Canada to issue RFI for F-35 alternative

It's being reported that the Canadian government will "look at all possible options" and send an RFI (Request For Information) to Boeing, Eurofighter, and possibly Dassault for an alternative to the F-35. It's believed that they will look at the F/A-18 Super Hornet, possibly F-15 variants (but not likely), the Typhoon, the Rafael, and the Saab Gripen.

One of the complaints is about the single engine on the F-35, which US pilots say doesn't matter. They point to the F-16, which has been flying out of Alaska for years without any problem.

OTTAWA – The Conservative government will signal it is serious about buying an alternative to the F-35 fighter jet by asking rival manufacturers about the cost and availability of their planes, according to defence industry sources.

The formal request for information will be issued to rivals like Boeing, which produces the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, asking them what jets are available, and at what cost, if the Canadian government decides to ditch the trouble-plagued F-35 purchase.

The pricing and availability information request falls short of a formal tender but government sources said the “market analysis” will send a signal to voters and industry that it is taking seriously the Auditor-General’s spring report that was heavily critical of the F-35 procurement process.

Source

Flight

It is about time. I don't understand the sudden need for an overpriced/under-performing stealth multi-role fighter anyways considering not one of our aging CF-18s have been lost in combat in the first place. The obvious choice is the F/A-18F Super Hornet as our pilots are already familiar with the relatively similar CF-18 Hornets.

They are much cheaper and seemingly more reliable anyways and just better suited to defense which should be our priority I'd think. Also, considering most of our lost fighters have been due to engine failure I'd see no logic in choosing a single-engine fighter over a twin-engine. With the F-35's observability rating being downgraded and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet having a fairly strong and balanced suite of survivability enhancements I don't really see it as a downgrade in any way.

More bang for our buck! ..er, Loonie!

Actually, the F-35 is achieving unprecedented reliability rates in the test program.

As for the single engine v twin engine argument, the F-16 is a single engine aircraft, and has flown out of Eilson on long patrols, similar to what the CF-18 flies, and hasn't had any problems as far as engine reliability goes. There have been occasional losses but nowhere near enough to make the argument that an extra engine is totally necessary up there.

As for performance, the F-35 is also performing much closer to what was called for lately. We'll still have to see how things go as the testing program goes on, but it's getting better.

Originally posted by Rineocerous
It is about time. I don't understand the sudden need for an overpriced/under-performing stealth multi-role fighter anyways considering not one of our aging CF-18s have been lost in combat in the first place.

this might have something to do with not actually fighting "1st world technologies" much lately.

the cuttting edge is, of course, designed to maintain an advantage over late-generation Russian/Chinese/European built fighters operated by moer advanced foes than Iraq!

I note that not a single P-26 had been lost in combat before 1936, nor a single F-80 before 1949......

IMO Canada would be best served by acquiring the Rafale since, twin engines aside, the French are the only "friendly" ones who seem to be willing to engage in complete technological sharing with their allies/customers. I'd really like to see Canada licence build something and kickstart it's domestic manufacturing and defence industries.

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
IMO Canada would be best served by acquiring the Rafale since, twin engines aside, the French are the only "friendly" ones who seem to be willing to engage in complete technological sharing with their allies/customers. I'd really like to see Canada licence build something and kickstart it's domestic manufacturing and defence industries.

If creating these aircraft was profitable the government would not be spending the money on it. If you want Canada to spend more tax dollars that is fine, but remember it costs more to do it yourself.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


But it inevitably costs even more to rely on others to do things for you, as all those nations that have out-sourced their manufacturing sectors in order to save a buck will find out. The hard way.

How is a request from the Auditor General about following proper procurement protocols turning into a F-35 is lacking for Canada issue?

Take all the political bleating out, and we are left with one outstanding issue...where is the paperwork that proves that this is the only (or most cost effective) way of satisfying Canada's future aircraft needs?

The AG has pretty clear and strict guidelines on procurements. The C's decided to skip some steps due to their majority and got caught.

End of day, we end up with F-35's, AG is happy with paperwork, opposition can go suck their thumbs.

I'm surprised it hasn't been said already, but they just need to revive and update the Avro Arrow to today's technology!

A guy can dream, eh?

reply to post by cmdrkeenkid


Someone actually suggested that in another thread. I wouldn't mind seeing an updated Arrow flying around. Might be interesting.

I've also occasionaly stumbled upon the notion that rather than follow through with existing F-35 orders, the Avro Arrow should be risen from the grave.

Surely these statements are made in jest.

(at least I hope)

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by cmdrkeenkid

 

Someone actually suggested that in another thread. I wouldn't mind seeing an updated Arrow flying around. Might be interesting.

It might be interesting from a technological history POV....but the a/c itself would be a long way behind the 8-ball as a modern combat machine for the same reason that other a/c of its era are obsolete or obsolescent - old technology, old materials, and old aerodynamics.

to modify the design to include up-to-date technology would be to design a new aircraft.

If Canada wants a cheap fighter I know where they can scoop some Spitfires, and they are less than 15 years older than the Arrow

m.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by waynos
If Canada wants a cheap fighter I know where they can scoop some Spitfires, and they are less than 15 years older than the Arrow

m.guardian.co.uk...

Amazing! And ya know what, with some updated avionics, or maybe just a fancy new radio, they might actually be pretty good in a ground support role in Afghanistan.

reply to post by Zaphod58

One of the complaints is about the single engine on the F-35, which US pilots say doesn't matter. They point to the F-16, which has been flying out of Alaska for years without any problem.

You hear this complaint everywhere it seems, about the single engine. Always by administration but never by the jockeys flying them. Kinda off topic but I flew as a flight nurse doing medevacs for over ten years in various rotor wing airframes. Our company soley purchased dual-engine American Eurocopter BO's, BK's, & EC's. Our national accrediation organization "pushes" for dual-engine aircraft. A BIG however, is that the single engine aircraft, mostly Bell 407's, have an excellent track record for safety with a big powerful engine. With an exception for fouled fuel, the chance of crashing with a fatality because of an engine failure is next to nil. Now, I realize there's big difference in range between rotor wing and fixed wing aircraft, seeing as our range was limited to approximately 120 nautical miles. But in the end, I think the arugment remains the same.

reply to post by Cosmic911


Yeah, I heard that argument constantly for why the was better than the F-16, but if you actually research into the AIB reports, the number of F-16s lost due to engine failure is actually a tiny percentage of the total accidents.

reply to post by Cosmic911


Yeah, I heard that argument constantly for why the < insert twin engine type here > was better than the F-16, but if you actually research into the AIB reports, the number of F-16s lost due to engine failure is actually a tiny percentage of the total accidents.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Absolutely! Pilot-error, mostly bad weather decisions, account for the majority of crashes in the air medical community. Every now and then you have a massive tail rotor failure, but rarely engine failures. Even with dual engines, in case of a failure you're not going to continue the mission, you're going to land. I guess the only difference might be a controlled descent with one engine versus an auto-rotation.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I've always thought that the F/A-18 would be the best option for Canada. It's a proven airframe and it's very affordable. With the money they'd save, they could buy a dozen more for the Snowbirds

The Typhoon would be also pretty neat as well though.

reply to post by jra


The Super Bug also has the advantage of them flying the Hornet already, so there's not much of a learning curve. The learning curve for the F-35 is going to be horrendous, and the FMC rate (Fully Mission Capable) is going to be atrocious at first, just due to little things as they work the bugs out, and learn on it.