FX Canadá

[Penguin]

F-35 Alternatives Probed By Harper Government
CP | By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
Posted: 01/25/2013 3:18 pm EST | Updated: 01/26/2013 11:07 am EST

A questionnaire meant to gauge what non-F-35 options Canada has to replace the air force's aging CF-18 fighters has landed on the desks of aerospace companies in North America and Europe. (AFP/Getty Images/CP)


OTTAWA - A questionnaire meant to gauge what options exist to replace the air force's aging CF-18 fighters has landed on the desks of aerospace companies in North America and Europe.

The 15-page survey is considered the first step in evaluating whether the Conservative government should bail out of its planned and controversial F-35 stealth fighter deal with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.

It is considered a "draft" and asks potential rivals to outline the capabilities of their aircraft, but does not request detailed cost information.

That will come in a follow-up survey next month. It also leaves the door open for aerospace companies to give suggestions on what questions the government might have missed, or what technical aspects should be explored.

Lockheed Martin has been asked to fill out the survey along with other potential bidders including: U.S.-based Boeing with its Super Hornet; EADS Eurofighter, also known as the Typhoon; Dassault, which is selling its French-built Rafale; and the Saab-manufactured Gripen from Sweden.

The request for information falls short of the demand by critics and the opposition to open the program up to a full-fledged competition, but is part of the government's promise to review all of the potential options to replace the CF-18s.

Last spring, in a scathing report, Auditor General Michael Ferguson accused National Defence and Public Works of hiding the full cost the F-35 Lightning and not following the proper procedures.


The government said in 2010 that it intended buy the stealth fighter, stating it was the best and "only" option to replace the current fleet.

But since the auditor's report, which caused a storm of political and public criticism, the government committed to reviewing other options through a committee of independent experts.

The review is expected to shed light on whether the Conservatives will end up sticking with the F-35, or abandon it in favour of a full-on competition.

Lockheed Martin issued a statement late Friday, saying it had received the questionnaire, and defended the stealth fighter as the best choice for Canada.

"The F-35 continues to be the best solution for CF-18 replacement from both a capability and cost perspective," said the statement.

"The F-35 program, in which Canada has been a committed partner since 2001, has and will create and sustain thousands of Canadian company jobs and provide industrial benefits far greater than the cost of procurement.”

A spokesman for EADS acknowledged it had also received the survey and would respond.

"The Eurofighter consortium has had communication with Canada and will assist them whenever possible," Theodor Benien said in an email.

But a long-time critic of the F-35 program says there is deep skepticism in the defence community about the path the government has taken.

Each aircraft maker has secret information on the capabilities of their aircraft, something they would be reluctant to share without the guarantee of a full competition, said Alan Williams, a former senior defence bureaucrat.

"You're not going to get the kind of specific, detailed technical requirements through a questionnaire," Williams said.

"My advice is, if they're serious, do the right thing the right way."

There is also wariness among European aerospace companies, many of whom are wondering whether the U.S. will lean on Canada to stick with either Lockheed Martin or Boeing, said Williams.

"People need to be sure the fix isn't in for one or the other," he said. "Industry should know, if it puts its best foot forward, makes its best bid, it has a chance to win and that hasn't been seen as the case lately."

Also Friday, Public Works announced it has awarded a $161,950 contract to Samson & Associates to conduct an independent review of the steps the government took in the F-35 process prior to June 2012.

Critics have scoffed at the long-anticipated procedural review, accusing the government of politely trying to whitewash the auditor general's criticism.

[Penguin]

National Fighter Procurement Secretariat (NFPS)

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/st ... s-eng.html




Draft Industry Engagement Request

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/st ... l-eng.html

[Penguin]

Canada Talking To Manufacturers About New Fighter Jets
By Reuters

January 28, 2013

Canada is reaching out to five aircraft manufacturers to replace the country’s aging fleet of CF-18 jets, renewing an effort that has been drawn-out and troubled.

Canada announced in 2010 it would give a single source contract to Lockheed-Martin Corp for 65 F-35 jets but later reversed course as cost estimates soared.

Ottawa has set aside C$9 billion ($8.9 billion) to buy the new jets.

The public works ministry, confirming earlier leaks from senior government officials, said in a statement on Friday that Ottawa would talk to Lockheed Martin and four other companies:

- Boeing Co, which makes the F-18 Super Hornet

- EADS, which makes the Eurofighter

- Saab AB, which makes the Gripen

- Dassault Aviation, which makes the Rafale

The ministry said it would send a questionnaire to the five seeking detailed information on the technical capabilities of fighter aircraft in production or scheduled to be in production.

Once the companies have replied they will be sent another questionnaire seeking detailed cost estimates.

The government last year tore up its plan to buy the F-35s after a spending watchdog said officials had deliberately downplayed the costs and risks of doing so.

Ottawa says it could still eventually decide to buy the F-35, which has been hit by cost overruns and delays.

[Vinicius Pimenta]

Bem capaz de sair primeiro do que o nosso.

[saullo]

Eles vão fazer avaliações, uma série de estudos, e vão acabar pegando os F-35 mesmo, que já estarão mais operacionais e com menos problemas quando fizerem sua decisão, e ainda os receberão antes de nós, que não definimos nunca.

Abraços

[Bourne]

Não colocaria tão certo a escolha do F35.

Mesmo que a escolha for por norte-americanos, a Boeing tem Super Hornet a pronta entrega e pode seduzi-los com o projeto de substituição do Super Hornet pela década de 2020 e 2030. Estando em um nível superior o F35 e com apoio da US Navy.

As opções europeias Typhoon e Rafale também são fortes. Lembrem que são aeronaves da OTAN e a adaptação não será tão custosa. Principalmente, o pessoal da EADS que vem babando para vender Typhoon e manter as linhas abertas. Para os franceses vender umas 60 unidades não é depressível.

O Gripen é que não sei o que está fazendo aí.

Provavelmente, os canadenses farão tudo isso antes do Brasil decidir o FX.

[WalterGaudério]

Eu acho que a Boeing vem forte com o Super Hornet Roadmap

[FCarvalho]

quem sabe a pres. Dilma não arruma uma gambiarra negocial com a frança para o canadá fazer uma compra conjunta conosco e ver se a gente consegue ganhar uns descontinhos, e ainda de lambuja ganhamos uns caças novinhos.

abs

[Penguin]

Não colocaria tão certo a escolha do F35.

Mesmo que a escolha for por norte-americanos, a Boeing tem Super Hornet a pronta entrega e pode seduzi-los com o projeto de substituição do Super Hornet pela década de 2020 e 2030. Estando em um nível superior o F35 e com apoio da US Navy.

As opções europeias Typhoon e Rafale também são fortes. Lembrem que são aeronaves da OTAN e a adaptação não será tão custosa. Principalmente, o pessoal da EADS que vem babando para vender Typhoon e manter as linhas abertas. Para os franceses vender umas 60 unidades não é depressível.

O Gripen é que não sei o que está fazendo aí.

Provavelmente, os canadenses farão tudo isso antes do Brasil decidir o FX.

Tem gente que sabe...

Um dos maiores críticos do F-35 na internet (Eric Palmer):

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2012
Exploring another option for Canada's CF-18 replacement
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.br/2 ... as-cf.html

There are options for Canada's air defence even if some do not want to admit it.

If it was possible to ignore the need for a two engine fighter for the requirement, a faulty and unproven F-35 is not the only game.

The exercise of replacing the CF-18 does not have to cost an arm and a leg.

So the question is, after the F-35 program falls on its face, will Canada consider the Gripen?

It is a fair question. The origins of the aircraft are from a cold northern place. The design has enough proof to show they have not been falling out of the sky over the wilderness. It is deployable, good with short runways or suitable roads, and since the F-35 was never able to stand up to high-end extreme threats, it has no other real show-stopping legacy-threat weakness.

Below are some numbers that I have inflated simply because it is the government that will be attempting to procure and sustain the aircraft. I have again assumed that one can put 300 flight hours on the aircraft per year.

Unfortunately, Canada has a problem in that area: pilots. I am still hoping that Canada can someday have twice as many pilots as fighter aircraft. This is needed as a minimum for sustained operations. Unfortunately the DND is having a difficult time with pilot numbers. And, each pilot they have may see about 180-some hours per year.

So my cost per flying hour on the Gripen (or anything else) may be high because there aren't enough pilots to sustain optimum readiness. Add to that, I would prefer 72 Gripens, not 65, but for this exercise, I will go with 65.

Finally, for this requirement, I don't really care if it is the basic Gripen or the NG. Either will do.

Gripen cost per flight hour- $10,000 (double the claims of the maker)
Gripen cost per flight hour for
65 aircraft for 30 years (300 hours
per airframe per year):

$5.85B

Acquisition cost for each Gripen $100M

Total Acquistion cost, 65 Gripens:

$6.5B

--

Total appoximate acuisition and operating cost,
65 Gripens for 30 years:

$12.35B

--

Tem gente no Canadá defendendo o Gripen NG :


Ottawa Citizen>Blogs >News>Defence Watch Defence Watch RSS Feed
Why Canada Should Buy The Saab JAS39 Gripen E “Next Generation” Fighter
January 7, 2013. 12:35 am • Section: Defence Watch

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/ ... n-fighter/

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/ ... ft-part-2/

[Penguin]

O documento abaixo é bem interessante. É a minuta do questionário que o Governo do Canadá enviou aos fabricantes de caças. É uma síntese dos itens que eles necessitam saber para iniciar a avaliação dos caça (bem diferente dos "supertrunfos" que habitam os fóruns de defesa...):


Draft Industry Engagement Request

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/st ... l-eng.html[/quote]


Questionnaire 1 Section A: Capability, Production and Supportability Background Information

The information and definitions contained in this section are to be used to inform the Responses to the questions in the Capability, Production and Supportability Information Questionnaire.

Government of Canada Policy

The Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) provides Government policy guidance and sets a detailed road map for the modernization of the Canadian Armed Forces. It puts forward clear roles and core missions for the Canadian Armed Forces that will maintain the ability to deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad by making meaningful contributions to operations overseas.

The CFDS provides the Canadian Armed Forces with clear direction concerning their three roles:

Defending Canada;
Defending North America; and
Contributing to international peace and security.
Through the CFDS, the Government has accordingly established a level of ambition that will see the Canadian Armed Forces carry out the following missions, potentially all at the same time:

Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD);
Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster;
Support a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics;
Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period;
Respond to a major terrorist attack; and
Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods.
Canada will be assessing the capability of each fighter aircraft against the ability to complete each of the missions outlined in CFDS, noting that missions abroad are conducted in partnership with allies and coalition partners.

Canadian Armed Forces Mission Needs

Development of the Canadian Armed Forces mission needs focuses on operational level military requirements in a joint context – specifically, the applicability of a fighter capability to the CFDS missions. The mission needs analysis is informed by Canadian Armed Forces’ Capability Based Planning documents and threat analyses emphasizing technological trends as well as geo-political and proliferation intents. The development of mission needs applies the assessment of fighter capabilities to the CFDS mission roles, each mission in turn, and the contribution in a joint context. The mission needs assessment is put into an operational context while using operational-level weighting reflecting a “system of systems” approach to analyzing Canadian Armed Forces capabilities. Operational weighting considers the fighter’s contribution to a capability and the criticality of that capability in context of the mission. The results of the mission needs outlines the tactical value of each fighter and the applicability of fighter capability depending on the CFDS mission.

Fighter-Specific Mission Needs

Based on the CFDS and informed by the threat analysis, the Canadian Armed Forces mission needs have been established using existing Capability-Based Planning methodology. This methodology focuses on the operational-level military requirements in a joint context while considering Canadian Armed Forces aerospace doctrine. Mission needs analysis concentrates on the requirements of the whole system rather than those of the individual fighter platforms, and emphasizes the capability integration requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces within a joint force construct in consideration of national, bi-national and international commitments including NORAD and NATO. The output of this analysis provides a defined need for a sustained Canadian Armed Forces fighter capability well into the future. Fighter-specific mission needs derived from this construct, and in the Canadian airpower context, are listed below as the aerospace capabilities. These capabilities are considered core for any fighter replacement weapon system.

Aerospace Capabilities

Based on aerospace doctrine and using the Canadian Armed Forces Capability Based Planning, the CAF has identified seven Aerospace Capabilities which CF-18 fighter’s replacement will need to execute in order to accomplish the six core CFDS missions. Aerospace capabilities are a set of functions to be carried out by a particular aircraft and are not mandatory or rated requirements such as those prepared for a Statement of Operational Requirement. The Aerospace Capabilities have been defined as follows:

Defensive Counter Air (DCA)
Airborne measures taken to defend friendly airborne and surface-based forces against threats/attacks by opposing aerospace/airborne forces;

Offensive Counter Air (OCA)
Airborne measures taken to destroy, disrupt, or neutralize the source of an adversary's aerospace force, including warning and control facilities, aerospace bases, launch facilities, and adversary aircraft or targets of opportunity;

Strategic Attack
Missions against the adversary’s centre of gravity or against selected vital targets to progressively destroy and disintegrate an adversary’s capacity or will to wage war;

Close Air Support (CAS)
Missions to produce brief, but focused effects on adversary land forces in order to halt attacks, help create breakthroughs, cover and guard flank of friendly forces. Effects may be necessary to ensure the mission success or survival;

Land Strike
Missions aimed to destroy, neutralize, or delay an adversary’s military potential by reducing their capability to mount an offensive, restrict an adversary’s freedom of action, prevent an adversary from countering an increase in friendly strength, or reduce battlefield reserves;

Tactical Support to Maritime Operations (TASMO)
The conduct of Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) missions in support of Maritime assets;

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
The ability to detect, locate, track, identify and display relevant information that enhances situational awareness. This also includes the transfer of information which may be used for decision making and planning purposes.

Fighter Measures Of Effectiveness

Each Aerospace Capability is broken down into Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). These MOEs provide qualitative tools to assess how the performance of many independent subsystems can combine to produce system-independent effects. When combined, MOEs can be used to assign a weighting for each Aerospace Capability.

Awareness
The ability to gather, assimilate and display real-time information from on-board sensors. Awareness is largely dependant on the fidelity and capability of all on-board sensors. In addition, the capability of the entire system to display comprehensive information derived from inputs produced from multiple sensors is beneficial.

Survivability
The ability to operate within the operational battle space by denying or countering the enemy’s application of force. Survivability can be increased by detecting, classifying, and locating threats and subsequently evading them or negating their effectiveness. Once alerted to a threat (via radar warning receiver, missile approach warning system, etc.), a variety of active (electronic attack, decoy use, etc.) or passive (signature reduction, manoeuvre, chaff/flares, etc.) means can deny an engagement by that threat.

Reach and Persistence
The distance and duration across which a fighter aircraft can successfully employ airpower. Factors such as speed, endurance, range, and internal and external fuel loads should contribute when determining Reach and Persistence.

Responsiveness
The timely application of airpower, including the ability to re-target while prosecuting multiple tracks, and potentially even re-role from one Aerospace Capability to another, within a Core Mission. Responsiveness should also include the potential for the weapons system to conduct more than one function simultaneously. For example, while conducting defensive counter-air missions, can a given aircraft also continue to contribute to the Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) picture? Also, the speed at which an aircraft can re-target, re-role, and reposition within the area of operations should be considered.

Lethality
The combined ability to obtain an advantageous position and negate/prosecute a target or threat. Obtaining an advantageous position speaks to the performance of an aircraft. Once there, it is desirable that a weapon system be able to negate or prosecute the target via a variety of kinetic and non-kinetic means. This process of employing kinetic and non-kinetic means may require supporting sensors and other avionics sub-systems to support weapons.

Interoperability
The ability to operate and exchange information with a variety of friendly forces in order to contribute to joint and coalition operations. Interoperability with other coalition and organic ground, sea, and air assets is critical. This interaction can include, but is in no way limited to, the use of data link and communications.

Measures of Performance

In order to provide more detailed analysis of the fighter MOEs, each set of contributing systems will be assessed according to their performance. The performance of these underlying aircraft systems will be assessed using Measures of Performance (MOPs). Capability descriptions provided by industry should clearly describe the performance of the fighter systems in terms of the MOPs below:

Radio Frequency (RF) Sensors
Any sensor, or collection of sensors, that emits and/or receives in the RF spectrum. RF Sensors include, but are not limited to: Radar, Combined Interrogator Transponder (CIT), and Radar Warning Receiver (RWR).

Electro-Optical (EO)/ Infrared (IR) Sensors
Any sensor, or collection of sensors, that emits and/or receives in the EO/IR spectrum. EO/IR Sensors include, but are not limited to: Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP), Infrared Search and Track (IRST), and Distributed Aperture System (DAS).

Air to Air (A/A) Weapons
Weapons employed against airborne targets. This encompasses weapons that are employed beyond and within visual range. Weapon capacity in the intended configuration should also be considered.

Air to Ground (A/G) Weapons
Weapons employed against land-based targets. Weapon capacity in the intended configuration should also be considered.

Air to Surface (A/Su) Weapons
Weapons employed against sea-based targets. Note that some aircraft do not have dedicated A/Su weapons, but it may be possible to employ traditional A/G weapons to some degree. Weapon capacity in the intended configuration should also be considered.

Non-Kinetic Weapons
Offensive weapons that do not rely on kinetic engagements.

RF Self-Protection
Non-deployable self-protection that exploits the RF spectrum and protects against threats in the RF spectrum. Examples include, but are not limited to: RWR and Electronic Protection (EP).

IR Self-Protection
Non-deployable self-protection that exploits the IR spectrum and protects against threats in the IR spectrum. Examples include, but are not limited to: Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS) and Distributed Aperture System (DAS).

Counter-Measures
Any devices deployed by the aircraft to negate or disrupt and attack. These devices can work in any spectrum. Examples include, but are not limited to: Chaff, Flares, BOL Infrared (BOL IR), towed decoys and expendable decoys.

Data Link
The means of connecting the aircraft to another or other assets in order to send or receive information. Data link can be used to share stored or real-time sensor and track information, to pass non-verbal orders, to pass full-motion video, or any other transmissions. Consideration should be given to the ability to send this information in a secure manner.

Communications
The means of sending and receiving voice communications between the platform and other aircraft or assets, both within and beyond line of sight. Consideration should be given to the ability to send and receive secure and jam-resistant voice communications. In addition, the number and type of devices on-board should be considered.

Sensor Integration
The ability to use all available sensors to build a more complete picture of the situation. Combining data from multiple sensors to achieve improved accuracies when compared to those achieved from the use of individual sensors should also be considered.

Pilot Workload
This includes any means of transferring information between the pilot and the platform, and vice versa, and any means of reducing pilot workload. Examples include, but are not limited to, Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) and Hands on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS).

RF Signature
The relative amount of RF energy reflected and emitted by the platform.

IR Signature
The amount of IR energy emitted by the platform.

Engine/Airframe
A measure of the aircrafts kinematic and aerodynamic performance. Items such as thrust to weight, instantaneous and sustained turn rates and radii, ‘g’ available and sustainable, and other general performance measures would fall in this category. In addition, new enabling technologies such as thrust-vectoring control would also be included here.

Combat Radius, Range and Endurance
The distance over which an aircraft can be employed, and/or the time that it is able to remain airborne.

Operational and Strategic Suitability

An assessment of the operational and strategic risk related to potential courses of action will address the ability of each course of action to meet specific Key Assessment Criteria related to the operational sustainment of a fighter capability as well as the ability of each course of action to meet the Canada First Defence Strategy missions.

Operational suitability
The ability to introduce, sustain and operate a suitable weapon system that is capable of meeting mission needs when and where required. Performance indicators include the long-term sustainability of the aircraft and logistics supportability, management of the fleet and the associated personnel, aircraft reliability and operational capability within a range of operational battle spaces and environments.
The Key Assessment Criteria (KAC) are as follows:

Aircraft Acquisition

This KAC is an assessment of factors that would affect acquisition of aircraft types. This includes:

planned production periods of the aircraft types to establish the viable courses of action,
an assessment of risk related to the manufacturer’s successful completion of any required developmental work required before the aircraft are ready for acquisition, and
an assessment of the ability of each aircraft type to be certified for airworthiness under Canadian Armed Forces regulations.
Interoperability

This KAC assesses broad interoperability within the Canadian Armed Forces and with allied forces for each course of action. This includes interoperability with air-to-air refuelling assets, common ground/spares support with allies and their supply lines, and the ability to feed data into Canadian Armed Forces and Government of Canada networks taking into consideration national security requirements

Growth Potential

This KAC assesses the growth potential and technological flexibility of each course of action to respond to unforeseen future advances in threat capabilities, to implement required enhancements to fighter technology, and to evolve as needed to meet the Canadian Armed Forces’ needs. This includes analysis of the architecture of aircraft types, power and cooling capability for new systems.

Supportability and Force Management

An assessment of the long-term supportability and aspects related to management of the fighter force of each course of action. Also related is the ability to introduce, sustain and operate the weapon system when and where required.

Time Horizons

Canada requires a replacement fighter capability well into the 21st century, for a period of at least 30 years. In order to analyze potential fighter options to meet the Government of Canada’s needs for the future, the service life of Canada’s replacement fighter aircraft is divided into two time horizons: 2020-2030 and 2030+. The selected time horizons capture the operating environment for the estimated introduction of a new fighter (2020-2030) and the future environment (2030+). The new fighter will be required to operate in the presence of any combination of representative threats as characterized below.

By requesting industry information on fighter capabilities within two distinct time horizons, there is an added benefit of allowing industry to describe capability roadmaps or spiral upgrades. This information will prove useful in describing fighter capabilities across the entire intended period of employment.

Threat Characterization

The 2020-2030 time horizon is characterized by proliferation of current threat technologies as well as digital upgrades and increased integration of systems including:

Fighter Aircraft such as SU-27 armed with a mix of weapons such as AA-12 and AA-11;
Bomber Aircraft such as Tu-160 employing sub-sonic to low supersonic guided cruise missiles;
Civilian Aircraft including airliners and low/slow civilian aircraft;
Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) ground or ship based systems such as ZSU-23/4;
Surface-to-air missile (SAM) ground or ship based systems such as SA-15 or SA-20:
Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS) such as the SA-18; and
Early Warning Radar Systems such as digital Spoon Rest and/or airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) integrated into a defence network.
The 2030+ time horizon is characterized by the proliferation of emerging technologies including:

Fighter Aircraft such as PAK-FA armed with a mix of advanced multi-spectral high off-boresight weapons.
Bomber Aircraft Such as next-generation strategic bombers with a reduced RCS and employing supersonic, low RCS, guided cruise missiles;
Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) ground or ship based systems such as upgraded 2K22 or SA-19;
Surface-to-air missile (SAM) ground or ship based systems such as SA-22 or upgraded SA-20;
Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS) such as the SA-24;
Early Warning Radar Systems such as phased arrays integrated into a defence network.
Questionnaire 1 Section B – Capability, Production and Supportability Questionnaire

Please ensure that all responses to the questions are as complete and detailed as possible.

Mission Configuration Weapon System Definition

1. For both time horizons described in Section A to this Industry Engagement Request (under “Time Horizons”), please describe your company-defined mission configured aircraft. These configurations should take into account any capability upgrade plans for the weapon system and be described. These configurations are to be used for the capability descriptions in the questions that follow.

Air-to-Air Mission Configuration (Defensive Counter Air (DCA), Offensive Counter Air (OCA))
A typical loadout of Radio Frequency (RF), Infrared (IR), beyond visual range and within visual range missiles, cannon, sensors, external fuel tanks (if applicable) and self-protection systems (flares, decoys, etc).

Air-to-Ground Mission Configuration (Strategic Attack (SA), Close Air Support (CAS), Land Strike)
A typical loadout of munitions, sensors, self-protection systems, external fuel tanks (if applicable) and self-escort air-to-air weapons.

Anti-Surface Warfare Configuration (Tactical Air Support to Maritime Operations (TASMO))
A typical loadout of maritime weapons, sensors, self-protection systems, external fuel tanks (if applicable) and self-escort air-to-air weapons.

Capabilities

For all questions below, please provide a description of your weapon system capability in the two time horizons defined in Section A to this Industry Engagement Request (under “Time Horizons”) and in the presence of the indicative threats included in that horizon. Capabilities should be restricted to those provided by your mission-configured weapon system as described in response to Question 1 above.

2. RF Sensor Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft RF sensor capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description. Additionally, please respond to the following:

What is the primary onboard RF sensor?
Approximate Radar detection range for a 0.1m2, 1m2, 5m2, 10m2 target?
What is the Radar operating frequency range?
3. EO/IR Sensor Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft electro-optical (EO) and/or infrared (IR) sensor capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, spectrum coverage, probabilities of detection, resolution, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

Approximate EO/IR detection range of a fighter size target in dry thrust Military Power (MIL Power) in the frontal aspect?
Approximate EO/IR detection range of a cruise missile size target (based on the AS-15 and AS-101/102 cruise missiles) in the frontal aspect?
What is the EO/IR sensor spectrum coverage?
4. Kinetic Weapon Capabilities. Describe the air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-surface warfare weapon capabilities intended for operational use on the aircraft and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description. Additionally, please respond to the following:

What is a typical air-to-air combat load, including external fuel tanks and sensors?
What is a typical air-to-ground combat load, including external fuel tanks and sensors?
What is a typical anti-surface warfare combat load, including external fuel tanks and sensors?
5. Non-Kinetic Weapon Capabilities. Describe the non-kinetic weapon capabilities (e.g.: Electronic Attack) intended for operational use on the aircraft and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, output power, frequency coverage, weapon effects, etc).

6. RF Self-Protection Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft RF self-protection capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description. Additionally, please respond to the following:

What RF self protection systems does the aircraft employ?
Describe the Radar’s electronic protection capabilities.
Are jammers incorporated internally or carried externally?
What is the output power and frequency coverage?
7. IR Self-Protection Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft IR self-protection capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, output power, sensitivities, frequency coverage, protection effects, etc).

8. Self-Protection Counter Measures Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft self-protection countermeasures capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description. Additionally, please respond to the following:

What number and types of countermeasures does the aircraft employ?
What is the frequency coverage and output power, if applicable?
9. Data Link Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft data link capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, frequencies, data/video bandwidth, reception/transmission ranges, output power, frequency agility, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

What is the datalink the aircraft employs?
What is the compatibility with other existing datalink systems?
What is the reception/transmit range?
Is the link secure/encrypted?
Is the link a low probability of intercept/detection waveform?
10. Voice Communication Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft voice communication capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, frequencies, radio bands, reception/transmission ranges, output power, frequency agility, encryption/decryption, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

Does the aircraft employ Beyond Line Of Sight communications? If so, by what method?
11. Pilot Vehicle Interface Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft pilot-vehicle interface capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, display size/type, Hands on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS) functions, voice command, helmet mounted cueing, night vision devices/compatibility, etc).

12. Sensor Fusion Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft sensor fusion capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, sensor contributors, display integration, data resolution, fusion process, duty cycle automation, etc).

13. Aircraft RF Signature. Describe the mission configuration aircraft RF signatures and how these signatures will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the signature description (including, but not limited to, front/beam/rear aspect radar cross-section measures, emission direction, frequencies and output power, etc).

14. Aircraft IR Signature. Describe the mission configuration aircraft IR signatures and how these signatures will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the signature description (including, but not limited to, front/beam/rear aspect IR measures in dry thrust (MIL power), front/beam/rear aspect IR measures in reheat/afterburner (MAX power), etc).

15. Emissions Control (EM). Describe how the aircraft’s mission configuration emissions control features (EM spectrum) will contribute to the covert completion of a mission (covert is to be interpreted as ‘concealed’, not ‘disguised’). Include responses to:

How can the aircraft conceal its electromagnetic or other environmental emissions?
How can the aircraft reduce its electromagnetic or other environmental emissions to reduce its detectability by opposing units?
By how much and in what in-flight regimes can the aircraft reduce its electromagnetic or other environmental emissions?
This reduction or concealment comes at what impact to aircraft systems payload, operational efficiency or effectiveness?
16. Aircraft Engine and Airframe Capability. Describe the mission configuration aircraft engine and airframe capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, max speed at 30K feel Mean Sea Level (MSL), thrust in dry thrust (MIL power), thrust in reheat/afterburner (MAX power), angle of attack limitations, max G, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

What is the aircraft thrust to weight ratio in the following configurations:
Take off weight in the typical air-to-air load described in response to Question 1 above.
During typical air-to-air mission with 50% fuel and no weapons remaining (pylons installed).
Take off weight in the typical air-to-ground load described in response to Question 1 above.
During typical air-to-ground mission with 50% fuel and no weapons remaining (pylons installed).
What is the aircraft wing loading in the following configurations:
Take off weight in the typical air-to-air load described in response to Question 1 above.
During typical air-to-air mission with 50% fuel and no weapons remaining (pylons installed).
Take off weight in the typical air-to-ground load described in response to Question 1 above.
During typical air-to-ground mission with 50% fuel and no weapons remaining (pylons installed).
What is the aircraft instantaneous and sustained turn rate at Mean Sea Level, 15kft, 30kft and operational ceiling in the following configurations:
During typical air-to-air mission with 50% fuel and weapons.
During typical air-to-ground mission with 50% fuel and weapons.
17. Aircraft Combat Radius, Range and Endurance. Describe the mission configuration aircraft combat radius, range and endurance capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, fuel flow at MIL power, fuel flow at MAX power, endurance speed at 30K feet Mean Sea Level, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

What is the maximum range of the mission configuration aircraft in the air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-surface warfare loadouts described in response to Question 1 above?
What is the maximum endurance of the mission configuration aircraft in the air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-surface warfare loadouts described in response to Question 1 above?
18. Any other capability that may be part of your mission-configured weapon system and that you deem would contribute to the overall effectiveness of the mission.

Production and Supportability

19. Procurement. The following questions are oriented towards understanding when Canada will be able to procure aircraft, possible buy profiles (aircraft/year), and any risks to on-time delivery of aircraft with the needed capabilities:

Provide the date at which the production line for your aircraft is expected to shut down, based on current confirmed customer orders.
Provide the aircraft’s planned production capacity (minimum annual) from 2017 to 2030, the associated currently known production orders as well as the planned closure of the production line. Provide the lead time for delivery from placement of order. Describe important assumptions related to production capacity and flexibility in production planning and delivery.
Provide a list of current customers operating your aircraft type, and the status of current customer deliveries.
Describe which developmental work – if any – remains to be performed on your aircraft to achieve the capabilities provided by the mission-configured weapon system as described in response to Question 1, and the planned date at which those capabilities will be achieved. If delivery of capability is to be staggered in stages or blocks, please provide information about which capabilities will be available at which time.
20. Supportability and Connectivity. The following questions are oriented towards understanding the potential issues that Canada may need to assess regarding the long-term sustainability of the aircraft, management of the fleet and the associated personnel (especially pilots and maintainers), assurance of continued operational capability, and interoperability within the Canadian Forces and with allies:

Provide the aircraft’s designed structural life, in terms of number of years, maximum number or flying hours, maximum number of take off-offs and landings, or other structural life constraints/limitations, as applicable. Provide appropriate assumptions that form the basis for these estimates (e.g. basis for usage spectrum)
Indicate forecast (or demonstrated, if available) weapon system reliability in terms of average monthly flying rate per aircraft. In the context of the anticipated maintenance and support program for the proposed aircraft, provide an assessment of its ability to generate 15 hrs per aircraft per month. Describe important assumptions, as applicable.
Describe your concept of operations for reprogramming of the electronic warfare system and software upgrades for the aircraft’s mission systems and defensive electronic warfare systems for a period of at least thirty years following delivery of the last aircraft. Describe any features that provide flexibility to adapt the systems’ software configuration.
Describe any security-related infrastructure requirements to support the aircraft’s operations. If there is a special-access program requirements, list the requirements of the program.
Describe the aircraft’s depot maintenance support concept and weapon system support network, in particular as it relates to long-term availability of replacement/spare parts for the aircraft, for a period of at least thirty years following delivery of the last aircraft. Provide an estimate of until when spares lines are expected to remain open for the aircraft’s components, based on current and expected future operators of the aircraft type.
Provide the date (firm or estimated) beyond which your company is not expecting to provide any additional support for the aircraft, if applicable.
Describe the available simulators for your aircraft, and provide in particular a description of their fidelity and their capability for performing distributed simulations/learning. Describe also the available maintenance task simulators/trainers. Describe the courseware capabilities and the pilot training concept.
Provide a list of cleared and integrated air-to-air, air-to-ground, and anti-surface weapons.
Describe requirements for self-sufficient operations in deployed locations.
List the aircraft’s standards compliance for weapons, stores and consumables (e.g.: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Universal Armament Interface (NUAI)).
Describe the aircraft and weapon systems’ suitability to perform operations in a range of environments, including the Arctic.
Regarding aircraft sensor, communications or weapons systems or components:

What connectivity architectures are required in order to provide connectivity outside of the aircraft? What connectivity equipment would be provided as part of the acquisition?
What bandwidth, data rate, data format, standardization agreement, security requirements and modes/means of transmission are needed/used?
Identify connectivity, releasability or security limitations that exclude or limit flexibility in equipment choice or use.
21. Growth Potential. The following questions are oriented towards understanding the growth potential of the aircraft to accommodate future un-forecasted technological developments and/or capability enhancements:

Describe your company’s capability upgrade approach for this aircraft, and any planned upgrade programs to include software and hardware upgrade and plans to avoid parts obsolescence.
Describe features of the aircraft’s systems and design that enable future growth (e.g.: available space, cooling/power capacity, “open architecture”). Provide an overview of mission/avionics system architecture and description of how it can accommodate future unplanned improvements.
List any additional features or capabilities that the weapon system could provide beyond those already described in response to previous questions in this questionnaire.
22. Interoperability. Describe details of your weapon system fuel type and its air-to-air refuelling capability/configuration.

Controlled Goods Requirements and Procurement Approach

23. Does the fighter aircraft weapon system include any equipment, software or other information that may be subject to foreign export controls or restrictions, including US International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) controls, and if so, what is the anticipated process including timelines to address those controls or restrictions, such as initiation of an export license, Government to Government transfer arrangement or others.

24. Is the fighter aircraft weapon system and its associated In Service Support available through Foreign Military Sales or Direct Commercial sales or through other means?

[Carlos Lima]

Mais um jogo de cena para comprarem F-35...



Agora está chegando a hora de partirem o bolo e todo mundo quer um pedaço grande...

Além do mais isso serve de guarda-chuva político na remota hipótese de WA pular fora do F35... assim eles não escolheram o F-35 'cegamente'.



[]s
CB_Lima

[Alcantara]

Eu acho que a Boeing vem forte com o Super Hornet Roadmap

Também acho que o F/A-18 se sai bem na fita no Canadá...
Aliás, se forem ver, os canadenses já operam caças F/A-18. E um dos motivos que deram para escolher esse modelo foi que os seus requesitos são muito semelhantes aos de uma marinha, pois possuem vários ambientes inóspidos e vazios (como o mar).

[kekosam]

Também acredito que os Uncle Fuck3r (by South Park) comprem o F-35. Não tive Inglês suficiente para ler a síntese que o Pinguim colocou. Por isto minha dúvida: a redução dos parâmetros operacionais influem alguma coisa no requerido por ela?

[NovaTO]

Os Canadenses podem sim dividir sua frota em dois tipos, uma mais acessível e de disponibilidade quase imediata -> F-18E/G e outro mais capacitado para confrontos nos anos 30 e além: o F-35, mais desenvolvido e amadurecido como projeto e operacionalidade.

PS. Esse questionário postado pelo Penguim se respondido por todos os grande fabricantes de caças seria o "Santo Graal" do supertrunfo.
Fonte inesgotável para debates de qual o melhor nisso, qual o melhor naquilo, etc...

[]'s

[Bourne]

A Austrália parece ter optado por esse caminho. De imediato e médio prazo adquirir algumas dezenas de Super Hornet. Assim ganhando tempo para decidir sobre o caça de quinta geração para voar até 2050 e ser a linha de frente. Pode ser o caso do F35 ou de outro que venha a surgir.