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

[Retired AF Guy]

It might be a smart proposal for the US and Koreans governments to pitch FA-50 to Canada potentially as a sweetener for keeping its full F-35 order, as something like what Egypt is being proposed would entirely undercut Saab's Gripen bid to Canada. An actually cheap to purchase and operate low end fighter aircraft that is also a trainer? Also something to consider that the FA-50 is a major frontrunner for the US Navy's jet trainer replacement as well.

That makes a lot of sense.

Absolutely. A lot of the sensors on the F-35 are similar in nature to those in the Hornet, albeit more modern. The real difference is sensor fusion. In the Hornet, I have to take the data from individual sensors, analyze it, determine which ones are more accurate in the situation I am in, and use my brain to integrate all the data into actionable information. After all this, I have to make a tactical decision for the 4-ship I lead, communicate that decision and execute the tactic.

In the F-35, the data from all sensors is automatically turned into actionable information, allowing pilots to almost entirely focus on tactical execution. It frees up an enormous amount of mental capacity.



Perhaps. But when compared to the challenge of fighting with the aircraft, flying is extremely easy.

Very enlighten, but sometimes I wonder if with all this information coming in, if the pilot might have a sensory overload (e.g. too much info coming the pilot cannot process it).

 

[GR66]

It's a question of ratio. Most major air forces are aiming for a ratio of 2-3 unmanned systems for every manned system by 2050.

By this view, after we get 88 F-35s (or whatever our final mix is in 2035), our biggest gap won't be manned aircraft.

You're falling for the same fallacy here as a lot of the kids on Reddit. You find it harder to understand unmanned systems. So you to default to saying we need a lot more manned systems. What we need is a balanced force. And the only way to build substantially more mass these days is unmanned systems.

I don't misunderstand unmanned systems and I'm aware we need a balanced force. You'll note that I clearly stated that in my opinion the need for a somewhat larger crewed fighter force is as much about maintaining a large enough pool of pilots to fulfill both our operational requirements PLUS all of the non-operational roles that are fulfilled by pilots.

I'd also note that while great focus ison unmanned systems right now due to the Ukraine War, Canada is not currently at war. What we do potentially face is increasing encroachment on our territory by foreign and non-state actors, particularly in the Arctic.

There will be many situations where we will prefer a manned aircraft to intercept, investigate and potentially confront entities encroaching on our territory. A UCAV can shoot down a TU-95 or launch a LRASM against a Chinese destroyer but you'll more than likely want a real human at the stick when making decisions on a civilian aircraft not responding to radio contact, or a foreign research ship entering our EEZ. Watching something on a screen from 1,000km away does not make for great situational awareness when being called on to make difficult judgement calls.

 

[DBNSG]

That act of defiance screwed the Navy until well into the 1980s.

I am not saying that GOFOs should go along to get along, but when you use the nuclear option and retire enmasse, there tends to be alot of collateral damage.

Yet Pearson was quoted as telling Hellyer that if one more Admiral had quit he would have killed unification.
That's the lucky thing about Canada in that we can fuck around with Structure or peacekeeping myths, Bloated Officer Corps for non existent Corps. Mother America would do the heavy lifting . Now however lots of smug Canadians strategists/citizens are actually envisioning the Defence of Canada as the problem it is , not the hobby it was.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Very enlighten, but sometimes I wonder if with all this information coming in, if the pilot might have a sensory overload (e.g. too much info coming the pilot cannot process it).

Oh absolutely but more data overload. There are often pieces of data that are just missed/not processes despite being readily apparent, and lead to tactical mistakes. Also remember that the tactical decision timeline is measured in seconds so everything happens quite fast in a very dynamic environment so any reliable data processing from the aircraft exponentially increases the ability to make sound decisions.

 

[dapaterson]

Oh absolutely but more data overload. There are often pieces of data that are just missed/not processes despite being readily apparent, and lead to tactical mistakes. Also remember that the tactical decision timeline is measured in seconds so everything happens quite fast in a very dynamic environment so any reliable data processing from the aircraft exponentially increases the ability to make sound decisions.

Also spells out the importance of the intelligence function, and of the programming function - "blue screen of death" takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[OldSolduer]

Oh absolutely but more data overload. There are often pieces of data that are just missed/not processes despite being readily apparent, and lead to tactical mistakes. Also remember that the tactical decision timeline is measured in seconds so everything happens quite fast in a very dynamic environment so any reliable data processing from the aircraft exponentially increases the ability to make sound decisions.

And people tend to "tunnel sense" in periods of high stress. Hearing and vision can be impaired.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I can see where you're coming from. The amount of situational awareness one would need would be astronomical. Kinda like driving in Winnipeg because a lot of Winnipegers are like that.

BTW the 2023 Challenger in sport mode can be scary

Like, the Bombardier 600, you mean???