Deciding on the F-35 soon?
Canada Looks to Accelerate F-35 Decision; Lockheed Eyes Consortium BuyOn the other hand, if the government doesn't actually have to spend significant money for some time, and if Canadian firms get business...
Canada is working to bring forward a decision on its new fighter to later this year, with the Lockheed Martin-led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter facing ostensible competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG (Next Generation) [see here and here].
"We are trying to advance the decision to 2009," says a Department of National Defense (DND) official. The intent, assuming the F-35 is selected, is to allow Canada to participate in a potential "consortium buy" promising better pricing and industrial rewards.
"A consortium buy would allow us to put international aircraft under a longer-term contract in advance of U.S. multi-year procurement," says Tom Burbage, Lockheed's executive vice president and general manager, F-35 program integration. "This would allow us to do some average pricing," to reduce the cost of early production aircraft.
Lockheed tried to put together a consortium-buy proposal a year ago - criticized by some as a controversial effort - but Burbage says the supply chain was "up to its ears" negotiating the first three low-rate initial production contracts.
"We plan to go back to the supply chain a year from now and negotiate a proposal for Lot 5. Most of the international aircraft come in with Lot 6," he says.
Canada is working to get a fighter decision on the cabinet's agenda for later this year [emphasis added, interesting subject for the sentence]. A cabinet go-ahead would allow the DND to submit its plan for procurement of 65 aircraft to Ottawa's treasury board for budget approval.
According to the DND official, there are no plans to accelerate the delivery of new fighters, which are planned to begin by 2018 [emphasis added] to replace Canada's CF-18s as they are phased out between 2017 and 2020.
Canada was the first country to join the United States and the United Kingdom as a partner in development of the JSF, and its industry has significant participation on the program. The original plan was to replace all 80 CF-18s, but "65 is sufficient to do the job," says the official.
Photo credit: Lockheed Martin
See also:
Future fightersAs for lengthy acquisition: the fixed-wing SAR aircraft still under, er, discussion, along with CH-47Fs, and not enough money for Joint Support Ships and Arctic/Offshore Patrol Vessels (suitable Canadian designs for ships are also something of a problem).
Update thought: What about that competitive bidding process? Can hardly do it in six months from now.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 4:08 p.m.
6 Comments:
I am amazed it has even made it this far . . our Blue Boys are terminally against single engine fighter aircraft.
I can imagine there is some serious inside the ballpark politik'n going on for other aircraft . . I'd bet he Eurofighter tranch 2 bird has a lot of supporters among the zoomies.
Eurofighter Tranch 2 is too expensive for a Generation 4.5 fighter.
Insufficiently stealthy in the long-range active-radar air-to-air environment of the next decade, Eurofighter (and all other non-5th Generation fighters) ceases to be a force.
Unfortunately, soon after that point, Eurofighter becomes Deadfighter.
Why we need new fighters ? In 1999 ,about 6 of the 20 CF-18 which were involved in the conflict in Kosovo had a lot of major problems and that was impossible to communicated with other allies because Jean-Chretien had cancelled each modernization recommended by the Air Forces such the communication and computer(combats and navigations). In 2000 , more than 70% of the fleet were considered obsolete and L-3 communication had found over 4 000 problems on each CF-18 many problem were the corrosion. The CF-18 is a naval based aircraft ,and so was designed for short range patrol not for long range patrol. The CF-18 can't patrol from Toronto to Montreal without fuel tank while for example the F-16 can without any fuel tank. He was not designed for brutal change of temperature like in Canada from hot to very cold. Since the modernization with L-3 Mas ,about 90% of the fleet are now operational again,but for how much long?
We need a fighter with a low operating costs and the Grippen and Eurofighter is the best choice for their capacity ahead the F-35 and other modern aircraft. If we're only looking for the stealth capacity that will be the worst mistake ever. The Eurofighter have the capacity of a F-22 and will be the better suitable aircraft for Canada if we're looking for a air superiority aircraft. If we're looking for a true multirole fighter the Grippen NG will be the best aircraft due of his very low cost to operate.We can also looking for a mixture of aircraft, for example 150 Grippen NG/Eurofighter and about 25 or maybe more F-35 strike fighter.
"The Eurofighter have the capacity of a F-22"
Absolutely not.
In 100 engagements one-on-one, the F22 would win over 90 of them. Different class of bird entirely.
Also, of course cost and maintenance complexity.
And the Grippen has big range issues . . . it wasn't designed for "big" countries and long range missions.
Vinland, your idea of the F-35 as a first-rate attack/interdiction and a second-rate fighter RADICALLY underestimates the capabilities designed into that aircraft; this is, of course, quite natural given the secrecy surrounding the prototypes.
Even still, the highly conservative numbers which are publicly available point to an aircraft which will be quite comparable in lethality to the Eurofighter Typhoon in close visual-range air combat manuevering (ACM).
However, in the future such ACM is increasingly unlikely because, by the time a non-stealthy or semi-stealthy aircraft (pre-"5th Generation") gets THAT close to a 5th Generation aircraft, the earlier aircraft is overwhelmingly likely to be DEAD.
Now before any Typhoon fans take offense, let me state the obvious:
It's obvious that 4th Generation multirole aircraft like the F-18E/F or Gripen are all-around deadly; indeed, the "Generation 4.5" Typhoon is especially so in air-to-air (A2A) combat.
However, by 2020, they will no longer be dominant in an environment of very long-ranged AAMs and SAMs. At that point, 5th Generation fighters will be mandatory for aircraft (and airCREW) survival, and even more so for victory.
Please allow me to explain why. Even in A2A engagements, a 97% signature-reduced fighter will be detected by even powerful APG-63-class radars at only about 30-35km...and since an AIM-120C has a no-escape zone of about 50+km in a meeting engagement, this means that the opposing non-VLO aircraft will be engaged before he even knows the VLO aircraft is present. With longer-ranged AIM-120D or (eventually) Meteor missiles, the VLO attack advantage becomes even more pronounced...and this scenario applies even more so when the hostile aircraft is intruding into YOUR airspace without his radar operating at full power like a beacon.
So what if the hostile gets off a shot with an active radar-homing uber-missile (perhaps an R-77, if it works)? Again, the VLO detection range-reduction factor would mean that his shot MUST guide to within a few km of the VLO aircraft to have a chance of engaging it...which means his more powerful nose radar MUST remain engaged during the fight (to provide mid-course updates to his missile), depriving him of most evasive manuevers. All he can do is to pray that the VLO aircraft's missile malfunctions. Otherwise, his missile (launched after the VLO aircraft's missile) will not reach the VLO aircraft's closely-approximate location before the VLO aircraft's missile destroys him and the VLO aircraft alters its projected course out of his missile's on-board radar's detection range.
All of the foregoing points also bear on the ability of AD radar, missiles, and aircraft to attempt to engage a VLO aircraft, especially if the VLO aircraft bothers to engage the defenders in a suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) operation.
Suffice it to say, in a world of increasingly long-ranged A2A missiles, LO and VLO will not just be a "Gee whiz" technology; in a decade or so, aircraft will NEED these things just to survive the opening minutes of an engagement.
Oh, and please don't let the "only" four weapons internal bay capacity of the F-35 mislead you; it has six additional weapons' hardpoints and, even carrying a few extra weapons, it is still VASTLY more LO than Typhoon, Grippen, Stealth Eagle, etc.
There is a lack of knowledge here. Pleas let mi enlight you of a few facts: Gripen NG have a longer range than f-35, Eurofighter, Raptor and superhornet. Gripen NG have tested specifications in point after point that show a better capability of dogfighting than any fighters. F-35 is less 5G than Gripen NG.
Exacly the same time a fighter turn on the radar, He have a missile on him. Thats why dogfight is nessary in the future and why visible stealt is the most important for air to air. And which fighter have the smallest visual signsture?
Post a Comment
<< Home