Boeing out of Canadian fighter competition

[Dawes]

Doesn't say what the deficiencies were:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/canada-rules-boeing-out-c19-bln-fighter-jet-contract-canadian-press-2021-11-25/

[R011]

Insufficient bribes, I imagine.  And being mean to a major Liberal supporter, Bombardier.

[Dawes]

Looks like it's between F-35 and Gripen. Which one better meets Canada's requirements?

[R011]

Which one will best suit the Liberals?

[Dawes]

Well, if you go just on looks the Gripen wins outright.

[R011]

Looks won't buy them votes.

[Dawes]

Since the F-35 is built in Texas and the Gripen is from Sweden, let the two teams have a cook-off. Texas BBQ vs Swedish food. Canadian government reps vote for the tastiest dish, and the winner wins the contract.

[shep854]

Podcast excerpt of a former Canadian (later an F-35 test pilot) fighter pilot discussing the F-35's suitability for Canada.  This clip begins at 1:25:20

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by shep854

[R011]

I have heard the RCAF prefer the F-35, but it will depend on whether they can persuade Trudeau to buy it.

[TrustMe]

One of Canada's original aircraft requirements was it to have a two engined fighter. I guess that requirement has disappeared, but I wouldn't want to be a CAF pilot flying a long distance mission in bad weather conditions in a Gripon or Lightening 2.

[Daan]

Bille Flynn, a former CAF fighter pilot and later Lockheed Martin test pilot (thus not unbiased), explains on his blog that this wish of having two engines is more of a psychological issue than based in facts.

https://billieflynn.com/the-fighter-engine-debate-more-is-not-better/

Edited December 2, 2021 by Daan

[TrustMe]

Interesting article.  It mentions if a bird gets sucked into the engine and states that as the aircraft is optimized for flight at 30,000 feet no bird flies this high. Yet taking off and landing are not mentioned. I get a magazine called Airforce Monthly and in it's pages is a section all about aircraft crashes and their cause. Bird ingestation is a common cause for engine failure in about 10% of cases.

[Daan]

He also has a blog entry with his perspective on bird strikes including his experiences when the F-16 he was flying took a bird against the canopy. In the blog entry above, he states the F-135 is somewhat more resistant against FOD than legacy engines. True? It is of course a trade-off: a 4th gen non-VLO aircraft with two older engines and perhaps a better survivability against bird ingestion, versus a much more modern VLO aircraft with a single, but more advanced engine.

https://billieflynn.com/boeings-mythical-canada-goose/

 

[R011]

8 hours ago, TrustMe said:

One of Canada's original aircraft requirements was it to have a two engined fighter. I guess that requirement has disappeared, but I wouldn't want to be a CAF pilot flying a long distance mission in bad weather conditions in a Gripon or Lightening 2.

That was for the last competition in the seventies, and even then they considered the F-16.

Generally when one of two engines in a jet fighter fails, the other either fails soon after or the aircraft cant get home on one anyway.

[shep854]

5 hours ago, Daan said:

Bille Flynn, a former CAF fighter pilot and later Lockheed Martin test pilot (thus not unbiased), explains on his blog that this wish of having two engines is more of a psychological issue than based in facts.

https://billieflynn.com/the-fighter-engine-debate-more-is-not-better/

Also the interviewee in the Fighter Pilot Podcast I posted--for those who didn't check it out.

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

That was for the last competition in the seventies, and even then they considered the F-16.

Generally when one of two engines in a jet fighter fails, the other either fails soon after or the aircraft cant get home on one anyway.

I bow to your superior knowledge on Canada on this. I does seem that Canada with it vast airspace would want a twin engined fighter. The F18E/F/G is a bit short range as two engines uses twice the fuel, so maybe the F35A would have a longer range. Does Canada have aerial refuelling capability?

[R011]

Yes.  Three. old Airbus with probe and drogue tanks added.

The new aircraft need to have the same range as the old F/A-18A Hornets they're replacing.  I imagine both the ones remainingnas well as the F-18E have comparable range.

[Simon Tan]

Boing bid wrong. They should have bid the F-15EX which is ideal. 

[TrustMe]

Yes, and it's about the same price as a F35.

[R011]

The F-15 was rejected in favour of the F/A-18 the last time because It costs more. That hadn't changed.  If we were going to buy Boeing, we'd have bought the F-18E this time.  Boeing wasn't rejected for performance issues.

My guess is that we're buying the F-35A which wasn't bought earlier due to partisan politics.  Those specific political factors have faded.  Gripen is only being included so the government can claim there was a competition.

[Colin]

or as Ed Nash surmises they restart the process, therefore pushing the deal down the road another 5 years.

[R011]

1 hour ago, Colin said:

or as Ed Nash surmises they restart the process, therefore pushing the deal down the road another 5 years.

I think they've already done that as much as they dare.  The Hornets are already a decade overdue for replacement.  They won't be able to keep them in the air long enough to delay more.

[Simon Tan]

Idiocy not to pick the big bird for big country. 

[shep854]

4 hours ago, Colin said:

or as Ed Nash surmises they restart the process, therefore pushing the deal down the road another 5 years.

Or restart with the goal of including, and choosing, the F-15EX.  This, according to Nash would meet US/NATO data integration much more cheaply than F-35, and with more versatility.

 

[DB]

Gripen has Meteor, F-35A does not, F-15 never will.