OzairWhen there is something available I will post it. It sounds like end-of year 2016 to get the requirements out (for the fighter project). The FWSAR is well along in the process now.
You are missing the point. The reason I requested you provide them for FWSAR is that of any acquisition that could have publicly released requirements that would have been it but it didn’t. These were held internally and only provided to the list of preferred bidders.
You won’t be able to post the Fighter requirements because they won’t publish them, just like they didn’t for FWSAR and for almost all other defence procurements. Requirements are not publicly disseminated or if they are, what are disseminated publicly are merely hand waving high level requirements that mean little.
In the Canadian Fighter replacement case what you will probably see publicly released are
1. Need fighter
2. Have to fulfil nations missions of Domestic and expeditionary nature
3. Must be suitable and sustainable past 2040
4. Lowest cost bid over the timeframe of operation
OzairThis whole thing is stupid, the Canadians should have bought F-16s or F-15s in the first place, now 35 years later they figured out their F-18s lack range so they want to replace them with F-16s, F-15s, or even more silly….more F-18’s. And you can’t tell me these F-18s have reached their service life because the USAF has F-15s that are older, have much more hours on the airframes, have been flown harder and are still in service and being upgraded for many more years in service.
Not quite. The F/A-18 was built as a 6,000 hour aircraft and only centre barrel replacements have allowed them to continue past that timeframe. Many nations, including the US, are struggling to fly the Hornet past 8,000 hours even after the barrel replacement have been completed. The F-15 on the other hand has been upgraded a couple of times on airframe limit and we are looking at close to 16,000 hours expected from some of them.
Where as Canadian F-18s don’t even all get used but are rotated through time in storage. And then you have eurocanards which are horribly expensive for no significant improvement, in fact the F-18 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the eurocanards. But if they want to spend money needlessly and get rid of perfectly fine fighters, well, why not.
Not sure where you are getting your figures from but both the Rafale and Eurofighter have superior thrust to weight at expected configs to classic Hornet. Gripen is less but not surprisingly so.
OzairAgain….you can fully expect to see a statement of requirements.
Looking at the military procurements page I don’t see any requirements. Can you provide me with an example of where requirements for a Canadian military system have been made public? Using FWSAR as an example I could not find a requirement set, just a list of preferred bidders.
OzairWe shall see what the requirements look like.
No you won’t. A fair and honest competition does not mean they will publish the requirements, nor does it mean the manufacturer submissions themselves will be published. Without doubt the actual requirements will remain classified.
I cannot see a leak occurring like what happened with the Swiss.
OzairWas Trudeau’s rejection of F-35 a simple case of pandering to his leftist base? Or has he demonstrated that Canadian military officials falsely conspired to select F-35 without proper (probably classified) evidence? Who has Trudeau fired or brought up on charges? Nobody.
More than likely he or his defence minister have now received the classified briefings and have a better understanding of the size and scope of industrial participation.
OzairNo it was never intended as an upgrade. The government was going to scrap the C/D planes and use a minimum of their parts for the new planes, the whole plan was disguised as a rebuild.
I’m actually a bit surprised that the politicians themselves realized how stupid that was and all new Gripen’s will be new builds.
I don’t think SAAB themselves knew which way they were going to go for awhile. I have read previously that SAAB expected the Gripen C/D to be capable of upgrade to E standard, IIRC retaining some parts from the C/D at a significantly smaller total cost. I also found this from 2011,
The Gripen NG – Next Generation has been flying for a few years as a technology demonstrator at Saab aircraft factory in Linköping. It has been offered to Norway and is also taking part in the bidding process in India (Gripen is today out of the bidding process togehter with F-18E/F, F-16IN and Mig-35) and Brazil.
However, in Sweden the politicians and the commander of the armed forces has difficulties to decide if they want to upgrade their existing fleet of Gripen A/B/C/D to E/F-standard or if they just want to upgrade them to C/D+ standards, without the modification of the airframe to be able to use the bigger F414-engine, carry more internal fuel and add two extra weapon pylons on the fuselage.
Many Swedish politicians does not want to buy more aircraft. They think that buying 204 aircraft for the Air Force and then reducing them to the now planned 100 Gripen C/D was a big mistake.
What the politicians do not understand is that if operational life of the Gripen aircraft is going to extended to the planned year 2040, there will be need of heavy modifications to the aircraft. Not only to meet future threats, but also to have spare parts to the electronic equipment in the aircraft. The Gripen system computer has already been upgraded three times with more modern electronics. The Gripen NG demonstrator has a complete new set of avionics that sooner or later need to be used also by the Gripen C/D aircraft. Not only to get extra capability, but also because there will be no other options to get spare parts for the old computers.
What the Swedish politicians has to study is the cost difference between rebuilding the existing C/D-fleet with just new avionics or also rebuilding them with a new airframe in the same way as 31 Gripen A/B has been converted to C/D-standard by rebuilding the fuselage and then adding wings, fin, engine and avionics from the old A/B-aircraft. There is still discussions if there is need of the bigger fuselage in order to carry the Selex/Galileo AESA-radar. If the smaller C/D-airframe is used, the Gripen must use a smaller radar disc, which add extra cost instead of just cooperating with the Eurofighter development program.
There are also big question marks regarding the possibilities for Volvo to build a updated RM12+ with more thrust. Will this be possible within the existing license agreement that Volvo has with General Electric? Unfortunately, Volvo has been lobbying heavily for using the RM12+ instead of the F414. This can be one of the major reasons for the Swedish politicians hesitations. If there is a possibility to get more thrust out of the existing engine, why buy a new fuselage only to cope with the bigger F414? What they miss is the fact that more thrust also result in the need for more fuel. More fuel also need a bigger engine in order to keep the aircraft performance. Otherwise the thrust-to-weight ratio will be too low. An aircraft need to be kept in balance. Weapons need to be balanced with sensors, engine with weight (including extra weapon and fuel) etc, etc.
Saab also need to have specialist personnel employed for heavier maintenance of the aircraft even if no new aircraft are built at the Linköping aircraft manufacturing plant. This in order to support the Swedish Air Force and other customers with heavier repairs on the aircraft after accidents. This due to the fact that this capability is not available on normal fighter wings. To keep this personnel trained it can be more effective to build extra fuselages for the modification of Gripen C/D to Gripen E/F in the same way as being done today with the modification from Gripen A/B to Gripen C/D.
The Swedish politicians must understand that there will be no new aircraft being built for the Swedish Air Force, just the existing 100 aircraft kept up to standards with the threat development and the development in technology.
http://notoriusunpublicus.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/evolving-gripen.html
Clearly the Gripen NG moved away from a modification program similar to Gripen A –> C to a complete new build aircraft that may retain some parts commonality. The other interesting part of the article was acknowledging how much modification the Gripen will require to last until 2040, and how much has already been changed, which is consistent with what a number of posters on this thread have been stating, especially in the Canadian context of operating the jets until at least 2050 and probably longer.
OzairI have seen no information on the F35 regarding it’s IR signature in comarison to any other plane, so tough for me to make bold statements. While there is no doubt that manufacturers are considering IR reduction (where the exhaust is) you cannot do much about the fact that it’s a draggy plane moving through the air at a high speed which generates heat, it has a big engine etc.
You are not helping yourself… For starters, plenty if IR reduction techniques are present on the F-35, the engine being buried deep in the fuselage, far deeper than you see on competitor jets. The engine has cool air funnelled alongside it, outside of the bypass, to cool the exhaust/plume as it exits the airframe, you can see some of these cool air intake vents on the underside of the wings. It has a heat exchanger that uses the fuel as a sink instead of venting it out of the respective systems. There are also other less clear methods including top coat IR reduction paint, probable cooling of the leading edges of the aircraft etc.
As for being draggy, you have no evidence that the F-35 is a draggy airframe and using your eyes and saying an airframe is draggy is not smart…
OzairThe reason F18 purchase for Canada has worked out for the past 35 years is because they bought the planes at roughly the same time as US navy. The upgrade path of Canada, US, Australia were all roughly the same. If you choose a existing plane that has already reached close to the 50% mark of its originating countries intended service life or more. You face the risk of funding upgrades by yourself to a orphaned platform.
Not only at the same time as the US Navy but also ordered before the US Navy had received a single production version. Purchasing the latest available aircraft makes a significant difference to its capability 20+ years from now.
The Canadians benefited from an upgrade path and funding that was shared across Hornet users, the kind of defined upgrade path you get when you have more than a thousand jets delivered and in service with multiple nations. The type of operators also makes a difference, the Hornet would not be the aircraft it is today if the primary export customers had been Thailand and South Africa…
OzairSo what you are saying is that the F35 has no IR signature and is invisible. Link?
IR reduction measures don’t equate to IR stealth.
Your statement makes no sense.
Just as the F-35 is not invisible to radar but simply has a very low return, it also has technology to reduce its IR signature. No one is claiming it is invisible but this reduced signature comes from more effort and focus than any of the competing platforms, especially given it was built from the start to incorporate all aspect stealth including RCS, IR, comms, radar etc.
OzairYou don’t seem to grasp the fact that Canada is a massive country with a tiny defense budget and needs to be able to buy a capable plane it can actually afford to purchase, maintain and fly without crippling every other aspect of our national defense. It’s not a difficult equation.
Ha, given I come from a country that is massive with a small defence budget I am fully aware of the issues surrounding defence spending and the taxpayer receiving value for money. Australia has had as bad a recent procurement history as the Canadians which is why buying the right airframe that will last the required timeframe is the right thing to do, instead of selling your defence short for a quick win that wil in the long run cost more overall.
OzairWe just had the first transatlantic crossing by F35 accompanied by a Typhoon and the Typhoon had three external tanks to the zero external for the F35.
The typhoon had to refuel more often then F35. The F35 was in very close to a combat configuration just add missiles and ammunition for the guns and it would be ready. The Typhoon was not in anything close to a combat ready state.
This means absolutely nothing. There is no correlation with ranges of the respective aircraft based on the number of refuels they required. That is not what ocean crossings are about nor how they are conducted.
OzairThe F35 is potentially an example of that. Tons of effort placed on stealth but no consideration given to how detection capabilities (IR) can evolve to negate that very expensive R&D project.
You do understand that stealth is not just about RCS right? Stealth features on the F-35 include IR reduction through various methods as well as treatments and custom designed antennas and arrays… The IR component of stealth has always been a feature of the design and can be tracked back as far as 1996 in JSF initial requirements.
As a result of learning on the boondoggles like Typhoon, F35 and F22, the conversations around the next generation of fighter plane have shifted from a focus on pure technology research to being able to build and deploy new platforms faster that take advantage of proven technology.
Given F-35 has taken as long to develop to this point as Rafale, Typhoon, F-22, Gripen NG, SU-35 have all taken I don’t see your point. Can you provide one example of where a nation has been able to develop a fighter jet from scratch in less time than any of the above?
As for developing faster by taking advantage of proven technology, that works only when you are happy to maintain parity with your adversary. There are not many top tier air forces in the world, and the RCAF is one of those, that are willing to accept parity.
You need to be pragmatic when you are a country like Canada (see Sweden) . We can leave the futuristic scenarios up to DARPA.
You need to come back to the real world and understand the actual needs and mission requirements of the RCAF.
The RCAF themselves list their purpose as
The Royal Canadian Air Force supports the Government of Canada in fulfilling the Canadian Armed Forces’ three key defence roles: defending Canada by delivering excellence at home, defending North America by being a strong, reliable and credible defence partner with the United States in the defence of the continent, and contributing to international peace and security by projecting leadership abroad.
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/index.page
Intercepting a bomber visually is nice fun and may make for some good PR shots but what the RCAF will actually do in a conflict is shoot that same bomber down from as far away as possible. What the focus of the fighter program should be, and by extension its requirements, is fulfilling the above three key defence roles.
Continuing the above, the RCAF mission statement is the following,
The Air Force will provide the Canadian Forces with relevant, responsive and effective airpower to meet the defence challenges of today and into the future.
Acquiring a platform that may tick some boxes now and is cheap does not necessarily tick the boxes for conflict 20 years from now. Any requirements written by Canada will ensure that the platform chosen can fulfil that 20+ years from now mission, not just what is being done today.
OzairI find the source code debate that occurs around the Gripen, F-35, etc to be ridiculous. Unless you are looking to kickstart your own nascent domestic fighter development industry (as in India/ Brazil to a lesser extent), or install significant amount of indigenous software/hardware, it isn’t needed. Even with the limited access partner nations are given to the F-35’s software code, Israel is able to customize Comms, EW sytems.
Despite what critics say, though the fighters you listed: Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon that would offer access to source codes, it would raise the costs associated for little gain in Canada’s case.
Given Canada has never had access to the CF-18 source code it is surprising that this is even an issue.
OzairAre you on drugs if you go down in the US you are no more 2 hours from being picked up. Go down over the remote north of Canada you could be there for a day or two the RAF have used twins for QRA since the 60’s as its crews conduct that task over a large remote area that will not change and that is why Typhoon is staying in numbers
The point stands and if you think that the RCAF operates twin engine aircraft in the vast remotes of the north without SAR cover you are mistaken. Aircrew are also trained to survive in these environments and have the basic skills and equipment necessary to survive for the day or two they may be on the ground.
As for the UK, given the only single engine fighter aircraft they have operated in the last 30 years is the Harrier I think we can both agree that the twin engine jets were more optimal for QRA than the alternative.
Ozairthey flew single engine jets, Vampire, Sabre and then F-104… the last one being inducted in 1962 to replace the Sabre…
Sure, but when the CF-18 was chosen the other competitor in the competition was the F-16. Clearly even in 1979 the Canadians were not adverse to operating a single engine jet, else their requirements even then would have excluded single engine aircraft.
Anyhow, I don’t write their requirements, I just copied what the guys doing the flying out there
Not sure what you’re trying to say here?
The truly funny part of this whole single engine versus twin engine argument is it doesn’t matter where you are, if you lose an engine in a single fighter you are going to struggle. Being in the north of Canada doesn’t matter anymore than being in the middle of continental USA. If we look at the most numerous western fighter from the last generation, far and away it is the F-16, with more sold than any other fourth gen and more than the twin-engined F-15 and F-18 combined. Fear of a single engine has not stopped nations from purchasing the F-16 and it won’t stop Canada from choosing a single engine aircraft.
Sign In
