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

[ArmyRick]

Did the F35 play a role in the Maduro snatch and grab ?

Big time

 

[ArmyRick]

Are we cancelling the P8 Poseidon order anytime soon? Nope.
Are we still getting parts for the Hercs and globemasters? Yes.

Can we assume that we are still doing business with the "big bad USA"?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't think the answer is cutting back on the F35s. I think the answer is a mixed fleet, I know sacrilege.

Buy the 88 (or what ever F35s) and XX(X?) Grippens too.

I can see a role for both.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Which is why going completely away from ITAR is not a realistic option. The rest of the RCAF and CAF are full of ITAR components. That said, like with most things in life; If you think you might have a problem with something, cutting back rather than quitting cold turkey is a good start.


See my above reply. The CAF is full of ITAR controlled items, there is no realistic way to cut all ITAR items out of the CAF, but that doesn't mean we need to go full America. Pretending it's a binary between full America and zero ITAR is disingenuous.

I am hoping (I suspect I will be wrong) that this time Canada maybe builds a military sustainable and somewhat capable, and keeps it going longer than 5 minutes.

Dovetailing on these:

From the start of the blockade to the fall of the wall was ~41 years
From the fall of the wall to the fullscale invasion of Ukraine was ~31 years

If we're looking 30-40 year period of heightened tensions and geopolitical instability, with defense spending around double or triple what it's been for the last 30 years, we're looking upwards of a trillion in additional defense spending over the next few decades, covering multiple purchasing cycles.

Buying the wrong planes to spite the Americans is shortsighted in the short term
Not taking the steps to leverage as much of the above spend in Canada as possible is recklessly negligent in the long term.


The two need to be reconciled

 

[GR66]

Did the F35 play a role in the Maduro snatch and grab ?

Yes...along with a whole hockey sock of other aircraft types according to this article from Task & Purpose:

More than 150 fighters, bombers and other aircraft took part in Venezuela strike

The force of Navy, Air Force and Marine F-22s, F/A-18s, F-35s and drones struck several sites in Caracas as the Army captured Nicolás Maduro.

taskandpurpose.com

The force included a mix of Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps bombers, fighter jets and electronic attack planes, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference with President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Caine said that the force used included “F-22s, F, 35s, F-18s, EA18s, E-2s B-1, bombers and other support aircraft, as well as numerous remotely piloted drones.”

From other reports that I read (can't find specific articles at the moment) F-22's swept ahead to clear any potential responses from the Venezuelan Air Force with EA-18 Growlers jamming AD radars which either couldn't detect the US aircraft or were targeted by HARM missiles (launched by F-35's?) if they tried to increase power to burn through the jamming. B-1's conducted long range missile strikes. Don't recall any specific mention of what role the F-18's played.

I think it's 100% clear that the F-35 is really the only current option for any type of operation where we would be facing enemy GBAD, warships or fighters but we should also not underestimate the role that EW plays in the equation too. F-35's & Growlers are the real "special sauce" not just F-35's on their own. Is this something that Canada should consider?

I'd also note a couple of comments in the WarZone interview with Maj Gen Chris McKenna previously posted by @Retired AF Guy above.

Canadian NORAD Commander On What It Will Take To Defend The High North

Maj. Gen. McKenna offers exclusive insights into the growing threats to the Arctic from China and Russia, and what NORAD is doing about it.

www.twz.com

Q: What are your biggest concerns?

A: I worry about ballistic missile threats, which continue and persist. Hypersonics as an emerging threat. But the ones that I really worry about are cruise missiles. So air-launched cruise missiles emanating from bombers, and we’re watching Russian bombers shoot those same weapons that we’re concerned about every single day into Ukraine. So we know they work, and we know what their ranges are, and they’re significant. And I worry about sea-launched cruise missiles in the maritime domain. And what advanced submarines can do in terms of holding North America at risk.

[in discussing the North Warning System] But that fence line was put in place when bombers had to cross it to shoot something, because of the range of their weapons. It’s still relevant in that you will find a weapon crossing that, but bombers don’t need to cross that line. So the fundamental issue is they could be in international airspace, well north of us, and conduct a launch. And so that’s my challenge

So, if the major concern for attack on North America (outside ballistic missiles which require a non-fighter response) is cruise missiles which are either launched from international airspace or from submarines then does our fighter response require stealth fighters? F-35's aren't going to find enemy submarines and we're not going to fire on enemy first strike bombers in international air space before they launch then the priority for our fighters will be shooting down the incoming missiles.

The F-35 must limit its missile load to internal stores only in order to maintain its stealth so actually would not have the same capacity to shoot down incoming missiles as a fully-loaded non-stealthy aircraft.

Do we need F-35's? Absolutely! In the NORAD role they play a deterrent role as an enemy will not know if we have fighters operating in a given area due to their stealth. Their sensor fusion can also be used to coordinate other assets such as 4th Gen aircraft or CCA's. For any expeditionary missions such as NATO then stealth is 100% required.

In my opinion of we are going to stick to a single fighter fleet then 100% there is no choice but for it to be the F-35. If however we were to make the decision to go with a split fleet then I don't think it would have any significant negative operational impacts on the RCAF and could potentially have some advantages. Whether those advantages outweigh the logistical/training disadvantages may be another story.

[Edited to add] But numbers are important too. The 16 x F-35's were committed to already aren't enough. We likely need at least the original RCAF requirement for 65 x F-35's if we're going to have enough to fulfill a NATO role and to quarterback a 2nd fighter type in the NORAD role which means we would likely need a similar number of a 2nd airframe. Again...can we afford/do we need 130 fighters as opposed to 88 x F-35's? If we do then my personal choice would be the F-15EX due to its range and missile load but probably any 4th Gen would be able to fulfill the role. The other route is to go all F-35's but get in on one of the 6th Gen programs (which may include Saab/Germany with FCAS looking in question)

 

[ArmyRick]

Buying the wrong planes to spite the Americans is shortsighted in the short term
Not taking the steps to leverage as much of the above spend in Canada as possible is recklessly negligent in the long term.


The two need to be reconciled

Good view on things.

For real, if truly looking at a CANADIAN fighter solution (not USA, South Korean or Swedish), we need to build and R & D and serious commitment to military aircraft industry. That is a ten year minimum before we can really get a product somewhat ready, truth be told, we have to commit to a very long time to this endeavor. Does the Canadian populace have the fortitude for that?

In the meantime, we need that fighter jet, my opinion is F35, lets go.

 

[brihard]

I don't think the answer is cutting back on the F35s. I think the answer is a mixed fleet, I know sacrilege.

Buy the 88 (or what ever F35s) and XX(X?) Grippens too.

I can see a role for both.

Buy the F-35 purchase. Get what we’re committed to and make subsequent decisions on the timeframe we need to make them on. But RCAF needs a fifth gen multiple fighter and F-35 is the only game in town.

With the variable of “We will have at least a core capability of F-35”, THEN look - as expeditiously as possible - at what our RCAF tactical fighter task bank is, what parts of it F-35 satisfies, and then determine if a lighter/cheaper fighter can cover the rest of it. Don’t situate the estimate with Gripen decided on up front; what’s the capability need residual after F-35 covers the highest end stuff, and then what works for that?

 

[Quirky]

I don't think the answer is cutting back on the F35s. I think the answer is a mixed fleet, I know sacrilege.

Buy the 88 (or what ever F35s) and XX(X?) Grippens too.

I can see a role for both.

I can see the RCAF doing whatever they can to keep the F35s flying and parking the Gripens in the grass.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Buy the F-35 purchase. Get what we’re committed to and make subsequent decisions on the timeframe we need to make them on. But RCAF needs a fifth gen multiple fighter and F-35 is the only game in town.

With the variable of “We will have at least a core capability of F-35”, THEN look - as expeditiously as possible - at what our RCAF tactical fighter task bank is, what parts of it F-35 satisfies, and then determine if a lighter/cheaper fighter can cover the rest of it. Don’t situate the estimate with Gripen decided on up front; what’s the capability need residual after F-35 covers the highest end stuff, and then what works for that?

As long as the F35 order isn't touched you'll get no never mind from me. I can simply see the case for more than one fighter, just like we have different classes of ships.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I can see the RCAF doing whatever they can to keep the F35s flying and parking the Gripens in the grass.

You guys put stuff on grass ?

 

[OldSolduer]

Good view on things.

For real, if truly looking at a CANADIAN fighter solution (not USA, South Korean or Swedish), we need to build and R & D and serious commitment to military aircraft industry. That is a ten year minimum before we can really get a product somewhat ready, truth be told, we have to commit to a very long time to this endeavor. Does the Canadian populace have the fortitude for that?

In the meantime, we need that fighter jet, my opinion is F35, lets go.

Last time we had a home grown fighter industry it was shitcanned. I could be wrong but IIRC the AVRO ARROW (which some nostalgic people think is the solution) was the last fighter we ever seriously R & Dd. Your 10 years is optimistic but with the will (not to mention beaucoup dollars) it might be feasible.

 

[markppcli]

I don't think the answer is cutting back on the F35s. I think the answer is a mixed fleet, I know sacrilege.

Buy the 88 (or what ever F35s) and XX(X?) Grippens too.

I can see a role for both.

Neg on Gripens, maybe FA 50 as FLIT / light fighter

 

[Halifax Tar]

Neg on Gripens, maybe FA 50 as FLIT / light fighter

Sure. I wont get stuck on the plane itself. I will leave that for SMEs. My intent is that I can see a role for lesser combat air craft too...

I would love to see us get some A10s.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Good view on things.

For real, if truly looking at a CANADIAN fighter solution (not USA, South Korean or Swedish), we need to build and R & D and serious commitment to military aircraft industry. That is a ten year minimum before we can really get a product somewhat ready, truth be told, we have to commit to a very long time to this endeavor. Does the Canadian populace have the fortitude for that?

In the meantime, we need that fighter jet, my opinion is F35, lets go.

I don't think a solely Canadian fighter solution is viable, or even desirable- but it is not required for significant Canadian capture of that trillion dollar spend.

I'm thinking more Saab Canada/ Bombardier joint venture that
-is 20-33% partner with Saab AB and Airbus on Flygsystem 2020
-starts working on improved version of Global Eye,
-copies some of Leonardo's homework to bring a viable Next Gen MPA to market

Coupled with Saab Canada getting in on missile, radar etc etc supply chains.

Can the same be done with Patria? BAE Hagglunds? Hanwha Defense? We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Just identify key suppliers where we can leverage our potential buys to generate investment in Canada's defense industry in order to deliver on Canada's defense capability.

If so- would the cost of choosing the wrong planes today be worth it as a first step in the path to leveraging our size to become a true middle power with a viable (if not wholly independent) and thriving, defense industry tomorrow?

The goal is not to get the US spend to zero, or the Canadian spend to 100%- just to increase the latter materially, drastically increase our influence and control, and potentially become a landing spot for more of the increased Euro spend

 

[brihard]

If we want to build a domestic fighter production capability, then try to get in big with a multinational 6th gen program. Let’s not pretend we could meaningfully and viably go it alone on this one.

 

[NavyShooter]

Which is exactly why, many many years ago, Canada bought into the 5th Gen program that resulted in the F-35.

If we want to build a domestic fighter production capability, then try to get in big with a multinational 6th gen program. Let’s not pretend we could meaningfully and viably go it alone on this one.

 

[ArmyRick]

I don't think a solely Canadian fighter solution is viable, or even desirable- but it is not required for significant Canadian capture of that trillion dollar spend.

I'm thinking more Saab Canada/ Bombardier joint venture that
-is 20-33% partner with Saab AB and Airbus on Flygsystem 2020
-starts working on improved version of Global Eye,
-copies some of Leonardo's homework to bring a viable Next Gen MPA to market

Coupled with Saab Canada getting in on missile, radar etc etc supply chains.

Can the same be done with Patria? BAE Hagglunds? Hanwha Defense?

If so- would the cost of choosing the wrong planes today be worth it as a first step in the path to leveraging our size to become a true middle power with a viable (if not wholly independent) and thriving, defense industry tomorrow?

The goal is not to get the US spend to zero, or the Canadian spend to 100%- just to increase the latter materially, drastically increase our influence and control, and potentially become a landing spot for more of the increased Euro spend

SAAB already been working on the Gripen replacement. Assuming its going to be 5th or 6th gen.

Go back to my original point, Canada has zero stomach to do this when things are smooth and easy sailing, zero. I totally remain unconvinced we will take defence seriously, as soon as Trump steps down or things calm down, we will go back to our minimal defence mindset.

Have a look at our long history on blowing off serious defence policy.

 

[IKnowNothing]

SAAB already been working on the Gripen replacement. Assuming its going to be 5th or 6th gen.

Yes, addressed here:

I don't think a solely Canadian fighter solution is viable, or even desirable- but it is not required for significant Canadian capture of that trillion dollar spend.

I'm thinking more Saab Canada/ Bombardier joint venture that
-is 20-33% partner with Saab AB and Airbus on Flygsystem 2020

Go back to my original point, Canada has zero stomach to do this when things are smooth and easy sailing, zero. I totally remain unconvinced we will take defence seriously, as soon as Trump steps down or things calm down, we will go back to our minimal defence mindset.

That assumes that we are currently in what hindsight will show as a GWOT/Balkans esque "blip" in a continuing multi-decade era of relative stability. My premise is that we're entering a multi-decade stretch of tension and risk more akin to the cold war.

 

[ArmyRick]

Yes, addressed here:



That assumes that we are currently in what hindsight will show as a GWOT/Balkans esque "blip" in a continuing multi-decade era of relative stability. My premise is that we're entering a multi-decade stretch of tension and risk more akin to the cold war.

Dude,

The berlin wall came down, Canada was already luke warm on defence spending.
The Yugo Wars didn't make us take defence seriously. Neither did Somalia, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, ISIS, Libya, The Russian Ukraine war. We have already been in a multi-decade of tension.

What makes you think anything is going to change with Canadian attitudes? I doubt it will. Right now, Orange man bad is the only driving new found interest in defence spending. For now.

What will it take for Canada to take its own defence seriously? I hate saying this, but someone or some entity will have to hit us hard and spill a lot of Canadian blood before we decide to really take it seriously. It might be too late by ten.

 

[Good2Golf]

Gimme Rafale and Phoenix instead, make it the best trade possible.

Then we need to go full Rafale.
There is no other option, if you want to avoid ITAR.

Well, Eurofighter, but Rafale (M) is both non-ITAR AND interoperable with the US military, in particular operating from USN CVNs like the USS Gerald R. Ford that formed the heart of the Maduro Arrest Task Force.

Did the F35 play a role in the Maduro snatch and grab ?

And may figure in taking over Greenland as well, though this time it could include F-35 on F-35. It would be interesting to see which F-35 force ‘wins.’

Which is why going completely away from ITAR is not a realistic option. The rest of the RCAF and CAF are full of ITAR components.

Unless one accepts that you don’t have to be ITAR-controlled to be interoperable (as with Rafale on CVNs) with the US…far more interoperable than Canada’s existing legacy CF-18 fleet for example, how great would that be!