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

[SupersonicMax]

Growlers are only ECM aircraft, they are 40% more expensive than a Block III Super Hornet and cannot carry an appropriate a2a loadout.

Not true.  When employed as an EW platform, maybe.  Otherwise, it has the same capabilities as the Rhino.

 

[suffolkowner]

Super Hornets won't be available by 2022. The USN has been buying SH through congressional action in the Unfunded Liabilities column for the past two years... while the OSD tried to kill the program. Next year the F-35C buys start to ramp up with USN IOC and the funding will be directed to that program. If the USN stops procuring F/A-18Es after next year, then I suspect Boeing will just replace the 12 USN slots a year with Kuwaiti and Canadian purchases... or add a third aircraft to the line a month if the USN continues to buy. However that gets you to 2020 at the latest. Basically we're buying an orphaned fleet.

This is problematic because there will be ITB issues for the F-35 if Canada selects it in 2022... you won't see 100% because we will have lost out on all important contracts. As a partner we can't get guaranteed workshare. So that leaves only the Gripen.

I was trying to figure out when our SH's would be coming off the line. I was thinking it would be 2021 before we would get them in which case what is the point?

regarding the Growler's I was thinking of them as more of a complement to the F-35

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not true.  When employed as an EW platform, maybe.  Otherwise, it has the same capabilities as the Rhino.

Couldn't agree more, SupersonicMax.

But the idea here is, if you don't intend to buy the thing as a EW platform because what you want is an actual attack/fighter plane, then why waste your money on what is then, in effect, a two seater Rhino F/A bird?

I don't think that the government's intent here is to develop a new capability with EW airplanes. All they want is an "interim fighter" to give themselves the out on a proper competition, which we all know is likely to be won by the F-35. So in the end, the are definitely not going for the Growler, there are going for the Rhino, and we both know this to be the truth. 

And all of you people mentioning the Growler: Stop it! It ain't happening. That is not what this government is after.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I agree that it is a far stretch but it is the only thing, in my mind, that would make this purchase worth it. 

Growlers would give us capabilities that would bring us to the modern battlefield and would open up some other possibilities (and guarantee the APG-79).

But I feel we'll get 18 F/A-18E with APG-73.

 

[ringo]

E's F's or G's I hope these 18 a/c have AESA and conformal fuel tanks.

 

[MilEME09]

E's F's or G's I hope these 18 a/c have AESA and conformal fuel tanks.

AESA, yes, CFT's not likely unless Boeing sells Canada the Advanced Super Hornet

 

[larry Strong]

DND removes report critical of 'interim' fighter jet purchase from website

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/dnd-removes-report-critical-of-interim-fighter-jet-purchase-from-website-404115616.html

OTTAWA - An internal defense study that dismissed any plan to buy "interim" fighter jets because of "significant additional costs," has been pulled off the National Defense website.

The department says it took down the report, originally published by its research arm in June 2014, because of concerns it contained classified information.

But critics say it was removed for the same reason more than 200 federal officials have been sworn to a lifetime gag rule: it poses a threat to the Liberals' plan to buy "interim" Super Hornets.

Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan admitted Thursday that the decision to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornet jets to augment the existing fleet of CF-18s until a competition to find a replacement can be held in five years will cost taxpayers more.

But he said those extra costs are necessary as Canada has to provide a certain number of aircraft for the defense of North America as well as NATO, which it currently cannot do at the same time.

"We have NORAD obligations and we have NATO obligations in terms of our commitments," he told reporters after appearing before the House of Commons defense committee.

"And to meet those minimum obligations, we do not, right now, have enough operational aircraft to meet those simultaneously if called upon."

He also raised the specter of another 9/11 or similar "unforeseen situation."

But the now-deleted Defense Research and Development Canada report came out strongly against buying a "bridging," aircraft to fill the type of "capability gap" described by the government.

"The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term," reads the report, which The Canadian Press downloaded before it was removed from the website.

Critics and experts have questioned the government's assertion that it will take five years to replace the CF-18s.

The report also appears to contradict the minister by saying that Canada does not have a "hard minimum requirement for the NATO commitment."

That suggests the only actual requirement Canada must meet in terms of providing fighter jets is its obligation to defend North America along with the U.S., and anything beyond that is voluntary.

The report said a maximum of 36 aircraft are required to be operational at any time to help defend North America and "anything beyond this number is in excess of the current requirement."

Those planes don't all have to be on high alert waiting for an attack, the report said, but can be involved in training or NATO operations and called back if needed.

Sajjan on Thursday accused the previous Conservative government of having settled on a "fictitious number" when it planned to buy 65 F-35 stealth fighters and that the Liberals will buy more planes.

But the report said the air force can meet its NORAD requirements with a single fleet of 65 fighter jets, given that up to half planes will be in day-to-day or long-term maintenance at any given point.

National Defense spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said in an email that the report was removed "as it was found to possibly contain classified information, not because it looked at the costs of operating more than one fleet."

But the report's authors write that they specifically withheld some information "in order to keep this analysis unclassified."

Conservative defense critic James Bezan latched onto the missing report as proof the government's plan buy Hornets before holding a competition to replace the CF-18s is part of a larger Liberal plan to avoid buying the F-35 stealth fighter.

"They're trying to re-write history," he said. "This is the greatest hoax going."

Defense analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said there has been growing tendency toward secrecy within National Defense, which includes a clampdown on information over Canada's mission in Iraq and now the fighter project.

The Canadian Press reported last week that the government has ordered 235 federal bureaucrats working on the fighter project to sign lifetime non-disclosure agreements, which two former heads of military procurement said was unprecedented

Cheers
Larry

 

[PuckChaser]

So much for open and transparent government.

 

[The Bread Guy]

DND removes report critical of 'interim' fighter jet purchase from website

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/dnd-removes-report-critical-of-interim-fighter-jet-purchase-from-website-404115616.html

Funny, though, how nothing really disappears on the interwebs:  "A Comparative Analysis of Minimum Resource Requirements for Single and Mixed Fleets for The National Fighter Procurement Evaluation of Options" (with thanks to Google Cache searching)  ;D

And if that link doesn't work for you, here's another site that has it as part of its coverage of all things F-35.

So much for open and transparent government.

Yup ...

 

[George Wallace]

Watch US Navy Tests F-35C Carrier Variant Aboard USS George Washington

F- 35 Short Take Off & Vertical Landing On Ground & On Carrier

U.S. Marines F-35 B Stealth lightning Plane on USS America

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Considering all the other contracts the Conservative got done, I suppose the Libs had really hoped that the CPC would have signed the deal, so they could whine and complain without any responsibility.

 

[BurmaShave]

Not true.  When employed as an EW platform, maybe.  Otherwise, it has the same capabilities as the Rhino.

On the Growler, the gun's deleted to free up space for some secret squirrel stuff, and and the wingtip AIM-9 stations (1 and 11?) are replaced by EW receivers (ALQ-218?).

It's theoretically less capable in close than a Rhino. Given that the last gun kill was ~25 years ago, by a Thunderbolt, on a helo, it's probably a non-issue.

 

[STONEY]

Canadian Government Glossary.

Open and transparent= Secret , under the counter , keep media and public out of picture at all costs.

 

[SupersonicMax]

On the Growler, the gun's deleted to free up space for some secret squirrel stuff, and and the wingtip AIM-9 stations (1 and 11?) are replaced by EW receivers (ALQ-218?).

It's theoretically less capable in close than a Rhino. Given that the last gun kill was ~25 years ago, by a Thunderbolt, on a helo, it's probably a non-issue.

I have seen Growlers without the wingtip jammers with normal LAUs (for AIM-9s).  No gun, you are correct, but in how we would intend to use them, I would consider this a non-issue, like you say.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

In the ASH, I was surprised th gun wasn't replaced by an IRST....

 

[suffolkowner]

Funny, though, how nothing really disappears on the interwebs:  "A Comparative Analysis of Minimum Resource Requirements for Single and Mixed Fleets for The National Fighter Procurement Evaluation of Options" (with thanks to Google Cache searching)  ;D

And if that link doesn't work for you, here's another site that has it as part of its coverage of all things F-35.Yup ...

I was wondering what report they were referring to I thought it might be this one, the above I had already posted

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-cf18-estimated-life-expectancy.page

 

[The Bread Guy]

An update ...

Funny, though, how nothing really disappears on the interwebs:  "A Comparative Analysis of Minimum Resource Requirements for Single and Mixed Fleets for The National Fighter Procurement Evaluation of Options" (with thanks to Google Cache searching)  ;D ...

This link no longer works - gone from Google's Cache -- but this one still works  ;D

And if that link doesn't work for you, here's another site that has it as part of its coverage of all things F-35.

Aaaaaaaaaand just to be safe, a copy of the globalsecurity.org version is also attached - in case THAT link stops working, too 

 

[George Wallace]

An update ...This link no longer works - gone from Google's Cache -- but this one still works  ;DAaaaaaaaaand just to be safe, a copy of the globalsecurity.org version is also attached - in case THAT link stops working, too 

So....Like all things Harper, the LPC "Scrubbers" are hard at work.  [

 

[The Bread Guy]

So....Like all things Harper, the LPC "Scrubbers" are hard at work.  [

Also, they can't seem to un-archive versions saved at archive.org - which also seems to have the PDF version of the report (attached, you know ...) ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of a post by Carleton Prof. Steve Saideman (further links at original):

Good Times for Civ-Mil Scholars, Bad Times for Democracy and Governance

I just wrote about the problems facing the US as President-Elect Trump may choose too many retired generals for his cabinet.  In Canada, the problems is a bit different: active generals are being put in awkward positions by the politicians.

How so?  The story of the week in Canadian civ-mil, regarding the fighter plane procurement problems, appears to be part of a larger trend: the Liberals getting advice they don't like and soldiering on (sorry) anyways (see electoral reform effort or not).

The Liberal government has stated that it needs to buy 18 Super Hornets to fill a capability gap--that Canada doesn't have the planes it needs to defend North American airspace (the NORAD requirement) and to meet its NATO commitments at the same time.  There are lots of problems with this:

    *There is no formal NATO requirement BUT to be fair to the Liberals, there has been a regular demand by NATO for planes to patrol over Iceland and over the Baltics plus regular multilateral efforts elsewhere (Kosovo, Libya, Iraq).
    *Interim purchases are interim: Canada will have to sell, scrap, give away or somehow transfer the 18 Super Hornets once Canada gets the big batch of new planes (whether they are Super Hornets, F-35s, Rafaeles, or whatever).
    *The math.  Canada needs 36 planes for NORAD, 6 for NATO-ish=42.  But you need to have twice as many or so in order to field the 42 at any time time=84.  But planes, alas, crash and have other problems, so you probably need another 6-12.  So, 90+ planes in the next batch of purchases.  Given the budgetary envelope for the next plane was enough for 65 F-35s, the math suggests that the Liberals would need to buy a plane that is 2/3s the price of the 65 as 65/90 is 2/3s-ish.  But the Super Hornet is not that cheap.  Plus the Liberals had promised to take the money saved on the planes to fund the ship-building.  Ooops. 

But the problem du jour is making generals dance.  RCAF Commander Hood has been caught between what he has said before and what he is saying now...
http://saideman.blogspot.ca/2016/12/good-times-for-civ-mil-scholars-bad.html

Mark
Ottawa