OzairThe F-16 was an exclusive air to air fighter, again, having extremely high flight performance… from which one could add what it took to make it strike capable. the F-35 was developped as a strike aircraft and they try to make pretend to be also an air superiority platform. They never dared with its predecessors, like the F-105, A-7 and so on.
Nothing you can imagine and write around it won’t change that.
The following were the initial service requirements,
Navy: A first-day-of-the-war, survivable strike fighter
to complement the F/A-18E/F
• Air Force: A multirole aircraft (primary air-to-ground)
to replace the F-16 and A-10 and to complement the
F-22
• Marine Corps: A STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-
8B and the USMC F/A-18
• United Kingdom Royal Navy: A STOVL aircraft to
replace the Sea Harrier.
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/steidle.pdf
So in essence you are correct that the JSF was initially designed with a focus on air to ground employment but always called multi-role and required to complement the F-22. What you are ignoring is the following,
Speed and Manoeuvrability
Speed and manoeuvrability are characteristics where
more capability is historically considered better. However,
the increased requirements will rapidly accelerate
cost. The JSF cost–performance trade analysis determined
that we must retain capabilities comparable to
current multirole aircraft. This level of performance is
necessary and sufficient to successfully engage, counter,
and survive both future air-to-air and future surface-to air
threats.
So in designing the JSF the requirement was to have comparable performance in speed and manoeuvrability to current multi-role aircraft, specifically the F-16 and F/A-18. We can confidently say that the F-35 has achieved that and given you described the F-16 as having extremely high flight performance it appears that all is well…
OzairGot that… but I don’t think I would ever want most defence contractors to make anything for me. Too many don’t seem to have the kind of interest in efficient production manifested by other companies.
Not sure about that. US defence contractors are making a 6-8% profit on you compared to Apple making 60-70% profit on your iphone… The difference is Apple paid for the dev themselves but I still don’t think the dev costs compensate.
OzairSo it would be 245 km at 2,3 when Mig-31 can travel 720km at 2,35.
Which shouldn’t be surprising since the MiG-31 carries nearly 3 times the internal fuel of a non CFT F-15.
Ozairits a horribly difficult task to intercept either the bombers or the cruise missiles, to the point where it is futile,
the fighters are going to need both awacs and tankers, funding, and luck
They might have better value for money and situational awareness spending on an OTHR system similar to JORN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network
Would provide earlier cueing than an AWCS and potentially direct fighters to where they need to be, thereby requiring less tanker support. Australia has done all the hard work getting the system to an acceptable state although there would be a few challenges with different ionosphere conditions but Canada has smart scientists and the Australian DSTG would be happy to help.
OzairAs long as specifying the technical requirements thereof, is left to the professionals.
That has already been done, as evidenced by the CDI threat assessment. The problem becomes the uneducated or ill-informed who think they know better than the professionals.
OzairSimply bull****! The conservatives halted the project because they were concerned about winning the election, because the auditor general tore them a new one, and because they were caught in multiple lies. The Liberals don’t need to paint anybody in a poor light now. They just need to do the right thing.
Disagree. At the time the Auditor generals’s report was released the Canadian Government had not purchased any jets and had only participated in the industrial program, a program that had already returned to the Canadian economy four times what the Government had input. The subsequent independent KPMG report vindicated the expected sustainment costs provided by the Military.
The F-35 issue in Canada has been and remains a political one.
OzairAs it should have.
The motivations of the Liberals were not regarding the value for money of the acquisition but a political opportunity to paint the Conservative government in a poor light.
OzairWhy does there have to be a competition?
Because the Canadian Liberal party had an issue with the sole source selection of the F-35.
OzairSuper Hornet
What’s the discussion?
The discussion is Super Hornet can only get chosen if the Canadians can actually get a competition going in the next 6 months or so. It will realistically take at least a couple of years for the competition to run its course and every day longer makes the likelihood of the Super Hornet being in production less. Last I read the Super Hornet had enough production, while running the line as slow as practical, to the end of 2017. With the Kuwait order falling through Boeing will have to make a decision on whether a Canadian order will happen or not and probably start building white tails to keep things ticking over.
OzairThe C Eagle has been used in the A/G role by the Israeli Air Force (A-D models) and for a short period by the USAF. That was post 1978 though, at least I think so. Given that the F-18 had its first flight in 1978, it hadn’t demonstrated anything at that time so I would say the Eagle was in the lead back then.
Was definitely post 1978 as the C model Eagle didn’t start production until mid 1978 and the Israelis didn’t use the F-15 for A2G work until 1985.
The source makes it pretty clear that cost was a major factor. The F-16 and F-18 were the only two airframes down selected with the F-15, F-14 and Tornado all rejected and Dassault didn’t even bid in the end so it is clear they were after something smaller and more sustainable.
I can see the advantage the Hornet had though, as it was required to fill the A/G role for the US Navy, the risk for the F-18 ending up without all the required capabilities was pretty much zero. Whereas with the F-15, the Canadians would have been the only major operator of light grey Eagles in the A/G role.
Funny really because initially the Canadians were keen for an in service aircraft but I guess the sizeable US Navy order, the multi-role capabilities and BVR missile on a relatively small airframe, were factors that swayed them.
The lack of a targeting pod wasn’t solely an F-15 issue. According to this source, Canada got AN/AAS-38B pods in 1998… I’m sure by that time, it would have been possible to have a pod on the CF-15.
Thanks for that and yes I was wrong, even the US Hornets didn’t get the Nitehawk, commonly called the “****eHawk” by in service aircrew, until the F-18C variant in the late 80s and as your source states, not in any number until the mid 90s.
Who knows. In my book, the F-15 would have been the best choice back then, just as it is now. I might be biased though 😉
It would have been a riskier acquisition but with hindsight would have been a great decision. The question remains though given the emphasis on industrial offsets would MDC have been able to offer as competitive a deal on the already in production Eagle compared to the not yet in full production Hornet?
Not sure the Eagle will be a better option than the F-35, the F-35 will almost certainly be cheaper to operate per hour and cheaper to acquire in a couple of years while their payload range is not too far from each other.
OzairYes, doubling the F-35’s loadout of internal missiles would be a real nice upgrade, but if they were only useful for shooting down enemy missiles what would be the point?
Take out the concept of self defence of the 5th gen fighter and it makes a little more sense. These could allow escort of force multipliers such as AEW&C or arsenal aircraft into the battlespace. It would be easier to defend a larger force multiplier in hostile territory if you had the capability to defeat long range missile shots taken against them (not that I would put my trust in a small self-defence missile, I would need some seriously good test results!). This should also work for other missiles such as large SAMs including S-400 etc as although S-400 has some big missiles I doubt it would take much to throw them off trajectory with shrapnel or a body impact by a small HTK missile.
OzairAs for drag, the Greek flight manual gives the same basic airframe drag with or without CFTs, sub- and supersonic – quite remarkable imho.
Which should reinforce how wrong the “visually I can tell what the drag of an airframe is” crowd are.
OzairNot true, the F-15A-D had a robust A/G capability right from the start with Mk 82/84, GBU-10, Mk 20 and CBU-52/58/71 bombs. If I’m not mistaken, the only thing missing compared to what the Canadians initially used on their CF-18s is rocked pods.
Other than during the testing phase where MDC loaded A2G weaponry on to it the F-15 was not being used by any operator in an A2G role, especially given we are talking about 1978 when it was not down selected for the Canadian competition. It had no laser designator pod and had minimal A2G radar modes.
The F-16 outranges the F-18. Better radar (and associated BVR capability) favoured the Hornet though, as was the case in Switzerland.
Remember the article was written in 1990 and is assessing the competition that took place in the late 1970s. Given the F-18 was at that point still in development the Canadians probably expected it to outrange the F-16.
OzairThere is so much wrong here it’s pretty tough to reply. The CF-18 did well for Canada. I don’t think anyone regrets that purchase. The Rafale and EF are vastly superior to the CF-18. The Gripen E is pretty tough to evaluate. The F-15 might have been a decent choice for Canada at the time, but there is a lot the CF-18’s could do that the F-15 could not in a Canadian context and the F-15 was a wicked expensive plane to fly and acquire in comparison. the RCAF had a clear preference for twin engines in the last acquisition. That is well documented. They appear to have changed their tune this time round.
Well the F-15 had essentially no A2G capability for a start.
As for the two engines, while the Canadians at the time cited this as an issue if you investigate further it appears that both the F-16 and F-18 fulfilled all the requirements but the F-18 offered better industrial potential, of major importance to the government of the day, and that was the defining factor.
The Canadian Government was willing to pay a premium for Canadian content in the aircraft in order to accomplish these objectives. The two finalists, MDC and GD, both produced planes that were capable of performing Canadian missions and roles within the specified budget allowances. Therefore, offsets became a major factor in the government’s decision on which plane to purchase.
http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2013_1/OMB.pdf page 34
The duel engines were also considered in relation to overall cost.
At the time the Canadian defence Budget would allow procurement of 127 F/A-18 at $17.7 million per aircraft, or 142 F-16s at $10.8 million per aircraft. In addition to lower per unit costs, The F-16 has the advantage of being common with NATO forces which purchased the F-16 in 1975. However some in Canada believed that the F-16 was not suitable for Canadian Air Defence due to its limited range and radar capability. Moreover, the F/A-18 was expected to have a lower attrition rate because of its duel engines, partially compensating for its high per unit price.
Page 33
OzairThe requirements for FWSAR were created and issued before the Liberals took over. They essentially gave the program the push to keep going. The RFP is closed (earlier this year).
Just so I understand what you are inferring, had the Liberal government been in charge when FWSAR began they would have released the requirements?
If so, again you are mistaken. There is nothing special about the Liberal Government and the underlying agency in charge of running the procurement has not changed, hence why would this now be different?
I also expect that coming out of the public consultation we will have a pretty clear statement to the media about the value and importance of low-observability in the acquisition. If the senior staff in the RCAF is unhappy with the requirements I think you will also see a ton of leaks lamenting that fact…specifically if it looks like the F35 is indeed a contender in name only. .
Why should the public consultation period provide that info? As with the recent Australian Senate hearing, the committee was bombarded with a whole bunch of crazy suggestions not bounded in reality. If the Government is looking for a report on the value and importance of low-observability to military capability for the future, they will look no further than CDI and an updated version of the already produced Threat Capability Assessment for Canada’s Fighter Aircraft Capability
http://forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/threat-capability-assessment-en.page
which would logically have a classified version available to appropriately cleared Government staff. The above report made it quite clear that low observability is a necessity moving forward.
Low-Observable Technologies
The term “Stealth” is a misnomer that suggests invisibility to some; rather, the term “Low-Observable” is more precise. Low observable (LO) treatments are designed to reduce target signature through a combination of techniques. Although counter-stealth technologies will continue to advance, low-observable design is expected to be an essential design element for advanced fighter aircraft, along with other types of threat aircraft and missile systems, for the foreseeable future. While low-observable design features do not guarantee survival, not having these design features would make a threat aircraft a more visible target. Conversely, defensive weapons systems will need to implement counter-LO technologies – such as advanced radar and electro-optical sensors – to aid in the detection of low-observable aircraft. Such advanced technology will likely be out of reach of many states, at least in the Horizon 1 timeframe.
If you look at the report in more detail, CDI make it very clear how important low observability will be…
Future fighter aircraft will, as a minimum, need to incorporate low-observable technologies, in particular low electro-optical and infrared signatures, as an aid in countering MANPAD improvements.
Future fighter aircraft will need low-observable technology as one of the means of countering AAM advances.
Future fighter aircraft will need low-observable technology as one of the means of countering AEW radar advances.
Future bombers will likely employ various low-observable technologies, along with other technologies similar to those to be incorporated on advanced fighter aircraft.
Something else to watch….does Saab decline to bid (as they did here before and in Denmark) which means the requirements were written in such as way as to make the believe that they have no chance of winning (a single engine/US vendor preference red flag). If Saab does participate, then we have something really interesting going on. If they decline, my feeling is it’s down to either twin engine aircraft or the US vendors. .
SAAB not bidding will likely be for only two reasons, first they cannot compete on the low observability requirements or second they cannot compete on the industrial requirements. Why would the government exclude a single engine jet when it would increase the number of bidders and therefore almost certainly reduce the overall offers due to increased competition?
My expectation is that there are only going to be four or two bidders on the project. (LM, Saab, Boeing and EF – open competition) or (EF, Boeing – two engines) or (Boeing, LM – US vendors). Rightly or wrongly I think Rafale is going to be out, Saab also likely self-selects out. I think that will tell us an awful lot about the requirements we don’t get to see.
Perhaps but the shorter the bid list the more of a farce this competition will become from the open and transparent one promised and the more likely it will be that Canada pays more than they should.
Sign In
