Canadian Military News

[CaptainCrunch]

National Post commentary on the F-18 purchase

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-v...#comments-area

They don't even know what fighters we're buying from the Aussies

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/na...3121796http://

OTTAWA — The Canadian Forces social-media team might have been flying high over the federal government's plans to buy second-hand jets from Australia, but an errant photo of Boeing's controversial Super Hornet fighter has brought it crashing back to Earth. The photo in question was posted to the military's Facebook page Tuesday after the Liberals confirmed they were buying the Australian jets instead of new Super Hornets from U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co.

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/write-to-...ops/index.page


Do something nice and send a message to service members that are away from family.

[undercoverbrother]

https://www.theprogress.com/communit...nce-as-author/

It was 1999 and MacNeill and his unit were transporting displaced Albanian Muslims through Kosovo as peacekeepers.

“We were going through a village and I was shot in the head,” he says. “But nobody knew what happened. I blacked out.”

He fell backward into his fellow crew without a mark, and woke up sometime later. What followed was a series of medical transports, treatments and confusion that took about a week. They thought maybe he’d had a brain aneurysm, and sent him to a British medical hospital in the area. They did a spinal tap six times, without getting any fluid out. Next they flew him to an American unit for a CT scan, only to learn the scanner was broken. He was sent to Macedonia, and Germany, and nobody knew what was wrong with him.

He was sent back to Kosovo a week later, with no answers, and he was worried about his health.

When he got to his bunk, he saw his helmet and picked it up. He removed the camouflage and saw the answer — a bullet hole on one side, and an exit hole on the other.

“This was a hotbed of activity we were in but they weren’t known for engaging so nobody thought of it,” he says.

He went back for three more tours, and was released in February 2017, with a formal retirement as Warrant Officer a few months later.

This sounds like a good read.

[CaptainCrunch]

Peter McKay checks in on the ongoing disaster that the Liberals are managing in the fighter jet replacement

http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...-vets#comments

At this point, I think that our Minister of Defense needs to be shuffled out of that portfolio. He's fumbled every file that he's touched.

[speede5]

Maybe if him and his government had done their jobs right we wouldn't be in this mess.

[chubeyr1]

I would love to say I am shocked by our government but I am not. Our allies are using the F35 and it only makes sense for us to use it too.

Using Bombardier as an excuse not to buy the F35 is stupid. Bombardier should have been shut down years ago. Constantly being bailed out by tax payers. Total money pit!

I fully believe we will end up buying F35s eventually which is even more troubling. After billions have been spent on panels, used planes, they will eventually get it right at twice the price.

I feel for our servicemen and women. What we are supplying them is tech that is older than they are. I don't drive a 40 year old car, I don't have a 40 year old computer. Its not acceptable.

It shouldn't be acceptable for our military either.

The Aussies must be laughing so much.

[CaptainCrunch]

If its an actual open and fair fighter jet competition the F-35 wins it and easily.

MD has also stated that the cost on the next production run of the F-35 will be in the 80 to 90 million dollar range which also means that it will probably be one of the least expensive advanced fighters on the planet.

Instead we're pissing away a half billion dollars on ancient fighters from Australia, and then we're going to piss away a ton of money re-doing the study of fighter jets that was done by the previous government.

but hey maybe Trudeau can have some Liberal fund raisers paid for by Bombardier and Airbus.

[CaptainCrunch]

Updated article on the F-35's 2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth.../#7d6485dc6fc5

In April of this year, the Defense Contract Management Agency predicted that Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the Pentagon's tri-service F-35 joint strike fighter, would not be able to meet a goal of delivering 66 of the aircraft in 2017. Delivering 66 would represent a 43% increase over the program's performance in 2016, and based on past performance the agency figured Lockheed would fall short by nine planes.
Eight months later, on December 15, Lockheed Martin delivered the 66th plane -- for the umpteenth time confounding critics of the Pentagon's biggest weapons program. Although the contracting agency managed to find an arcane reason why this wasn't really good news, the fact of the matter is that the F-35 program is going gangbusters. Developmental testing is approaching completion after 8,000 flights without a single major mishap, and all three variants of the plane are meeting their performance specifications.

he production goal for next year is over 90 fighters, and that number will grow to 160 five years later. In addition to the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, 11 other countries have signed up to buy the F-35, and half a dozen more are signaling interest. One reason is that the price of the most common variant, the Air Force's F-35A, is projected to fall to $80 million per plane by 2020, making it no more expensive than legacy fighters that lack the F-35's advanced technology (the latest Boeing 787 Dreamliner lists for $300 million).

If this article is accurate and the F-35 which is being delivered and activated by the American's, Israel and other nations and Lockheed gets it to $80 million dollars it will be probably one of the more dominant platforms for purchase for the next 30 or so years.

Nasdax article on the F-35 and Lockheed Martin

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/where-...f-now-cm896067

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Updated article on the F-35's 2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth.../#7d6485dc6fc5





If this article is accurate and the F-35 which is being delivered and activated by the American's, Israel and other nations and Lockheed gets it to $80 million dollars it will be probably one of the more dominant platforms for purchase for the next 30 or so years.

Nasdax article on the F-35 and Lockheed Martin

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/where-...f-now-cm896067

I’ll be the first to admit that I was not a fan of Canada obtaining the F35 initially due to many reasons. But that was over a year ago and this is now. The government has to get off the sidelines, conduct a quick review of available fighters and make a decision. I’m on the F35 train now, cheaper than any other fighter other than the Gripen, seamless interoperability with allies and cutting edge tech. Buy 88 jets and be done with it.

[CaptainCrunch]

New article on the F-35's defensive and electronic counter measures systems. Pretty cool read.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth.../#27ce428c68cc

This is the main reason why F-35s are achieving kill ratios of 20-to-1 in simulated combat against adversary aircraft. As one pilot of an adversary fighter put it, "We just can't see them like they can see us. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on trying to find someone in a huge space." This state of being nearly defenseless harkens back to pre-radar days, when a very worried Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin warned the British Parliament that "the bomber will always get through."

[CaptainCrunch]

Canada hosted a information session on Monday to meet with possible vendors for the Fighter Jet Replacement. They asked suppliers to respond to a request for invitation by Feb 9th.

The Attendees had representatives from Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Saab, and Dassault. Boeing decided not to attend and is mulling over even bothering to be included in the process. Its likely that they won't at this point.

http://blog.executivebiz.com/2018/01...t-competition/

So that means that there is a likely hood that the fighter Jet replacement will be between

the F-35, the Airbus Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gipen J-39 E/F, and the Dassault Rafale.

So here are some quick notes

F-35

Cost (expected second production run will see the costs reduced to between $80 to $90 million US.

Multi-role 5th generation advanced fighter with nmatched advanced sensor fusion, sensors and avionics.

Saab Gripen JAS 39 E/F

Cost per plane approximately $60 million per plane, but pricing not finalized

A smart plane, but a Generation 4.5

Eurofighter Typhoon Multi-role

Cost per plane estimated at 90 million euro's ($111 million USD)

Agile dogfighter, generation 4 fighter craft.

Dassault Rafale

Approximate cost of the M model 79 million euro's (98 million dollar peurchase)

4th generation multi-role 4th generation fighter.

Competed against the f-35 during the previous fighter jet replacement study and lost due to concerns about inter-operability with Norad and concerns over Dassault being able to confirm cold weather operations concerns.

[btimbit]

Really just between the Gripen and the F-35. Other two are too old and too expensive.

F-35 is still the clear winner.

I'm thrilled Boeing won't even bother. Their offerings are too old and expensive.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Really just between the Gripen and the F-35. Other two are too old and too expensive.

F-35 is still the clear winner.

I'm thrilled Boeing won't even bother. Their offerings are too old and expensive.

I would agree with what your saying, but it comes down to the divide between the Air Force and the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defense, and defining what's important going forward.

If this is more of a political exercise and living up to the Trudeau promise of not buying the Lockheed Martin F-35 no matter what, and buying cheap then the Gripen will win. I am by no means saying that the Gripen is a cheap crappy aircraft, its a good aircraft. But if Lockheed Martin bids at $80 million an aircraft and the Government selects the Gripen then there is something fundamentally wrong with the way this government thinks about the military.

Even at $90 or $100 million per plane the F-35 is just the better choice then the Gripen. The capabilities and long term viability of the F-35, especially on the digital side are just far superior to the Gripen.

The f-35 will allow us to go with a smaller airforce and have a plane with better survivability in any role.

I agree with you on the Rafale and the Typhoon, they are both good fighters, but if we're going to buy behind the obsolescence curve then we should just buy some spitfires and leave it at that.

[btimbit]

For sure. But if this was about the Air Force we would have ordered the F-35 long ago so I'm not even going to get my hopes up. Gripen is a solid consolation prize I guess, but still a damn shame it'd come to that instead of just getting the best tool for the job. Not to mention having to replace them sooner. Especially if the difference does end up being around 20 million per unit.

Not to mention the cost of buying POS interim fighters.

So frustrating

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Canada hosted a information session on Monday to meet with possible vendors for the Fighter Jet Replacement. They asked suppliers to respond to a request for invitation by Feb 9th.

The Attendees had representatives from Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Saab, and Dassault. Boeing decided not to attend and is mulling over even bothering to be included in the process. Its likely that they won't at this point.

http://blog.executivebiz.com/2018/01...t-competition/

So that means that there is a likely hood that the fighter Jet replacement will be between

the F-35, the Airbus Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gipen J-39 E/F, and the Dassault Rafale.

So here are some quick notes

F-35

Cost (expected second production run will see the costs reduced to between $80 to $90 million US.

Multi-role 5th generation advanced fighter with nmatched advanced sensor fusion, sensors and avionics.

Saab Gripen JAS 39 E/F

Cost per plane approximately $60 million per plane, but pricing not finalized

A smart plane, but a Generation 4.5

Eurofighter Typhoon Multi-role

Cost per plane estimated at 90 million euro's ($111 million USD)

Agile dogfighter, generation 4 fighter craft.

Dassault Rafale

Approximate cost of the M model 79 million euro's (98 million dollar peurchase)

4th generation multi-role 4th generation fighter.

Competed against the f-35 during the previous fighter jet replacement study and lost due to concerns about inter-operability with Norad and concerns over Dassault being able to confirm cold weather operations concerns.

Gotta go with the F35, it’s a no brainer. At 90 million a copy we can get 88 fighters for just under 8 Billion which is less than the 9 billion the conservatives estimated several years ago for 65!

[speede5]

I would say the F-35 is a no brainer but this government is very unpredicatable.

That said, the US will find a way to force our hand, be it Nafta, lumber tariffs, or some other trade related issue.

JT can politic all he wants but this is going to happen one way or the other.

They will take whatever they are given but DND is and always has been 100% sold on this aircraft.

[CaptainCrunch]

The selection is going to be highly political, and I'm sure that our Defense Minister is going to end up running for cover again.

If this is an open and proper process and non-politicized, the F-35 with the second run production costs wins and its not close at all.

If the Gripen wins, or any of the other planes win, then it will always be questions about how political this was.

As it stands if the Gripen wins, it will probably crush Air Force moral and military moral. They're already seeing a lot of skilled airforce personal and pilots walking away from the service.

[speede5]

As an aside a few friends of mine got to tour Lockheed's mile long plant the other day. Even got to fly a sim. Needless to say they were sold. Haha. Too bad the people making the decision don't know a thing about fighter aircraft.

[CaptainCrunch]

The Pentagon has ordered a new advanced ARM that is designed to allow the F-35 to destroy air defense emitters from beyond detection range by the defense.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...it-inside-f-35

Discussion around the F-35 and other Stealth aircraft versus digital SAMS like the S-400

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...as-s-400-24187

Discussion around whether the Soviet . . . sorry Russian S-300, S-400 and S-500 could kill an F-35

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-35-or-b-24114

ofman notes that advanced Russian-built air defenses like the S-300, S-400 and forthcoming S-500 family come with systems designed to detect and track the presence of low observable (LO) aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35. That’s just a function of physics, as I have noted before. The problem for Moscow is that while Russian early warning and acquisitions radars operating in the VHF, UHF, L and S bands can detect and even track a tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft, those systems don’t deliver a weapons quality track. “Russia has invested in low-band early warning radars, with some great variants out there, but can it use these to put a good picture together, and process it to develop a track against low-observation aircraft?” Kofman asked rhetorically. Physics dictate that a tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft must be optimized to defeat higher-frequency bands such the C, X and Ku bands, which are used by fire control radars to produce a high-resolution track. Industry, Air Force and Navy officials all agree that there is a “step change” in an LO aircraft’s signature once the frequency wavelength exceeds a certain threshold and causes a resonant effect—which generally occurs at the top part of the S-band.
Typically, that resonance effect occurs when a feature on an aircraft—such as a tail-fin—is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength. Effectively, small stealth aircraft that do not have the size or weight allowances for two feet or more of radar absorbent material coatings on every surface are forced to make trades as to which frequency bands they are optimized for. That means that stealthy tactical fighters will show up on radars operating at a lower frequency bands—such as parts of the S or L band or even lower frequencies. Larger stealth aircraft such as the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit or forthcoming B-21 don’t have many of the airframe features that cause a resonance effect—and are, as such, much more effective against low-frequency radars.

[CaptainCrunch]

With all the hurly burly between Saskatchewan and Alberta lately, who would win a actual war between the provinces?

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...#comments-area

1983 Florida State University study identified two key ingredients behind a successful guerrilla campaign: Dense cities and broken, mountainous terrain. Saskatchewan doesn’t have much of either. There’s a popular expression that if a dog runs away in Saskatchewan, you can still see him three days later. Similarly, if a Saskatchewan rebel fighter runs away from your search-and-destroy raid, you can still shoot him three days later.