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

[Kirkhill]

How about everything the Army and Air Force buys for service in Europe is made in Europe, or by suppliers employed by Europeans?

For North America, where we are sharing with the US (we are still sharing with the US aren't we?) then we buy US kit.

Does the US still want us to buy into the Ballistic Missile Defense - Integrated Air Missile Defense - Iron/Golden Dome? Or are they going to do all that themselves and just send us the bill?

 

[armrdsoul77]

There needs to be a joint effort by F35 customers to better understand the product.

 

[GR66]

How about everything the Army and Air Force buys for service in Europe is made in Europe, or by suppliers employed by Europeans?

For North America, where we are sharing with the US (we are still sharing with the US aren't we?) then we buy US kit.

Does the US still want us to buy into the Ballistic Missile Defense - Integrated Air Missile Defense - Iron/Golden Dome? Or are they going to do all that themselves and just send us the bill?

How about everything we buy for service in the CAF is what's suited for the CAF...and where it makes sense made in Canada? We need an independent Defence Policy that looks after our own national interests.

"Buying American" to work with the Americans in pursuing their defence interests and "Buying European" to work with the Europeans in pursuing their defence interests is not an independent defence policy.

Yes we should work with the Americans in the collective defence of North America because it is in our national interest and Yes we should work with the rest of NATO in the collective defence of Europe, again because it's in our national interest. However, our national interests and the interests of the US and/or Europe may not always align, so to my mind just blindly following along with either in our procurement just makes us dependent on both of them.

 

[brihard]

How about everything the Army and Air Force buys for service in Europe is made in Europe, or by suppliers employed by Europeans?

For North America, where we are sharing with the US (we are still sharing with the US aren't we?) then we buy US kit.

Does the US still want us to buy into the Ballistic Missile Defense - Integrated Air Missile Defense - Iron/Golden Dome? Or are they going to do all that themselves and just send us the bill?

We can’t meaningfully predict world events over the life cycle of procured kit.

Putin could die next week, and Russia could fracture and disintegrate in such a way that they’re no longer a threat to anyone but themselves. Part of Africa could self-destruct next month in such a way that the world sees it as imperative to act and we could choose to establish a sustained mission there. China could invade Taiwan and present a major strategic threat to Japan, South Korea and Australia such that we pivot to having a presence in the pacific to fill a deterrent role. Point being we need kit for war generally, not any particular war in specific. Strategic foresight can help us shape a force structure - something built do deter Russia in the Baltics will not look the same as something built to deter China in the Pacific. There will be overlaps and differences. We need a robust enough sustainment system that regardless of where our kit is built, we can keep it operating anywhere it may need to go.

 

[OldSolduer]

One question from a not so smart guy.

Does the F 35 have a kill switch so the Americans can hit the switch and ours won't fly?

The stoopid people on a group in FB seem to think they are brilliant strategists and totally believe a lot of stoopid stuff.

 

[Kirkhill]

How about everything we buy for service in the CAF is what's suited for the CAF...and where it makes sense made in Canada? We need an independent Defence Policy that looks after our own national interests.

"Buying American" to work with the Americans in pursuing their defence interests and "Buying European" to work with the Europeans in pursuing their defence interests is not an independent defence policy.

Yes we should work with the Americans in the collective defence of North America because it is in our national interest and Yes we should work with the rest of NATO in the collective defence of Europe, again because it's in our national interest. However, our national interests and the interests of the US and/or Europe may not always align, so to my mind just blindly following along with either in our procurement just makes us dependent on both of them.

Buying European gets European kit into our inventory. Buy American kit gets American kit into our inventory. If the Americans don't want us hurting people with their stuff we can still use the Euro stuff. And vice versa.

And I agree with building stuff in Canada.

One niggling concern that I have is that we have left things kind of late in the day to build up an effective force in the face of a potential aggressor. Especially one that has the ability to effectively blockade and embargo us. Other countries, faced with comparable dilemmas, have found it appropriate to send their forces to places like Spain and Russia to become effective when embargoed on their home turf.

 

[OldSolduer]

One niggling concern that I have is that we have left things kind of late in the day to build up an effective force in the face of a potential aggressor. Especially one that has the ability to effectively blockade and embargo us. Other countries, faced with comparable dilemmas, have found it appropriate to send their forces to places like Spain and Russia to become effective when embargoed on their home turf.

1939 Canada enters the chat....

 

[lenaitch]

It is interesting that, a few months ago, there was a fairly strong camp on here, on a number of threads discussing a number of topics, that we should be aligned with the US manufacturers and suppliers to ensure a more local parts stream that is not vulnerable to European events or trans-Atlantic shipping. It seems things have changed.

 

[Kirkhill]

We can’t meaningfully predict world events over the life cycle of procured kit.

Putin could die next week, and Russia could fracture and disintegrate in such a way that they’re no longer a threat to anyone but themselves. Part of Africa could self-destruct next month in such a way that the world sees it as imperative to act and we could choose to establish a sustained mission there. China could invade Taiwan and present a major strategic threat to Japan, South Korea and Australia such that we pivot to having a presence in the pacific to fill a deterrent role. Point being we need kit for war generally, not any particular war in specific. Strategic foresight can help us shape a force structure - something built do deter Russia in the Baltics will not look the same as something built to deter China in the Pacific. There will be overlaps and differences. We need a robust enough sustainment system that regardless of where our kit is built, we can keep it operating anywhere it may need to go.

1000%

The one thing we can be sure of is that if we have nothing we can do nothing and the world will do with us as it will.

We don't have an appropriate industrial base that we can switch on tomorrow. The stuff we need is made in a small number of places to a limited number of standards based on military alliances. We have been betting on one standard. We have been betting that the stuff will be there when we want to buy it. We have been betting that we will never really have to buy any of it.

India buys a little bit from everywhere and builds what it can at home. It is inefficient and puts a strain on their budget but it is the price it pays for trying to stay non-aligned.

Personally, no matter how bad things get I can't see us buying Russian or Chinese kit. But by buying a mix of European and American kit, and possibly even some stuff from South America, Turkey, Israel, then we might just be able to achieve a degree of military independence while not annoying anybody in particular overly much.

The one thing I think we do agree on is that the future doesn't look like what we thought it would a month or two ago. I think we have to look to different solutions to be able to manage our sovereign interests independently.

 

[Good2Golf]

One question from a not so smart guy.

Does the F 35 have a kill switch so the Americans can hit the switch and ours won't fly?

The stoopid people on a group in FB seem to think they are brilliant strategists and totally believe a lot of stoopid stuff.

No one can definitively say “No!”

In my early CF/CAF/RCAF career, I physically programmed code (FORTRAN) into the CF-18’s mission code (87X was the s/w Rev. for those interested) that very much could have had limiting effects operationally. I don’t know the extent that that control could have taken (stop an a/c from starting/taking off/flying? Not sure, probably not, *but operationally/gainfully restricted in its employment for a variety of reasons, yes.) That was for a 4th gen fighter. There is a lot more software that controls every aspect in a fifth generation fighter like the F-35, which is why I say that no one can for certain say the answer is no, there is no kill code on an F-35.

 

[GR66]

It is interesting that, a few months ago, there was a fairly strong camp on here, on a number of threads discussing a number of topics, that we should be aligned with the US manufacturers and suppliers to ensure a more local parts stream that is not vulnerable to European events or trans-Atlantic shipping. It seems things have changed.

Agreed, and I would have been one of those proposing alignment with US kit for the sake of availability. Please pass the ketchup to help me choke down this crow!

I, like many people (including our leaders) made the assumption that while there will always be US policy decisions that we disagree with, overall the US has been for all of my lifetime (and before) and would continue to be in general a country which supports the rules based order and would work together with its allies to strive for the collective good.

With the election of Trump I have been forced to realize that the previous role taken by the US can no longer be assumed. Maybe POTUS 48 will reverse course again and things will get back closer to "normal", but regardless I think we should heed this wake-up call and make sure that we are looking out for our own interests first and not get caught again by any allies change in direction.

 

[GR66]

No one can definitively say “No!”

In my early CF/CAF/RCAF career, I physically programmed code (FORTRAN) into the CF-18’s mission code (87X was the s/w Rev. for those interested) that very much could have had limiting effects operationally. I don’t know the extent that that control could have taken (stop an a/c from starting/taking off/flying? Not sure, probably not. Be operationally/gainfully employed for a variety of reasons, yes. That was for a 4th gen fighter. There is a lot more software that controls every aspect in a fifth generation fighter like the F-35, which is why I say that no one can for certain say the answer is no, there is no kill code on an F-35.

The F-35 doesn't need a software "kill switch" to impact our ability to use them. The US controls the spare parts supply system. These are extremely complex aircraft and there are lots of parts if not available can impact availability and effectiveness.

And it doesn't have to be an intentional act by the US to affect us. It could simply be that they will prioritize their own fleet in receiving spares over partner nations. It's already happening with the US internally. F-35 availability is over 80% in US deployed squadrons but closer to 50% in US non-deployed squadrons do to their prioritizing of deployed units over others.

Buying European kit instead of US kit won't solve this problem either. Unless you're making parts yourself you are dependent on others. Now, it's impossible for a country of our size to make everything ourselves so we will have to take the risk on many things. At least with the F-35 and AEGIS both providing significant benefit to the US in their contribution to the collective defence of North America the US is unlikely to intentionally degrade our capabilities.

 

[Good2Golf]

The F-35 doesn't need a software "kill switch" to impact our ability to use them. The US controls the spare parts supply system. These are extremely complex aircraft and there are lots of parts if not available can impact availability and effectiveness.

I wasn’t addressing the ‘need’ of an F-35 “kill switch” (God-code, whatever), simply noting that I believe that no one can credibly say “No, it doesn’t have that code in it.”

Yes, the F-35 in-service support supply chain could indeed be misused to impact F-35 users.

 

[Kirkhill]

No one can definitively say “No!”

In my early CF/CAF/RCAF career, I physically programmed code (FORTRAN) into the CF-18’s mission code (87X was the s/w Rev. for those interested) that very much could have had limiting effects operationally. I don’t know the extent that that control could have taken (stop an a/c from starting/taking off/flying? Not sure, probably not, *but operationally/gainfully restricted in its employment for a variety of reasons, yes.) That was for a 4th gen fighter. There is a lot more software that controls every aspect in a fifth generation fighter like the F-35, which is why I say that no one can for certain say the answer is no, there is no kill code on an F-35.

Does it have autopilot?

 

[Good2Golf]

A fully-coupled autopilot and weapons/fire control system, yes.

 

[Kirkhill]

The F-35 doesn't need a software "kill switch" to impact our ability to use them. The US controls the spare parts supply system. These are extremely complex aircraft and there are lots of parts if not available can impact availability and effectiveness.

And it doesn't have to be an intentional act by the US to affect us. It could simply be that they will prioritize their own fleet in receiving spares over partner nations. It's already happening with the US internally. F-35 availability is over 80% in US deployed squadrons but closer to 50% in US non-deployed squadrons do to their prioritizing of deployed units over others.

Buying European kit instead of US kit won't solve this problem either. Unless you're making parts yourself you are dependent on others. Now, it's impossible for a country of our size to make everything ourselves so we will have to take the risk on many things. At least with the F-35 and AEGIS both providing significant benefit to the US in their contribution to the collective defence of North America the US is unlikely to intentionally degrade our capabilities.

The issue is that we are at risk today. It took Britain 3 years to prepare for the Battle of Britain and they had a defence industry. Canada's industrialization for WW2 was a 5 year endeavour and, courtesy of MacDonald's tariff barriers and National Policy we had foundries, manufacturers of cars, trucks and tractors, as well as trains. Lumber mills and shipyards. And our own air industry built around bush pilots.

I put our situation closer to that of Israel in 1947. They went on the scrounge, like Ukraine, because the needed a useful defence immediately. We have a 5 to 10 year gap to cover before we can develop our own defence industrial complex and a defence force effective in the new environment.

 

[GR66]

The issue is that we are at risk today. It took Britain 3 years to prepare for the Battle of Britain and they had a defence industry. Canada's industrialization for WW2 was a 5 year endeavour and, courtesy of MacDonald's tariff barriers and National Policy we had foundries, manufacturers of cars, trucks and tractors, as well as trains. Lumber mills and shipyards. And our own air industry built around bush pilots.

I put our situation closer to that of Israel in 1947. They went on the scrounge, like Ukraine, because the needed a useful defence immediately. We have a 5 to 10 year gap to cover before we can develop our own defence industrial complex and a defence force effective in the new environment.

I'm not suggesting that we can snap our fingers and magically create a viable defence industry out of whole cloth. Hence my position that we go ahead with our F-35 purchase and aim to get at least the original 65 planned but start now at evaluating other options for the balance and going forward. Note that I didn't say anywhere that we should try and build our own 6th Gen fighters...I think that's a bridge too far for a relatively small market like ours.

We should however invest in Canadian companies that can contribute to building key components for overall systems that are too big and expensive for us to develop on our own. Electronics for targeting, sensing, digital control, communications and AI are key IP elements in a wide variety of systems and Canada could invest in developing in those areas.

We do also have an aerospace industry that while maybe they can't put us into the 6th Gen fighter market, should be quite capable of developing and building a wide variety of UAV's/Loitering Munitions. Same with our pretty mature UUV industry.

Yes, scrounge around for what we need for now, but also start now preparing us for the next phase in our development/independence.

 

[Genetk44]

I'm not suggesting that we can snap our fingers and magically create a viable defence industry out of whole cloth. Hence my position that we go ahead with our F-35 purchase and aim to get at least the original 65 planned but start now at evaluating other options for the balance and going forward. Note that I didn't say anywhere that we should try and build our own 6th Gen fighters...I think that's a bridge too far for a relatively small market like ours.

We should however invest in Canadian companies that can contribute to building key components for overall systems that are too big and expensive for us to develop on our own. Electronics for targeting, sensing, digital control, communications and AI are key IP elements in a wide variety of systems and Canada could invest in developing in those areas.

We do also have an aerospace industry that while maybe they can't put us into the 6th Gen fighter market, should be quite capable of developing and building a wide variety of UAV's/Loitering Munitions. Same with our pretty mature UUV industry.

Yes, scrounge around for what we need for now, but also start now preparing us for the next phase in our development/independence.

I always wonder how smaller countries than ours, like Sweden for example, can afford to design and build subs and fighters but we can’t. I mean surely we can start and move forward to building similar industrial capabilities. Here are the comparisons of population,size,gdp for SK and Canada.

 

[childs56]

I always wonder how smaller countries than ours, like Sweden for example, can afford to design and build subs and fighters but we can’t. I mean surely we can start and move forward to building similar industrial capabilities. Here are the comparisons of population,size,gdp for SK and Canada.

They have a better control of their system. We have to jump through to many levels of approval to get a simple order made. Then we have to jump through many other levels just to find a builder/ supplier. Then many other levels to approve the buy.
Often the contract needs to include a central Canada company or two on the consulting/supply side that increase costs significantly.
Add in all the kickbacks, back door deals and levels involved and the cost for a pencil goes from a few cents to ten dollars. If your not in Central Canada or close ties then your wasting your breath on contracts.

We cant afford our current procurement system

 

[Kirkhill]

I always wonder how smaller countries than ours, like Sweden for example, can afford to design and build subs and fighters but we can’t. I mean surely we can start and move forward to building similar industrial capabilities. Here are the comparisons of population,size,gdp for SK and Canada.

They started smelting iron, making swords, axes and nails and building wooden boats a couple of thousand years ago. And have never stopped.
They have continuously improved production ever since. Put it another way ... they don't know that they can't.