User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:04 am

seahawk wrote:
As it is about replacing the P-3s there is no other option that the P-8.


SAAB Swordfish MPA based on the Global 6000.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:17 am

st21 wrote:
Incorrect. The Rafale's sensor fusion system is well regarded and is actually one of the aircraft's greatest strengths...

For a 4.5 gen aircraft, yes. Against a 5th gen platform that has significantly better sensors and an inbuilt fusion engine (the most complex and costly component of F-35 software development and also the most protected by security and export controls) that correlates all data points.

st21 wrote:
Sniper XR is being integrated on the Rafale. Qatari examples will use it. In French service, Damocles will be replaced by the TALIOS pod currently under development and due to enter service next year.

Both of the new pods are external to the airframe and cannot be carried without increasing drag and RCS. The F-35 EOTS already has an upgrade identified that will likely be available to Blk 4 jets in 2021 and can be retrofitted to older airframes.

st21 wrote:
Really? Lets see...

Mica IR & EM
Meteor
Mk82/BLU-126
the whole Paveway II & III family (GBU-10/12/16/22/24/49)
AASM
SCALP/Storm Shadow
Exocet Block II

Not too shabby.

Not too shabby but rather useless for Canada as the RCAF only operate two of those systems and are highly unlikely to acquire any of the others. French weapons are more expensive than their western counterparts primarily due to lower production numbers and any RCAF order would not significantly increase production numbers to make them cost competitive.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:32 am

st21 wrote:
Incorrect. The Rafale's sensor fusion system is well regarded and is actually one of the aircraft's greatest strengths...

The Rafale's 'sensor fusion' is dramatically inferior to the F-35's implementation. This graphic explains it best:

Image
Image
The difference is the granularity of data being fed into the fusion engine. 4th gen fighters correlate tracks ie. processed data, selecting the most robust, for presentation to the pilot and discarding the others. The F-35 fusion engine OTOH correlates and processes raw unbiased sensor data streams from onboard and offboard sensors/data links, to build the most accurate accurate and comprehensive COP of the battlespace. It also speaks to a tighter integration of the avionics courtesy of those multi-million lines of software code.

From the Rafale's own sale documents, when the Rafale is using multiple sensors to track/detect targets, it only use data from sensor with the highest amount of information and ignore everything else.

Heck, even the Eurofighter has a better implementation; when the Eurofighter is using multiple sensors to track/detect targets, all information from all sensors that is tracking that target will be used to get a more accurate track. It won't discard sensor tracks, unlike the Rafale.

The F-35 does it the best; when it uses multiple sensors to track/detect targets, every bit of information from all of the sensors that is tracking a target will be used to achieve a better track of the target. Furthermore, if a sensor detects a target, it can communicate through the avionics to other sensors to have all of the other available sensors look at the target to gather more information.

Sniper XR is being integrated on the Rafale. Qatari examples will use it. In French service, Damocles will be replaced by the TALIOS pod currently under development and due to enter service next year.

So, the Rafale is years late on getting a decent targeting pod? And by the time the French get around to full integration of the Sniper XR for the Qatari's (if the Qatari's keep the contract due to current political events), or get around to introducing the TALIOS pod, there will be something better.

So, when is the Rafale getting something like ROVER?


Really? Lets see...

Mica IR & EM
Meteor
Mk82/BLU-126
the whole Paveway II & III family (GBU-10/12/16/22/24/49)
AASM
SCALP/Storm Shadow
Exocet Block II

Not too shabby.

Image
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11222
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:57 am

Unlike the F/A-18, F-22, F-35 it is cheap to buy, operate, and maintain

Image
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:13 am

zeke wrote:
Unlike the F/A-18, F-22, F-35 it is cheap to buy, operate, and maintain

Image

The Gripen E is anything but cheap to buy, operate and maintain. The Swiss evaluation and the Brazilian contracts all indicate a per unit cost as high as a Super Hornet or even a F-35.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11222
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:43 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
The Gripen E is anything but cheap to buy, operate and maintain. The Swiss evaluation and the Brazilian contracts all indicate a per unit cost as high as a Super Hornet or even a F-35.


The Canadian project cost for 65 F-35s is circa $45.8 billion, and 9 billion for the 18 super hornets.

The Brazilian project cost for 36 Gripen NG was $4.68 billion, the Swiss project cost was $3.4 billion for 22 aircraft.

"Switzerland has chosen the Saab Gripen as its new fighter aircraft, in preference to the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon. Defense Minister Ueli Maurier told journalists that the Swedish package including 22 jets is worth $3.4 billion. The Gripen is not the highest performing of the three contenders, he said, but it meets the Swiss requirement and offers the lowest acquisition and maintenance costs. Swiss media earlier reported that the Eurofighter offer was about $4.3 billion, and the Rafale in the middle range between the Typhoon and the Gripen."

The Swiss explicitly have said the opposit to your claim, the Gripen had the lowest acquisition and maintence costs.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ozair
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:18 pm

zeke wrote:

The Canadian project cost for 65 F-35s is circa $45.8 billion, and 9 billion for the 18 super hornets.

The Brazilian project cost for 36 Gripen NG was $4.68 billion, the Swiss project cost was $3.4 billion for 22 aircraft.

"Switzerland has chosen the Saab Gripen as its new fighter aircraft, in preference to the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon. Defense Minister Ueli Maurier told journalists that the Swedish package including 22 jets is worth $3.4 billion. The Gripen is not the highest performing of the three contenders, he said, but it meets the Swiss requirement and offers the lowest acquisition and maintenance costs. Swiss media earlier reported that the Eurofighter offer was about $4.3 billion, and the Rafale in the middle range between the Typhoon and the Gripen."

The Swiss explicitly have said the opposit to your claim, the Gripen had the lowest acquisition and maintence costs.

Zeke, in addition to the factual inaccuracies you posted on Gripen capabilities earlier you are now trying to compare the costs of apples to elephants...

The Canadian 45.8 billion is total life cycle cost, including acquisition, operating cost, base modifications, munitions etc of 65 F-35 over the next 30 years. The Brazilian Gripen cost is acquisition of the jet and costs for local assembly, it does not include life cycle costs, nor does it include expected weapons which SAAB is not able to sell. With fighter jets the rule of thumb is 2.5 times the acquisition cost in operating cost over the life of type. When we use that 30 year F-35 number we also need to understand there is a large amount of uncertainty associated with it due to factored in currency and fuel price fluctuations (often greater than 30% of the total cost).

We also know that in US service an F-35 will cost approximately 10-15% more per flight hour than the F-16, per the F-35 SAR for the last 4 years, but F-16s are operated by many nations around the world at significantly lower per flight hour costs than the USAF. Hence making claims on operating costs of F-35 using US or Canadian or Australian estimated costs (all first tier air forces who train and operate jets at their peak) without having a direct comparison to operating costs for a nation like Sweden or Brazil or Switzerland (all second tier or below air forces), is meaningless.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11222
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Ozair wrote:
zeke wrote:

Zeke, in addition to the factual inaccuracies you posted on Gripen capabilities earlier you are now trying to compare the costs of apples to elephants...


Show me the proof of these factual inaccuracies....

I am stunned people are trying to tell me a large twin costs the same to operate and maintain as a small single engine aircraft.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ozair
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:02 pm

zeke wrote:
Show me the proof of these factual inaccuracies....

I am stunned people are trying to tell me a large twin costs the same to operate and maintain as a small single engine aircraft.

No one is claiming the SH costs less to acquire and operate but that the Gripen comes with significant trade offs because it is a light fighter.

As for the inaccuracies, the SH has the longer range. Gripen is payload limited at longer ranges and SAABs range figures are flawed or more directly misleading through a lack of actual profile and payload detail. Given Gripen E still hasn't flown, its OEW increased by 13% before additional capabilities claimed by SAAB have been added to the airframe any range figures are questionable at best. Factually, the Brazillians put the SH A2A mission radius at 800nm while the Gripen NG was 665nm.

SH is also a better aircraft BVR given its superior range and radar. The Gripen radar which has never flown has a smaller antenna, providing less gain and fewer T/R modules, translating to less range and accuracy.
 
st21
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:15 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:16 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
st21 wrote:
Incorrect. The Rafale's sensor fusion system is well regarded and is actually one of the aircraft's greatest strengths...

The Rafale's 'sensor fusion' is dramatically inferior to the F-35's implementation.


Love how you went from the "Rafale lacks sensor fusion" to the "Rafale's sensor fusion is inferior". Its called 'saving face' i guess but whatever... :roll:

And i dont doubt that the F-35 has probably more advanced sensor fusion capabilities considering that the F-35's development started ~15 years after the Rafale. That was never the issue here. I was just correcting an erroneous claim that you made. And regurgitating infos straight from the horse's mouth (Lockheed Martin) is questionable. It isnt the most impartial source you know...

Heck, even the Eurofighter has a better implementation; when the Eurofighter is using multiple sensors to track/detect targets, all information from all sensors that is tracking that target will be used to get a more accurate track. It won't discard sensor tracks, unlike the Rafale.


The Rafale's sensor fusion capability was ranked ahead of the Typhoon in the Swiss evaluation report so i call BS on that one.

Sniper XR is being integrated on the Rafale. Qatari examples will use it. In French service, Damocles will be replaced by the TALIOS pod currently under development and due to enter service next year.

So, the Rafale is years late on getting a decent targeting pod? And by the time the French get around to full integration of the Sniper XR for the Qatari's (if the Qatari's keep the contract due to current political events), or get around to introducing the TALIOS pod, there will be something better.


Get real. Damocles is a decent targeting pod. Not as good as the Sniper XR but it does the job as it demonstrated in Afghanistan, Libya or currently in Mali and Syria/Iraq... It also had some success in the export market and is used by Malaysia on their Su-30s and Saudi Arabia on their Tornados and Typhoons for example so it cant be a subpar system.

So, when is the Rafale getting something like ROVER?


French Rafales are already equipped with ROVER... its nothing new. Even older French aircraft like the Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard use(d) that system.

Really? Lets see...

Mica IR & EM
Meteor
Mk82/BLU-126
the whole Paveway II & III family (GBU-10/12/16/22/24/49)
AASM
SCALP/Storm Shadow
Exocet Block II

Not too shabby.

Image
Image


Meh. That last pic (first pic isnt showing) isnt that impressive. It shows:

AMRAAM
AIM-9X
JDAM family
Paveway II family
SDB

Its actually a relatively limited weapon fit compared to the Rafale's current armament options. No anti-ship missiles or long range cruise missile like SCALP/Storm Shadow. No long range AAMs like Meteor (except for the UK F-35s in the future) and no real equivalents to the AASM either (JDAM would be the closest but it doesnt have the stand-off range of the AASM). And last time i checked, only a limited number of weapons is currently cleared for use on the F-35. If my memory is correct: just AMRAAM, GBU-12 and GBU-31/32 and thats it. :|

I would like to add that i am not a F-35 hater. Despite the (often unjustified) controversies surrounding it, i think its a promising plane that will only get better with time and i agree that it makes more sense for Canada to buy it than the Rafale for several reasons. However, the unfair criticisms towards the Rafale (often from members from the Anglosphere... with their usual subtle French bashing) tends to tick me off a little bit and i am not even from France. I am just trying to set the record straight here.
 
cmb56
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:42 pm

Perhaps this is dredging up ancient history but Canada should tell LM that they would gladly accept a fleet of F35s as compensation for the backstabbing they took from the US of A over the Arrow. The Arrow was probably the finest long range interceptor of the day, it was CNX's by Washington not by the Canadian government.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:05 am

st21 wrote:
Love how you went from the "Rafale lacks sensor fusion" to the "Rafale's sensor fusion is inferior". Its called 'saving face' i guess but whatever... :roll:


Notice how I used apostrophes around sensor fusion in regards the Rafale because it isn't actually true sensor fusion. True sensor fusion combines information from multiple sources, and uses the multiple sensors available to fill in information. Not only does the F-35 use the onboard sensors, it also uses offboard sensors with information that comes in from high bandwidth data links (such as MADL) to add additional fidelity.


Get real. Damocles is a decent targeting pod. Not as good as the Sniper XR but it does the job as it demonstrated in Afghanistan, Libya or currently in Mali and Syria/Iraq... It also had some success in the export market and is used by Malaysia on their Su-30s and Saudi Arabia on their Tornados and Typhoons for example so it cant be a subpar system.

Damocles is a significantly lower resolution targeting pod, with a 320 x 240 infrared array that is far behind other international offerings, even with an architecture that effectively gives 640 x 480 resolution. Both Sniper and LITENING can do 1280 x 1040 with their sensors. While TALIOS gets close, it means that the French are moving from a gross competitive disadvantage in a critical technology to a noticeable competitive disadvantage.

And both Sniper and LITENING have more customers; LITENING alone has 30 different users, while Sniper has 18 users.


Meh. That last pic (first pic isnt showing) isnt that impressive. It shows:

AMRAAM
AIM-9X
JDAM family
Paveway II family
SDB

Its actually a relatively limited weapon fit compared to the Rafale's current armament options. No anti-ship missiles or long range cruise missile like SCALP/Storm Shadow. No long range AAMs like Meteor (except for the UK F-35s in the future) and no real equivalents to the AASM either (JDAM would be the closest but it doesnt have the stand-off range of the AASM). And last time i checked, only a limited number of weapons is currently cleared for use on the F-35. If my memory is correct: just AMRAAM, GBU-12 and GBU-31/32 and thats it. :|


The Norwegians are getting JSM onto the F-35.

And the F-35 is getting the Universal Armaments Interface, which means for the first time, weapons will be plug and play, like a USB device. All that needs doing is weapons clearance, as long as the weapon was designed around the UAI interface.
Image
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:20 am

WHAT NO STEALTH BAGGAGE POD!!!!!111!!!one1! What is the point of the F-35 if it has to strap a non stealth baggage pod to its wings? Cancel the POS before its too late and buy CF-105 Arrows, still the best fighters ever, it can out maneuver everything in the sky!</sarcasm>

(Sorry, this is the crap you see in Arrow groups).
 
JJJ
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:22 am

ThePointblank wrote:
st21 wrote:
Love how you went from the "Rafale lacks sensor fusion" to the "Rafale's sensor fusion is inferior". Its called 'saving face' i guess but whatever... :roll:


Notice how I used apostrophes around sensor fusion in regards the Rafale because it isn't actually true sensor fusion. True sensor fusion combines information from multiple sources, and uses the multiple sensors available to fill in information. Not only does the F-35 use the onboard sensors, it also uses offboard sensors with information that comes in from high bandwidth data links (such as MADL) to add additional fidelity.


Image

According to Dassault they do.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5340
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:52 am

In the Swiss evaluation Dassault did sent a Rafale very close the F.3 standard, the EF was a early Tranche 1 - forget the results about avionics from it. They are no longer valid as software standards moved on.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:03 am

JJJ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
st21 wrote:
Love how you went from the "Rafale lacks sensor fusion" to the "Rafale's sensor fusion is inferior". Its called 'saving face' i guess but whatever... :roll:


Notice how I used apostrophes around sensor fusion in regards the Rafale because it isn't actually true sensor fusion. True sensor fusion combines information from multiple sources, and uses the multiple sensors available to fill in information. Not only does the F-35 use the onboard sensors, it also uses offboard sensors with information that comes in from high bandwidth data links (such as MADL) to add additional fidelity.


Image

According to Dassault they do.

Have you read Dassault's blurb on it?

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... ta-fusion/

It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:

1. Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
2. Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
3. Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.

In contrast, the Eurofighter does sensor fusion differently:

Image

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ion-52559/
"The sensor fusion process produces a unique track of a single target which may be reported by several sensors simultaneously, each one providing a subset of target attributes which are compiled to produce an as complete as possible view of the target," Friemer says. Algorithms weigh the reliability of each report before merging them to produce a fused target identity and priority.


And this is what a Eurofighter pilot has to say about the F-35's sensor fusion:
http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-a-new-co ... h-carrier/

Question: How would characterize the role of the F-35 compared to the other elements in the evolving RAF air combat force?

Group Captain Townsend: The F-35 is not a multi-role fighter.

Multi-role, in current thinking, would be a sequential series of tasks.

The F-35 is doing a number of missions simultaneously.

The concept of mission simultaneity is really important.

The airplane has the ability to do things without the pilot asking it to do it.

Automatically conducting, particularly, ISR whilst it’s conducting an OCA mission or an attack mission in a very different way than platforms have done business in the past.

This is something that other operators are working in the package alongside F-35 need to understand.

That the F-35 operator won’t be going through sequential thought process.

He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space.

I think there is another step change and difference in the way in which the information is displayed to the pilot which is important and is extremely intuitive.

I’ll give you an example. I commanded a Typhoon squadron for two years.

Very early on this job with F-35, I was lucky enough to fly the F-35 simulator. and the different way in which F35 displays information compared to Typhoon is eye-catching.

In fact, I asked for the simulator to be stopped because I was taken aback by the information being displayed to me.

There was just so much data available at my fingertips, but displayed in a really different sense in Typhoon.

So very, very quickly, I knew a great deal about the entity being targeted – sensor fusion at work.

I think it’s a very different way of displaying information that any other fast jet has done before.

Knowing what my wingman is seeing and my wingman knowing what I am seeing, and my ability to communicate what I want to have achieved by my formation, by my package, which all may be by the air wing that’s air-borne at the time.

This airplane changes the game in a way which we can conduct that sort of business.


In short, this is what each aircraft does:
Rafale: automatically declutters the information by selecting the sensor with the highest available detail and reliability and ignores other sensors to present a track of a target
Eurofighter: automatically takes all available information from all sensors tracking the target, weights the reliability of them all and merges them to create a single track
F-35: automatically takes all available raw information from all sensors, and from data links, correlate and processes them to build the most accurate and complete view of the battlespace to create a common operational picture for the pilot and his wingmen. If a sensor picks up a new target, the sensor will ask other available sensors to look at the new target to identify and assess the target for more information

With Rafale and Eurofighter, what is being called sensor fusion is in reality, track correlation. This means every sensor has to first create a track and then track information is sent to sensor fusion engine where different tracks are correlated and a single track is created by the fusion engine.

With aircraft like the F-22 and F-35, the sensors are feeding raw information to the fusion engine; this way the fusion engine has all available information possible. The fusion engine then creates a single track from all that data and can use data from sensors that is unavailable in track correlation systems.

For example, if a IRST has intermittent contact with a target, which would normally not be enough to generate and maintain a track with the IRST itself, the F-35's fusion engine could take the available information from the IRST, task other available sensors to look at the target, and use all of the information to generate a single track. With Eurofighter and Rafale, their fusion engines probably would have ignored the target information from the IRST as the IRST would not have enough information to generate a track to be used to correlate with other sensors.

Furthermore, with aircraft like the F-22 and the F-35, the fusion engine is more automated and can truly automatically cue and task all the sensors. This lowers pilot workload and improves situational awareness a lot in complex situations, which means that a F-22 or F-35 pilot has a much shorter OODA loop to go through. This means of course, shorter reaction and engagement times for the F-22 or F-35 pilot.

It also means that the F-22 and F-35 actually do sensor fusion against much larger number of simultaneous targets. For example if RWR detects something in 3 different directions simultaneously, sensor fusion engine can command radar, IRST and IFF systems to probe for more information in very quick order.

In contrast, in aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter the RWR would first have to get more information before giving info to pilot who might then have to control all the sensors to do the same. This would take a lot more time and the situation might change drastically during that time.

Thus, a F-22 or F-35 pilot is much more of a tactician in his aircraft, compared to a Rafale or Eurofighter pilot.
 
JJJ
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:39 am

ThePointblank wrote:
JJJ wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:

Notice how I used apostrophes around sensor fusion in regards the Rafale because it isn't actually true sensor fusion. True sensor fusion combines information from multiple sources, and uses the multiple sensors available to fill in information. Not only does the F-35 use the onboard sensors, it also uses offboard sensors with information that comes in from high bandwidth data links (such as MADL) to add additional fidelity.


Image

According to Dassault they do.

Have you read Dassault's blurb on it?


Don't particularly care about that. You said Rafale did not have capability to take on external data for their sensor fusion input.

Fact is, they do. As you yourself said above "true sensor fusion"

Actually the UK who will be operating both F-35 and Typhoon plans on the F-35 to feed targeting data onto the Typhoons who will be carrying more missiles.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:29 pm

Unless there is some extremely stupid hard-wired code and electronics, comparable to sabotage, maybe due to bureaucracy or property rights, the different sensor fusion methods can be modified, upgraded and redesigned to the most effective one easily. Making the necessary software is straight-forward, though not exactly trivial.

The hard parts of the sensors and antennas are then less trivial.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:06 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Unless there is some extremely stupid hard-wired code and electronics, comparable to sabotage, maybe due to bureaucracy or property rights, the different sensor fusion methods can be modified, upgraded and redesigned to the most effective one easily. Making the necessary software is straight-forward, though not exactly trivial.

The hard parts of the sensors and antennas are then less trivial.

Unless you are prepared to rip out and replace all of the avionics, databuses and sensors onboard the Rafale and Eurofighter, write millions of lines of brand new code, test and verify the code works reliably and interacts with everything, then no, not as easy as you think. Aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter use at best, STANAG 3910 level of data transfer between various components inside the aircraft. That works out to be roughly 20MBps max speed. Aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 use a military version of the IEEE-1394b spec for their databus; roughly 20x faster than what's available on the Rafale and Eurofighter. Why? Because the F-22 and F-35 deal with considerably more data.

It's akin to going from this in the cell phone world:

Image

to one of these:

Image

There's a fundamental hardware and software difference between aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter compared to the F-22 and F-35. Read this easily digestible link here to get some sense of what's going on:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ionics.htm

And remember, the F-22 has about 1.7 million lines of code to do what it can do. The F-35 has 8 million lines of code. The F-35's simulator requires 10 million lines of code.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:15 am

ThePointblank wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Unless there is some extremely stupid hard-wired code and electronics, comparable to sabotage, maybe due to bureaucracy or property rights, the different sensor fusion methods can be modified, upgraded and redesigned to the most effective one easily. Making the necessary software is straight-forward, though not exactly trivial.

The hard parts of the sensors and antennas are then less trivial.

Unless you are prepared to rip out and replace all of the avionics, databuses and sensors onboard the Rafale and Eurofighter, write millions of lines of brand new code, test and verify the code works reliably and interacts with everything, then no, not as easy as you think. Aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter use at best, STANAG 3910 level of data transfer between various components inside the aircraft. That works out to be roughly 20MBps max speed. Aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 use a military version of the IEEE-1394b spec for their databus; roughly 20x faster than what's available on the Rafale and Eurofighter. Why? Because the F-22 and F-35 deal with considerably more data.

There's a fundamental hardware and software difference between aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter compared to the F-22 and F-35. Read this easily digestible link here to get some sense of what's going on:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ionics.htm

And remember, the F-22 has about 1.7 million lines of code to do what it can do. The F-35 has 8 million lines of code. The F-35's simulator requires 10 million lines of code.


If a good design and coding discipline has been used, you do not have to rip out avionics to rewrite the sensor fusion code.

Existing Rafale and Typhoon users may not want to change anything and may want to have new fighters to be backward compatible to their oldest ones, but a new customer, like Canada or Belgium, should adopt the newest design.

If you really need 8 million lines of code to fly your plane, you do something wrong. If I were buying such planes, I would take them raw and write a better code myself.

Moreover, countries that need the fighters to defend their own territory against alien attacks, instead of attacking remote countries, may even assign a major part of the computation to external servers in the bases.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:43 am

YIMBY wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Unless there is some extremely stupid hard-wired code and electronics, comparable to sabotage, maybe due to bureaucracy or property rights, the different sensor fusion methods can be modified, upgraded and redesigned to the most effective one easily. Making the necessary software is straight-forward, though not exactly trivial.

The hard parts of the sensors and antennas are then less trivial.

Unless you are prepared to rip out and replace all of the avionics, databuses and sensors onboard the Rafale and Eurofighter, write millions of lines of brand new code, test and verify the code works reliably and interacts with everything, then no, not as easy as you think. Aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter use at best, STANAG 3910 level of data transfer between various components inside the aircraft. That works out to be roughly 20MBps max speed. Aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 use a military version of the IEEE-1394b spec for their databus; roughly 20x faster than what's available on the Rafale and Eurofighter. Why? Because the F-22 and F-35 deal with considerably more data.

There's a fundamental hardware and software difference between aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter compared to the F-22 and F-35. Read this easily digestible link here to get some sense of what's going on:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ionics.htm

And remember, the F-22 has about 1.7 million lines of code to do what it can do. The F-35 has 8 million lines of code. The F-35's simulator requires 10 million lines of code.


If a good design and coding discipline has been used, you do not have to rip out avionics to rewrite the sensor fusion code.

Existing Rafale and Typhoon users may not want to change anything and may want to have new fighters to be backward compatible to their oldest ones, but a new customer, like Canada or Belgium, should adopt the newest design.

If you really need 8 million lines of code to fly your plane, you do something wrong. If I were buying such planes, I would take them raw and write a better code myself.

Moreover, countries that need the fighters to defend their own territory against alien attacks, instead of attacking remote countries, may even assign a major part of the computation to external servers in the bases.

Except the F-35's fusion engine handles the raw, unprocessed sensor information directly. The Rafale and the Eurofighter's fusion engine handles information that is already processed by the sensor's onboard computers. There's a fundamental magnitude of difference in terms of processing requirements, complexity and algorithms needed processing raw information and conducting additional processing of already processed information.

The difference in terms of information load difference is similar to comparing the RAW and JPEG image formats; the RAW image format requires a lot more storage space and computing power to process compared to processing a JPEG for a picture of the same image.

However, the RAW image format contains much information that can be recovered when the image is to be processed; the RAW image file is in essence, all of the information that is captured by a camera's sensor at the time of it taking the picture.

The JPEG format is highly compressed, meaning that certain amounts of detail are lost as a result of the compression, and if you are trying to recover more information in processing later on, you can't as the information was never there in the JPEG data in the first place.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:33 am

ThePointblank wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
Unless you are prepared to rip out and replace all of the avionics, databuses and sensors onboard the Rafale and Eurofighter, write millions of lines of brand new code, test and verify the code works reliably and interacts with everything, then no, not as easy as you think. Aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter use at best, STANAG 3910 level of data transfer between various components inside the aircraft. That works out to be roughly 20MBps max speed. Aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 use a military version of the IEEE-1394b spec for their databus; roughly 20x faster than what's available on the Rafale and Eurofighter. Why? Because the F-22 and F-35 deal with considerably more data.

There's a fundamental hardware and software difference between aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter compared to the F-22 and F-35. Read this easily digestible link here to get some sense of what's going on:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ionics.htm

And remember, the F-22 has about 1.7 million lines of code to do what it can do. The F-35 has 8 million lines of code. The F-35's simulator requires 10 million lines of code.


If a good design and coding discipline has been used, you do not have to rip out avionics to rewrite the sensor fusion code.

Existing Rafale and Typhoon users may not want to change anything and may want to have new fighters to be backward compatible to their oldest ones, but a new customer, like Canada or Belgium, should adopt the newest design.

If you really need 8 million lines of code to fly your plane, you do something wrong. If I were buying such planes, I would take them raw and write a better code myself.

Moreover, countries that need the fighters to defend their own territory against alien attacks, instead of attacking remote countries, may even assign a major part of the computation to external servers in the bases.

Except the F-35's fusion engine handles the raw, unprocessed sensor information directly. The Rafale and the Eurofighter's fusion engine handles information that is already processed by the sensor's onboard computers. There's a fundamental magnitude of difference in terms of processing requirements, complexity and algorithms needed processing raw information and conducting additional processing of already processed information.

The difference in terms of information load difference is similar to comparing the RAW and JPEG image formats; the RAW image format requires a lot more storage space and computing power to process compared to processing a JPEG for a picture of the same image.

However, the RAW image format contains much information that can be recovered when the image is to be processed; the RAW image file is in essence, all of the information that is captured by a camera's sensor at the time of it taking the picture.

The JPEG format is highly compressed, meaning that certain amounts of detail are lost as a result of the compression, and if you are trying to recover more information in processing later on, you can't as the information was never there in the JPEG data in the first place.


You can change from distributed data processing to centralized, if there is a good reason. Computing power is not a major bottleneck as tomorrow's computers use a fraction of energy compared with those in the 90's when the planes were designed, though you may use it for getting more data from elsewhere, but that is a choice to be made.

Certainly I agree that I would take all data as raw as possible, but for the data transfer you may have to pack it. You need major intelligence to pack it without losing essential information. The crucial point is the external data transfer. To survive and win, you need much more data from external sources than internal sensors.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:36 am

YIMBY wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
YIMBY wrote:

If a good design and coding discipline has been used, you do not have to rip out avionics to rewrite the sensor fusion code.

Existing Rafale and Typhoon users may not want to change anything and may want to have new fighters to be backward compatible to their oldest ones, but a new customer, like Canada or Belgium, should adopt the newest design.

If you really need 8 million lines of code to fly your plane, you do something wrong. If I were buying such planes, I would take them raw and write a better code myself.

Moreover, countries that need the fighters to defend their own territory against alien attacks, instead of attacking remote countries, may even assign a major part of the computation to external servers in the bases.

Except the F-35's fusion engine handles the raw, unprocessed sensor information directly. The Rafale and the Eurofighter's fusion engine handles information that is already processed by the sensor's onboard computers. There's a fundamental magnitude of difference in terms of processing requirements, complexity and algorithms needed processing raw information and conducting additional processing of already processed information.

The difference in terms of information load difference is similar to comparing the RAW and JPEG image formats; the RAW image format requires a lot more storage space and computing power to process compared to processing a JPEG for a picture of the same image.

However, the RAW image format contains much information that can be recovered when the image is to be processed; the RAW image file is in essence, all of the information that is captured by a camera's sensor at the time of it taking the picture.

The JPEG format is highly compressed, meaning that certain amounts of detail are lost as a result of the compression, and if you are trying to recover more information in processing later on, you can't as the information was never there in the JPEG data in the first place.


You can change from distributed data processing to centralized, if there is a good reason. Computing power is not a major bottleneck as tomorrow's computers use a fraction of energy compared with those in the 90's when the planes were designed, though you may use it for getting more data from elsewhere, but that is a choice to be made.

Certainly I agree that I would take all data as raw as possible, but for the data transfer you may have to pack it. You need major intelligence to pack it without losing essential information. The crucial point is the external data transfer. To survive and win, you need much more data from external sources than internal sensors.

As noted, both the F-22 and the F-35 have moved to high bandwidth databuses inside the aircraft that offer at least 20x the data rate than other aircraft. Furthermore, the F-22 has a proprietary IDFL data link which transfers data between multiple F-22's at a higher data rate than the existing Link 16 systems. The F-35 has MADL, which does the same.

It is not as easy to replace entire avionics systems in many legacy and 4.5th gen aircraft; for one, the base code in the avionics is not as easy to reprogram if there is a major change in hardware as different processors have different architectures, and the software runs directly on the processor without any intermediate system. Thus, a change in hardware entails a rewrite and recertification of the software than runs in the avionics. Furthermore, there's a ton of legacy code in older platforms; porting everything over to a new avionics architecture would essentially entail a complete rewrite of the code, and thus could be a very lengthy process.

The F-35 is different in that all of the software runs on a middleware to create a virtualized configuration that will remain the same for the entire lifetime of the F-35. If the hardware changes on the F-35, the middleware gets modified accordingly without impacting the various functions of other systems. The F-35 furthermore isolates, in discreet virtual machines, the individual processing of avionics data then fuses the results. This reduces the likelihood that an issue in one VM will affect everything else.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:19 pm

Boeing still isn't backing from its position and now PM Trudeau is taking more shots at Boeing....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-blasts-boeing-1.4276400
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:12 pm

They should really stick it to Boeing and drop the entire order and just go with the F-35... oh wait, they can't. They made avoiding the F-35 a cornerstone of the last election. Maybe go for the expensive and very different Euro-Canards that each lack in what they need in significant ways? That's a lot of retraining and weapons integration issues there...

Canada backed themselves into a political corner here. I suggest that they take the best political way out and just have Bombardier develop a fighter for them. That solves a lot of problems and won't be expensive at all... /s
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:36 pm

Nevermind. Comedy gold here. Instead of buying new plane's to replace our old F-18s, we're going to buy... wait for it...
Other old, worn out F-18s!
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-n ... 2a5cc8352a
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:56 am

Ozair wrote:
Hence making claims on operating costs of F-35 using US or Canadian or Australian estimated costs (all first tier air forces who train and operate jets at their peak) without having a direct comparison to operating costs for a nation like Sweden or Brazil or Switzerland (all second tier or below air forces), is meaningless.

What is determining exactly the tier of an Air Force according to your post? What is "at their peak"? The discriminator cant be different operating hours per year and it can't be fleet size...
 
Ozair
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:07 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Hence making claims on operating costs of F-35 using US or Canadian or Australian estimated costs (all first tier air forces who train and operate jets at their peak) without having a direct comparison to operating costs for a nation like Sweden or Brazil or Switzerland (all second tier or below air forces), is meaningless.

What is determining exactly the tier of an Air Force according to your post? What is "at their peak"? The discriminator cant be different operating hours per year and it can't be fleet size...

A host of factors but the big three are probably a combination of flight hours, realistic training such as Red Flag and operational experience.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:11 pm

I'm betting things will cool down and the Super Hornet order will proceed - the article did say the deal would be done through a US government agency.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:21 pm

Ozair wrote:
A host of factors but the big three are probably a combination of flight hours, realistic training such as Red Flag and operational experience.

Switzerland flies the F/A 18 with the most hours/aircraft/year of all F/A 18 operators. Almost double the flight hours per year than the nation with the second highest usage rate.
http://www.vbs.admin.ch/de/home.detail. ... 70725.html

Not sure whether that fact changes the operating cost per hour though (because it simply means, each aircraft "burns" just quicker through its remaining flight hours).

Also, how does realistic training make the operating hour more expensive?

And - does operational experience make the flight hour more expensive or less?
 
johns624
Posts: 1527
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:08 pm

Carrier operations (catapults/arresting wires) are much harder on an aircraft. Combat maneuvering (high Gs) is harder on an airframe than straight flight.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:38 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Switzerland flies the F/A 18 with the most hours/aircraft/year of all F/A 18 operators. Almost double the flight hours per year than the nation with the second highest usage rate.
http://www.vbs.admin.ch/de/home.detail. ... 70725.html

So I think we need to break the link you are making between the number of flight hours of airframes against that of aircrew. When I state first tier I am talking about aircrew generally although the doctrinal employment of an Air Force also makes a difference. The Swiss airframes may get a lot of hours, but how many do the aircrew get? That is the more important metric. Of those hours, how many are for currency, how many involve realistic training scenarios and how many involve operational sorties?
rheinwaldner wrote:
Not sure whether that fact changes the operating cost per hour though (because it simply means, each aircraft "burns" just quicker through its remaining flight hours).

If you look at a simple cost per hour (POL plus pilot as the simplest equation) then most operators of a single type would be broadly similar. Total operating cost vary for respective militaries for the same jet though because of a host of factors, including how they choose to man and maintain the jet (ten maintainers versus six or four), pilot to aircraft ratio in a squadron, how much associated infrastructure costs to acquire, build or maintain, how many times they fly with munitions (live and training aids), what training aids they fly with to assist (ACMI pods), what simulators they use to supplement flight hours, how often they exercise overseas or with other nations etc.

rheinwaldner wrote:
Also, how does realistic training make the operating hour more expensive?

And - does operational experience make the flight hour more expensive or less?

As John624 stated realistic training can be more intensive on airframes depending upon what type of training it comprises. Alternatively, sometimes operational hours are less taxing on airframes because the jets are not conducting high G but strolling around the airspace. Operational hours contribute to overall capability by improving aircrew ability to operate the aircraft operationally, including for example dropping live ordnance on live targets.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:43 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
Nevermind. Comedy gold here. Instead of buying new plane's to replace our old F-18s, we're going to buy... wait for it...
Other old, worn out F-18s!
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-n ... 2a5cc8352a

The intention is obviously to carry the current fleet until the replacement platform is chosen. Canada could certainly do worse than ex RAAF jets. The RAAF jets are in great shape given most of the fleet have had the centre barrel replaced while from a capability perspective the whole fleet went through the Australian HUG upgrades which place the jet at a higher capability than equivalent Canadian Hornets. They will not have some of the specific Canadian equipment, no searchlight for instance.
 
CX747
Posts: 5748
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:57 am

Looks like Boeing jets are headed North. 10 F/A-18Es and 8 F/A-18Fs. Looks like they are buying Block IIs.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/09/12/5b-o ... r-hornets/
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:49 am

CX747 wrote:
Looks like Boeing jets are headed North. 10 F/A-18Es and 8 F/A-18Fs. Looks like they are buying Block IIs.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/09/12/5b-o ... r-hornets/

Not a done deal. This is just the routine DSCA approval; there has been many times when someone gets a DSCA approval, but never follows through with an actual purchase.

The situation appears far worse between Boeing and the Canadian government: Boeing apparently walked away from negotiations:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/u-k-gov- ... -1.3585908

But the Liberal government's talks with Boeing broke down last month when, according to Canada's ambassador to the U.S., David MacNaughton, the company decided to stop negotiating.

"We had some proposals back and forth and then they walked away," MacNaughton said in St. John's, where federal cabinet ministers were meeting to strategize before the return of Parliament next week.

"For whatever reason, they (Boeing) decided they weren't going to continue to have discussions with us."
 
smithbs
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:33 pm

 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:38 pm

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:56 pm

There is a good possible fallout to all this.

The original political decision to acquire / operate / maintain 18 new Super Hornets on an "interim basis" was just a total waste of money to begin with - big time!. It would have required a new logistic chain, new ops manuals/training, you name it.

Thanks to Boeing’s greed, we will hopefully escape this costly SH interim procurement.

If a real capability gap exists (I have my doubts), then the purchase of used Australian F18 A/Bs should be way more cost effective (more life remaining on those + swapping in some Canadian specific hardware). L3 MAS in Mirabel (not far from the CSeries FAL) can accomplish those mods efficiently "demain matin".

About that capability gap, Trudeau says Canada cannot fulfill both NORAD and NATO obligations at this point. Well I got news for him; most European NATO members don't fulfill their own NATO obligations either. That should be an even bigger concern to all of us...

Anyways, if such gap exists, my "interim" solution would be to prioritize flying time to NORAD/Homeland defense obligations until new fighters come online. And shift NATO contributions to more combat troops instead of legacy Hornets.
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
cumulushumilis
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:06 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
There is a good possible fallout to all this.

The original political decision to acquire / operate / maintain 18 new Super Hornets on an "interim basis" was just a total waste of money to begin with - big time!. It would have required a new logistic chain, new ops manuals/training, you name it.

Thanks to Boeing’s greed, we will hopefully escape this costly interim procurement.

If a real capability gap exists (I have my doubts), then the purchase of used Australian F18 A/Bs should be way more cost effective (more life remaining on those + swapping in some Canadian specific hardware). L3 MAS in Mirabel (not far from the CSeries FAL) can accomplish those mods efficiently.

About that capability gap, Trudeau says that Canada cannot fulfill both NORAD and NATO obligations at this point. Well I got news to him; most European NATO members don't fulfill their own NATO obligations either. That should be an even bigger concern to all of us...

Anyways, if such gap exists, my "interim" solution would be to prioritize flying time to NORAD/Homeland defense obligations until new fighters come online.


Perhaps Bombardier and the Canadian government should make musings of the ever so remote possibility of a C Series MPA? Highly unlikely, however I would summarize that a Maritime Patrol Aircraft based on the CS300 for Canada and smaller nations may have Boeing rethinking their position.

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2016/01/26/bombardier-cs300-a-truly-canadian-alternative/
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:20 pm

@cumulushumilis,

Interesting link, thanks. As we all know, UK is a big stakeholder in the CSeries program (economically and politically).

UK will also be looking into MPA replacements soon...

Canada and UK couild launch such a CS300 MPA program and pay BBD all the program costs upfront (and then more) the same way Boeing benefits from military contracts... (And use all the billions $ saved by not buying interim SHs :lol: )

For the older crowd, Canada's Aurora/Orion predecessors were CL-28 Argus, conceived and built by Canadair (now BBD). And they were very capable MPAs for their time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CP-107_Argus
 
tjh8402
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:53 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
@cumulushumilis,

Interesting link, thanks. As we all know, UK is a big stakeholder in the CSeries program (economically and politically).

UK will also be looking into MPA replacements soon...

Canada and UK couild launch such a CS300 MPA program and pay BBD all the program costs upfront (and then more) the same way Boeing benefits from military contracts... (And use all the billions $ saved by not buying interim SHs :lol: )

For the older crowd, Canada's Aurora/Orion predecessors were CL-28 Argus, conceived and built by Canadair (now BBD). And they were very capable MPAs for their time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CP-107_Argus


Britain has already decided for (ironically) Boeing's P-8 as their new MPA. There are already BBD based MPAs out there, almost all on the (more suitable) Global Express platform. I think the globals endurance, ceiling, and performance would probably be of much greater interest than the CS's size. Even more ironically, the other platform from Bombardier that was investigated for this role was the Challenger, and the company pursuing that concept was… Boeing, who wanted to market it as a budget platform for some of the P-8s systems.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:26 pm

@tjh8402; thanks for the update!

Further ideas about a possible RCAF CS300 MPA (I know, a very remote possibility); Canada could specify a heavier longer range CS300 platform for its MPA (As you say tjh8402, longer range would definitely be more appropriate).

And hey! Pay BBD upfront for all the related development costs. The RCAF ironically could use those billions saved by not buying interim SH.

It seems perfectly legal for Boeing to use defense $ to cross subsidize/engineer its civilian applications. Well, why not BBD?

That new heavier longer range CS300 platform (all paid for by the RCAF) could then be used to launch the CS500 with very few mods. (having now similar MTOW)
 
tjh8402
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:58 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
@tjh8402; thanks for the update!

Further ideas about a possible RCAF CS300 MPA (I know, a very remote possibility); Canada could specify a heavier longer range CS300 platform for its MPA (As you say tjh8402, longer range would definitely be more appropriate).

And hey! Pay BBD upfront for all the related development costs. The RCAF ironically could use those billions saved by not buying interim SH.

It seems perfectly legal for Boeing to use defense $ to cross subsidize/engineer its civilian applications. Well, why not BBD?

That new heavier longer range CS300 platform (all paid for by the RCAF) could then be used to launch the CS500 with very few mods. (having now similar MTOW)

I would think the CS100 would be the more appropriate frame since I'm assuming as a shrink it has greater endurance. That being said, with Bombardier's own Global already being used as a surveillance platform, and probably being better suited than the CS, the Canadian government is probably better off buying that and then just giving BBD more long term loans/bailouts. It's one thing if you want to try to argue that the US bought an inferior American plane as a tanker instead of a better European one because MAGA, but it's another thing to ask the RCAF to spend a lot of $ developing a homegrown surveillance plane when an arguably more capable homegrown one already exists. Besides, the Global program is also hurting and could also use some cash. Gulfstream is laughing all the way to the bank while the G650 continues unchallenged.
Last edited by tjh8402 on Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bigjku
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:04 pm

A Canadian sourced MPA would be high entertainment to watch. I definitely think they should do it right now while still working out the kinks of the C series production to begin with. It is a brilliant idea. We could relaunch the Arrow while we are at it.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:13 pm

I would also add that what Bombardier needs for the CS is sales and volume, and the RCAF's MPA fleet just isn't big enough to make a huge difference. From what I understand, the CS isn't lacking for range on the civilian market, so using military $ to develop an LR model that won't do much to help increase airline purchases. Yes they could try to export the MPA model, but again, that would potentially be at the expense of Global sales, not to mention they would face stiff competition from Japan not mention...the 737 aka P8 which seems to be the MPA aircraft of choice right now.

Back on topic, this whole ordeal looks like it might give the Trudeau government the cover it needs to go back on its campaign promise and stick with the F-35 after all.
 
cumulushumilis
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:37 pm

bigjku wrote:
A Canadian sourced MPA would be high entertainment to watch. I definitely think they should do it right now while still working out the kinks of the C series production to begin with. It is a brilliant idea. We could relaunch the Arrow while we are at it.


Entertaining to watch but no worse than CH-148 debacle which is going on since the award of the contract in 2004! I think the government and defense contractors have began to realize that for some sick and twisted reason Canadians have this special relationship with long convoluted procurement of major military equipment. (except for the C-17 and CH-147 which went pretty smooth). Kind of like watching "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" or some other bad reality TV program, you can't help it.
 
bigjku
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:00 pm

cumulushumilis wrote:
bigjku wrote:
A Canadian sourced MPA would be high entertainment to watch. I definitely think they should do it right now while still working out the kinks of the C series production to begin with. It is a brilliant idea. We could relaunch the Arrow while we are at it.


Entertaining to watch but no worse than CH-148 debacle which is going on since the award of the contract in 2004! I think the government and defense contractors have began to realize that for some sick and twisted reason Canadians have this special relationship with long convoluted procurement of major military equipment. (except for the C-17 and CH-147 which went pretty smooth). Kind of like watching "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" or some other bad reality TV program, you can't help it.


Yeah Canadian procurement for as relatively small of numbers as they buy things in is uniquely handled. Compared to watching Norway or something operate it's just odd to see.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:15 am

tjh8402 wrote:
...From what I understand, the CS isn't lacking for range on the civilian market, so using military $ to develop an LR model that won't do much to help increase airline purchases...


Agree that such an extra long range CS300 would not fetch many more sales.

However, developing an heavier longer range CS300 MPA accomplishes most of the work required for a CS500 (beefed up structure & landing gears for the increased MTOW, and maybe a larger wing; all this could then be applied directly to the CS500 stretch).

So that would ensure a speedier CS500 launch, while having the RCAF pay most of the development (Boeing is expert in those Defense $ that cross finance/engineer its civilian programs)
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:54 am

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
There is a good possible fallout to all this.

The original political decision to acquire / operate / maintain 18 new Super Hornets on an "interim basis" was just a total waste of money to begin with - big time!. It would have required a new logistic chain, new ops manuals/training, you name it.

Thanks to Boeing’s greed, we will hopefully escape this costly SH interim procurement.

If a real capability gap exists (I have my doubts), then the purchase of used Australian F18 A/Bs should be way more cost effective (more life remaining on those + swapping in some Canadian specific hardware). L3 MAS in Mirabel (not far from the CSeries FAL) can accomplish those mods efficiently "demain matin".

About that capability gap, Trudeau says Canada cannot fulfill both NORAD and NATO obligations at this point. Well I got news for him; most European NATO members don't fulfill their own NATO obligations either. That should be an even bigger concern to all of us...

Anyways, if such gap exists, my "interim" solution would be to prioritize flying time to NORAD/Homeland defense obligations until new fighters come online. And shift NATO contributions to more combat troops instead of legacy Hornets.


The problems with all of this talk of a "interim" solution, and capability gap ignores a couple of key facts, some of which have been alluded to in past posts.

First, the capability gap was completely invented for political purposes. What the Liberal government did was instead of allowing aircraft that are normally assigned for NORAD duties be allocated for other duties like what we have done in the past, such as overseas deployments, they made the two fleets separate. This naturally increased the number of aircraft required to meet both needs, hence the 'capability gap'.

Second, the other major problem that the RCAF doesn't have the personnel to operate more aircraft. Unless said purchase of an "interim" aircraft comes with interim pilots and maintainers, there will be no one to operate the aircraft, so they will sit on the ramp, unused.

Third, we don't have enough spare parts in inventory to keep our existing birds operational at a level that would allow for more operations. So unless said purchase of an "interim" aircraft comes with interim spare parts for our aircraft, they will join the ramp full of aircraft that awaiting parts and work.

And finally, my comments on the matter:

This whole talk of an "interim" purchase by the Liberal government has been nothing but a political sham conceived after the election as a ruse to avoid breaking a election promise - of holding a proper competition for the CF-18 replacement that would not include the F-35.

Breaking this promise was necessary because they were reminded by the lawyers and bureaucrats, after the election (but any person even remotely knowledgeable would have known before), that the imbecilic, ignorant and irrational statement of Trudeau Jr. that the F-35 doesn't work, and his indirect but equally Imbecilic/irrational/ignorant statement that the F-35 is too expensive, turned out to be false. The F-35 is not only perfectly capable, now, to fulfill the requirements of Canada, but is also able to do so at a price that is not much different than the price of any alternative airplane. To add insult to injury, the F-35 has beaten every other aircraft it has competed against in any proper, open competition it has been a part of, first time around, with a complete knock out punch. There is no contest.

However, this scenario wouldn't do: it would expose Trudeau as the ignorant person he is in matters of defence. And it would break a major promise (fair competition, but no F-35). So what to do?

So unilaterally, without consulting the actual experts in defence, the Liberal government invented the idea of "creating a crisis" as solution to their political dilemma: Change the policy on fighter employment so as to create an otherwise non existent "gap", then claim the gap must be closed ASAP!

Then, the only way to solve this "crisis" was to go forward with a sole-source purchase justified by the "urgency" and therefore with something other than F-35 - then use that to claim that you can only hold the proper competition for replacement in a few years (i.e. after the next election).

Oh, and the last point is complete crap on the part of the Liberal government, as all the requirements for the replacement have been known for years, and a proper competition can be held right now (and could have been held a year ago) and the selection could be made within a year. But it would have to include the F-35 if the government doesn't want to be sued, and the F-35 would likely win both on capability and price, as it has done everywhere else.

Then, Boeing throws a major spanner into the works by launching a trade complaint against Bombardier, charging Bombardier with dumping and illegal subsidies, with the end result that the planned interim purchase suddenly goes up in smoke because of the ongoing kerfuffle, leaving the Liberals in a bind.

This entire, stupid and sorry saga is entirely the Liberal's own fault; they decided to play political games and gutter politics with national defence, and it comes and bites them in the rear. The issue is that everybody does it in Canada: Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Here the Liberals lost badly, and it is entirely the fault of the Liberal government. Worst of all for the Liberals, the public in general also knows about this sorry state of affairs, and what they know barely scratches the surface of what is actually going on with this mess, thus exposing the glaring incompetence of the Liberals in matters of national defence.

In the end, the only true losers of this game is the guy/gal at the sharp end when his/her life is at stake.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Canada may cancel F18 deal

Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:37 pm

cumulushumilis wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
There is a good possible fallout to all this.

The original political decision to acquire / operate / maintain 18 new Super Hornets on an "interim basis" was just a total waste of money to begin with - big time!. It would have required a new logistic chain, new ops manuals/training, you name it.

Thanks to Boeing’s greed, we will hopefully escape this costly interim procurement.

If a real capability gap exists (I have my doubts), then the purchase of used Australian F18 A/Bs should be way more cost effective (more life remaining on those + swapping in some Canadian specific hardware). L3 MAS in Mirabel (not far from the CSeries FAL) can accomplish those mods efficiently.

About that capability gap, Trudeau says that Canada cannot fulfill both NORAD and NATO obligations at this point. Well I got news to him; most European NATO members don't fulfill their own NATO obligations either. That should be an even bigger concern to all of us...

Anyways, if such gap exists, my "interim" solution would be to prioritize flying time to NORAD/Homeland defense obligations until new fighters come online.


Perhaps Bombardier and the Canadian government should make musings of the ever so remote possibility of a C Series MPA? Highly unlikely, however I would summarize that a Maritime Patrol Aircraft based on the CS300 for Canada and smaller nations may have Boeing rethinking their position.

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2016/01/26/bombardier-cs300-a-truly-canadian-alternative/


There is the SAAB Swordfish that uses the Global 6000 already.

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bigjku, rlwynn and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos