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

[OldSolduer]

I made this point on a thread a few days ago where all the contributors are all swooning over the Gripen. A 5th Gen fighter in all likelihood maul it decisively.

 

[KevinB]

I made this point on a thread a few days ago where all the contributors are all swooning over the Gripen. A 5th Gen fighter in all likelihood maul it decisively.

Unfortunately the question that remains to be answered is if the GoC cares about capabilities, or just spending monies.

Historically capabilities have taken a back seat.

 

[GR66]

NORAD isn't a first strike command however, it's something to realize that Russian bombers incursions into our airspace are typically escorted by their own fighters. Currently those are last generation SU-35's typically however, Russia is actively producing its own 5th generation SU-57 fighter that while likely stacking up poorly against the F-22/F-35, is an exceptionally dangerous adversary for 4th generation fighters like the F-16, F-15 and Gripen. 5th generation platforms are being developed and sold abroad by/to adversary nations, the future is already here and it makes little sense to address that by.......buying an aircraft already behind the times? Sitting back and expecting the status quo to remain such for the next four decades or more does not seem responsible.

It's also something to put out there that the RCAF has a history of expeditionary operations with the CF-18 which has the potential to put us up against increasingly advanced hostile SAM, drone and fighter threats abroad. A 5th generation stealth aircraft is leagues more survivable against threats at home and abroad. The RCAF deployed in the Gulf War, Yugoslavia, Libya, fighting against ISIL, etc. With tensions flaring abroad and our Govt in trade/relation building talks with countless nations, I wouldn't expect the RCAF to be sitting on its hands in the coming decades. You could do this work with an aircraft like the Gripen however, you are fundamentally bringing a much less interoperable, safe and capable platform to the table to do so. Given the breadth of allied F-35 operators (Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Korea, UK, US currently with Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Romania planned for the future), arriving in Europe or elsewhere with a fundamentally interoperable aircraft is an advantage hard to put into words.

F-35 isn't some crazy new capability for many nations, it's simply the new norm and has been for quite sometime.

I'll start be again saying that I'm on team F-35. Get all 88 (I wish it was more), BUT I stand by my opinion that (beyond the logistical and training burden) a split fleet of say 65 x F-35's and 65 x Gripens wouldn't be the end-of-the-World scenario operationally that some seem to suggest.

Keep the Gripens away from any expeditionary roles - that's exactly what the stealthy F-35 is designed for. However for the NORAD role the main peacetime objective is presence and deterrence. The Gripen is capable of that with a healthy weapon loadout of 7 x BVR missiles. Support that role with our OTH and other NORAD radars, our coming AEW aircraft, its own AESA radar and some F-35's in a QB role. I'd prefer the F-15 EX for that role personally due to it's greater range and payload, but politically that's not an option. The US seems to think that using F-15's and F-16's for the NORAD role (supported by F-22's and F-35's) is acceptable so I'd suggest our using Gripens supported by F-35's in a QB role would work for Canada as well.

Now, IF those Russian bombers actually launch an attack across the pole then whether they are escorted by SU-35's or SU-57's is the least of our worries because there will be no mass conventional strike by Russia (or China) on North America. If NORAD see's a whole bunch of missiles incoming it will have no choice but to assume that it is a nuclear first strike and will respond accordingly. Russia and China know that as well, so IF they did decide to attack with their bomber force it will also be accompanied by several thousand ICBMs and our choice of fighter aircraft for the NORAD role will be irrelevant. The bombers will launch before our fighters are close enough to intercept and our fighters will likely focus their missiles on the incoming Russian/Chinese cruise missiles - so a Gripen might even have a slight advantage over a stealthy F-35 carrying only an internal weapons load...but neither will likely have an intact base to return to.

TLDR: Yes we need F-35's and in enough numbers to be relevant. Yes they should be used for our NATO/expeditionary roles due to their stealth. Yes we should use them to QB our NORAD fighters. No the world won't end if we also had Gripens in the fleet for the NORAD role.

 

[Quirky]

a split fleet of say 65 x F-35's and 65 x Gripens wouldn't be the end-of-the-World scenario operationally that some seem to suggest.

Not enough manning to support two fleets, it's already been discussed, not to mention logistics of running two fleets. You're better off taking the cost of 65 gripens and buying 6X F-35s, because there isn't anything the Gripen can do, that the F-35 can't. There are certainly things the F-35 can do, which the Gripen can't. Why buy a fleet that can do 100% of the things, and buy another fleet than can only do 60%. The days of two fighter fleets in Canada are over.

 

[Furniture]

I made this point on a thread a few days ago where all the contributors are all swooning over the Gripen. A 5th Gen fighter in all likelihood maul it decisively.

That ignores the reality that the latest 4.5 Gen fighters have similar sensor and EW capabilities, and are simply more detectable by some radars.

Radar cross section(RCS) is not the advantage it was 20 years ago, and as time goes on lower RCS will likely continue to lose effectivness.

Unfortunately the question that remains to be answered is if the GoC cares about capabilities, or just spending monies in countries that are being actively hostile to our economny and have threatened our sovereignty.

FTFY...

 

[Czech_pivo]

Unfortunately the question that remains to be answered is if the GoC cares about capabilities, or just spending monies.

Historically capabilities have taken a back seat.

Why does no one on here care to look beyond the simplest form of collaboration with SAAB as being the Gripen E and not towards anything out into the future that may move well beyond the Gripen E?

Pretty much everyone is stuck on the here and now, and not willing or able to look 10+yrs into the future.

Someone last week on another thread here posted a graphical representative of the decline of Entrepreneurship in Canada and lamented about it.

The key point, the focal point, in entrepreneurship is RISK TAKING, followed closely by picking one's self off the floor when failure occurs and trying again and again until you succeed. All that I'm reading about on this thread is zero risk taking, bowing down to the F35 (which is an amazing airframe that we DO need to have in substantial numbers) and continuing to allow others to do all the risk taking (and ALL the rewards and profits) and we merely cut them cheque for their efforts and buy whatever they put in front of our faces. Then when this occurs we cry about not getting enough of the crumbs, our 3% of the total value of an airframe, and threaten to pick our one toy and go home.

audentes Fortuna iuvat

qui audet adipiscitur

 

[KevinB]

Why does no one on here care to look beyond the simplest form of collaboration with SAAB as being the Gripen E and not towards anything out into the future that may move well beyond the Gripen E?

The US has been in the flying of stealth aircraft business for more than four decades.
LocMart brought the F 117A to the USAF in operational squadrons in the early 80's.
Northrop Grumman's B2 went into service in 1997.
LocMart brought the F-22 Raptor to the USAF in 2005 -- two decades later it is still the most advanced fighter flying - and outclasses the F-35, let alone anything else in the air.

Guess how many entities have actual stealth aircraft in operation currently?
1, that that is Boeing - yet another US defense giant.

The SU-57 isn't a stealth aircraft -- it is a boogeyman that people roll out to drive DoD and US MIC spending, it has the radar signature of the giant ass gun tractor y'all bought for the M777.

The Chinese are the closest - but they are not there yet.

Europe remains to be seen, as they have not trotted out anything past a Gen 4 Fighter.

Pretty much everyone is stuck on the here and now, and not willing or able to look 10+yrs into the future.

The sobering reality is the money spent on the US Aerospace Industry is larger than the Canadian GDP, when you look at what the companies IRD, DoD and DARPA funding to remain ahead of the competition.

Attempting to chase the dragon in an economy as small as Canada (or as small as Canada partnered with Sweden) will bankrupt you both.

Someone last week on another thread here posted a graphical representative of the decline of Entrepreneurship in Canada and lamented about it.

The key point, the focal point, in entrepreneurship is RISK TAKING, followed closely by picking one's self off the floor when failure occurs and trying again and again until you succeed. All that I'm reading about on this thread is zero risk taking, bowing down to the F35 (which is an amazing airframe that we DO need to have in substantial numbers) and continuing to allow others to do all the risk taking (and ALL the rewards and profits) and we merely cut them cheque for their efforts and buy whatever they put in front of our faces. Then when this occurs we cry about not getting enough of the crumbs, our 3% of the total value of an airframe, and threaten to pick our one toy and go home.

audentes Fortuna iuvat

qui audet adipiscitur

Now I would suggest that Canada look toward Europe as the next potential option AFTER the F-35, but I would not be sinking any money into SAAB for Fighters now or in 2-3 decades.
I suspect the Gen 6 Aircraft Field will come down to the F-47, and GCAP (BAE/Mitsubishi), but I doubt that GCAP will be flying by 2035 in anything beyond a prototype. I am also not sure beyond sensor/processor/bandwidth aspects if either will actually offer anything beyond what the F-22 does today.

Canada is a small defense market, without something truly revolutionary domestically produced, the best option for Canada is to work as a partner with larger aligned nations - spreading risks and rewards, but not jumping into an airframe that realistically is past its shelf life - and has no reasonable expectations of advances.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The US has been in the flying of stealth aircraft business for more than four decades.
LocMart brought the F 117A to the USAF in operational squadrons in the early 80's.
Northrop Grumman's B2 went into service in 1997.
LocMart brought the F-22 Raptor to the USAF in 2005 -- two decades later it is still the most advanced fighter flying - and outclasses the F-35, let alone anything else in the air.

Guess how many entities have actual stealth aircraft in operation currently?
1, that that is Boeing - yet another US defense giant.

The SU-57 isn't a stealth aircraft -- it is a boogeyman that people roll out to drive DoD and US MIC spending, it has the radar signature of the giant ass gun tractor y'all bought for the M777.

The Chinese are the closest - but they are not there yet.

Europe remains to be seen, as they have not trotted out anything past a Gen 4 Fighter.



The sobering reality is the money spent on the US Aerospace Industry is larger than the Canadian GDP, when you look at what the companies IRD, DoD and DARPA funding to remain ahead of the competition.

Attempting to chase the dragon in an economy as small as Canada (or as small as Canada partnered with Sweden) will bankrupt you both.


Now I would suggest that Canada look toward Europe as the next potential option AFTER the F-35, but I would not be sinking any money into SAAB for Fighters now or in 2-3 decades.
I suspect the Gen 6 Aircraft Field will come down to the F-47, and GCAP (BAE/Mitsubishi), but I doubt that GCAP will be flying by 2035 in anything beyond a prototype. I am also not sure beyond sensor/processor/bandwidth aspects if either will actually offer anything beyond what the F-22 does today.

Canada is a small defense market, without something truly revolutionary domestically produced, the best option for Canada is to work as a partner with larger aligned nations - spreading risks and rewards, but not jumping into an airframe that realistically is past its shelf life - and has no reasonable expectations of advances.

All valid points - all of them. But it doesn't mean that we should be sitting back doing nothing. There is a potential attempt to be partnering with SAAB, for exactly what is an unknown, but there is no reason why this should not be explored further and see where it may lead to.

 

[ytz]

So in a simulated combat situation, with undisclosed rules(often set to make the "good" guys win), in concert with F-22s, the F-35 is really good.

How is that relevant to Canada? NORAD isn't a first strike command. Canada doesn't integrate into the USAF in that way to hit enemy targets.

It's a cherry picked stat to bolster one particular viewpoint, that disregards all of the caveats.

You're clearly not an air or fighter/weapons community guy. That's the benchmark exercise for NATO because it's the one that is less scripted and has the most dissimilar platform interaction. It's probably the closest thing the west has to actual wars. And the last time a plane scored this well at introduction with Red Flag, it's real life record turned out to be fantastic. I believe the first F-15s had something like 13:1 during its first Red Flag.

Also, this "first strike" stuff is ignorant bullshit. Honestly surprised to see such low quality assertions on here. Stealth is a design philosophy that improves survivability regardless of what the platform is doing. That same stealth that helps on a strategic strike mission ensures that the aircraft is also far more survivable during Defensive Counter Air.

 

[KevinB]

All valid points - all of them. But it doesn't mean that we should be sitting back doing nothing. There is a potential attempt to be partnering with SAAB, for exactly what is an unknown, but there is no reason why this should not be explored further and see where it may lead to.

Canada doesn’t buy enough fighter aircraft to support any sort of industry for that.

Better uses of Canadian tax dollars would be on specific national security infrastructure;
Space based Navigation, Communications and Imagery.
National Munitions Supply (Production, Storage etc)

Play to needs and strengths, rather than waste blood and treasure on a fools errand.

Saab production of many other of their product lines in Canada could be very practical, I just don’t see fighter aircraft being one.

 

[ArmyRick]

The US has been in the flying of stealth aircraft business for more than four decades.
LocMart brought the F 117A to the USAF in operational squadrons in the early 80's.
Northrop Grumman's B2 went into service in 1997.
LocMart brought the F-22 Raptor to the USAF in 2005 -- two decades later it is still the most advanced fighter flying - and outclasses the F-35, let alone anything else in the air.

Guess how many entities have actual stealth aircraft in operation currently?
1, that that is Boeing - yet another US defense giant.

The SU-57 isn't a stealth aircraft -- it is a boogeyman that people roll out to drive DoD and US MIC spending, it has the radar signature of the giant ass gun tractor y'all bought for the M777.

The Chinese are the closest - but they are not there yet.

Europe remains to be seen, as they have not trotted out anything past a Gen 4 Fighter.



The sobering reality is the money spent on the US Aerospace Industry is larger than the Canadian GDP, when you look at what the companies IRD, DoD and DARPA funding to remain ahead of the competition.

Attempting to chase the dragon in an economy as small as Canada (or as small as Canada partnered with Sweden) will bankrupt you both.


Now I would suggest that Canada look toward Europe as the next potential option AFTER the F-35, but I would not be sinking any money into SAAB for Fighters now or in 2-3 decades.
I suspect the Gen 6 Aircraft Field will come down to the F-47, and GCAP (BAE/Mitsubishi), but I doubt that GCAP will be flying by 2035 in anything beyond a prototype. I am also not sure beyond sensor/processor/bandwidth aspects if either will actually offer anything beyond what the F-22 does today.

Canada is a small defense market, without something truly revolutionary domestically produced, the best option for Canada is to work as a partner with larger aligned nations - spreading risks and rewards, but not jumping into an airframe that realistically is past its shelf life - and has no reasonable expectations of advances.

The truth is before Trump, NO ONE gave a rats fart about the Gripen, then TRump talks shit, Canadians get all pearl clutching and now they are suddenly finding new reasons to invest in SAAB, Gripen, our own aircraft industry, etc.

Canadian reality. When Trump is gone, and if no obvious direct threat (or scary republicans), then Canadians will go back to big no on anything defence spending and lets go all in on social programs again.

Not to bring politics into this discussion but lets face it, the aircraft purchase "review" has become all political now. Nothing to do witjh capability, interoperability or anything military.

 

[ytz]

Great point, the Gripen E has far more advanced sensors and sensor integration than the older kn3s that dod pretty well. So its pretty safe to assume that the E would have a far better score.

It's as good of an assumption as trusting the 20:1 number from 2017 is still relevant.

Maybe. But the adveraries have improved too. The Gripen E has just added basics that all aircraft need these days.

IRST. GaN radar. MAWS.

It's amazing marketing that they pitch this as revolutionary when every other aircraft built today has this.

 

[ytz]

The truth is before Trump, NO ONE gave a rats fart about the Gripen, then TRump talks shit, Canadians get all pearl clutching and now they are suddenly finding new reasons to invest in SAAB, Gripen, our own aircraft industry, etc.

Canadian reality. When Trump is gone, and if no obvious direct threat (or scary republicans), then Canadians will go back to big no on anything defence spending and lets go all in on social programs again.

Not to bring politics into this discussion but lets face it, the aircraft purchase "review" has become all political now. Nothing to do witjh capability, interoperability or anything military.

Unfortunately correct. We're probably going to get 60 - 70 Gripens and it's going to be a disaster. We don't have enough people and we've already started the F-35 transition. The transition crew was moving this APS. So when we get Gripens in the 2030s, they'll end up sitting there underutilized until we get spanked by the AG. And then we won't deploy them for anything more than basic air policing because as the threat environment increases over time, restriction on 4th gen aircraft in any task force will grow.

The basic reality is that there really is no point buying any manned aircraft that aren't 5th/6th gen today. Let alone, our planned 2030+ deliveries. The Gripen would have been alright, if we bought it 20 years ago.

 

[KevinB]

You're clearly not an air or fighter/weapons community guy. That's the benchmark exercise for NATO because it's the one that is less scripted and has the most dissimilar platform interaction. It's probably the closest thing the west has to actual wars. And the last time a plane scored this well at introduction with Red Flag, it's real life record turned out to be fantastic. I believe the first F-15s had something like 13:1 during its first Red Flag.

Also, this "first strike" stuff is ignorant bullshit. Honestly surprised to see such low quality assertions on here. Stealth is a design philosophy that improves survivability regardless of what the platform is doing. That same stealth that helps on a strategic strike mission ensures that the aircraft is also far more survivable during Defensive Counter Air.

Thank you for that, not being an air guy, I wasn’t sure how me saying something similar would go over.

I would also like to add for others, that there are other low visibility aspects of the F-35 and F-22 designs than just radar cross section, that help against other threats. Some are easily open source searchable, some are not.

 

[Furniture]

You're clearly not an air or fighter/weapons community guy. That's the benchmark exercise for NATO because it's the one that is less scripted and has the most dissimilar platform interaction. It's probably the closest thing the west has to actual wars. And the last time a plane scored this well at introduction with Red Flag, it's real life record turned out to be fantastic. I believe the first F-15s had something like 13:1 during its first Red Flag.

Also, this "first strike" stuff is ignorant bullshit. Honestly surprised to see such low quality assertions on here. Stealth is a design philosophy that improves survivability regardless of what the platform is doing. That same stealth that helps on a strategic strike mission ensures that the aircraft is also far more survivable during Defensive Counter Air.

You're right, as a sailor I am not in the air weapons community... Brilliant observation.

Being "less scripted" doesn't mean it isn't, and even the article you posted highlighted the fact the exact nature of the rules and the level of support from the F-22 wasn't disclosed. So 20:1, while impressive, is not necessarily indicative of what our experience with the platform would be, or even what a real world scenario would look like nearly a decade on from that exercise. The only non-American aircraft mentioned int he exercise was the Typhoon, and we don't know whether it was an adversary or a friendly aircraft.

I mention first strike because that is what people talk about here, and was specifically mentioned in the article you posted. The real point, which in fairness I didn't explain well, is that we will never be doing these sorts of things alone, so the need for stealth is diminished. There is also the reality that "stealth" isn't as effective as it had been, and the enemy is continually looking for ways to make it less effective. Going all-in on the "stealth" platform because it's "stealth" isn't a good enough reason to ignore the potential benefits of a deal with SAAB.

 

[QV]

The truth is before Trump, NO ONE gave a rats fart about the Gripen, then TRump talks shit, Canadians get all pearl clutching and now they are suddenly finding new reasons to invest in SAAB, Gripen, our own aircraft industry, etc.

Canadian reality. When Trump is gone, and if no obvious direct threat (or scary republicans), then Canadians will go back to big no on anything defence spending and lets go all in on social programs again.

Not to bring politics into this discussion but lets face it, the aircraft purchase "review" has become all political now. Nothing to do witjh capability, interoperability or anything military.

I don't think the cat is going back in the bag. Trump did the mean heavy lift everyone else danced around. Now that the dirty work is done, the next administration will quietly follow through. Canada isn't getting off the hook with Trump leaving.

The only question remaining is: what is the RCAF going to get? And sadly, that is again entirely up in the air and not for any practical reason.

 

[KevinB]

There is also the reality that "stealth" isn't as effective as it had been, and the enemy is continually looking for ways to make it less effective. Going all-in on the "stealth" platform because it's "stealth" isn't a good enough reason to ignore the potential benefits of a deal with SAAB.

Actually it is. Unless you have plentiful CCA’s to play expendable crewman for your manned craft, the low observable signature is exceptionally important.

I mentioned above that isn’t not just RCS, there are a variety of other low observable aspects to the designs that dramatically increase it’s survivability in a contested environment.

 

[ytz]

You're right, as a sailor I am not in the air weapons community... Brilliant observation.

Cool. Try to be less sure than about airplanes. I don't assert definitively which boats we should buy. Cause I am fairly certain I would know less than the black suiters who have spend 8 hrs a day looking at boats and 8 hrs per day dreaming about them at night.

I mention first strike because that is what people talk about here, and was specifically mentioned in the article you posted. The real point, which in fairness I didn't explain well, is that we will never be doing these sorts of things alone, so the need for stealth is diminished. There is also the reality that "stealth" isn't as effective as it had been, and the enemy is continually looking for ways to make it less effective. Going all-in on the "stealth" platform because it's "stealth" isn't a good enough reason to ignore the potential benefits of a deal with SAAB.

Stealth is just one advantage of the F-35. It's not the only one. For example, every Gripen needs a targeting pod to deliver PGMs. No F-35 needs that, because the pointers and all the electronics were all built in. Saab fans will talk about how great Saab EW is ignoring two basic physical realities. 1) Your jamming power is proportional to the excess power available on the aircraft and the F-35 was built with a massive power margin in anticipation of capability growth. 2) The jamming power required is proportional to your own signature. The higher your signature, the lot more power needed to raise the noise floor. This is where stealth comes in handy. And the more you're emitting, the larger your force packaging has to be cause now the whole theatre knows where you are and can see you coming. Beyond that, a massive limitation for modern aircraft is computing power. It literally limits information fusing and sensor range, based on processing. The F-35 has the so much onboard computing power, that the recent Block IV had to be redesigned to increase server cooling. The Gripen won't come close. They don't have the space or the cooling to add that much computing.

The net result of the above is that the more that NATO fields fifth/sixth gen (not just the F-35), the higher the risk that 4th gen aircraft become to the force. They simply give away too much and require more protection. By 2040-2045, it's entirely possible that we'll see NATO/US led operations where 5+ gen is a theatre entry standard. And if not by then, definitely beyond 2050, at which point the Gripens we buy may still have a third to half their service life left.

 

[ytz]

Just a reminder for those of you who have forgotten some basic military principles and survivability doctrine. This applies to everything from a basic troop on a patrol to a fighter jet.