Author Topic: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)  (Read 512139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 437
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2175 on: March 03, 2018, 17:20:06 »
The article seems to paint the new missile as a Super Hornet attribute, but if the Navy adopts it, would they not also integrate it into the F-35?
As far as I know the F-35 is supposed to at some point use the Meteor missile which I suspect would be a better option.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/meteor-integration-f-35-takes-significant-step-forward/
« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 17:24:46 by AlexanderM »

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 60,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,884
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2176 on: March 03, 2018, 17:48:09 »
Too big for F-35 to carry internally, wonder whether wing hard-points could accommodate it either.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 60,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,884
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2177 on: March 05, 2018, 12:19:40 »
RCAF's fighter farce in context--pity our media mention so little what others, esp. NATO allies, are doing:

Quote
RCAF becoming the poor stepsister of even smaller militaries

"In spite of their small size and heavy commitment to social welfare programs Scandinavian countries are already in the process of replacing their 1980s era fighter fleets."

As the Trudeau Liberals continue to dither and drag their feet on buying a new fighter jet, Canadians may indeed end up being lulled into a new normal of short-term, half-measures and improvisation.

But before we become too comfortable, we need to be ready to brace for a future of shame and shunning as our antiquated 1980s-era jets, which may have to remain operational until 2032, attempt to fly with the more modern air forces of our allies.

The allies in question are not the United States, nor Great Britain and France. Instead the true test of political pride will be when we realize just how much smaller NATO and other allied countries have outdone us when it comes to updating their fighter fleets.

From Austria to Australia, Netherlands to Kuwait, smaller nations are in the process of taking on newer, more advanced fighters. With combined operations being the new norm, these fleets of modern fighter aircraft will inevitably make our once proud Royal Canadian Air Force the modern aerial combat version of the sword wielding mounted cavalry in mechanized warfare.

Canadians had good reason to halt and reassess the planned purchase of 65 F-35 Lightning in 2012. The Harper Conservatives were clearly trying to deceive Canadians as to the full cost of the program. But at the same time Canadians need to take note that smaller NATO allies are currently moving ahead with their own acquisitions of recently developed fighter aircraft — whether it be the F-35 Lightning, the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3A, or the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen NG. And many are completing their acquisitions at a speed and resolve that would turn the hopelessly dawdling Canadian military procurement process on its head.

In spite of their small size and heavy commitment to social welfare programs Scandinavian countries are already in the process of replacing their 1980s era fighter fleets. Denmark and Norway are already phasing out their F-16s with new orders of 27 and 55 F-35 Lightning respectively coming into operation.

Also leading Canada on the procurement front is the Netherlands, which is already taking delivery of 37 F-35s. Belgium is close to confirming its purchase of 34 F-35. Tiny, neutral Austria already has 15 relatively new Eurofighter typhoons in its inventory acquired in 2003 of which it plans to replace by 2020. Italy will be acquiring both the F-35 Lightning and Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3A with 90 and 21 respectively of these new aircraft that are now coming online.

Even Australia has decided to purchase 72 F-35s, which is seven more than Harper Conservatives originally planned and failed to buy. Meanwhile they are selling their older F-18 fighter jets to us Canadians giving us a chance to save some face in the years to come...

Certainly this new reality may be perfectly fine if we truly think that we no longer stand to benefit as a nation by being able to do our share and project our air defence capability at a comparable and compatible level to even the much smaller and less populous nations of Europe, Asia or Africa. Yet if that is the case Canada shouldn’t delude itself into thinking that it stands to play anything other than the most token role in future military conflicts.

To demand anything more on our part would be an insult to the soon to be more technologically-advanced, war-ready airforces of Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Kuwait, and Australia.

Robert Smol served in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 20 years joining as a Private in the infantry and retiring as a Captain in the Intelligence Branch. He holds a Master of Arts in War Studies from the Royal Military College as well as degrees from McGill and Queen’s University.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/05/rcaf-becoming-poor-stepsister-even-smaller-militaries/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2178 on: March 05, 2018, 16:17:10 »
Hopefully, as a NAFTA negotiation point, Trump will tell Canada that it must contribute a modern fighter to NORAD (and NATO) and in the interest of NA trade, the F-35 is your choice.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 60,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,884
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2179 on: March 23, 2018, 19:46:43 »
'Twould seem way is now clear for Block III SH bid for RCAF, if enough goodies--and (any) gov't can tout "stealthy":

Quote
Boeing won’t appeal Bombardier CSeries ruling
http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/boeing-won-t-appeal-bombardier-cseries-ruling

Boeing’s Next-Gen Super Hornet Will Be (Sort Of) Stealthy

President Donald Trump was ridiculed on Twitter after pronouncing during a visit to Boeing’s St. Louis facility that the company’s new F/A-18 Super Hornet will be equipped with the “latest and the greatest stealth, and a lot of things on that plane that people don’t even know about.”

But it turns out Trump was on to something. Boeing is about to kick off an exhaustive effort to transition the U.S. Navy’s carrier air wing to the “Block III” Super Hornet, a next-generation version of the strike fighter complete with new sensors, extended range, a more powerful computer and, yes, enhanced stealth coating.

These changes will allow the Super Hornet to fly alongside the Lockheed Martin F-35C carrier variant as the backbone of the Navy’s carrier air wing into the 2040s and beyond, says Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager.

Block III Super Hornet will get enhanced stealth coating

New aircraft will begin rolling off the production line in 2020

Trump previewed the new and improved fighter during a March 14 visit to the St. Louis facility, which has been building F/A-18s, first the A-D Hornet and later the E/F Super Hornet, since 1978.

Gillian confirms that an improved low-observable (LO) coating will be one of five key characteristics of the Block III Super Hornet. The fighter is already “a very stealth airplane today”—he says, declining to elaborate—but there are new coatings engineers can apply on different surfaces of the aircraft to make it even more survivable, he says.

The F/A-18 was not designed specifically to be stealthy and lacks many of the fundamental stealth characteristics baked into Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and F-22 airframes. But there are other ways to enhance stealth, such as adding LO coating and radar-absorbent material improvements in certain locations on the airframe. A few simple changes “can buy us just a little bit of performance that’s low-cost and easy to go do,” Gillian says.

The souped-up aircraft the Navy has agreed to buy looks very different from Boeing’s original 2013 proposal for an “Advanced Super Hornet,” which focused on stealth. Boeing engineers found they needed to make design compromises to significantly reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section—for instance, by restricting payload, Gillian told Aviation Week in 2017 (AW&ST Feb. 20-March 5, 2017, p. 17).

This drove Boeing to drop certain features of the 2013 proposal, such as an enclosed weapons pod and internal infrared search-and-track (IRST) sensor, from the newest package.

The Navy will begin procuring the Block III Super Hornet in fiscal 2019 with a 24-aircraft buy, the first of which will come off the production line in 2020. Over the next five years, the Navy proposes buying 110 additional Super Hornets, including a three-year procurement [emphasis added, "block buy"], which is a significant boost from last year’s budget request...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-s-next-gen-super-hornet-will-be-sort-stealthy

Likely continued significant production should also keep costs down.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,227
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,742
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2180 on: March 24, 2018, 00:40:59 »
And no doubt the RCAF won’t have to buy those dirty Harper F35s........ ;)
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline CTD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 488
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2181 on: March 24, 2018, 13:00:12 »
Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.

Offline BobSlob

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 143
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2182 on: March 24, 2018, 13:11:43 »
Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.

Stealth isn't "required" at this moment in time, but you can't predict the future. It's also no longer an "addon" feature. It's included in the price of the jet and doesn't add anymore cost.

Sure you can still get manual windows in your vehicle, but you wouldn't say no to power windows if they were included for free, would you?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,774
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2183 on: March 24, 2018, 13:25:07 »
Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.

Please explain, in detail, these "weaknesses and strengths".

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2184 on: March 24, 2018, 15:00:12 »
If we had stealth aircraft how could we whip them out and brag "Canada's' back."
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 48,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 565
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2185 on: March 24, 2018, 15:11:47 »
Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?

So the enemy doesn't detect our aircraft and destroy them?

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 43,142
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,720
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2186 on: March 24, 2018, 15:17:08 »
President Trump explains "stealth aircraft."

More recently, the President strayed into the F-35 realm when talking about relief efforts with Puerto Rican officials while visiting the storm ravaged island, and just as in this latest instance, for some reason he brought the program up while addressing the U.S. Coast Guard, stating:

"Amazing job, and amazing job. So amazing that we're ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. Do you like the F-35? I said how does it do it in fights, and how do they do in fights with the F-35. He says we do very well, you can't see it. Literally you can't see. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see right? But that's an expensive plane you can't see. And as you probably heard we cut the price very substantially, something other administrations would never have done, that I can tell you."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16375/trump-just-provided-more-evidence-that-he-thinks-the-f-35-is-actually-invisible






Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 118,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,278
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2187 on: March 24, 2018, 16:23:10 »
Sure you can still get manual windows in your vehicle, but you wouldn't say no to power windows if they were included for free, would you?

Actually, Bob, I do specifically ask for manual windows on my cars.

Doesn't matter how easy it is to reach for the little window breaking tool they sell at Auto parts dealership, if you fall through the water, you are always able to roll down a manual window and escape - not so with electrical windows. And I do drive a lot near waterways.

For people who don't know about fighter planes, asking why we need stealth is not a bad question to ask for  Canadians. Perhaps it would be easier to explain that the feature we are seeking in the next generation fighter is the situational awareness and fusion of information that its onboard systems provide - not the "stealth" per se, which comes as the complement to the capabilities. Then, they realize they are asking the wrong question when getting stuck at the stealth issue.   

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 118,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,278
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2188 on: March 24, 2018, 18:50:37 »
President Trump explains "stealth aircraft."

More recently, the President strayed into the F-35 realm when talking about relief efforts with Puerto Rican officials while visiting the storm ravaged island, and just as in this latest instance, for some reason he brought the program up while addressing the U.S. Coast Guard, stating:

"Amazing job, and amazing job. So amazing that we're ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. Do you like the F-35? I said how does it do it in fights, and how do they do in fights with the F-35. He says we do very well, you can't see it. Literally you can't see. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see right? But that's an expensive plane you can't see. And as you probably heard we cut the price very substantially, something other administrations would never have done, that I can tell you."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16375/trump-just-provided-more-evidence-that-he-thinks-the-f-35-is-actually-invisible

This is the F-35 video that he was shown to explain stealth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSqCJ-UGYns

Offline CTD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 488
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2189 on: March 25, 2018, 00:43:06 »
Please explain, in detail, these "weaknesses and strengths".

I am having a hard time finding the article from the US Navy in regards to operating the Super Hornet along with the F35. It kind of follows this line of thinking.
http://natoassociation.ca/the-case-for-a-rcaf-mixed-fighter-fleet/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 110,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,290
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2190 on: March 25, 2018, 14:48:15 »
Actually, Bob, I do specifically ask for manual windows on my cars.

Doesn't matter how easy it is to reach for the little window breaking tool they sell at Auto parts dealership, if you fall through the water, you are always able to roll down a manual window and escape - not so with electrical windows. And I do drive a lot near waterways.

For people who don't know about fighter planes, asking why we need stealth is not a bad question to ask for  Canadians. Perhaps it would be easier to explain that the feature we are seeking in the next generation fighter is the situational awareness and fusion of information that its onboard systems provide - not the "stealth" per se, which comes as the complement to the capabilities. Then, they realize they are asking the wrong question when getting stuck at the stealth issue.

Off topic, they fired 40 vehicles into a lake, all the electronics continued to work. If the water is deeper than 20', it is likely the vehicle will invert.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 60,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,884
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2191 on: March 29, 2018, 14:09:40 »
More on Block III Super Hornet, existing airframes modifications section:

Quote
US Navy plans to modify 45 more Super Hornets

The US Navy plans to modify 45 more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in the next two years to increase the aircraft’s service life and capabilities, the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announced on 27 March.

The potential contract will cover modifications to up to 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2019 and a maximum of 30 aircraft in FY2020, NAVAIR says. The modifications are designed to extend the fighter’s airframe life from 6,000-9,000h, adding up to 10 years of service.

Boeing will also convert existing Block II Super Hornets to a new Block III configuration starting in the early 2020s. This conversion will include adding an enhanced network capability, a longer range thanks to internal conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system, reduced radar signature and an enhanced communication system. Such updates are designed to keep the type effective in combat until at least into the early 2030s [one presumes those are older aircraft, not recent ones and continuing new-builds]...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-plans-to-modify-45-more-super-hornets-447133/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,454
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,467
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2192 on: March 29, 2018, 17:24:55 »
Off topic, they fired 40 vehicles into a lake, all the electronics continued to work. If the water is deeper than 20', it is likely the vehicle will invert.
Great,  unless you are dealing with the ignition switch problem GM was having,  in which case all your electronics go kaput.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 203,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,669
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2193 on: March 29, 2018, 17:50:17 »
Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.
You seem to be assuming that a "fleet of stealth" and a "fleet of conventional" would have complimentary strengths and weaknesses.  You also seem to be assuming that a "fleet of conventional" would be sufficiently inexpensive up front so as to cancel out the inefficiencies in life cycle costs for maintaining multiple fighter fleets.  I am not sure either assumption is correct.   

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 198,307
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,072
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2194 on: March 29, 2018, 18:58:18 »
Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?

Because there will not be a secondary jet. There will be an only jet. Extra costs of operating mixed fleets have been discussed here before.

Because stealth improves survivability in combat. The only jet must remain competitive for several decades.

And stealth is only one advantage - fully distributed and integrated sensors plus networking are probably even more important.

Online HB_Pencil

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 244
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2195 on: March 29, 2018, 22:29:57 »
Why does Canada require a "Stealth fighter" as its primary jet?
Wouldn't a 40 fleet of Stealth and a 100 fleet of conventional set us up for the long term?
These two aircraft build off each other's weaknesses and strengths.

So a few considerations.

So when you say stealth jet, I'm just going to say F-35: I assume you're making a number of assumptions which are just not accurate to the actual situation.

First: the real "cost" of the F-35 is its avionics - the airframe for 5th Gen fighters is about 15~20% of the aircraft's total cost. (see page 72)                                       

Second: The F-35 is cheaper to purchase than all other options (especially the Block III F/A-18E), and are roughly about the same to maintain and operate over the expected lifetime. Remember, 18 Block II Shornets cost $6.4 billion. 65 F-35s come to about $9 Billion.

Thirdly: The capability advantage of the F-35 means you need less aircraft to do the same job. Right from the get go, Canada wouldn't have to buy dedicated twin seat training aircraft with the F-35: operational squadron aircraft would be rotated in on an as-needed basis. If, for example, Canada was to face an ACLM threat in the north, you would need three to four times as many "conventional" fighters as a pair or more F-35s could cover. (this article is supposed to be about "next generation" fighters, but its really about the F-35. also this article talks about line squadron aircraft being used in training. )

Fourthly: there is no cost savings with a dual fleet. DRDC did a report that rubbished that idea. We don't even have the personnel to operate one fleet now with its pipeline. Two will utterly break the system.

Finally, (and somewhat controversially), I would argue that "conventional" aircraft are reaching technical obsolescence much like the pre-dreadnought prior to 1907.. If you look at how DoD is looking at future warfare, with fleets of autonomous and manned vehicles playing a complementary role, having an aircraft that is not a networked part of that fleet is basically just wasted money.

I hope that clarifies things.

Offline CTD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 488
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2196 on: March 30, 2018, 00:21:42 »
Finally, (and somewhat controversially), I would argue that "conventional" aircraft are reaching technical obsolescence much like the pre-dreadnought prior to 1907.. If you look at how DoD is looking at future warfare, with fleets of autonomous and manned vehicles playing a complementary role, having an aircraft that is not a networked part of that fleet is basically just wasted money.

I hope that clarifies things.
[/quote]

Second: The F-35 is cheaper to purchase than all other options (especially the Block III F/A-18E), and are roughly about the same to maintain and operate over the expected lifetime. Remember, 18 Block II Shornets cost $6.4 billion. 65 F-35s come to about $9 Billion.

Your telling me that a SH costs $355,000,000 each. While the F35 Costs $138,000,000 each? I think when you post up total cost it should include what is in the purchase package. Other wise it looks more dramatic then it really is.

Thirdly: The capability advantage of the F-35 means you need less aircraft to do the same job. Right from the get go, Canada wouldn't have to buy dedicated twin seat training aircraft with the F-35: operational squadron aircraft would be rotated in on an as-needed basis. If, for example, Canada was to face an ACLM threat in the north, you would need three to four times as many "conventional" fighters as a pair or more F-35s could cover. (this article is supposed to be about "next generation" fighters, but its really about the F-35. also this article talks about line squadron aircraft being used in training. )

When you say you need less Aircraft to do the same job. Hour for hour those jets still fly and they collect hours on their airframe. If you have fewer jets that means fewer airframes to cycle airframe hours. So your smaller fleet will require to fly more hours to perform the same job. When you want a platform for the next 30 or so years you need to buy a system in place that can provide the numbers for attrition, life cycle and future threat.
Hour for hour the F35 costs around $28,000hr to operate, the SH D model is around $13,000hr to operate. (operating budget is going to shrink even more with less platforms, because that is how the Government works)

When you say you need less Airframes to do the same job. Does that mean instead of deploying 6 Jets to Iraq, and 6 to Norad, 6 to Unkraine. We can get away with deploying only 2 Airframes per deployment? Does that take into consideration multiple missions on multiple targets in multiple target areas not close together. (knowing the Government they would try to cut cut cut).

As I have said in a earlier post the US Navy and the Airforce will be operating a mixed fleet well into the next 30 years. Simply put one fleet does not provide for all levels of service. Even the US Airforce under ideal conditions will be using the F22 along with the F35 together, (if they ever get them to communicate together). In the larger picture both if these Aircraft will compliment each other. Both have their abilities. Both built for a specific aspect of future warfare.

 Fourthly: there is no cost savings with a dual fleet. DRDC did a report that rubbished that idea. We don't even have the personnel to operate one fleet now with its pipeline. Two will utterly break the system.

The Cost savings of running a dual fleet is not really known as a savings. It is known as a force multiplier. Not any one platform will suit every mission. Many countries are banking on the F35 to be a miracle jet be all end all. In reality they are sacrificing some function over others. Does the F35 have the future ability to be everything we want it to be. Of course, but at what cost. Financially and operationally.


Here is how I would do the program. 2 options.
buy the 65 F35. Send them to Bagotville. They become the advanced Fighter Deployment Center for Operations.
Buy 100 SH or other Gen 4+ Post them in Cold Lake, Used for Training, low entensity deployments. NORAD, UN missions. , 6 in Comox, 6 in Yellowknife. 6 Iraq, 6 Ukraine 12 in Bagotville for training. The rest In Cold lake for Training and Deployment.

Or Go 160 F35 Split between the two Bases and deployed as needed around the World, Domestically. At any time you can expect 50% of your aircraft to be down. Sign an agreement to buy an initial 60, Deliver over two years or sooner. Then sign a contract to build the other 100 over a 5 year time frame. This way your getting the Airframes coming out over the up fitt stages. By the time you have your last Jets out the door  your first production will be good for their upgrade to the newest.

Or buy 65 now of any platform. Run the living snot out of the and have nothing in 20 years. Hopefully you have an option to buy a 6 gen a some point.   

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 580
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2197 on: March 30, 2018, 03:12:11 »
While I agree "in theory" to your idea CTD, the reality is we are never going to operate 160 fighters.  Period. 

We don't have the pilots, and operating what would essentially be twice our current fighter force & then some, we just wouldn't have the manpower, pilots, etc etc to do so.  Not as things currently stand.


I think a big difference between the US and almost any other country, that people fail to consider, is that the US Congress routinely funds aircraft purchases above & beyond what the US services are even asking for.  Just recently, US Congress authorized the US Navy to acquire something like 10 or 14 more Super Hornets than what they were even asking for, as part of their Unfunded Priorities list. 

So here we have a situation where the US Navy funds the purchase of X number of aircraft.  They then go to Congress with a list of things they want, but didn't originally budget for - which, for this example, is say 10 additional aircraft.  Congress then says "Here's 24 aircraft instead of just the 10 additional ones you wanted."


No other military on the planet has the luxury of a government giving them MORE than what they ask for, on a regular basis.  And as such, they can consistently bring out new 'blocks' of aircraft off the production line, then upgrade their oldest to the newest standard - as you suggest.  Much easier to do if you have a consistent influx of new machines, which nobody else really does.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 48,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 565
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2198 on: March 30, 2018, 09:30:22 »
Out of my lane, so not going to talk about specifics but when people talk about the impossibility of a mixed fleet or that we can never have "X" number of fighters the arguments seem to be locked into the assumption that we're stuck with the existing structure of the CF. 

No doubt a mixed fleet has more overhead and support costs than a single fleet and more aircraft cost more than fewer aircraft and sure the current training system can't pump out enough people to handle that.  But do the advantages of a mixed fleet...maybe a 2nd aircraft with greater payload that can take advantage of the F-35's stealth and sensor ability...or simply not having all our eggs in a single basket in case an enemy finds a way to neutralize some of the advantages of the F-35...make it worthwhile looking at ways to make a mixed fleet work?

Would the overall military benefits to Canada of having a mixed fleet of say 130 aircraft (# pulled out of my ***) be worth finding those costs elsewhere?  Is it worth the cost of giving up a Reg Force Infantry Battalion for example?  A Regiment?  Reserve Force "Armoured" units?  Some other capability?

I'm not suggesting any one of those things or even saying that yes we should have a mixed fleet but like so many of the discussions here the problem comes down to the government (any government) not having the political balls to do a REAL review of Canada's defence requirements. 

We have X number of fighters now...how many can we afford to buy and still do roughly the same stuff without breaking anything else?  What kind of defence strategy is that?  The government isn't willing to declare clear role for the CF and the CF leadership isn't willing to stick its neck out and say here's what we need to be able to do the things we've typically been asked to do or in our opinion we need to be prepared to be able to do. 

Sorry...end of rant.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,395
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2199 on: March 30, 2018, 12:33:06 »
For us civvies (as it's hard to have this discussion  without current deployment context) what's the approximate distribution of Cf188's per base now?
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!