Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: RCAF Draft Industry Engagement Request - CF-18 Replacement

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto ON, Canada
    Posts
    580

    RCAF Draft Industry Engagement Request - CF-18 Replacement

    As part of the "Re-Set" the Canadian Government is going through on the procurement process an interesting document was posted online today.

    It of course stems from the controversy surrounding the original plan to purchase the F-35 and with that in mind the Feds released Friday a "Draft Industry Engagement Request" listing what questions the RCAF has for interested parties who may decide to bid on the CF-18 replacement contract to answer.

    it makes for pretty interesting reading:

    http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq...teval-eng.html
    "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault only failed of success because dead men can advance no further."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Iqaluit, NU. CANADA.
    Posts
    436

  3. #3
    ZuluAlfaKilo Guest
    It will be interesting to see what they get back for full life cycle cost estimates. Recent ADF history with platforms like the NH-90 and Tiger is that manufacturer supplied cost estimates are, at best, "optimistic". Given the driver being this, I guess politically they are bound to gather cost data from vendors, even if the "real" numbers are supplied by allies already operating those aircraft.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by ZuluAlfaKilo View Post
    It will be interesting to see what they get back for full life cycle cost estimates. Recent ADF history with platforms like the NH-90 and Tiger is that manufacturer supplied cost estimates are, at best, "optimistic". Given the driver being this, I guess politically they are bound to gather cost data from vendors, even if the "real" numbers are supplied by allies already operating those aircraft.
    Very true... In the long run the Apache would have been cheaper. And in full operations. Not like the Tiger

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    599
    Slightly off topic sorry. I think this is a good step, I feel the Super Hornet would probably be the best fit for them even though I wish they would look at the Typhoon seriously.

    What does surprise me and I can't believe I didn't see this before, why on earth don't they have any AWACS ???

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan hyd View Post
    I think this is a good step, I feel the Super Hornet would probably be the best fit for them even though I wish they would look at the Typhoon seriously.
    Like wise. Though at the minute the Typhoon is at quite a disadvantage with it's current capabilties (then again the F-35 is much further behind...) which could sway their interest to another aircraft. However, if they look more closely at it's roadmap, what the likes of the RAF and RSAF are doing, and when the RCAF want their aircraft by then it sounds like a very good option.

    A bit of a long shot though, I feel...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    751
    As said before the French are now picking up info hand over fist where Rafale is concerned on the deployment and operational costs and life cycles of parts and so on and would be mad not to deploy them on a maypole flag this year

  8. #8
    ZuluAlfaKilo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan hyd View Post
    Slightly off topic sorry. I think this is a good step, I feel the Super Hornet would probably be the best fit for them even though I wish they would look at the Typhoon seriously.

    What does surprise me and I can't believe I didn't see this before, why on earth don't they have any AWACS ???
    The counter argument is that F-35 will be combat relevant for much longer than the SH, and due to that will actually be the less expensive option long term.

    As for AWACS, you can also add mobile fire support for the army (attack helos), modern anti air capability for the navy, and a tanker force suited to a country of that size. The benefits of living next door to the world's only true superpower?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    599
    Ideally I think it should go like this.

    Canada does the maths again - Orders Super Hornet like for like +1 total 78 aircraft. At the same time with savings made over the F-35 they order the following. Also offers the ability to use tankers already in service.

    5 x C-295AEW&C ordered first
    19x C-295MPA to replace the CP-140 & CP-140a ordered in the next 5 years

    I really can't understand why they don't have thier own AWACS but this mix while not matching the E-3 offers value for money and ease of support with same base aircraft.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan hyd View Post
    Ideally I think it should go like this.

    Canada does the maths again - Orders Super Hornet like for like +1 total 78 aircraft. At the same time with savings made over the F-35 they order the following. Also offers the ability to use tankers already in service.

    5 x C-295AEW&C ordered first
    19x C-295MPA to replace the CP-140 & CP-140a ordered in the next 5 years

    I really can't understand why they don't have thier own AWACS but this mix while not matching the E-3 offers value for money and ease of support with same base aircraft.
    I would agree with the need for AEWaC and C295 for the job however I see the need for 12 C295M to replace the 6 C-115 buffalo search & rescue and 6 to complement the C130 J force as the older H airframes are retired. As for the CP-140’s which are at this time going on to 2020 I don’t think the C295MPA has the range and they need something with longer legs. When it comes to the fighter fleet it is now quite interesting because if F35 is on the table the need for twin engine fighters is not so important as it once was and that means Gripen E/F could come in to play however I also think F-18E/F/G would be a good fit for the RCAF and if they where to buy F-18 I feel a good split would be 70 E 30 F 12 G

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan hyd View Post
    Ideally I think it should go like this.

    Canada does the maths again - Orders Super Hornet like for like +1 total 78 aircraft. At the same time with savings made over the F-35 they order the following. Also offers the ability to use tankers already in service.

    5 x C-295AEW&C ordered first
    19x C-295MPA to replace the CP-140 & CP-140a ordered in the next 5 years

    I really can't understand why they don't have thier own AWACS but this mix while not matching the E-3 offers value for money and ease of support with same base aircraft.
    I would go for a Last gen Erieye instead. Probably even cheaper if the go for turboprop.

  12. #12
    ZuluAlfaKilo Guest
    Given Canada's likely range to station/time on station requirements, and the impact of this on airfame habitability and in-flight refuelling requirments, its hard to see anthing other than a P-8 and E-7 combination being considered.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by ZuluAlfaKilo View Post
    Given Canada's likely range to station/time on station requirements, and the impact of this on airfame habitability and in-flight refuelling requirments, its hard to see anthing other than a P-8 and E-7 combination being considered.
    True but if our Canadian cousins did logical procurement they would have had F15s not 18s.
    Rule zero: don't be on fire

  14. #14
    ZuluAlfaKilo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    True but if our Canadian cousins did logical procurement they would have had F15s not 18s.
    At the time Canada selected the F-18 it was one of the very few true multi-role fighters around: air to air, air to ground, maritime strike. It wasn't until the F-15E that the Eagle offered that versitility.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    751
    Are the Canadians still thinking of getting an amphibious assault ship because if they are they might need some lynx wildcats and around 20 F-35's

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Westkerke, Belgium
    Posts
    421
    an AEW asset for Canada would indeed be a good idea, concidering the size of the country, but thats another topic.

    looking at the number platforms competing, i think the F/A-18E/F, Typhoon and Rafale have the best chances.
    but concidering the size of Canada and the range requirement (something the CF-18A always fell short), why not just go for the F-15SE, sure its a bit bigger and based on an older design, but it still has potential.

    as for the Gripen, i really dont see it being a succes with the canucks, its a bit small, it doesnt have the range or payload. and i think the RCAF prefers a twin-engine.

    but pernonally, i think this going the same way as the Dutch gripen plan, and they are going to end up with the F-35 anyway.
    Last edited by Nils; 29th January 2013 at 17:08.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto ON, Canada
    Posts
    580
    My suggestion would be to go for the same approach that the Aussies took which is to buy the F18/E/F/G and of course wire the two seaters for Growler systems installation.
    "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault only failed of success because dead men can advance no further."

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Nils View Post
    an AEW asset for Canada would indeed be a good idea, concidering the size of the country, but thats another topic.

    looking at the number platforms competing, i think the F/A-18E/F, Typhoon and Rafale have the best chances.
    but concidering the size of Canada and the range requirement (something the CF-18A always fell short), why not just go for the F-15SE, sure its a bit bigger and based on an older design, but it still has potential.

    as for the Gripen, i really dont see it being a succes with the canucks, its a bit small, it doesnt have the range or payload. and i think the RCAF prefers a twin-engine.

    but pernonally, i think this going the same way as the Dutch gripen plan, and they are going to end up with the F-35 anyway.
    THe only answer to "your problem" is the rafale, which fells short on the pricetag. probably depends on the indian deal thou. Do you know Canadians requirements on range? please share with us.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by ZuluAlfaKilo View Post
    At the time Canada selected the F-18 it was one of the very few true multi-role fighters around: air to air, air to ground, maritime strike. It wasn't until the F-15E that the Eagle offered that versitility.
    Since my last post I have also been told that f18 allowed use of all Canada's bases due to its much shorter runway requirements which 15 would not have done. So I retract that accusation it seems that the cf188 was not the bizarre missed opportunity which I had thought for so many years. Lives and learns.
    Rule zero: don't be on fire

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Wild Blue
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Since my last post I have also been told that f18 allowed use of all Canada's bases due to its much shorter runway requirements which 15 would not have done. So I retract that accusation it seems that the cf188 was not the bizarre missed opportunity which I had thought for so many years. Lives and learns.
    Meh.....I need about 7k feet of runway to comfortably land a Hornet (if we aren't talking an arrested landing) if below max landing weight. It can stop shorter than that, but blowing tires in the jet is no bueno......we already are squirrely enough on a runway. The Eagle is probably 10-15 kts faster than us on final, but they have good brakes, a speedbrake just like us, and can aerobrake just as well with similarly huge stabs. I don't really buy that, as I know they can land on similar runways. But if taken at face value, I would still bet that extending Canada's mil runways would be cheaper than the original cost difference between the Hornet and Eagle.

  21. #21
    ZuluAlfaKilo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 35 AoA View Post
    Meh.....I need about 7k feet of runway to comfortably land a Hornet (if we aren't talking an arrested landing) if below max landing weight. It can stop shorter than that, but blowing tires in the jet is no bueno......we already are squirrely enough on a runway. The Eagle is probably 10-15 kts faster than us on final, but they have good brakes, a speedbrake just like us, and can aerobrake just as well with similarly huge stabs. I don't really buy that, as I know they can land on similar runways. But if taken at face value, I would still bet that extending Canada's mil runways would be cheaper than the original cost difference between the Hornet and Eagle.
    How do they compare on takeoff?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES