Canadian Fighter Replacement

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

. When? In 10 years? Hope it will not have to open its bays every ten mins in the meanwhile... (is that fixed btw?)

In the meanwhile it is unable ot use properly AMRAAM and completely unable to use IR missile on LBL mode, a prerequisite to execute properly air policing.

Anw what would CANADA do with stealth? Useful only for first day entry and OCA... Competely useless for canada.

Chill out Hallo, we might think that you dont like Dave :dev2:

If the ability to carry six amraam´s by Dave A will only be delivered in ten years, thats no problem for the Canadians. With the first airframe of whatever aircraft they choose being delivered in 2025, the IOC for their first sqn will be some nine to ten years from now. The longer the replacement program gets, the most likely an acquisition of Dave by RCAF his, its the youngets airframe in the competition, and whatever problems it might have now, they will be ironed by then.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

RE: Hot Bay - No mention in the latest DOT&E report. Remember that they only report problems and not them getting resolved.

Translation : don't know
RE: AMRAAM ( unable ot use properly AMRAAM) - Where do you get that from?
Last report (reasons are classified)
RE: unable to use IR missile on LBL mode - They are external so why not?

On wingtips ? lol

RE: Competely useless for canada. - Canada, just like all other NATO countries, participates in operations around the world where having a VLO airframe will save lives and ensure mission success.

Canada's missions will not in any manner require a VLO airframe. Only interesting for "tip of the spear" missions they will not perform.

Chill out Hallo, we might think that you dont like Dave

µI do not like program, lead to absurdity.
(i also do not like the plane because it is simply ugly, but it is not an operational point of view i admit)

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

Latest Hot Bay issue. Short version, Flight releases should have already been released. They may include envelope limitations or a shorter weapon life (or needed maint for weapon). No mention of having to open the bay periodically.

• F-35A Flight Sciences Assessment
- The Air Force airworthiness authorities are analyzing strain loads, flutter (from flight envelope expansion), weapons separations, and weapons bay acoustic and environmental data to determine the acceptable and safe envelope for flight operations and weapons carriage and employment, with both internal and external weapons stores.
▪ The program expects to complete analysis and provide Block 3F military flight releases by late CY17, first for fielded Lot 9 aircraft and 2 months later for OT aircraft, which were produced in earlier lots.
- The full planned F-35A Block 3F envelope is up to Mach 1.6, and 700 knots, and 9.0 g. Whether airworthiness authorities will clear the F-35A for the full planned envelope, for all planned configurations, without limitations remains to be determined.
▪ Aerodynamic loads and environmental conditions within the weapons bay have either caused flight certification authorities to impose limitations to the weapons envelope or have caused weapon vendors to impose life limits on the weapons. Excessive temperatures in the weapons bay at low altitudes while at high speeds may result in speed and time restrictions when carrying internal weapons.

Last report (reasons are classified)
You do love taking things out of context, huh.

The assessment revealed several problems with the employment of air-to-air missiles in the Block 2B and Block 3i configurations. The test team discovered several classified missile integration problems as well as pilot‑identified deficiencies with the controls and displays that affected the combat capability of the F-35 to support the kill chain.

...

Most of the AMRAAM events were completed using work-arounds to mitigate limitations induced by outstanding deficiencies that compromised the combat capability of the weapons employment. The JPO, contractor, Services, and JOTT are assessing these weapons integration deficiencies so that problems can be addressed prior to entry into IOT&E and subsequent fielding.

Did you miss the Block 2B/3i part or that no mention of it being there in Block 3F or that it will be fixed before IOT&E?

On wingtips ? Lol
um, who cares? Having a restricted view does not keep the Raptor from smoking everything under the sun, even with Aim-9Ms and a more restrictive FOV.

Canada's missions will not in any manner require a VLO airframe. Only interesting for "tip of the spear" missions they will not perform.
Tell that to planes that were shot down well after the 1st day in Lybia, Iraq, Syria, etc.

Do try and keep up.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

The F-35 program is at the point Gen. Bogdan warned about.

The contractor has completed envelope expansion and weapons separation testing.

The F-35 program now waits on MDFs, which are the responsibility of the 35th EWS at Eglin AFB. And will wait some more. And continue to wait. But there is no contractor to blame for the delays.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

I believe the program has finally added contractor support to work on the MDFs.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

Each FMS deal is relatively unique and unless it's broken down, you will not get a true picture of the costs. In the above example it is obvious that it includes a lot more than the Super Hornet itself. Some FMS deals include these costs up front and others include them in followup weapons, parts, and support deals.

Canada will get the F-35 in the end. Then we will all think back and wonder why we wasted so much time on something that was inevitable.....:stupid:

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 2,626

Airbus, Boeing indicate they may pull out of Canada fighter jet race - sources

Boeing and Airbus have now formally written to Ottawa expressing concerns about the current requirements, said two sources familiar with the matter who declined to be identified given the sensitivity of the situation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKCN1U32EX

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815

Airbus, Boeing indicate they may pull out of Canada fighter jet race - sources

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKCN1U32EX

Airbus has now formally withdrawn from the competition citing NORAD requirements as well as a relaxation of the industrial portion of the contract as the main reasons.

[INDENT]
One of the companies in the race to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 jet fighters has dropped out of the competition.

Airbus Defence and Space, which was pitching the Eurofighter Typhoon, notified the Liberal government Friday that it was not going to bid.

The decision was made after a detailed review of the tender issued by the federal government in mid-July.

The move leaves only three companies in the contest: Lockheed Martin Canada with its F-35; Boeing with the Super Hornet; and Saab, which is offering an updated version of its Gripen fighter.

Simon Jacques, president of Airbus Defence and Space Canada, made a point of saying the company appreciated the professional dealings it had with defence and procurement officials.

"Airbus Defence and Space is proud of our longstanding partnership with the Government of Canada, and of serving our fifth home country's aerospace priorities for over three decades," Jacques said in a statement. "Together we continue in our focus of supporting the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, growing skilled aerospace jobs across the country and spurring innovation in the Canadian aerospace sector."

Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America.

It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airbus-canada-fighters-1.5265665

[/INDENT] This shouldn't be a great surprise to anyone, especially as Dassault withdrew for the same NORAD security issues. Meeting NORAD requirements was always going to favour the US jets. I expect that Saab will eventually withdraw as well and it will remain a Boeing Versus LM contest.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

Boeing should offer the CF-15CA.
What was the best choice in 1980 can't be wrong today. Back to the Future!

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 190

Looks good on our Prime Minister.
Eventually he'll have a choice between the jet offered by the company that screwed over our aerospace industry, or the jet that he railed against 4 yrs ago, during his election campaign, and which a previous Liberal government made us members of the program.
Meanwhile, at least a decade has been wasted.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

Wouldn't the F/A-18 save some money somewhere given its commonality (spares, training, tires, ...something) to the existing Hornets? 

Or does "a million hete, a million there", not mean anything in a buy this large? 😁

Also, when the Canadians bought their last fighters, (when I was a kid) I recall someone answering the question of if they were going to buy any attrition replacements, by saying  " No, if we need more we'll get free used ones from the Americans".

If that is still an official stance, wouldn't they want the Super Hornet?