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

[suffolkowner]

Is there anyone out there who can talk with some sense with the PM and Cabinet? Someone NATO that isn't US or UK?

Norway? Denmark? Germany?

Trump

 

[OldSolduer]

Trump

no no fuck no.

 

[Maxman1]

People say this stuff and complete ignore that we have a completely European sourced SAR fleet and almost bought A400Ms instead of C-17.

And buying the A330 MRTT instead of the KC-46.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Interesting article - from the "US Air Education and Training Command" - where the US Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra says, quote - “This visit reflects the enduring defense partnership between Canada and the United States,” said the Honorable Peter Hoekstra, U.S. Ambassador to Canada." and “Training together at Luke strengthens interoperability and helps ensure our air forces are ready to operate as one team when it matters.”
56th Fighter Wing Commander Brig. Gen. David Berkland - “We’re proud Luke will be part of Canada’s path to fifth-generation readiness,” and further to this, “Training alongside our Canadian teammates strengthens interoperability from day one; shared standards, shared tactics and a shared ability to execute together if called.”
Hoekstra also highlighted the long-standing defense relationship between the United States and Canada, particularly through the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and discussed how fifth-generation capabilities contribute to NORAD modernization through advanced sensing and information-sharing.

“This partnership has always been about more than proximity, it’s about shared responsibility,” Hoekstra said. “As Canada brings the F-35 online, training with the United States will help ensure our forces can seamlessly defend North America.”

https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4392337/us-ambassador-to-canada-visits-luke-ahead-of-future-rcaf-f-35-training/

 

[markppcli]

Interesting article - from the "US Air Education and Training Command" - where the US Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra says, quote - “This visit reflects the enduring defense partnership between Canada and the United States,” said the Honorable Peter Hoekstra, U.S. Ambassador to Canada." and “Training together at Luke strengthens interoperability and helps ensure our air forces are ready to operate as one team when it matters.”
56th Fighter Wing Commander Brig. Gen. David Berkland - “We’re proud Luke will be part of Canada’s path to fifth-generation readiness,” and further to this, “Training alongside our Canadian teammates strengthens interoperability from day one; shared standards, shared tactics and a shared ability to execute together if called.”
Hoekstra also highlighted the long-standing defense relationship between the United States and Canada, particularly through the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and discussed how fifth-generation capabilities contribute to NORAD modernization through advanced sensing and information-sharing.

“This partnership has always been about more than proximity, it’s about shared responsibility,” Hoekstra said. “As Canada brings the F-35 online, training with the United States will help ensure our forces can seamlessly defend North America.”

https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4392337/us-ambassador-to-canada-visits-luke-ahead-of-future-rcaf-f-35-training/

Meanwhile the CBC mines the interview to craft a controversy.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Meanwhile the CBC mines the interview to craft a controversy.

Carney needs to put this issue to rest already.

Canadians 'attitude' towards the US is not going to improve over the next 6-8 months while the CUSMA talks are ongoing. If anything, they will trend worse before they trend better. The longer that this issue is open and festers, the harder it will become to address. Rip the band aide off now and make an announcement. The decision, whatever it is, has mostly likely already been made.

 

[ytz]

Is there anyone out there who can talk with some sense with the PM and Cabinet? Someone NATO that isn't US or UK?

Norway? Denmark? Germany?

They are all in the same boat as us.

Carney needs to put this issue to rest already.

Canadians 'attitude' towards the US is not going to improve over the next 6-8 months while the CUSMA talks are ongoing. If anything, they will trend worse before they trend better. The longer that this issue is open and festers, the harder it will become to address. Rip the band aide off now and make an announcement. The decision, whatever it is, has mostly likely already been made.

Nope. There's no point playing their hand until they can see what LockMart can offer. I'm no fan of the Gripen. But if the government is going down this path, they might as well leverage as much as they can.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Nope. There's no point playing their hand until they can see what LockMart can offer. I'm no fan of the Gripen. But if the government is going down this path, they might as well leverage as much as they can.

I'm sure that there is a 'drop dead date' on someone's calendar that relates to when our current number of active CF18's, our current readiness/availability, falls below a certain threshold based on the arrival of new F35's or other airframes coming online in the RCAF. The date must be fast approaching.

If Trump allows Turkey back into the F35 fold and 'fast tracks' their planes into the production line, this may force our hand as well.

 

[ytz]

I'm sure that there is a 'drop dead date' on someone's calendar that relates to when our current number of active CF18's, our current readiness/availability, falls below a certain threshold based on the arrival of new F35's or other airframes coming online in the RCAF. The date must be fast approaching.

The first 16 are paid for. First 4 are coming into service this year. The remaining 12 are being delivered over the next two years. Really, this is about how many we take in each year from 2029 onwards. The payments for those aircraft are probably due Fall 2026 to early 2027. We probably need 50-60 to declare FOC and fully retire the CF-18. But that number only works if we're immediately going to to start taking in more numbers of something else. The rumoured 40 F-35s is a problematic number. Not enough to retire the Hornet. Which means having to operate three fleets at the same time. A dual fleet isn't ideal. But if they are going to do it, the sensible way is probably 60 F-35s and then 60-70 Gripens sequenced after the Hornet retirement. And total fleet would absolutely have to increase to 130-150 aircraft.

If Trump allows Turkey back into the F35 fold and 'fast tracks' their planes into the production line, this may force our hand as well.

It's really not a huge deal. The US flexes their deliveries to accommodate allied orders. For them keeping the line going is more important than the exact number they take in a given year. And given that the line is producing 148 aircraft a year, them getting 20-30 less aircraft some years, is really not that big a deal to them. The USAF alone has about 500 F-35s in service. They really won't get stressed out if they have 30 fewer deliveries per year for 3-4 years. This is partly why they are reacting so strongly to the potential of F-35 order cuts. It means the US itself has to buy more planes to keep the order pipeline full.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The first 16 are paid for. First 4 are coming into service this year. The remaining 12 are being delivered over the next two years. Really, this is about how many we take in each year from 2029 onwards. The payments for those aircraft are probably due Fall 2026 to early 2027. We probably need 50-60 to declare FOC and fully retire the CF-18. But that number only works if we're immediately going to to start taking in more numbers of something else. The rumoured 40 F-35s is a problematic number. Not enough to retire the Hornet. Which means having to operate three fleets at the same time. A dual fleet isn't ideal. But if they are going to do it, the sensible way is probably 60 F-35s and then 60-70 Gripens sequenced after the Hornet retirement. And total fleet would absolutely have to increase to 130-150 aircraft.



It's really not a huge deal. The US flexes their deliveries to accommodate allied orders. For them keeping the line going is more important than the exact number they take in a given year. And given that the line is producing 148 aircraft a year, them getting 20-30 less aircraft some years, is really not that big a deal to them. The USAF alone has about 500 F-35s in service. They really won't get stressed out if they have 30 fewer deliveries per year for 3-4 years. This is partly why they are reacting so strongly to the potential of F-35 order cuts. It means the US itself has to buy more planes to keep the order pipeline full.

40 would equate to, what, 3 full squadrons and 4 spares? With them spread across both Cold Lake and Bagotville at 20 each? I can't see those numbers being feasible.
IF they intend to go with a mixed fleet, back to the original 65 F35's should be the bottom, not the ceiling. Provides 4 full squadrons with adequate numbers for training, maintenance and spares.

 

[ytz]

40 would equate to, what, 3 full squadrons and 4 spares?

40 is more like two line squadrons and an OTU (call it a third squadron if you want). With some additional frames for the maintenance pipeline.

With them spread across both Cold Lake and Bagotville at 20 each? I can't see those numbers being feasible.

If there's 40 frames, they are all going in one base. Cold Lake.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If there's 40 frames, they are all going in one base. Cold Lake.

Fly the F35, live in Cold Lake.
Fly the Gripen, live in Bagotville.
Ouch.

 

[dapaterson]

40 is more like two line squadrons and an OTU (call it a third squadron if you want). With some additional frames for the maintenance pipeline.



If there's 40 frames, they are all going in one base. Cold Lake.

Is the plan to repatriate the OTU, or to remain in the joint training structure?

 

[Eaglelord17]

To purchase only 16 IMO would invite nothing but trouble. I am no expert on foreign relations - would the US government ban sale of spare parts to Canada? Would the USAF be told not to train Canadian pilots?
Elbows up does have consequences.

So does bending over and taking it. Locking out your allies from access to equipment isn’t a good strategy to sell equipment. When the US turned off the equipment in Ukraine that should have sent alarm bells ringing throughout NATO.

Also normally 1/3 of a fleet is down for maintenance, so split fleet would have less AC available. So we would need a higher buy to maintain the availability we need

Currently the US is at about 50% with the F35 so that is a factor. The other thing is the specialized hangar and security requirements.

The Gripen does have the advantage to be able to work with just basic facilities which with how we like to spend money is a plus.

 

[ytz]

Is the plan to repatriate the OTU, or to remain in the joint training structure?

I believe the old plan of 65 had OTU in the US. Not 100%. @SupersonicMax might know more.

The current plan for 88 includes an OTU. I am not sure how the current fleet plan works. If we buy 40, I would think we would want to just use the OTU in the US. But I am not sure the current climate allows for that. So I assume there will be a Canadian OTU and also domestic Tactics and Development, a la FOTEF.

 

[dapaterson]

The Gripen does have the advantage to be able to work with just basic facilities which with how we like to spend money is a plus.

Less capable is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Quirky]

The Gripen does have the advantage to be able to work with just basic facilities which with how we like to spend money is a plus.

Basic facilities for a basic aircraft for a basic air force and country, right?

 

[ytz]

Less capable is a feature, not a bug.

Yes and no. We're already building infrastructure at both bases and the FOBs to be F-35 ready. So I am not sure how much savings there is on that side.

Next, as we saw with the Hornet, the smaller user community drives costs on the back half of life. The RCAF would have had an easier time if we were flying F-16s instead of F-18s. There's probably already more F-35s in service than the number of Super Gripens that will ever be delivered.

 

[QV]

Basic facilities for a basic aircraft for a basic air force and country, right?

Basically.

 

[dapaterson]

Yes and no. We're already building infrastructure at both bases and the FOBs to be F-35 ready. So I am not sure how much savings there is on that side.

Next, as we saw with the Hornet, the smaller user community drives costs on the back half of life. The RCAF would have had an easier time if we were flying F-16s instead of F-18s. There's probably already more F-35s in service than the number of Super Gripens that will ever be delivered.

RCAF got the F18 because they didn't want the F16 and thought they could finagle the F15 out of the process by inventing the reliability of single engines as a concern.