The Canadian Air Force's Future

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe
what does 'operating range' (3,000kms) mean? Is that the range with the Gripen tanking as much fuel as it can carry + an in-flight? The two figures (operating range and unrefueled combat radius) seem enormously disparate.

The operating range is the range specified for normal operation. It seems the Gripen doesn't have long legs but then again for its primary operator, it doesn't need long legs.

 

[Catch22]

I'm not sure that's the point that puts the Gripen out of favour
It's a new bird so time will tell but Sweden can get pretty chilly too, don't forget they have Barents Sea defence commitments and they are by no means sunny climes.

Oh, I know it's not the point that puts it out of favour. I was just curious about its reliability.

 

[pbfoot]

The F15 was considered in the original competition
New Fighter Aircraft program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[vikingBerserker]

I believe the Grippen NG's range without drop tanks is better then the F-16

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe the Grippen NG's range without drop tanks is better then the F-16

I show 430 mile combat radius for the Gripen, 340 for the F-16. Ferry range for the F-16, 2620 with drop tanks, 2000 miles for the Gripen with drop tanks.

 

[Matt308]

Gripen NG is supposed to carry 40% more internal fuel. Quite an impressive change.

 

[tomo pauk]

If they do that, it's a great thing IMO. It's silly to see half of precious hard points occupied by drop tanks on today's fighters - just take a look on Rafale, or F-16 pictures.
The ability to carry a lot of fuel is one more thing I like at Su-27 family; F-15E with CFT comes close too.

 

[pbfoot]

If they do that, it's a great thing IMO. It's silly to see half of precious hard points occupied by drop tanks on today's fighters - just take a look on Rafale, or F-16 pictures.
The ability to carry a lot of fuel is one more thing I like at Su-27 family; F-15E with CFT comes close too.

I'm going to guess that they will take the most modern frame with the most versatility preferably with 2 engines much like they did when ordering the F18, when they started the competition for the aircraft to replace the 104/101 combo they were leaning toward the F17

 

[Waynos]

The F-15SE's still $100 million, compared to the $54 million of the Super Hornet and the max $61 million of the Gripen. The Eurofighter's only $84 million, around $89 CDN. Still too expensive most likely, but still cheaper. The more I look at it, the Gripen's probably too short range and limited for Canadian use.

Thanks for that, I was guilty of believing the Boeing blurb that the F-15SE was an 'affordable alternative'. They were obviously referring to the F-22 rather than fighters that are actually available

 

[tomo pauk]

Now that we speak about prices, is there a credible source that lists the prices of new a/c?

 

[Wildcat]

As most of you will know, Canada's combat aircraft fleet consists of CF-18s, which are now up to F-18C/D standard. We don't deploy them outside of Canada much, but as they are aging, I'm wondering what people's thoughts (who are more knowledgeable than I) are on whether or not we should consider replacing them before the F-35 comes into being. We are a "Level 3" Partner in the project, though I'm not sure what exactly that means, and are projected to contribute between US$4.8 billion and US$6.8 billion (from Wiki). Do you think we'll end up even buying the F-35, or should we go for something cheaper like the Gripen?

Funnily enough, the RAAF is in the exact same situation. Our Hornets are now 25+ years old and our F-111's are to be retired this year. To fill in the gap left by the F-111's and the fact that the F35 won't enter service with the RAAF for some time yet, the Government has aquired 24 Super Hornets to plug the gap. Obviously the need to have an interim aircraft is not the ideal situation to be in, but atleast if there are further delays with the F35, we will already have the required back up and support equipment to change over to a wholly Super Hornet fleet.
Maybe the CAF will follow a similar path?

 

[tomo pauk]

F-111 was surely a great asset.
What was the price of Super Hornets?

 

[Catch22]

Whoops, didn't see the last page.

Tomo, I got the prices from Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to doubt the prices, but it IS Wiki so you never know I guess.

 

[Catch22]

Funnily enough, the RAAF is in the exact same situation. Our Hornets are now 25+ years old and our F-111's are to be retired this year. To fill in the gap left by the F-111's and the fact that the F35 won't enter service with the RAAF for some time yet, the Government has aquired 24 Super Hornets to plug the gap. Obviously the need to have an interim aircraft is not the ideal situation to be in, but atleast if there are further delays with the F35, we will already have the required back up and support equipment to change over to a wholly Super Hornet fleet.
Maybe the CAF will follow a similar path?

I wouldn't be adverse to that. I would imagine it would be a fairly easy transition to the Super Hornet from the Hornet and it appears to be the cheapest option available as well. It makes sense because the Hornet's served our needs so well up until now.

 

[Butters]

Now that we speak about prices, is there a credible source that lists the prices of new a/c?

Good luck with that. Here's a good paper by some unaffiliated analysts that explains quite a bit about the costs and price variations in modern fighter a/c. It predates the Gripen NG and the Block 60 F-16E/F, and does not reflect the ever-increasing price of the F-35, but other than being somewhat dated it seems credible.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

Should also note that the program unit cost for the F-22 does not include the $8 billion data/comm link upgrade (don't remember the program name)

Canada's fleet of Hornets is now down to 78 from the original 138. 16 have been lost in accidents, and after Allied Force, a number of the weariest ones were placed in storage. The remainder are not in fact 'reliable', and require extensive mantenance. Mostly due to age.

The CF-18 replacement should reflect our AF's actual requirements and treaty obligations. Because it is extremely unlikely that we will be engaged in any independent military actions, and because we are equally unlikely to be fighting a first-rate adversary ala Russia, China, India, et al, we do not require a pricey, stealthy 'first day of the war-knock down the door' battlefield interdiction fighter. Note that the original tentative proposed buy of 80 JSFs has already been reduced to 65...

What we really need is a dual-role fighter that is reasonably affordable to buy and operate. That eliminates the Eurocanards, advanced F-15 variants, and, if sense prevailed the F-35. Note that the USN claims that F-35C operating costs are predicted to be 40% higher than the current fleet a/c.

The SuperHornet is decent aircraft but I think that the UAE funded Block 60 F-16E/F and Gripen NG are better choices. the Superbug has the twin-engine safety advantage, but given the plan to buy JSFs, that begs the question of why the single engine Viper or Gripen would not do as well, esp in the case of the Gripen. The GE 414-derived engine has one of the best, if not the best, reliability record of any modern fighter engine. The JSF, OTOH, uses a very high-pressure/temp engine with no track record (derived from the F-22's PW119, but still a very different animal) at all.

The '18F is no match for either the Bk 60 Viper or the G NG in the AtA arena, and has no significant range advantage, if any. Both the Viper and the NG have very advanced avionic packages, AESA radars, and will be significantly less expensive both to buy and operate. Esp the Gripen, as it is a small a/c using just one of the engines used in the Superbug. In the Brazilian competition, the NG package is $1.6 billion less than the Hornet, IIRC.

If we were to buy Gripens, we would save enough to buy a couple tanker/transports which would save wear and tear on the C-17's, and which we would require in any case, given that any likely combat deployment is going to be a long way from home. Not to mention that the Swedes would bend over backwards to sell us 80+ fighters .

Still, it's politically very unlikely that we would make such a major purchase from even a NATO country, much less Sweden, so I figure it will come down to 45-50 of the sluggish, obese SuperBugs, or if we're willing to wait 10-15 extra yrs and have a few extra billion kickin' around, the sluggish, obese F-35 . Add in the "fact" that the JSF is not only a match for any 4 (or is it 6 now?) non-Raptorfighters* in the world, and the undisputed Power Point dominance champ, we'll probably get stuck with 35-40 of them. So we'll just have to fill up on Super Tucanos or something...

BTW, I saw a price for the F-16E, and if IIRC it was approx $55-60M flyaway/$ 80M all in.

JL

*From the Gospel According to LM

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Note that the USN claims that F-35C operating costs are predicted to be 40% higher than the current fleet a/c.

And comes from where?

And how can an operator make that prediction when the aircraft aren't even fielded and no one knows what type of problems or MC rates will be forthcoming.

 

[Butters]

I don't have a link to the entire report at hand, but this site shows the NAVAIR chart.

CHART: F-35B/C operating costs versus Hornets, Harriers - The DEW Line

It's been around a while, so the official report shouldn't be hard to find.

JL

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ok, I have to laugh - good find Butters but some of the comments posted from that article sum it up...

"As presented, it looks like FY2008 $/flying hours are compared to dollars in the 2020s. 40% higher would be the same as less than 2% annual inflation over 20 years."

"OK, blowing up the teeny-weeny slide.... I see that TOC 'claimed' includes adjustment for inflation and indirect cost increases, This leaves direct cost increases unrelated to inflation. What is the cost of fuel estimate in the far future?
The real question is how does this compare to the TOC of keeping the F-18 alive and effective through 2029?

Apples and apples are needed. This slide is apples and oranges."

I bet David E. Burgess never turned a wrench or managed a NAVAIR budget.

 

[tomo pauk]

Indeed an expensive sport, that airforce...

So, some 50 F-15E would require 5 bn USD. Canada is to invest some 5-6 bn in F-35, plus another 2-3 bn for 50 Super Bugs*(guess those would be purchased as interim fighters), plus purchase of those 60-70 F-35s for 7-8 bn (price estimate in 2006 was 115 m USD). All in all 14-17bn. That would be some 80-90 F-22, in same 2006 (firm) price. Available NOW.

*When people say: "we have F-18A-D, so let's buy F-18E now since it's about the same pane", it makes me laugh. Engine, radar whole avionics suite, hull, wings, LERX, tail, even missiles it uses are different. It's same as if someone says that MiG-25 and MiG-31 are about the same planes.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

*When people say: "we have F-18A-D, so let's buy F-18E now since it's about the same pane", it makes me laugh. Engine, radar whole avionics suite, hull, wings, LERX, tail, even missiles it uses are different. It's same as if someone says that MiG-25 and MiG-31 are about the same planes.

While that is true, the things on the aircraft that "wear out" are kept common. I could tell you that you're not normally replacing large airframe components at the squadron level. 71% common airframe components, 90% avionics and electrical components are advertised.