• 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)

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,115
Points
1,260
Admittedly I was always curious from the very start about the single engine aspect of the F-35, that was a deal breaker back in the day for the F-16 when the 104 and Voodoos got replaced with the Hornet.
The whole "single engine" thing is less relevant now, since engines are much better than they were back then.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,434
Points
1,360
Can't say I blame them -- I mean historically the CAF doesn't exactly have a track record.
Admittedly I was always curious from the very start about the single engine aspect of the F-35, that was a deal breaker back in the day for the F-16 when the 104 and Voodoos got replaced with the Hornet.
Which always struck me as odd, given the justification used about having an engine go down over Canada's North - when the US had F-16's in Alaska (I guess the USAF has more faith in the engine, or their SAR...)
Would you be surprised if that was all just BS and the reason we went (C)F-18 was that McDonnell Douglas had a much better offset package than General Dynamics? You don’t think it had anything to do with number of engines, as opposed to which ridings would see the most money injected into them Post-contract award… 😉

ps. Interesting Cliff Claven fact…research when Red Lobster restaurants came into being. If you guessed in the years immediately following the contract award to McDonnell Douglas, and imagine how much of an offset multiplier they got for the recapitalization of most Ponderosa restaurants into Red Lobsters (infrastructure, personnel costs, supply chain credits, etc), you’ll see why the offset game, now called Industrial and (used to be blatantly termed ‘Regional’) Technology Benefits (ITBs), figures prominently in major government procurement…
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,579
Points
1,140
Would you be surprised if that was all just BS and the reason we went (C)F-18 was that McDonnell Douglas has a much better offset package than General Dynamics? You don’t think it had anything to do with number of engines, as opposed to which risings would see the most money injected into them Post-contract award… 😉

ps. Interesting Cliff Claven fact…research when Red Lobster restaurants came into being. If you guessed in the years immediately following the contract award to McDonnell Douglas, and imagine how much of an offset multiplier they got for the recapitalization of most Ponderosa restaurants into Red Lobsters (infrastructure, personnel costs, supply chain credits, etc), you’ll see why the offset game, now called Industrial and (used to be blatantly termed ‘Regional’) Technology Benefits (ITBs), figures prominently in major government procurement…
I miss a good old Ponderosa steak.....every friday night when I was a kid, Dad would take the whole family out to Ponderosa for dinner.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,303
Points
1,140
Would you be surprised if that was all just BS and the reason we went (C)F-18 was that McDonnell Douglas has a much better offset package than General Dynamics? You don’t think it had anything to do with number of engines, as opposed to which risings would see the most money injected into them Post-contract award… 😉
Honestly not surprised at all.

ps. Interesting Cliff Claven fact…research when Red Lobster restaurants came into being. If you guessed in the years immediately following the contract award to McDonnell Douglas, and imagine how much of an offset multiplier they got for the recapitalization of most Ponderosa restaurants into Red Lobsters (infrastructure, personnel costs, supply chain credits, etc), you’ll see why the offset game, now called Industrial and (used to be blatantly termed ‘Regional’) Technology Benefits (ITBs), figures prominently in major government procurement…
I really enjoyed Ponderosas - that makes me sad.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,317
Points
1,110
CH-147 Chinook
Identification: 25 July 2005
First delivery: 25 June 2013

CC-177 Globemaster
Identification: 19 May 2006
Last aircraft delivery: 31 Mar 2014
CH148 Cyclone
Identification: 2003
First delivery: 2016
Last delivery: ???

CC295 Kingfisher
Identification: 2002
First delivery: December 2019
Last delivery: ???

To negate the lag in our procurement process, we need to be looking 20-40 years ahead. Difficult to do with 4 year mandates and no tangible strategic guidance….
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,434
Points
1,360
CH148 Cyclone
Identification: 2003
First delivery: 2016
Last delivery: ???

CC295 Kingfisher
Identification: 2002
First delivery: December 2019
Last delivery: ???

To negate the lag in our procurement process, we need to be looking 20-40 years ahead. Difficult to do with 4 year mandates and no tangible strategic guidance….
Two projects with very heavy political overriding factors (covering previous PM’s legacy, and teaching the RCAF a lesson about being so brash as to say what it ‘wants’…)

147 and 177 both had (generally) pan-Parliament support.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,317
Points
1,110
Two projects with very heavy political overriding factors (covering previous PM’s legacy, and teaching the RCAF a lesson about being so brash as to say what it ‘wants’…)

147 and 177 both had (generally) pan-Parliament support.
147 and 177 (and to some extent the 130J) were somewhat unique in that we were fighting a long war and the requirements were derived from that. Won’t happen again. Every other procurement takes decades.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,216
Points
1,090
What will we see first, a new fighter selected or PLD fixed?
I’m guessing a new fighter before the PLD is fixed.

Why? Honestly no idea… PLD hasn’t been on the drawing board for decades yet? 🤷🏼‍♂️
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,216
Points
1,090
147 and 177 (and to some extent the 130J) were somewhat unique in that we were fighting a long war and the requirements were derived from that. Won’t happen again. Every other procurement takes decades.
You hit on several good points here Max.

We were committed to a long war, and equipping the forces to fight that war had broad support across Parliament.

Not only that, but it didn’t matter what political party was in power. The moment something happened, or the media ran with something, the other parties demanded that the one in power fix the problem immediately.

So it had broad support across Parliament, but it also gave the vultures in each party something they thought they could pick at.

It benefited us either way.


Governments will dither (especially ours) until there is a crisis. And okay then will they somehow be able to get a lot done in short order, because the processes & rules (aka self-made red tape) magically disappears.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,303
Points
1,140
Ah but those have already happened, where as take the pistol for example being tossed back to the drawing board
Absolutely no one was willing to let Colt Canada have access to their TDP for a relatively insignificant number of guns.
Now that CZ owns Colt - one might find out that the new pistol is a CZ...
Or the CF could drop the give us the TDP and made in Canada requirement-
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,434
Points
1,360
147 and 177 (and to some extent the 130J) were somewhat unique in that we were fighting a long war and the requirements were derived from that. Won’t happen again. Every other procurement takes decades.
No. At least 147. The 147D (IMLC) was for the war quite clearly and directly. The 147F (MHLH) was for getting back for the future, the capability given up in 1991.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,317
Points
1,110
No. At least 147. The 147D (IMLC) was for the war quite clearly and directly. The 147F (MHLH) was for getting back for the future, the capability given up in 1991.
You can’t say that this wasn’t greatly helped by Afghanistan.
 
Top