• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Yes, I'm sure they have no clue what it costs. :sneaky:

In terms of maintenance and flying hours ? No I dont think they do have a good idea.

Germans just bought more Typhoons. (2025)

France is buying more Rafales. (2026)

Italy is buying more Typhoons (2024)

Google is your friend.

Yup, place holders. I mean both are superior to Gripen but hey.

I don't think they are in the decision making room.

In that we agree. This is about regional economic development not about military capability.
 
In terms of maintenance and flying hours ? No I dont think they do have a good idea.



Yup, place holders. I mean both are superior to Gripen but hey.



In that we agree. This is about regional economic development not about military capability.
well i hope its about developing the ability to be more involved in building our own military capabilities
I dont think there is any other reason to buy Gripen's
 
In terms of maintenance and flying hours ? No I dont think they do have a good idea.
I'm pretty sure they designed it with a rough idea in mind, and they probably know to some extent whether they are over or under to date.

This is not me saying anyone has the full picture, but there is a picture out there. When will we know? probably not for some time.
Yup, place holders. I mean both are superior to Gripen but hey.
Now you're just being spiteful.
In that we agree. This is about regional economic development not about military capability.
Good.

The French air force would be laughed out of the room if they didn't buy Rafales.

The USAF would be laughed out of the room if they wanted Typhoons.

The RCAF isn't special.
 
I'm pretty sure they designed it with a rough idea in mind, and they probably know to some extent whether they are over or under to date.

This is not me saying anyone has the full picture, but there is a picture out there. When will we know? probably not for some time.

Now you're just being spiteful.

Good.

The French air force would be laughed out of the room if they didn't buy Rafales.

The USAF would be laughed out of the room if they wanted Typhoons.

The RCAF isn't special.
I sincerely hope none of your loved ones ever have to rely on regional economic development when they go to hospital or wait for the fire department.
 
I'm pretty sure they designed it with a rough idea in mind, and they probably know to some extent whether they are over or under to date.

This is not me saying anyone has the full picture, but there is a picture out there. When will we know? probably not for some time.

Now you're just being spiteful.

Good.

The French air force would be laughed out of the room if they didn't buy Rafales.

The USAF would be laughed out of the room if they wanted Typhoons.

The RCAF isn't special.
I feel more and more that you’re on the staff for Jolly or on the staff for the Liberal Party in some capacity.
Not saying that’s a bad thing or a good thing, but just a hunch.
 
I sincerely hope none of your loved ones ever have to rely on regional economic development when they go to hospital or wait for the fire department.
Really?

You yourself work in an organization where the purity of the operational requirement is often not the key factor. Your dig to Altair that his identification of ITB and VP factors somehow deserves some reduced first responders service should the need exist is disappointing.
 
So your sticking with Gripen and F-35 will quadruple the RCAF, then?

No quadruple was obviously an exaggeration. However if you look at air forces that fly similar sized split fleets they are substantially larger. If were talking the rumour 88 / 70 then yeah an RCAF of 30k wouldnt be far off.
 
I feel more and more that you’re on the staff for Jolly or on the staff for the Liberal Party in some capacity.
Not saying that’s a bad thing or a good thing, but just a hunch.
I'm part of the Canadian Future Party.

So....have yourself a wonderful day filled with joy.
 
Really?

You yourself work in an organization where the purity of the operational requirement is often not the key factor. Your dig to Altair that his identification of ITB and VP factors somehow deserves some reduced first responders service should the need exist is disappointing.

Thats actually the exact opposite of what I wrote. I said "I hope none of your loved ones have to rely on.." that means i want every Canadians emergency services to be designed to do their job vs provide regional economic benefits. I resent the implication I'd wish harm on someone's family over a disagreement.

I work in an operationally focused organization that is equipped by people whose views are not operationally focused is how I'd word it.
 
Don’t think for a second that regionalisms, whether involving transfers and/or investment, don’t also come into play across the country. It was speciously related to defence at best, and the drawing in of Altair’s loved ones in the first responder and health care world was still unrelated and I think inappropriate, no matter how you try to protest it as you wishing the best for everyone. Why use that straw man. Resent the implication all you want, but your personalizingnitndirectly to Altair’s (and anyone’s tbh) was inappropriate.
 
Lets ignore the whole economic benefits conversation for a second.

I don't get the whole hate on the split fleet thing. Australia does it no problems, its part of their doctrine and has been for years (bomb trucks and air superiority). No reason we can't do a split fleet even with the costs to mechanics and people.

I do get the dislike of Gripen and F35 combination though. They don't have enough distance between them to be split like the F-18 (bomb truck) and F35 (strike/air superiority) the Aussies are using. I would understand if the Gripen had a different role, even if it was older tech.

Or am I missing something. Does a Gripen just provide mass at a cheaper cost? Does it have a capability that can backup or augment and F-35 with (like carry larger payload or easier to take longer missiles for range)
 
Don’t think for a second that regionalisms, whether involving transfers and/or investment, don’t also come into play across the country.

And it shouldnt.

It was speciously related to defence at best, and the drawing in of Altair’s loved ones in the first responder and health care world was still unrelated and I think inappropriate, no matter how you try to protest it as you wishing the best for everyone.

Again not what I said. I made a comment about needing emergency services, much like we might rely on military equipment, and wanting that to be the best available vs what would create jobs in Canada.

Why use that straw man. Resent the implication all you want, but your personalizingnitndirectly to Altair’s (and anyone’s tbh)

Look if you didnt like what I wrote - thats fine. However I think the bare minimum you could do is actually read what I wrote.
 
Lets ignore the whole economic benefits conversation for a second.

I don't get the whole hate on the split fleet thing. Australia does it no problems, its part of their doctrine and has been for years (bomb trucks and air superiority). No reason we can't do a split fleet even with the costs to mechanics and people.

I do get the dislike of Gripen and F35 combination though. They don't have enough distance between them to be split like the F-18 (bomb truck) and F35 (strike/air superiority) the Aussies are using. I would understand if the Gripen had a different role, even if it was older tech.

Or am I missing something. Does a Gripen just provide mass at a cheaper cost? Does it have a capability that can backup or augment and F-35 with (like carry larger payload or easier to take longer missiles for range)
did the Aussies really buy the SH to replace the F-111 or to mitigate against delays in the F35?
 
Lets ignore the whole economic benefits conversation for a second.

I don't get the whole hate on the split fleet thing. Australia does it no problems, its part of their doctrine and has been for years (bomb trucks and air superiority). No reason we can't do a split fleet even with the costs to mechanics and people.

RAAF is larger than thr RCAF before we consider things like the RCAF owning naval and army aviation. Split fleets are fine if we are willing to expand to meet that demand. The RAAF also didnt reduce their one fleet to add a new one.

I do get the dislike of Gripen and F35 combination though. They don't have enough distance between them to be split like the F-18 (bomb truck) and F35 (strike/air superiority) the Aussies are using. I would understand if the Gripen had a different role, even if it was older tech.

Or am I missing something. Does a Gripen just provide mass at a cheaper cost? Does it have a capability that can backup or augment and F-35 with (like carry larger payload or easier to take longer missiles for range)

No appreciably. But SAAB's astroturf campaign has been very effective.
 
Back
Top