Author Topic: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)  (Read 725368 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline don3wing

  • Guest
  • *
  • 70
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2675 on: September 10, 2019, 23:57:30 »
This is an interesting article from defence-aerospace.com

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/205736/plan-to-add-chaff-launchers-to-f_35a-confirms-‘stealth’-no-longer-enough.html

The F-35A Is Set to Finally Get Chaff Countermeasures to Confuse Enemy Radars (excerpt)
(Source: The War Zone; posted September 9, 2019)[/b]
By Joseph Trevithick

The U.S. Air Force is hoping to integrate a new, advanced chaff countermeasure onto its F-35A Joint Strike Fighters next year, according to a report. The cartridges, which release radar reflective material to blind and confuse enemy aircraft and air defenses, are a staple across many of the service's other combat aircraft, but have been curiously absent from the stealthy F-35's otherwise extensive defensive suite.

Aviation Week's Defense Editor Steve Trimble was first to spot the detail on Sept. 9, 2019. The Air Force included the information about the new chaff cartridge, known presently as the ARM-210, in a draft environmental impact statement, dated August 2019, regarding the basing of F-35s at various Air National Guard facilities. The report includes a host of information on how the aircraft might impact their surrounding environments, including the potential release of countermeasures, such as infrared decoy flares and chaff.

"The ARM-210 chaff proposed for use by the F-35A is currently unavailable and undergoing operational testing," according to the environmental review. "It is expected to be available for use in 2020."

It is unclear whether this applies to the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B or U.S. Navy F-35C variants, as well, or any of the three variants in service with foreign air forces. The F-35's use or potential use of chaff has long been something of a debate, in general. Recent U.S. military budget documents and other sources make no mention of it among the aircraft's expendable countermeasures – flares and towed decoys – which had suggested that it was, indeed, a capability the Joint Strike Fighter lacked and might not necessarily have needed given its stealthy design. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full story, on the War Zone website.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Contrary to what is stated above, there is nothing ‘curious’ about the fact that the F-35 was designed without chaff or IR flare launchers.

Since its stealthy design was claimed to make the F-35 invisible to radar, there was clearly no need for active countermeasures like chaff to protect it from radar. This same reasoning explains why no other US Air Force ‘stealth’ aircraft, from the F-117 to the F-22 and B-2, are not fitted with any.

By the same logic, the fact that chaff is now planned to be retrofitted to the F-35A merely confirms that, a quarter-century since it was designed, ‘stealth’ is no longer a sufficient guarantee of the F-35A’s survival in combat – if it ever was.

And this clearly poses a major problem, since ‘stealth’ is the promise that justified the aircraft’s many design limitations in terms of speed, range and weapon payload.

If ‘stealth’ is no longer the combat asset its manufacturer has long claimed to justify these limitations, the F-35A becomes just another aircraft with mediocre performance – but with a high sticker price and huge operating costs.)

-ends-



Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 198
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2676 on: September 13, 2019, 11:34:50 »
Quote
US firm considering $830 million aircraft manufacturing plant in Lower Mainland

BC’s Lower Mainland is in the running as a possible site for the development of a new major aircraft manufacturing plant with the potential to employ thousands of people.

In an economic investment and growth update, a report by staff with the City of Abbotsford notes the municipality is being considered by an unnamed US aerospace firm “as a Canadian site” for the new plant.

There are two development options of varying scale; the smaller plant would produce a $125-million investment with 7,000 new jobs, while the large plant would result in an $830-million investment and 10,000 or more jobs.

Such a facility would of course require a very significantly-sized site, but no locations have been publicly identified at this time. The plant would certainly bolster the Fraser Valley’s economy, and likely create a further upward demand in housing.

The report will be reviewed by city council next week, and the next round of engagement is scheduled to occur in January 2020.

Major US aerospace firms include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Gulfstream Aerospace, and Boom Supersonic.

It is currently unclear what type of aircraft could be produced at this facility. For example, this project could be related to the Canadian federal government’s $19-billion procurement process to have a global manufacturer build new fighter jets that replace the ageing CF-18s.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/abbotsford-aircraft-manufacturing-plant

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 198
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2677 on: September 14, 2019, 08:38:39 »
Quote
When asked about the price tag, Trudeau’s answer was straightforward:

“By cancelling the F-35 … and choosing instead an alternative bid … we will be saving tens of billions of dollars in the coming decades. That money will be put towards ensuring that the National Shipbuilding Strategy is actually able to complete all the ships promised and continue to invest in the kinds of resources and training and equipment that the men and women in our Armed Forces so justly deserve.
Such as new submarines to replace the Victorias?
Quote
COMMENTARY: Alternative Saab fighter could save navy by dodging extravagant F-35s

Evasive manoeuvres on defence spending

Forty years ago, Department of National Defence leaders insisted that Canada needed the most expensive jet available: The F-15 Eagle. Then prime minister Pierre Trudeau instead launched the New Fighter Aircraft competition, focused on industrial offsets and best value. The winner was the least expensive jet in the competition that met existing mission requirements: The CF-18 Hornet.

As history is fond of repeating itself, DND leaders today want the F-35: the most expensive jet available.

Once again, there is an affordable alternative. The new Saab Gripen-E, the only jet in the competition that would be made in Canada, is the least expensive jet that can replace the CF-18. The Gripen is the only jet in the competition with a lower operating cost than the CF-18 and would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars relative to purchasing the F-35.

In September 2015, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau announced in Halifax that a Liberal government would not buy the F-35 and instead would launch an “open and transparent competition” to replace the CF-18. Much has been said about excluding the F-35, but pundits often forget the third element of his promise: that by purchasing a less expensive jet, we would free up more money for shipbuilding. When asked about the price tag, Trudeau’s answer was straightforward:

“By cancelling the F-35 … and choosing instead an alternative bid … we will be saving tens of billions of dollars in the coming decades. That money will be put towards ensuring that the National Shipbuilding Strategy is actually able to complete all the ships promised and continue to invest in the kinds of resources and training and equipment that the men and women in our Armed Forces so justly deserve.”

While the CF-18 replacement program hasn’t been as open and transparent as Pierre Trudeau’s NFA program, the Liberal government has made good on its promise to spend more on the navy. Vancouver’s Seaspan will receive an additional $14.2 billion to build 16 more ships for the Coast Guard. Halifax’s Irving Shipyards will receive an additional $1.5 billion to build two more Arctic patrol ships and the Canadian Surface Combatant budget will increase by $8 billion to ensure all 15 new frigates are fully funded.

Defence scholars Anton Bezglasnyy and Douglas Ross have warned that the high operating cost of the F-35 could make it “the plane that ate the Canadian navy.” A 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office warned about escalating F-35 costs: “The annual F-35 operating and support costs were estimated to be considerably higher than the combined annual costs of several legacy aircraft, and according to DOD officials, the sustainment strategy was not affordable.” The F-35 only offers partial, and in no way guaranteed, industrial offsets.

Saab, on the other hand, has a history of full industrial offsets and affordability. Our NATO allies in the Czech Republic and Hungary are happy with their Gripen-Cs. The Hungarian Air Force performed the NATO Baltic Air Policing mission this summer and released a video on YouTube of Hungarian Gripen pilots chasing Russian Su-27s (and getting displeased looks from the Russian pilots when they pulled alongside). Earlier this month, Czech Gripens began their sixth NATO Air Policing tour.

The next-generation Gripen-E is a super Gripen, maintaining many of the legacy Gripen’s cost advantages while adding a state-of-the-art AESA radar, sensor fusion, more fuel, fifth-generation electronic warfare and battlefield networking. The Gripen-E’s sensor fusion wide-area touch screen is even made by the same subcontractor as the F-35’s sensor fusion display.

The Gripen-E was designed for Arctic operations at northern Swedish bases and forward operating locations. It was also designed to fly farther than the CF-18, making it perfect for large countries. The Gripen-E won Brazil’s contest, beating the French Rafale and American Super Hornet, because it offered domestic assembly with Embraer and met the technical requirements at half the total cost of ownership of the second-place Rafale.

The Gripen-E is also a front-runner in the Finnish competition to replace their F-18 Hornets. The Finnish bid includes a pair of Canadian-made Saab/Bombardier GlobalEye airborne radar jets. Canada’s CP-140 maritime patrol aircraft are older than the CF-18s and need to be replaced by 2030. The Saab/Bombardier GlobalEye and Swordfish jets are the obvious frontrunners, are made in Canada, and were designed to work perfectly with Gripens.

Saab, working with Lockheed Martin, has already delivered 2-Eyes NORAD compliant systems to the Royal Canadian Navy that came with jobs and investment in Halifax. The Halifax Frigate modernization program included Saab Sea Giraffe radars, Saab CEROS fire control systems, and Saab 9LV command-and-control systems. Saab also has a close partnership with Boeing as the primary development and manufacturing partner on the U.S. Air Force’s new T-X fighter trainer.

Regarding 5-Eyes and NATO integration, any claims that the Gripen-E would have a hard time are absurd. Not only are the Czech and Hungarian Gripens regularly flying NATO missions, but Swedish Gripen-Cs were an instrumental part of coalition operations over Libya. The Swedish Gripens integrated flawlessly, using NATO Link-16, flew a third of coalition recon missions, and provided intelligence of such a high quality that Swedish officers were invited to 5-Eyes intelligence meetings. The Canadian commander of those NATO operations, Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard, said of the Swedish jets: “The Gripens have a strategic importance for the operation. They have a spectacular capability.”

The NDP have stated their support for building fighter jets in Canada and the Gripen is the only remaining competitor offering domestic manufacturing. The Green party campaigned against the F-35 in 2015. Saab, being Swedish, is the only vendor committed to nuclear non-proliferation and focused on environmentally responsible manufacturing.

The Conservatives say that they will balance the budget, which they did in 2015, in five years. But the Harper government cut defence spending to below one per cent of GDP and deferred over $9 billion in defence programs to balance the 2015 budget. This led former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page to lament: “National Defence is becoming a source of funds to reduce the deficit. We’re going to need a whole new capital plan for National Defence.” Purchasing the F-35, and trying to balance the budget with other cuts in defence spending, would put the National Shipbuilding Strategy on the chopping block.

The Saab Gripen is the only jet that’s affordable enough for the Tories to balance the budget without cancelling ships. Purchasing the Gripen-E would allow Trudeau to keep his promise to buy an affordable alternative to the F-35 and fully fund the navy.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/national-perspectives/commentary-alternative-saab-fighter-could-save-navy-by-dodging-extravagant-f-35s-352103/

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,413
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2678 on: September 14, 2019, 10:07:51 »
I have spoken to actual Hungarian Air Force officers about the Grippen. It certainly is an improvement over their Soviet era MIGs, but they didn't describe it as the best fighter in the world. More like the best that they could afford.

I do not see the continued attraction to building in Canada. What is the point of setting up a production line to build fewer than 100 fighters that will then just shutdown in a few years?

If jobs in Canada are the over riding consideration, then wouldn't being a continued partner in the F35 program be the way to go and get a piece of building 3000 (plus) jets over the next 3 decades?

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,837
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2679 on: September 14, 2019, 10:30:51 »
I have spoken to actual Hungarian Air Force officers about the Grippen. It certainly is an improvement over their Soviet era MIGs, but they didn't describe it as the best fighter in the world. More like the best that they could afford.

I do not see the continued attraction to building in Canada. What is the point of setting up a production line to build fewer than 100 fighters that will then just shutdown in a few years?

If jobs in Canada are the over riding consideration, then wouldn't being a continued partner in the F35 program be the way to go and get a piece of building 3000 (plus) jets over the next 3 decades?

Stop it! You're talking sense and that is not allowed during the election mister!

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,989
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2680 on: September 14, 2019, 12:45:20 »
I have spoken to actual Hungarian Air Force officers about the Grippen. It certainly is an improvement over their Soviet era MIGs, but they didn't describe it as the best fighter in the world. More like the best that they could afford.

I do not see the continued attraction to building in Canada. What is the point of setting up a production line to build fewer than 100 fighters that will then just shutdown in a few years?

If jobs in Canada are the over riding consideration, then wouldn't being a continued partner in the F35 program be the way to go and get a piece of building 3000 (plus) jets over the next 3 decades?

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"

Nobody is saying the F35 is better than the Gripen E.  I have no doubt the F35 is a far more capable aircraft; however, the real issue which I think is a valid point presented in the above article is:

"Can Canada afford the F35 without major sacrifices to other programs and overall General Purpose Combat Capability across the Spectrum of Operations?"

What do we need to sacrifice IOT afford the F35?  half the expected number of CSCs? The Submarine Program? Griffon Replacements? Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft? Kingston Class Replacements?  UAVs that we still don't have? Air Defence? Future Anti-Tank Capability? Artillery?  Cyber & Renewed EW Capability? Heavy Engineering & Mobility?

Think of all the tools we already lack or are deficient in:

Naval Strike
UAV
Cyber
EW
Bridging
AAW
GBAD
ATGM Systems
SP Artillery
MLRS
AH
New Submarines
Proper AORs
Replacements for the CP140s
Replacements for Tac Hel
Replacements for Kingston Class
Replacements for Halifax Class
Cyber
EW

This list is not exhaustive.

The Future Fighter is going to have two primary roles:

1.  Defence of North America through NORAD (Gripen E is more than capable of filling this role)
2.  Bombing Brigands in North Africa and the Middle East (It is also perfectly capable of filling this role) in fact a Spitfire could probably do a relatively good job in certain instances. 

So what exactly do we give up so the Air Force can have their Ferraris?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 13:06:44 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,386
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2681 on: September 14, 2019, 13:04:32 »
If jobs in Canada are the over riding consideration, then wouldn't being a continued partner in the F35 program be the way to go and get a piece of building 3000 (plus) jets over the next 3 decades?

Ding ding ding.

So what exactly do we give up so the Air Force can have their Ferraris?

I was pretty young at the time, but I swear Jean Chretien said something similar to kill the EH-101 and set back the Sea King replacement for 15 years.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,989
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2682 on: September 14, 2019, 13:08:45 »
Ding ding ding.

I was pretty young at the time, but I swear Jean Chretien said something similar to kill the EH-101 and set back the Sea King replacement for 15 years.

Yes he did say something similar; however, the context of what he said and what I am saying are different.

Buy the F35 if and only if it doesn't put other programs in jeopardy. 

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,386
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2683 on: September 14, 2019, 13:15:21 »
Yes he did say something similar; however, the context of what he said and what I am saying are different.

Buy the F35 if and only if it doesn't put other programs in jeopardy.

Call me cynical, but I don't think $X saved in the future fighter project will mean $X gained in other projects.  The govt will take that back because let's be serious here, Defence doesn't matter for most Canadians (and definitely not for politicians, despite party platforms on election runs).
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,203
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2684 on: September 14, 2019, 13:32:34 »
"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"

Nobody is saying the F35 is better than the Gripen E.  I have no doubt the F35 is a far more capable aircraft; however, the real issue which I think is a valid point presented in the above article is:

"Can Canada afford the F35 without major sacrifices to other programs and overall General Purpose Combat Capability across the Spectrum of Operations?"

What do we need to sacrifice IOT afford the F35?  half the expected number of CSCs? The Submarine Program? Griffon Replacements? Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft? Kingston Class Replacements?  UAVs that we still don't have? Air Defence? Future Anti-Tank Capability? Artillery?  Cyber & Renewed EW Capability? Heavy Engineering & Mobility?

Think of all the tools we already lack or are deficient in:

Naval Strike
UAV
Cyber
EW
Bridging
AAW
GBAD
ATGM Systems
SP Artillery
MLRS
AH
New Submarines
Proper AORs
Replacements for the CP140s
Replacements for Tac Hel
Replacements for Kingston Class
Replacements for Halifax Class
Cyber
EW

This list is not exhaustive.

The Future Fighter is going to have two primary roles:

1.  Defence of North America through NORAD (Gripen E is more than capable of filling this role)
2.  Bombing Brigands in North Africa and the Middle East (It is also perfectly capable of filling this role) in fact a Spitfire could probably do a relatively good job in certain instances. 

So what exactly do we give up so the Air Force can have their Ferraris?

The point to me isn’t what all of those systems cost to buy, sustain and use. It’s a lot of money, no doubt it would swing the defence spending needle close to 2.5% GDP. We can afford that as a country without giving up much, if anything.

But Canada doesn’t spend, or sustain the military rationally and our procurement system is far from rational. So even if they funded to buy the equipment, the money would flow in a sea of stupid and not much would change. That’s why Canadians and Canadian politicians don’t want to spend in this space.
Living the lean life

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,177
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2685 on: September 14, 2019, 16:06:39 »
...
So what exactly do we give up so the Air Force can have their Ferraris?

Tanks and submarines as well, if we want to divest ourselves of fighters.

All three of those capabilities have a disproportionately large share of CAF assets dedicated to them, if one were looking at a “solid Tier 2 helper force”’to the Tier 1 hegemonies.

Canada just needs to decide if it wishes to resolve itself to that place...like the Kiwis did to their Aussie big brothers.

Regards
G2G

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,989
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2686 on: September 14, 2019, 16:31:40 »
Tanks and submarines as well, if we want to divest ourselves of fighters.

All three of those capabilities have a disproportionately large share of CAF assets dedicated to them, if one were looking at a “solid Tier 2 helper force”’to the Tier 1 hegemonies.

Canada just needs to decide if it wishes to resolve itself to that place...like the Kiwis did to their Aussie big brothers.

Regards
G2G

I think we can afford fighter jets, just not the top of the line ones.  If we do go for the F35, than something else must go.  The Shipbuilding program cannot be sacrificed, it's too important strategically and politically.

Does Gripen E get the job done?  Sure it does not nearly as well as the F35 but it gets the job done nevertheless.  If we can build it domestically, even better.

I personally think it's more important that we be able to build military hardware domestically long term than it is to have a few pieces of foreign equipment built entirely elsewhere.

The F35 is like the Tiger Tank of aircraft.  Super powerful but expensive which in a shooting war with the Dragon and Bear is going to be a huge impediment.  Canada needs a Sherman Tank, not a King Tiger.

I think this chart from Janes explains the problem space quite clearly:



Yes the cost to build an F35 is going to drastically come down but the cost per hour to fly the thing is going to break our piggy bank. 






« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 16:34:30 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 923,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,204
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2687 on: September 14, 2019, 16:47:58 »
Gripen's cost per flight hour is based on the Gripen-C. The numbers have been doctored to look like its way cheaper. See this article and breakdown: https://www.quora.com/Can-SAAB-Gripen-E-compete-with-F-35

Sure, maybe Canada doesn't need a Tiger tank. But the reason the Sherman tank was able to win the day was because there we 4 or 5 Shermans attacking every Tiger. Canada is getting 85 Tigers, or 85 Shermans. Given that choice, I'd take the Tiger everyday of the week.
+25

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,989
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2688 on: September 14, 2019, 17:12:59 »
Gripen's cost per flight hour is based on the Gripen-C. The numbers have been doctored to look like its way cheaper. See this article and breakdown: https://www.quora.com/Can-SAAB-Gripen-E-compete-with-F-35

Sure, maybe Canada doesn't need a Tiger tank. But the reason the Sherman tank was able to win the day was because there we 4 or 5 Shermans attacking every Tiger. Canada is getting 85 Tigers, or 85 Shermans. Given that choice, I'd take the Tiger everyday of the week.

That is where I took the data from  8)

There is no question the Gripen is way cheaper to operate than the F35, even if it isn't exactly that number.

My Sherman comparison has to do with ability to replace losses.  Having our own production line in that case becomes more important.  In a real peer war, we need to be able to crank out new equipment to replace our losses quickly.  It's all about industrial capacity. 

I would take Gripen's mixed with a fleet of Armed RPAs oh and put some bombs and missiles on the CP140 while we are at it. 

We have no RPAs at the moment, no bombs on the CP140 and we have just inherited some second hand Australian toilet paper. 

We also have a laundry list of other capabilities that need servicing.  Where does the money come from and where is the compromise?


Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,413
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2689 on: September 14, 2019, 17:19:40 »
Also, the Grippen E is looking to be about $113M USD per copy, vice about $80-85M USD for an F35.

I grant that the hourly O&M costs of an F35 will (probably) remain higher than a Grippen. But then there is the problem of operating a micro fleet *cough* Cyclone *cough*. You want a modernization package every 5 years or so (and you had better- if you want to win a war and have at least some of your pilots live)? It will be us and the swedes footing the R&D bill. Let me assure you- that won't be cheap.

So, in summary- it is expensive choosing to be a country with an adult foreign and defence policy. Unless we just want to outsource the whole thing to the US...

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,413
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2690 on: September 14, 2019, 17:24:33 »
That is where I took the data from  8)

There is no question the Gripen is way cheaper to operate than the F35, even if it isn't exactly that number.

My Sherman comparison has to do with ability to replace losses.  Having our own production line in that case becomes more important.  In a real peer war, we need to be able to crank out new equipment to replace our losses quickly.  It's all about industrial capacity. 

I would take Gripen's mixed with a fleet of Armed RPAs oh and put some bombs and missiles on the CP140 while we are at it. 

We have no RPAs at the moment, no bombs on the CP140 and we have just inherited some second hand Australian toilet paper. 

We also have a laundry list of other capabilities that need servicing.  Where does the money come from and where is the compromise?

But we won't have a production line- at least not for long. I can guarantee that once the last fighter has rolled off the line in Canada's order, from the factory assembled at great expense in Bugtussle NB (or whatever "vital riding" needs the electoral bribery), the line will close and hundreds will be laid off. It will 4 years of work- tops.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,386
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2691 on: September 14, 2019, 17:27:21 »
But we won't have a production line- at least not for long. I can guarantee that once the last fighter has rolled off the line in Canada's order, from the factory assembled at great expense in Bugtussle NB (or whatever "vital riding" needs the electoral bribery), the line will close and hundreds will be laid off. It will 4 years of work- tops.

Yep.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,989
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2692 on: September 14, 2019, 17:37:40 »
Also, the Grippen E is looking to be about $113M USD per copy, vice about $80-85M USD for an F35.

I grant that the hourly O&M costs of an F35 will (probably) remain higher than a Grippen. But then there is the problem of operating a micro fleet *cough* Cyclone *cough*. You want a modernization package every 5 years or so (and you had better- if you want to win a war and have at least some of your pilots live)? It will be us and the swedes footing the R&D bill. Let me assure you- that won't be cheap.

So, in summary- it is expensive choosing to be a country with an adult foreign and defence policy. Unless we just want to outsource the whole thing to the US...

I agree but I don't necessarily think it will be just us footing the bill for the Gripen, there are some other players in the mix:

Quote
Saab to hold meetings with Indian firms for making Gripen E aircraft

Saab is in the fray for a contract to supply around 110 fighter planes to India under the Multi Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) programme.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/defence/saab-to-hold-meetings-with-indian-firms-for-making-gripen-e-aircraft/amp_articleshow/71095650.cms

And

Quote
Saab presents first Brazilian Gripen E fighter for flight test

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.upi.com/amp/Defense-News/2019/09/12/Saab-presents-first-Brazilian-Gripen-E-fighter-for-flight-test/5561568306285/

Also, Brazil eventually plans to increase that order to over 100 aircraft and are considering a carrier variant as well.

Their primordial reason for selecting the Gripen E over the F18 Super Hornet and Rafale was considerably lower operating costs and generous industrial benefits SAAB gave them.  Most South American countries are in need of new fighter aircraft and Brazil sees an opportunity for Embraer to build some aircraft for Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,413
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2693 on: September 14, 2019, 17:56:01 »
Sure- basic flight safety, structural and engine upgrades over the life we could share with all Grippen users. Combat systems? Probably only the NATO Allies get to share the load, and maybe only the Swedes, depending how sensitive an issue it is. Maybe only us, if it is a NORAD related issue.


Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,177
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2694 on: September 14, 2019, 18:01:34 »
I think we can afford fighter jets, just not the top of the line ones.  If we do go for the F35, than something else must go.  The Shipbuilding program cannot be sacrificed, it's too important strategically and politically.

Ah, I see. It’s the Navy’s turn.  Cutting
edge force projection and coalition contribution only needs to happen at 28kts or less?  You’re parroting politically structured/postured argumentation...Classic “either this or that but not both...”

Are you personally confident in your knowledge of the Defence Investment Plan that CSC/JSS/AOPS protions of the NSS would be compromised were FCFP proceed with the existing DIP allocations (based on F35)? 


Does Gripen E get the job done?  Sure it does not nearly as well as the F35 but it gets the job done nevertheless.  If we can build it domestically, even better.

You believe the Gripen is ‘okay’....Saab has not formally submitted a proposal that has been evaluated by PSPC, so how certain are you about its capability and merit against all requirement s criteria that your statement is true.

Why not accept less within NSS?  Let’s see a reduction in the $100B+ life-cycle costs!

I personally think it's more important that we be able to build military hardware domestically long term than it is to have a few pieces of foreign equipment built entirely elsewhere.

...of course lass the more than $1B of F35 parts built by 1000’s of Canadians to date...but that doesn’t even begin to address the disproportionate costs to keep low volume ‘unique’ aircraft running for three decades.  It is a mug’s game to believe that  cheaper acquisition costs necessarily equate to lower life-cycle costs...which are known to be lower when shared across much greater quantities


The F35 is like the Tiger Tank of aircraft.  Super powerful but expensive which in a shooting war with the Dragon and Bear is going to be a huge impediment.  Canada needs a Sherman Tank, not a King Tiger.

The F-22 Raptor is the King Tiger.  F-35 is ‘just’ a Panzer V (Panther).  Having a Panzer I or II without the sensor/fire control capabilities of the V or Tiger II...is that good enough for Canada?  So long as it gets all 15 CSC with bells and whistles, right?

I think this chart from Janes explains the problem space quite clearly:

[img]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1ebff55f5b48222ca8245a327bd0551e[/

Those may be Janes’ figures, but they are highly
contextual...the fact that a Gripen is cheaper than publicly available (via ATIP) historical all-up cost figures even for a CH-146 Griffon makes me wonder about the applicability of directly relating those figures provided with how Canada would operate and find the aircraft. Spoiler alert when you ATIP the RCAF platform costs, you’ll find the CF-188 is not the most expensive aircraft to operate...shut down those more expensive? Lease alternatives. Shoot solidly for middle of the road?


I think this chart from Janes explains the problem space quite clearly:
Yes the cost to build an F35 is going to drastically come down but the cost per hour to fly the thing is going to break our piggy bank.

Cost and life-cycle cost to come down drastically, but still not enough?

Break the piggy bank, aka Canada’s Fiscal Framework / Investment Plan?

Are you sure?  Do you know how much Canada spends on the F-18 today?  It’s in the public record, and it’s not a small number. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the anticipated YFR for FCFP throughout the 30 years of the aircrafts life and how it isn’t affordable within the Department’s already planned budgetary planned allocations.

Without seeing the details of the F35, Super Hornet and Gripen complete packages, I’m not going to parrot jingoistic, subjective critique-lines on any particular contender.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,864
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2695 on: September 14, 2019, 18:26:25 »
Do we really want to have partner nations like Brazil when it comes to software development and systems integration?  Or do we want to stay in the “circle of trust”?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,413
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2696 on: September 14, 2019, 18:40:03 »
Do we really want to have partner nations like Brazil when it comes to software development and systems integration?  Or do we want to stay in the “circle of trust”?

That was my point, above. Brazil, India, Botswana, South Africa, Thailand and maybe not even the Czechs or Hungarians would be allowed to see our version of the software.

Ask me how I know how ruinously expensive that will be for us....

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2697 on: September 14, 2019, 18:46:32 »
And we are back to Daddy Trudeau's playing footsie with Cuba, Yugoslavia and India in the Non-Aligned Movement.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,989
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2698 on: September 14, 2019, 20:12:23 »
Ah, I see. It’s the Navy’s turn.  Cutting
edge force projection and coalition contribution only needs to happen at 28kts or less?  You’re parroting politically structured/postured argumentation...Classic “either this or that but not both...”

Are you personally confident in your knowledge of the Defence Investment Plan that CSC/JSS/AOPS protions of the NSS would be compromised were FCFP proceed with the existing DIP allocations (based on F35)?

Of course not as I am not privy to that information; however, its well known that the current force structure of the Canadian Armed Forces is unsustainable at current spending levels.  With no new money forthcoming, this will not change.

See: Fiscal Sustainability of Canada’s National
Defence Program

Dated: 26 Mar 15

Quote
The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates
that the current force structure of the Department of
National Defence (DND) is unsustainable at current
funding levels. To achieve sustainability, it will be
necessary to change the force structure, increase the
amount of funding allocated to DND, or implement a
combination of the two.
https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/Defence_Analysis_EN.pdf

This situation has never been rectified, even with all the theatrics of "Strong, Secure, Engaged" and all of the funding promised has been kicked down the road until later, whenever that date materializes.  So yes, the Defence Department continues to atrophy capability, year after year.

They also just released a report on the Canadian Surface Combatant program:

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2019/Canada-Surface-Combatants-update/CSC_Update_2019_Report_E.pdf

Updated estimate cost is $69.8 billion for the program, that's close to $10 billion more than the previous estimate in 2017.  It keeps increasing, year after year. Inflation is a real killer!

My entire argument is based around the premise that if no increase in Defence spending as a percentage of our GDP is forthcoming, we will not be able to feed our Defence Department's considerable appetite for cutting edge equipment. How do we build ships while also maintaining a fighter force capability?

Quote
You believe the Gripen is ‘okay’....Saab has not formally submitted a proposal that has been evaluated by PSPC, so how certain are you about its capability and merit against all requirement s criteria that your statement is true.

Why not accept less within NSS?  Let’s see a reduction in the $100B+ life-cycle costs!

...of course lass the more than $1B of F35 parts built by 1000’s of Canadians to date...but that doesn’t even begin to address the disproportionate costs to keep low volume ‘unique’ aircraft running for three decades.  It is a mug’s game to believe that  cheaper acquisition costs necessarily equate to lower life-cycle costs...which are known to be lower when shared across much greater quantities

I believe the Gripen to be adequate for our needs.  Will it be anywhere close to as capable as the F35, hell no.  Will it be capable of bombing brigands in North Africa and the Middle East?  Absolument.  It's also perfectly capable of chasing down 60s era Tupolev bombers.  If a country like Sweden, which is 27% the size of Canada population wise can support their own fighter aircraft, it should not be a problem for us.  I am worried about costs to the Canadian Armed Forces of actually operating the F35.  Which will come at the expense of other projects, projects that are equally necessary.

I also doubt that we will have 15 Frigates at the end of the CSC, regardless of what the present Government says.  The timeline for the CSC is so long that any Government in power can basically say whatever they want.  My prediction is due to escalating program costs coupled with inflation, we end up with less than 15 CSCs.  We might build some additional ones but maybe they will be sold to someone else (New Zealand, Chile, etc).  Every new ship build in Europe has over-promised and under-delivered so what makes us think we will be any different.

Likewise, unless we do something drastic, I can't see affording new capabilities like RPA, Investments in Cyber, replacements for the Aurora, Vic Class Submarines, etc.  I trust the PBO way more than I trust any sort of Defence Investment Plan.

Quote
The F-22 Raptor is the King Tiger.  F-35 is ‘just’ a Panzer V (Panther).  Having a Panzer I or II without the sensor/fire control capabilities of the V or Tiger II...is that good enough for Canada?  So long as it gets all 15 CSC with bells and whistles, right?

Those may be Janes’ figures, but they are highly
contextual...the fact that a Gripen is cheaper than publicly available (via ATIP) historical all-up cost figures even for a CH-146 Griffon makes me wonder about the applicability of directly relating those figures provided with how Canada would operate and find the aircraft. Spoiler alert when you ATIP the RCAF platform costs, you’ll find the CF-188 is not the most expensive aircraft to operate...shut down those more expensive? Lease alternatives. Shoot solidly for middle of the road?


Cost and life-cycle cost to come down drastically, but still not enough?

Break the piggy bank, aka Canada’s Fiscal Framework / Investment Plan?

Are you sure?  Do you know how much Canada spends on the F-18 today?  It’s in the public record, and it’s not a small number. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the anticipated YFR for FCFP throughout the 30 years of the aircrafts life and how it isn’t affordable within the Department’s already planned budgetary planned allocations.

Without seeing the details of the F35, Super Hornet and Gripen complete packages, I’m not going to parrot jingoistic, subjective critique-lines on any particular contender.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I have no particular allegiance to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force or any service in the CAF for that matter.  What I care about is that Canada is able to deliver capabilities across the spectrum of combat with the budget that we have been allocated by the Government of Canada which according to SIPRI was $21.6 billion last year placing us at #14 in the world for total military spending.

https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/fs_1904_milex_2018_0.pdf

Canada absolutely needs fighter aircraft but it also needs RPAs, New Maritime Patrol Aircraft, New Ships, Submarines and many other capabilities which it is presently lacking.  It somehow needs to fit this in to that $21.6 billion and sacrifices will need to be made for that to be accomplished.

And we are back to Daddy Trudeau's playing footsie with Cuba, Yugoslavia and India in the Non-Aligned Movement.

We have been in the Non-Aligned Movement since the 1970s in all but spirit.  Token contributions to Defence of Europe notwithstanding, we have sat out almost all Anglo-American interventions and were an otherwise reluctant player 95% of the time.  This isn't to knock the quality of the CAF, it's the reality of the political situation in Canada. 

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,864
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2699 on: September 14, 2019, 20:48:54 »
HB:  how do you assume our mission set is unopposed CAS exclusively?  Have you read SSE and how it relates to what we, the fighter force, need to be ready to face?