• 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)

WingsofFury

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So I thought I'd start this thread to get the debate rolling....

My vote goes to the SLAM Eagle.  I've stated the reasons previously.

Here's a question to ponder; could a competition be held that would exclude the F-35 as mentioned by the Liberals?
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
49
Points
560
Some fancifying on how a PM Trudeau might finagle the F-35 with President Obama:

Canadian Election: ISIS, the F-35, Justin Trudeau and POTUS
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/mark-collins-canadian-election-isis-the-f-35-justin-trudeau-and-potus

Mark
Ottawa
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
401
Points
1,010
WingsofFury said:
So I thought I'd start this thread to get the debate rolling....

My vote goes to the SLAM Eagle.  I've stated the reasons previously.

Here's a question to ponder; could a competition be held that would exclude the F-35 as mentioned by the Liberals?

Oh and who exactly is going to buy this aircraft other than us?  Everyone else has either signed up to buy the F35 or opted for a cheaper Russian or French aircraft.

Our only real options are the F35 or the Rafale. 
 

WingsofFury

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
RoyalDrew said:
Oh and who exactly is going to buy this aircraft other than us?  Everyone else has either signed up to buy the F35 or opted for a cheaper Russian or French aircraft.

Our only real options are the F35 or the Rafale.

I realise what you're stating, RoyalDrew; I just ask that you do some research on which countries already use variants of the F-15E Strike Eagle before writing me off.

Cheers.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
22
Points
180
I'm betting if it is a Liberal government, approx. 25 F-35 (Canadian businesses have too much lose) And a Hawk replacement RFQ with some extra to go for air policing.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,720
Points
1,160
WoF, RoyalDrew was probably thinking the same as I was, that you were being specific about SLAM Eagle.  Other than Korea, who operates the 15K? No one.  APG-63(V)1?  *yawn* Fusion for 5th Gen warfare? Neg.

Big, fast bomb truck that can dog fight with Gen 4s once it drops all the bomb stuff..

You took me to task for proponency for Silent Eage but your okay with a decade-old variant of the Eagle? ???

SLAM ER?  Sure, but we could put that on AIMP Block 5 a lot easier, if we're also going to be feeding the ISR-sphere at the same time...

At this point, Libs will probably back out of the cut with a partial fleet of 35s (maybe 25-ish) and whatever continental defence  balances the cost...SH or Grippen NG.

:2c:
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
962
Points
940
Good2Golf said:
At this point, Libs will probably back out of the cut with a partial fleet of 35s (maybe 25-ish) and whatever continental defence  balances the cost...SH or Grippen NG.

Or, in a similar vein, follow what the Australians did a few years ago and buy SH as an "interim" measure for the F-35....and then say it was to "supplement" it instead. 
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,680
Points
890
Spencer100 said:
I'm betting if it is a Liberal government, approx. 25 F-35 (Canadian businesses have too much lose) And a Hawk replacement RFQ with some extra to go for air policing.

AFAIK, the Hawks are not RCAF, but belong to the contractor. Not our problem to replace. One of the advantages of contracting out.
 

Downhiller229

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Hawks are leased to Bombardier by a federal entity. Not our problem to maintain, totally our problem to replace.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,720
Points
1,160
dapaterson said:
AFAIK, the Hawks are not RCAF, but belong to the contractor. Not our problem to replace. One of the advantages of contracting out.

Not our circus, not our monkeys.  :nod:
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,720
Points
1,160
Downhiller229 said:
The Hawks are leased to Bombardier by a federal entity. Not our problem to maintain, totally our problem decision as to how to replace.

One person's problem is another's opportunity. 
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,680
Points
890
Downhiller229 said:
The Hawks are leased to Bombardier by a federal entity. Not our problem to maintain, totally our problem to replace.
Nope. Owned by CAE who bought the business from Bombardier.
 

WingsofFury

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Good2Golf, you want us, Canada, to pay for the development of a plane that isn't even in production yet in the Silent Eagle; how much money do you really think we'll have left after the cuts to DND are done?

You have a problem with an air superiority fighter that has made the transition to the penultimate strike fighter gradually.  As an A2A platform equipped with AESA radar, there is no threat that this platform couldn't counter.  When it comes to being part of a strike package, as is often part of our role when involved in NATO or UN missions, we'll be able to stay on target longer and carry out more strikes due to the larger weapons capacity which the SG variant would carry. This would only be enhanced by the carriage of the SDB.

Finally, the Strike Eagle will be in international and US service well into the 2050's which means that part sourcing when needed won't be an issue. The SG is a relatively new platform, and all of the avionics and weapons systems onboard are new.  The awesome thing about the platform is that it made the transition to Strike platform about as smoothly as anyone could have envisaged.

Thanks for your 0.02...but please consider what I'm proposing above.

Finally, given that there WILL be cuts, I doubt very much that we'll have a split fleet.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
526
Points
1,060
So we buy a fighter now, for delivery in 2022, that has a service life until 2050, that we'll use until 2065 based on past procurement models? What part of that gap makes any sense to you?
 

Downhiller229

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dapaterson said:
Nope. Owned by CAE who bought the business from Bombardier.

CAE owns the NFTC contract to maintain the aircraft and installations. Not the actual airframes. 

http://www.cae.com/CAE-to-acquire-Bombardier-s-Military-Aviation-Training-unit-to-expand-training-systems-integration-offering/

You think they bought 30 some airframes for 19 million? Of course not... They don't own the airframes, DND doesn't own the airframes. A government corporation does and leases them to BMAT now CAE. They are responsible to maintain them and provide training. When they are finished the government will have to replace them.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,680
Points
890
NFTC is a huge mess - poorly designed, poorly executed.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att_9927se01_e_9980.html

http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/milit-air-bondholders-gear-up-to-defend-their-rights

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-fighter-pilots-sent-to-u-s-for-training-after-repeated-problems-at-home-documents
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,720
Points
1,160
WingsofFury said:
Good2Golf, you want us, Canada, to pay for the development of a plane that isn't even in production yet in the Silent Eagle; how much money do you really think we'll have left after the cuts to DND are done?

If Canada's investment to operationalize the 15SE that Boeing had developed in prototype form will provide a capability that provides Canada with a cost-effective balance of measured stealth technology (conformal weapons bays [CWB], coatings, canted stabilizers, etc...) along with integration of advanced sensor and C2 fusion capabilities, then yes, it is something to consider.  Canada did it in a measured manner with the CH-147F Chinook, getting value for money invested, providing capability that has been implemented on other advanced Chinook operators, to Canada's follow-on benefit.


WingsofFury said:
You have a problem with an air superiority fighter that has made the transition to the penultimate strike fighter gradually.  As an A2A platform equipped with AESA radar, there is no threat that this platform couldn't counter.  When it comes to being part of a strike package, as is often part of our role when involved in NATO or UN missions, we'll be able to stay on target longer and carry out more strikes due to the larger weapons capacity which the SG variant would carry. This would only be enhanced by the carriage of the SDB.

No, but you referred to the SLAM Eagle, or F-15K, which has an AN/APG-63(V)1 physically-scanned radar, not AESA.  If you wanted to upgrade your 'preferred variant' from your aforementioned SLAM Eagle to the F-15SG, then you will pick up the 63(V)3 AESA variant, with the general benefit that an AESA radar provides (of course mindful of the significantly reduced off bore-sight accuracy due to widening beam width and increased side lobes - concessions to the increased performance of a fixed AESA antenna).  One would have to determine where the larger load trade-off against concomitant low-observability requirements balances, but I'd assess that ability to carry stores internally as per the F-15SE's CWB, still with a significant load out, including SDBs, to be desirable in conducting strike missions in higher threat/more complex counter-air environments.

WingsofFury said:
Finally, the Strike Eagle will be in international and US service well into the 2050's which means that part sourcing when needed won't be an issue. The SG is a relatively new platform, and all of the avionics and weapons systems onboard are new.  The awesome thing about the platform is that it made the transition to Strike platform about as smoothly as anyone could have envisaged.

As would the F-15SE, if produced.

WingsofFury said:
Thanks for your 0.02...but please consider what I'm proposing above.

As noted above, I did that.  Please consider that I considered what you were proposing above, and further constrained the capability to more closely align with the overall capabilities that Canada's pervious government was looking for in the JSF.

WingsofFury said:
Finally, given that there WILL be cuts, I doubt very much that we'll have a split fleet.

While split fleets would result in increased (per total fighter units operated by a force) in-service support, until one determines what the acquisition costs and fleet sizes would be for a moderated two-fleet option, one cannot immediately write-off the possibility of operating two-fleets.

:2c::2c:

Regards
G2G
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
406
Points
960
Avro Arrow....?

There's a group out west building a 2/3 scale Arrow....capable of flight even. 

I guess the question underlying it all should probably be, what will the (new?) Defence White Paper say we need to have? 

NS
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
526
Points
1,060
I hope you're not talking about that Bourdeaux guy that wants $3B to give us 2 prototypes so he can compete in a contract.

Canada can do better than a 1950s design. We might as well update the CF-86 and use that.
 
Top