• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance-repair-overhaul/hangars-future-will-have-much-different-needs

https://sldinfo.com/2012/10/hangar-80-at-yuma-air-station-a-building-block-for-f-35-global-presence/

https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/focus-on-military-readiness-means-more-construction-work-on-military-bases

I didn't really see much up thread on the infrastructure costs but the above give some idea at the costs and differences in design requirements. I had a really good article that explained how the pits and electrical design integration worked from the aspect of the whole building down to the maintainer-I'll keep looking for it

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/defense/article/10943391/how-to-supply-power-and-air-for-the-f35

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2018/01/25/Harper-awarded-1279M-for-F-35-hangar-in-San-Diego/4311516892143/

https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2b1ed75-dc16-447a-a878-b8670edb674d&subId=254100

 
SeaKingTacco said:
My best guess is that the infrastructure bill is an approximate wash, regardless of the aircraft chosen. Others who have recently been to Cold Lake can probably attest that most everything there (building-wise) was built in the 1950s and is at the end of its life. The Physical security requirements will increase, dramatically.

Anyone still in cold lake can look through the main shared drive folder (can’t remember if it’s J or otherwise) and find the next gen fighter PowerPoint folder. In there it has proposed locations for new hangars and support infrastructure in both Cold lake and Bagotville. Both locations aren’t hurting for space to build new buildings.
 
I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?
 
MilEME09 said:
I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?

At the current rate we’re going in obtaining a new fighter........I kinda doubt it
 
MilEME09 said:
I think the bigger question is, will the infrastructure be ready in time for delivery of the new birds?

Well by comparison the F35 hangar in Miramar broke ground in Mar 2018 and is scheduled to be completed by Jan 2020. So figure around two-three years for one in cold lake taking winter into account.
 
However, application of the current Industrial and Technological Benefits policy and the measure of points awarded for the economic offset portion in the Request For Proposal appears to undermine the primacy of meeting military needs. Thus, leading to the spectre of the Liberal government’s promise that “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber” becoming a reality through other policy means.
https://www.cgai.ca/anatomy_of_a_buy_the_four_dimensions_of_procuring_a_future_fighter_for_canada#Executive
 
Rival fighter-jet makers warn procurement rule change for F-35 will hurt Canada

OTTAWA — The Trudeau government's plan to loosen federal procurement rules for the F-35 stealth fighter is sparking public warnings from other fighter-jet makers that it will ultimately hurt Canada.

The Liberals revealed earlier this month that they plan to ease industrial requirements for aerospace companies in the $19-billion competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s with 88 new fighter jets.

The government would essentially lift a long-standing requirement that companies bidding on major defence contracts make contractual commitments to spending some of the proceeds on Canadian goods and labour or have their bids tossed out.

The proposal followed U.S. complaints the criteria violated an agreement Canada signed in 2006 to become one of nine partner countries in the development of the F-35, which is being built by Lockheed Martin.

Yet executives from two of Lockheed's rivals, Boeing and Saab, came out swinging against the plan on Wednesday, saying the previous policy has worked well — and that changing it could shortchange taxpayers and Canada's aerospace industry.

"You've got a policy that's been in place for decades and it's been very successful for Canadian industry," said Jim Barnes, director of business development in Canada for Boeing, which builds the Super Hornet fighter jet.

"So why would you deviate from a policy that's been so successful to accommodate a competitor?"

Those lost benefits to the industry could also damage the military's ability to operate whatever fighter jet wins the competition, said Patrick Palmer, executive vice-president of Swedish firm Saab, which builds the Gripen fighter.

"I am concerned both as a Saab executive and also as a Canadian taxpayer that the changes ... may not give Canada the best ability to support and sustain the equipment for the life that we need to be able to support it," he said.

The two, who spoke in separate briefings on the sidelines of the annual Cansec arms-trade show in Ottawa, stopped short of saying the government's proposal will unfairly tilt the upcoming competition in the F-35's favour.

But they did make clear that they had voiced their concerns to the government and were waiting to see how it responded — which could have an impact on whether their companies decide to bid.

"Our position right now is we're going to review the final (request for proposals) and we're going to make that determination," said Palmer. "We have not committed one way or the other."

Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains insisted during a lunchtime discussion at the Cansec show the government would be able to balance the military's requirements with the need for a fair competition while at the same time "maximizing economic benefits."

"These are the principles that have been guiding our decisions," he said.

U.S. officials had threatened not to enter the F-35 into the competition if the industrial-requirement rules weren't changed, noting that under the partnership agreement signed in 2006, companies in each member country instead compete for work.

The threat was contained in one of two letters sent to the government last year and published in a report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank earlier this month.

Canada has contributed more than $500 million over the past 20 years toward developing the F-35, while Canadian companies have won $1.5 billion in contracts associated with the plane. Canada will also be able to buy the plane for less than non-member countries.

Under the new process, bidders can still guarantee that they will re-invest back into Canada if their jet wins the competition and get full points — which is the likely approach for Boeing, Saab and Eurofighter, which build the Typhoon.

Those like Lockheed Martin that can't make such a commitment will be penalized and asked to establish "industrial targets," lay out a plan for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them.

The government has said it plans to launch the long-overdue formal competition to select Canada's next fighter jet in July, nearly four years after the Liberals were elected in 2015 on a promise to hold an immediate competition.

Companies are expected to submit their bids next winter, with a formal contract signed in 2022. The first plane won't arrive until at least 2025.
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/05/29/rival-fighter-jet-makers-warn-procurement-rule-change-for-f-35-will-hurt-canada/#.XO-nsS0ZPUK

A senior government official, speaking on background Wednesday, said the intention once the bids are in will be to narrow down the contenders to two before deciding on a winner.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-sajjan-july-1.5153959
 
So what happens to the CF-18s, will they be sold off eventually or sent to sticks in small Canadian towns?
 
Note offsets suggested by Airbus, Saab--want to bet Bombardier would not be involved?

Airbus open to a fighter plane assembly plant in Quebec ahead of federal bids
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/airbus-open-to-a-fighter-plane-assembly-plant-in-quebec-ahead-of-federal-bids-1.4253284

And Saab says:

...
Canadian participation could also include some production and assembly processes, but the full Gripen offer and its industrial participation element have yet to be finalised. Saab is, however, "in active dialogue with Canadian industry"...
https://www.janes.com/article/88850/designed-for-the-future-cs19d1

Mark
Ottawa

 
From CANSEC 2019.

Saab wants to build the Gripen in Quebec.
https://www.janes.com/article/88850/designed-for-the-future-cs19d1


Also:
Hungary May Scrap Swedish Jet Deal for US F-35 Over War of Words - Report
Hungary is considering scrapping its lease agreement for Jas 39 Gripen and replacing the 14 Swedish fighter jets with US-made F-35, which may cost Sweden billions of kronor and thousands of job opportunities, the Swedish news outlet Fria Tider reported.

The bilateral lease agreement is now at stake over Sweden's "constant smear campaign" against the Hungarian government. Specifically, Hungary is considering replacing the lease agreement with a $1 billion deal with US firm Lockheed Martin. The choice is between the latest model of the F-16 or the fifth generation F-35. Sweden's future on the Hungarian defence market currently looks gloomy.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/203053/hungary-may-scrap-gripen-lease-over-war-of-words-_-report.html


I can see the political win here. If Saab won, they'd probably offer up a nice deal on those 14 Gripen's to us (for training, familiarity) until we got the line up and running in Quebec. The cost per airframe, etc.. would be irrelevant if they were built here, judging from our procurement history over the past few decades?

Wouldn't it be embarrasing for us if Hungary bought 5th Generation F-35s while we buy 4th-ish Gen Gripens though?
 
LoboCanada said:
Wouldn't it be embarrasing for us if Hungary bought 5th Generation F-35s while we buy 4th-ish Gen Gripens though?

I think "embarrassing" went out the window when we decided to scrap 5th-gen F-35s for 4th-gen Super Hornets, then nothing at all.
 
Or "less" than nothing.
Which is the ridiculous "Capability Gap" rhetoric and the Liberal's answer of flushing $1B (on bagged airframes & spare parts from the RAAF) down the toilet (for the sake of "optics"), in support of the facade they created two years ago.

NUTS.
Grrrr.
 
Dimsum said:
Why not both?

Strip them clean and send them off as Snowbird replacements?

LoboCanada said:
I can see the political win here. If Saab won, they'd probably offer up a nice deal on those 14 Gripen's to us (for training, familiarity) until we got the line up and running in Quebec. The cost per airframe, etc.. would be irrelevant if they were built here, judging from our procurement history over the past few decades

Would create jobs, for a few years at least, then after they are built ("built" likely only means to "assemble" as the modules built elsewhere), bye bye. All these flashy "Built in Canada" headlines are just BS to entice the clueless majority Canadian public. Once they are assembled in Canada all the jobs will be gone the way of GM as the line shuts down. Compare that to the JSF program where Canadian companies have been building components for a decade now... https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation
 
From Flight Global, perhaps a freudian slip?
Beyond Europe, Canada and Singapore are interested in buying the F-35. Singapore plans to buy four examples initially to test, with the option to buy eight more. Canada is one of the original nine partner nations in the Joint Strike Fighter development programme, but has dithered over buying the aircraft. Quebec is expected to release a request for proposals for 88 advanced fighters as part of its Future Fighter programme in mid-2019.
 
This is nuts--rating the strike mission as 3.5 times more valuable than NORAD one, which is the only crucial, non-discretionary role of RCAF fighers:

Canada puts premium on fighter jets’ ability to conduct attacks on foreign soil

The federal government’s plan to buy new fighter jets puts greater emphasis on the aircraft’s ability to conduct “strategic attacks” in foreign countries than their capacity to defend Canada and North America from enemy incursions, government documents show.

The importance awarded to the new aircraft’s offensive and first-strike capabilities abroad, rather than their defensive capabilities in places such as the Arctic, is causing concerns among some companies [emphasis added] in the running for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada’s CF-18s, industry sources said.

In particular, some manufacturers have told the government they are worried the process will end up favouring the Lockheed-Martin F-35 at the expense of bids from the Boeing Super Hornet, Saab’s Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is built by a consortium led by Airbus. The industry sources who spoke about the matter were granted anonymity because federal rules prevent them from speaking publicly.

Federal officials said they are aware of the concerns from various aircraft manufacturers and that government experts are reviewing the evaluation grid. The government is planning to launch the competition for new fighter jets by the end of July.

“We are continuing to have discussions with the companies,” said Pat Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at National Defence.

He added that 80 per cent of the technical requirements are related to NORAD and NATO operations, while the rest are needed to be able to respond to government missions in hot spots around the world. “We’re in a good spot for a competition,” he said.

Canada’s defence policy, which was released in 2017, made it clear that the priority for the new fighter jets would be defending the country’s territory.

“The fighter aircraft fleet is a critical Canadian Armed Forces capability necessary to enforce Canada’s sovereignty, enable continental security, and contribute to international peace and stability,” the policy said.

David Perry, a military analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the acquisition process to this point gives the impression that foreign missions are more important than domestic ones.

“At the high level, the optics of the way it is presented aren’t very good at all,” he said.

The federal government’s assessment grid for the new fighter jets is based on an evaluation of all requirements worth a total of 100 points, with 60 points going to technical capabilities, 20 points to the acquisition and sustainment costs, and 20 points to the package of industrial benefits. The government has shared its draft evaluation grid with potential bidders, a copy of which was provided to The Globe and Mail.

Of the 60 points going to technical requirements, 31.5 points are based on the aircraft’s performance on six potential missions: conducting NORAD operations, intercepting a foreign aircraft carrying a cruise missile, carrying missions against maritime targets, detecting and attacking foreign aircraft such as enemy fighter jets, providing “close air support” in an attack against targets on foreign soil and participating in a “strategic attack” against a foreign country.

The first two missions, which are seen to be domestic in nature, are worth a total of 3.5 points. By contrast, the mission worth the most points (12 out of 31.5, or nearly 40 per cent of the points in this category) is the one based on an aircraft’s ability to conduct a first-strike “strategic attack” in a foreign country [emphasis added], which is known to be a forte of the F-35.

The evaluation grid has led some companies to complain to the government that the process favoured the F-35 at the expense of their aircraft, industry and government sources said.

Following complaints from the American government, the federal government changed last month the way it will evaluate the 20 points related to industrial benefits. Under a new process, Ottawa will no longer force all bidders to commit 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft’s acquisition and sustainment on spending in Canada. Instead, manufacturers will lose points in the scoring system if they do not make this commitment, but they will still be allowed to remain in the competition

Before the changes were made, the F-35 could have been automatically disqualified because the international consortium that builds the aircraft doesn’t allow for the provision of traditional industrial benefits.

Of the 20 points that are attributed to the cost of the new aircraft, 10 are determined based on the acquisition costs and 10 are determined based on the sustainment of the aircraft after their purchase.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-puts-premium-on-fighter-jets-ability-to-conduct-attacks-on/

And what about ability to shoot down cruise missiles after launch? Hell, let the F-15EX into the competition.

Mark
Ottawa
 
AlexanderM said:
I thought most here want the F-35, so it would be good news for the F-35.

They’d have to develop (hopefully) stealthy drop tanks.
 
Back
Top