Spitfire9Canada riding the USN’s coattails for F/A-18E/F upgrades is only a short term solution.
Does that mean you think the USN would only be buying Super Hornets as a short term way of boosting their fighter force until they can get their hands on enough F-35’s? After which, what do they do with the low hours Super Hornets? Fly them as much as possible to put hours on them and so avoid putting hours on the F-35’s?
Spitfire9Those requirements from the US Navy (additional aircraft) have existed for a while now since they have been looking at how fast they are consuming their Super Hornet fleet. They are just trying to accommodate them in their budget now since they couldn’t earlier given competing priorities and the lack of an urgent need (Boeing wasn’t closing shop on the Super Hornet given the orders it had in the pipeline in Kuwait and now Canada).
Reuters are saying USN intends to order quite a few more Super Hornets:
The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said.
The plan, which is still being finalized, could be implemented as early as part of the fiscal 2018 budget, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
“To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant,” said the official.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-fighters-idUSKBN13T05S
Until I read that news I thought it would be a mistake for Canada to order Super Hornets because unless the USN chooses to continue ordering F/A-18, the cost of updating the aircraft may be spread over a small number of frames (very small if Australia sees their F/A-18 fleet as a stopgap measure due to F-35 being years late and needing something to replace F-111). If USN does order dozens more, I also imagine that Finland will view F/A-18 more favourably when it comes to selecting a fighter to replace their current fleet.
Spitfire9You forgot Naval Tejas has Levcon. And what is hulla bullao on the statement of Naval Chief. Its known for quite some time that LCA MK 1 navy will not be inducted. Its only going to be used for maturing some technologies, components for MK 2 version, which is the version, the navy is interested in. LCA MK 2 Navy is the version which is suppose to iron out excess weight and also have more powerful engine… And this information is known for quite some time. And Naval chief statement is inline with same, only to be blown out of proportion by import lobby via their plants in media
Interesting to read. Mk 1 may be a learning exercise but Mk 2 is not. So when does Mk 2 need to be ready (as in delivered in numbers required) to avoid either having to buy foreign or having an operational carrier with no fighters to operate?
Spitfire9this is for India third carrier. the third carrier wont be operational for next 15 years. they will be looking for new fighters in next 5 years possible design carrier around that fighter. its competition between T-50 and F-35.
Not doubting what you say… but if the aircraft won’t be needed for 10+ years, what does it matter if naval Tejas is not able to take off with a full load yet? Couldn’t the designers remove more weight (IIRC the landing gear could be optimised a lot) and add some high lift devices to correct the situation? It sounds like they have a lot of time to play with on this one.
Spitfire9defined by who?
If a simple term like ‘supercruise’ does not mean something simple (the obvious being straight and level supersonic flight without afterburner), what was the point of inventing the term?
Spitfire9Ooops, that was somewhat of a surprise.
A new interesting competition sailing up…!?
Why not just get MiG-29 to keep things simple? If not, would Rafale M be a possible candidate?
Spitfire9Perhaps I should wait until Trump takes office before posing the question but I’ll ask it now: will the US stance on free trade in North America have any bearing on a US aircraft being chosen by Canada?
Spitfire9The point was that this was a government that loathed sole source contracts and not having a competition. It is entirely possible that the only deal they execute for the future Canadian fighter fleet during this term, will be a sole source deal with Boeing.
Its difficult not to see the hypocrisy in that or to see that the motives are entirely political and about political rhetoric that they are trying to untangle themselves from. There is a strong possibility that this same government will at a future date order the F-35 and find ways to justify it while also saying they met their campaign promises.
I have not followed all the ins and outs of the CF-18 replacement saga but I do remember reports of LM trying to persuade some Canadian entity to sign up for F-35 when (I think) the Canadian government had made it clear that several options were to be evaluated before a decision was made. It would not surprise me if the Canadian government developed a deep dislike of Lockheed Martin as a result.
Spitfire9India assembles SU30 and Jaguar, produces LCA on its own and have just ordered Rafale. How can they not have the required number of fighter jets? That’s like starving while inside a McDonalds!
Isn’t it a question of the rate at which fighters are retired and new fighters are delivered? If a lot of fighters are retired towards the end of the decade but replacements are not delivered until the next decade, squadron numbers will fall before the end of the decade, won’t they?
Spitfire9http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art…terim-buy.html
Nov. 25, 2016
Canada’s CF-18 Fighter Jets Can All Fly Past 2025, RCAF Commander Says.
The head of the Royal Canadian Air Force says all 77 of Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets will be able to fly until 2025, and even later.
Others say the general’s comments are a clear indication he is comfortable with the state of Canada’s CF-18 fleet, and that buying the Super Hornets before a competition is unnecessary and politically motivated.
“Anyone reading (Hood’s) comments would come to the conclusion that there is no capability gap,” said Alan Williams, a former head of military procurement at National Defence.
So is the Canadian government just trying to find a pretext for stalling the choice of a CF-18 successor?
Spitfire9Since the contract was signed with Brazil October 2014, Saab has been reporting the delivery date of 2019:
A lot of military aircraft are delivered years after the customer expected them. Does not look like that will be the case with Gripen E (at least not so far). Customer wants delivery 2019. Supplier says will deliver 2019.
Spitfire9You may want to check your figures again. This is the sq strength of the IAF based on known/confirmed orders.
Su-30 x 14 sq.
Jaguar x 6 sq.
Mirage x 3 sq.
MiG-29 x 3 sq.
Rafale x 2 sq.
Tejas x 2 sq.
________________
Total = 30 sq.Plus MiG-21 Bison x 3-4 sq. (to be replaced by Tejas Mk1A.)
So the IAF’s strength in 2022 should be a minimum of 32 squadrons.
This is NOT counting whatever comes out of the project for a single engined western fighter. Also, doesn’t count any follow-on orders for the Su-30MKI (currently scheduled to run till 2019). By most accounts, the sq. strength in 2022 will most likely be higher than the current 34 squadrons.
Your figures do not mention MiG-27. Have these been retired already? Additionally, if ~240 x MiG-21 are going to be retired between now and 2022, that’s ~12 squadrons rather than 3 or 4 isn’t it? According to Wiki IAF has 34 squadrons of fighters including 245 x MiG-21 and 87 x MiG-27. I don’t understand how IAF will have 30 fighter squadrons in 2022 if 16 of the current 34 are retiring in the next 5 years and replacements are 2 x Tejas squadrons and 2 x Rafale squadrons and 2/3 x Su30MKI squadrons. To me 34-16+6/7 does not make 30. What have I got wrong?
Spitfire9I am sorry, but that isn’t remotely plausible.
A multi-billion dollar/euro project like a new fighter development program can’t just shift critical deadlines/milestones around in that manner. At the onset of the project everything is tied to a central schedule that dictates when raw materials must be ordered, when certain software needs to be complete, when various certifications must be obtained, when first flight must occur, etc.
If you take one of those dates and simply move it a year+ to the right it impacts everything else. Suddenly you are pushing later airframes farther to the right, which impacts when you order parts and perform work on them, etc etc.
It is precisely these complex inter-dependencies that make delivering a new fighter on schedule so difficult. One missed estimate for how long it will take to perform a necessary task and the whole project can start to fall behind pace.
Returning to the Gripen NG specifically, either they intentionally lied about when they intended to perform their first flight and deliver their first aircraft (awfully unlikely) or the project has encountered significant delays. (very likely) They would never casually slip the whole project by a year or more with a funded contract in hand. That would entail extra cost, risk, and a delay in seeing a return on all company funded investment. (effectively money lost)
Regarding ordering materials/already designed long lead items in time to have them delivered when required so assembly follows schedule, would an OEM order these without knowing what the schedule was? Without knowing what the schedule was, how would the OEM know what delivery date was required?
Spitfire9It’s the spares cost. For some reason, it appears to have really expensive spares. It is a same thing with NH90
I don’t understand why spares for Typhoon should be so expensive. With far more Typhoons in service than Rafales, Typhoon should enjoy better economies of scale in spares production than Rafale. What went wrong?
Spitfire9They are 18 months behind schedule because that is how far they are behind the original schedule.
Are you saying they literally put their tools down (and turned their computers off) and stopped working when the Swiss backed out? I am not saying the Swiss mess didn’t cause delays, but you can’t just turn a program on and off like a switch. Engineers, software developers, facilities, etc… all of these cost money and can’t just be turned off. (or directed to another purpose)
Now they are announcing still further delays. It isn’t clear yet how serious the impact on the overall program will be but there is no point pretending that this is anything other than a delay.
Gripen NG was a demonstrator. I’m not sure how much effort SAAB would have put into designing/developing Gripen E on a private venture basis. The Swedish government made a Gripen E order contingent on SAAB getting another customer first IIRC. Had Switzerland placed an order satisfying the Swedish government’s requirement for them to order as well, the project would have been launched in earnest but Switzerland did not order. I suspect that SAAB did not start ploughing significant resources into Gripen E until it knew Sweden would place an order. While the original schedule was not adhered to because there was no foreign order, I don’t see that as a delay in the normal sense of development taking longer than scheduled. I see the 4-6 month delay in first flight as a delay. However if it makes no difference to when Gripen E will be delivered, does it really matter?
Sign In
