Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[stoney]

I wonder how much HKA Global contributed to junior's Liberal party to get this farcical contract?

Fairness Monitor selected for Canada's future fighter jet project

They should have given the contract to John as we all know he is unbiased.

Maybe the defence dept. was advised that F-35 was overpriced still plagued with a myriad of defects and has less than 50% serviceability and if they waited 5 years the price will drop and it might live up to its hype and be a good deal. In the meantime we know what we have and how to employ it and the same government will still be here and we don't care what john thinks.

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

They should have given the contract to John as we all know he is unbiased.

Maybe the defence dept. was advised that F-35 was overpriced still plagued with a myriad of defects and has less than 50% serviceability and if they waited 5 years the price will drop and it might live up to its hype and be a good deal. In the meantime we know what we have and how to employ it and the same government will still be here and we don't care what john thinks.

Cheers

If John is a poster on here, personal attacks, abuse or insulting is not acceptable. I would suggest that you keep such sentiments for elsewhere.

 

[oldsig127]

Maybe the defence dept. was advised that F-35 was overpriced still plagued with a myriad of defects and has less than 50% serviceability and if they waited 5 years the price will drop and it might live up to its hype and be a good deal. In the meantime we know what we have and how to employ it and the same government will still be here and we don't care what john thinks.

Cheers

Can you provide a source for this assertion? It seems to be in conflict with most other reports.

oldsig

Edit: emphasis

 

[John Fedup]

The Feb 9 deadline for registering intent to bid on the fighter contract is fast approaching and Boeing has yet to sign-up. As the link below suggests, relations between Boeing and Canada remain frosty. The other issue complicating things is the doubtful status of NAFTA. Given the time frame for getting new fighters, Boeing may feel they couldn't keep the SH line open that long unless new orders besides the ones they recently won materialize even if the two sides made up.

The government of Canada has to be concerned with the Canadian aerospace industry and their desire to continue being suppliers to the JSF program. A rejection of the F-35 will end future business for Canada and the stupid delay in replacement is making it harder for suppliers to even discuss the future with LM even though there is still hope for an eventual purchase. This gives non-partner purchasers a chance to beat Canada out of potential business. If Boeing declines to bid, it could allow LM to reconsider its options in dealing with Canadian aerospace companies for future contracts as LM would be the most likely bidder to win the fighter replacement contract, as distant as that date will probably be.

Deadline looming for Boeing to decide on Canada fighter jet bid

 

[ngatimozart]

They should have given the contract to John as we all know he is unbiased.

Maybe the defence dept. was advised that F-35 was overpriced still plagued with a myriad of defects and has less than 50% serviceability and if they waited 5 years the price will drop and it might live up to its hype and be a good deal. In the meantime we know what we have and how to employ it and the same government will still be here and we don't care what john thinks.

Cheers

Can you provide a source for this assertion? It seems to be in conflict with most other reports.

oldsig

Edit: emphasis

You were asked to provide a source for that assertion. I would strongly suggest that you provide said source or you will run afoul of the Moderators.

 

[stoney]

You were asked to provide a source for that assertion. I would strongly suggest that you provide said source or you will run afoul of the Moderators.

I prefixed my statement with the word "MAYBE" which I thought indicated I was speculating.
Second when running for election the Prime Minister said the Gov. would not get the F-35 simply because it did not work. He stated this many times publicly
and on National TV. Lastly on Aerospace & Defence website there are numerous US gov. reports of many problems that have been plaguing the plane over the last many years . I am not a computer literate person and do not have the foggiest idea how to attach sources and quotes to my mail's and since it is all public knowledge I was simply offering a possible scenario. Didn't realize some were so touchy so will not offer an opinion again. Thanks.

 

[ngatimozart]

I prefixed my statement with the word "MAYBE" which I thought indicated I was speculating.
Second when running for election the Prime Minister said the Gov. would not get the F-35 simply because it did not work. He stated this many times publicly
and on National TV. Lastly on Aerospace & Defence website there are numerous US gov. reports of many problems that have been plaguing the plane over the last many years . I am not a computer literate person and do not have the foggiest idea how to attach sources and quotes to my mail's and since it is all public knowledge I was simply offering a possible scenario. Didn't realize some were so touchy so will not offer an opinion again. Thanks.

People are not being touchy. In this case it's about people responding to legitimate questions from other posters. Defence-Aerospace have a somewhat biased opinion about the F-35 and we treat their reporting of that program with some caution.

This is forum has a core membership who are defence professionals, and most of the Moderators are defence professionals. There are also members who aren't defence professionals per se, but who have a wide and respected knowledge of defence issues.

One final point, if you have a problem with a Moderator and / or their decisions, deal with it by personal messaging that Moderator, or another Moderator, rather than discussing it in the open forum.

 

[John Fedup]

This article describes the latest itinerary for an eventual RFP on new fighters. Note the 2019 submission date and the 2020 decision date. The former date is around election time so junior can claim he’s doing something on the issue and the latter date is after the election (which he will likely win) whereupon he will punt the program “down the road”. Jets arriving in 2025 and IOC in 2026, pure fantasy.

Here is how Canada's new fighter jet purchase will unfold

 

[John Fedup]

Some here may know junior plans to legalize marijuana on July first. This article describes an urgent requirement by DND. Clearly, a much important requirement, in junior’s mind, for DND. Funny thing is, most of the provincial governments aren’t ready to sell as they are still working out the details. Drug dealers have nothing to worry about, poor delivery and astronomical taxes will persevere their businesses.
IN THE NEWS | FrontLine Defence

 

[t68]

I haven't heard anymore details of the RAAF classic buy, is that still going ahead or has been put on hold now that another competition is being held

 

[John Fedup]

I haven't heard anymore details of the RAAF classic buy, is that still going ahead or has been put on hold now that another competition is being held

Silence describes the status. Likely you posters in Australia will hear something before we do. I assume the defence minister is getting a lot of blow back in private from RCAF brass. Junior has been stepping in do-do lately on other domestic issues which has resulted in erosion of his base support but not enough to endanger his re-election, yet. He will want to keep a lid on any problematic defence stories for awhile.

 

[John Fedup]

Just saw this story so if the 2031 date for FOC is correct, I think the used classics would be required.

Full operational capability of Canada's new fighter jets won't happen until 2031 - iPolitics

 

[John Fedup]

Canada has rejoined NATO’s AWACS program. This is a relatively low cost effort that junior can use to promote his “standing up” to emerging threats in Europe. Although NATO will appreciate this, it won’t fool anyone in Europe as to Canada’s minimalist defence efforts. The leftist snowflakes here will be mightily impressed though.

Canada Rejoins NATO Airborne Warning and Control System Program

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Canada has used the CP140 as its primary MPA and now ISR asset for almost 40 years and we can expect it to soldier on for another decade thanks to the amazing work of those who fly and maintain the fleet primarily here in Nova Scotia. The recent talk on the RCN thread about the possible collaboration of Canada and European allies in developing a replacement MPA is interesting for Canadian industry. We are world leaders in aircraft integration and maritime and ISR operations both in the military and in private business. The aircraft is the taxi to get the sensors and weapons to the area of operations. With the exception of the P1 which has been designed from the ground up as a military aircraft all other contemporary MPA / ISR aircraft have been based upon commercial airliners.

A C series MPA would need structural design changes for the bomb bay and strengthening the same as the highly modified B737 for the P8 has. Sensors and weapons integration is the realm of companies such as IMP, Provincial Airlines, and Field Aviation. SAAB has done this with their Swordfish on business and turbo prop aircraft but no takers as of yet. Of all the military programs that cooperation should be able to produce a viable product this is the one that Canada can leverage for industrial benefit and a replacement for our venerable Auroras.

The Argus was the first post war large MPA and it served this country for twenty plus years. An Argus II in the form of a Bombardier "C" series would take up some of the losses that can be expected as a result of Juniors Boeing spat. Canada will always have a need for a long range MPA / ISR aircraft so I do not see us ever getting away from this capability. As much as I like the P1 Canada will never go down that track.

It is good to see that the powers that be are at least sitting at a table to have a conversation. Hopefully these discussions will result in a deal to see European systems fitted to the C series with Canada being the centre of aircraft production and system integration.

 

[John Fedup]

Nova, your points are all valid but the C-Series program is 50.1% owned by Airbus assuming the deal is approved. The larger A320 or A321 would likely be Airbus’s choice although the potential customers could possibly dictate the platform choice. If they want a C-Series, Airbus would have to decide if the risk for a fairly limited order is worth it. After the A400M, I suspect they are a bit shy these days. I think this is true regardless of which platform is desired by customers. After all, how many MPA are needed in total? The total number would be smaller than the non-USN total of the P-8 IMO. In Canda’s case the P-8 makes much more sense. Too bad it is is not likely going to happen.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Other than the investment by Airbus into the program is it really necessary now that the US has quashed the tariffs on the C series? Why set up an Alabama assembly line at this point.

 

[John Fedup]

Airbus didn’t pay SFA for the 50.1%. That’s why they were the only winner in the Boeing-Bombardier dispute. As for the Alabama plant, they already have a plant producing A330s (I think, maybe it’s A320s) so a C-Series plant shouldn’t be a huge burden for them. Given the souring trade relationship situation with the US, a US operation will provide some cover for future US sales.

 

[Todjaeger]

Replying here so as to not further pollute the RCN thread:

Another darkhorse could be Saab's Swordfish which will be based on the Bombardier Global 6000 business jet or the Bombardier’s Q400 turboprop. Somewhat smaller than the P-8a but the Swedes do seem to be able to cram a lot of capability into their small airframes.

The fact that they are cheaper and based Bombardier airframes has got to be a big selling point.

In the above case, cheaper is likely just that, cheaper, and not 'better'. From an airframe perspective, using a Bombardier Global 6000 is likely to cost ~USD$20 mil. less than the P-8A Poseidon airframe based off the B737-700 & -800. Where the (IMO) important difference will be is the capabilities of the C4ISR and weapon systems. Apart from the fact that the Global 6000-based Swordfish MPA is still just a 'paper airplane' at this stage (which means actual development and integration costs are unknown), I do not see how the Swordfish systems could have performance comparable to those aboard a P-8A Poseidon. After all, Saab claims here that the Swordfish systems are available on two different Bombardier platforms, the Global 6000 jet, and the Q400 turboprop. Being able to fit radars aboard a much smaller platform, with less power generation capability, is going to impact the performance of some systems like the ground/sea-search radar. Also having a smaller sized platform to work with will limit the number of workstations that can be fitted, limiting the number of potential operators.

A Bombardier platform kitted out for MPA operations by Saab or another company is certainly possible. I just do not see Canada being able to take such a path and get an MPA with performance comparable to a P-8A Poseidon for similar or less money than a P-8A would cost.

 

[swerve]

The Swordfish isn't entirely a paper aeroplane. It has some commonality with the SAAB Globaleye (sold to the UAE, in production), which has the same surface search radar & the airframe modifications for it, & perhaps some other shared modifications.

The Global 6000 is a pretty big business jet: about the same maximum take off weight as the Atlantique. Smaller & less power than the P-8, certainly, but not in the same class as the C-295 or ATR-72 MPAs.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Swordfish isn't entirely a paper aeroplane. It has some commonality with the SAAB Globaleye (sold to the UAE, in production), which has the same surface search radar & the airframe modifications for it, & perhaps some other shared modifications.

The Global 6000 is a pretty big business jet: about the same maximum take off weight as the Atlantique. Smaller & less power than the P-8, certainly, but not in the same class as the C-295 or ATR-72 MPAs.

I tried to find out what AESA is being used for the maritime surveillance radar on the Swordfish and Globaleye version with an increased maritime/ground focus but no luck as yet.

While I agree that the Global 6000 is in a different class from a C-295 or ATR72 MPA, the Bombardier Q400 MPA is not, and the Swordfish system is available on the Q400... That strongly suggests to me that the power budget for the Swordfish systems can be met by the Q400. On the good side, that would in turn suggest that the Global 6000 should have excess power generation available, leaving room for potential future development. However, the P-8A Poseidon also has excess power generation capacity so that there is some available for future developments. On the downside though, is that with the Q400 likely having a smaller power budget available and able to meet the demands from Swordfish systems, I would expect those systems to have less capability or performance.

One of Boeing's claims in it\s P-8 Quick Facts (so take this with an unhealthily larger grain of salt) is...

P-8 has twice the sonobuoy processing capability and can carry 30 percent more sonobuoys than any maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft currently flying.

Having a greater processing capacity plus additional workstations would seem to give the P-8 an increased chance of detecting a contact if/when needed.

As a side note, the cost for a Globaleye in January was USD$236 mil. which was for a 3rd Globaleye for the UAE. While the Swordfish systems do not include the Erieye ER which the Globaleye has, the Swordfish system includes acoustic processors and ordinance/stores hardpoints and dropping capabilities. This would in turn suggest that while a Global 6000/Swordfish MPA might be less expensive than a Boeing P-8A Poseidon, if it was, it would probably not be substantially less. Meanwhile, it would almost certainly have a much smaller user base for future development.