• 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)

Personally based on my limited knowledge I would prefer the F-35 over the SuperHornet although I still have concerns about its operating costs. A bigger concern might be in the number of units acquired. To me there is no point on acquiring 88 new fighters if we don't have the people to keep them in the air. The same could be said for the CSC program run of up to 15 ships. Although I have a good idea how the government comes up with it's fighter jet numbers I can not say the same for the ships.
 
The way the number of CSCs was calculated is the following: Either coast at all time has to be able to deploy a Canadian Task Force (CTF) of three ships (two optimized for ASW/SuW, and one optimized for command/AAD), with another TF getting ready. Then you add one or two hulls per coast to cover ships in long refit - with one ship being able to swing coast as required.

It's that simple, and such CTF is a powerful tool in naval terms.
 
FSTO said:
Funny you should mention the Kiwi's. I share an office with Aus/UK/Kiwi officers here in Bahrain. I said to the Kiwi Cdr that to complete the trifecta of buying used equipment from our Commonwealth cousins, Canada will be purchasing the retired Kiwi P3's to supplement our IR fleet.  ;D

The Aussie Cdr said "Sounds like a probable COA for you guys."

Yep.

:not-again:
 
Another indication that 'amateurs talk tactics while professionals study logistics.'

The Real F-35 Problem We Need to Solve

Unless its logistics can be improved, the jet’s contributions to a major fight will be far less than Pentagon wargamers are counting on.

When Pentagon strategists game out potential near-peer conflicts, they tend to plug in sortie-generation rates for the F-35 Lightning II that reflect the program’s original vision, not the far lower numbers that represent the actual state of things. But if planners intend to count on the F-35 in a battle of any but the shortest duration, the Pentagon and industry must urgently improve their ability to maintain and sustain the most technologically complex (and capable) aircraft in history. A performance-based logistics plan currently being discussed is worth considering.

I confess that as a young Marine Corps aviator, I cared not at all for logistics. My peers and I took for granted that our EA-6B Prowlers would be ready to go every time we were ordered into the skies over Iraq and Bosnia. And they were. In the 1990s and well into the 2000s, the maintenance readiness of our Vietnam-era jets rivaled that of aircraft two and three decades younger. In the early 2000s, the Navy Department decided to extend the EA-6Bs’ service life yet again. Soon our Prowlers were deploying nonstop around the globe, and flying at a rate significantly higher than in previous decades.

What kept our Methuselah jet improving with age? Money, expertise, and need. The costs of PRL (program related logistics) and PRE (program related engineering) rose as the plane flew on well beyond its designed lifespan. The intricacies of maintenance and logistics were well understood and well-tended by Northrop Grumman and other companies, working with Naval Air Systems Command engineers and the fleet’s own experts. And the need for electronic-warfare planes assets only grew as the world entered the Network Age.

The Prowler was a relatively small program – the classic “low density, high demand” asset — while the F-35 Lightning II is the largest acquisition program in the country's history. More than 500 F-35s are flying already; plans call for a total of 2,456. But the F-35 program faces the same central questions we confronted with the Prowler: how to sustain it, how to best maintain readiness, and how to devise a functional supply and maintenance system.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/09/real-f-35-problem-we-need-solve/168883/
 
FSTO said:
Funny you should mention the Kiwi's. I share an office with Aus/UK/Kiwi officers here in Bahrain. I said to the Kiwi Cdr that to complete the trifecta of buying used equipment from our Commonwealth cousins, Canada will be purchasing the retired Kiwi P3's to supplement our IR fleet.  ;D

The Aussie Cdr said "Sounds like a probable COA for you guys."

To extend the lifespan of Canada's Herc-H fleet (a number of years ago), the CAF purchased retired US Hercs with less stress on the wingsets; cut out the wings, and grafted them onto our a/c (as that was cheaper and faster than taking the US a/c and Canadianizing them).
 
suffolkowner said:
A bigger concern might be in the number of units acquired. To me there is no point on acquiring 88 new fighters if we don't have the people to keep them in the air.

We've been operating undermanned for years now so this isn't anything new. Eventually burn out the people that keep them flying and promote under qualified, inexperienced techs. This is the RCAF motto, in the fighter force anyway. Do more with nothing.
 
Quirky said:
We've been operating undermanned for years now so this isn't anything new. Eventually burn out the people that keep them flying and promote under qualified, inexperienced techs. This is the RCAF motto, in the fighter force anyway. Do more with nothing.

No, that's in all fleets.
 
reveng said:
It goes beyond the RCAF. It's a joint, total force approach to mediocrity & irrelevance.

:nod:

As shown by the fact VOR rates went down during covid critical manning limits.
 
I wonder how Boeing's offer comparison to SAAB's offer in economic benefits.

Boeing outlines $61B in Future Fighter benefits

Boeing on October 27 stated its bid in the Government of Canada’s ongoing Future Fighter Capability Project procurement competition, if successful, would provide $61 billion and nearly 250,000 jobs to the Canadian economy. Required by the competition’s RFP, the economic benefits outlined by Boeing are largely based on five new agreements with its Canadian aerospace partners involved in the bid.

Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) aims to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s ageing fleet of CF-188 Hornet’s with 88 new-generation fighters. The competition centres around three fighter jets in the Saab Gripen E, Boeing F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

“Canada is one of Boeing’s most enduring partners and has continuously demonstrated that they have a robust and capable industry supporting both our commercial and defence businesses,” said Charles “Duff” Sullivan, managing director, Boeing Canada. “The large scale and scope of these Canadian projects reinforces Boeing’s commitment to Canada and gives us an opportunity to build on our motto of promises made, promises kept.”

Boeing explains that, based on new data and projections from economists at Ottawa-based Doyletech Corp., the total economic benefits to Canada and its workforce for the acquisition of the F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet will last for at least 40 years and benefit all regions based of the country.

“Boeing and its Super Hornet industry partners have a long track record of delivering economic growth to Canada, which gave us the confidence that our data and detailed projections are extremely accurate,” Rick Clayton, economist at Doyletech Corp.

The $61 billion in economic benefits outlined by Boeing with a Block III Super Hornet selection in the FFCP are largely based on partnerships with five Canadian-based aerospace operations, including:

CAE (Montreal, Quebec)
Boeing and CAE’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlines the implementation of a training solution for the Block III Super Hornet based in Canada and under full control of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). This includes full mission simulators and part task training devices for pilot training and maintenance technician training, courseware, as well as Contractor Logistics Support, Training Support Services, and Facilities Services to support RCAF training.

L3Harris Technologies (Mirabel, Quebec)
Boeing and L3Harris’ MOU includes a range of sustainment services, including depot and base maintenance, engineering and publications support for the Canadian Super Hornet fleet; potential for other Super Hornet depot work; and maintenance scope for Canada’s CH-147 Chinook fleet.

Peraton Canada (Calgary, Alberta)
Boeing and Peraton currently work closely together on CF-18 upgrades. This work will expand to include a full range of Super Hornet avionic repair and overhaul work in Canada.

Raytheon Canada Limited (Calgary, Alberta)
Boeing and Raytheon Canada’s MOU outlines the implementation of large-scale supply chain and warehousing services at Cold Lake and Bagotville to support the new Super Hornet fleet, as well as potential depot avionics radar support.

GE Canada Aviation (Mississauga, Ontario)
In cooperation with its parent organization, GE Canada will continue to provide both onsite maintenance, repair and overhaul support services for the F414 engines used on the Super Hornet, as well as technical services and engineering within Canada in support of RCAF operations and aircraft engine sustainment.

With its past partners, Boeing notes it has delivered on billions of dollars in industrial and technological benefits obligations dating back more than 25 years. The work started with the sale of the F/A-18s in the mid-1980s and progressed through more recent obligations including acquisition of and sustainment work on the C-17 Globemaster and the CH-47F Chinooks to meet Canada’s domestic and international missions.

Boeing states its direct spending in Canada in 2019 rose to $2.3 billion, a 15 per cent increase in four years. When the indirect and induced effects are calculated, Doyletech states this amount more than doubles to $5.3 billion, with 20,700 jobs.

Boeing notes its partnership with Canada dates back to 1919, when Bill Boeing made the first international airmail delivery from Vancouver to Seattle. Today, Canada is among Boeing’s largest international supply bases, with more than 500 major suppliers spanning across country. With nearly 1,500 employees, Boeing Canada supplies composite parts for all current Boeing commercial airplane models and supports Canadian airlines and the Canadian Armed Forces with products and services.

https://www.wingsmagazine.com/boeing-outlines-61b-in-future-fighter-benefits/
 
With regards to the F-18E/3
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that we will be buying into a platform that is reaching it's end of life (in terms of it's future capacity to be adapted/expanded for operational requirements moving forward).
This will probably be the last manned aircraft that the GOC will buy.

And it will be expected to retain a degree of relevance for the next 35+ years.

No other platform (outside of the F-35) realistically meets the requirement...or am I wrong?

I'm just a fly on the wall here, OTOH?
These are my tax dollars being spent and I'd like to know where they're going.



 
You are both right and wrong.  SupersonicMax is our resident fighter pilot / expert on these things, and has provided some great contributions if you scroll through the thread.


You right right in that the Super Hornet is potentially limited in it's future growth potential.  There are always things that can be modified & upgraded, such as IRST sensors, more powerful or fuel efficient engines, upgraded power plants, etc.  However, in general, it's ability to be upgraded for the next 35+ years is something I think we all agree isn't in it's favour.

However, the USN has stated they want an operational fleet of 650 Block 3 Super Hornets in the fleet, with total aircraft numbers around 720.  That isn't anything to sneeze it.

If Germany, Finland, Kuwait, and Canada are all included in those numbers, we are looking at a fleet of roughly 1000 relatively new Block 3 Super Hornets globally.  So there will be a strong motivate both operationally and financially to keep those aircraft relevant.  (With the exception of Kuwait, the Super Hornet is currently in competition with Germany, Finland, Canada) 

Especially since their sustainment cost is substantially less than an F-35 (maintenance of stealthy coating alone is pretty darn  expensive) - countries using it primarily for 'Non 1st Day of War' purposes may find it to be an affordable alternative to the F-35, that does everything they need it to do.




The F-35 is clearly the best choice, and I don't think anybody who knows anything about these types of matters would disagree with that.  It has won every competition it's entered, and every country that has been provided with the classified info has chosen it.  Canada, being a partner nation in it's development, has access to that information.

The problem with the F-35 was that they designed it pretty much in the public eye, in an age where social media & mainstream media reign supreme.  Instead of developing it quietly, working out the bugs, and presenting it for competition - they developed it very much in the public eye, almost from scratch.  So the public's perception of the aircraft is very much skewed & unfair.

Add to that our brilliant PM's blatantly stupid statement that "He will run a fair and open competition, that specifically excludes one particular plane" (an oxymoron) - and the pressure on him to fulfill that promise, despite it's stupidity, the F-35 has had to fight an unfair uphill battle to have it's merits considered, despite it being the best choice.



Politicians are dumb, especially ours.  The mainstream media is dumb, at best - sensationalistic and extremely biased, at worst.  (Which makes them more akin to propaganda, than news.)  And the average person is dumb when it comes to military matters, international relations, international trade, etc.  Combine those things, and we'll get whatever we get....hopefully our CDS & VCDS are listened to. 

:2c:
 
I'm surprised this hasn't been posted already, but Brigadier-General (Ret) Charles S. “Duff” Sullivan, Managing Director Boeing Canada, wrote an article titled "Block III Super Hornet – Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Capability for the 21st Century".

Even though he works with Boeing it's still a good read on his experience as an RCAF Fighter Pilot and his views on the Block III Super Hornet.

https://www.rcafassociation.ca/advocacy/links-resources/block-iii-super-hornet-canadas-next-generation-fighter-capability-for-the-21st-century-by-duff-sullivan-managing-director-boeing-canada/
 
Drallib said:
I'm surprised this hasn't been posted already, but Brigadier-General (Ret) Charles S. “Duff” Sullivan, Managing Director Boeing Canada, wrote an article titled "Block III Super Hornet – Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Capability for the 21st Century".

Even though he works with Boeing it's still a good read on his experience as an RCAF Fighter Pilot and his views on the Block III Super Hornet.

https://www.rcafassociation.ca/advocacy/links-resources/block-iii-super-hornet-canadas-next-generation-fighter-capability-for-the-21st-century-by-duff-sullivan-managing-director-boeing-canada/

There are a few issues I have with that article, but the big one to me is the "long term USN commitment" argument.  The USN actually started the project to replace the Super Hornet this summer with the Next Generation Air Dominance initiative.  Their plan is to start replacing them and the Growlers in the 2030s.

https://news.usni.org/2020/08/18/navy-quietly-starts-development-of-next-generation-carrier-fighter-plans-call-for-manned-long-range-aircraft
 
Dimsum said:
There are a few issues I have with that article, but the big one to me is the "long term USN commitment" argument.  The USN actually started the project to replace the Super Hornet this summer with the Next Generation Air Dominance initiative.  Their plan is to start replacing them and the Growlers in the 2030s.

https://news.usni.org/2020/08/18/navy-quietly-starts-development-of-next-generation-carrier-fighter-plans-call-for-manned-long-range-aircraft

They haven’t been able to field a squadron of F-35s, so I don’t think a non-militaristic democratic government would be inclined to offer up another 100 billion for development of virtual vapourware.

The next war will likely involve cruise missiles and UCAVs, not planes cruising over enemy territory. Just like the notion of the marines attacking from the sea is ridiculous given manpads and RPGs.

I know the F-35 will be a great aircraft when it’s finished. But the American’s congress has said it isn’t. That’s why it’s still in IOC.

I’m still curious what happened to the X-47b.
 
MTShaw said:
I’m still curious what happened to the X-47b.

"The X-47B demonstrators themselves were intended to become museum exhibits after the completion of their flight testing, but the Navy later decided to maintain them in flying condition pending further development.[10][11]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
 
Dimsum said:
There are a few issues I have with that article, but the big one to me is the "long term USN commitment" argument.  The USN actually started the project to replace the Super Hornet this summer with the Next Generation Air Dominance initiative.  Their plan is to start replacing them and the Growlers in the 2030s.

https://news.usni.org/2020/08/18/navy-quietly-starts-development-of-next-generation-carrier-fighter-plans-call-for-manned-long-range-aircraft


I believe the USN wants roughly 650 Block 3 Super Hornets available for their squadrons, with 720 Super Hornets (perhaps remaining being Block 2?) in inventory.  Seeing as how they just received their first Block 3 aircraft in June of this last year, I doubt they will be retiring them in the 2030's.

I do hear what you are saying though. 


I just doubt the USN is going to be replacing the Block 3 Super Hornet with a manned next generation fighter in 10 years, especially when they haven't even deployed a single F-35C squadron operationally yet.

If they do deploy a next generation aircraft intended for combat, I'm leaning towards a UCAV.  :2c:
 
Germany approves 38 Eurofighter purchase

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/12/airbus-hopes-its-65-billion-german-eurofighter-sale-will-shine-for-switzerland-finland/
 
CBH99 said:
I believe the USN wants roughly 650 Block 3 Super Hornets available for their squadrons, with 720 Super Hornets (perhaps remaining being Block 2?) in inventory.  Seeing as how they just received their first Block 3 aircraft in June of this last year, I doubt they will be retiring them in the 2030's.

I do hear what you are saying though. 


I just doubt the USN is going to be replacing the Block 3 Super Hornet with a manned next generation fighter in 10 years, especially when they haven't even deployed a single F-35C squadron operationally yet.

If they do deploy a next generation aircraft intended for combat, I'm leaning towards a UCAV.  :2c:

I would be willing to bet as an air dominance aircraft they want an air superiority aircraft, not a multirole for their carrier air groups. More to compliment the F35 not replace it
 
Back
Top