Canada's next Jet Fighter?

[AEWHistory]

Hah. The Su-37 isnt' a production aircraft. You'd be looking at either the Su-35S, or Su-30MK. Anyways like you say it's fantasy. Canada is far too solid of a NATO member to opt for Russian equipment.

I absolutely agree. In fact, I'd go one better. I'd argue that the USA would virtually veto any Canadian purchase of said equipment using whatever leverage was available.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I don't see why Canada needs much more than the capabilities of the Hornets, and the newer Hornets should do fine without causing any political fallout, saving some money (I think), and keeping maintenance costs minimal since the fighter fleet would be increasingly of a single type. It isn't like Canada borders a hostile power.... oh wait, I forgot about Detroit. Nevermind.

But seriously, I'm not really all the up on Canada's military needs, so maybe this assessment just isn't accurate.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I absolutely agree. In fact, I'd go one better. I'd argue that the USA would virtually veto any Canadian purchase of said equipment using whatever leverage was available.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I don't see why Canada needs much more than the capabilities of the Hornets, and the newer Hornets should do fine without causing any political fallout, saving some money (I think), and keeping maintenance costs minimal since the fighter fleet would be increasingly of a single type. It isn't like Canada borders a hostile power.... oh wait, I forgot about Detroit. Nevermind.

But seriously, I'm not really all the up on Canada's military needs, so maybe this assessment just isn't accurate.

Canada does have various NATO and NORAD commitments and that to some limited degree dictates how it structures and what it does with its fighter force, however, Super Hornets do more or less fulfill those needs.

However, the international user/future user base of the F-35 is fairly substantial, and were Canada to buy F-35s, this would simplify logistics during joint operations as a part of NATO.

The CF-188s are aging rapidly and as soon as F-35As are available, they'll be taken out of service, presumably in phases or in a series of blocks, a fact which will reduce the time spent operating two fighter types and the stress associated with it. I'm not 100% up to speed on how Canada plans to do the phase-in or phase-out when it introduces the F-35, so some clarification on this point would be greatly appreciated.

And Canada does border a hostile power, or at least a nation which has been a major adversary: Russia. The Russians have been tooling around Canada's Northern borders a fair amount in recent years, and Canada needs the ability to intercept the Tu-95 "Bears" and occasionally the Tu-160 "Blackjacks" flying these Northern patrols/missions. Now, the legacy CF-188s are doing a fine job at warding away the Russians, but F-35s would be perhaps slightly better for the job (the F-35A has superior range to the CF-188 and the F/A-18E, a fact which allows it to better operate over the vast expanse of the Canadian wilderness and which reduces the need for aerial refueling).

 

[SpudmanWP]

Well, the CF-18s are just finishing Phase2 of their modernization program with the last jet being delivered in late March 2010. They plan on being in use till at least 2017. The first Canadian F-35s are due for delivery in 2016.

Final Phase II Modernized CF-18 Hornet Delivered

 

[luccloud]

Well, the CF-18s are just finishing Phase2 of their modernization program with the last jet being delivered in late March 2010. They plan on being in use till at least 2017. The first Canadian F-35s are due for delivery in 2016.

Final Phase II Modernized CF-18 Hornet Delivered

You think the F35 will be delivered in time? I think it's better better if it's push back a year or two and we squeeze another year or so out of the CF-18 to save some $$$.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The current schedule is for Canada to receive 16 F-35s a year starting in 2016. Pilots for those will not start till 2016 also, so I do not see the F-35 going IOC for Canada till 2017 at least.
.

 

[bonehead]

F35 CURRENT ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT 135 MILLION AND TWO YEARS BEHIND SHEDULE WITH ESTIMATED FURTHER DELAYS AND COST OVER RUNS EXPECTED, EUROFIGHTER AND RAFALE ARE ALREADY OPERATIONAL, F18 is a 20 year old plane alread, Grippen is cheaper affordable capable, and comes with sorce codes a more cost effecrive purchase then any of the others.

 

[bonehead]

it seems one argument in favour of the JSF is its steatlh however as the RAF Regiment and Royal Artillery pointed out they werer able to track with rapier both the F118 and the B2 much to the Americans dismay when they were even given the photos from the trackers, so for me this is not an argument worth talking about on the JSF,

 

[Marc 1]

F35 CURRENT ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT 135 MILLION AND TWO YEARS BEHIND SHEDULE WITH ESTIMATED FURTHER DELAYS AND COST OVER RUNS EXPECTED, EUROFIGHTER AND RAFALE ARE ALREADY OPERATIONAL, F18 is a 20 year old plane alread, Grippen is cheaper affordable capable, and comes with sorce codes a more cost effecrive purchase then any of the others.

GREAT, GOOD IDEA - BUY SOMETHING THAT WILL BE OBSOLETE IN A VERY SHORT TIME (hey why are we shouting?). Newsflash - often military procurement programs, particularly ambitious programs like trying to design 3 versions of an aircraft using one basic airframe using game changing technologies - are going to run behind schedule. Hey at least this aircraft is flying and in testing - the KC-X still hasn't even been decided 8 years down the track. The F111 was delayed by years, the A400 is late too. Just because a program is running over budget and behind time (hint - its more than two years late) doesn't mean its a bad aircraft.

Yes the Grippen is cheaper - it will also be less capable and less survivable. It will also be a bit of an orphan - if Canada wants to integrate a new weapon to that airframe, chances are Canada will have to pay the costs of that integration. If Canada goes F-35, all the user nations will contribute to the cost of the additional capability - big savings there.

What's this obsession of yours about source code?

 

[Bonza]

it seems one argument in favour of the JSF is its steatlh however as the RAF Regiment and Royal Artillery pointed out they werer able to track with rapier both the F118 and the B2 much to the Americans dismay when they were even given the photos from the trackers, so for me this is not an argument worth talking about on the JSF,

But you understand that signature management technologies have changed since the F-117 and the B-2 were designed, right? And that all manner of LO aircraft have been picked up on radar, if the circumstances and context have been correct. It's not like a yes/no question on whether the aircraft can be detected, it's a matter of minimising the chances they'll be detected, minimising the capacity of the opponent to respond or engage if they are detected, and achieving synergies with other warfighting elements so as to utilise the capability to its maximum advantage.

If you've already made up your mind about it then think what you want, but it's not a static technology and nor is it as black and white as you describe it...

 

[Kilo 2-3]

it seems one argument in favour of the JSF is its steatlh however as the RAF Regiment and Royal Artillery pointed out they werer able to track with rapier both the F118 and the B2 much to the Americans dismay when they were even given the photos from the trackers, so for me this is not an argument worth talking about on the JSF,

Gf-0012 aust has addressed the issue of the alleged B-2 and F-117 tracking incident before and his comments are worth repeating. I've made a brief summary below, and all credit for the basic ideas belongs to him.

The USAF typically fits F-117s with radar reflectors while operating in airspace populated with civilian air traffic or during peacetime operations to allow for military and civil ATC to track the aircraft. The Rapier did track the F-117, but it was tracking an aircraft which had deliberately compromised its LO.

Now, close that thought. Bonza has made a good point in noting that LO is not a static technology. Generationally, the F-117's approach to LO is different from that taken by the F-22 or the F-35. For starters, look at the basic shapes of the aircraft.

The F-22 uses parallel angles and surfaces to disperse the radar beams, as opposed to the mesh-covered intakes, and sharp, pyramidal angles used on the F-117 or the Have Blue or the cruder shapes used on Tacit Blue. These shape changes over time alone are evidence of a maturing approach to LO, much the less the more classified developments in ECM and RAM.

 

[bonehead]

What's this obsession of yours about source code

in simple terms, its like you buying pc loaded windows3.1 and its passworded so you can never change it to XP and you can only update it if you have the password and someone else holds this so controls your pc, does this make any sence to you??or even change it to another operating system. so even if you buy the plane your limited to what the US will allow you to do with it via the source codes.

to update the codes the plane will need to be sent to the states to be updated as required, downtime for a sqn at least a week in the states, so its very much an issue the UK,Holland, Australia and others were not happy with this and stated there orders and continued support was based on access to these codes or the flexibily to update upgrade themselves, the US agreed then after it was to late have since relented on this agreement and its still a issue being discussed, israel are far more chessed off with the states considering the money were all putting into the pot.

 

[bonehead]

The idea of purchasing is getting what you need and want the first time, the issue with military purchasing is constant spec changes and design reconfigs reather than agreeing at the start and getting it made.

the a400 is a prime example each country has its own requirements therefore desigh changes are required which puts the project back and increases costs, tornado as a multirole aircraft was ideal until some bright spark desided to have dedicated fighter versions, the same was with the eurofighter designed as a fighter the RAF are now using it in the ground attack role, however Germany, italy,Spain still only uses it as a fighter. these changes can be added in at the design stages and the costs are equaled out, but once production starts and changes would be met by the country requiring the change.

did not say JSF was not a good aircraft but as i pointed out its cost is going to be its downfall, even the USAF/USN/Marines, UK has revised its numbers down the more airframes not purchased the higher the cost per unit will be, smaller countries will look else where if the cost keeps going up, check out also updates at defence news

 

[Bonza]

to update the codes the plane will need to be sent to the states to be updated as required, downtime for a sqn at least a week in the states, so its very much an issue the UK,Holland, Australia and others were not happy with this and stated there orders and continued support was based on access to these codes or the flexibily to update upgrade themselves, the US agreed then after it was to late have since relented on this agreement and its still a issue being discussed, israel are far more chessed off with the states considering the money were all putting into the pot.

I don't think it's true at all that planes are going to have to be sent back to the United States for upgrades based entirely on the US keeping the source code to itself. Read these articles, from November and December last year - they state that the US is intending to give customers a way to perform software upgrades on their aircraft without giving them access to the source code. While this might not address all your concerns, the situation isn't as bad as you imply.

Software Code Source of Tension for F-35 Sales

US upsets F-35 partners by withholding source code

 

[Todjaeger]

What's this obsession of yours about source code

in simple terms, its like you buying pc loaded windows3.1 and its passworded so you can never change it to XP and you can only update it if you have the password and someone else holds this so controls your pc, does this make any sence to you??or even change it to another operating system. so even if you buy the plane your limited to what the US will allow you to do with it via the source codes.

to update the codes the plane will need to be sent to the states to be updated as required, downtime for a sqn at least a week in the states, so its very much an issue the UK,Holland, Australia and others were not happy with this and stated there orders and continued support was based on access to these codes or the flexibily to update upgrade themselves, the US agreed then after it was to late have since relented on this agreement and its still a issue being discussed, israel are far more chessed off with the states considering the money were all putting into the pot.

An interesting explanation. Inaccurate, but interesting. The source code is just that, source code.

Continuing your use of the various Windows OS examples...

Software developers writing programs to run on Windows platforms do not need the proprietary programming (the source code) which is the Windows 3.x/NT/95/98/Me/XP/Vista/Win7 in order for them to write programs for whichever Windows OS they choose to. Instead, the software developer needs how the chosen Windows OS handles certain types of operations and function calls.

A similar situation exists with the software for the F-35 Lightning II. The source code is not needed to develop programs or integrate additional/new weapons and systems onto the JSF. What is needed is information on how the F-35 software and systems process information and interact. While the source code could potentially allow some group to derive how the F-35 interacts, IMO it would not be the most effective method of finding that out, since the manufacturer will provide that information (at least to some users like the UK).

The first thing which comes to mind for someone wanting source code, is that they want to design/write their own OS. Having the source code could show potential shortcuts to do so. A closer analogy to that situation would be someone with a copy of Monkey Linux sitting down and then writing Red Hat Linux, or some similar situation.

-Cheers

 

[bonehead]

Yep aware of the current update but whats been proposed by the US DOD is that the codes will not be supplied outside the US but all upgrades will be undertaken at a USAF base yet to be agreed, there is a great deal of protection by the US on this aircraft and rightly so, but as over 50% of the development cost has been funded by the 1st stage partners you would expect them to ge given the access codes as well, the issue will revole around ownership of the codes.

the concerns are operational indepenadance from the US. which are the concerns all partners have.

which is one of the selling points JSF competiors have as well as lower operating costs per unit.

 

[Bonza]

Yep aware of the current update but whats been proposed by the US DOD is that the codes will not be supplied outside the US but all upgrades will be undertaken at a USAF base yet to be agreed, there is a great deal of protection by the US on this aircraft and rightly so, but as over 50% of the development cost has been funded by the 1st stage partners you would expect them to ge given the access codes as well, the issue will revole around ownership of the codes.

the concerns are operational indepenadance from the US. which are the concerns all partners have.

which is one of the selling points JSF competiors have as well as lower operating costs per unit.

So why did you state:

to update the codes the plane will need to be sent to the states to be updated as required

When what you meant is that someone in DoD has proposed it, and when (as Tod points out) there are options on the table for users to upgrade their aircraft outside of the US? Try to qualify what you say about this stuff so it's easy to distinguish between absolutes and non-absolutes - I'm not saying that to be rude, it's just that when you speak in absolutes it's easy for other posters to misinterpret what you're saying.

 

[bonehead]

yep fully understand, and sorry if misled anyone, a base has been identified but i cant remember the name, but then as with any program until final delivery nothing is confirmed. as for using the windows as an example maybe not the best to use.

 

[OpinionNoted]

So fi F35 were to fall over,or if for some reason canada deemed F35 not their 1st choice for their next combat aircraft,what are the alternatives for canada...is it the obvious smoother transistion to US types...
Shornet/F15,or can a european type be realistically strongly in contention.
Whats the political feeling in canada to F35...whats the canadian airforces feeling,the canadian media,military enthusiasts and publics feeling towards this aquistion.

 

[StevoJH]

So fi F35 were to fall over,or if for some reason canada deemed F35 not their 1st choice for their next combat aircraft,what are the alternatives for canada...is it the obvious smoother transistion to US types...
Shornet/F15,or can a european type be realistically strongly in contention.
Whats the political feeling in canada to F35...whats the canadian airforces feeling,the canadian media,military enthusiasts and publics feeling towards this aquistion.

Presumably Super Hornet or Typhoon. Fairly sure the F-15 is close to the end of its development cycle with the USAF.

 

[Bonza]

Presumably Super Hornet or Typhoon. Fairly sure the F-15 is close to the end of its development cycle with the USAF.

My money would be on Super Hornets. When you look at the capability offered, the global fleet size, the through-life development potential and support (considering its a frontline aircraft with the US Navy) and the prices being thrown around with current Super Hornet sales, it seems like a very solid option. I don't know Canada's requirements, though - and I'm sure the various European companies would love to get their feet in the door.