Canada's F-35 selection

[Dawes]

Presumably there's still room for this selection to be challenged?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/03/28/canada-picks-the-f-35-in-fighter-replacement-competition/

[R011]

Not really.  Post choice lawsuits are not customary here as they are in the US and BAE won't want to alienate a big customer.  The opposition either doesn't care or wanted the F-35A in the first palce.

[On the way]

Bad choice in my opinion. The Gripen would have been better especially with the almost 100% offset deals and manufacture in Canada. Even a mix of a small number of F-35 with a larger order of Gripens would work. Even the USAF uses a high low mix of F-35 and mud movers F-16/F-15

[Josh]

Canada doesn't operate a large enough force to justify a mix of aircraft. Gripen would have been a cheaper but F-35 is probably the best bang for the buck capability wise and represents the easiest integration with NATO, since there are a half dozen NATO users with I think at least 1-2 more committed to acquisition besides Canada. It seems likely there will be a dozen NATO F-35 users in a few years. I guess it comes down to whether one thinks Canada should operate its planes locally only in an air policing role or else to maintain an ability to integrate with other NATO forces in an expeditionary manner.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Josh

[R011]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

Canada doesn't operate a large enough force to justify a mix of aircraft. Gripen would have been a cheaper but F-35 is probably the best bang for the buck capability wise and represents the easiest integration with NATO, since there are a half dozen NATO users with I think at least 1-2 more committed to acquisition besides Canada. It seems likely there will be a dozen NATO F-35 users in a few years. I guess it comes down to whether one thinks Canada should operate its planes locally only in an air policing role or else to maintain an ability to integrate with other NATO forces in an expeditionary manner.

Not just Nato compatibility, but Norad compatability.  The only advantage gripen has over the F-35 is that it's a bit cheaper to buy initially, not significantly cheaper  once one adds up lifetime costs.  We haven't bought a non-North American fighter since the DH Vampire in 1946 or a non-American one since the CF-100 in th4e fifties.

Gripen was never a genuine contender.  Air Command/RCAF has wanted the F-35 since soon after the turn of the century.  The only other realistic choice was the Boeing F-18 and Boeing pissed of the Liberals by screwing Bombardier, a major Quebec-based manufacturer and Liberal supporter.  BAE likely didn't mind as they got the same consideration when the government picked the Type 26.

[R011]

LockMart is promising $16.5 billion dollars in offsets. 

Dassault and Eurofighter withdrew because of the costs involved in inegrating Norad compatibility.  I rather wonder how BAE/Saab intended to meet those costs or whether we would have got "unexpected" overruns.

[DB]

The NORAD compatibility cost issue was arguably manufactured by the US to prevent credible competition. A significant element in favour of not-an-F35 is that it opens up procurement of non-US weapons, like Meteor, which for some strange reason the US is deliberately dragging it's heels over integrating.

[R011]

15 minutes ago, DB said:

The NORAD compatibility cost issue was arguably manufactured by the US to prevent credible competition. A significant element in favour of not-an-F35 is that it opens up procurement of non-US weapons, like Meteor, which for some strange reason the US is deliberately dragging it's heels over integrating.

Maybe you're right, but the old SAGE system required some rather sophisticate electroncs for the time to be integrated into the aircraft.  I doubt the systems have got simpler, cheaper, or esier to intgrate with all the additonal electronic kit since.

Of course, the cost and difficulty of Norad integration could just be ovrstated as an excuse to bow out of a contest they knew they wouldn't win.

Metoer may be a good missile, but I doubt it's so good we should tailor our entire air defene system around it.

[DB]

2 minutes ago, R011 said:

Maybe you're right, but the old SAGE system required some rather sophisticate electroncs for the time to be integrated into the aircraft.  I doubt the systems have got simpler, cheaper, or esier to intgrate with all the additonal electronic kit since.

Of course, the cost and difficulty of Norad integration could just be ovrstated as an excuse to bow out of a contest they knew they wouldn't win.

Metoer may be a good missile, but I doubt it's so good we should tailor our entire air defene system around it.

Well, you're going to have to limit it by the performance of AMRAAM, so you'll just have to stick with a much shorter engagement envelope.

I'm not claiming that Gripen + Meteor is better than F-35 and AMRAAM, just that Meteor integration on F-35 is being deliberately slowed to limit competition, and I see that as comparable to the excessive cost demands for NORAD integration.

[R011]

18 hours ago, DB said:

Well, you're going to have to limit it by the performance of AMRAAM, so you'll just have to stick with a much shorter engagement envelope.

I'm not claiming that Gripen + Meteor is better than F-35 and AMRAAM, just that Meteor integration on F-35 is being deliberately slowed to limit competition, and I see that as comparable to the excessive cost demands for NORAD integration.

How much shorter and are engagements routinely carried out at extreme range?

I don't think there's much doubt that the F-35A will be a match for Russian (mostly ex-Soviet) bomberds over the Arctic and will be a useful and highlu survivable multirole fighter over Syria, Taiwan, or Latvia.

 

[DB]

 

MBDA claims that the no escape zone for Meteor is far larger than for any other (Western) AAM, even after the last publicity from the AMRAAM team who rather carefully described their long range trial shoot down.

The key is continuing thrust at far longer ranges than any pure rocket means far better chances against manoeuvring targets. Subject to the missiles being broadly speaking the same size, of course, the ramjet is just more mass efficient.

[Josh]

Presumably AIM-260 will be made available to the Canadians when it is ready, since they are part of NORAD. It isn't a ramjet either, but it is supposed to have longer range and better endgame. I suspect it is at a minimum a dual pulse weapon, though no one has given any specifications outside the fact it fits the same form factor as AIM-120.

[Dawes]

The AIM-7 Sparrow's Mk 58 motor is also dual thrust, so the technology has been around a while.

[DB]

Dual thrust is simply being a but clever with grain shaping. A poor man's staging, of sorts.

[Josh]

21 hours ago, Dawes said:

The AIM-7 Sparrow's Mk 58 motor is also dual thrust, so the technology has been around a while.

There's a difference between dual thrust and dual pulse. Dual thrust is different grain sizes in the rocket motor for quick acceleration followed by sustain; dual pulse is a physical liner between the first rocket motor step and the second such that after the initial boost and coast phase the rocket reignites. This allows for very radical end game maneuvers. DARPA is looking into more complicated setups with multiple pulses.

[Dawes]

Sounds like a winner if it can be made to work reliably. Presumably with standard HTPB propellant?

[On the way]

On 3/30/2022 at 2:23 PM, R011 said:

Not just Nato compatibility, but Norad compatability.  The only advantage gripen has over the F-35 is that it's a bit cheaper to buy initially, not significantly cheaper  once one adds up lifetime costs.  We haven't bought a non-North American fighter since the DH Vampire in 1946 or a non-American one since the CF-100 in th4e fifties.

Gripen was never a genuine contender.  Air Command/RCAF has wanted the F-35 since soon after the turn of the century.  The only other realistic choice was the Boeing F-18 and Boeing pissed of the Liberals by screwing Bombardier, a major Quebec-based manufacturer and Liberal supporter.  BAE likely didn't mind as they got the same consideration when the government picked the Type 26.

The compatibility argument, whether its NORAD or NATO holds no water for me. Several NATO countries fly non F-35s and have no plans to buy F-35s. Greece for example just bought Rafales. And the French do not operate F-35 nor intend to at all. Canada is at best a 2nd Tier NATO country, maybe a third tier one. Its up to NATO to integrate a role for the Gripens if we had decided to buy them. The Czech republic operates the Gripen. I have not heard one NATO criticism that they should have bought the F-35.  And the same goes for NORAD. NORAD will always be controlled ultimately by the US. They want Canada to provide a supplemental role to them. As long as Canadians can do their part in intercepts, I don't think they care what aircraft we operate. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by On the way

[Dawes]

I can't imagine the French operating the F-35 under any circumstances.

[R011]

1 hour ago, On the way said:

The compatibility argument, whether its NORAD or NATO holds no water for me. Several NORAD countries fly non F-35s and have no plans to buy F-35s. Greece for example just bought Rafales. And the French do not operate F-35 nor intend to at all. Canada is at best a 2nd Tier NATO country, maybe a third tier one. Its up to NATO to integrate a role for the Gripens if we had decided to buy them. The Czech republic operates the Gripen. I have not heard one NATO criticism that they should have bought the F-35.  And the same goes for NORAD. NORAD will always be controlled ultimately by the US. They want Canada to provide a supplemental role to them. As long as Canadians can do their part in intercepts, I don't think they care what aircraft we operate. 

There are only two NORAD countries and only one currently flies the F-35.

[On the way]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

There are only two NORAD countries and only one currently flies the F-35.

Sorry, meant to say NATO and not NORAD

[R011]

The extra NORAD equipment is C3 kit to link with the warning and control systems.  They used to use SAGE which had a computerized ground system. I don't know what the current system is, but it is likely as complex. pretty much flying the aircraft and getting it in position to fire. 

[DB]

The only really sensitive element to it would be the encrypted Comms and maybe some other IFF than the standard ones.

I maintain that in this case its primary purpose is as an economic weapon to prevent competition.

[Josh]

On 4/2/2022 at 8:28 PM, Dawes said:

Sounds like a winner if it can be made to work reliably. Presumably with standard HTPB propellant?

I don't think it is propellant dependent. There is a thermal barrier between the two rocket grains and a second igniter for it. I unfortunately can't find the image now but I saw a photo of a second ignition; the missile was a skid to turn type that executed an almost 60 degree pivot off its flight path before it activated it's second motor. It looked really wild. Some good graphics in the article below.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Design-%26-Analysis-of-Pulse-Separation-Device-Kim-Kwon/46de4465e92df937adf4c4aaf1bf2278de67a3cf

 

[R011]

17 hours ago, DB said:

The only really sensitive element to it would be the encrypted Comms and maybe some other IFF than the standard ones.

I maintain that in this case its primary purpose is as an economic weapon to prevent competition.

And the remote contriol to be flown several hundred miles to the target along with being given all the rest of the data needed to ensure a successful intercept.

[DB]

I don't believe that is even necessary with modern equipment. Would have been for deconfliction when the AA weapons involved were nuclear, but now?