• 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
3,938
Points
1,260
Making a Gen 4.5 with a reduced radar profile isn't that laughable, you are taking Gen 5 tech and applying it to a proven airframe as an upgrade. It is a viable option
Sure, but would we be the launch customer for it? Also, that would be a huge amount of "Canadianization" - which would drive up costs.

Cyclone has entered the chat
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,684
Points
1,140
Making a Gen 4.5 with a reduced radar profile isn't that laughable, you are taking Gen 5 tech and applying it to a proven airframe as an upgrade. It is a viable option
It would be a whole new airfcraft - new materials, new engines, new fire control, new airframe (interior bays) etc.
Major non starter.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
643
Points
1,060
It would be a whole new airfcraft - new materials, new engines, new fire control, new airframe (interior bays) etc.
Major non starter.
Are we still talking about fighters? Because that sounds like the 295 that was supposed to be an off the shelf proven platform.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,551
Points
1,090
Are we still talking about fighters? Because that sounds like the 295 that was supposed to be an off the shelf proven platform.
I thought he was talking about the CSC? Sigh....we do this to our selves
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,938
Points
1,260
I thought he was talking about the CSC? Sigh....we do this to our selves
Isn't the CSC the UK Type 31 with some small changes? I thought Australia was also buying the same thing but Australianized somewhat.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,039
Points
1,010
Isn't the CSC the UK Type 31 with some small changes? I thought Australia was also buying the same thing but Australianized somewhat.
There is no such thing as an “off the shelf” warship- unless you want to buy stock Arleigh Burkes direct from a US shipyard…
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,453
Points
1,090
And even then, they would have to remove any US only equipment / materiel.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,039
Points
1,010
And even then, they would have to remove any US only equipment / materiel.
To ensure we do not derail the thread, my point is that all high end military gear (ships, fighter aircraft) are fairly bespoke, even if they manufactured on an assembly line.

It is not like Lockmart, Boeing or SAAB have lots full of built aircraft, waiting to sell them to customers driving onto the lot. They only build when they have an order. If we get F-35, it will probably look somewhat different from a USAF F-35, to take into account our operating environment. If we get Grippens, they will look a bunch different from a Swedish Grippen, so that they fit our NATO/NORAD operational context.
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
655
Points
940
If we get F-35, it will probably look somewhat different from a USAF F-35, to take into account our operating environment.

USAF will/does(?) operate them out of Alaska, it's pretty much as close to Canada, if not harsher, as it gets. Maybe Canadas will come with heated seats, throttle and flight control stick? It's a wonder why the F-35C wasn't a consideration despite the extra cost. Stronger gear, wing fold, more internal fuel capacity and a dedicated hook for those short FOLs. The C model just 'looks' more menacing with the extra wing span.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,039
Points
1,010
USAF will/does(?) operate them out of Alaska, it's pretty much as close to Canada, if not harsher, as it gets. Maybe Canadas will come with heated seats, throttle and flight control stick? It's a wonder why the F-35C wasn't a consideration despite the extra cost. Stronger gear, wing fold, more internal fuel capacity and a dedicated hook for those short FOLs. The C model just 'looks' more menacing with the extra wing span.
We use the USN drogue air to air refueling, vice the USAF probe method, so that will make our hypothetical F35s a cross between an A and a C . Mind you, our next tanker may be fitted for both fuelling methods (I have not seen the tanker SOR).
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,453
Points
1,090
Only Airbus was compliant with the tanker requirement.

I hope the Canadianization of the next fleet is limited to the RCAF roundel; anything more is lots of NRE throughout the life of the platform.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,052
Points
1,090
The costs for the latest Gripen appear to be now about the same as the F35 at least thats what the Thai military has said. The irony of this entire journey has been the constant downgrade an increase in cost for all aircraft other then the F35. The original Super Hornet Bid was billing a cheaper plan but with stealth features added while the Griphen was also supposed to have stealth features while also being much cheaper allowing for many more planes being built in Canada. Now the Super Hornet will not get another block upgrade and the Griphen are the same price while having no stealth features while only being assembled in Nova Scotia.
USAF will/does(?) operate them out of Alaska, it's pretty much as close to Canada, if not harsher, as it gets. Maybe Canadas will come with heated seats, throttle and flight control stick? It's a wonder why the F-35C wasn't a consideration despite the extra cost. Stronger gear, wing fold, more internal fuel capacity and a dedicated hook for those short FOLs. The C model just 'looks' more menacing with the extra wing span.
I hadn’t thought about it before, but it IS a head scratcher indeed. I mean, having reinforced gear, more interval fuel, a tail hook and folding wings for operating out of FOL’s just makes simple sense.


SuperSonicMax - any thoughts?

(You are very much my “go to guy” for anything like this)
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
568
Points
1,040
I hadn’t thought about it before, but it IS a head scratcher indeed. I mean, having reinforced gear, more interval fuel, a tail hook and folding wings for operating out of FOL’s just makes simple sense.


SuperSonicMax - any thoughts?

(You are very much my “go to guy” for anything like this)
They are more expensive. At this point that will a bigger driver. Other than the biggest driver..we can't let the PM look bad....or eat crow.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,684
Points
1,140
They are more expensive. At this point that will a bigger driver. Other than the biggest driver..we can't let the PM look bad....or eat crow.
Won't be call the F-35, the CF-355 or whatever else - but it won't be an F-35
 
Top