The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[OldSolduer]

Our military never learns either. You can just look around here for grandiose plans on how many armoured divisions we'll field in Europe.

It's great to dream. But it's impossible to plan if you don't acknowledge reality. And the CAF as an institution is plenty guilty of that on many fronts.

Corps 84 - or was it 86?

Anyways that was a pipe dream. I sat through several briefings about it. Yeah I agree with your view.

 

[suffolkowner]

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.

Im 99.99% sure the number is only for NORAD requirements

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.

Im 99.99% sure that the numbers are only for NORAD. The reports are linked here somewhere

The infrastructure we are building, is it the same as the USAF cookie cutter plan for F35 bases? Same electrical requirements for a F35 and Rafale?

 

[calculus]

Well, SaaB is going to demo the Gripen Sovereign in Berlin in 2026. Completely ITAR free.

Interesting development.

And a major engineering challenge, so I have my doubts. A great deal of US content in Gripen, as this graphic shows:

 

[ytz]

Im 99.99% sure that the numbers are only for NORAD. The reports are linked here somewhere

I struggle to imagine a world where 65 frames are needed to routinely generate a handful of patrols. I will concede that the 65 left very little room for continuous deployments of 6 packs in perpetuity, as we are seeing now.

Here's a good basic article laying out some basic fleet sizing logic:

The Fighter Numbers Flap | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Gordon England, the Pentagon’s No. 2 official, has claimed that the F-22 is “designed for a specific mission” and 183 of them are “enough to do that mission,” so USAF should buy no more. His words do not reflect the...

www.airandspaceforces.com

Using the numbers above, even 40 frames would yield 25 combat coded jets. Even at 80% serviceability, that's 20 combat coded frames available on any day for NORAD taskings. I would argue this is enough for just NORAD.

The infrastructure we are building, is it the same as the USAF cookie cutter plan for F35 bases? Same electrical requirements for a F35 and Rafale?

What do electrical requirements have to do with these fighters?

There are security requirements for the F-35s that are substantially different than 4th gen platforms. I can't imagine requirements for the Rafale would be higher than the F-35. Probably on par with current Hornets.

 

[suffolkowner]

I struggle to imagine a world where 65 frames are needed to routinely generate a handful of patrols. I will concede that the 65 left very little room for continuous deployments of 6 packs in perpetuity, as we are seeing now.

Here's a good basic article laying out some basic fleet sizing logic:

The Fighter Numbers Flap | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Gordon England, the Pentagon’s No. 2 official, has claimed that the F-22 is “designed for a specific mission” and 183 of them are “enough to do that mission,” so USAF should buy no more. His words do not reflect the...

www.airandspaceforces.com

Using the numbers above, even 40 frames would yield 25 combat coded jets. Even at 80% serviceability, that's 20 combat coded frames available on any day for NORAD taskings. I would argue this is enough for just NORAD.



What do electrical requirements have to do with these fighters?

There are security requirements for the F-35s that are substantially different than 4th gen platforms. I can't imagine requirements for the Rafale would be higher than the F-35. Probably on par with current Hornets.

36 fighters is the requirement for NORAD
Rcaf metrics require 65 for that
We've discussed this on this thread a dozen times over the years. When I get home I'll search the thread but it's here somewhere

Electrical supply? 460? 480? 550 ?

 

[KevinB]

I favour the Rafale for the pure independence from the US.

Until Macron gets replaced by a Russian stooge (Marine Le Pen) then you are anally raped.

But the Typhoon would integrate well with current weapons stocks. The Gripen is so puny......

Without a major change in the Canadian outlook on National Defence, I don’t see a second fleet as viable.

I’d suggest that the Non US F-35 users form a user group to look at options to run a USless F-35 system. Heck contract LM directly, LM has a number of host nation subsidiaries that could do the work OCONUS and thus not be subject to US controls. Yes one would need to start from scratch and keep a copy of one’s homework - but it would keep the most capable airframe relevant regardless of what DJT attempted.

 

[suffolkowner]

36 fighters is the requirement for NORAD
Rcaf metrics require 65 for that
We've discussed this on this thread a dozen times over the years. When I get home I'll search the thread but it's here somewhere

Electrical supply? 460? 480? 550 ?

How To Supply Power And Air For The F-35

The military's latest fighter jet is significantly different from its predecessors and requires a significantly different hangar.

www.aviationpros.com

Here's a look at the service requirements for the f35. Hopefully ellis don isn't redesigning the wheel here

 

[dapaterson]

Until Macron gets replaced by a Russian stooge (Marine Le Pen) then you are anally raped.

Without a major change in the Canadian outlook on National Defence, I don’t see a second fleet as viable.

I’d suggest that the Non US F-35 users form a user group to look at options to run a USless F-35 system. Heck contract LM directly, LM has a number of host nation subsidiaries that could do the work OCONUS and thus not be subject to US controls. Yes one would need to start from scratch and keep a copy of one’s homework - but it would keep the most capable airframe relevant regardless of what DJT attempted.

True, we're seeing right now how things go when someone you thought was an ally gets taken over by a Russian stooge.

 

[ytz]

36 fighters is the requirement for NORAD
Rcaf metrics require 65 for that
We've discussed this on this thread a dozen times over the years. When I get home I'll search the thread but it's here somewhere

Correct. The 65 was NORAD + NATO.

If you only need 36 for NORAD (see HEP II upgrades), then theoretically, you only need 36 F-35s and your second fleet could be ≥ 29 Eurocanards (65 - 36 = 29). Given the way training and supportability works the total number for a two fleet solution will be higher. I figure less than 40 of any fleet is impractical. And if you want asymmetric wings with at least one squadron of each type at each Wing, you need closer to 60 of each.

 

[ytz]

How To Supply Power And Air For The F-35

The military's latest fighter jet is significantly different from its predecessors and requires a significantly different hangar.

www.aviationpros.com

Here's a look at the service requirements for the f35. Hopefully ellis don isn't redesigning the wheel here

That's trivial. Yes, it requires hangar work. But if that was a hard requirement for every time the aircraft parked somewhere they'd never be able to deploy. They need certain infrastructure in the hangars where maintenance is done. That's it.

Without a major change in the Canadian outlook on National Defence, I don’t see a second fleet as viable.

If we're really going to 2%, there's room. Just like several other countries closer to that spending level operate two fleets.

I'm not saying this is optimal. But we can't pretend that the risk isn't real or leverage isn't necessary. It is what it is.

The folks pushing to stay with a single type at this point are dangerously out of touch with public sentiment. Real risk this ends up with less total jets. I'd rather see the RCAF get more planes in a mixed fleet than less because some folks think we can't run two fleets.

Quite frankly some of the pooh poohing is just making excuses. It's not ideal. But we're in the military. You shut up and get on with the job if told.

I’d suggest that the Non US F-35 users form a user group to look at options to run a USless F-35 system. Heck contract LM directly, LM has a number of host nation subsidiaries that could do the work OCONUS and thus not be subject to US controls. Yes one would need to start from scratch and keep a copy of one’s homework - but it would keep the most capable airframe relevant regardless of what DJT attempted.

From a purely military perspective that makes sense. From a strategic perspective that makes zero sense.

It's not at all clear that LockMart (or any American defence contactor) can be trusted to act independently in a conflict. And it's not at all clear, they'll keep intellectual property completely separate. This isn't a big deal for say making LAVs. It's a big deal for making airplanes.

ROI also matters. Why spend billions trying to make the F-35 work when that money can go to making the 6th gen programs work, yielding much more strategic independence and industrial benefit?

Finally, Americans aren't going to get a vote here when they are the very reason we're having this discussion. Lol

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Looking at the power requirements and how finicky the plane is about power in, it appears austere deployments are off the table for this aircraft. Your opponent does not have defeat the aircraft in the air, just take take out the hangers.

 

[ytz]

Looking at the power requirements and how finicky the plane is about power in, it appears austere deployments are off the table for this aircraft. Your opponent does not have defeat the aircraft in the air, just take take out the hangers.

Or.... It's just a misreading of routine infrastructure specifications by somebody with no experience on aircraft servicing who thinks this applies to every single bird all the time?

Specs for a maintenance hangar don't apply to every single place you park the jet.

Also from source:

Bullerdick is the sales manager for the JBT Aerotech’s new JASE division with core products in aircraft power and preconditioned air systems.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Correct. The 65 was NORAD + NATO.

If you only need 36 for NORAD (see HEP II upgrades), then theoretically, you only need 36 F-35s and your second fleet could be ≥ 29 Eurocanards (65 - 36 = 29). Given the way training and supportability works the total number for a two fleet solution will be higher. I figure less than 40 of any fleet is impractical. And if you want asymmetric wings with at least one squadron of each type at each Wing, you need closer to 60 of each.

You also need airframes for training, which I believe is what changed the number from 65 to 88.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Now that the US has announced the production of the F-47, maybe we can kick the can down the road some more.
Then we can buy 22s and 35s at someone's yard sale.

 

[ytz]

You also need airframes for training, which I believe is what changed the number from 65 to 88.

We went from 65 to 88 cause of the infamous gap that the Liberals pushed, arguing for simultaneous max commitments on NATO, NORAD and force gen. They then said this was 88 frames and that the RCAF wasn't meeting it, so they needed to immediately buy Super Hornets. When that blew up, they didn't want to backtrack on their claim so they bought the Aussie jets and then changed FFCP requirements to 88.

I'll go by the USAF fleet sizing from the article I posted above:

The Air Force has analytic formulas for determining the answer. Here they are:

For training, 25 percent of the combat-coded force.

For test purposes, five percent of the total of combat-coded and training aircraft.

For backup inventory, 10 percent of the combat-coded, training, and test aircraft.

For attrition reserve, 10 percent of everything above.

Let's do the math using American fleet sizing logic and assuming 4x gun squadrons of 12 frames each.

4 x 12 x 1.25 x 1.05 x 1.1 x 1.1 = 76.23

Of course, our own doctrine substantially discounts backup inventory and attrition reserves. Cut those in half and assuming no testing inventory and you get to 66 frames.

Under the old plan, if we bought 65 frames, we would still have had four gun squadrons of 12 frames each, and then 17 frames for the OTU and maintenance pipeline. And then if we had any losses, we buy off the line to make up and maybe be do a close out order at the end of production.

 

[suffolkowner]

Correct. The 65 was NORAD + NATO.

If you only need 36 for NORAD (see HEP II upgrades), then theoretically, you only need 36 F-35s and your second fleet could be ≥ 29 Eurocanards (65 - 36 = 29). Given the way training and supportability works the total number for a two fleet solution will be higher. I figure less than 40 of any fleet is impractical. And if you want asymmetric wings with at least one squadron of each type at each Wing, you need closer to 60 of each.

No the 36/65 is just for NORAD. That's the ability to have 36 fighters in the air at any given time. RCAF metrics on availability and sustainability.

 

[ytz]

No the 36/65 is just for NORAD. That's the ability to have 36 fighters in the air at any given time. RCAF metrics on availability and sustainability.

If the requirement is to have 36 ready jets on the ramp at any time, I assure you that even 88 total frames doesn't come close to the requirement.

 

[calculus]

Hmm. Looks like Denmark has not fallen prey to illogic: Denmark Weighs Expanding Its Fleet of US F-35 Fighters Despite Tensions over Greenland

 

[calculus]

And some reasoned views from Billie Flynn, who does know what he's talking about: The F-35 Debate | Billie Flynn - My Blog

 

[Underway]

If the requirement is to have 36 ready jets on the ramp at any time, I assure you that even 88 total frames doesn't come close to the requirement.

You should be talking about sortie rates not "on the ramp" rates. Its availability and surviceability rates times number of aircraft to get the sortie numbers for the mission requirements. But I personally think that when they did that calculation they didn't have good numbers for serviceability rates for the F35 (I refuse to call it Panther, that's a tank name).

---

So lets have an adult discussion on mixed fleets here. Australia (a good place to compare with) has a mixed fleet and always have. Why is that?

Because Australia uses the Super Hornet (formerly used the F-111) and the F-35 (formerly the Hornet) as a strike platform and multirole platform resepctively.

In modern Australian doctrine the Super Hornet carries the big long range strike missiles, like LRASM to hit enemy naval assets from a long range away or use something like AIM-174B air-to-air missile which is very long range to hit enemy AEW aircraft. They also have Growlers to do EW to enable the rest of their naval strike mission.

The F-35 uses its toolset to a) protect the strike package from air threats and b) use shorter ranged but more numerous anti ship missiles (Naval Strike Missiles) to attack enemy units. Both of those tasks are enabled by the F-35's networking and stealth.

This leans into the strengths of the two types of aircraft to provide overlaping lethality to enemy naval and air threats in their air sea gap.

So this provides us a starting point to really think. IF Canada wants to go mixed fleet, we should use the F-35 as the base. We're already getting some. So we can then select a second aircraft that complements the F-35 instead of replaces it. What that should look like will depend on what Canada thinks its main threats are. The question is what complements the F-35. A cheaper strike aircraft like a Gripen could do it, similar to the F-18 in Australian service, but I don't know enough about the Gripen to think it could carry the big missiles needed to stay out of engagement range and throw (because its being detected by enemy radar for sure).

Or perhaps Canada needs a complementary aircraft from the other end of the spectrum. F-35's are going to be the strike package and an air superiority fighter provides air cover.

And while we're at it a Compass Call or other EW aircraft should be purchased to enable both of these.

This "get one and not the other" arguement is a bit silly to me. The infantry need armour and artillery to do their job. The airforce needs a combination of aircraft to do theirs. I would argue thus:

If we want to truely be independant then we have to have a multiplatform fleet so that we have better tools for specific tasks. If we don't then we are reliant on the US even if we don't use their aircraft. (yes its expensive, yes training yadda yadda yadda... 2% people!)