What would a real deal look like? Probably something like below. Interesting. Because it isn't too far off from the non-DND studies thrown about for an F-35 procurement (much higher than the Lockheed Martin talking point crowd). My scenario has support for 20 years and not 30 years. More; note the language that I used in the fake DSCA release below. It hints at an open competition for replacement of Canada's aging CF-18s.
Canada – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft
WASHINGTON, August 8, 2013 – Today the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Canada of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, a host of spare parts and munitions at an estimated value of $6.5 billion; with an option to purchase at a later date an additional 36 aircraft.
The Government of Canada has requested proposals from several foreign suppliers, including the United States, to provide the next generation fighter for the Canadian Defence Force. In this competition, the Government of Canada has yet to select the United States Navy-Boeing proposal.
This notification is being made in advance of receipt of a letter of request so that, in the event that the US Navy-Boeing proposal is selected, the United States might move as quickly as possible to implement the sale. If the Government of Canada selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, the Government of Canada will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, four F414-GE-400 spare engines, 36 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 36 M61A2 20mm Gun Systems, 36 AN/ALR-67(V) three Radar Warning Receivers, 144 LAU-127 Launchers, 44 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), 144 AIM-120D Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), 144 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles, and 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods. Also included are 36 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures. 40 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys, 12 air-to-air refueling kits, Joint Mission Planning System, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, ferry and tanker support, flight test, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.
I propose that the second order of Super Hornets would be for 36 single-seat E models. A package very similar to above in content for $6.3B. Grand-total: 72 aircraft.
Operating and sustainment figures for 20 years will be for cost of flight hour only. I am averaging this out to $22k per flight hour; 300 flight hours per airframe, per year.
Grand total (not counting facilities upgrades) is around $22.3B to replace Canada's CF-18s with 72 Super Hornets including 20 years of basic operations and sustainment costs.
(ATFLIR on BlockII F-18F)
14 comments:
An epic fake DSCA FMS press release, folks, only by Eric (OBE).
One which would make a great April Fools press release for sure.
Regarding the actual numbers though, I think these figures might have even over-budgeted for the initial purchase.
It's possible this hypothetical $13bn cost for 72 F-18E/F would probably include some of the 20-year operating costs as well as some of the facility upgrade costs.
I'm guessing PUC costs for 72x E/F including Ferry service, test equipiment, initial spares, FLIR and towed decoys to total no more than $7bn. Add to that your initial AAM munitions, training, spares and 20 years of support and operations plus facility upgrades (maybe $1.5 bn including northern operating base upgrades?)... so maybe even less, like $16-18 bn total package cost?
If RCAF were to indeed go with Supers however, they could probably just keep their Sniper AT pods which are currently integrated on their hornets, and just integrate them as refurbished next-gen 1k FLIR 'sensor enhanced' versions under the centerline station points?
And as Canuck fighter suggested... maybe add the next-gen CFT upgrade as well - thus negating the need for wing drop tanks and reducing that piece of the drag.
All this being said... I'd have to support an F-15CA proposal instead of the the Super Hornet. Go with a reduced 50 jet acquisition model (leasing the final 25 jets for 12 years in order to prepare for a more orderly CF-future replacement programme starting deliveries by 2035). The F-15 could perform actual supersonic Intercept capabilities which the Super could not perform, let alone include far superior active and passive sensors for superior BVR situational awareness and operate at greater endurance.
Basically, one could argue that Canada requires more of a multi-role jet, and less transonic strike-fighter. imho.
geo
Hi Geo,
See the photo I inserted into the post above.
Yes Sniper is great. However,especially with BlockII Super Hornet, ATFLIR is fused to the avionics. Plug and play. You can look at something with the JHMCS and queue the ATFLIR to it. Then hand off to the ATFLIR. And it has some other fused functions. For the scenario above, I figure that if/when there is a contingency, you want ATFLIR part of the training routine.
@Geo
Totally agree with you that a "Maple Eagle" should be a consideration. After the F22, there is no western aircraft as capable for both CAP and strike. The latest F15E+ variants have some impressive development features such as add-on CWB's, RAM to reduce RCS, advanced cockpit with DEWS, and potential canted tails.
One would think that the Canadian and Australian Def depts would take a better look at the plane. Unfortunately, we just don't have the visionaries that can see beyond the politics and powerpoints.
I guess it takes the Saudis, South Koreans and Israeli's to show leadership as they have real threats on their doorstep.
@ELP
Love your 2013 press release.
You should buy a lottery ticket.
Canuck
You forgot the 600 gal tanks.But SHornets don't move the game for Canada. Agree that a F-15 variant would be the right choice - as it would have been in 1980.
If y'all thought that 'The One True Religion of the Sacred JSF' was merely a figure of speech, guess again.
"Fantino said a recent report criticizing the purchase in the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal was "critical of everything that is holy and decent about the government's efforts" to equip the Canadian Forces."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/09/f35-canada-julian-fantino_n_1266663.html?ref=canada-politics
It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.
JRL
CF -
I'd have to conjecture that Canada should be getting the presently declared F-15SA slots. (I'm not sure what Boeing's cost-effective capacity is to produce annual F-15 rates). Perhaps SA could have upgraded their F-15S to the F-15SA standard, but acquired additional EF Typhoon trn III+ instead of new build F-15SA.
The slanted tail thing was a good proposal, but I just don't see it being a realistic design improvement by 2015, which is when Canada should really be taking their first deliveries. For a 'down-the-road' modification though as an alternative to the proposed slanted tail, maybe a twin all-moving vertical (eg 3/4-sized F-23 all-moving tails) could be more feasible. That could reduce weight, improve RCS as well as improve slow-speed maneuvering.
For a Canada (and RAAF) and possibly even RoKAF concept, I'd also contemplate a joint-developed tactical CFT design containing around 50% fuel volume and being more transonic-friendly. 4x semi-recessed AMRAAM points could be built into the CFT, as well as frontal sphere staring MLD built into the CFT. Add a centerline tank and it should give credible tactical ranges with minimal drag and RCS penalties.
Engine wise, I'd contemplate another joint-development of an improved GE-132 F110 to act as the equivalent to the proposed F414 EDE (fuel efficient and reliable) design, calibrated for a 29.5k lbf efficiency setting.
That should be part of a more comprehensive F-15E+ international roadmap 2015 project. That and modifying the software to allow for a fully-operable single-crew option. imho.
geo
I like the idea of the Ge132-F110 engines. It shouldn't be much of a challenge and would give the plane great acceleration.
If you're starting from a fresh piece of paper the F15 is really the right plane for Canada. Even a smaller fleet model to start would be a serious move forward.
If we wouldn't buy F-15s back when there was lots'a money and an actual credible threat to our security, ie, the Soviet Union, we sure as hell won't be getting them now. Esp in the numbers you suggest. Hell, they even mothballed a large number of the CF-18 fleet due to operating costs, and the big F110s in the SE are surely considerably thirstier than the Hornet's F404s.
My guess is that once it's time to pay the piper, either the F-35 order gets cut by at least 15-20%, or they somehow manage to swallow their pride and buy 50-60 advanced SuperBugs.
Forgot to sign off on the previous post...
JRL
JRL,
I appreciate your perspective on this point and understand this is your view, but it should be pointed out as well that the rest-of-world Tactical air capabilities are or soon will be about 5x more capable than they were during the Soviet-era -- when an F-18A could go toe to toe with a Mig-29 in a gun fight and an updated CF-18 could escort an encroaching Bear bomber in international air-space if sufficiently south enough.
So I think it's more about Canada requiring to be competitive with rest of world tactical platforms of tomorrow, rather than matching a requirement for 30 years ago.
So with respect to an hypothetical order of 50x operational (compared to CF-18 hangar queen) F-15CA 'Northern Eagles' (not necessarily an F-15SE per se, but more of an upgraded F-15SG), there should be no such concern of it being some sort of overkill platform in satisfying future requirements.
In fact, if the CF-35 plan does in fact fall apart and an alternative is required, the F-15CA would be the closest US-made alternative to the F-35. That is, the F-15E+ is the most credible (plus cheaper) alternative to the F-35 today - even more than would be the mighty Super Hornet transonic strike fighter.
And to respond to CF... I'd actually contemplate the GE-132 motor being calibrated to an efficiency setting (in line with 29k lbf output), in order to maximize fuel efficiency and reduce maintenance costs - something of definite RCAF interest? Such an aircraft would cost less to maintain and operate than the current day F-15E. Another bonus would be the extended long range which RCAF is not accustomed with... which would translate to patrols not requiring nearly the same typical number of CF-18 air-refueling sorties by tankers. (thus saving added fuel and RCAF operational costs). Not a bad win-win consideration in itself.
geo
You've misconstrued the thrust of my post. I actually believe that an F-15 variant would be the most suitable a/c available for Canada's needs, esp regarding sovereignty patrols. However, it remains that given our shared geography with the US, there really is no credible current or projected threat to that sovereignty, hysterical portents of resurgent Russki armadas of rampaging Bears, Blackjacks, and T-50s to the contrary...
When you brush aside the high-minded patriotic rhetoric, what you have left is a fighter force whose actual raison d'être is not to defend Canadian national security, but rather a flashy, macho toy so our political leaders can pretend that they're big boys on the international scene playing those futile reindeer coalition adventurism games. And for that 'job', we require neither pricey LO 'first day of the war' battlefield interdiction fighters aka the F-35, nor big, long-range Mach 2+ fighters with the attendant high operation costs inherent to such complexity and performance.
SuperBugs(Or even the political non-starter Gripen NGs) and a dozen long-endurance ISR UAVs for northern patrols would get the job done quite fine.
JRL
Two thumbs up Geo.
CF
JRL,
While I would have no problem promoting any of the world AF's evaluating the Gripen NG (if it materializes) and while it would seem to be a better 'interceptor' than the SH in terms of speed and rate of climb, etc., I don't know how feasible it is as an option.
But I guess some might just disagree with your premise that it would be Patriotic overkill to acquire an F-15 class over the Super Hornet class, and disagree that Canada would base it's recapitalization requirements relative to the current day threats to her air sovereignty.
For one thing, no one can predict what threat matrix or intimidation will exist in 8-10 yrs from now, as sadly, we're not quite yet at a state of global demilitarization under a negotiated truce, etc. So until we reach that point in history and global achievement, one arguably shouldn't wait for a sudden threat or intimidation to arise to go ahead and ramp up an appropriate 10 year tacair recapitalization strategy, or restart F-22 lines, etc, etc.
Secondly, beyond basic air sovereignty tasks, Canada would likely join or be willing and able to join any substantial future coalition joint-deployment requirement be it in actual action or merely deterrence (hopefully not for another unnecessary war, but that is irrelevant to the capability required).
So in the most raw form, this issue is about cost-effective, reliable and responsible Tacair recapitalization... nothing more extravagant than that.
Lastly, as far as price goes, they'd still likely be cheaper than late LRIP and even early FRP F-35s. My gut thinking is that RCAF could get away with as few as 50 credible next-gen platforms for overall future deterrence and contingencies too, given that RCAF seems to be doing ok this decade with a number of CF-18 in various forms of maintenance overhauls, SLEP, or upgrade, anyways. Besides that, 6 F-15E+ could probably deter and be as capable as at least 10 CF-18 today. It could be as flexible as the battle commander needed; either stripped down with only a Sniper pod and a couple AAM, or loaded for a long-range strike or anti-maritime mission enabling greater strategic deterrence if called upon. And when a couple Super Hornets would require launch of a second 2-ship Buddy-tanker sortie to complete a sortie, a two-ship F-15E+ could complete the mission independently. (an underestimated cost savings - ie requiring less in-flight tanking support imho).
Don't get me wrong, I support and respect the upgradeable and highly affordable transonic Super Hornet strike fighter, but I feel it's more of a niche fighter. It's a fair option if you operate an Air craft Carrier, or perhaps if you're a smaller country in physical size, such as say a Denmark or even Netherlands. imho
geo
Post a Comment