• 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)

Drallib

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
230
What does that even mean, is that supposed to be some sort of milestone? Under what conditions can it do this, clean aircraft with no weapons, what’s the acceleration, how long will it take for a clean Airshow configuration Gripen to reach those speeds? What’s the point when you’ll quickly be out of fuel and can’t sustain those speeds?

You really need to do some research on this subject, because like the typical Gripen supporter, you don’t understand why you support it and don’t bother comparing it to other platforms. Stop hanging out at blogs like Best fighter 4 Canada and you might find some real data.
I’m not saying it means anything. You said it was “fat” and “slow” so I replied that it was actually small and fast. Now you’re asking me what that’s suppose to mean? Sorry, I don’t understand you.

Calling someone a “Gripen Supporter” because they’re okay with whichever platform is chosen is a bit of a stretch. And how have I not compared it to any other platform? Have I ever said it was the best? Not at all. I simply stated or asked if it could do the job we required.

And instead of criticizing people for reading specific blogs for information, how about you be kind/helpful and point me to where you found your information?

Cheers.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,743
Points
1,160
I'm sure it'll be included, right into the cost per airframe which is already close if not higher than the F-35.
...yup, and still be Gen 3/4 technology that doesn’t give anything even close to MADL’s capacity to connect to the latest battlespace information framework. ;)
 

Drallib

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
230
On a side note, the F-35 will be doing a marketing an airshow routine in Toronto 4-6 September and again in Mirabel, QC 18-19 September.
 

Attachments

  • EoujCFnUUAIs6rt.jpg
    EoujCFnUUAIs6rt.jpg
    562.2 KB · Views: 6

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,455
Points
940
On a side note, the F-35 will be doing a marketing an airshow routine in Toronto 4-6 September and again in Mirabel, QC 18-19 September.
Is that the USAF demo team or LM's demo team?

I guess the cynical people in the crowd would say "what's the difference?"
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
125
Points
480
On a side note, the F-35 will be doing a marketing an airshow routine in Toronto 4-6 September and again in Mirabel, QC 18-19 September.

Saab should bring their Gripen E, if they ever manage to get it past the testing phase....
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
652
Points
1,060
Don't tell that to the folks on their Facebook page, they'll ban you. I might know a guy that happened to...
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
335
Points
1,010
Just a thought here for discussion and opinions.

The US seems to be hedging its bets on the F-35 a bit with a reduction in F-35 numbers while upgrading its fleet of 4th Gen aircraft and at the same time pushing forward with its NGAD program.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...alks-new-f-16-orders-latest-acquisition-shake

I personally think the F-35 is the best choice for replacing the Hornets but do have some concerns about some of the potential shortcomings that have been raised by critics.

The original ask was for 65 x F-35's which later became 88 x multi-role aircraft to be selected through competition. A personally feel that 65 fighters are too few for Canada and to be honest 88 is as well. Based on our procurement history (which I don't expect to change), whatever we pick will be with us for many years to come.

What are people's thoughts if we were to go with the original 65 x F-35 plan and in place of the extra 23 fighters from the current plan we instead planned on procuring 65 x UCAV's (Loyal Wingman/Skyborg or similar) to supplement the F-35s.

This would give us a total of 130 combat airframes instead of 88. The UCAVs would be cheaper than manned fighters and would be economically (and possibly politically) easier to replace/upgrade going forward as technology advances.

Of course UAVs would require pilots and maintainers, but would training and keeping UCAV pilots be easier than keeping traditional fixed-wing pilots? Postings wouldn't have to be to Cold Lake...UCAV pilots presumably wouldn't be poached away from the RCAF to the commercial airlines the same way that traditional fixed-wing pilots are.

I'm sure there are lots of other 2nd and 3rd order effects that would result. What would they be?

Do you think that an approach like this might have merit?

🍻
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
910
Just a thought here for discussion and opinions.

The US seems to be hedging its bets on the F-35 a bit with a reduction in F-35 numbers while upgrading its fleet of 4th Gen aircraft and at the same time pushing forward with its NGAD program.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...alks-new-f-16-orders-latest-acquisition-shake

I personally think the F-35 is the best choice for replacing the Hornets but do have some concerns about some of the potential shortcomings that have been raised by critics.

The original ask was for 65 x F-35's which later became 88 x multi-role aircraft to be selected through competition. A personally feel that 65 fighters are too few for Canada and to be honest 88 is as well. Based on our procurement history (which I don't expect to change), whatever we pick will be with us for many years to come.

What are people's thoughts if we were to go with the original 65 x F-35 plan and in place of the extra 23 fighters from the current plan we instead planned on procuring 65 x UCAV's (Loyal Wingman/Skyborg or similar) to supplement the F-35s.

This would give us a total of 130 combat airframes instead of 88. The UCAVs would be cheaper than manned fighters and would be economically (and possibly politically) easier to replace/upgrade going forward as technology advances.

Of course UAVs would require pilots and maintainers, but would training and keeping UCAV pilots be easier than keeping traditional fixed-wing pilots? Postings wouldn't have to be to Cold Lake...UCAV pilots presumably wouldn't be poached away from the RCAF to the commercial airlines the same way that traditional fixed-wing pilots are.

I'm sure there are lots of other 2nd and 3rd order effects that would result. What would they be?

Do you think that an approach like this might have merit?

🍻
What evidence do you have that UCAV/RPAS are cheaper than human occupied aircraft?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
720
Points
940
Unfortunately right now without budgetary increases ti the RCAF, as well as Trained manpower increases a split fleet of any kind will hinder us more then help. I agree the RCAF needs more then 88, id prefer a number around 138, which would replace every hornet we ever had 1 for 1. We keep wanting to do more with less, there comes a point where you can't do that any more because birds can't be in two places at once.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
335
Points
1,010
What evidence do you have that UCAV/RPAS are cheaper than human occupied aircraft?
This article claims that Boeing is aiming at a unit cost of around $2 million a piece for the Loyal Wingman:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...potentially-game-changing-loyal-wingman-drone

And this article gives a unit price of the similar purpose XQ-58A Valkyrie of $3 million each:

https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/boeing-loyal-wingman-fighter-jet-drone-prototype/

I totally get that these articles are marketing rather than contracts, but even if the price inflates to 10 times as much ($20-30 million each) it is much cheaper than additional manned fighter aircraft.
 
Top