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

[dapaterson]

It's a different radar. It's substantially more powerful. And believe me, if it was an option, we would have signed on. And probably even accepted a short delay for it.



Damn. We really should buy more before they close the line. We could use another 2-3.

Or buy the MRTT+. Single type for pilots, so...

 

[Furniture]

It's a different radar. It's substantially more powerful. And believe me, if it was an option, we would have signed on. And probably even accepted a short delay for it.

So we are knowingly signing on for inferior aircraft, from a nation that has threatened our sovereignty?

F-35 sounds like a better deal every day...

 

[dapaterson]

So we are knowingly signing on for inferior aircraft, from a nation that has threatened our sovereignty?

F-35 sounds like a better deal every day...

Or possibly our NORAD relationship would let us get on to the mod line for already built aircraft and have it embodied in new aircraft.

 

[ytz]

They haven't sold the -85 to anybody.

 

[Kirkhill]

Now you're thinking.....

CCAs are more autonomous aircraft are supposed to be $40-80M. And they are supposed to be the bulk of the force. They also don't need to be part of the actual program directly. CCAs should be plug and play if they are built using open standards. There's even theories that they wouldn't be controlled by fighter pilots but by ABMs on the AEWC aircraft. We don't need to join any 6th gen consortium to build CCAs. Just look at what the Aussies have accomplished with the homegrown Wedgetail and Ghost Bat:

You're the one that gives us daily updates about how far air defence systems can reach. Believe me, for a target as lucrative as an AH-64, the rear area IS forward. There will be systems that see that far back and systems that will shoot there. Hell, before they get those fielded there will be anti-air drones up carrying out helicopter ambushes.

Start thinking cheap systems in large quantities.

Downward pressure on CCA prices

3D printing of air frames. I suppose that if a printed air frame can withstand hypersonic velocities and conditions then it can survive pretty much any application.

World’s 1st 3D-printed hypersonic platform clears key vibration trials

Hypersonix's DART AE is the world’s first hypersonic vehicle with an entirely 3D-printed airframe produced from high-temperature alloys.

interestingengineering.com

 

[KevinB]

They haven't sold the -85 to anybody.

Correct. It isn’t an option until it becomes the norm.
There haven’t been any signals it won’t be an available option (or the only option eventually) for partners.

Unless the build rate gets a significant hike, it’s basically vaporware.

 

[The Bread Guy]

NLD's defence minister solution to U.S. control of the F-35 software

F-35 Software Could Be Jailbreaked Like An iPhone: Dutch Defense Minister

The F-35's vendor locked software is becoming a greater concern as relations between the U.S. and longtime allies falter.

www.twz.com

Possible to 'jailbreak' F-35 like iPhone, Dutch minister claims

Dutch Defense Minister Gijs Tuinman surprised the public with the claim that software independence is possible for F-35 jets, suggesting that one could...

www.dailysabah.com

 

[armrdsoul77]

You can already by parts for your F35 on Temu

weight plates set 4 2 inch barbell weights grips - Temu Canada

 

[suffolkowner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2024523858787606843

looks like might be the final nail in FCAS German participation.
Also Rheinmetall building central fuselage!

 

[OldSolduer]

Correct. It isn’t an option until it becomes the norm.
There haven’t been any signals it won’t be an available option (or the only option eventually) for partners.

Unless the build rate gets a significant hike, it’s basically vaporware.

The Bad Orange Man won't be in power forever. He has a watch and we have the time - sort of.

 

[KevinB]

NLD's defence minister solution to U.S. control of the F-35 software

F-35 Software Could Be Jailbreaked Like An iPhone: Dutch Defense Minister

The F-35's vendor locked software is becoming a greater concern as relations between the U.S. and longtime allies falter.

www.twz.com

Possible to 'jailbreak' F-35 like iPhone, Dutch minister claims

Dutch Defense Minister Gijs Tuinman surprised the public with the claim that software independence is possible for F-35 jets, suggesting that one could...

www.dailysabah.com

The problem with that is then you are on your own for updates. So none of the updated threat data will be available.

Like any software you aren’t hostage to it, if you have the time, technical expertise, and money to invest in a replacement.

The Israelis have effectively done that, but in a cooperative environment with the USG and LocMart, so there is two way sharing, but not 100%, and no ‘forced’ updates for the IAF jets.

The cost and technology required aren’t a small thing and most nations (okay any nation that doesn’t have its own nuclear weapons) probably doesn’t need to bother.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The problem with that is then you are on your own for updates. So none of the updated threat data will be available.

Like any software you aren’t hostage to it, if you have the time, technical expertise, and money to invest in a replacement.

The Israelis have effectively done that, but in a cooperative environment with the USG and LocMart, so there is two way sharing, but not 100%, and no ‘forced’ updates for the IAF jets.

The cost and technology required aren’t a small thing and most nations (okay any nation that doesn’t have its own nuclear weapons) probably doesn’t need to bother.

I do not believe that there is 'two way sharing' with the Israelis on this or on anything between them and the US. Any 'updates' or 'improvements' that the Israeli's did on their F35 was most certainly not shared with the US.

It's one way sharing with them. The US 'opens up' certain pieces of software that the Israeli's identified so that they can make their own upgrades or improvements on then locked the code down. I have no doubt that none of those upgrades were shared back with the US.

 

[KevinB]

I do not believe that there is 'two way sharing' with the Israelis on this or on anything between them and the US. Any 'updates' or 'improvements' that the Israeli's did on their F35 was most certainly not shared with the US.

It's one way sharing with them. The US 'opens up' certain pieces of software that the Israeli's identified so that they can make their own upgrades or improvements on then locked the code down. I have no doubt that none of those upgrades were shared back with the US.

They do share some sensor data. I don’t for minute believe they share code.

 

[Cloud Cover]

They do share some sensor data. I don’t for minute believe they share code.

As with all secure systems, software improvements and modifications to non API source code have to be signed to be recognized by the operating platform as the various systems boot up. I’d be very surprised if that signing process is not under very tight USAF control. And if that’s the case, they have a source code copy. Otherwise source code corruption could spread throughout the build.
Also the simulators for testing that type of development code are locked down quite well.
All that to say it’s highly doubtful that Israel is keeping their F35 source code changes secret from the US. They do, however, have lots of sole proprietary rights and that’s to be expected.

 

[Quirky]

Why doesn't Canada do their own modifications to the F35 like Israel, instead of being lured into meaningless assembly line jobs for an outdated european paper airplane? The CF-35 could be the first bi-lingual and indigenous-owned fighter! Bitchin betty in both official languages.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Now you're thinking.....

CCAs are more autonomous aircraft are supposed to be $40-80M. And they are supposed to be the bulk of the force. They also don't need to be part of the actual program directly. CCAs should be plug and play if they are built using open standards. There's even theories that they wouldn't be controlled by fighter pilots but by ABMs on the AEWC aircraft.

I've been thinking about this. One thing that came to mind was the inherent weakness and risk of the ABM's being centralized on an inherently high observable, low speed, low survivability, aircraft with zero self defense capability. That's a lot of eggs in one very crack-able basket. Hence the Dale Brown thought. Larger stealth aircraft upgraded with advanced countermeasures, rotary magazines of AMRAAM's- not sitting ducks. But Canada is not getting fictional stealth battleships.

Then I read this. Particularly:

The Saab Loyal Wingman design, as it now stands, would appear to be an even more costly and complex solution than the kinds of drones that have typically been proposed for working closely together with crewed platforms, initially primarily in air-to-air combat roles.

But in just such a role, the Saab Loyal Wingman could be a very potent addition to combat air forces operating either fifth- or sixth-generation fighters, but also fourth-generation ones, as Sweden does.

Collins Aerospace
Extrapolating that, and as we have discussed repeatedly before, one could argue that 4th generation fighters like Gripen could benefit from advanced loyal wingmen drones even more than 5th or 6th generation types. Pairing the two together would breathe entirely new life into the 4th generation fighter and would give them a stealthy, penetrating capability via their loyal wingmen drones, as well as greatly expanded tactical flexibility, increased awareness, and drastically enhanced survivability. One may also be able to argue that with high-end, largely autonomous uncrewed wingmen, more advanced crewed fighters may not be needed for the vast majority of missions.

What of it? If the prevailing concept is $$$$$ dollar manned 6th gen controlling CCA's, and there's already theories that the manned 6th gen is unnecessary, we can let the CCA's fight with the ABM's back on a juicy target. what about a middle ground?

3 layer, data linked approached -

1. low observable CCA's operating as the tip of the spear, made cheaper by their lack of needing to accommodate a pilot
2. Gripen F's (conceptually ideally something with more legs and higher payload like a 15EX) standing off with the backseater being an ABM that's completely superfluous to the pilot fighting the jet, providing a protective layer infront of:
3. AEWC aircraft, providing sensor overwatch and controlling the airspace

Canada buys the F's from Sweden while investing in the CCA