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

[SupersonicMax]

The final irony would be to buy 18 interim F-35s and 70 final Super Hornets . Nothing would surprise me anymore!

 

[MarkOttawa]

Odds on RCAF getting any of these?

U.S. Navy Approves Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet Upgrades
The Navy's flagship carrier-based fighter is getting a major tune-up.

The U.S. Navy has decided to fund Boeing's fighter division to upgrade the service's F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets to the "Block III" configuration. The most recent budget request from the U.S. Navy allocates $264.9 million over the next five years to upgrade the Super Hornet fleet with more advanced avionics and sensor capabilities, according to Aviation Week. The first Block III Super Hornets are slated to enter service in 2019 [emphasis added]. The program is designed to keep the Navy's primary carrier-based fighter relevant deep into the 21st century.

Boeing originally suggested upgrading the Super Hornet fleet to Block III back in 2008. Recent pressure from the White House to look into an advanced Super Hornet, a large defense budget from the new administration, and rising international tensions have led the Navy to approve the upgrade.

The new configuration will improve the heads-up display and computing capabilities of the Super Hornet, while also modestly upgrading the stealth and radar cross section. The multirole fighter will receive "advanced network architecture" in the form of a new computer called the Distributed Targeting Processor Network (DTPN). A large new display in the cockpit will help pilots monitor the additional information they receive. New Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) will also improve the Super Hornet's information pipeline so more data can be transmitted to and from the jet.

The improvements to stealth include possible low-observable coating, and new Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) are planned to replace the Super Hornet's current external fuel tanks. The CFTs will improve radar cross section slightly, but they are primarily intended to reduce aerodynamic drag. The Navy is also planning a long-range infrared sensor for the Super Hornet for early threat detection.

The electronic warfare variant of the F/A-18, called the EA-18G Growler, will also be receiving some of the avionics upgrades. Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager, told Aviation Week that stealth is not a priority, and the avionics improvements will give the Super Hornet "a balanced approach to survivability, including electronic warfare and self-protection."

The primary goal of the upgrade is to make the Super Hornet play nicely with the Navy's incoming F-35C. The carrier variant of the F-35 is the last of the F-35s to enter service, as it has not reached initial operating capability (IOC) like the Marine and Air Force jets have. When the Navy starts flying the fifth-generation fighters, their air coverage will have a lot more incoming data to share and analyze with various aircraft...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26833/us-navy-approves-boeings-f-1-8/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Since the USAF/LM was going to advance Canada 4 LRIP -35A, to be replaced by full production 35As later, until then-PM Harper got his face in a know and shut the plan down (which I think even he regrets), 18 interims delivered 'tomorrow' doesn't seem so much of a stretch.  The closer and closer 35s come to their full-rate production price that either matches, or may even beat the SH's cost, the more likely Boeing is to lose out on the opportunity.  Perhaps Boeing Corporate really doesn't mind losing the $7-9B of quick cash? ???

Definitely a op: issue.

Cheers
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

When the Navy starts flying the fifth-generation fighters, their air coverage will have a lot more incoming data to share and analyze with various aircraft...

This raises a point that has been niggling me for a while:

How do the F35s and the CP140s compare in terms of data gathering?  Or for that matter JUSTAS-RPAS-MALES-Reapers?

The Brits characterize their "multi-role aircraft" and thus you get GRs (Ground - Reconnaissance) and FRSs (Fighter - Reconnaissance - Strike), amongst other stuff.

If using that classification system might it not be fair to describe the F35s as some type of R = Reconnaissance aircraft? Reconnaissance is about the business of gathering data, usually in a contested environment, usually staying as stealthy as possible so as to avoid the fight, usually directing the movement of forces to the target and observing the effect on the target, only shooting if forced to defend or if a timely high value target appears.  It seems to me that that reasonably describes the utility of the F35.  It permits all of that while only putting one "observer" at risk.

How does that compare with the CP-140 when used as a Long Range Patrol Aircraft as opposed to its original role as an Anti Submarine Warfare aircraft?  The Nimrod was characterized as an MR or an MRA (Maritime Reconnaissance or Maritime Reconnaissance and Attack). The Sentinel is strictly an R (Reconnaissance).

To me it is arguable that the F35, derided in Canada because its stealth permits "First Strike" options, actually is the ideal Situational Awareness platform that would permit Canada to "observe" actions in contested environments, while minimizing both the number of "observers" at risk and the risk to the "observers", and permitting the "observer", when authorized, to intervene directly with threats.

GRs = Harrier GR1, GR3, GR5, GR7 and GR9  vice the Harrier FGA (Fighter Ground Attack equivalent to an CF-188 description)
      = Jaguar GR1 and GR3
      = Tornado GR1 and GR4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_aircraft_designation_systems

It seems to me that the/an argument for "stealth" attributes arises from the ability to effectively reconnoitre in any environment to improve situational awareness by getting eyes close to the target.

A Layered Approach to Situational Awareness might look something like:

Sig Int from CSCE (Listening Posts?)
Cyber Int from ???? TBA ????  (Observation Posts?)
Standing Patrols of Satellites orbiting
Standing Patrols of MALE UAVs that can be directed to targets of interest while loitering in the vicinity.
Fighting Patrols of LRPAs that launch when a target of interest is discovered and requires a lingering presence to coordinate activities
Reconnaissance sorties of GRs/FSRs as alternatives to the LRPAs but that have the capability to Interdict air (ASMs), ground and maritime targets with stowed and available munitions.

With the added benefit of being able to loiter longer and closer to contested air space.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Hmm--more on F-35A front and RCAF:

Liberals face tough questions on Afghanistan, interim fighter jets
...
The Canadian Press has learned that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan met with the head of Lockheed Martin, the U.S. defence giant behind the F-35 stealth fighter, in Singapore earlier this month.

Word of Sajjan's meeting with Lockheed president Marillyn Hewson came as the minister told

's Question Period that the government is looking at "different options" for addressing a critical shortage of fighter jets.

...Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department that Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier had sold its CSeries jet liners at an unfair discount with help from the federal government.

The Liberals have since threatened to scrap the Super Hornet plan because of the dispute, which took another turn Friday when the U.S. International Trade Commission said it would continue investigating.

Sajjan's spokeswoman Jordan Owens confirmed the minister met with Hewson at a defence summit in Singapore at the beginning of June, but could not immediately comment on the discussion.

However, a Lockheed official speaking on background said Hewson told Sajjan that her company was ready and eager to deliver F-35s on an urgent basis if required...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1476878-liberals-face-tough-questions-on-afghanistan-interim-fighter-jets

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

on a urgent basis if required? sounds like to me we could work out a deal to sorta bump the line and maybe lease a couple F-35's coming off the line from the US, to be replaced by our own once they come off the line down the road.

 

[Good2Golf]

...sounds like to me we could work out a deal to sorta bump the line and maybe lease a couple F-35's coming off the line from the US, to be replaced by our own once they come off the line down the road.

There was a deal in the past, I'm sure some folks have already refreshed the numbers.  (and refreshed Lt.Gen. Bogdan's powerpoint deck that identified the 4 LRIP F-35s to Canada, to now look at 18 FRP [full-rate production] aircraft)

JSF Program Office Looks At Canada F-35 Swap

Nov 7, 2014 - Bill Sweetman, AWIN First

A radical fast-track plan to jump-start Canada’s stalled effort to buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is revealed in a briefing document obtained by Aviation Week.

The Oct. 27 brief from JSF Program Executive Office director USAF Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan to Air Force secretary Deborah James calls for Canada to receive four F-35s next year, by diverting them from U.S. Air Force low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 7 orders. Canada would then buy four Lot 9 aircraft that would be delivered to the Air Force in 2017. According to the briefing, Canada would sign a letter of intent within days — "mid-November" — and Congress would be notified by the end of November.

Neither the JSF Program Office nor the Canadian Department of National Defense responded to repeated inquiries about the planned deal this week. The legal basis for such an exchange, absent an urgent operational need, is uncertain. The proposed LRIP 9 replacement aircraft are not on contract, and as far as is known, negotiations for them have not started.

According to the briefing, the Air Force has said it can spare four aircraft — budgeted at more than $160 million each — but with "no flex left" in the schedule for the aircraft to achieve initial operational capability. Aircraft availability is already a risk factor in meeting the objective initial operational capability date of August 2016.

Canada is a founding partner in the JSF program, with one of the largest near-term export orders. Its plan to buy 65 F-35As has been controversial since 2010, when prime minister Stephen Harper’s government attempted to bypass Canadian law that states that all major government acquisitions must be competed. The government asserted that the F-35 was the only aircraft that could meet Canadian requirements, but was forced to back down after Canada’s auditor-general reported in 2012 that the project’s costs had not been presented correctly and the air force’s "statement of requirements" had been compiled after the decision to make a sole-source procurement had been made.

The program to acquire new fighters has been supervised since 2012 by a special secretariat within Canada’s public works department. The most recent development was the announcement at the end of September of a plan to extend the life of Canada’s Boeing Hornet fleet to 2025. This was seen as confirming that Harper’s team had accepted the need to defer the JSF decision past the next general election, which is due no later than October 2015.

According to one Canadian industry observer close to the fighter program, the F-35 swap proposal is being pushed by Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office. "It would be a huge game changer," the source says, and another observer, former procurement official Alan Williams, calls it "explosive." The industry source is dubious that it can happen as scheduled: "The decision to go with the F-35 has not been made. This requires three key ministers to sign off and that hasn’t happened yet." A Harper attempt to lock Canada into the F-35 program before the election would risk an electoral backlash, sources say. "The fighter file is simply toxic right now," the industry observer says.

The swap proposal may be linked to program office and Lockheed Martin attempts in recent weeks to revive the concept of a multi-year, multi-nation block buy, first raised in 2007. Both would accelerate export sales, which are needed to support increased production rates and enable lower prices. According to the industry source, Canada’s fighter secretariat concluded in September that the JSF acquisition could not be completed within the nation’s CAN$9 billion ceiling unless the decision was delayed, pushing more of the 65 aircraft into full-rate production years. Lockheed Martin has promised much lower prices for aircraft delivered in 2019 and beyond.

op:

 

[AlexanderM]

Budgeted at over $160 million dollars each, which would be USD, so over $200M Cdn each!!

 

[CBH99]

$200M each is bloody expensive...

But then again, we can't even design an already designed patrol vessel for less than that  >


Not a bad move on behalf of Lockheed though.  Provide 4 aircraft on a leased basis to a country that is holding a jet replacement competition soon, in the hopes of giving yourself a leg-up when it comes time for the actual competition.  Especially now that both Boeing and Lockheed seem to have taken a shove backwards from the Liberals, each seem to be revamping their thinking since the current government came in and changed the dynamics of relations with both companies.

(Campaign promise not to buy the F-35, and then recently the trade spat with Boeing)

 

[Good2Golf]

Budgeted at over $160 million dollars each, which would be USD, so over $200M Cdn each!!

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

an LRIP Block 7 price, and currently $94.6M for LRIP Block 10, and getting lower every day...may POTUS 45 will ask L-M to give them to us for free as a good faith reward for increasing defence spending by 70%?


Regards
G2G

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I really hope the Liberals surprise us and when asked about the apparent change in policy simply reply:  "Yes our policy is changing as our situation has changed.  We're now doing our best due diligence in the best interests of our armed forces and all Canadians." 

It's a perfectly rational and defensible position to take....


M. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I really hope the Liberals surprise us and when asked about the apparent change in policy simply reply:  "Yes our policy is changing as our situation has changed.  We're now doing our best due diligence in the best interests of our armed forces and all Canadians." 

It's a perfectly rational and defensible position to take....


M. 

And they should be commended if they decide to take that position.

 

[Loachman]

Yes.













But I still won't vote for them.

 

[MarkOttawa]

1) One was asked to answer this questionnaire and did:

Overwhelming majority of defence thought leaders reject Ottawa’s Super Hornet fighter jet proposal: MLI paper by David McDonough and Brian Lee Crowley
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/overwhelming-majority-of-defence-thought-leaders-reject-ottawas-super-hornet-fighter-jet-proposal-mli-paper-by-david-mcdonough-and-brian-lee-crowley/

2) Good flipping grief:

Feds set to meet with fighter jet firms amid Super Hornet questions

Federal officials are expected to sit down with representatives from different fighter jet makers in Paris next week, as uncertainty swirls over the Trudeau government's plan to buy "interim" Super Hornets.

The meetings on the sidelines of the prestigious Paris Air Show are being billed as the first step towards the eventual launch of a competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet with 88 new fighters.

That is how many warplanes the Liberals' new defence policy calls for Canada to buy, an increase from the 65 previously promised by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper.

The policy estimates the cost at between $15 billion and $19 billion, up from the $9 billion previously budgeted by the Tories.

But while much of the attention will be on the competition, which the government says it will launch in 2019, the companies are also expected to pitch their own ability to sell Canada "interim" jets if needed.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on Monday said the government was still reviewing its decision to buy 18 "interim" Super Hornets from U.S. aerospace firm Boeing.

The Liberals previously said they needed the Super Hornets to address a critical shortage of fighter jets, referred to as a "capability gap," until the full competition to replace the CF-18s could be run.

The government said at the time that the Super Hornet was the only aircraft that met its immediate requirements, including being compatible with U.S. fighters and not in development.

But that was before Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department about Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier, sparking a trade dispute and threats from the Liberals to kill the Super Hornet deal.

The plan to purchase an interim fighter jet has been unpopular with retired military officers and defence officials as well as analysts, who have instead called for the competition to start now rather than in 2019.

A survey of 75 such experts conducted by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and released on Tuesday found that the vast majority didn't believe there was a capability gap, and opposed the plan to buy interim jets.

But a senior government official told The Canadian Press that the Liberals have no intention of backing away from their plan to buy an interim fighter — even if it means going with a different jet [emphasis added].

Sources say the government has not actually approached any of Boeing's competitors about stepping into the breach if the Liberals decide to scrap the Super Hornet deal.

But the Paris meetings offer an opportunity for U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin, French firm Dassault, Swedish company Saab, and European consortium Eurofighter to make their best pitches on the issue [emphasis added].

Each has indicated that it is prepared to provide interim fighter jets upon request.

The government's delegation will be led by Maj.-Gen. Alain Pelletier, head of National Defence's fighter program, and Lisa Campbell, who oversees military procurement at the federal procurement department...
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/06/13/feds-set-to-meet-with-fighter-jet-firms-amid-super-hornet-questions-3/#.WUBPPsa1vwo

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

A new Minister of Defense appointment could give the Liberals the political freedom to change direction on the interim purchase.

Crossing fingers....

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile, on the Boeing side of the house:

Boeing to restructure defense, space unit

Boeing Co (BA.N) said on Tuesday it would restructure its defense, space and security (BDS) division into smaller units and cut about 50 executive positions, as the world's largest plane maker seeks to make its business more responsive to customers.

The business, which accounted for nearly a third of the company's total revenue in 2016, will be divided into seven units, instead of the present five. All will report to BDS Chief Executive Leanne Caret.

The executives to be cut represent a layer of middle management in between senior officials and each individual business unit.

Caret told Reuters the restructuring will make the business faster and help Boeing better anticipate the needs of defense customers.

"Customers have "a desire to move fast, and we need to be part of the solution," she said.

Boeing's defense arm sells a variety of military equipment including jet fighters, missiles and unmanned underwater vehicles to the United States and its allies.

Boeing's military aircraft business, part of the BDS unit, will be rearranged into three smaller segments: autonomous systems, strike surveillance and mobility, and vertical lift.

Autonomous systems, led by Chris Raymond, will comprise Boeing's subsidiaries Liquid Robotics, which makes the Wave Glider ocean surface robot, and Insitu unmanned aerial vehicles, among other businesses.

The strike surveillance and mobility business, led by Shelley Lavender, will include the F-15 and F/A-18 fighters and P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.

Boeing's AH-6i, AH-64 Apache, and CH-47 Chinook helicopters will become part of the new vertical lift segment, led by David Koopersmith.

ALSO IN BUSINESS NEWS

Weak U.S. retail sales, consumer prices put spotlight on Fed
Dow hits record high at open; Fed in focus
Boeing said its network and space systems business, also part of the BDS unit, will be reconstituted as space and missile systems. The business will be led by Jim Chilton.

The business makes satellites and other space and intelligence systems, and includes its joint venture operation with Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) - United Launch Alliance.

The development, global operations, and phantom works segments will remain largely unchanged within the BDS unit, the company said.

Boeing is aggressively building its services businesses to capture new revenue and lift profit margins from high single digits to mid-teens by 2020.

Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg established a services business unit earlier this year that combines commercial aircraft and defense services.

(Reporting by Mike Stone in Washington and Ankit Ajmera in Bengaluru; Editing by Arun Koyyur and Matthew Lewis)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-restructuring-defense-idUSKBN1942R5

New dance partners.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Note initial Super Hornet cost for US Navy about US$ 90 million each:

Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years

The Navy intends to buy at least 80 more Boeing F/A-18E-F Super Hornets over the next five years to address its fighter shortfall, a change from its previous on-the-books plan to zero out the aircraft program beginning next year, service officials said in congressional testimony today.

The Navy’s written testimony to the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee notes the “Fiscal Year 2018 President’s Budget requests $1.25 billion in [the Navy’s aircraft procurement account] for 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft” and that, “with the support of Congress, we will also procure a minimum of 80 additional Super Hornets across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and continue modernization plans to address continuing warfighter demand for advanced tactical aircraft. These additional procurements begin to mitigate the decline in [the Department of the Navy’s] strike fighter inventory and enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to extend their service life.”

Though the services typically include in their budget requests a five-year projection of spending plans, this year Pentagon officials told reporters during the budget rollout that any out-year numbers were speculative and in many cases simply maintained current program levels. They said an ongoing defense strategy review would inform future year needs and render any current projections moot – and the Navy, as a result, took the FYDP projections out of its budget highlights book but not from its more detailed justification documents.

“The (defense) secretary has not spent any time at all looking at anything beyond FY ’18,” John Roth, performing the duties of under secretary of defense, comptroller, told reporters during the budget rollout.
“You will not see a growth in force structure. You will not see a growth in the shipbuilding plan. You will not see a robust modernization program in the so-called current FYDP. And so therefore I caution anybody from trying to make any comparisons. And I’m actually of the school that it really doesn’t provide anything that’s particularly insightful.”

However, the Navy’s testimony today confirms the plans within its aviation procurement justification documents – that the service wants to buy 14 in 2018 for $1.25 billion , 23 in 2019 for $1.95 billion, 14 in 2020 for $1.35 billion and 14 in 2021 for $1.27 billion and 15 in 2022 for $1.28 billion.

In contrast, the FY 2017 budget request included 14 aircraft in 2018, as was requested last month, and then zero for the rest of the years of the FYDP [more follows on F-35B, F-35C]...
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/navy-intends-to-buy-80-more-super-hornets-in-fydp-to-ease-fighter-shortfall

Mark
Ottawa

 

[McG]

Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years

Would the articles on what the USN wants be more appropriately posted in a USN thread on the US forces board?  This is the RCAF's Next Generation Fighter discussion, not the discussion on all things loosely related to all potential replacement candidates.

 

[Loachman]

I think that it's relevant here, especially for cost-comparison purposes.

 

[jmt18325]

I think that it's relevant here, especially for cost-comparison purposes.

It's really not possible to make cost comparisons with what we would pay.  I suppose it's useful for comparing the price that the US pays for different frames.