• 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)

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
Our CF 18s didn’t have PGM abilities. They sat out the air strike side until our Allies (the US IIRC) gave us some once the hard lifting was done. That’s not a state of the art weapons system to me.

Much like today, the US, UK and other forces maintain better Wpn Sys capabilities than we do. Our MPA fleet is another example of this delta.

The CAF motto could be “fitted for, but not with”…
In fairness to us the UK didn't even have a MPA for a wee bit there, and have at times had all of their Type 45 destroyers or all of their subs dockside pending work.

The US does do war very well though. Have to give credit where credit is due
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,997
Points
1,060
It could be. For some reason my brain is telling me it was the kits that get put on the actual bombs. 🤷‍♂️
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,308
Points
1,110
Wasn't that the "Sniper pod" that was supposed to allow our CF18 to find and lase targets and then use smart munitions on the targets?
We got the Nighthawk Pod just before Kosovo that we kept until the mid-late 2000s, after which it was replaced by the Sniper Pod (as part of ECP-583) that we are still using. Having a laser designator is a requirement to guide LGBs but you can still drop them without a pod, as long as you have someone with a designator to guide the bombs for you,
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,308
Points
1,110
Like...oh, I don't know, a persistent endurance platform hanging out for most of the day :sneaky:
To be honest, with the availability of pods these days, there is no reason, short of having an airborne pod failure, why we couldn’t lase our own bombs all the time.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,362
Points
1,360
Like...oh, I don't know, a persistent endurance platform hanging out for most of the day :sneaky:
Is that what we’re calling JTACs these days? ‘Persistent hangers out?’ 😆

Oh, you mean when Canada sees fit to acquire some of those fantastical uninhabited flying machines? I hear tell that people think such aerial beasts can do wonderous things. Perhaps we may see such magical technology in the skies of Canada and around the world in this decade? 🤔
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,424
Points
1,110
Is that what we’re calling JTACs these days? ‘Persistent hangers out?’ 😆

Oh, you mean when Canada sees fit to acquire some of those fantastical uninhabited flying machines? I hear tell that people think such aerial beasts can do wonderous things. Perhaps we may see such magical technology in the skies of Canada and around the world in this decade? 🤔
Pay no attention the man behind the curtain......

I'm of the opinion Canada will never see armed UAVs - Its not the Canadian way.. sniff sniff!!!
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
706
Points
1,060
I'm of the opinion Canada will never see armed UAVs - Its not the Canadian way.. sniff sniff!!!
I flew the Heron in 2009 out of KAF and it was never an issue, there were all kinds of bombs available on all kinds of aircraft everywhere. Getting the strike authorization always took longer than getting the bombs there. The fuel weight that you would have to subtract in order to takeoff with a hellfire would have made a difference between 24 hours endurance or 8 hours endurance. Not worth it IMO for that particular airplane.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Still never never land:

Feds say new fighter jet selection is coming, but exact timing still unclear​


Federal procurement officials won’t say when Canada will take the next step in the years-long process of selecting a new fighter jet.

The federal government announced in December that it had narrowed its search for a replacement of the military’s aging CF-18s to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and the Swedish Saab Gripen.

The government said at that time a decision would be made in short order on whether the government would engage in another round of negotiations with the two companies, or select a winner outright.

Yet nearly four months later, no announcement has been forthcoming, leading to concerns about even further delays in replacing Canada’s CF-18s at a time when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has underscored the importance of modern military capabilities.

Public Services and Procurement Canada assistant deputy minister Simon Page said Tuesday the process is “very active, very live” as he was grilled by a parliamentary committee over the lack of a decision.

Yet while Page and other federal officials expressed optimism that a contract with the winning bidder will be signed by the end of the year, they declined to provide any details on the reasons for the delay or when a decision on the next step could come....

Sigh.

Mark
Ottawa
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,238
Points
1,140
Well Canada is forgotten in this piece...... Probably for the best.

The piece totally ignores the fact that the Alliance buys are why the USAF is decreasing acquisitions at this point. LocMart can only build so many - and it’s better from our standpoint that they get bought by Allies who will use them - and not need to have us being ours as often.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,362
Points
1,360
Well Canada is forgotten in this piece...... Probably for the best.



Hmmm…
So why, while Russia is on the march in Europe and China is steadily growing its military presence in the Pacific, would the Biden administration suddenly cut the planned buy from an average of 80 over the last three years to a mere 61—when the expectation had been for an order of 94?

Maybe to accelerate NGAD (or more of something else that may or may not yet exist)? 🤔
 

Quirky

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
778
Points
1,140
From the uki thread....

The current plan under the Liberals is to buy 88 planes, down to either the F-35 or the Gripen. I'm not certain what the ratio of fighter plane to trainer plane is, but let's assume that a cool dozen (12) are trainers. That leaves use with 76 actual fighters, just 4 more than what we currently have, after 40yrs of attrition and a secondary purchase of another 18 planes. Does anyone else see where I'm going with this?

I don't think 12 trainers dedicated to a 410 type squadron will be necessary. The majority of training is done in a simulator now a days, plus the F-35 is a one seater. I'm sure the information is in this thread WRT pilot training, but a dedicated squadron to training like we have now will likely be a thing of the past.

 

Quirky

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
778
Points
1,140
Plus the F-35 getting more expensive, maybe we should not have waited.


Given the alternative right now, an aircraft at a low-rate production with an unknown capability besides company brochures, the F-35 is a bargain. Everything is going up in cost.
 
Reaction score
157
Points
530
I know its been discussed and dismissed numerous times but has our new reality and possible budget increases made a mixed buy of F35s and Gripen Es a consideration. From what I've read, and of course there's a wide range of estimates and opinions, the Gripen E will be a pretty good platform with much much lower maintenance costs with estimates between $10,000 to $20,000 per hour flown. Fly more, pay less. The F35 is superior technically and has the "stealth" tag but at $35000 to $40000 in maintenance for every hour flown it will be a consideration and likely suck in money from somewhere else. Could a 50/50 purchase of a hundred aircraft be the way to go? I know there's the whole supply chain argument but let's just pretend the accountants are locked out of the room for now.

(personally I would have liked to see the F15EX in the running)
 
Top