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

[Good2Golf]

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.

Unless of course, the GoC is "on orders" from the Corner Office...


Regards
G2G

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nothing will happen till a couple of more planes thunder into the ground with the pilots or our allies tear us a new one for failure to show up.

 

[OldSolduer]

Call me crazy but I think JT et al would like it if we purchased nothing. More $ for social programs.....

 

[NavyShooter]

I also suspect that he has not a care in the world for our pilots, nor our allies.

Now, what would happen if the CC150 fleet was no longer available to fly him around in comfort?  (Assuming that's what he uses?)

 

[OldSolduer]

I also suspect that he has not a care in the world for our pilots, nor our allies.

Now, what would happen if the CC150 fleet was no longer available to fly him around in comfort?  (Assuming that's what he uses?)

No doubt he’d never let that happen.

 

[Journeyman]

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.

This sounds sensible, but staying in my lane, I cannot comment.


However....

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.

???  You do  know that Wonder Woman's 'invisible jet' isn't an F-35, right?  Being more difficult to detect on radar does not make it any more or less difficult to acquire visually than any other jet.

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.

I would argue that its increased armour (defensive strength) and awesome gun system (offensive strength), compared to most other aircraft, is what makes them better than most other platforms at CAS;  being designed and tasked specifically for CAS, I would hope that that's where they emphasize their training!  Spending 90% of ones' time training at CAS in a B-52, F-35, or Sopwith Camel isn't going to make them better than an A-10.

 

[Karel Doorman]

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.

Tell that to the Taliban and ISIS,they hear the Warthog commin and see it and run like hell.

They are better at CAS because the whole plane is designed with that task in mind,simple.

-can take far more punishment then any other plane
-have far greater firepower(GAU-8),wich is quite effective for interventions where the enemy is ,let's say 100 yards in front of you then a bomb)
-Can loiter far longer then any other jet(which is quite important doing CAS)
-etc,etc
Offcourse they train 90%of the time for this specific job,as said it's what the A-10 is designed for,would be stupid to train for air to air combat,et,etc.

just my opinion,ok I'll go back in my corner now,lol

 

[SupersonicMax]

However....???  You do  know that Wonder Woman's 'invisible jet' isn't an F-35, right?  Being more difficult to detect on radar does not make it any more or less difficult to acquire visually than any other jet.

Yup.  Jet noise propagates far, further than you can easily spot an aircraft from.  Hearing close to 24/7 jet noise overhead, not knowing if there is a weapon coming your way is what would scare me in the long run.  Agreed that in the instant, the A-10 (or, to be honest, any jet) diving my way would also be terrifying.  But it would be short lived, the moment of the attack.

I would argue that its increased armour (defensive strength) and awesome gun system (offensive strength), compared to most other aircraft, is what makes them better than most other platforms at CAS;  being designed and tasked specifically for CAS, I would hope that that's where they emphasize their training!  Spending 90% of ones' time training at CAS in a B-52, F-35, or Sopwith Camel isn't going to make them better than an A-10.

You don't need armour if you're not going to execute primarily down low.  And I would argue that the offensive weapons of today's world (SDB, Dual-mode weapons, LCD, combinations thereof, etc) diminish the need for a gun (and the F-35 does have a 25mm gun in case it needs to use it).  I would be really curious to know, since Afghanistan, how many CAS attacks were conducted with the gun vs other weapons.  Persistence perhaps is the one thing the A-10 has over other platforms, but man is it slow, I remember taking off shortly before them from the same base for them to relieve my formation at the end of my VUL.  Hard to re-task them very far without a significant wait.  It also limits GCAS and XCAS' agility.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Quite so, SupersonicMAx.

I'll always remember, a few years ago, a couple of CF-18 from Bagotville playing intruders against the Vermont Air National Guard. My wife kept looking up at the direction from which the jet noise was coming from, no matter how many times I tried to point out to her the actual planes, 45 degrees away from the noise source.  ;D

 

[GR66]

Reading E.R. Campbell's very interesting thoughts on what he feels the Canadian military should look like on his always informative blog (https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/ - see "My Plan (1), (2) and (3)) got me thinking about the contentious Liberal "fighter capability gap".

While I totally agree that the Liberal government has put forward this gap for purely political reasons, I think that those of us that are in favour of a more robust military for Canada have missed an opportunity by criticizing the partisan political rationale behind the concept of the gap rather than latching on to the underlying truth behind the gap.

The fact is that if Canada ever finds itself in a situation where NATO is threatened in Europe and has to meet our NATO fighter commitment then by definition Canada and the US as key members of NATO will be under threat too.  What military sense does it make to decrease our ability to defend North America because Europe is under threat (or vice versa) because we don't have enough aircraft to defend both at once?  That would be like taking the lock off your back door to secure your front door because you hear robbers outside your house.

I would go further to suggest that our total fighter requirement should be expanded beyond meeting both our NATO and NORAD commitments simultaneously, but that we should also be able to provide an expeditionary force outside NATO at the same time.  Who's to say we're not going to already have a mission in place elsewhere in the world when a crisis hits NATO/NORAD?  Should we assume that in a crisis we will have to pull back from our existing commitments in order to defend NATO/NORAD?

The Liberals put forward the idea of the fighter capability gap for purely political reasons.  True.  But we should all jump on that opening in order to make it clear to all Canadians that it is actually true (and even less fighters than are really required).  Then we can hold the government's feet to the fire (whatever government is in power when the replacement fighters are actually purchased) to ensure that whatever aircraft is selected that they actually purchase enough to do what we need them to do.

:2c:

 

[Infanteer]

So help me with the math on this one, and in generalities to avoid lurching into OPSEC matters of force posture and readiness.  If political requirement is "contribute to NORAD" and "contribute to NATO" and "maintain ability to project a fighter/attack force abroad for other missions" then what is the math.

Is the basic unit of action the Fighter Squadron?  Or is it a half-squadron?

What's the basic readiness cycle?  I know the RCAF manages this differently with shorter tours.  Is it six-months with rotating crews for a Squadron?

Finally, how much is reasonable to commit in political and operational terms.  How much would be considered "sharing the load?"

Is the answer two squadrons on NORAD duties, two squadrons on NATO duties, and two squadrons on Expeditionary duties/backstop the other two, plus a training squadron?

Can you sustain these numbers indefinitely?  Or is the ability to handle all three (NORAD/NATO/Expeditionary) only possible in "surge capacity" (one year and then only NORAD can be covered, or something like that).

When we have discussions on what a "back of the napkin Air Force" should look like (and these are good and entertaining exercises for the learning value) these are the questions that first come to mind.

 

[GR66]

By my understanding the only firm commitment that Canada has to provide fighters is 36 available fighters for NORAD.  There is no firm commitment for Canada to provide any fighters for NATO but I don't think it would be unreasonable to plan to be able to provide a "six pack" for deterrence missions in support of our allies.  Similarly I don't think it would be unreasonable for Canada to have the ability to provide another six aircraft for non-NATO missions.  I also don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that we should be able to meet our firm NORAD obligations without having to draw back any NATO/non-NATO deployments that we have in place at the time.

So while we don't have any treaty requirement to have 48 x fighter aircraft available at any given time (36 x NORAD, 6 x NATO, 6 x other deployments) I think it would be a reasonable expectation for a middle power to be able to provide that many aircraft.

I guess then it's a matter then of looking at the availability rates of any given type of aircraft to determine how many we'd need to meet these requirements.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

On top of the fighter requirement is the ASW/maritime patrol commitments, Air transport (where we are looking quite good, thank you Harper) and the rotary aircraft, where we have some modern capacity and some deficiencies in another) the fighter question has to keep in mind these commitments as well. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'd suggest we have more demand than we can supply in the both MPA and Transport fleets...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

MPA for sure, but I suspect if you grew the transport fleet, the demand would grow was well. I suspect it's in better shape than it has been since the late 60's.

 

[PuckChaser]

We're running Globemasters almost around the clock to support operations on 3 continents. I've seen constant delays due to mechanical failure likely because we're running them into the ground.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wished we had bought more, even if we kept them in the Nevada storage facility for a bit. Anyways veering off-topic.

 

[cf100mk5]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23770/u-s-oks-canadas-purchase-of-25-second-hand-australian-f-a-18-hornets

 

[MarkOttawa]

Dassault looks like pulling Rafale out:

French firm Dassault pulls out of fighter-jet competition: Sources

The long effort to replace Canada's aging fighter jets took another surprise twist on Tuesday, as multiple sources revealed that French fighter-jet maker Dassault is pulling out of the multibillion-dollar competition.

The decision comes just over a week after the federal government published the military's requirements for a replacement for Canada's CF-18s as well as a draft process by which a winning supplier will be chosen.

Dassault had repeatedly pitched its Rafale aircraft to Canada over the years as successive governments in Ottawa have wrestled with selecting a new fighter jet. Dassault's pitch included significant promises, including that it would assemble the planes in Canada.

But sources tell The Canadian Press that Dassault's decision to withdraw was related to the fact France is not a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, which counts the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada as members [emphasis added--Saab Gripen E maybe more US compatable?]. The five members have very specific requirements for how their equipment works together.

The French government, which had been closely working with Dassault as the most recent iteration of Canada's fighter-replacement program has inched along over the past year, was preparing to notify Ottawa of the company's withdrawal.

The move leaves four companies — U.S. aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing, European competitor Airbus and Swedish firm Saab — competing for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada's 76 CF-18s with 88 new fighters.

A contract isn't expected to be awarded until 2021 or 2022, with delivery of the first new aircraft slated for 2025. In the meantime, the government is planning to upgrade its CF-18s and buy 25 used fighters from Australia as a stopgap.

Dassault faced several significant challenges in meeting Canada's requirements for a new fighter, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and while they weren't insurmountable, they would have cost time and money.

Those challenges included meeting those Five-Eyes intelligence-sharing requirements, which Perry said put Dassault at a distinct disadvantage in the competition when compared to Lockheed Martin, Boeing and, to a certain degree, Airbus.

"For any of the non-American companies, solving the Five-Eyes interoperability issues is going to be challenging," he said, noting that the U.S. in particular is very sensitive about data-sharing.

"And it costs companies a lot of money to mount and pursue bids. So if they think at this point in time that it's not a realistic prospect, then pulling out is pretty understandable."

That could explain why Dassault never established a strong presence in Canada during the many years when it was trying to sell the Rafale as a replacement for the CF-18, he added.

The CF-18s are about 35 years old. Canada's attempts to buy a new fighter jet have dragged on for nearly a decade after the previous Conservative government announced in 2010 that Canada would buy 65 F-35s without a competition, with the first to be delivered in 2015.

But the Tories pushed the reset button in 2012 after the auditor general raised questions about the program and National Defence revealed the jets would cost $46 billion over their lifetimes.

After campaigning on a promise not to buy the F-35s, the Trudeau Liberals announced in November 2016 they would take their time with a competition to replace the CF-18s, and buy 18 "interim" Boeing Super Hornets without a competition because Canada needed more fighter jets badly.

But then Boeing’s trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier saw the Liberals scrap their plan to buy Super Hornets and instead begin talks to buy 18 used fighter jets from Australia. A contract for those used planes is expected in the coming weeks.

The formal competition to replace the CF-18s is scheduled to begin next spring.

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/11/06/french-firm-dassault-pulls-out-of-fighter-jet-competition-sources-2/#.W-JEQ_ZRcqT

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

Mark - from your emphasis about the fact that Rafale is out b/c of 5 Eyes, then Gripen should be out as well since it's not even from a NATO country.