Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[Harry Lime]

I'm still a fan of the Saab Gripen NG. It's faster than the F-35, has a longer range, is fully compatible with all NATO weapons and electronics, Sweden is allowing build operations to proceed out of Bombardier in Montreal, it can take off and land on a 800M highway to conduct repairs, and the same number (65) of Gripens come in at 35% cheaper than the F-35 with 40 years of regular maintenance included.

The fact that we can build and maintain these on Canadian soil is huge. They also fit the mould of what we would need in a Canadian fighter better than the F-35. We have a very large airspace to cover. The only negative seems to be that this is a single engine aircraft. Not a deal breaker.

Worth doing a search on them.

If the government skips over the need for open competition, the only way that I'll be ok with it is if I get some of that sweet Lockheed payoff money.

[CaptainCrunch]

I like the Saab but its nearly a 30 year old airframe design, isn't low observable, won't have the computer adaptability or interoperability and environmental awareness of the F-35 and at about $114 million U.S. per copy wouldn't represent a costs savings versus future generation savings enough to be worth looking at.

In 15 years as the Russians, Chinese and other powers develop their next generation fighters the NG would be a poor investment over 40 years of life.

[FlameOn]

More bad news for the F-35 program. New report out blasts the federal government's choice for a single engine replacement for the CF-18s rather than the traditional Canadian dual engine alternative

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report by Michael Byers this morning in Ottawa.

Entitled "One Dead Pilot," the report argues that fighter aircraft with a single engine — as the F-35 has — are too dangerous and unreliable to be used by the Canadian military.

"This issue is especially important for Canada, which has the longest coastline in the world and vast Arctic territories," writes Byers.

In the report, Byers compares the F-35 to the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, which the Canadian air force used from the 1960s to 1987 and which was involved in 110 crashes in that time.

A quarter of those crashes were attributed to bird strikes and the fact there was no secondary engine to allow the plane to keep flying.

Byers is the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law and the University of British Columbia and also a former NDP candidate.

"Engine failures will still occur, and when they do so away from an airport, a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash," Byers concludes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/buyi...port-1.2669476

[CaptainCrunch]

Bad comparison and I don't buy it nor have an issue with single engine versus duel engine.

Jet engine fighters are far better then they were even up to the F-18 days the engines don't fail like they used to, plus the engine replacement is simple.

and comparing the Star Fighter aptly named the widow maker because it was an incredibly difficult jet to fly to the F-35 is such a bad comparison.

I would also add that I take the CFPA about as serious as I take any politically motivated think tank, in this case the CFPA is a pretty left leaning organization and not really a defense think tank.

Its really a stupid comparison that the Liberals and NDP can point to.

Michale Byers is also a legal scholar, a political scientist and a fiction writer, he has no background in avionics military procurment or strategy. His opinion is about as valid me writing a positional paper on the effects of the environment of sea crabs.

[Bigtime]

Laughing at even trying to compare ANYTHING to the 104.

[speede5]

I don't have stats, but I've worked on risk assesments for this and the majority of crashes with single engine aircraft, particularly bird strikes, occur during take-off and landing. As a matter of fact, take-off and landing is the most dangerous portion of any flight.

After that, you have to look at ACM flights, low level nav's, etc. Long patrol flights are the most mundane and uneventful flights known to mankind. Talk about a red herring.

Also, an F-35 engine could swallow a very large bird and the only way the pilot would know is if he saw it go in the intake or saw the smear in the intake after the flight. It would take a condor to knock out most of todays engines.

Allowing politicians and public opinion to dictate what fighter jet DND should buy is such a horrible decision.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I like the Saab but its nearly a 30 year old airframe design, isn't low observable, won't have the computer adaptability or interoperability and environmental awareness of the F-35 and at about $114 million U.S. per copy wouldn't represent a costs savings versus future generation savings enough to be worth looking at.

In 15 years as the Russians, Chinese and other powers develop their next generation fighters the NG would be a poor investment over 40 years of life.

All of the available planes have their warts.

True that the NG's profile isn't changing much from the C. Searching for current costs, the best I could find is that the Swedes have an order not exceeding overrun at $105 per plane, that Saab would have to match for other delivery. The F35 projections are kind of all over the place but the last that I found was around $138 per plane. A huge part of the appeal and cost of the F35 is the stealth capability, which Canada really doesn't need for any mission it will be asked to perform. You're right, it's not low observable as the other options, but is faster, more maneuverable and has a further range.

Another option is the Super Hornet, which is a dual engine design up from the current CF-18.

I found that it is really hard to find an objective comparison of the planes that are available. Most of the information is coming second hand from the Brazilians, who underwent the selection process recently, and the Australians, who are in the same boat we are. Most sites discussing each plane seem to have a political agenda.

I guess what I naturally rebel against is that the federal government isn't being objective either. It feels like a royal edict that we must purchase the F35.

And Canada holds onto its military equipment several decades too long for everything. I'll be happy if whatever we get is still in the air in 40 years, while China will probably have Brundlefly transporter technology. The best we can do is buy a 5th gen fighter, and hope that the next gen is far enough away.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

All of the available planes have their warts.

True that the NG's profile isn't changing much from the C. Searching for current costs, the best I could find is that the Swedes have an order not exceeding overrun at $105 per plane, that Saab would have to match for other delivery. The F35 projections are kind of all over the place but the last that I found was around $138 per plane. A huge part of the appeal and cost of the F35 is the stealth capability, which Canada really doesn't need for any mission it will be asked to perform. You're right, it's not low observable as the other options, but is faster, more maneuverable and has a further range.

I've seen pricing going from $105 to $113 per plane,

I don't understand why Canada doesn't need Stealth Capability in any of their missions, Stealth Capability combined with the F35's superior situational sensor suite and interoperability means that we can buy 65 planes because they're more efficient in terms of their kill ration with the Saab.

The Saab would fly a mission profile like an F18 without the efficiencies of the F35 given to it by Stealth, sensors and theater control, so you would probably have to have a larger airforce using the Saab.

Faster and more maneuverable is losing importance in the battlefield when the next generation fighter is designed to sneak up and stab you in the back from close range. Plus the Stealth Capability makes it harder for modern Air to Air Missiles to lock on. That will change down the road as missiles become more advanced but at least with the F35 there's lots of ways to upgrade the plane over the next 40 years in terms of sensors and avionics and control systems, whereas the NG is probably at its apex right now.

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Another option is the Super Hornet, which is a dual engine design up from the current CF-18.

I don't see the F-18 Superhornet as anything more then a short term bridge aircraft. It can't match the F35 in terms of low observability, sensors or advanced data management and theater management. The two engine system to me is irrelevant in this day and age. Its a nice multi-role fighter, but it won't serve Canada's needs for the next 40 years and we would need to go back to a 80 to 100 ship airforce if we went with it.

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I found that it is really hard to find an objective comparison of the planes that are available. Most of the information is coming second hand from the Brazilians, who underwent the selection process recently, and the Australians, who are in the same boat we are. Most sites discussing each plane seem to have a political agenda.

I guess what I naturally rebel against is that the federal government isn't being objective either. It feels like a royal edict that we must purchase the F35.

The Federal Government in my mind did the thing that they should have done years ago with all aspects of the Military. If your going to have a small military outfit it with bleeding edge technology with maximum survivability and maximum kill ratio. There wasn't much of a contest because frankly the F35 as designed is the best option for a 65 ship fleet. Plus there is a better opportunity for a closed in logistical and support chain in not having our fighter's manufacturers over sea's

This is the strategy that we should have been following since the draw down at the end of WW2 instead of making token purchases of cheap crappy or obsolete out of the box equipment .

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

And Canada holds onto its military equipment several decades too long for everything. I'll be happy if whatever we get is still in the air in 40 years, while China will probably have Brundlefly transporter technology. The best we can do is buy a 5th gen fighter, and hope that the next gen is far enough away.

But at least the F-35 is upgradable for the next 40 years, especially at its heart which is the computer, avionics and sensor systems.

[Harry Lime]

Well, when it really comes down to it, Canada has unique needs and geography which arn't ideally suited to any of the available 5th gen offerings. If we're not going to have a homegrown space program, at least we can have a SUPERARROW to rally behind. BOOM! I'm taking a left turn.

http://www.superarrow.ca/

And for fun, not overly analytical, but informative and with a Canadian perspective, I'll bring us back to what started my stumping for alternative options in the first place.

http://gripen4canada.blogspot.ca/

There's enough interesting links on there to keep everyone angry and entertained for an easy afternoon. Some of the links are from enthusiasts and some from designers and engineers, so a little for everyone, with the benefit of being in harsh, intelligible to Americans, Manitoban accent.

This is where I would put a cool picture of the component breakdown of each plane, and country of origin for each component, if I could post attachments. (My bribe hasn't gone through yet)

[CaptainCrunch]

That Super arrow site is actually really weird. He's basically saying give me a few billion and I'll give you a plane thats a fusion of the B1, B2, F22, F35 and others in 18 months.

And to prove it we have a coupla concept paintings and and a paper based model.

Theres a reason why modern fighters go through so much development time now, they're just far more complex on a every level then a plane made ever 15 years ago.

[Zulu29]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/100b...stry-1.2677510

So 100 billion spending over 20 years. 5 billion a year, basically just reverses the cuts to defence the last few years. Something's gotta give because Canada won't be able to afford fighter jets, supply ships, navy helos, SAR planes, ice breakers, new warships, armoured vehicles, new rifles, coastal patrol aircraft and drones for that.

Interesting times ahead for the CF.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/100b...stry-1.2677510

So 100 billion spending over 20 years. 5 billion a year, basically just reverses the cuts to defence the last few years. Something's gotta give because Canada won't be able to afford fighter jets, supply ships, navy helos, SAR planes, ice breakers, new warships, armoured vehicles, new rifles, coastal patrol aircraft and drones for that.

Interesting times ahead for the CF.

Saw that today. Read the article and it seems to really amount to nothing. Lots of ideas and guidelines but no real substance or firm commitments. Even seemingly leaves open pushing the jet purchase back a bit further.

Actually delivering on one big piece of military procurement - jets, ships, helicopters, icebreakers, etc - is worth about a million of reports like this.

I'm beginning to notice a bit of an all show, no substance pattern when it comes to the Conservatives and the military. Big procurement announcements followed by nothing. Big money for publicly honoring vets while behind the scenes the vets themselves are short-changed on benefits. Not to discount the importance of publicly showing our support and marking important events from our military history, mind you, but not at the expense of the people that actually fought in these wars.

Terrible priorities and basically just a big mess summarizes the Conservatives and military spending if you ask me. Too bad it's pretty much in keeping with the government status quo for Canada and it's military.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

at least we can have a SUPERARROW to rally behind. BOOM! I'm taking a left turn.

http://www.superarrow.ca/

Oh man....regardless of how unlikely this thing is to ever see the light of day, that is one DAMN SEXY aircraft. Wow....

I'd drop to my kness and cry tears of maple syrup watching that thing fly over the great white north.

Oh come on!! This thing is gorgeus!

[jofillips]

is that a modern design or the original arrow from the 60s??
almost reminds me of the vulcan nuclear bomber

[socktape]

We should build the plane from the Firefox movie. We may need to find a new pilot, Clint is getting a little too long in the tooth.

http://www.jimbrooks.org/aviation/pi...ourEngines.php

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by jofillips

is that a modern design or the original arrow from the 60s??
almost reminds me of the vulcan nuclear bomber

Modern design. If that was the design in the 60's, peoples minds would have been melted instead of just blown.

Want level at a full 100%

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

Saw that today. Read the article and it seems to really amount to nothing. Lots of ideas and guidelines but no real substance or firm commitments. Even seemingly leaves open pushing the jet purchase back a bit further.

Actually delivering on one big piece of military procurement - jets, ships, helicopters, icebreakers, etc - is worth about a million of reports like this.

I'm beginning to notice a bit of an all show, no substance pattern when it comes to the Conservatives and the military. Big procurement announcements followed by nothing. Big money for publicly honoring vets while behind the scenes the vets themselves are short-changed on benefits. Not to discount the importance of publicly showing our support and marking important events from our military history, mind you, but not at the expense of the people that actually fought in these wars.

Terrible priorities and basically just a big mess summarizes the Conservatives and military spending if you ask me. Too bad it's pretty much in keeping with the government status quo for Canada and it's military.

The Canadian Government hasn't gotten this right since the end of WW2, and governments under Trudeau, Chretien and Mulrooney, that lead to the general rust out of the forces didn't help.

while the Conservatives have done some things very well in terms of logistics and transportation aircraft, the replacement of the Iltis the upgrade of personal kit. The procurement of new tanks The state of the forces where everything hit its rust point is concerning and nearly impossible to fix without massive capital.

The Liberal governments really screwed us over in terms of the helicopters and the Upholder/Victoria Submarines.

People forget that the Liberals were all hot in the pants about the F35 and Chretien signed Canada into the F-35 program and into the tier 3 program.

The Afghan conflict while the right conflict for Canada showed how woefully unprepared we were for any kind of action and the conservatives had to do a crash refit of the forces there, from personal kit to armored fighting vehicles to transportation and logistics, we spent a lot of money on that conflict that could have gone towards a desperately needed refresh of the forces.

As it stands the doomsday scenario of rust out has merely been delayed but not stopped, and that's the quandary that any government is in now. Thanks to decades of abuse and destruction, the Conservatives has slowed the death spiral but its now impossible to stop because there are too many balls in the air.

If we look at the major holes.

The naval situation - The excellent Halifax Frigates are far past their half life refit, there is a crash program on to replace out navy basically but its plagued by design and budget issues, and it might have been a very over ambitious project. From my understanding we are now down to one logistic support ship, The Iroquis command and control destroyers are down to two with the Huron being sunk in 2005 and the Alguoquin being involved with an at sea collision. However these destroyers are nearly 50 years old and need to come out of the line, but they allow Canada to form task forces.

The Submarines, bought by the Liberal's because they were cheap and they were never properly inspected before we bought them here. Now out of the four, one can actively fire torpedos and dive deep. Two are in dry dock, one can't fire weapons or dive below 30 meters. We might have saved money on these boats at the start, but now the dollars are adding up.

The F-18's these are beyond the end of life, the F35 is going to be the winning choice and the right choice, this is the second time that a competition evaluation has happened, the first under the Liberals, the second under the conservatives, but even with the F-35 purchased, its likely that it will be another decade before we're transitioned to them.

Army - More then a third of Canada's LAV III vehicles were damaged or destroyed in Afghanistan. Canada decided to cancel their replacement program sh%t canning the close combat vehicle replacement program and spending a billion dollars to upgrade and repair the existing fleet. These are essential vehicles for Canada, but I have my doubts about making these vehicles last until 2035.

Helicopters - grrrrr.

The Conservatives have done a good job in identifying what needs to be done, the problem being that there is more that needs to be done then the money involved in doing it, that's the issue.

the ships do need to be built, the F18's need to be replaced with a next generation jet that will last 40 years in the modern battlefield, and the infantry needs the deployment tools that are needed, vehicles, logistical support.

I will give credit to the Conservatives on one thing in a major way. They've shown exceptional vision in the special forces community and because of that they've heavily expanded Canada's capability in the secret warfare community.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Modern design. If that was the design in the 60's, peoples minds would have been melted instead of just blown.

Want level at a full 100%

I know it'll never happen, but that's a gorgeous bird and it'd be cool to have home grown kit

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Oh man....regardless of how unlikely this thing is to ever see the light of day, that is one DAMN SEXY aircraft. Wow....

I'd drop to my kness and cry tears of maple syrup watching that thing fly over the great white north.

Oh come on!! This thing is gorgeus!

I agree, that its pretty to look at.

But when you read that website, Its little more then a shell design with no clue of what it is. Oh we want the F-35 avionics, a liquid air system, and oh the capabilities of a B-1B combined with an F35 and other multi-role planes.

Its a fanboy vision, the day and age of Canada ever creating their own fighter program is dead and gone.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

People forget that the Liberals were all hot in the pants about the F35 and Chretien signed Canada into the F-35 program and into the tier 3 program.

I don't think anyone forgets that, but all the delays and cost overruns to the F-35 program only emerged in recent years, after The Harper Government was elected. Knowing what we know now, do you think Chretien would have still signed Canada to the JSF program back in 1997? If given the chance to do it over again with the benefit of hindsight, would Harper continue the policy of the previous government?