The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,995
- Points
- 1,260
I can't seem to find any reference from yesterday where Carney stated anything related to 'joining one of the sixth gen programs'. Can you site this reference?
I can only see reference to something along the lines of 'including investment here in Canada, greater production here in Canada', from yesterday.
I did see something a day or two ago about how Carney brought up with both the UK and France the opportunity of fighter production occurring here in Canada. Not sure if this is relationship to future 6th gen fighters and/or French Rafale's.
NGAD is on the high end of cost. GCAP should be $200M per manned aircraft. And FCAS should be closer to $150M. But FCAS is risk accepting later EIS to improve maturation.
The key to understand with the 6th Gen is that it's a system of systems. Total system cost is not based on just the manned airframes. The USAF is thinking of 7 unmanned at $30M each for each manned aircraft at $200M. A flight of 6th Gen may cost $400M and have 1-2 humans. A flight of 5th Gen may cost $350M and have 4-5 humans.
This is a decent 20 min primer on what 2040 could look like with a mix of 4th, 5th and 6th gen platforms:
Different programs are at different stages. British-Japanese-Italian GCAP is aiming for a 2035 EIS. And one of the primary partners (Japan) has a hard date on that because they are extremely worried about where China will be at that date. German-Spanish-French FCAS has a different timeline. They moved up the unmanned component to 2032. And then delayed the manned component to early 2040s.
In theory, if we go with GCAP, we might not need a bridge fleet. Just accept the risk of a smaller F-35 fleet for a few years. If FCAS, then a bridge fleet might be necessary. And weirdly, the bridge fleet we buy would have to actually be retired to make room for the 6th gen. So we'd basically be buying the ~40 Rafales or Typhoons to serve about 15 years.
What's missing in this discussion? Understanding about UCAVs. So much of the public discussion and even discussion on this sub is exclusively focused on manned jets, when all the developments are clearly moving away from that. Our biggest gap is not actually manned fighters. It's the lack of experience in larger drone systems and a real lack of knowledge and experience with CCAs (autonomous wingman). People get worked up about cutting 20-30 F-35s. But somehow seem to completely ignore that we don't have any plans for CCAs when we should be looking at fielding something like 30-50 CCAs by the mid 2030s. To me this basically the same level of ignorance as those who argue that a Gripen and Panther are substitutable. Just from the other side of the spectrum.
Ugh. Second worst option.
Win some. Lose some. Even before all this, there were serious doubts about 88 frames being tenable given cost, pilot shortage, etc. So honestly, I don't think there'd be a ton of surprises if even a Conservative government had cut back on the order. The questions here are what are the plans for a bridge fleet (if any) and how would they look at CCAs and incorporating them to build mass.
Perhaps, I'll note though, that the other major party doesn't have a substantially different commitment to defence spending. At least not that they have made explicitly to date. And they are both preferencing different things. For examples, the LPC plan is pushing what amounts to paramilitarization of the CCG, while the CPC is talking about doubling the Rangers and a "permanent base" at Iqaluit including a new wing.
Wonder what the incentive will be for permanent postings in the Arctic. LOL. In the video, Poilievre says it's not a remote base because the town has 7000 people. LOL.
Link: Liberals release plan to rebuild, reinvest, and rearm the Canadian Armed Forces | Liberal Party of Canada
Statement:
- Reaction score
- 4,995
- Points
- 1,260
Thanks for the info.
Sad that the term that is used is
- Partner with our allies on procurement for the next generation of aircrafts.
- Reaction score
- 5,712
- Points
- 1,160
100% this ^
This is where our focus should be. UCAV's are where mass will come from, they are cheaper per unit than crewed aircraft and to a degree where some of our personnel issues can be reduced (UCAVs will still require maintainers, etc.).
We're so worried about finding a non-US alternative to the F-35 that we're ignoring where future air combat is likely to be heading. 88 x F-35's or 88 x GCAP don't really make that much of a difference ultimately when it should really be 400 x aircraft (crewed and un-crewed combined).
The other benefit of jumping on the UCAV programs right now is that we will actually have the potential to build them here. None of the 6th Gen fighter programs are going to set up production in Canada due to the huge cost, the limited amount that we'll be buying and due to protection of their own domestic industries. UCAVs however will be acquired in much larger volumes and will be less complex and expensive to build. More like a munition than a platform. Many of the same industrial skillsets and supply chains required to build UCAVs will also be transferable to missile and rocket production industries which we'd also like to develop as well.
- Reaction score
- 11,222
- Points
- 1,160
Re the need for maintainers.
The needs for a 100,000,000 dollar, manned aircraft with a 5000 hour, 40 year life expectancy are radically different than a 2 to 5 MCAD aircraft that may sit on the shelf for forty years and may or may not be reused after its first mission.
Those are the two ends of the spectrum being discussed.
The needs for a 100,000,000 dollar, manned aircraft with a 5000 hour, 40 year life expectancy are radically different than a 2 to 5 MCAD aircraft that may sit on the shelf for forty years and may or may not be reused after its first mission.
Those are the two ends of the spectrum being discussed.
Let's be honest. Most of this stuff is written by staffers with little knowledge or experience on the topic. It's mostly about showing intent and directionality. So I wouldn't get too fussed with this.
Kinda sad. But unlike the US where there's a deep bench of policy analysts and journalists with experience in defence and have often served, in Canada, the bench isn't deep and the level of first-hand experience is even worse. Most of those who cover the defence beat never served. And a lot of policy analysts I have come across will claim they have equivalent knowledge because they did an MA on a given topic. There's one I come across on Twitter all the time who is an uber advocate for the Gripen based on his fanboyism of all things Saab and his Master's thesis on the topic. Never spent a day in uniform, but spent years trying to argue that the Gripen was better than the F-35 for Canada. And now argues that we need a second fleet...of Gripens. Conveniently ignores ITAR vulnerability or 6th gen risks on the horizon.
On air stuff too, I'll add there's a lot of ex-army guys too who think they know our domain while having ignorance not far from the above set. The amount of army guys that have come at me about the F-35 being single engine while not understanding what modern FADEC engines are capable of, and why several countries operate single engine F-16s and F-35s inside the Arctic circle. "But muh Arctic...."
- Reaction score
- 5,712
- Points
- 1,160
So, retired Lt-Gen Blondin - the former Commander Royal Canadian Air Force that originally recommended the F-35 to PM Harper - has now come out saying it would be "irresponsible" to build Canada's fighter force solely on the F-35 due to the hostility of the US government. He says we're currently in a fight for our survival as a nation and is suggesting the RCAF should go with a mixed fleet of fighters, perhaps something like 36 x F-35's and up to 150 x other, European fighters.
My original thought was that the F-35 review announced by Carney was more of a negotiating tactic than an actual plan, but as more people with credibility (with the media and general public anyway) weigh in supporting the idea I'm beginning to think it's quite possible that we will end up with less than 88 x F-35's.
My original thought was that the F-35 review announced by Carney was more of a negotiating tactic than an actual plan, but as more people with credibility (with the media and general public anyway) weigh in supporting the idea I'm beginning to think it's quite possible that we will end up with less than 88 x F-35's.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,501
- Points
- 1,260
RCAF can’t support this with our infrastructure and personnel, but it’s nice to think it’s possible.
- Reaction score
- 2,712
- Points
- 1,090
65 seems like the floor to me.
What are we going to do buy another 65 French rafales for new France?
Does there need to be infrastructure changes?
What are we going to do buy another 65 French rafales for new France?
Does there need to be infrastructure changes?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,466
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 4,995
- Points
- 1,260
Maybe we can buy, 2nd hand, the ones used on the Yemen raid we keep reading about.Simples. We'll just keep the CF-188s, right?
- Reaction score
- 36,418
- Points
- 1,090
Every time I see a retired GOFO weigh in my first question is whether they are working for / consulting for any companies. Like how Lawson consults for LockMart while writing pro F35 editorials.
Today's RCAF would have also had trouble supporting 88 F-35s. Any option will have to come with a capability growth plan.
Here's his LinkedIn.
He seems way more transparent than Lawson to me.
For what? That number was based on the minimum for NORAD and NATO commitments. If the F-35 number is calculated strictly based on NORAD, the number will be smaller still.
No. It'll end up being 90-100 frames total with some mix of F-35s. I don't think we'll any component of the mix be less than 40%.
Not substantially no. Massive changes are already underway for FFCP. Maybe if Americans get insanely touchy, we build a few hangars to separate the Eurocanard fleet we buy.
