Excuses... Excuses...

My house is under the "15:00 Sat/sam." dot.

Sorry for being away for the weekend.  Hurricane "Post tropical storm" Arthur paid my family, neighbors, and I a little visit on Saturday, knocking trees and power lines out of the ground, leaving me and my trusty iMac without power for about three-and-a-half days.  Thankfully, there was no damage to my house other freezer full of groceries.

The weekend went slowly.  Mobile device power was at a premium and wireless internet service was spotty at best.  While I like to envision myself as well prepared for a zombie apocalypse, I am not sure if I could live in a world without hot, fresh coffee every morning.

Even without power and spotty internet access, I managed to read (if not reply or moderate) all of your comments.  Thanks to you all for keeping the conversation rolling and keeping the tone civil and mostly on topic.  (So what if the Super Hornet was brought up in the Silent Eagle vs. Gripen FJFC...  As long as its about fighter jets, it's all good!)

I was also happy to enjoy an e-mail correspondence with none other than Air Power Australia's Peter Goon.  Those of you unfamiliar with the APA's website should do yourselves a favor and go there now.  There is an absolute plethora of information, commentary, and research located over there.  Far more than you will ever see at this meagre blogsite.

Yeah...  Yeah...  Whatever.  An entire weekend goes by and I cannot contribute due to a little hurricane post-tropical storm?  Excuses...  Excuses...

Speaking of excuses...

Still some problems here...

It is looking more and more that the JSF will need to be excused from its upcoming appearance at the RIAT (Royal International Air Tattoo) and the Farnborough Air Show next week.  While the decision is still very much up in the air, the Unitied Kingdom's F-35B likely won't be.

JSF supporters, including those in the US Senate, do not see this as a big deal.  They offer the usual platitudes that the aircraft is still very much in development, and mishaps like this do happen.  But should they really?

"The F-35 is still early in it's development...  This stuff happens!"

The JSF certainly is still in development, but it is far from the early stages.  The first flight of the F-35 (not the X-35 demonstrator)  occurred in December 2006.  It has been in production for more than eight years and over 100 copies have been either built or currently being assembled.  Its ever-increasingly optimistic IOC (initial operational capability) is scheduled for very late next year for the F-35B, 2016 for the F-35A, and 2019 for the F-35C.  With just slightly over a year before the JSF is intended to operational, unknown engine fires should not receiving headlines.  

Things start looking worse when comparing the F-35 with other fighter development cycles.  The F-15 Eagle went from its first flight to being operational within four years.  The F-16 took four years, as did the F/A-18 Hornet.  

Those were older, simpler aircraft, of course.  Let us look at some newer ones.  The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet?  Four years.  Maybe it should not count since it is based on the older F/A-18?  

Eurofighter Typhoon:  The very model of a bad procurement.

Alright, let us look at one of the most protracted, politically charged, and controversial fighters that is not built in the U.S.A, the Eurofighter Typhoon.  The Typhoon is a good example of something that "sounded good at the time".  The European aerospace community, concerned that they were being outdone by big-budget American defense contractors, decided to convince their government to go all-in on a European air-superiority fighter for the year 2000 and beyond.  Hence, the "EF2000".

Britain, Germany, Spain, and Italy all collaborated on EF2000.  What was to be the Eurofighter Typhoon was beset with difficulties right from the start, as development was assigned rather arbitrarily and each nation demanded on a different set of priorities.  Ever try to get 4 people to agree on a restaurant?  Imagine that, only with billions of dollars and thousands of jobs at stake.  

What those involved with the Eurofighter did not envision was a sudden end to the Cold War and sudden questioning of the need for expensive fighter jets when there was no enemy.  One participant, Germany, tried to leave the program altogether (the penalties were too great).  

In the end, the Eurofighter Typhoon has grown to be a respected platform, even though it does still revive criticism for its costs.  It first went operational in 2003, nine years after its first flight.  

The Eurofighter is not a "5th Generation" fighter, however.  

"5th Generation" enough for ya?

There is no arguing that the F-22 is the "5th Generation" archetype.  Like other fighters, its development was beset with the usual technical problems.  Like the Eurofighter Typhoon, the sudden end of the Cold War left its funding (and future) in doubt.  

Despite this, and despite the F-22 Raptor being one of the most expensive aircraft ever made, its time from first flight to operations was eight years.  

With all of the above examples, testing was done on a mere handful of early production models before full-scale production took place.  By contrast, there are now more F-35s than there are CF-18 Hornets in the RCAF.  Current JSF production rates are enough to make Boeing, Eurofighter, and Dassault jealous.  

After eight years and almost 100 airframes, the F-35 is anything but "early in development".  

"Aircraft get grounded all the time!  It's not that big of a deal!"

All aircraft, cutting edge military fighter aircraft in particular, are complicated machines, and not all problems are found in the early stages.  Safety concerns can sometimes lead to the grounding of a particular airframe type, even the iconic F-15 is not immune.

No flying for you today.

So what happens when an military aircraft gets grounded?  Other assets need to be used to fill the gap.  In the case of the F-15 grounding, F-16s took over the duties.  

What happens when the majority of the western world use the same aircraft?

It then becomes a VERY big deal.  Once the USA replaces most of its F-16s, F/A-18s, A-10s, and AV-8s with a predominantly F-35 fleet, an inopportune grounding would leave it with a mere handful of F-22s, F-15Es, and Super Hornets to pick up the slack.  Europe would need to rely on its Typhoons and Rafales, and the RAAF would have a mere smattering of Super Hornets.  Single-fighter type nations like Canada and The Netherlands would have to simply make do without.  

If the JSF were to be grounded in the 2025 to 2035 timeframe, western airpower as we know it today would temporarily not exist.  

What makes this especially unnerving about the F-35 is that the aircraft is jam-packed with all-new technology that it relies on.  The HMD needs to work flawlessly, because there is no HUD.  The DAS system needs to work, because visibility is limited.  Those AMRAAMs should never miss, since it will usually only carry two.  

Oh...  And that engine?  The Pentagon cancelled the only alternative.  

The JSF is looking more and more like a single-point-of-failure concept that is constructed out of single-point-of-failure technology.  

"The F-35 is still the most technically advanced aircraft.  The others just don't compare!"

Maybe so.  Technical advances do little to woo potential buyers when the aircraft itself cannot get off the ground, however.  RIAT and Farnborough are big, international events with real international buyers' attention.  Canceling an appearance due to an exploding engine will not exactly inspire confidence in the program, nor will it encourage new sales.  

Could the Scorpion steal the Lightning's thunder?

Then again, there is always the chance of a dark horse showing up and getting everybody's attention.  Saab will be there to give updates on its Gripen E, an aircraft it would not mind stealing some of the JSF's sales.

Also present will be the scrappy little Textron Scorpion.  An aircraft intended to be an affordable "good enough" option for air forces with lower budgets.  In contrast to the F-35, which has been in testing for 8 years and still might not make it, the Scorpion's first flight was a mere eight months ago...  Yet has already made the trans-atlantic flight.  

No excuses needed there.  

Range anxiety.

Artist's rendering of F-35Bs operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Remember that F-35B flyby hoped for the HMS Queen Elizabeth's naming ceremony?  It is not going to happen.  You can thank the JSF's recent history of spontaneous combustion, combined with a 36-hour turnaround time for that.  Appearances at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough Air Show are still scheduled.  First, the F-35Bs will have to contend with a mandatory inspection before being given U.K. flight clearance.  There is also the matter of tropical storm Arthur possibly mucking things up as well.

With all the anxiety and hand-wringing involved in the JSF's upcoming transatlantic trip, I thought it would be a good time to examine the F-35's range.

"Dang it!"

Range anxiety.  Most of us have felt it.  That feeling you get when you hear a "ding" emanate from your car's dashboard, accompanied by lit up gas pump icon.  This feeling can range from minor annoyance when your driving around town, to sheer panic when you are traveling an unknown highway with no idea where the next gas station might be.  Or maybe you are just broke.  Either way, the worst case scenario is that your car sputters to a halt, and you have to either call roadside assistance or start walking.

In an aircraft, running out of fuel is more than an inconvenience.  Without fuel, even the most advanced jet fighter becomes a simple glider...  And then possibly a crater.

Thankfully, there are plenty of ways to extend an aircraft's fuel capacity and range.

P-51D Mustang drop tank

First used in the Spanish Civil War, the idea of an additional, expendable fuel tank mounted to an aircraft became mainstream in during WWII.  Drop tanks were indeed crucial in enabling the legendary P-51 Mustang to escort bombers deep into enemy territory.  Since then, external fuel tanks have been mounted to fighter aircraft just as often as missiles and bombs.

External fuel tanks can add a great deal of range to a multirole fighter.  This enables it to increase its combat radius or prolong its loiter time.  The extra fuel can also help offset the extra juice needed to carry a large bomb load.  Less glamorously, sometimes extra fuel is needed simply increase the aircraft's ferry range, enabling it to reach a far away station without the need for refueling.

All this extra range comes at a price.  External fuel tanks add a great deal of weight and drag to an aircraft, decreasing the aircraft's performance while increasing that aircraft's fuel demands.  They also take up room on an aircraft's weapons pylons, reducing the amount of missile and bombs able to be carried.  Some external tanks cannot even go supersonic.

CF-18 with three external tanks.

Under some conditions, external tanks are pretty much a necessity.  Given Canada's geographic size and how dispersed its military bases are, external tanks are pretty much mandatory equipment of the CF-18 Hornet.  If you have seen a CF-18 in the wild, there is a pretty good chance it had at least one drop tank.  If not, it was probably a demonstrator at an air show.

The F/A-18, of which the CF-18 is a variant, was never meant to be a long range fighter.  In its natural habitat, the USN, the Hornet was a light "jack of all trades" serving alongside two more specialized designs.  Long range interception duties were meant to be handled by the USN's F-14 Tomcat, and Long range strike missions were carried out by the A-6 Prowler.

Thankfully, all of the potential CF-18 replacements have substantially superior ranges to the Hornet.  No matter which aircraft Canada eventually selects, it is certain that it will fly further than our current fleet without external tanks.

But what if we need to fly further?

For that, external tanks are still an option for all the jets...  With one exception.

All models of the F-35 have a large space just aft of the cockpit.  For the STOVL F-35B, this space is reserved for the lift-fan.  With no need for a lift-fan, the CTOL F-35A and CATOBAR F-35C are able to utilize this space for fuel.  As you can see in the illustration above, this accounts for over 4,000lb of extra fuel for the F-35A compared to the F-35B.  Because of this, literature for the F-35A often touts the fact that the JSF can match the range of legacy fighters like the F-16 and F/A-18 even when the latter have external tanks.

If a clean F-35A can match the range of a tanked up CF-18, then a F-35A with external tanks must be able to go substantially further, right?

About that...

Early F-35 information portrayed the JSF as capable of carrying up to two bowling pin shaped 426-gallon wing tanks.  The F-35's inboard wing pylons are "wet", so it only makes sense that external fuel tanks would be available.  The odd shape was adopted as traditional spindle shaped tanks were found to have "separation issues" (i.e. crashed into the plane when jettisoned).

Wind tunnel testing revealed that changing shape of the tanks did not fix the problem completely however.

As of now, there are no definite plans to add external fuel tanks to the F-35.  There are rumors that Israel may choose to design and build some, but no F-35 customer currently requires them (i.e. nobody wants to pay for their development).

Where the JSF is currently suffering from a lack of external fuel options, the other fighter aircraft available may soon have a wealth of options.

Eurofighter Typhoon

Dassault Rafale

F/A-18 Super Hornet

Already capable of mounting external fuel tanks, other fighter manufacturers have tried to do themselves one better by studying the feasibility of adding conformal fuel tanks (CFTs).  These tanks, looking like blisters on the upper fuselage, enable plenty of extra fuel storage while adding only minimal drag and radar cross section.  They also free up the pylons for weapons storage.  If need be, CFTs can be utilized with traditional drop tanks, enabling even further extended range.

While the Gripen NG has not seen any CFTs yet, they will be possibly looked at in the future.  There is not really a rush however; changes made to the Gripen NG's fuselage and wing enable a 40% greater fuel capacity than the legacy Gripen models.  Saab is also working on larger, 450 gallon tanks to extend the Gripen's range even further.  These developments squash one of the Gripen's main criticisms, its lack of range.

F-15E with unmounted CFTs, formerly known as "FAST packs".

As for the F-15SE, additional fuel storage is made possible by utilizing space in its conformal weapon bays, as well as the traditional CFTs used by the F-15E Strike Eagle.

It could be argued that an aircraft's maximum range with external tanks is not relevant when aerial refueling is available.  In a perfect world, maybe, but aerial refueling brings its own challenges and limitations.  Not the least of which is:  What type?

F-35A refueling via a "flying boom" method.

Much has been said about the F-35A's incompatibility with Canada's current aerial refueling infrastructure, the CC-150(T) Polaris.  The F-35A uses the "flying boom" method of aerial refueling, while Canada's Polaris and CF-18s use a "probe and drogue" method.  Solutions to this seem simple enough:

1. "Canadianize" the F-35A to utilize probe-and-drogue.
2. Purchase either the F-35B or F-35C instead (both use probe-and-drogue).
3. Make do without a sovereign aerial refueling capability until time comes for a CC-150 replacement.  

Unfortunately, each and every one of these options would add both cost and complexity to a fighter program already notoriously over budget and behind schedule.  

1. A "Canadianized" F-35A (CF-35CA?) would require additional cost and testing.  It would also reduce the commonality benefits a CF-35 would have with the rest of the global F-35 fleet.  
2. Both the F-35B and F-35C are significantly more expensive than the F-35A.  They also have reduced performance due to higher weight.
3. Likely the most attractive option, Canada can rely on USAF tanker assets or private firms to provide aerial refueling.  When the time comes, we simply replace our current CC-150 fleet with a tanker capable of supporting boom-style refueling.  This would likely be either the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus or Airbus A330 MRTT.

Airbus A330 MRTT (notice the flying boom and the drogues)

New tankers would increase our current capability.  Both the KC-46 and the A330 MRTT are available with both flying boom and probe and drogue compatibility.  This gives them the flexibility to refuel just about any aircraft in our inventory, current and future.  Currently, Canada lacks the ability to perform aerial refueling for its CC-17 Globemaster IIIs and C-130 Hercules.  Purchasing new tankers would also give Canada another resource to contribute towards coalition actions as well.

Then again, purchasing new aerial tankers could be problematic given Canada's recent defense procurement history.  The KC-46 has a unit cost of almost $300 million, and its selection by the USAF over the A330 MRTT was controversial.

The question that needs to be asked is fairly simple:  How badly does Canada need a "boom" style tanker?

CC-150 refueling pod.

Both the CC-150 Polaris (based on the Airbus A310) and its predecessor, the CC-137 (based on the Boeing 707) were straight-forward conversions of existing commercial airliners.  By comparison, specialized tankers like the KC-46 require a "ground up" build to accommodate the large and heavy boom.

There is an interesting proposal, found here, to incorporate Bombardier's new C-Series passenger jet as the basis for a new MRTT (multi-role tanker transport) as well as the basis for a CP-140 Aurora replacement.  This proposal could be extremely promising, not to mention politically rewarding.

CC-137 and CF-18

Probe and drogue style has its benefits.  It is a smaller and simpler system.  As such, it is much easier to incorporate into existing aircraft.  It allows for "buddy" refueling systems, allowing multirole fighters to become aerial refueling assets themselves.  Refueling pods can be added or removed as needed adding flexibility.

CC-130H(T) ready to refuel CF-18s.

With the addition of probe-and-drogue refueling pods, even Canada's fleet of CC-130 Hercules can become an aerial tanker resource.

So with all the flexibility and simplicity of probe-and-drogue refueling, why do aircraft manufacturers bother with the flying boom system?

B-52 Stratofortress refuels

The single biggest benefit to flying boom style refueling is speed.  Able to pump over 1,000 gallons per minute, the flying boom pretty much a necessity for larger, long range aircraft like heavy transports and strategic bombers.  This is why it is the USAF's preferred method.  With heavyweights like the B-52 and C-5, probe-and-drogue style refueling would take a LOT longer.  Smaller aircraft, like fighters, cannot take advantage of this however, and fuel must be transferred slower.

Would the addition of a boom-style aerial tanker really help the RCAF?  It would, but the difference would be negligible.  While both the CC-17 and CC-130 are compatible, both are already long-range aircraft (5,000kms for the CC-130J, up to 10,000km for the C-17) making in-flight refueling of little use for most flights.  The the CC-17 also makes up a rather small fleet of only 4.

By contrast, fighter aircraft would likely be the biggest users of aerial refueling.  With shorter ranges along with the need to deploy just about anywhere in the world as part of a coalition, the ability to carry lots of fuel and be refueled is imperative.

In a country as big as Canada, with a NATO commitment that sees the majority of our fighter deployments overseas, range is not just a luxury for Canada's next fighter, it is a necessity.  A combat aircraft is of little use if it cannot get to where it needs to be.

With no current provisions for external tanks and an incompatibility with Canada's aerial tankers, one has to wonder if the F-35 is up for the task.

Convoy!

Take close look at the following:

What you are looking at is 4 F-35Bs, 2 KC-10 Extenders, 1 C-17 Globemaster III, and 1 KC-130 Hercules.  All together, you are looking at approximately $1 billion worth of hardware.  (Give or take, but I'm being generous here.)

These aircraft you see above will gather soon for a purpose.  That purpose:  So that the JSF can make its international debut in the United Kingdom.  The F-35B is scheduled to perform a flight demonstration at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Fairford, followed by another aerial demonstration in Farnborough.  There is also hope that the F-35B will perform a flyby during the HMS Queen Elizabeth's naming ceremony in Scotland.

Four fighters, two tankers, one heavy transport, one medium transport and around 80 personnel.  That is what is needed in order for the F-35 to perform two air shows and a fly by.  There may be a static display at the Air Tattoo, but the aircraft won't even be landing in Farnborough.  There will be no vertical take off or landing, nor will there be any aerobatics.

“This won’t be a Typhoon display, we are showing the unique aspects of the airplane, but it is not going to be doing 50 Alphas [angle of attack maneuvers] and [pulling] 9gs, because we don’t have that flight clearance,” Nichols says.
“We are not going to do a vertical landing, because the surfaces that we need to have on the deck to conduct such a landing do not exist at Fairford or at Farnborough. Hovering is possible, however, so the role demo will include some maneuvers that show off the potential of the aircraft, along with some high-speed passes.”

It should be noted that while the AV-8 Harrier was capable of landing just about anywhere a helicopter could, the F-35B's exhaust is so hot that vertical landings require as special landing pad.

Despite this measured approach to the F-35's international debut, tensions are high with the JSF program office right now.  Flights were recently grounded due to an oil leak and flights have been suspended after an engine fire last week.

Orlando Carvalho, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, which manufactures the F-35, says reliable operations will be the most challenging part of the deployment to the U.K. “I know we can do it,” he says, noting that two F-35Bs operated ship-based trials consistently during in 2011 and 2013. But, he acknowledges, keeping the planes flying continuously for both events will be demanding. 

Reliability is “behind where it needs to be” today, Lorraine Martin, F-35 executive vice president, confirms. But as retrofits are infused into new jets on the line—and eventually added to the earlier ones produced—constancy is increasing. The Navy’s small fleet has been far more reliable, she says, because they are among the most recent to roll off the line and include retrofits to faults identified early in the flight-test program.

The pressure behind this transatlantic trip cannot be understated.  There is growing doubt in Europe  over the F-35 program, with Italy possibly cutting its orders further, Spain deciding to keep its AV-8Bs, and growing criticism in Britain.  Being seen at Farnborough, one of the largest aerospace trade shows in the world, was likely considered a "do or die" scenario.  Not only is it important for Lockheed-Martin and the Pentagon, but it is also important for Britain's Defense Secretary Philip Hammond, who would rather not have a photo-op taken with a cardboard cutout.

Hammond is keen to have the aircraft flying at the ceremony to show he is not buying a paper aircraft, and wants to avoid a repetition of events at which other defense ministers posed in front of – or inside – full-scale models when announcing their orders. 

Sound familiar?

Yup...  Never gets old.

Four fighters, two tankers, one heavy transport, one medium transport, and 80 personnel.  Those are the resources required for the F-35 to perform at two air shows and maybe a flyby.  These fighters are not going to some remote part of the world, either.  For their stay in the United Kingdom, the F-35Bs will be stationed out of RAF Fairford, an air force base capable of housing the B-2 bomber.  Not exactly a Forward Operating Location.

Just to put a finer point to this, pay attention to the aircraft below:

For those of you that lost count while scrolling down, that is 10 Saab JAS-39 Gripens and followed by a single C-130 Hercules.  All the equipment and spares needed to support those 10 Gripens for a 4-week expeditionary deployment can be stored in that single Herc...  With room to spare.

Four F-35s, 2 KC-10s, 1 C-17, 1 C-130...  For a couple of air shows out of a major air base.

Ten Gripens and a C-130...  For a 4-week deployment.

Just let that sink in.

Reset... Pause... A Call to Arms!

First "Reset" and now "Pause".

Like the Defense Acquisition Guide suggests, it looks like the decision to replace the CF-188 will be put off a little longer.  The decision will be put off until at least sometime during the summer, possibly even later.

According to the Globe and Mail:

"Sources say the government feels it’s being rushed and pressured by the Canadian Armed Forces and parts of the civil service to purchase the F-35 without a competition.

 “There has been an assumption that the F-35s were selected and that cabinet would just rubber-stamp the decision. That is not the case. They will review all of the options and make a decision.”

This is no surprise.  It would be political poison to announce the purchase of a highly controversial stealth fighter while it is currently suspended from flight due to an unexplained fire.

So what happens now?

The Members of Parliament will soon return home to their ridings and participate in the summer barbecue circuit.  With an election scheduled for Fall of 2015, possibly even earlier, babies will be kissed and hands will be shook.  Interactions with voters over the summer will likely shape each party's platform leading into this next election.

For those of you who are concerned about Canada's upcoming fighter jet purchase, that means one thing:  NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE YOURSELF HEARD.

Sometimes it only takes 300 or so voices to be heard.

If you have the chance to meet your MP, take it.  Nothing beats looking your government representative in the eye and engaging them in conversation.  Respectfully make your opinions known.

If you cannot meet them in person, call their office or write them, either by e-mail or regular mail (no stamp required to mail your MP!).  You can find their contact information here:  http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members

Not sure what to say?  Here are a few topics:

Costs: 

• Remind them that the F-35 program is over budget, overdue, and far from being finished.
• The F-35 would either need to be "Canadianized" or the RCAF would lose its current capability to perform aerial refueling or operate from rough airstrips.  Other options can do this "out of the box".
• The F-35's procurement and sustainment costs are the highest of any possible CF-18 replacement.  This leaves less funding available for training and the rest of Canada's military.

Capability:

• The only other country planning on using the F-35 as its sole front-line fighter is The Netherlands.  Other fighters, like the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen will be used as front-line fighters throughout the world well into the 2030s and beyond.
• In recent military actions over Libya, the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen all participated as a single coalition without major issue.  Yet the fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 were both absent.  
• Other fighter options continue to receive technological updates, giving them many "5th generation" capabilities at a reduced cost and greater reliability.  

Industrial:

• F-35 competitors have all offered guaranteed offset deals, including final assembly and technology transfer.  By contrast, the F-35 comes with no guarantees, no technology transfer.  We can only bid on making "widgets".  
• Non-JSF partner nations, like Japan, Israel, and South Korea have received attractive offset deals, better than most JSF partners, in fact.
• The RCAF deserves the right equipment to protect Canadian taxpayers, not the American Military Industrial Complex.

I'm sure many of you can come up with your own topics.  Some of you may even be pro-JSF.  That is fine too.  Above all let your voice be heard.  You might not get a better chance to do it.  

Does the Defence Acquisition Guide point to a competition?

The Federal Government unveiled its new "Defence Acquisition Guide" on Monday, portraying a roadmap of Canada's military purchases for the next 20 years or so.

You can find the Defence Acquisition Guide here.

There are a few things in the guide worthy of attention, despite the Federal Government stating that it is "not set in stone".

Under "Future Fighter Capability", we have this:

Anticipated Timeline 

• 2015 to 2017
  • Definition Approval
• 2017 to 2019
  • Request for Proposal Release
• 2018 to 2020
  • Implementation Approval
  • Contract Award
• 2026 to 2035
  • Final Delivery

The "Definition Approval" stage would seem to point to a new look into what Canada needs to replace the CF-18 Hornet, possibly even requiring the RCAF to come up with a new statement of requirements.  A "Request for Proposal" would indicate a competition, as manufacturers are asked for information.  The "Implementation Approval" and "Contract Award" stage seem to suggest a new fighter would not be selected until almost 2020.  

This certainly looks like a plan for a full competition to be held.  

CF-18 Hornet.

Reading between the lines, there are even more hints.  Most obvious are a slew of upgrades, updates, and enhancements planned for the the existing CF-18 fleet.  These include "Training Enhancements" a new "Defensive Electronic Warfare Suite", and a "Follow-on Operation Flight Program".  All together, these CF-18 updates could add up to almost a half-billion dollars.  Needless to say, that's a lot of money to upgrade a fighter due to be replaced in a few years...  But understandable if the CF-18 will need to soldier on for 10 more years or so.  

A few more things grab your attention.

CC-150 Polaris

The "Multi-Role Tanker Transport" program to replace the CC-150 Polaris throws in a line:  "This project is pending the result of the evaluation to replace the CF-188, due to different fuel receiving systems in use by various fighter aircraft."  Given that the F-35A is incompatible with the RCAF's CC-150, yet the other possibilities (Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen) all are, this $1.5 billion program could possibly be dropped if Canada chooses a different aircraft other than the JSF. 

IRIS-T WVR Missile

The "Advanced Short Range Missile" for the CF-118 and its replacement looks to replace the existing AIM-9M Sidewinder with a newer WVR missile.  While this would likely lead to a selection of AIM-9X, this could lead to a different selection like the IRIS-T or ASRAAM.  Both missiles have their advantages over the Sidewinder.

MBDA Meteor

The "Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile Sustainment" program looks like a simple update to the RCAF's current AMRAAM inventory.  This would probably lead to the AIM-120D, although it could lead to a MBDA Meteor selection.

New to the fold is the "Long Range Air-to-Air Missile" planned for a much later time (2026 to 2035).  This could be a possible implantation for a the MBDA Meteor, even though this is more of a medium-range missile.  It should be noted that both the Meteor and AMRAAM have longer ranged versions planned.  It is unlikely that any of these would fit in the weapons bay of a F-35, however.

MBDA Storm Shadow

Then there is the "Low Collateral Damage Weapon", which seems to describe a Brimstone or AGM-176 Griffin "Mini-Missile".  On the flip-side, there is the proposed "Complex Weapon" which appears to be more of a stand-off cruise missile like the Taurus KEPD 350 or MBDA Storm Shadow.

What is interesting about all these new missile projects is that, except for the "Complex Missile" they are all scheduled for roughly the time frame as the new fighter.  This might suggest a more holistic approach to the fighter selection.  Instead of simply selecting a fighter, then figuring out which weapons to hang off it, the entire weapon system might be considered.  For example:  Would a Typhoon with Meteors be more effective than a F-35 with AMRAAMs?

This could be good news for the RCAF and the rest of the Canadian military.  How the pieces fit together is just as important as what the pieces are.  

There are a few other non-fighter related nuggets in the report.

Fixed-Wind Search and Rescue.  A request for proposal release is planed for this year, with a contract awarded next year.  Deliveries planned from 2021 to 2025.  There is also a "Utility Transport Aircraft" project to replace the CC-138 Twin Otter (which possibly could be amalgamated into this).  This could be good news for Canada's long put-off FWSAR replacement.  

There is a plan to update and eventually replace the CH-146 Griffon.  Similar plans are set for the CT-114 Tutor used by the Snowbirds.  A new Unmanned aircraft system (UAS) indicates the acquisition of UCAV.

CP-140 Aurora

Of interest is a "Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft" looking to replace the CP-140 Aurora.  Instead of merely being a ASW (antisubmarine warfare) aircraft, the Aurora replacement will be more ambitious.  It will combine Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4) with Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR).  It calls for "long range and loiter times".  This process won't start until the 2020s.

Like the Twin Otter and FWSAR replacement, there is the possibility of an Aurora replacement being amalgamated with the CC-150 replacement.  Both utilizing the Canadian made Bombardier C-Series as a base.

Kicking the can down the road.

Unfortunately, in the end, this Defence Acquisition Guide may be of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.  The majority of the projects are scheduled for years from now, well after the next election.  Any new government may decide to follow the guide at their leisure or throw it out entirely.    Canada's armed forces have long been a political football, with governments often more willing to commit to military action than to military spending.

Let us hope any military commitment will matched with appropriate funding.  Otherwise, what's the point?