• 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
Reaction score
27
Points
330
Best Fighter 4 Canada with another post on the Super Hornet being out.

SUPER HORNET IS OUT. BOEING HAS NO ONE TO BLAME BUT ITSELF.

Another thing, we made it to page 188. (CF-188).

Speaking of number designations... whichever aircraft is selected, what do you suppose the number designation will be?

Can two different types of aircraft share a number designation? For example, the Twin Huey had the aircraft designation CH-135. With the F-35 being a Fighter aircraft, would it be allowed to use CF-135 for it's aircraft designation?

And do RCAF aircraft need to start with '1' or could the F-35 use CF-335.

The Gripen would have the same issue with the Jetranger using aircraft designation CH-139.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,652
Points
1,140
Best Fighter 4 Canada with another post on the Super Hornet being out.

SUPER HORNET IS OUT. BOEING HAS NO ONE TO BLAME BUT ITSELF.

Another thing, we made it to page 188. (CF-188).

Speaking of number designations... whichever aircraft is selected, what do you suppose the number designation will be?

Can two different types of aircraft share a number designation? For example, the Twin Huey had the aircraft designation CH-135. With the F-35 being a Fighter aircraft, would it be allowed to use CF-135 for it's aircraft designation?

And do RCAF aircraft need to start with '1' or could the F-35 use CF-335.

The Gripen would have the same issue with the Jetranger using aircraft designation CH-139.
Why not just CF-35?
Or CF-15EX :devilish:
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,910
Points
1,360
Precedent was made with the CH-146 Griffon and the CT-146 Outlaw. No reason CF-135 shouldn’t work.
 

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
Precedent was made with the CH-146 Griffon and the CT-146 Outlaw. No reason CF-135 shouldn’t work.

I think when there's the same aircraft but for different roles, in this example the CH-146 Griffon being used as a trainer, it allows the use of CT-146.

Say for example (this would never happen) they transition the CF-188 Hornet to be used as a UAV. They would use CU-188. Same aircraft, different roles.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,910
Points
1,360
I think it’s coincidental, and that there is more variation now than in the past, to wit the CC-295 Kingfisher. A CF-135 isn’t going to break the system, nor would a CF-139. There’ll be more of a challenge finding a bilingual name…although there is no CC-295 Pêcheur de Roi…
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,906
Points
1,260
There’ll be more of a challenge finding a bilingual name…although there is no CC-295 Pêcheur de Roi…
Hornet isn't "Hornet" in French either.

Come to think of it, neither are any of our fleets.
 

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
I think it’s coincidental, and that there is more variation now than in the past, to with the CC-295 Kingfisher. A CF-135 isn’t going to break the system, nor would a CF-139. There’ll be more of a challenge finding a bilingual name…although there is no CC-295 Pêcheur de Roi…



Good mention G2G! I forgot about the CC-295. So the first digit can be something other than a '1' which I can see the Lighting II being CF-335 (or something along those lines).
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,906
Points
1,260
Actually been like that since unification...so only Paul Hellyer should have received the tick in the 'Leading Change' box... ;)
So the "leading change" would be to put it back to 2 digits...

fox waiting GIF by MasterChef Junior
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,140
Two down, Canada to go:



Mark
Ottawa
Interesting that little, compact, small population, Finland, a country that has been viewed by the SU/Russia as a non-threat since the end of 1945 feels it needs 65 F-35's but a group of senior CAF officers thinks that 88 will meet all of our needs. I'd love to do a comparison of the needs assessment/recommendation and compare it to ours. I thank God that the original request of 65 F-35's that was originally forecasted was thrown out the window.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
Interesting that little, compact, small population, Finland, a country that has been viewed by the SU/Russia as a non-threat since the end of 1945 feels it needs 65 F-35's but a group of senior CAF officers thinks that 88 will meet all of our needs. I'd love to do a comparison of the needs assessment/recommendation and compare it to ours. I thank God that the original request of 65 F-35's that was originally forecasted was thrown out the window.
A key difference with Canada is that Finnish fighters will be expected to take the fight to the Russians over Russian territory right from the start (hence the air-to-surface missiles they are acquiring, RCAF currently has only AGM-154 JSOW). The odds on RCAF fighters going into highly contested A2/AD areas on first day of war (or several thereafter) are slim.

Mark
Ottawa
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,035
Points
1,090
Interesting that little, compact, small population, Finland, a country that has been viewed by the SU/Russia as a non-threat since the end of 1945 feels it needs 65 F-35's but a group of senior CAF officers thinks that 88 will meet all of our needs. I'd love to do a comparison of the needs assessment/recommendation and compare it to ours. I thank God that the original request of 65 F-35's that was originally forecasted was thrown out the window.
Agreed. Totally agreed.

As capable as they may be, and as much of a reason as that is used for always acquiring fewer numbers of platforms as a replacement for whatever it is they are replacing, numbers still do matter.

A country the size of Finland?

65 aircraft seems about right. A country the size of Canada, especially with huge areas that are extremely remote? Seems odd to have the same number of airframes.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,140
A key difference with Canada is that Finnish fighters will be expected to take the fight to the Russians over Russian territory right from the start (hence the air-to-surface missiles they are acquiring, RCAF currently has only AGM-154 JSOW). The odds on RCAF fighters going into highly contested A2/AD areas on first day of war (or several thereafter) are slim.

Mark
Ottawa
I understand Finland’s proximity to Russia, I’ve been to Helsinki and have taken the ferry over to St Petersburg. I was just trying to make the point that Finland, a country that is not viewed as a threat by Russia, that is geographically, economically and in population, so much smaller than Canada, is purchasing 75% of the total number of airframes that we are.
I don’t hear (read) the Finns bitching and complaining about how they can’t afford F-35’s. I swear to God sometimes I feel that those making decisions/recommendations here Canada are all descendants of teachers, who every time the bill comes at the restaurant all pull out their calculators and figure out their portion of the bill down to the half cent, rounding up and down when necessary. And if appetizers where ordered, calculating who ate X % of the appetizer and applying that % to the cost of the appetizer in order to ensure that they are ‘not over paying’.
 
Top