Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[John Newman]

Was just wondering on how the transfer of legacy hornets from Aus is going? I recall seeing some photos of the first arrivals.

There were some media reports last November that an AN-124 had made a couple of visits to RAAF Williamtown.

The reports suggested each visit was to pick up two Classic Hornet airframes each time, partially disassembled of course.

Other than that I’ve not seen any other news reported.

Cheers,

 

[John Fedup]

If everything was A+, junior would normally have his people hyping the additions to the RCAF fleet. However, given current procurement issues, the less said about both the fighter replacement and the CSC, silence is safer.

 

[John Fedup]

The recent ITQ by the Canadian government for its tanker replacement program resulted in only one qualified supplier, Airbus. The result is hardly set as the link shows Canada may reopen the ITQ.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2021/04/01/d71a6675367d8bf87a9ccf439567bcd3/sttc_itq_qualified_supplier_list.pdf

 

[ngatimozart]

The recent ITQ by the Canadian government for its tanker replacement program resulted in only one qualified supplier, Airbus. The result is hardly set as the link shows Canada may reopen the ITQ.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2021/04/01/d71a6675367d8bf87a9ccf439567bcd3/sttc_itq_qualified_supplier_list.pdf

If Boeing didn't respond they don't have a lot of choice do they.

 

[John Fedup]

If Boeing didn't respond they don't have a lot of choice do they.

Indeed, I wonder why Boeing didn’t respond? Can’t be a delivery issue as our super duper procurement operation will require a decade at least to get the first RFQ out.

 

[swerve]

Hasn't the KC-46 lost every competition against the A330MRTT outside the USA, where the selection was blatantly political? Even in the USA it lost until the rules were changed to favour the KC-46.

Japan ordered the KC-46 without a competition, making it clear that commonality with the USAF was the most important factor, & IIRC the participation of Japanese firms, & Israel had no choice: Boeing & the US govt. effectively blocked the Israelis converting 767s themselves, & A330MRTT wasn't available.

Putting your aircraft forward for evaluation costs staff time & money. No point if you expect to lose. I think nowadays Boeing is only offering the KC-46 where factors such as those above are dominant.

 

[John Fedup]

Hasn't the KC-46 lost every competition against the A330MRTT outside the USA, where the selection was blatantly political? Even in the USA it lost until the rules were changed to favour the KC-46.

Japan ordered the KC-46 without a competition, making it clear that commonality with the USAF was the most important factor, & IIRC the participation of Japanese firms, & Israel had no choice: Boeing & the US govt. effectively blocked the Israelis converting 767s themselves, & A330MRTT wasn't available.

Putting your aircraft forward for evaluation costs staff time & money. No point if you expect to lose. I think nowadays Boeing is only offering the KC-46 where factors such as those above are dominant.

You’re probably right but they might have fooled some in junior’s cabinet with a promise to have Bombardier build them in Quebec.

 

[Albedo]

Was just wondering on how the transfer of legacy hornets from Aus is going? I recall seeing some photos of the first arrivals.

Canada nearing end of decade-long search for new fighter jet, top official says - National | Globalnews.ca

The aircraft competing to replace the CF-18 are Lockheed Martin's F-35, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen.

globalnews.ca

The latest report that the CF-18 replacement program is on track to sign a contract next year, also mentions that 15 of 18 Australian F-18s have been delivered with 3 having completed Canadianization and in operation.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1377751466702733313

In other CF-18 related news, there were some nice pictures last week of 19 CF-18s from CFB Cold Lake doing an elephant walk for the RCAF's 97th birthday. While 19 CF-18s taking off together is impressive, the curmudgeon in me can't help but note this might well represent the the entirety of Canada's deployable fighter force on the west coast which is less impressive.

If Boeing didn't respond they don't have a lot of choice do they.

Airbus A330 MRTT cleared to pursue Canadian tanker deal

Canada has notified Airbus Defence & Space that its A330 multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) has been qualified to bid in a process to replace its air force fleet of A310s. A rival offer of the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus was rejected by Ottawa.

www.flightglobal.com

Boeing confirms that its candidate will not be considered for the next project phase.

“Boeing was informed by the government of Canada that the KC-46 did not qualify for the country’s Strategic Tanker Transport Capability project,” the company says. “While disappointed in the decision, we will remain ready to bring the full depth and breadth of Boeing to our offer in the event Canada decides to reopen the bidding process.”

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2021/02/12/6febfc7d18a905aac70550ec4632ee61/sttc_-_invitation_to_qualify_itq.pdf

Apparently Boeing did respond but didn't qualify. The ITQ specified a plane capable of carrying up to 130 troops and their passenger bags (Airlift Flight I configuration), but the KC-46 is only designed for 114 troops. Boeing's response to their rejection seems accepting so far, but with the requirements just happening to exceed the KC-46's design, I wouldn't be surprised if the process becomes tied up in complaints that this was not a coincidence and that the requirements were designed to favour the larger A330 MRTT.

 

[John Fedup]

Surely there are other differences between these competitors besides a difference of 16 more troops with kit? Having a product successfully deployed with several air forces has to count for something as well. No doubt Boeing will contest, but not before the fast jet replacement decision.

 

[John Fedup]

Another negative incident involving the CH-148 Cyclone. Seems to be minor (warning light) but the nature of the warning must have concerned the pilot enough to land in a park. No damaged reported and the helicopter was towed back to base. Don’t expect any quick answers from DND on this latest incident.

Cockpit warning forces crew of Cyclone helicopter to land in park near Halifax

The crew of a Canadian Forces helicopter landed the aircraft in a park east of Halifax on Tuesday after they noticed a warning indicator in the cockpit.

atlantic.ctvnews.ca

 

[ngatimozart]

Another negative incident involving the CH-148 Cyclone. Seems to be minor (warning light) but the nature of the warning must have concerned the pilot enough to land in a park. No damaged reported and the helicopter was towed back to base. Don’t expect any quick answers from DND on this latest incident.

Why is it negative? It could be a bog standard fault; anything from a faulty warning light to an actual mechanical fault itself. The pilot did the right thing. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

 

[John Fedup]

Why is it negative? It could be a bog standard fault; anything from a faulty warning light to an actual mechanical fault itself. The pilot did the right thing. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

It is negative from the POV the incident is another in a long series of setbacks for this program but you are right, most likely a minor problem and the pilot was absolutely correct in landing the helicopter ASAP.

 

[John Fedup]

Interesting info from the recent budget concerning penalties for damaging Canadian economic interests. As the article suggests, this may be a way for the government to prepare junior’s anti F-35 supporters as to why the F-35 had to be selected. Boeing’s fight with Bombardier will cost them perhaps. Works for me, we get F-35s and Boeing gets the shaft for convincing the US government to impose a 300% tariff on the C-Series.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-boeing-warning-1.5994031

 

[IPCR_quad]

Interesting info from the recent budget concerning penalties for damaging Canadian economic interests. As the article suggests, this may be a way for the government to prepare junior’s anti F-35 supporters as to why the F-35 had to be selected. Boeing’s fight with Bombardier will cost them perhaps. Works for me, we get F-35s and Boeing gets the shaft for convincing the US government to impose a 300% tariff on the C-Series.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-boeing-warning-1.5994031

As a Canadian myself, considering Canada's economy is hammered hard by covid, IMO Canada will select Gripen E over F-35 and F-18E as its next generation fighter jet to replace F-18C. It is much less costly to buy and operate, and will give Canada under the Liberals a more or less non aligned foreign policy considering Sweden is not a NATO member state.

 

[Todjaeger]

Considering Canada's economy has been hammered hard by covid, IMO Canada will select Gripen E over F-35 and F-18E as its next generation fighter jet to replace F-18C. It is much less costly to buy and operate, and will give Canada a more or less non aligned foreign policy considering Sweden is not a NATO member state.

And yet, Canada IS a NATO member-nation. Further, Canada is also a member of the NORAD joint command, meaning that barring a major reset of Canadian policy, non-alignment is not an option.

Yes, it is possible that Canada will select the Gripen E as the replacement for the F/A-18A/B fighters (it is not a "next gen" fighter though) due to the projected short-term costs if purchased from a Swedish production line.

OTOH though, the longer this procurement programme drags on, the less viable some of the selection choices become in terms of service life. A fighter design with a comparatively small user base, few of whom are members of NATO, will have less support in terms of maintaining compatibility with NATO and other allied systems. There are about ~24 Gripens in service between the Czech and Hungarian air forces which are both NATO members. If a new NATO or NORAD system comes out, Canada would likely bear the primary cost/tech burden to integrate such a system to Gripen, unless it was a system not restricted to NATO or NORAD members.

If Canada wishes to, it could of course take a short-sighted view and just make a selection based upon initial acquisition cost. IMO thought it would be far wiser to consider the longer term service requirements and both the whole service life costs, as well as costs over time. I specifically mentioned both as Gripen would likely no longer be viable for frontline service in contested airspace starting some time in the early to mid-2030's, which would likely be only a decade after their entry into RCAF service. This in turn would likely increase either the costs to operate to account for potential operational/combat losses, or force an earlier retirement for a fighter design that is appropriate for service today if it was already in RCAF service. However, since the Gripen E is not yet in Canadian service, or even any contract for such an order signed, IMO it would likely be several years before the first Gripen E could enter RCAF service. I do not know what Sweden or even Brazil's industrial capacity is to turn out Gripen E's but I would expect it would be at least two years from the date of the contract being signed before first delivery. Honestly I would not be surprised if the timeframe turned out to be closer to four or five years from contract signing to initial deliveries. Assuming a projected 20 or 25 year service life and initial deliveries starting ~2025, then the RCAF would be planning on operating the Gripen E until the 2045-2050 timeframe...

 

[IPCR_quad]

And yet, Canada IS a NATO member-nation. Further, Canada is also a member of the NORAD joint command, meaning that barring a major reset of Canadian policy, non-alignment is not an option.

Yes, it is possible that Canada will select the Gripen E as the replacement for the F/A-18A/B fighters (it is not a "next gen" fighter though) due to the projected short-term costs if purchased from a Swedish production line.

OTOH though, the longer this procurement programme drags on, the less viable some of the selection choices become in terms of service life. A fighter design with a comparatively small user base, few of whom are members of NATO, will have less support in terms of maintaining compatibility with NATO and other allied systems. There are about ~24 Gripens in service between the Czech and Hungarian air forces which are both NATO members. If a new NATO or NORAD system comes out, Canada would likely bear the primary cost/tech burden to integrate such a system to Gripen, unless it was a system not restricted to NATO or NORAD members.

If Canada wishes to, it could of course take a short-sighted view and just make a selection based upon initial acquisition cost. IMO thought it would be far wiser to consider the longer term service requirements and both the whole service life costs, as well as costs over time. I specifically mentioned both as Gripen would likely no longer be viable for frontline service in contested airspace starting some time in the early to mid-2030's, which would likely be only a decade after their entry into RCAF service. This in turn would likely increase either the costs to operate to account for potential operational/combat losses, or force an earlier retirement for a fighter design that is appropriate for service today if it was already in RCAF service. However, since the Gripen E is not yet in Canadian service, or even any contract for such an order signed, IMO it would likely be several years before the first Gripen E could enter RCAF service. I do not know what Sweden or even Brazil's industrial capacity is to turn out Gripen E's but I would expect it would be at least two years from the date of the contract being signed before first delivery. Honestly I would not be surprised if the timeframe turned out to be closer to four or five years from contract signing to initial deliveries. Assuming a projected 20 or 25 year service life and initial deliveries starting ~2025, then the RCAF would be planning on operating the Gripen E until the 2045-2050 timeframe...

Thanks for the analysis. I suspect given the current covid crisis in Canada a decision on a new fighter jet will face a great deal of public scrutiny and it will take some time yet and next year for a decision does not seem likely. There was already a great deal of public criticism with spending too much money on new fighter jets prior to covid, as evident in the links below. The criticism will only increase as Canada's covid lockdown stretches on with no end in the foreseeable future, with children missing school for quite some time already and much funding is needed to support schooling. Also, Canada's next federal election is 2023 or before that, so it would be wise for the major parties to not make a decision prior to 2023, especially given the current situation.

No, Canada Doesn’t Need to Spend $19 Billion on Jet Fighters | The Tyee

US, Canada talks underway to decide if the F-35 will be pulled from Canada’s fighter competition

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the analysis. I suspect given the current covid crisis in Canada a decision on a new fighter jet will face a great deal of public scrutiny and it will take some time yet and next year for a decision does not seem likely. There was already a great deal of public criticism with spending too much money on new fighter jets prior to covid, as evident in the links below. The criticism will only increase as Canada's covid lockdown stretches on with no end in the foreseeable future, with children missing school for quite some time already and much funding is needed to support schooling. Also, Canada's next federal election is 2023 or before, so it would be wise for the major parties to not make a decision prior to 2023, especially given the current situation.

No, Canada Doesn’t Need to Spend $19 Billion on Jet Fighters | The Tyee

US, Canada talks underway to decide if the F-35 will be pulled from Canada’s fighter competition

An unfortunate reality that seems to keep escaping Canadians, both the public at large as well as decision and policy-makers in gov't and politics, is that postponing programmes to save money, can often lead to policy failure and result in greater costs/less benefit later on.

It does not help matters that so much of the Canadian public seems to be so ignorant on defence matters and therefore place so little importance on properly supporting Canada's armed forces. The comments section of the Defense News article are rather illustrative of what I am referring to, with a number of the false or inaccurate claims being made. As a side note, Defensenews as a source does seem to have a history of bashing the F-35, so quite a few readers either do not bother looking at F-35 articles there, or take whatever gets published/posted with large grains of salt.

The second article is also rather inaccurate, starting off with the difference between a programme cost, and the cost of specific kit and why there is a difference. The basic gist of the author's opinion piece is that Canada should not be spending money of ANY fighter replacement, without giving any consideration to the reality that the RCAF's current fighter inventory is nearing 40 years service and the problems associated with keeping advanced kit that old in service. I am uncertain whether or not the author, in their opinion, would have the RCAF disband the fighter fleet, but that would be the ultimate impact if no replacement fighter is selected and ordered in the near future.

An important consideration for the decision should be what the expected and likely security situation will be for Canada and the world, during the expected service life for whatever ends up getting selected.

 

[John Fedup]

I believe a decision is to be made this year. However, issuing a PO, that could be delayed but it would costly to do so.

 

[StobieWan]

Really, that decision should have been made a while back - the consequences of delaying a purchase of new kit has resulted in several costly measures to keep the existing jets flying.

I understand that the existing fleet fully reflects their age and availability isn't stellar.

There are jets that are cheaper per flying hour but there's no point in buying something that doesn't do the job - and believe the fuel fraction and payload for Gripen E doesn't match the requirements set out.

 

[John Fedup]

An unfortunate reality that seems to keep escaping Canadians, both the public at large as well as decision and policy-makers in gov't and politics, is that postponing programmes to save money, can often lead to policy failure and result in greater costs/less benefit later on.

It does not help matters that so much of the Canadian public seems to be so ignorant on defence matters and therefore place so little importance on properly supporting Canada's armed forces. The comments section of the Defense News article are rather illustrative of what I am referring to, with a number of the false or inaccurate claims being made. As a side note, Defensenews as a source does seem to have a history of bashing the F-35, so quite a few readers either do not bother looking at F-35 articles there, or take whatever gets published/posted with large grains of salt.

The second article is also rather inaccurate, starting off with the difference between a programme cost, and the cost of specific kit and why there is a difference. The basic gist of the author's opinion piece is that Canada should not be spending money of ANY fighter replacement, without giving any consideration to the reality that the RCAF's current fighter inventory is nearing 40 years service and the problems associated with keeping advanced kit that old in service. I am uncertain whether or not the author, in their opinion, would have the RCAF disband the fighter fleet, but that would be the ultimate impact if no replacement fighter is selected and ordered in the near future.

An important consideration for the decision should be what the expected and likely security situation will be for Canada and the world, during the expected service life for whatever ends up getting selected.

Unfortunately the Canadian public will remain ignorant about defence matters. You can’t fix stupid. This suits pollies just fine as they can delay and divert funds from defence to more voter friendly portfolios.