How will Canada resolve their fighter replacement plan in the future?
Hard to say, but we do know that 65 aircraft is the top number and not 80 as mentioned by other sources.
What should Canada do?
First, if it involves the F-35, Canada should not make this decision any time soon. Just because Canada is a Joint Strike Fighter partner nation (yeah one of those guys that was also briefed on engine choice btw) doesn’t mean that they have to be stupid. The definition of “stupid” would be making any purchase decision on an under-tested F-35. Fly before you buy (a complete go-to-war example) should be the rule.
The budget for fighters looks like it will be around $9B. That puts a ceiling on the total procurement cost per aircraft of $138M each for 65. How Canada can justify this given other defense commitments will be the big question. Canada has a $50B deficit. This will count toward any decision.
For now, the best choice would be Super Hornet Block II F/A-18E single seaters. And given how Canada uses fighters, they don’t need a lot of equipment. JHMCS, the center-line drop-tank that has a built in IRST, ATFLIR, buddy-tanker kits, ALE-55 some HACTS work stations and so-on would do. Any frills would be the more powerful variant of the GE 414 and that is about it. All of this qualifies as reasonable yet allows Canada to be part of a joint bomb-truck effort like ALLIED FORCE 1999 with full PGM and network ability if needed.
Oh, and the requirement from the 1980’s when Canada bought classic F-18s is still valid. That is a two-engine jet for over water and tundra.
What does Boeing say? The sales force is in action.
Mike Gibbons, the Super Hornet’s program manager, says it has excellent capabilities that meet Canada’s needs. He says the planes could cost less than JSF — “in the low $50-million range” — and that the purchase would benefit domestic firms. Canadian firms are already providing parts for the planes, he says.
“We think Canada will make a very smart decision on the next generation fighter,” Gibbons says. “But, to make that decision, it really needs a competition.”
What does LM say? Given the F-35s troubled history, their claims are not very credible.
For its part, Lockheed Martin officials don’t dwell on reports that say the F-35 program is behind schedule or that the aircraft will cost more than double what was expected. Company representatives insist the F-35 will be delivered on time and that each plane will cost around $50 million. “The program is cooking along,” says Steve O’Bryan, vice-president of F-35 business development.
True. Wonder why you would recommend E model, rather than F or G, though.
If the Canadian were to choose Super Hornet for its mission flexibility (as the Australians did), F or G model would probably make more sense, IMO.
E has more gas onboard, giving it better radius/mission time, has a lower price and is “good enough” for what is needed.
Fuel load difference is nearly negligible.
“Lower price” & “good enough” – not exactly justifiable when it comes to multi-billion dollar projects like such.
Canada as you may know runs its defense on a shoestring. An F will be more expensive to maintain sustain for very little return on what little Canada uses fighters for. You have to pay for feeding and training the backseater. That and all the back seat gear, life-support helmets and gear and so on. I mentioned ALLIED FORCE to be a bit snarky. After that there was a Canandian defense official that mentioned the dubious value of Canada taking part in that air campaign at all. Then came putting jets into storage for lack of interest of running an air arm at the then numbers of fighters.
As for range and persistence; yes the E out does the F. with 900 some pounds more internal fuel it does show up as being different for range and persistence. Since Canada has used a majority one-crew fighter currently and certainly if they go with the F-35, they aren’t too concerned about having two-aircrew.
The goal being here; get some kind of capability that can be paid for with the questionable amounts of cash in the defense budget.
Pretty fair reply as one can get there in justifying the E over the F – depending on a case by case scenario. I’d have to concur in this case with regards to a notional, future CF Super E-mod. (Assuming the 2-engine requirement)?
I’d further concur with upping the next-gen system enhancements too and would in fact argue for the upgraded EPE-type engine (for an unknown next-gen performance/intercept speed capability requirements).
As a complete 4.5+ option, the PAWS-x w/SAPIR could basically give you EODAS and the space should be available to squeeze in a cued DIRCM accordingly.
In lieu of the wing-tip layout… perhaps contemplate a modified ‘pylon’ equipped, ALQ-218 class receiver/geo-locator station (i.e. Growler-lite) for an Electromagnetic-aware capability?
Maybe integrate an ALQ-903 escort jammer on the centerline if required, and have yourself a poor-mans, off-the-shelf NGJ-lite platform?
Integrate the Shadow-pod IRST derivative on the ATFLIR station and stick w/ the standard CL drop-tank?
To better net w/ tomorrow’s NORAD (i.e. Golden Eagles netted with F-22s)… simply integrate whatever 5th gen comms the Golden Eagles will be installing)?
a2a weapons for starters, could go with a Meteor + IRIS-T combo?? An Air/CM-Intercept variant of the NCADE would be logical… or at least an eventual IR-guided AMRAAM-C6/D?
No, the above is not your Adm Mike Mullen’s generation 4.2 restricted Super Hornet.
G,
The ATFLIR is a fine piece of equipment and has some basic ability for air to air tracking or at least ID. However where it is mounted causes some interesting unpleasant flying qualities which mention a few potential envelope risks when flying with the ATFLIR on the left waist.
When the basic flight manual for the jet mentions the sensation of driving down a gravel road at transonic speeds with the ATFLIR on you have to wonder. Good for strike but not really for sitting alert for air policing missions.
I like the centerline droptank/IRST made by LM because the Navy is already risking out the kit which means the Canadians would do well with this on the centerline. This gizmo is also sensor-fused to the cockpit displays… For alert I would have 2xAIM 9x on the tips, 2x AMRAAM at the waist, a naked wing with no pointed 4 degree outward SUU-79 pylons, the droptank IRST on the center- (of course the gun built in) and with an E you would have a good deal of gas compared to what their legacy Hornets do today. And you could even throw in pretty paint jobs for a few of the jets for PR for free. All and all given what Canada is able to afford for Defence… not bad.
Here is some of the Boeing sales PR…
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/sales/
Interesting data on the ATFLIR envelope effects – I hadn’t heard that. I’m curious then if AMRAAM placement has any similar (albeit lessened) turbulence effects, in the transonic? Or the cl tank?
The IRST/tank seems to be a highly capable development and valued asset, no question. (re: the waist-mounted IRST option, I was just thinking mostly to squeeze an extra few hundred pounds of gas into the sortie, via standard cl tank).
And RSF -
I’m a genuine fan of GRIPEN NG, as you are probably aware of already, and one potentially interesting scenario could be an allied mix of Gripen NG + Super Hornet, if they could take the same (common) motors. A Super buddy tanker could probably fill 2 NGs too?
As Eric was noting though, Canada might have a requirement of 2 engines so right off that could play into the decision. As far as Meteor and IRIS-T integration into Super Hornet – that would be a logical modification to expand consumer interest and coalition interoperability. It’s apparently even in the works too, concerning Meteor.
A hypothetical ‘alert’ loadout for added WVR capability could then see the IRST/Tank, wing-tip -9x + IRIS-T on the single, limited-drag outer wing pylons. I’d personally love to see even MICA added to that integration list – something probably not likely on a large scale project (competing with Rafale).
At 59 million each, the F-15E+ Super Eagle proposed back in 2006 (due to the glacial pace of the F-35) would also be a good pick for Canada. It would give them a fast and well developed platform that is interoperable with the USAF aircraft based in Alaska.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/10/05/209633/not-your-fathers-oldsmobile-boeing-f-15e+-super-eagle.html
Expect Canada to push hard on offsets. The Canadian Government paid part of the early development costs for the JSF so that Canadian firms could bid on the subcontracts. With a very advanced aerospace industry, Canada did pretty well in the bidding, winning back far more in contracts than Canada had pay at the gate. And Canada got this without having to commit to buying a single plane.
Pretty sharp policy, eh?
Now Canada gets to use her purchasing power to squeeze more offsets out of someone and LockMart is starting at the beginning with them. Never mind the current offsets; Canada already HAS those. The question is, what more are you going to put on the table to win that 65-plane contract? Does LockMart have anything more to give?
Are the Eurofighter buyers still desperate to dump their excess production? Is Boeing anxious to stay in the manned fighter business? Is SAAB still trying to score that big foreign sale that will allow them to break even on the Gripen?
Yes, yes, and yes. It’s a buyer’s market for manned fighters right now and, despite the eagerness of Air Command to keep up with the Joneses, I think you can expect the DND to drive a very hard bargain. If LockMart really wants the Canadian sale they really will have to deliver a 50 million-dollar plane. Because they don’t own any politicians in Canada and that’s a fact.
Dutch’s experience suggests that the Canadian probably won’t get as much offsets as they once hoped for.
Would love to see some of these allies govs & companies bring LMT to court (and, of course, that ain’t going to happen either).
The other aircraft pick we’ve left out is the Gripen NG. At 70+ million each it would be slightly more expensive then the Super Bug, but would offer Canada some critical advantages:
1. Interoperable with both US and NATO weapons.
2. Optimized to carry the Meteor BVR missile, IRIS-T missile.
3. Most advanced data link system in the world (compatible with Link 16 in the NG).
4. Enhanced NORA AESA and OTIS-IRS-T.
5. Capable of supercruising
6. Only 10 hours of maintenance per flight, including depot level maintenance. A hot engine can be replaced in 45 minutes by a team of three!
7. When used for air sovereignty intercepts, can be airborne in 60 seconds with APU and all systems operational 10 seconds after take off.
8. STOL capable – take off and landing in under 2000 feet.
9. Overall operating costs less then $2000 per flight hour.
10. 8000 hour airframe life.
Gripen NG wins hands down on the “shoestring” factor. Heck, for $9B they could buy 80 Gripen NG and still have money left over for spares, maintenance, training, flight operations and the Navy ship building budget …
Actually Heretic, the front-end Procurement cost might in fact tilt to Super II’s corner surprisingly. Over a 20 yr Life Cycle Cost though (single seat NG vs single seat SH), the NG would probably win out.