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

[Good2Golf]

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.

…buuuut, knew enough to know they wanted an F-15 instead of an F-16?

The only aircraft I’ve flown that had an engine fail on me was a twin-engine, go figure.

 

[YZT580]

…buuuut, knew enough to know they wanted an F-15 instead of an F-16?

The only aircraft I’ve flown that had an engine fail on me was a twin-engine, go figure.

Murphy

 

[Good2Golf]

Murphy

He’s one of the GOATs in aviation.

 

[Maxman1]

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

You do realize those are two wildly different platforms and not at all comparable to adopting two fighter jets of overlapping roles and broadly similar capabilities.

It is important that you understand that, to know you are actually engaging in good faith.

problem of a Pilot shortage

It's not pilots. We need people to maintain the jets. Right now, we don't have enough for the CF-18s and squadrons have to group their technicians together just to get by, something that can't be done if those squadrons are running different planes.

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

And none of them replaced one aging jet with two different jets of the same role.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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

Unfortunately I don't have that kind of power. But in the course of a discussion forum...

The obvious implied task of any expansion of kit is also the expansion of people resources.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You do realize those are two wildly different platforms and not at all comparable to adopting two fighter jets of overlapping roles and broadly similar capabilities.

It is important that you understand that, to know you are actually engaging in good faith.

You'd be surprised to know I do.

And all these different platforms need different personnel, sustainment and maintenance folks and materials. Compounded by the extreme standards aircraft spares require.

All exacerbated by the different environments they operate from.

Again the implied task when an expansion of capabilities and kit happens is an expansion of personnel, material and maintenance resources.

 

[Czech_pivo]

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?

I thought that the RCAF solved that aging out issue by spending billions in buying second hand Aussie equipment in regards to the CF188's?

Are the CC177's, CC130J's, Chinooks, Cyclones, Kingfishers and CC144's considered equipment that has aged out?

The RAAF has a programme that is designed to graduate 105 pilots a year? What is the current intake that the RCAF can graduate yearly?

 

[Rainbow1910]

That really is a great question. SAAB is trying to sell a package deal with future partnerships. SAAB is on the leading edge of various systems and programs. But they are not on the leading edge of funding and support. That will always go to the US.
Gripen is not the only part of the package. It is the sensor fusion/connection/usage of both aerial, ground and subsea systems together that makes this a package worth looking at.
The entire warfare suit from SAAB encompasses more than a simple Gen4 aircraft. The fact that they just installed their Early Warning system on a MQ9 last month

Saab is not on the leading edge of as many systems, especially regarding military aviation, as they want people to believe. They have some seriously capable electronic warfare suites and sensors for example with the Arexis EW system, but the fact that so much of the Gripen relies on imported equipment shows Saab's inability to inhouse many different capabilities. They have great ambitions regarding unmanned aerial systems, but their actual pedigree and experience with them is fairly limited. They claim to have some very capable domestic datalink systems with Gripen E, but I've heard very little about them in practice given how sparse the aircraft are in service.

Saab is indeed a valuable partner for a number of different areas, but they infamously oversell themselves so I would be cautious as to saying how valuable such a partnership would be in practice.

My issue is Saab seems to want to force Gripen as part of a larger cooperative package, which I am not supportive of given the implications adopting that aircraft would bring to the RCAF.

Considering the original partnership has already failed, the newish German Spanish partnership is not confirmed. I am not sure if Sweden would join that anyways on any level. There are talks of various groups partnering up to provide a 6th gen program. Who really knows till the infighting stops and they actually put things forward.
Exciting times to be part of new builds and investing money.

Saab and Sweden as a whole is going to have to pick one of the programs, because they do not have the expertise or funding to embark on their own indigenous 5th or 6th gen fighter program. Even if they retain the Gripen and pivot to unmanned systems, there is fundamentally a limit to the viability of 4th gen jets in a world increasingly filled with stealthy aircraft and the systems designed to counter them.

In all likelihood, a German-Spanish partnership will come about as Germany will not be permitted into GCAP without causing Japan and Italy to throw up their hands and leave.

That would be 100% wrong. The Swedish Government has funded their own research into their program. looking at 2027-2030 for prototypes an such. No doubt SAAB has been working on this program for many years already.
As aside Airbus is possibly looking at partnering up with SAAB. But who really knows who will partner with who in the end Europe is a roll the dice and see who plays nice tomorrow for the next week.

I was fairly sure it wasn't funded, but it seems like it is. That is my bad on faulty information. Anybody generally would be happy to have Saab however, they are going to be relegated to a junior partner and only bring so much to the table in these various agreements.

SAAB provides some of the best electronic suits int he world.
I do not think there is any desperation. Sweden does not have the industrial capacity to build equipment like others do. Nor do they have the resources to do so.
In the past partnering with other European countries becomes a who is more in charge than the other.
I think SAAB is looking for a partner who is interested in making a move towards a broad range of R&D along with manufacturing. Canada can provide that secure partnership.
I would like to see a Canada, Sweden, South Korea partnership on not only a 6th Gen but on future tech across the board.

Agreed, as I explained above.

There is fairly clearly desperation behind Saab pitching the Gripen, because basically no other company/nation will relentlessly pitch their aircraft on the terms they stipulate, to as many nations as they do. The Gripen has not been an export success by most metrics, especially with the E/F model and Saab's military aerospace division needs sales to keep their production lines open. Pulling Canada or another major party onboard, especially if it means domestic workshare, helps reinforce and prop up their industry.

I'm more than happy to partner with nations like Saab for programs that align, but not if that required adopting the Gripen as a stipulation to that agreement. Some folks hold up an agreement with Saab as this golden ticket for our aviation industry, but I am far more pessimistic given the issues they themselves have at home that our partnership won't solve and we still have to deal with.

 

[SupersonicMax]

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.

Perhaps it is made in bad faith but the comment I responded to was made without much (if any) knowledge of the situation. It is one thing to be aspirational. It is something else to have a plan grounded in reality. Excluding university, it takes approximately 6-7 years to make a fighter pilot that can contribute as a 4-ship lead and an instructor. I let you do the math, but to build a sufficient number of pilots to meet our aspirations will take a long time.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I thought that the RCAF solved that aging out issue by spending billions in buying second hand Aussie equipment in regards to the CF188's?

Are the CC177's, CC130J's, Chinooks, Cyclones, Kingfishers and CC144's considered equipment that has aged out?

The RAAF has a programme that is designed to graduate 105 pilots a year? What is the current intake that the RCAF can graduate yearly?

Here's an article from 8yrs ago that references issues even further back that talks about pilot/technician shortages back then. That's a decade to address the issue.

Royal Canadian Air Force Faces Challenge of Fighter Pilot Shortage | Defense.info

"the RCAF has admitted it has less than two-thirds the number of CF-18 Hornet pilots needed to fulfill assigned missions and warns that the problem is likely to increase because current flight training cannot even keep up with retirements, including moves to domestic and foreign airlines."

"“Between April 2016 and March 2018, the RCAF lost 40 trained fighter pilots and produced only 30 new ones,” - a decade to right the ship.

"The loss of experienced CF-18 technicians since 2014 has meant that the maintenance-to-flying hours ratio has increased to 24:1 from 21:1. prompting a warning that as the fleet of 76 Hornets continues to age," - 12yrs on and how many Chiefs of the RCAF has there been since then? Did any resign in protest?

 

[Rainbow1910]

It's almost like even the USAF has realized that all 5th Gen fighters is overkill, and is looking into ordering new F-16s.

There is a bit more nuance than that.

The F-35 production line has excess capability that is not being funded, which could provide a number of additional aircraft if supported.

There's a substantial amount of former F-16 pilots in the Pentagon and throughout the US defence establishment who love the aircraft and don't want to see it leave service, alongside the politicians in the riding where the aircraft are produced.

Older F-16's are wearing out at a rapid rate and with the availability/parts stores/production rate for the F-35 not where the USAF wants, it provides some rationale for new purchases.

The F-16 orderbook is pretty filled out for foreign clients already though, so deliveries to the USAF if they follow through will take sometime.

There is a number of wrong assumptions many of the F-16 camp are making against the F-35, which is amusing when the F-4 camp made the same arguments against the F-16 back in the day.

Not all of these points are relevant or easily transferable to Canada though, it's the same reason why buying 4th gens in 2026 can make sense for certain nations, while it's much more questionable for others. New F-16 buys isn't without its controversy in the US and within the USAF as well I will point out, many parties view it as a waste of time and effort for a dubiously relevant aircraft.

There might be an opportunity to do just that?

The superhornet production line will be shutting down soon to retool for the F47. With the pending changes in US government, hopefully to one more Canada friendly, maybe the line could be moved north to Boeing Canada and keep on making new frames and parts?

As much as I like things about the Gripen and Sweden's willingness to do business, it still has a lot of critical components that come from the US, and while new superhornets wouldn't be identical to the current CF18s, I would think a lot of the experience and institutional knowledge within RCAF would be make it a quicker win.

Keep the full F35 order going, but also build a new fleet of F18Fs to do the less exciting work at a lower cost.

The Super Hornet has very few operators (USN, RAAF and Kuwait) and there is currently no buyers lined up to purchase it, given it's poor export record. Even the USN, who is the primary operator, is willing to allow the production line to shutter without significant efforts to keep it open. If the platforms primary operator is allowing production to be sunset, it makes little sense for Canada to attempt to pick up the pieces.

The current political climate would not be conducive to a Boeing production line transfer to Canada and the economic logic behind it for both parties is questionable. We would also need to uproot or set up a new supporting supply chain around the production line itself, which would require either going through a number of US companies or setting up new ones in Canada. Neither of these seem likely, as SH suppliers will likely be rolled into F-47 production and Canadian companies aren't readily able to supply what we need.

The SH also failed as a competitor in the CF-18 replacement program, which makes adoption of it quite difficult. If we wanted to set up this sort of production and supply situation in Canada, the aircraft would not be at anywhere near a lower cost given the inefficiencies at hand. Like most 4th gen aircraft as well, they are cheaper than the F-35 to operate, but not to buy and not to such a degree where the savings will be game changing.

It's almost as if, when facing a full scale war, having one magical "do-all" aircraft isn't possible. Not that we'd plan for that. We'll buy 88 of the most delicate aircraft we can buy, because they are "amazing", and not consider what happens when "amazing" doesn't beat "present", "available", or most critically "replaceable".

None of the 4th generation fighters are going to be readily replaceable in a full scale, peer to peer conflict. Once international supply chains are squeezed and losses mount, most nations are going to be producing small numbers of new fighters and largely relying on repairing, recommissioning and upgrading the stocks they have. Nations like the US and China will have the best chances at keeping their production lines going, but smaller powers like Sweden and Canada in a situation where we set up Gripen production are unlikely to see much success.

How truly available are RCAF fighters going to be in a world where a split fleet is pushed on the force? When we are reliant on Canadian/Swedish industry and Lockheed Martin to supply parts for our aircraft? When the personnel squeeze for pilots, technicians, maintainers is still present? If we take the Gripen deal, those aircraft aren't even going to be present until long after the F-35 order given what Saab has been saying recently.

The F-35 has it's fair share of problems, but the alternatives don't solve many of them in the short to medium term.

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.

If we're going to discuss a conflict in Latvia, that is specifically the region where the F-35 is at its most valuable facing off against the Russian Airforce. Rolling up against a peer opponent in 4th generation fighters is asking for trouble and overall a poor investment. Hardening/building redundancy in airfields within the region, forward deploying our most capable assets and protecting them is overall the best call there.

The Gripen requires specific equipment, doctrine and infrastructure to operate in austere conditions and at the end of the day, it's not really much more maintenance efficient than other fighters on the market.

 

[captloadie]

Perhaps it is made in bad faith but the comment I responded to was made without much (if any) knowledge of the situation. It is one thing to be aspirational. It is something else to have a plan grounded in reality. Excluding university, it takes approximately 6-7 years to make a fighter pilot that can contribute as a 4-ship lead and an instructor. I let you do the math, but to build a sufficient number of pilots to meet our aspirations will take a long time.

But do we need to train every fighter pilot to be a 4 ship lead and instructor? Has anyone done the math on what would happen if we only trained to the level needed to replace when a 4 ship lead moves on? I've worked in the fighter community. I know that the guys love nothing more than flying the plane, and if wasn't for the pay issue, many would never leave the Sqn until health reasons forced them to. Hell, we have full Colonels now back on the stick.

And as for the maintenance aspect, why do we insist that our techs can only every work on one type of aircraft at a time? Civilian AMEs get a broad license that allows them to work on multiple aircraft at the same time, with the requirement to have specific type certifications to sign off on specific airframes. Why can't we do the same in order to maintain multiple fleets in one location?