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

[Nvlgzr]

Apart from basic maintenance does the F35 give us the option of doing our own major overhauls or do the a/c go back to the dealer?

Since Australia has more experience with the F-35, we should follow their lead and ship them to Hong Kong. The Chinese probably would service it faster than Missing Parts Lockheed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

People also forget that aircraft like the Voodoo and Starfighter were cutting edge technology for the day and were every bit as much of a struggle for the maintainers and planners of the day as the the modern era aircraft are for us.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The parts management problem is a very small problem today (other than when LockMart is behind). A lot of parts are line replacement units (LRUs). Pull, replace and send to contractor.

Obviously not, since they have already managed to misplace a million of them.

 

[markppcli]

People also forget that aircraft like the Voodoo and Starfighter were cutting edge technology for the day and were every bit as much of a struggle for the maintainers and planners of the day as the the modern era aircraft are for us.

We had 50000 people in the RCAF when the Voodoo was adopted in 1961. If you want multiple fighter fleets expect to double the size of the air force.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We had 50000 people in the RCAF when the Voodoo was adopted in 1961. If you want multiple fighter fleets expect to double the size of the air force.

And?

How many of those 50,000 wouldn't be around today thanks to automation, efficiency streamlining and general redundancy reductions?

The RCN is bantering around that they will need to grow by 40% for just the Rivers, Type 212CD's, JSS and AOPS, not including any potential CDC growth and the much talked about ORCA replacements and growth of where they might be stationed. That 40% could easily become 60%+ growth.
From reading on this forum, the RCAF comes across as the branch that whines the most - whether that's accurate or not I certainly don't have any clue if its justified. But that is my observation.

When we flew 138 CF188's the size of the RCAF was approximately 23,000. Why would you expect the RCAF to require another 23,000 personnel if the 138 fighters was split between F35's and Gripens and we went back to flying multiple fighter fleets?

Today the RCAF is approximately 15,500 personnel, with about 50% of those remaining CF-188's - plus the much waste of tax payers money - the 25 Australian F18's. If we were to add approximately 60ish new fighters (Gripens), in additional to swapping out the remaining CF-188's for F35's, we would need another 6-7,000 personnel for those 60 Gripens? A ratio of 100 new personnel for 1 Gripen? If we added another 60 fighters and all of those 60 were straight F35's, (so that we were flying 120-130 F35's) what would the required new personnel to fighter ratio be?

Case in point - the Gripen and the F35 both use the same type of fuel - Jet A1 or the standard NATO military fuel. Is it not possible that an person in the RCAF cannot be trained to add that same fuel into a Gripen and into a F35 - or is the argument that the steps required to add that same fuel into a Gripen is so different and so unique from adding fuel into a F35 that you must have 2 individuals trained to work completely separate and independent from each other, never to be able to add that same fuel into the other plane?

I'm not arguing for a mixed fleet. I'm trying to wrap my head around the argument that if we went with a mixed fleet that our personnel needs would magically need to double because of it. I'm not seeing the math or understanding the math.

 

[YZT580]

I think you want to give that one some thought...

Wasn't software that was the failure it was rubber O rings. the programming worked fine as far as I know.

 

[YZT580]

We had 50000 people in the RCAF when the Voodoo was adopted in 1961. If you want multiple fighter fleets expect to double the size of the air force.

We also had 338 aircraft and that doesn't count the crews for the F5 which we flew coincidentally.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And?

How many of those 50,000 wouldn't be around today thanks to automation, efficiency streamlining and general redundancy reductions?

The RCN is bantering around that they will need to grow by 40% for just the Rivers, Type 212CD's, JSS and AOPS, not including any potential CDC growth and the much talked about ORCA replacements and growth of where they might be stationed. That 40% could easily become 60%+ growth.
From reading on this forum, the RCAF comes across as the branch that whines the most - whether that's accurate or not I certainly don't have any clue if its justified. But that is my observation.

When we flew 138 CF188's the size of the RCAF was approximately 23,000. Why would you expect the RCAF to require another 23,000 personnel if the 138 fighters was split between F35's and Gripens and we went back to flying multiple fighter fleets?

Today the RCAF is approximately 15,500 personnel, with about 50% of those remaining CF-188's - plus the much waste of tax payers money - the 25 Australian F18's. If we were to add approximately 60ish new fighters (Gripens), in additional to swapping out the remaining CF-188's for F35's, we would need another 6-7,000 personnel for those 60 Gripens? A ratio of 100 new personnel for 1 Gripen? If we added another 60 fighters and all of those 60 were straight F35's, (so that we were flying 120-130 F35's) what would the required new personnel to fighter ratio be?

Case in point - the Gripen and the F35 both use the same type of fuel - Jet A1 or the standard NATO military fuel. Is it not possible that an person in the RCAF cannot be trained to add that same fuel into a Gripen and into a F35 - or is the argument that the steps required to add that same fuel into a Gripen is so different and so unique from adding fuel into a F35 that you must have 2 individuals trained to work completely separate and independent from each other, never to be able to add that same fuel into the other plane?

I'm not arguing for a mixed fleet. I'm trying to wrap my head around the argument that if we went with a mixed fleet that our personnel needs would magically need to double because of it. I'm not seeing the math or understanding the math.

I am not even sure where to start with this post.

The Jet A1 bit alone has left me near speechless. And it betrays that you do not have any experience in a military aviation milieu.

The F35 may or may not be exactly what Canada needs in a fighter. The problem is: it won the competition. And before you say the RCAF rigged it, the F35 has won just about every other competition. Were they all rigged, too?

Geo-politically, I get the reluctance to buy US at this moment in time. Here is the problem: because two decades of Canadian Government, aided and abetted by a Canadian Public who bought into the fiction that wars were obsolete, kept kicking the fighter file down the road. Well- guess what? Canada is now out of options and out of time. F35 is the thing we can get the fastest and we get workshare out of that project that a Trump White House cannot mess with, because it would collapse the entire F35 program. Maybe we get a do over by joining GCAP, but that won’t bear fruit until the mid 2030s, at least. Saab is selling snake oil. The earliest we would get a (patently, obviously) obsolete Canadian assembled Grippen E would be late 2029 or early 2030. Probably (most certainly) at a unit cost at least as high as F35. For half the capability. If the White House does not block the sale on ITAR grounds (which they petulantly could). But, hey, ELBOWS UP, right?

 

[Czech_pivo]

I am not even sure where to start with this post.

The Jet A1 bit alone has left me near speechless. And it betrays that you do not have any experience in a military aviation milieu. I have NEVER said that I have. I merely googled it - and yup, google can be wrong more often than not - but it can also be right more often than not. If I got that wrong, fine, its wrong. I was attempting to find/use analogy where a trade could be potentially available across both platforms. The same could potentially said about a missile that is placed on the wing of a F35 vs the wing of a Gripen. Is there the opportunity that the same individual be used to place that missile on a F35 and on a Gripen?

The F35 may or may not be exactly what Canada needs in a fighter. The problem is: it won the competition. And before you say the RCAF rigged it, the F35 has won just about every other competition. Were they all rigged, too? I agree that they won it. Never disputed this at all, why bring it up? IF you had read end to end my post you would have seen that I clearly stated that I was stating that I was NOT arguing for a mixed fleet. I was attempting to understand the math that has been used to talk loudly about not having a mixed fleet.

Geo-politically, I get the reluctance to buy US at this moment in time. Here is the problem: because two decades of Canadian Government, aided and abetted by a Canadian Public who bought into the fiction that wars were obsolete, kept kicking the fighter file down the road. Well- guess what? Canada is now out of options and out of time. F35 is the thing we can get the fastest and we get workshare out of that project that a Trump White House cannot mess with, because it would collapse the entire F35 program. Maybe we get a do over by joining GCAP, but that won’t bear fruit until the mid 2030s, at least. Saab is selling snake oil. The earliest we would get a (patently, obviously) obsolete Canadian assembled Grippen E would be late 2029 or early 2030. Probably (most certainly) at a unit cost at least as high as F35. For half the capability. If the White House does not block the sale on ITAR grounds (which they petulantly could). But, hey, ELBOWS UP, right? Sure - you're right on alot of what you wrote above - I've never disputed any of that. Again, if you had read end to end what I said, I said that I was questioning the math behind the belief that having a mixed fighter fleet would result in the doubling of the personnel required to have them both. I still question that math.

Maybe the best solution is buying the min. amount of F35's needed and going all in GCAP? The more F35's we buy the greater the resistance to build/look to the future and the greater the complacency will seep in.

 

[QV]

The min amount of F35s required was 88. Canada, since the 90's, never buys more than the absolute bare minimum. Only 88 F-35s as a replacement for our last buy of 138 CF-18s.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The min amount of F35s required was 88. Canada, since the 90's, never buys more than the absolute bare minimum. Only 88 F-35s as a replacement for our last buy of 138 CF-18s.

Yup, could very well be.

And if we did end up with 88 F35's, guess what? We are going to have to increase the number of RCAF personnel because we are not flying 88 or 78 or most likely even 68 CF-188's right and as a result, we are going to have to recruit/train more personnel for 88 F35's if we end up with that number.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We had 50000 people in the RCAF when the Voodoo was adopted in 1961. If you want multiple fighter fleets expect to double the size of the air force.

We also had around 250 fighter aircraft and 400-500 auxiliary aircraft not counting rotary wing. At that time advanced training of pilots was also done in house and only contracted out in 1992

 

[markppcli]

And?

How many of those 50,000 wouldn't be around today thanks to automation, efficiency streamlining and general redundancy reductions?

Some, but not all. My point is that when we wax lyracle about how we used to run 3 fighters we forget the massive size difference between now and then.

The RCN is bantering around that they will need to grow by 40% for just the Rivers, Type 212CD's, JSS and AOPS, not including any potential CDC growth and the much talked about ORCA replacements and growth of where they might be stationed. That 40% could easily become 60%+ growth.
From reading on this forum, the RCAF comes across as the branch that whines the most - whether that's accurate or not I certainly don't have any clue if its justified. But that is my observation.

More like its the branch that make a decision assuming it will not recieve massive increases in manning - the RCN hasn't been authorized to increase.

When we flew 138 CF188's the size of the RCAF was approximately 23,000. Why would you expect the RCAF to require another 23,000 personnel if the 138 fighters was split between F35's and Gripens and we went back to flying multiple fighter fleets?

Today the RCAF is approximately 15,500 personnel, with about 50% of those remaining CF-188's - plus the much waste of tax payers money - the 25 Australian F18's. If we were to add approximately 60ish new fighters (Gripens), in additional to swapping out the remaining CF-188's for F35's, we would need another 6-7,000 personnel for those 60 Gripens? A ratio of 100 new personnel for 1 Gripen? If we added another 60 fighters and all of those 60 were straight F35's, (so that we were flying 120-130 F35's) what would the required new personnel to fighter ratio be?

Case in point - the Gripen and the F35 both use the same type of fuel - Jet A1 or the standard NATO military fuel. Is it not possible that an person in the RCAF cannot be trained to add that same fuel into a Gripen and into a F35 - or is the argument that the steps required to add that same fuel into a Gripen is so different and so unique from adding fuel into a F35 that you must have 2 individuals trained to work completely separate and independent from each other, never to be able to add that same fuel into the other plane?

I'm not arguing for a mixed fleet. I'm trying to wrap my head around the argument that if we went with a mixed fleet that our personnel needs would magically need to double because of it. I'm not seeing the math or understanding the math.

Do you think that we only train air craft maintenance pers to do a single job like fueling?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Some, but not all. My point is that when we wax lyracle about how we used to run 3 fighters we forget the massive size difference between now and then.

Nostalgia has a way of doing that.

More like its the branch that make a decision assuming it will not recieve massive increases in manning - the RCN hasn't been authorized to increase.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-canada-defence-arctic-recruiting-9.7237763

"The Royal Canadian Navy will have to grow by as much as 40 per cent in terms of personnel in order to meet the demands of a growing fleet, says its new commander." At the moment, the navy maintains a total authorized strength of roughly 8,500 full-time sailors and 3,000 reservists. "We need to grow that significantly, and that's just what we need to crew our future fleet with a bit of resilience and robustness," Charlebois said
Authorized officially or not, the facts, based on the number of vessels in the pipeline, are such that substantial growth is set to occur

Do you think that we only train air craft maintenance pers to do a single job like fueling? No clue if the RCAF is run more like the USAF or the USN where the lay of the land seems to be '1 person, 1 job', not the mantra of the RCN, from what has been discussed on here previously, where their individuals seem to be a 'jack of many trades'. People on here do say that the RCAF is the most 'American' of all 3 branches of the CAF. But if an individual in the RCAF is trained to perform a number of different roles, then it further reduces the belief that a 'doubling' of the personnel will be needed IF the RCAF is required to fly 2 fighters going forward

Let me clearly say again - I am not currently in favour, based on what is known today, of the RCAF flying to 2 separate fighter aircraft. What I'm questioning in the logic, again based on what is being discussed on here so far, that we shouldn't fly 2 different fighters based on the talk that we'll need double the amount of RCAF personnel to do it. So many of our NATO Allies fly 2 different fighters that I fail to see why we could not do the same without the need to double the personnel within the RCAF. And I would point out again from my earlier thread that the RCAF was sitting at 23,000 individuals when we were flying 138 CF-188's vs the 15,500 for the 50ish CF-188's that are flyable.

 

[Furniture]

More like its the branch that make a decision assuming it will not recieve massive increases in manning - the RCN hasn't been authorized to increase.

All of the branches/elements were told to draw up plans for an increase in CAF numbers. I was involved in a small part of it during my time in C Navy. So your characterization of the RCN as doing something unauthorized is just plain wrong.

I know people involved in parts of the RCAF planning, and the RCAF is indeed looking to increase their numbers as well.

 

[ytz]

When we flew 138 CF188's the size of the RCAF was approximately 23,000. Why would you expect the RCAF to require another 23,000 personnel if the 138 fighters was split between F35's and Gripens and we went back to flying multiple fighter fleets?

This kind of shit pisses me off. Let's just ignore all the new capabilities and domains the RCAF has had to get into since then and just count fiighters.

 

[QV]

Well... a fighter fleet is the core of any air force. Without it, none of the other air force capabilities or domains really would matter much in a peer conflict.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some, but not all. My point is that when we wax lyracle about how we used to run 3 fighters we forget the massive size difference between now and then.

But as pointed out, back in the old days we also ran at least double the number of aircraft as well and more stations, not to mention having some permanently stationed overseas. It would be nice to see what the ratio of pilots and maintainers in those days to what we currently have. Not to mention the ratio of support staff to those two trades then and now.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This kind of shit pisses me off. Let's just ignore all the new capabilities and domains the RCAF has had to get into since then and just count fiighters.

Don’t get angry with me.
I’m questioning the math and the belief that the RCAF would need to double in size to accommodate a mixed fighter fleet of 120-130 aircraft.
I’m well aware of the ‘net new’ capabilities that the RCAF has today vs 1985. And it’s going to expand again with the 6 (+?) new Globaleye that will come eventually.

 

[markppcli]

But as pointed out, back in the old days we also ran at least double the number of aircraft as well and more stations, not to mention having some permanently stationed overseas. It would be nice to see what the ratio of pilots and maintainers in those days to what we currently have. Not to mention the ratio of support staff to those two trades then and now.

They also didnt operate Army and Naval rotary wing - so cut a few thousand off the total we have now.