• 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)

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,579
Points
1,140
This?

300px-A-29_Over_Afghanistan.jpg


Or this?

Well the Mosquito does meet the requirement of having 2 engines….
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,579
Points
1,140
Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a few minutes.

Let's say Canada goes down the path of choosing the Gripen. Onshores a production here or a quasi-production line here to produce our version of the Gripen.

They 'sell' this to the US in the following manner:

  • Buys more than the stated 88 that they are presenting shopping for;
    • Adds say another 1.5 -2 full squadrons (24-30 planes approx.), put aside the current retention issues for now
    • Commits to stationing a full squadron within either Romania or Latvia for NATO purposes
  • Pitches the concept that by having a production line within Canada it will lead to a better ability to defend ourselves and take some of the burden off the US
    • Creates an RCAF version of the NSS, commits to replacing/upgrading our fighters in a more timely manner, creating the skill-set and expertise within Canada in order to do so, gives the new production line a shot at being viable
  • Agrees to a very robust upgrading of the current NORAD capabilities and pays our fair share of the cost/burden
    • Add to this an agreement on 'hyper-sonic' missile defence within NORAD
  • Dangles the ongoing Aurora replacement project and 'hints' at Boeing's P8 as the preferred choice
    • Commits to increase the fleet size from 18 to 24-30, allowing for a better, more consistent and comprehensive patrolling of the Arctic and more roles within NATO
  • Continues to upgrade all northern air facilities to accommodate the F-35 from an operational view, thus allowing the USAF to seamlessly operate the F-35 across the north

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,784
Points
1,090
Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a few minutes.

Let's Canada goes down the path of choosing the Gripen. Onshores a production here or a quasi-production line here to produce our version of the Gripen.

They 'sell' this to the US in the following manner:

  • Buys more than the stated 88 that they are presenting shopping for;
    • Adds say another 1.5 -2 full squadrons (24-30 planes approx.), put aside the current retention issues for now
    • Commits to stationing a full squadron within either Romania or Latvia for NATO purposes
  • Pitches the concept that by having a production line within Canada it will lead to a better ability to defend ourselves and take some of the burden off the US
    • Creates an RCAF version of the NSS, commits to replacing/upgrading our fighters in a more timely manner, creating the skill-set and expertise within Canada in order to do so, gives the new production line a shot at being viable
  • Agrees to a very robust upgrading of the current NORAD capabilities and pays our fair share of the cost/burden
    • Add to this an agreement on 'hyper-sonic' missile defence within NORAD
  • Dangles the ongoing Aurora replacement project and 'hints' at Boeing's P8 as the preferred choice
    • Commits to increase the fleet size from 18 to 24-30, allowing for a better, more consistent and comprehensive patrolling of the Arctic and more roles within NATO
  • Continues to upgrade all northern air facilities to accommodate the F-35 from an operational view, thus allowing the USAF to seamlessly operate the F-35 across the north

Thoughts?
Where would you put the new squadrons? Do you stand them up right away? Or keep the planes I'm long term storage till we have the personal to man those additional squadrons? To make pur own production line Worth it we would need more then 88 airframe, but if we went that route would all 88 be built in Canada? Or the first few in Sweden then the rest here?
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,579
Points
1,140
Where would you put the new squadrons? Do you stand them up right away? Or keep the planes I'm long term storage till we have the personal to man those additional squadrons? To make pur own production line Worth it we would need more then 88 airframe, but if we went that route would all 88 be built in Canada? Or the first few in Sweden then the rest here?
Well a complete new squadron would be stationed in either Romania or Latvia. The other new half or new full squadron could either be add to Bagotville or Cold Lake, if only a half squadron or it a full, split between the two. There is also the potential of creating a new facility somewhere in the north, Inuvik possibly, but I can only imagine the retention issues of stationing crews up there full-time.

In terms of personal, a comprehensive, long-term plan would need to drawn up on how to address the need for additional personal/pilots. Time would be on our side currently in order to do so but it's an issue that would need immediate attention.

The production line issue is the one that holds the most challenges. Having a line that builds only 100-110 planes. A facility that turns out only 1 plane per month would result in a 9yr timeframe to produce the 100-110 planes required. So, what happens in year 10? Do we start to cycle out the first planes built that are only 9-10yrs old? Doesn't seem likely or feasible. Selling them abroad won't be happening as the Swedes won't allow it to occur as we'd be in competition against their own locally built Gripen's. Obviously there is the potential of the production facility taking on the maintenance contract but that is not the same as building them. This point is the weakest link.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,299
Points
1,140
That would be a great attack ad.
I am guessing that LocMart would prefer not to waste paper, as doing so might give people the impression they where concerned about the Gripen as a competitor.
Now if I was an RCAF Fighter Pilot - I might be headed down to Staples to print out a bunch to distribute to co-workers ;)
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,968
Points
1,360
I don't think the Gripen is a terrible aircraft. Sweden produces some solid Military hardware and Sweden is a Country that's highly regarded for their Engineering prowess.

The real question is, does it meet our requirements and are the trade offs worth the cost?

Honestly, for most of the operations we do, it's completely fine. Bombing brigands in 3rd World hell holes doesn't exactly require state of the art technology.

The F35 is clearly a superior aircraft but it's not all about specs.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
127
Points
630
Also, that reference is so obscure that 99.99% of the Canadian populace would not get it. Probably most current serving RCAF are not aware of the reasons behind the purchase of that aircraft.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,299
Points
1,140
I don't think the Gripen is a terrible aircraft. Sweden produces some solid Military hardware and Sweden is a Country that's highly regarded for their Engineering prowess.

The real question is, does it meet our requirements and are the trade offs worth the cost?

Honestly, for most of the operations we do, it's completely fine. Bombing brigands in 3rd World hell holes doesn't exactly require state of the art technology.

The F35 is clearly a superior aircraft but it's not all about specs.
Yes that's exactly what the CF-5 said ;)
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,299
Points
1,140
Also, that reference is so obscure that 99.99% of the Canadian populace would not get it. Probably most current serving RCAF are not aware of the reasons behind the purchase of that aircraft.
Honestly until I saw that video - and started reading deeper into it, I never could understand it either.
Just need to hit up folks on email with that YouTube link ;)
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
706
Points
1,060
In terms of personal, a comprehensive, long-term plan would need to drawn up on how to address the need for additional personal/pilots. Time would be on our side currently in order to do so but it's an issue that would need immediate attention.
The RCAF has been bleeding pilots for at least 20 years and has made no headway despite having had immediate attention for quite some time. So I’m not sure how a new piece of crap plane would change that.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
732
Points
1,060
Still a little surprised that Boeing got cut and not Saab. The Gripen is probably a fine aircraft but worry about it being too short legged for domestic operations. I wouldn't count Saab out though it could win on cost and industrial benefits. It all depends on how the scoring is done
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,416
Points
1,360
The RCAF has been bleeding pilots for at least 20 years and has made no headway despite having had immediate attention for quite some time. So I’m not sure how a new piece of crap plane would change that.
My takeaways were at 7:52 and 8:48, about how the F-5 was the only aircraft not to meet spec, then how the spec was lowered so the F-5 was compliant.

The “More You Know!!!” moment was that MND Helleyer was an engineer at Northrup before becoming a politician. 🤔
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,299
Points
1,140
My takeaways were at 7:52 and 8:48, about how the F-5 was the only aircraft not to meet spec, then how the spec was lowered so the F-5 was compliant.
Reminded me of the LSVW program change acceptance criteria until selected vehicle passes...

The “More You Know!!!” momen was that MND Helleyer was an engineer at Northrup before becoming a politician. 🤔
Not concerning at all right?
 
Top