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

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The canard of needing twin engines for arctic operations was an invention by the RCAF to eliminate the F16 and drive the choice to the F15 in th competition where we ultimately acquired th CF18.

I know. I was being sarcastic.

 

[Nvlgzr]

The canard of needing twin engines for arctic operations was an invention by the RCAF to eliminate the F16 and drive the choice to the F15 in th competition where we ultimately acquired th CF18.

I thought it had to do with poor reliability of jet engines back before FADEC.

 

[Maxman1]

SAAB Gripen: the wartime aircraft that can be replaced at the speed they are lost in combat.

No, they can not. Saab can't even meet peacetime demands.

Cheaper and quicker to build,

They absolutely are not.

maintain,

Maintenance costs are currently nonexistent, but will almost certainly be not significantly different from the F-35.

and train pilots on

There will be no significant difference in training time. This is not a factor worth considering.

Put down the shiny brochure. Every country that has considered the F-35 and the Gripen E has chosen the F-35 and determined Saab’s claims are lies.

I see a role for both aircraft within a balanced fleet. We should also pursue domestic production of the Gripen, providing Canada with a wartime manufacturing base and the ability to sustain and expand production when needed.

We can't do a mixed fleet. The horse is dead, stop beating it.

 

[YZT580]

That is the first time I've heard that, but it doesn't surprise me.

of note, it was around the same time that trans-oceanic commercial was debating allowing long-range twins to carry passengers trans-Atlantic. The desire for multi-engine a/c wasn't confined to the military by any means

 

[Halifax Tar]

We can't do a mixed fleet. The horse is dead, stop beating it.

I disagree, and no.

 

[GR66]

We have 5000 reasons based in Latvia to consider a less maintenance supplement to the F35 to provide airborne coverage a la the F16 that Ukraine is using effectively. Unless we are planning on withdrawing to NA and pulling up the drawbridge so to speak other obligations are certain to occupy our future employment of our armed forces. It is better if we can provide at least some of our own defense when that occurs without having to totally rely upon our allies to provide it.

The Shahed-type drones that you're proposing we use cheaper (non-F-35) fighters to counter are not typically being used against front-line military forces in Ukraine. They are being used as terror weapons against Ukrainian civilian and fixed infrastructure targets in depth, so your "5000 reasons" argument doesn't really hold water. And if they did use those drones to target our Brigade in the front lines in Latvia you'd be sending those non-stealthy fighters well within range of Russian air defence systems where they'd likely be quickly blown from the sky.

I'm definitely not saying that cheaper platforms don't have a role to play or that they can't be effective against Shahed-type drones (both Ukraine and the Middle East have proven that they are), I'm just saying that in Canada's unique situation that type of threat at a large enough scale to justify a 2nd fleet intended to serve that particular purpose in the defence of Canada does not exist and 4th Generation fighters are not suited for deployment over the front in Latvia.

 

[Maxman1]

I disagree, and no.

The RCAF has specifically stated they can't. We don't have the technicians needed for current demands on one airframe, and they can't work on two different planes. And remember, the CF-18 replaced multiple planes to eliminate a mixed fleet.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The RCAF has specifically stated they can't. We don't have the technicians needed for current demands on one airframe, and they can't work on two different planes. And remember, the CF-18 replaced multiple planes to eliminate a mixed fleet.

You of course realize the RCAF is already a mixed fleet with both fixed and rotary winged aircraft.

That do business across the spectrum of CAF operating environments.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I disagree, and no.

Please, enlighten me on how that would be feasible with the current cadre of pilots?

 

[rnkelly]

Please, enlighten me on how that would be feasible with the current cadre of pilots?

You’re in the breach, we get it. But your response is made in bad faith. No one’s saying with ‘current’ anything. If we constrain ourself by that metric we might as well close up shop, give up. I would hope if the gov of Canada wanted to completely change their defense and sovereignty policies, we could show enough will, discipline and innovation to respond to the moment in the medium term. I would hope that someone like you would assist with the massive undertaking and transition. Obviously, it can’t be done with just pencil pushers in Ottawa.

 

[suffolkowner]

You’re in the breach, we get it. But your response is made in bad faith. No one’s saying with ‘current’ anything. If we constrain ourself by that metric we might as well close up shop, give up. I would hope if the gov of Canada wanted to completely change their defense and sovereignty policies, we could show enough will, discipline and innovation to respond to the moment in the medium term. I would hope that someone like you would assist with the massive undertaking and transition. Obviously, it can’t be done with just pencil pushers in Ottawa.

is the proposed plan to transition to a 2/3 aircraft fleet soon or 20 yrs from now?
We will obviously be running F18s and F35s at the same time. Do we want to add SAAB to the list? Or maybe GCAP to F35s in 2040?

 

[Good2Golf]

I thought it had to do with poor reliability of jet engines back before FADEC.

The F-16’s P&W F100-220 engine from the 80s was FADEC equipped

 

[Nvlgzr]

The F-16’s P&W F100-220 engine from the 80s was FADEC equipped

The jets that RCAF flew at the time of the competition were century series and the experience with them was probably one of the drivers. At that time the brass no doubt lacked a complete understanding of the leap in technology inherent in the new teen series.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Please, enlighten me on how that would be feasible with the current cadre of pilots?

The implied task is expansion.

 

[markppcli]

The implied task is expansion.

Expansion would require a direct order from the government - its not an implied order.

 

[childs56]

In order for the Airforce to fix their problem of a Pilot shortage they would actually have to admit to having a problem. Then they would have to replace many of their upper echelon who keep saying we cant, instead of saying we wont.

Canada has 40 million people and have a hard time keeping our Single fleet of 70 ish Fighters.
Australia has 28 million and operates a mixed fleet of three fighter aircraft. The F35, F18G and F18F.

Many of our Allies who are similar in size operate(d) a mixed fleet fighters.

Tell me where the disconnect is?
Is it the actual recruiting problem, is it the lack of training staff/ facilities', is it a lack of will to make a change that works?

 

[markppcli]

The RCAF knows it has a problem. They also dont have an issue getting pilots in. However the recruiting system isnt theirs, and they can't fix the natural result of flying ancient platforms.

Australia operates two fighters, the growler parts commonality is 90% of a Superhornet. So maintenance wise same same. Tactics and load obviously very different. As to why to RAAF can do that? Well the RAAF has 16000 people, and 5k in reserve. Thr RCAF is 15000 with 2k in reserve which sounds similar. What we forget is that the RCAF numbers include Tac Hel and Naval Aviation, so strip a few thousand off of the RCAF. The RAAF also managed to replace their F18s in a timely fashion, the F18Fs are F111 replacements, and I suspect flying modern equipment is appealing to pilots.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The RCAF knows it has a problem. They also dont have an issue getting pilots in. However the recruiting system isnt theirs, and they can't fix the natural result of flying ancient platforms.

Australia operates two fighters, the growler parts commonality is 90% of a Superhornet. So maintenance wise same same. Tactics and load obviously very different. As to why to RAAF can do that? Well the RAAF has 16000 people, and 5k in reserve. Thr RCAF is 15000 with 2k in reserve which sounds similar. What we forget is that the RCAF numbers include Tac Hel and Naval Aviation, so strip a few thousand off of the RCAF. The RAAF also managed to replace their F18s in a timely fashion, the F18Fs are F111 replacements, and I suspect flying modern equipment is appealing to pilots.

They also might have people who don’t say ‘can’t’ very often or at all.

 

[dapaterson]

There are no recruiting bottlenecks for pilots. Issues in training to wing standard are all RCAF own goals.

(I say wing standard instead of OFP, since the RCAF somehow declares OFP before pilots are employable, but that's a whole other issue...)

 

[markppcli]

They also might have people who don’t say ‘can’t’ very often or at all.

Do you have a reference for this case of "can't" ism that is apparently the source of all our issues as opposed to critical equipment age out? And an example of this incredible different Aussie approach?