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

[Halifax Tar]

I am tracking 3 carries in Chinese Army Navy service:

Type 001, 002 and 003. All currently listed as active.

 

[PrairieFella]

@PrairieFella the question becomes what is the cost increase of maintaining this two fleets for the off set cost of the lower tier jets and at what loss of capability. Would you want to be in a tank who's primary benefit was low cost?

Ive been using one for a while - its called the TAPV.

 

[ytz]

@PrairieFella the question becomes what is the cost increase of maintaining this two fleets for the off set cost of the lower tier jets and at what loss of capability.

It's actually way worse than that when you consider opportunity cost. The only practical way to pull off a dual fleet is to buy a larger fleet. So in addition to the additional burden from duplication, more resources go to simply fielding more.

This takes away capital and personnel from the RCAF's stated goal of moving to more autonomous platforms (like CCAs). Any induction of CCAs, more conventional large UAS (RCAF remit), 6th Gen programs would have to be put off to keep funding the two fighter fleets.

 

[lenaitch]

China basically decided that it was a "Near-Arctic state". Whatever the heck that means. They have decided that they now have Arctic interests and get to play. For now, a lot of it is co-operating with Russia. But I think we should anticipate Chinese naval forces acting independently in the Arctic. And that might even include aircraft carriers some day. So maybe not the PLAAF. But the PLANAF.

Or 'private' 'research' or 'fishing' vessels.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or 'private' 'research' or 'fishing' vessels.

With or without RPGs, ManPADs and drones.

 

[childs56]

Yep. F-35s use MADL. Everybody else on Link 16. So you need a translator (some kind of AEWC or BACN) just to integrate Gripens and F-35s. Oh and the Saab AEWC candidate isn't MADL capable.

Does the The F35 not have the capability to transmit on Link 16, but they loose their stealth?
There are solutions and workarounds. The question is do we want to integrate them into any Airborne Electronic aircraft? Does the US want to sell us platforms such as their Freedom 550 radio for integration into our new systems. Which I would think they would as it allows them further sensor fusion across their Allied assets.
The communication with 4th gen fighters is already being done, along with Ground and navel assets, not sure why this is such an issue as some of you are making it out to be.

Very often as in the majority of times you will have an aerial controller such as AWACS in the area controlling the airspace. They are the ones relaying transmissions and performing command and control with others.
One of the ideas of the F35 is it would take over and possibly replace the AWACS as CC of the airspace. As we are seeing with various electronic and surveillance aircraft this may not be the case fully. They will be supplementing the battle space with the different sensor fusion assets in the area. I wonder if the overall program is either more effective then they thought (much better at the CC game) or is it a failure as to actual capability to be able to disseminate those reports higher without other traditional assets in the are such as relay stations and such. One of the major limiting factors in the communication game is transmission range.
Unless you have multiple F35s in the layered system do you still require some form of Relay station anyways to get the information back to everyone else? If so how does that system work and what platforms are being used for it?

The potential or actual capability of the F35 is one where realistically if Canada buys 16 F35's and with the wingman concept of the original platform design with up to 4 UAV being controlled by each F35 then we bring our number up to 64 platforms. I wonder if people much higher in the food chain are actually planning for this. Or if the system itself is not capable of performing such capability at this time. Maybe out of reach for the near or even far future, that they just want more jets.

long long reach here but Canada has been talking about 6th Gen fighters (UAV) since the F35 was becoming a reality. I wonder if the intent is to provide theses platforms over the 5th gen systems. Canada has a pretty good sensor fusion AI/ autonomous data program research going on for decades. That is in demand with defense research across the world.
This might be why the SK and Swedes want us on their programs going forward.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It's actually way worse than that when you consider opportunity cost. The only practical way to pull off a dual fleet is to buy a larger fleet. So in addition to the additional burden from duplication, more resources go to simply fielding more.

This takes away capital and personnel from the RCAF's stated goal of moving to more autonomous platforms (like CCAs). Any induction of CCAs, more conventional large UAS (RCAF remit), 6th Gen programs would have to be put off to keep funding the two fighter fleets.

You've essentially convinced me of the wrongess of the Gripen for the RCAF outweighing the rightness of a Saab partnership for Canada- specifically with respect to getting involved in the bolded. Is there a path to getting the best of both worlds?

 

[GR66]

I've been in favour of an all F-35 fleet but was previously of the opinion that a mixed fleet increased in size to consist of at least 65 x F-35's and 65 x "Missile Truck" fighters (preferably F-15EX's but likely Gripens for political reasons) would not have a serious negative impact on the defence of North America operationally. 65+65 would give us enough F-35's for expeditionary operations where stealth is imperative plus some left over to quarterback the missile trucks who's primary role would be to shoot down incoming missiles (and the F-35's using their stealth to take out the launch platforms).

There would however be significant cost due to the expense of servicing two different fleets, training pilots and techs on two different platforms (and different tactics), two supply chains and simply needing to have more platforms overall.

However, the more I think about it the less sense a split fleet makes to me. If the main reason for the 2nd-tier fighter is to have more missiles available to counter a large scale attack on North America then a couple of things come to mind.

1. Canada is a HUGE country and an enemy attack could come from almost any direction. Even with a split fleet of 130 fighters we're unlikely to have enough fighters in the right places to intercept a significant portion of the incoming missiles.
2. On the other hand the most likely targets of an enemy missile attack are concentrated in a much, much smaller area. So might it not be more effective to have (less expensive) ground based interceptors concentrated around the most likely targets rather than spreading our fighter fleet across the vast maritime and Arctic territories?
3. IF there ever were a massive missile attack on North America it WILL be nuclear. That means that there will be literally thousands of incoming ICBMs, SLBMs, hypersonics, as well as air & sea launched cruise missiles. No realistic number of "missile trucks" will be enough to have any impact on such an attack. How do I know that any massive missile attack will be nuclear not conventional? Because the US will not be able to take the chance that such an attack is not nuclear. They won't risk having their nuclear forces wiped out in their silos and runways without responding so any massive incoming attack will trigger US nuclear retaliation. That's how MAD works.

So, if the main reason for 2nd tier missile trucks is to shoot down masses of incoming missiles that either won't happen or will be part of a massive nuclear attack which they won't be effective against then why do we need them? There still might be smaller scale threats to our territory but in dealing with those stealth will likely be more important than mass of missiles.

If we're going to have a 2nd tier of armed aircraft I'd instead go for an armed trainer like the T-50 or AT-6. Have them closer to our population centres where they can counter lower tier threats like UAVs launched by terrorists/special forces and leave the F-35's to patrol our frontiers.

 

[Maxman1]

You've essentially convinced me of the wrongess of the Gripen for the RCAF outweighing the rightness of a Saab partnership for Canada- specifically with respect to getting involved in the bolded. Is there a path to getting the best of both worlds?

Last month, the High Commissioner to London announced we might be getting involved with GCAP. Saab is not part of that program, and Sweden has stated they will not make any announcement on whether they join or not until 2031.

 

[ytz]

You've essentially convinced me of the wrongess of the Gripen for the RCAF outweighing the rightness of a Saab partnership for Canada- specifically with respect to getting involved in the bolded. Is there a path to getting the best of both worlds?

Not sure exactly what you're asking. There's no path to fielding not fighters in total now and inducting 6th gen early. This whole Gripen thing means the RCAF will probably be inducting Gripens 2030-2031 till 2034-2035. There's not going to be much institutional appetite or bandwidth to start a 6th gen transition just five years later.

Personally, I think they could cult the F-35 to 70 and immediately announce we are joining GCAP. We can live with a slightly smaller fighter fleet for a few years.

 

[PrairieFella]

It's actually way worse than that when you consider opportunity cost. The only practical way to pull off a dual fleet is to buy a larger fleet. So in addition to the additional burden from duplication, more resources go to simply fielding more.

This takes away capital and personnel from the RCAF's stated goal of moving to more autonomous platforms (like CCAs). Any induction of CCAs, more conventional large UAS (RCAF remit), 6th Gen programs would have to be put off to keep funding the two fighter fleets.

Fair. Thanks for the good explanation.

 

[Furniture]

Not sure exactly what you're asking. There's no path to fielding not fighters in total now and inducting 6th gen early. This whole Gripen thing means the RCAF will probably be inducting Gripens 2030-2031 till 2034-2035. There's not going to be much institutional appetite or bandwidth to start a 6th gen transition just five years later.

Personally, I think they could cult the F-35 to 70 and immediately announce we are joining GCAP. We can live with a slightly smaller fighter fleet for a few years.

I predict the public appetite for spending on defence will wither long before we need to worry about 6th gen fighters, particularly if defense dollars are heading out of country while jobs are being lost here.