Canada plans to buy NEW Fighter Jets - F-35 reported chosen

[Hack&Lube]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stea...ors_picks=true

Lockheed is flexing their protection money racket. Canada choosing another fighter will result in losing $825M in contracts for Canadian Aerospace and probably a lot of opportunities to work on cutting edge technologies.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Super Hornet was the last Jet I was hoping the country would buy. Even if I figured it would be the one they ended up with. why mess with something so familiar. The cost to retrain is non existent unlike the Grypon, Eurofighter , Rafale and F-35.

How do you figure that, the planes airframe is different as are the sensors and the fly by wire control system. It uses different engines as well.

As much as its called a hornet, its a different aircraft doesn't handle the same way or maneuver the same way.

The retraining or transition would be similar to if a pilot went to any new aircraft. As well the ground crew and maintenance side of things would have to go through a new aircraft transition.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stea...ors_picks=true

Lockheed is flexing their protection money racket. Canada choosing another fighter will result in losing $825M in contracts for Canadian Aerospace and probably a lot of opportunities to work on cutting edge technologies.

That's not unepected as Canada was part of the development of the F-35 and part of the purchase was in the benefits to the Canadian Aerospace industry. If Canada walks away of course they're going to lose their contracts, it was part of the incentive to buy and a unique part of the deal.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It makes me wonder how good the Chinese J-31 is going to be, it looks like a virtual copy of the F-35. Its pretty clear that the Chinese have become really good at spying and gaining secrets.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...who-wins-13938

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...fighters-13477

To me the Russians and Chinese are closing the gap on airpower fairly quickly and are attempting to close the gap in terms of naval aviation with the introduction of full sized carriers instead of the half carriers that both were working on before.

In terms of submarine technology, the Russians have been closing the gap with the American Navy and in some ways might have taken a small leap ahead with their latest classes of of boats. The Chinese though seem to be having some significant design problems with their next gen SSN's.

In terms of missile technology the American's and Russians are literally working on the same thing with hyper fast stealth based cruise missiles, but the Russians seem to be pulling ahead with their deterrence ICBM technology.

Tank and land force wise, the Russians are closing the gap in terms of fire power and protective technology with the M1A1 and the Chinese are already looking at purchasing the T14 tank and T15 armored fighting vehicle.

The Russians are also working on upgrading their arctic and land based naval aviation units as well, the Pak DA is expected to enter service in the next 7 to 10 years and is a four engine stealth hypersonic long range bomber.

The J-31 could be better from a manoeuvrability perspective since my understanding is they slimmed down the fuselage and presumably weight vs the F-35 since they didn't need to accommodate the vertical lift fan from the Marine variant. That was one of the major concerns about the F-35 being a compromise platform.

There are a lot of arguments about maneuverability being over-rated due to the advanced sensors and software though. Unless the Chinese can equal or better that the J-31 would still be at a disadvantage.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's not unepected as Canada was part of the development of the F-35 and part of the purchase was in the benefits to the Canadian Aerospace industry. If Canada walks away of course they're going to lose their contracts, it was part of the incentive to buy and a unique part of the deal.

And to add to that, if they went with either the Gripen or the Rafale, those contract losses would be replaced by a new batch of contracts from those respective builders. They've been saying as much. Not sure about Eurofighter but I figure they'd be offering up the same package as well. So it's not a total gong show.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The J-31 could be better from a manoeuvrability perspective since my understanding is they slimmed down the fuselage and presumably weight vs the F-35 since they didn't need to accommodate the vertical lift fan from the Marine variant. That was one of the major concerns about the F-35 being a compromise platform.

There are a lot of arguments about maneuverability being over-rated due to the advanced sensors and software though. Unless the Chinese can equal or better that the J-31 would still be at a disadvantage.

To me it was overly ambitious for the F-35 to be designed with so many different variants, it caused real confusion and some significant design compromises that can't overcome the common airframe common parts pilot interoperability.

They should have developed the F-35 and F35 Carrier and built an entirely different airframe for the marines that focused more on air to ground and close troop support operations with v/tol If they did that it would have really simplified both the design of the plane and the confusion over the issues.

At the end of the day the concept of dogfighting is going to fade into history. With the development of extreme long range capability missiles and fully integrated technology, the first shots of any battle are going to be from extreme distances where different assets can do target designation, followed by the planes either trying to keep their range or presenting a smaller radar cross section on bore in.

For air to ground, you can have as advanced of a radar as possible but they're usually defeated by ground clutter, and stealth reducing the radar signature coming in.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

And to add to that, if they went with either the Gripen or the Rafale, those contract losses would be replaced by a new batch of contracts from those respective builders. They've been saying as much. Not sure about Eurofighter but I figure they'd be offering up the same package as well. So it's not a total gong show.

The only way that really happens if we decide to do a mass Canadianization of a Eurofighter or other jet, which might have to happen.

With the F-35 because we were involved in the development of the plane that had already taken place and would continue for the full life time of the plane.

I doubt that the European manfucturers would extend the same courtesy, the maintenance and logistical arm would be about the same, however I would think that parting would be more expensive because of shipping costs and currency differences.

[edslunch]

Ironically I just read an article that says the Air Force, Marine and Navy variants only share 20-25% of components and software, so yeah it might well have been better to take separate approaches with selective sharing.

I agree on dog-fighting. I think there may be a number of reasons to be skeptical of the F-35 but judging it using yesterday's criteria is probably a mistake.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The only way that really happens if we decide to do a mass Canadianization of a Eurofighter or other jet, which might have to happen.

With the F-35 because we were involved in the development of the plane that had already taken place and would continue for the full life time of the plane.

I doubt that the European manfucturers would extend the same courtesy, the maintenance and logistical arm would be about the same, however I would think that parting would be more expensive because of shipping costs and currency differences.

Saab and Dassault have both publicly stated both planes will be open sourced to Canada. I think that means all manufacturing can be done in Canada. So no shipping costs and currency issues. Let me find the news links.

Dassault: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...fighter-part-1

Saab: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...mbardier-needs

In the Saab one, it confirms both Dassault and Saab have offered total manufacturing control to Canada. Which is a boost to Bombardier since they need to build stuff.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Saab and Dassault have both publicly stated both planes will be open sourced to Canada. I think that means all manufacturing can be done in Canada. So no shipping costs and currency issues. Let me find the news links.

Dassault: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...fighter-part-1

Saab: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...mbardier-needs

In the Saab one, it confirms both Dassault and Saab have offered total manufacturing control to Canada. Which is a boost to Bombardier since they need to build stuff.

so what Bombardier would manufacture the planes and we'd see each plane cost about a billion bucks + a copy.

Do you remember how hard they screwed the Military on the Iltis jeeps. I'd prefer that Bombardier has nothing to do with this.

they'd over charge us and screw up the manufacturing and cut corners to make a gouging profit.

[dammage79]

Thats fine about Bombardier, I think in the end is what I was getting at is that those two fighter planes will be on par for contracting jobs to Canada on their planes if not more than the F-35. And cheaper to make per copy. And you can fully "Canadianize" them like those two news articles stated instead of relying on what the U.S makers want you to have.

I don't know, it just looks like if you're going to buy technology an use it, the Euro planes seem like the best bet as Canada can develop these planes in concert with the two manufacturers and be in on the ground floor and contribute more freely to the next round of planes.

FYI, Saab also introduced their Next gen plane a couple weeks ago with test flights scheduled for next year.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not a fan of the Rafale or the Eurojet of the Griffen

Because we expect our planes to last 30 years, it makes no sense to buy older air frames, especially for a small airforce

When you look at the pure unit costs. Just the unit costs

The eurojet is about 90 million euros for copy (130 million per copy)
the Rafale is up to 101 million euro's per copy (146 million per copy), doesn't have interoperability with US aircraft without systems upgrades and doesn't function very well in the cold in terms of engine start up
The Griffin is about 60 million euro's per copy (87 million Canadian), isn't a great multirole fighter bomber because of its light lifting capability, shares the interoperability problem with American fighters that the Rafale has.

The all in costs for the CF-35 was calculated by the PBO of $138 million per plane Canadian, but that cost also included spares, weapons and infrastructure components of the program, so by the time we look at older airframes like the Rafale or Griffen or Eurjet, Canadianize them and buy the spares and infrastructure and weapons etc, they're going to be in line with the F-35 but with older designs or less capable craft, or craft with limited interoperability.

I think the next gen Saab is the Griffen E which is the 60 million euro cost that I linked to above btw. Its a nice low cost fighter, but nowhere near as capable as the other fighters including the F-35. Its the CF-5 of this generation in my mind.

[CaptainCrunch]

just to add on to the Bombardier part of the discussion

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topst...cid=spartandhp

The struggling Canadian aircraft maker Bombardier has asked for $1 billion from the federal government to support its new CSeries passenger jet, though sources have said the government is concerned by the share structure that grants the founding family control despite their holding a minority stake. Critics say the structure means it is hard to push through needed reforms.

soooo give us money, but we ain't going to change nothing

The company's chief executive Alain Bellemare has since said the company has turned the corner with its CSeries, after Delta Air Lines in April made a pivotal order of 75 planes.
But rival jetmakers and analysts say the planes were heavily discounted, and may cause other potential customers to demand similar prices, keeping the CSeries in the red.

So they probably wrecked their market to pump their numbers.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How do you figure that, the planes airframe is different as are the sensors and the fly by wire control system. It uses different engines as well.

This pilot says they're pretty similar to operate:

You can take a newly qualified Legacy Hornet pilot, put him into the cockpit of the Rhino, and he will be able to start-up, takeoff, and land. It is that similar from a basic airplane standpoint. There are some very subtle changes to some of the switches and procedures, but outside of that, the ground ops are very similar.

https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fi...-super-hornet/

[speede5]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

This pilot says they're pretty similar to operate:

Similar to operate doesn't mean you don't need all new equipment. A majority of ground support equipment is unique to these types af aircraft. Flight simulators, ground school training, flight manuals, and on and on are all unique. DND has an entire engineering support staff for each aircraft type.

Just because they look and act similar does not mean there is a cost savings.

They may look similar but its like saying a 1969 Camaro and a 2010 Camaro are the same car.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

This pilot says they're pretty similar to operate:

You can take a newly qualified Legacy Hornet pilot, put him into the cockpit of the Rhino, and he will be able to start-up, takeoff, and land. It is that similar from a basic airplane standpoint. There are some very subtle changes to some of the switches and procedures, but outside of that, the ground ops are very similar.

https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fi...-super-hornet/

Start up taking off and landing is far from being proficient at fighting the aircraft.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the end of the day the concept of dogfighting is going to fade into history. With the development of extreme long range capability missiles and fully integrated technology, the first shots of any battle are going to be from extreme distances where different assets can do target designation, followed by the planes either trying to keep their range or presenting a smaller radar cross section on bore in.

Maybe just a qualifier, but in an active war zone, you're probably right as combat will take place over the horizon. However, for situations outside of an official war, the rules of engagement would still be restricted to mainly defensive stance. So if Russia sends their heavy bombers towards our North, the RCAF can't just light them up from really far away, especially if they are still in international airspace. The air force will always need to have the ability to eyeball potential threats, conduct escort missions, and provide a visible presence. In this case stealth doesn't make that much of a difference anymore in close range and when the situation escalates suddenly.
This is the same limitation for those that want to replace Canada's air force with drones. Same thing once a drone gets close, it'll be an instant disadvantage in terms of speed and reaction time.

On the other hand, the F35 superior communications and networking ability makes it more ideal than the F-18 super hornet when it does come to defensive presence and patrolling, as it can coordinate with other aircraft and ground resources in real time.

My 2 cents

LChoy

[CaptainCrunch]

The simple explanation is that in terms of arctic patrols and Russia who have become very aggressive in the last few years in testing our airspace is that if one plane spots a Russian bomber with the F-35 every plane can see the Russian bomber. So if you look at it one plane might close to do the eyeball and veer off, but another plane over 300 miles away will suddenly be able to lock on because of what the first plane saw. About 15 years ago, the Russians actually messed with the concept of taking long range fire control away from the pilot and handing that control to the Awacs plane of a radar station on the ground, that way they could decide which plane was in the best position to fire once the enemy was spotted. Of course the pilots hated that idea. There you are flying across the sky listening to Moby even though headphones are frowned upon in the cockpit when suddenly bamm, a missile fires off of your wing.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Start up taking off and landing is far from being proficient at fighting the aircraft.

Did you read the article? These are the words of a pilot qualified to fly both types, not mine. Sounds like the similarities are many and the differences are few.

I understand that VFA-122 trains and operates Hornet models A-F and has some dual qualified instructors. The Aussies are also operating both types. We would not be re-inventing the wheel here.

Whether this is a good choice is a whole different matter.

[CaptainCrunch]

I did read the article, I've also seen articles that counter his point as well. At the end of the day its opinion.

The Superhornet does have different flight characteristics then the regular hornet. The Rhino doesn't have the same maneuverability, acceleration and slowdown characteristics which all effect the tactical situation . The cockpit might look the same but the radar used and the way you fight it is different. It even carries a different bomb load out with two extra stations, that makes a difference as well.