Canadian F-35 buy plan history

As we start the conversation over Canada's problems replacing its' CF-18 fighter aircraft, let us look at this comparison of how the F-35 buy plans were looked at over the years.


(click image to make larger)

Price comparisons for Canada's CF-18 replacement are now available

In looking at a potential Brazil deal for 36 fighter aircraft, Canada now has a partial snapshot of costing for the purchase, and some industry benefits of 3 CF-18 replacement contenders:

The document states that the least costly of the three jets being tendered are the Gripen of the Swedish firm Saab, the entire fleet being offered for $4.3 billion.

The Boeing F-18 jets would cost Brazil about $5.4 billion for 36 aircraft whereas the French Rafale would cost a lot more at $8.2 billion.

According to the published document, Boeing has agreed to the technology transfer required by the Brazilian government to close the deal and has also offered to open a center for high technology in Brazil if it gets the contract.

Note: all the above aircraft have large amounts of known qualities.

Unlike the F-35.

Canada slow to wake up to the lie

Interesting how long information like this takes to reach the Canadian media (it isn't winter).

Telling us all something we already knew. That is, that the F-35 was never going to be cheaper to operate than legacy aircraft. Even though (for years) F-35 sales brief specifically stated that an F-35 would be cheaper to own and operate than a legacy F-18 and legacy F-16.

The U.S. Government figures the F-35 cost per flying hour as follows:

F-35A = $35,200
F-35B = $38,400
F-35C = $36,300

I hope this doesn't get in the way of any media outlets losing ad-sales dollars:

Are operations abroad an important CF-18 replacement requirement?

The recent Canadian budget has stated that the CF-18 replacement has to be available for operations at home and abroad.

Any strike-fighter deployment package will be small and while helpful will be part of a bigger coalition effort. 10-12 combat ready aircraft (this includes spare aircraft) may be what is needed in order for Canada to deploy within a reasonable amount of time.

If the CF-18 replacement can buddy-tank (Super Hornet / Rafale) then 3 buddy tank kits would be recommended for the deployment. This would give greater operational flexibility by being able to go places the dedicated tanker aircraft could not.

And again, I suspect that 65 strike-fighters for the DND as a grand total number will not do if operations abroad are a real requirement. 72 is probably the bare minimum when considering home defense commitments, training, test and maintenance down time and deployment options.

Look through this list of possible deployment options for a CF-18 replacement and add your own ideas as you see fit.

1. Japan: as an added air-defense and naval warfare patrol operation in the event of increased North Korean tensions.

2. Philippines: as an air-defense and naval warfare patrol operation in the event of tensions over the Spratly Islands.

3. Alaska/U.S.: as an air defense operation the event USAF resources are short due to deployments world-wide.

4. Italy: as an air defense and naval warfare patrol operation in the event of various Mediterranean region (Balkans/North Africa) tensions.

5. Kuwait: as an air defense and naval warfare patrol operation in the event of increased tensions in that region.

Yes, "strike" is an option there. However in some cases, if the build up is fast enough, it is possible that this will make the potential threat decide to back down.

Canada has to make a firm determination if operations abroad are really needed for a CF-18 replacement. If not, there is some money to be saved.

New Fed Budget: Canada seeks "affordable" CF-18 replacement

The new Canadian federal budget has been released.

This article led me there.

I expected to find more mentions about Defence and the CF-18 replacement than what the reporter found. But I did not.

It says in the budget, that Canada seeks an "affordable" CF-18 replacement.

Updating Defence Capital Funding (page 223)

The Government of Canada has made significant progress towards the implementation of the Canada First Defence Strategy, which outlines a comprehensive, long-term plan to provide the Canadian Forces with the people, equipment and support they need to carry out their core missions in Canada and elsewhere in North America and abroad.

The Government will continue to replace key equipment, including purchasing new ships built in Canada through the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, as well as by acquiring an affordable replacement for Canada’s aging CF-18 fleet to better equip Canada’s men and women in uniform. In order to ensure that funding for major capital equipment procurements is available when it is needed, the Government is adjusting the National Defence funding profileto move $3.54 billion over seven years into the future period in which purchases will be made.

If the DND was confused before, they have no reason to be now. What ever replaces the CF-18 has to be affordable.

Sometime before 2020 would be nice.

CF-18 refurb a poor idea

The idea that CF-18s would run out of life by 2020 wasn't much news to us that actually take the time to study the issue.

Funny how the issue is just now appearing in the media.

Slow.

As I have mentioned before, the F-35 is disqualified as a CF-18 replacement for any number of reasons but also, time.

It will be the 2020s before any intelligent purchaser of military equipment can evaluate the F-35 for their air arm. That is, if the program lasts that long.

There is also significant confusion on refurbishment (or what defines refurbishment) for a CF-18.

The CF-18 and the F-16 were designed as part of a light-weight fighter design. The goal was to build up affordable fighter aircraft in-number to face the Soviet threat.

The CF-18 and F-16 are not "depot-jets" like the F-15. In other words, the F-15 was designed to fly x amount of hours and then go into deep maintenance every 5-7 years, then put back into the field. I have seen the F-15 depot process first hand.

The CF-18 and F-16 were meant to be flown x amount of hours and then thrown into the trash. Of the two, the F-16 is easier to extend life on. Wing flex, forward bulkhead corrosion and various fittings have to be replaced.

The CF-18 (or all classic Hornets) require many things in refurbishment. There is the center-barrel replacement. This is the area of the fuselage where the wings and landing-gear are located. This part of the jet is disassembled and then you look to see how bad things are. Each barrel replacement is a custom job as each jet has different levels of corrosion and wear.

Barrel replacement started out as a one-off fluke. Years ago a new F-18C was wrecked. Someone decided if they changed the barrel and some other things, they could put the aircraft back into action.

Today that process has turned into a small production line. Depending on who does it (places like Jacksonville, Florida) or up in Canada, it can take up to a year to perform.

And this doesn't count for all the other areas that need to be refurbished that don't include the barrel; wing corrosion fixes being one.

And as one can see in this 2007 Australian example: ministers and politicians can get a might confused over the process.

"Dr Nelson said modified aircraft would regain 100 per cent of their fatigue life, giving up to nine years' additional service life."

Well, there you go.

Refurbishing CF-18s (again) to make them last past 2020 is a fool's errand. But try telling these people such a thing.

"Defence experts have been pushing the government since last fall to consider a further upgrade to the CF-18s.

Retired air force lieutenant-colonel Dean Black has said it's something that should be considered rather than going down the road of Australia buying new Super Hornets, the beefed up version of the F-18."

Sorry, I am not seeing him as a "defence expert" on this topic. Think flight envelope restriction (by airframe) and an operational scheduling mess (only airframes xs to xy can carry this amount of weight or push x amount of g's).

End the stupidity.

The only solution is for Canada to stop and begin a tender process for the CF-18 replacement.

Any other solution is irresponsible.

Another potential CF-18 replacement totally ignored by the DND

There is another valid contender out there that the Canadian DND is totally ignoring for its CF-18 replacement.

That aircraft is the French Rafale.

Consider some of the features of the Rafale.

1.Buddy-refuel tanking like a Super Hornet
2.Excellent maneuverability
3.Two-engines
4.Two-seat option
5.Joint with NATO coalition forces (networking) and combat ops.

To add to that, as the current government LOVES to bring up the most dangerous opponent NATO could ever face--Libya--the Rafale is proven in that combat op.

It has some downsides. Because the path to the Meteor long-range air-to-air missile and AESA are not complete, the Rafale might disqualify itself for not being ready at this moment. This is critical because if any real thinking person is involved in the process, CF-18s should be fully replaced by 2020.

Since no other country has bought a Rafale, Canada wouldn't have hard, realistic info on what the jet costs to procure and sustain.

In any event, the Rafale makes a much safer play than the high-risk F-35.

Which goes back to the fact that Canada should have a real competition for its CF-18 replacement.

The idea that nothing else but the F-35 can meet "DND's requirements", is the act of a person that is gullible or a person intent on defrauding the taxpayer.





---

Time is running out for a CF-18 replacement buy

Time is running out for executing Canada's CF-18 replacement.

The F-35 is unlikely to produce a known capability, cost or arrival date.

Pushing the CF-18 past 2020 can only be seen as a poor decision when one looks into the details that involve CF-18 refurbishment.

The chart below shows the relationship between ordering, delivery, full operational capability of a replacement and retirement of the CF-18. It is a steady and non-rushed pace.It shows 80 aircraft because that is probably what Canada needs when looking at all of its fighter taskings.

Initial operating capability (IOC) of Canada's first squadron to get new fighter aircraft could possibly happen in 2016 if action is taken now.

If procurement of a replacement is started now, the CF-18 can be retired in a low risk manner. Otherwise; all bets are off the table.

With a current political leadership that claims the F-35 is the way to go, the only possible outcome is complete upheaval of the fighter capability for Canada.

Buy now, or start parking CF-18s in 2020.

Canada still has a lot of work to do in order to validate a proper CF-18 replacement

Canada still seems to be confused on the topic of what should replace its CF-18 fighter fleet.

There is a lot of talk about 65 aircraft not being enough to meet its requirements for home defence and deployment needs.

In order to do this properly one has to decide if the F-35 will make it into service. If so, training can be done in the United States and thus free more airframes for operational taskings. If not then Canada will either have to increase their final number of CF-18 replacement aircraft or just deal with the shortfall.

If the F-35 does not become the way forward, Canada needs to consider the following for “combat-coded” fighter aircraft.

1. How many will be dedicated to training?
2. What percentage will be going through periodic maintenance?
3. How many aircraft will be pulled for overseas deployments?
4. When there are overseas deployments will there be enough combat-coded aircraft to perform home defence?

Since the Canadian DND never properly looked at the Super Hornet let us look at some of the considerations of this aircraft as a CF-18 replacement.

1. Two engines
2. Two air-crew (if required; for instance CAS support of ground troops)
3. Better procurement and operating cost compared to an F-35.
4. Suitable home industry workshare.
5. Short pilot upgrade training between the CF-18 and Super Hornet (for instance, the Australian example).
6. It is an off-the-shelf and proven joint weapons platform with coalition partners including excellent network and communications gear.
7. Adding to that, is part of a joint team with the U.S. Navy and Australia in the area of platform knowledge growth.
8. As the upgrade process happens, the Super Hornet provides excellent enhancement of the C-18 with the ability to provide increased threat and mission situational awareness and other advantages such as buddy-tanking when needed.
9. Excellent capability against peer or legacy threats.

Here is an example of how the Canadians could deploy to support a joint coalition with the Super Hornet.

8x Super Hornets, Accessories to include, HACTS, 10 ATFLIR, 3 SHARP recon pods, 3 buddy-refuel kits. Weapons could include AMRAAM, AIM-9X, JSOW, Laser-JDAM, HART-JDAM, SLAM-ER and Harpoon.

1. Deployment to the Philippines as a barcap, sea-control and ISR and strike capability in response to increased tension in the Spratly Islands.
2. Deployment to Japan as a barcap, sea-control and ISR and strike capability in response to increased tension with North Korea.
3. Deployment to Italy as a barcap, sea-control and ISR and strike capability in response to increased tension in the in the Balkans.
4. Deployment to Kuwait as a barcap, sea-control and ISR and strike capability in response to increased tension with Iran.

The above considerations can be used to look at other kinds of aircraft that may be suitable as a CF-18 replacement.

I do not think that the CF-18 controversy is over. Simply because Canada's political decision makers have been fed so much bad information on the topic.