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

[Rifleman62]

Possibly Trump will not allow the authority to be given. After all he currently doesn't like Trudeau. The Financial Post article also suggested the US/CA trade war may not be settled until after our next election.

 

[CBH99]

If he was so petty as to refuse to allow the Australians to sell to the Canadians aging jets that are almost 40yrs old, he'd be doing both countries a disservice.  He'd be robbing the Australians of the sale to Canada, and signalling to Canada he's willing to allow petty trade squabbles to limit Canada's ability to contribute to NORAD & NATO.

He'd also be signalling to both countries that he doesn't respect nor recognize their ability to do business with each other.

I'm not saying he wouldn't do the above - quite the contrary.  I don't expect logical decisions to be made, unfortunately.  I'm sure he would step in & prevent it from happening, then turn around & complain that Canada isn't doing enough.


HOWEVER... it would also be a heavy blow to American companies winning in our CF-18 replacement project.  And surely his advisors - whom I have 0 confidence in - would have enough foresight to know this. 

 

[GR66]

If he was so petty as to refuse to allow the Australians to sell to the Canadians aging jets that are almost 40yrs old, he'd be doing both countries a disservice.  He'd be robbing the Australians of the sale to Canada, and signalling to Canada he's willing to allow petty trade squabbles to limit Canada's ability to contribute to NORAD & NATO.

He'd also be signalling to both countries that he doesn't respect nor recognize their ability to do business with each other.

I'm not saying he wouldn't do the above - quite the contrary.  I don't expect logical decisions to be made, unfortunately.  I'm sure he would step in & prevent it from happening, then turn around & complain that Canada isn't doing enough.


HOWEVER... it would also be a heavy blow to American companies winning in our CF-18 replacement project.  And surely his advisors - whom I have 0 confidence in - would have enough foresight to know this.

Not a Trump fan and also don't think that the US government should prevent the deal, but with regard to the highlighted part I think they'd have more than a fair argument that our buying 40 year old, used aircraft is actually shirking our responsibility to contribute to NORAD & NATO, rather than limiting our ability. 

Both NORAD & NATO are MUTUAL defence treaties and let's be honest, we're not doing our fair share to contribute to either.  The Aussie Hornet buy rather than working to fix that problem actually doubles down on our position and thumbs our noses at those members who are making fair contributions.  We can't do that and not expect hard feelings at the minimum.  And Trump has shown that he seldom limits his displeasure to hard feelings.  Many Canadians may complain, but often you reap what you sow.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Author goofs on number of qualified possible bidders, in fact five:

Canada asks fighter bidders for sustainment information

As Canada formulates requirements for a future fighter to replace Boeing CF-18 Hornets, the government is now asking six potential bidders for information about their capabilities to maintain the new fleet.

A letter of interest sent to bidders on 23 July broadens the Canadian government’s year-long series of engagements with industry suppliers.

The letter asks the six potential bidders to provide feedback on how the government plans to divide the sustainment responsibilities between industry and the Department of National Defence.

“Please indicate any barriers or challenges that you would need to address to allow you to undertake this work for a future fighter fleet,” the letter states.

Sustainment practices among the six potential bidders vary widely. Lockheed Martin’s F-35A, for example, consolidates sustainment planning and support in a central hub, feeding data and parts to several regional depots stationed among the global partners. Other potential bidders, including the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen, offer services ranging from turn-key maintenance support to varying levels of direct and indirect support.

All six potential bidders signed on to the official Supplier’s List in February. Their presence on the list allows the suppliers to continue engaging with the Canadian government about the acquisition, but does not commit them to submit a bid.

The Royal Canadian Air Force plans to award a contract in 2021 or 2022 for 88 new fighters, with deliveries scheduled from 2025 to 2031...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-asks-fighter-bidders-for-sustainment-informat-450707/

See from gov't in April 2018, note "Notice of Solicitation":

Future Fighter Capability Project engages five supplier teams
https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2018/04/12306

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

Not a Trump fan and also don't think that the US government should prevent the deal, but with regard to the highlighted part I think they'd have more than a fair argument that our buying 40 year old, used aircraft is actually shirking our responsibility to contribute to NORAD & NATO, rather than limiting our ability. 

Both NORAD & NATO are MUTUAL defense treaties and let's be honest, we're not doing our fair share to contribute to either.  The Aussie Hornet buy rather than working to fix that problem actually doubles down on our position and thumbs our noses at those members who are making fair contributions.  We can't do that and not expect hard feelings at the minimum.  And Trump has shown that he seldom limits his displeasure to hard feelings.  Many Canadians may complain, but often you reap what you sow.

Not disagreeing with you at all on either your NORAD or NATO points.  And you are correct, they would have a more than fair argument that buying older & used aircraft is actually us diminishing our capacity rather than building it, even if it is just a stop-gap until a replacement project is finished.

Questions though...what COULD we realistically do to contribute more to either, without a real & tangible threat that we are mission focused on?  (aka Afghanistan)

NORAD - we have radar capabilities & fighter capabilities to respond to unauthorized airspace entries.  We have satellite imagery to cover overlap that, which contributes to us being able to see ship traffic, etc.  What more COULD and SHOULD we do in regards to NORAD?

NATO - considering NATO isn't facing an immediate war along it's border, what more can we do to show we are committed to the alliance?  We are currently deployed to Mali to support UN operations there, leading the mission in Iraq with 4 additional Griffons being deployed there also, leading the battle-group & contributing 540 personnel the operation in Latvia, have trainers in Ukraine, regularly have ships sailing throughout European waters, Persian Gulf, off the coast of Africa, CF-18's deployed to help police Baltic states & Iceland, etc.

What more COULD and SHOULD a country of our size contribute to NATO operations during peacetime, like we are in now?  (Honest, open questions - curious to hear replies from the folks here)

 

[Rifleman62]

CBH99:

If he was so petty as to refuse to allow the Australians to sell to the Canadians aging jets that are almost 40yrs old, he'd be doing both countries a disservice.  He'd be robbing the Australians of the sale to Canada, and signalling to Canada he's willing to allow petty trade squabbles to limit Canada's ability to contribute to NORAD & NATO.

He'd also be signalling to both countries that he doesn't respect nor recognize their ability to do business with each other.

Disagree. IMHO, Trump respects the Aussies wrt Australia's contributions to their own countries defence and strong presence in the Pacific to assist with the threat from China. Not so much Canada and Trudeau who Trump feels back stabbed him after the G7. Trump may say no used F-18's, time to step up to the plate wrt defence spending, NORAD/NATO, and you do that by purchasing F-35's which helps with US employment/trade. etc.

In other news:

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/federal-auditor-general-to-dive-into-contentious-fighter-jet-capability-gap?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

Federal auditor general to dive into contentious fighter-jet 'capability gap' - 26 Jul 18

Extract: Those included plans to “examine the current and expected fighter-jet capability gap; and to look at how the RCAF plans to maintain its readiness levels to meet Canada’s obligations as it transitions to a new fighter fleet.” An attached presentation added that the audit was important to assure the Defence Department was meeting its mandate to protect Canadians and allied countries. It also planned to delve into the impact of extending the lives of Canada’s 76 CF-18s, which are nearly 40 years old, and the cost of maintaining and operating a fighter fleet.

and:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/john-ivison-auditors-f35-lightning-to-strike-twice-and-this-time-the-liberals-may-get-burned

John Ivison: Auditor's F35 lightning to strike twice — and this time the Liberals may get burned - 27 Jul 18
Harjit Sajjan and Jonathan Vance are going to enjoy a dish of cold revenge, a full two years after their claims that the country faced an urgent shortage of fighter jets

 

[suffolkowner]

If you look at NATO excluding the US there is about 1900 fighters for $20 trillion in GDP and $310 billion in defence expenditures. That works out to 150(GDP)/100(DE) fighters for Canada.

If you look at the RCAF's availability and sustainability numbers that works out to 65 aircraft for the 36 required by NORAD. 88 aircraft would/should allow the 36 aircraft for the NORAD commitment with two expeditionary 6 packs simultaneously. Some of the earlier F-35 literature had Canada down for 80 aircraft, effectively replacing what we have now, while limiting us to the 36 NORAD and one 6 pack simultaneously. The above numbers would of course be subject to real world experiences with availability and sustainability.

It could be assumed that the F-35 might be below those numbers initially on introduction while maintenance skills/knowledge are being developed and that our current F-18's might struggle to meet those objectives at the end of their lives  :dunno:

I've posted this before but here is one of James Hasik's earlier takes on how/wher US fighter fleet numbers came from/are going

http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2013/04/how-the-us-may-buy-at-most-750-f-35s.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

IDF to get new F-15s vice more F-35s?

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus, IAI, Compete for Israeli Air Force’s Huge Procurement Program
...
The IAF purchases will include a fighter squadron, a transport helicopter squadron, a cargo squadron, and six refueling planes. And the winners will be decided very soon.

...it appears that the big winner in this unusually large procurement plan will be Boeing, both in fighter jets and of refueling planes.

Israel Hayom reported Sunday that the Israeli Air Force is currently in negotiations with Boeing regarding a deal with a potential value of up to $11 billion, the IAF’s largest-ever acquisition, to include a squadron of F-15 jets with upgraded stealth features, a squadron of transport helicopters and KC-46 tanker aircraft.

All the purchase will be funded with the annual $3.8 billion in US military aid, over the next ten years. The F-15s acquisition would mark the first Boeing fighter jet purchase by the IAF in 20 years. Over the past two decades, Israel has bought 100 F-16s and 50 F-35s from Lockheed Martin...
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/lockheed-martin-boeing-airbus-iai-compete-for-israeli-air-forces-huge-procurement-program/2018/07/30/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

IDF to get new F-15s vice more F-35s?

Where in the article does it say they're cutting F-35 purchases to fund F-15s?

 

[MarkOttawa]

PuckChaser:

Not "cutting" F-35 buy, rather looking to buy new F-15s instead of more/more F-35s.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

PuckChaser:

Not "cutting" F-35 buy, rather looking to buy new F-15s instead of more/more F-35s.

Mark
Ottawa

It doesn't say that either, just said any purchases come out of the $3.8B USD per year pot of military aid money. They've already bought 50, planned purchases are 75.

 

[YZT580]

The Israelis already operate both the Eagle and the Strike eagle and they have been very successful with them.  If they are now buying new-build F15s it is because they have identified weaknesses in the F35 performance and are taking steps to work around the limitations.  Potentially the F-35 will choreograph the activities whilst remaining silent and refraining from taking a shot (except in self-defense) to ensure that they remain hidden.  The F-15's will do the actual killing until such time as air superiority is assured.  At least that is the way I see it. 

 

[CBH99]

Kind of relates to the F-15X concept, in which even the USAF is realizing it might be better to replace/supplement the F-15 fleet with upgraded new build aircraft than put all the cards in one basket.

Not knocking the F-35 at all.  But it's a tool for the toolbelt, not the only tool in the belt. 

 

[RDBZ]

The Israelis already operate both the Eagle and the Strike eagle and they have been very successful with them.  If they are now buying new-build F15s it is because they have identified weaknesses in the F35 performance and are taking steps to work around the limitations.  Potentially the F-35 will choreograph the activities whilst remaining silent and refraining from taking a shot (except in self-defense) to ensure that they remain hidden.  The F-15's will do the actual killing until such time as air superiority is assured.  At least that is the way I see it.

That action might not be necessarily be driven by shortfalls in the F-35's abilities though.  It's quite likely far easier to integrate Israeli systems and avionics into the F-15, particularly when the F-35s stealth and integration are not needed for most missions.  Add to that a greater level of local control over maintenance and sustainment issues and programs.

 

[a_majoor]

One other aspect which should be considered is the F-15, particularly the Strike Eagle, is a much bigger plane with a larger loadout of weapons. The F-35 can go in and deliver a pinpoint, precision strike, while some versions of the F-15 have been demonstrated with up to 16 AAM's, and the Strike Eagle can carry a huge load of bombs and guided missiles. In many ways a team of F-35's and F-15's would replicate the USAF's idea of having "arsenal planes" to carry weapons which the fifth generation fighters target, only instead of a lumbering B-52, the arsenal is carried by an aircraft which is itself a full up fighter.

The only way to be even "better" would be to investigate a modified F-35. Some proposals have been floated to lengthen the fuselage and replace the wings with a much larger "delta" type wing, similar in effect to the F-16XL project from the 1990's. This would create an aircraft with a much larger payload concealed inside the stealth fuselage. Of course this was only a proposal and I doubt that it has been followed up very vigorously, but it is an example of what may be possible with the right funding and conditions.

 

[MilEME09]

One other aspect which should be considered is the F-15, particularly the Strike Eagle, is a much bigger plane with a larger loadout of weapons. The F-35 can go in and deliver a pinpoint, precision strike, while some versions of the F-15 have been demonstrated with up to 16 AAM's, and the Strike Eagle can carry a huge load of bombs and guided missiles. In many ways a team of F-35's and F-15's would replicate the USAF's idea of having "arsenal planes" to carry weapons which the fifth generation fighters target, only instead of a lumbering B-52, the arsenal is carried by an aircraft which is itself a full up fighter.

The only way to be even "better" would be to investigate a modified F-35. Some proposals have been floated to lengthen the fuselage and replace the wings with a much larger "delta" type wing, similar in effect to the F-16XL project from the 1990's. This would create an aircraft with a much larger payload concealed inside the stealth fuselage. Of course this was only a proposal and I doubt that it has been followed up very vigorously, but it is an example of what may be possible with the right funding and conditions.

Essentially use the 35's to hit radar, Air defense, etc in the first wave, followed up by massive strikes by F-15's? would make sense to me, wave 1 sneaks in, wave 2 dominates the now open air space.

 

[Dale Denton]

Agreed, a smart, cheap, and simple way of maintaining/building capability, increasing airframes, and replacing an older AC at the same time. No need for a stealthy F-35 when theres nothing to hide from, why not send in a cheap, safe, and familiar bomb truck? This project also doesn't step on any big-ticket projects already in the running (aside from Light Attack, A-10 replacements).

Speaking of which, would it make sense to up-gun one of these (or more ammunition storage) and turn it into an A-10 'lite'.

 

[YZT580]

Agreed, a smart, cheap, and simple way of maintaining/building capability, increasing airframes, and replacing an older AC at the same time. No need for a stealthy F-35 when theres nothing to hide from, why not send in a cheap, safe, and familiar bomb truck? This project also doesn't step on any big-ticket projects already in the running (aside from Light Attack, A-10 replacements).

Speaking of which, would it make sense to up-gun one of these (or more ammunition storage) and turn it into an A-10 'lite'.

Not rugged enough to get down and dirty.  OK for stand-off, in fact, superior to the A-10 in that mode but...  Besides, they cost too much to risk in the ground environment.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I thinknit has more do to with protecting technology (in the sense that if it is downed, the enemy has access to that technology) rather than not being ruggerized enough.

If I was someone on the ground, I’d be far more afraid of hearing jet noise but not seeing them than seeing a jet down low.

The one thing differenciating the A-10 from othet fighters is that it is their primary role and 90% of their training revolves around CAS.  That’s why they are better at it than most other platforms.

 

[OldSolduer]

Ive been reading this and similar threads for at least five years now and Canada is no closer to procuring a new fighter than they were then. In a few respects IMO we are further away.

It’s time someone of importance told the GoC that they better get their collective heads out of their posteriors and get moving on this.