an expert on military procurement at the University of Prince Edward Island, said there remain longstanding concerns in some corners that the entire competition has been set up from the beginning to select the F-35.

Choosing a different fighter, he added, would represent a major break from Canada's closest allies, the majority of which are buying the F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26624
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Nov 2021, 01:58

From last post above: "...But Jeff Collins, an expert on military procurement at the University of Prince Edward Island, said there remain longstanding concerns in some corners that the entire competition has been set up from the beginning to select the F-35...." WOW.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests