The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[KevinB]

You're assuming that the number is wrong. I posit that whatever numbers us random plebs on this site come up with are wrong.

Garbage in = Garbage out.
Meaning I’m sure the number works for the rationale. I just think the rationale sucks.

 

[Furniture]

You're assuming that the number is wrong. I posit that whatever numbers us random plebs on this site come up with are wrong.

You have far more faith in the system than I do if you think the lower number is based on anything but a start point of "What is the highest number we can argue for that is going to be politically acceptable", rather than "What is the number we need to actually do the things the GoC expects us to do over the next 40 years, while also accounting for attrition through training and combat losses".

 

[Underway]

Garbage in = Garbage out.
Meaning I’m sure the number works for the rationale. I just think the rationale sucks.

The original from the Conservatives was what... 65 or something?

The current number is 88 aircraft.

The calc IIRC was based on something like this:
Edit: see below for the calculations... went back in time to find the info...

 

[Underway]

Found the post... It was from @suffolkowner and I did the math on the requirements.

The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

Cut and paste below on the math...

@suffolkowner 's info

The numbers are derived from a RCAF availability and sustainability metric.(80% and 70% I dont remember which is which real life performance will obviously vary) When you multiply those two numbers together you will get the 65 fighters needed to provide the 36 fighters for NORAD. One expeditionary six pack rises the total to 77 and two six packs to 88

my math...

I feel like with this information I can make a logical deconstruction of the entire "numbers" situation. The availability metric and sustainability metric is the entire basis for these varying numbers based on government direction to the RCAF on their missions.

Canada requires 36 fighters for NORAD. This was the CPC COA. The entire fleet replacement was coming during/on the heels of a big economic downturn. The NSPS was already announced and another big ticket purchase was likely not politically palatable. Thus when the RCAF presented their COA's the CPC went for the lowest cost options (I don't know for sure this is all supposition).

Like @suffolkowner stated: 36/.80/.70= 64.3 planes or 65 planes to ensure the NORAD mission parameters are met.

Strong Secure Engaged stated that Canada must meet its "NORAD and NATO" commitments. I know a lot of people don't put much stock in this document but for all intents and purposes, it's direction for the CAF to follow. NATO commitments meant that the calculation needed to change by 6 aircraft at a minimum but 12 is much more robust. (again supposition on closed door thinking)

Again from @suffolkowner calculation: 48/.80/.70= 85.7 or 86 aircraft. 88 is pretty close to that number.

 

[Quirky]

Assuming 410 is stood down and all training is done on sims and in-units, that leaves 22 aircraft per gun squadron. I’m not a betting man, but that’s awfully close to having more aircraft than pilots to fly them.

 

[QV]

You’re right. That number is probably right for the fighter force Canada intends to have going forward considering what Canada thinks it needs to do with a fighter force.

 

[lenaitch]

Vancouver woman starts petition to have social justice assessment of F-35 purchase

'The procurement of these fighter jets is antithetical to feminist foreign policy and diverts public funds away from necessary social programs like healthcare, education and housing,' said BC resident Sarah

www.westernstandard.news

Wow. 36 signatures! With a bullet.

She wants a government study and the purchase cancelled. So why the study? I'll bet she works for a non-profit and has a degree in women's studies.

 

[Quirky]

It’s something about fighter jets that makes people go all rheeeeeeee!

Reply from the same website:

KRAYDEN: Thank God the F-35 is coming because defence should not be about politics or Trudeau

"But this is about national defence and the Royal Canadian Air Force and we need to applaud the fact that the feds are going to spend $19 billion for 88

www.westernstandard.news

 

[brihard]

...and techs. We don't have nearly enough for our F-18s alone.

Out of curiosity, any sense of whether a ‘cool, new’ fighter might promote retention, or help attract new techs who may then stick it out?

 

[Quirky]

Out of curiosity, any sense of whether a ‘cool, new’ fighter might promote retention, or help attract new techs who may then stick it out?

Depends on individual situations and how dedicated they are to shiny new toys, at least with the CF18 you had the incentive to ride in the back. That’ll be gone with the F-35. Will a new fighter be enough to offset the shitty posting to cold lake? Doubt it. You still come back to all the issues the CAF is dealing with, plus the isolation in Cold Lake. Can’t speak for Bagotville, but I don’t believe they have the same problems. Cold lake will always be cold lake and I don’t see a Starbucks or Wendy’s improving quality of life for everyone.

Even hockey players have cities they won’t play in, despite the millions teams offer. Why play in Edmonton when Dallas or Florida is calling?

 

[brihard]

Depends on individual situations and how dedicated they are to shiny new toys, at least with the CF18 you had the incentive to ride in the back. That’ll be gone with the F-35. Will a new fighter be enough to offset the shitty posting to cold lake? Doubt it. You still come back to all the issues the CAF is dealing with, plus the isolation in Cold Lake. Can’t speak for Bagotville, but I don’t believe they have the same problems. Cold lake will always be cold lake and I don’t see a Starbucks or Wendy’s improving quality of life for everyone.

Yeah, fair. I hadn’t considered that aspect of it. Do you guys specialize early in your career into one airframe, and spend the bulk of your time as working techs on that same airframe? Or is there opportunity to switch it up (and get out of Cold Lake)? Are Anglophones still able to work the airframe in Bagotville or is bilingualism required?

 

[Quirky]

Yeah, fair. I hadn’t considered that aspect of it. Do you guys specialize early in your career into one airframe, and spend the bulk of your time as working techs on that same airframe? Or is there opportunity to switch it up (and get out of Cold Lake)? Are Anglophones still able to work the airframe in Bagotville or is bilingualism required?

There are always opportunities to get out, but it seems cold lake is a minimum 10 years before you are even considered for a posting. At the 10 year mark you should be at least a MCpl and a SME in your field. At that point you can be posted anywhere as either a tech, instructor, CFLRS, recruiting, etc. Pte- Cpl you are pretty much stuck, those ranks see the worst attrition rate.

I don’t know the official language profile for Bagotville, but the anglos I know that went learned French anyway. Most people that leave Cold Lake are tired of the fighter (CF-18) world. F-35 could change that.

 

[brihard]

There are always opportunities to get out, but it seems cold lake is a minimum 10 years before you are even considered for a posting. At the 10 year mark you should be at least a MCpl and a SME in your field. At that point you can be posted anywhere as either a tech, instructor, CFLRS, recruiting, etc. Pte- Cpl you are pretty much stuck, those ranks see the worst attrition rate.

I don’t know the official language profile for Bagotville, but the anglos I know that went learned French anyway. Most people that leave Cold Lake are tired of the fighter (CF-18) world. F-35 could change that.

Thanks for the insight- it’s a part of CAF I know practically nothing about.

10 years in Cold Lake? Yeah… Not calculated to promote retention.

 

[RDBZ]

Wow. 36 signatures! With a bullet.

She wants a government study and the purchase cancelled. So why the study? I'll bet she works for a non-profit and has a degree in women's studies.

It might seem a little judgemental to say "only in Canada," but seriously, only in Canada......

 

[RangerRay]

Well... This didn't age well

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791

One promise I’m glad he broke. Just wish he didn’t dither about it.

 

[MilEME09]

Thanks for the insight- it’s a part of CAF I know practically nothing about.

10 years in Cold Lake? Yeah… Not calculated to promote retention.

Look at it this way though, the F-35 is the cutting edge tech, unlike the F-18, how much better does it look on civi street to have that under your belt vs other aircraft? Let's be realistic we can't keep people long term but maybe 10 years is enough? Set them up for a civi career we can't compete with any way pay wise.

 

[dimsum]

I don’t know the official language profile for Bagotville, but the anglos I know that went learned French anyway. Most people that leave Cold Lake are tired of the fighter (CF-18) world. F-35 could change that.

There is no specific language requirement for Bagotville. I know folks who had near-zero French who got posted there.

It was a rough go until they (and their families) learned French, or just stuck around the Anglos. That being said, those who did learn French really liked the area.

 

[calculus]

This infographic is interesting. Note the version we'll be getting will have the capability to internally load 6 AMRAAM, versus the 4 carried in the current version.

 

[Czech_pivo]

You know they did the math on this right?

Somewhere on this very thread is the breakdown of the numbers needed. Enough to constantly do training, the NORAD mission and multiple six pack deployments overseas

I'm sure it's the same 'logic' that says 15 CSC will be able to replace 4 destroyers and 12 frigates. Or the same logic that thinks 2 AOR's across 2 oceans is enough for 15 CSC, 6 AOPS, 4 Vic's and a dozen Kingstons?

I have zero reason to believe that the F35's will not be asked to fly the same number of years as the CF18's have been. As its been pointed out we bought 138 of them - 98 single seaters and another 40 for training. In addition we went out and bought another 18 from Australia for a grand total of 156 planes. Of that number we have approximately 76 serviceable - less than 50%. If we follow that trend 45yrs out from now we'll have around 40 F35's serviceable - is 40 enough for us to meet NORAD and NATO commitments? Of the 40, how many are airworthy at any one time - half? 2/3? 1/3?

Churchill asked Air Vice Marshall Park at the peak of the Battle of Britain - 'What other reserves have we?' Park replied - 'There are none.'

As for the 6 pack deployments - 30yrs ago we deployed 26 to Kuwait and then 18 Kosovo 10yrs later. Now we are down to deploying 6 planes - notice the trend? Does 6 planes allow us to sit with the adults or will the kiddies? Does 6 planes do much towards keeping us in the G7? In 5 Eyes, which is quickly morphing into 3 Eyes because us the Kiwi's are not pulling our weight?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Found the post... It was from @suffolkowner and I did the math on the requirements.

The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

Cut and paste below on the math...

@suffolkowner 's info


my math...

We went from the original batch of 138, added another 18 from Australia for a total of 156 - we have around 76 considered operational now - that's over 50% of the planes written off.

With no reason to suggest that things will be different 40yrs from now in terms of how future governments and the CAF run things, we'll be down to about 40 F35's. Will those 40 odd planes meet NORAD and NATO needs then? Of those 40 odd planes, how many of them would be in 'deep maintenance' on a daily basis? How many on a daily basis would be under 'light maintenance'? Leaving how available to be scrambled or deployed on any given day?