• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

I don't think the military is lacking applicants. They have a certain maximum number and are careful not to exceed that number. But if the Navy acquired aircraft carriers, or began building them, then that maximum number would increase, and would begin accepting applications for those positions.

Getting slightly off topic again, my apologies.

F-35C... there we go.  :whistle:
 
Czech_pivo said:
I've heard others state similar things - lack of sailors/airmen.  Is this because the intake process is long, convoluted and broken or is this because the overall compensation is lacking.  Is it because of a very small number being allowed to be accepted yearly.  What is the overall issue or issues?



Curious to hear this also, but from some folks in the Air Force and from an Air Force standpoint.  (Since it's an RCAF thread)

We've heard lots about pilots & technicians not sticking around, but what are the main things that is causing the RCAF to lose those people?  Are the issues easily fixable, or are they deeper issues that would be challenging?  Is it a long and painful recruiting process?  etc
 
CBH99 said:
Curious to hear this also, but from some folks in the Air Force and from an Air Force standpoint.  (Since it's an RCAF thread)

We've heard lots about pilots & technicians not sticking around, but what are the main things that is causing the RCAF to lose those people?  Are the issues easily fixable, or are they deeper issues that would be challenging?  Is it a long and painful recruiting process?  etc

While noting the source of this article is a bit biased, it does a good job of describing the issues with recruiting - in the US at any rate.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-recruitment-problem-the-military-doesnt-want-to-talk-about/

And no, I don't want to derail this thread (for a change :) ).
 
CBH99, I’d say it’s more an issue of institutional challenges with fair and open communications with key (all) personnel groupings in the Air Force.  Multiple promises to disparate groups and even down to individual levels don’t turn out well when everyone starts to cross-check stories with each other.  Everyone’s special until it turns out no one's special and faith is lost and many take that as the ‘walk in the snow storm’ moment to take stock and see what’s important in the overall picture.  Reinforced by anecdotal and close-in post-RCAF experiences by many who’ve moved in, and the Air Force ‘walk’ is seen by many still in to not align with the ‘talk’ and then one sees the individual (chose to) walk.  Master of One’s own destiny.

:2c:  YMMV

Regards
G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
CBH99, I’d say it’s more an issue of institutional challenges with fair and open communications with key (all) personnel groupings in the Air Force.  Multiple promises to disparate groups and even down to individual levels don’t turn out well when everyone starts to cross-check stories with each other.  Everyone’s special until it turns out no one's special and faith is lost and many take that as the ‘walk in the snow storm’ moment to take stock and see what’s important in the overall picture.  Reinforced by anecdotal and close-in post-RCAF experiences by many who’ve moved in, and the Air Force ‘walk’ is seen by many still in to not align with the ‘talk’ and then one sees the individual (chose to) walk.  Master of One’s own destiny.

:2c:  YMMV

Regards
G2G

The Navy's a good example to us all. Start them young, build the culture, and then learn about what is really important from watching them:

https://navyleague.ca/navy-league-cadets/
 
Well we are always looking for serving personal to speak to our Cadets, so if your near North Van with free Tuesday evening, we be honoured to have you  ;D
 
I read this entire Topic and I don't recall seeing any possible solutions to this issue, but if Lockheed wins the bid with their F-35A (which is what they're offering), will the RCAF be able to provide air-to-air refueling to those aircraft? Since the F-35A is refueled by the boom system, not the probe/basket like the CF-188.

Any thoughts?
 
There is a project on the books to replace the Polaris a/c, which provide the current refuelling capability to the CAF.  It is reasonable to assume that the project will acquire refuelling aircraft that are compatible with the future fighters.
 
If this goes through price of Super Hornets for RCAF would go well up and the path to its being an orphan aircraft would shorten:

Navy Cuts Super Hornet Production to Develop Next-Generation Fighter

The Navy wants to truncate production of the legacy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in favor of pumping money into accelerating the development of its long-gestating next-generation carrier-based fighter program, the service revealed in its Fiscal Year 2021 budget request.

Next year’s order of two dozen F/A-18E/F Super Hornets would be the last on the books for the Navy under this plan. In 2019, Super Hornet maker Boeing won a $4-billion multi-year contract to buy 78 Super Hornets through FY 2021.

According to the justification in the documents, the money the Navy for planned a subsequent multiyear buy of 36 Super Hornets from FY 2022 to 2024 would be rerouted to “accelerated development of Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and other key aviation wholeness investments,” read the documents.

The cut of the Super Hornets past FY 2021 is estimated to route $4.5 billion over the five-year horizon of the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to the new aviation effort.

“The decision to cease F/A-18 procurement after FY 2021 ensures the Carrier Air Wing will maintain capable strike fighter capacity to pace the most stressing threats through the 2030s [emphasis added],” read the Navy documents.

The NGAD program, previously known as F/A-XX, has sought to replace the payload capacity of the Super Hornets on carrier decks as the incoming F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter brings a stealthy fighter to the air wing. The program has had fits and starts over the last decade as the service has grappled with shaping the future of the air wing.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said late last year said the service was still thinking about how it would move forward with carrier aviation.

“I do think we need an aviation combatant, but what the aviation combatant of the future looks like? I don’t know yet. I think there’s going to be a requirement to continue to deliver a seaborne launched vehicle through the air that’ll deliver an effect downrange,” Gilday said at U.S. Naval Institute’s Defense Forum Washington conference.

“I do think that that will likely be a mix of manned and unmanned. The platform which they launch from? I’m not sure what that’s going to look like.”

The Navy has been widely criticized for not modernizing its air wing to keep up with the growing threat of longer-range guided missiles that can put capital ships like carriers at risk. Pentagon leaders singled out the Chinese Dongfeng family of DF-21 and DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles as a key threat last year.

A study released last year by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said that, in order for a future carrier air wing to be effective in a major conflict with China, it would need to develop aircraft that could operate consistently at ranges of up to 1,000 nautical miles from the carrier. That’s double the effective combat range of an F-35C.

It’s unclear if NGAD will be manned, unmanned or some combination of both
[emphasis added]. While former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said in 2015 that the F-35C would be the last manned fighter the service would buy, the service has been lukewarm in introducing unmanned carrier aircraft into the air wing.

It abandoned a program to develop a low-observable, carrier-based unmanned strike aircraft in favor of the current MQ-25A Stingray unmanned refueling aircraft.

Last year, Navy leaders said they weren’t working on development of a new unmanned carrier aircraft.

“We are just compelled to be somewhat pragmatic in how well they work before we over-commit. We have a limited budget; we also have real lives at stake,” then-Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems (OPNAV N9) Vice Adm. Bill Merz said last year.

“Unmanned isn’t really unmanned, you just don’t have a body sitting in the platform. There’s a lot of support. You have deck handling, a lot of things you have to come through to bring these things aboard a maritime environment.”
https://news.usni.org/2020/02/10/navy-cuts-super-hornet-production-to-develop-next-generation-fighter

Mark
Ottawa
 
This is interesting:

PLAAF Senior Pilot Reveals Poor Performance in Joint Exercise With RTAF

An early December 2019 report from inside of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) reveals previously unreleased technical details of People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) Russian-built Su-27s losing a majority of engagements in a November 2015 joint exercise with the 701 Fighter Squadron of the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF). This Thai unit operates eight Saab JAS-39C and four JAS-39D Gripens.

The engagements, known as Falcon Strike 2015, were the first of three such exercises and were detailed in a lecture given by one of the PLAAF’s most heavily decorated pilots, Senior Colonel Li Chunghua Hua (李中華), at the PRC’s Northwestern Polytechnical University (西北工业大学) in Xi’an, Shaanxi Province.

Li is described as one of the most experienced Sukhoi Su-27SK/J-11A pilots in the PLAAF with some 3,200 hours in fast jets, much of them in the Russian-made Sukhoi.  His revelations are unprecedented and are assessed by US intelligence as demonstrating a growing concern within the officer corps over deficiencies with the training regime for the PLAAF’s pilot cadre.

These first exercises ran at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base and showed the advantages of the smaller and more technologically-advanced Gripen over the Russian Sukhoi.  Several of Li’s summations from the exercise are:

    *The JAS-39 performance was at its worst inside the within visual range (WVR) envelope.  Over a two-day period, PLAAF pilots shot down 25 Gripens at a loss of only one Su-27.  The Su-27 has an advantage over the performance of the JAS-39 due to its more powerful Salyut AL-31F engines, and the Swedish aircraft was handicapped in that it was equipped with the older-generation AIM-9L Sidewinder instead of the current-generation Diehl IRIS-T missile.
    *Once the exercise transitioned to beyond visual range (BVR) combat, the superiority of the JAS-39 became readily apparent.  The Swedish aircraft shot down 41 Su-27s over a period of four days with a loss of only nine JAS-39s.
    #The Su-27s flown by the PLAAF were operating with a modified version of the NIIP N001 radar that could fire the Vympel RVV-AE active-homing air-to-air missile (AAM). But its effective detection range was only 120km in comparison with the JAS-39’s Ericsson PS-05/A at 160km.  The Gripen’s Raytheon AIM-120 AAM also outranged the RVV-AE at 80km versus only 50 km for the Russian missile.
    *Li stated that the JAS-39C/D’s much smaller radar cross-section (RCS) at 1.5-2.0 m2 was a major factor, as the much larger Su-27 is easier to detect at 12 sq miles.  The JAS-39 can also ripple-fire up to four AIM-120s simultaneously but the Su-27 can fire only one RVV-AE at a time.

Gripen achieved 88 percent of its kills at 19 miles or greater, while the Su-27 had just 14 percent of its kills at this range. The RTAF also had 10 kills at a distance of more than 31 miles compared with zero long-distance kills by the Su-27.

In subsequent exercises the PLAAF fared better by sending the Chengdu J-10A - and then in 2019 the J-10C - in place of the Su-27.  Li pointed out that the J-10C was more of a match for the JAS-39C/D in that “its active array radar significantly improves detection distance and multi-target attack capability, the DSI (divertless) air intake of the J-10C reduces the radar intercept area while the PL-15 missile increases the range, making it an over-the-horizon platform.”

Li also commented that the next-generation version of the Gripen, the JAS-39E, is likely to feature even more advanced combat performance.  His interest in the aircraft parallels a larger body of analysis within the PLA intelligence community that has had a fixation on the design and development of the Gripen as a template for PRC industry to follow.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-02-08/plaaf-senior-pilot-reveals-poor-performance-joint-exercise-rtaf

Mark
Ottawa
 
Drallib said:
I read this entire Topic and I don't recall seeing any possible solutions to this issue, but if Lockheed wins the bid with their F-35A (which is what they're offering), will the RCAF be able to provide air-to-air refueling to those aircraft? Since the F-35A is refueled by the boom system, not the probe/basket like the CF-188.

Any thoughts?

We would just do what we always do, feed off US tankers until procurement takes their thumb out of their ass and makes a decision on the Polaris replacement. Next gen fighter will enter service around what, 2025? By that timeline we will see the new tanker/transport by 2035.
 
Drallib said:
I read this entire Topic and I don't recall seeing any possible solutions to this issue, but if Lockheed wins the bid with their F-35A (which is what they're offering), will the RCAF be able to provide air-to-air refueling to those aircraft? Since the F-35A is refueled by the boom system, not the probe/basket like the CF-188.

Any thoughts?

I believe it has been mentioned by the RCAF several times that no decision on the Polaris replacement will happen until the CF-18 replacement has been decided (I think recently in the Canadian Defence Review or Skies mags). Really there are only two choices the Airbus 330 MRTT or the Boeing KC-46 and both can be equipped for receptacle or probe or both. I'm assuming this is an attempt to simplify the acquisition process by eliminating options
 
At the rate things are going, there will be a switch to 6th generation fighters (or whatever platform carries out those functions) by the rest of the world's air forces by the time we figure this out.

Perhaps the only saving grace would be if the USAF decides to go for the new "Century Series" idea of producing a few hundred new fighters of different designs every few years. While only the USAF could possibly afford the full program, by the time we get our heads unstuck, we could possibly buy into one of these programs (If the USAF is building 300 of the F-205, we order 100 on the end of the line) which would satisfy the need for some time, Indeed, as the USAF divests itself of "legacy" F-205's, Canada can buy them for parts...
 
suffolkowner said:
I believe it has been mentioned by the RCAF several times that no decision on the Polaris replacement will happen until the CF-18 replacement has been decided (I think recently in the Canadian Defence Review or Skies mags). Really there are only two choices the Airbus 330 MRTT or the Boeing KC-46 and both can be equipped for receptacle or probe or both. I'm assuming this is an attempt to simplify the acquisition process by eliminating options

Found the SkiesMag page on it! Thanks :)

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/boeing-bid-kc-46-future-rcaf-tanker-program/
 

Attachments

  • kc46a4_new_960-resized.jpg
    kc46a4_new_960-resized.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 101
Good2Golf--as I pointed out here  ;):

MarkOttawa said:
If this goes through price of Super Hornets for RCAF would go well up and the path to its being an orphan aircraft would shorten:

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top