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

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Personally, I am surprised no journalist has yet hit on the most important related issue: How is the RCAF (who hadn't planned on getting these surprise extra fighters) supposed to make this work?

Replacing kit one-for-one is something, but adding 23% more fighters in just a few years is another thing altogether. It raises the questions: Who is going to fly them? Who is going to fix and maintain them?

I haven't read any concurrent announcement to the effect that the overall authorized strength of the CAF will be increased by the five or six hundred souls needed for these extra airplanes (which, coincidentally, would then have come at the same time that the Auditor-general reminded us that the CAF is already four thousand people short of its current authorized strength and still has difficulty meeting those requirements due to the inefficient and slow nature of our training system).

What is the RCAF supposed to do without extra personnel? Park half the herky-birds and retrain their personnel? Ask the army to disband one battalion so as to free extra positions (again, at the same time it was ordered to deploy one such force to Eastern Europe, and is waiting for orders to deploy up to 600 people to Africa)? Get the technicians to work seven days a week 20 hours a day? That leads to mistakes and mistakes leads to loss airplanes and dead pilots.

Always nice to get new kit. Extra kit is different because in the CAF, everything is connected to everything else. That has not been addressed, that I can see, by the Liberal government.

Wasn't it only a little more than a year ago that the DND civil servants advised the minister to not attempt to get the two French Mistral amphibs because of the "extra pressure on the budget and unforeseeable budgetary risks" they would cause. Where are those civil servants now to advise on the extra pressure on the budget from this acquisition?

/RANT OFF

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect they would mothball an equal number of the older CF-18, so the immediate result would be the same number of aircraft, with the ability to increase a bit if they can train up new pilots.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Could we not just go straight to buy 94x F35 in less time and for less money if we go straight to that answer as opposed to first growing the fighter force with an interim buy of 18x super hornets?

We can have them delivered and in-service faster and for a significantly lower cost (even if we did an "interim" buy of F-35s now). This has to do with the fact that the F/A-18E has to be bought through FMS, the limitations of the St Louis line, and the set-up time for a new squadron training pipeline, compared to the JSF Partnership (Which avoids FMS), the vast flexibility of the Ft Worth line,  and the existence of the Luke AFB training pipeline.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Colin, what you discuss is one-for-one replacement, which is not what this is sold as.

This is supposed to be to cover a gap in numbers required. CRCAF has been ordered to have more airplanes available at any given time, hence the purchase. Mothballing an equivalent number would be disobeying orders.

Besides, how easy or hard is it to mothball planes and then put them back in operation? I don't know the answer to that one. I just know that in the Navy, we don't like doing that in view of the complexity of putting mothballed equipment back in operation (Windsor class subs anyone?).

 

[HB_Pencil]

Wasn't it only a little more than a year ago that the DND civil servants advised the minister to not attempt to get the two French Mistral amphibs because of the "extra pressure on the budget and unforeseeable budgetary risks" they would cause. Where are those civil servants now to advise on the extra pressure on the budget from this acquisition?

/RANT OFF

They were ignored or not consulted. That's why the gag order exists; the Liberals believe that they can ram this through and if they keep the Armed Forces quiet, they can avoid it sticking to them. The "analysis" for this decision (and I use quotation marks deliberately because it barely fits the word), was done by people in the PMO and the Minister's office, not the bureaucracy. They didn't like what the Bureaucrats were telling them, so they put them in a box, taped it up with a gag order, set them aside and did their own work to make this decision. They wanted to get super hornet and push off the F-35 (if we ever get it, because now that decision becomes a lot more fraught with the industrial benefits requirements), and this all suited their needs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Colin, what you discuss is one-for-one replacement, which is not what this is sold as.

This is supposed to be to cover a gap in numbers required. CRCAF has been ordered to have more airplanes available at any given time, hence the purchase. Mothballing an equivalent number would be disobeying orders.

Besides, how easy or hard is it to mothball planes and then put them back in operation? I don't know the answer to that one. I just know that in the Navy, we don't like doing that in view of the complexity of putting mothballed equipment back in operation (Windsor class subs anyone?).

Orders not based in reality are fables. The planes would not be "officially mothballed" but pushed into a hanger and not kept at flight ready status, but still capable of flight, but with no pilots or technicians to operate them, they will be effectively mothballed.

 

[Loachman]

That still requires work by somebody. Parked machines deteriorate.

And, as I said earlier, without extra personnel to man and maintain them, empty machines do not add any capability. We have to start now in order to train those extra people.

This is a completely stupid decision for so many reasons.

 

[Quirky]

I haven't read any concurrent announcement to the effect that the overall authorized strength of the CAF will be increased by the five or six hundred souls needed for these extra airplanes (which, coincidentally, would then have come at the same time that the Auditor-general reminded us that the CAF is already four thousand people short of its current authorized strength and still has difficulty meeting those requirements due to the inefficient and slow nature of our training system).

At our current training system, it takes about 5-6 years (and two years after QL5) from the start of basic training to having a competent technician being able to sign for his work. One of out every ten technicians can meet that 6 year mark if they are "on the ball" so to speak. Some are hard workers but need constant supervision and will need more time. Even if we can start taking deliveries of these 30 year old aircraft in 2019/20, we don't have the personnel available to replace those going to train on the SH. What I see happening is people already in getting trained on the Super Hornet. Just do more with less.  :

 

[jmt18325]

Could we not just go straight to buy 94x F35 in less time and for less money if we go straight to that answer as opposed to first growing the fighter force with an interim buy of 18x super hornets?

I would certainly prefer that.

 

[Good2Golf]

We can have them delivered and in-service faster and for a significantly lower cost (even if we did an "interim" buy of F-35s now). This has to do with the fact that the F/A-18E has to be bought through FMS, the limitations of the St Louis line, and the set-up time for a new squadron training pipeline, compared to the JSF Partnership (Which avoids FMS), the vast flexibility of the Ft Worth line,  and the existence of the Luke AFB training pipeline.

Yup, the 4 LRIP aircraft were almost a done deal until the Opposition (Orange Crush) and the #3s (Team Red) of the day screamed foul and the Govt quietly eased back from the sales desk and closed their wallet, and decided to let those who thought the JSF was such a bad idea, deal with the consequences.  The cynic would say that Canadians working in the aerospace sector (currently supporting $600M+ worth of JSF contracts) are perhaps not considered "middle class" enough...

The only difference between this and previous promises of cancellation* is that I figure the legacy Hornets when done (still in the late-2020s), will be one or two years short of the Sea King's exemplary and distinguished service record...

:2c:

Regards
G2G

* Chretien's 'Red Book' - three cancellations:  GST, NAFTA and EH-101.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Serving (!) Air Force major in 2006, pp. 3-4 (just after Conservatives took office, clearly previous Liberal policy):

...In NORAD, the Canadian Forces are committed to provide 36 fighters for air sovereignty and homeland security.  In addition to this Canada is committed to provide six or more fighters to the United Nations and/or NATO at any given time, should the need arise...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AE9UsPxVGYUJ:www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/doc/roberds-eng.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

And in 2011:

The ability to defend the skies and operate overseas at the same time would be in peril if the Harper government buys fewer stealth fighters than planned, the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force said Monday [Dec. 12].

Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps said the air force would have to review how much "concurrent activity" it could handle if the number of radar-evading F-35s drop below the 65 aircraft the government has promised...

"In the end, it's all about managing risk in delivering the defence mission. The number 65 gives us the capacity to cover all our missions with confidence."..

It is the smallest fleet the air force is able to live with given its current commitments to North American air defence, which requires at least 36 fighters to be set aside for NORAD missions [not clear if the general himself gave that number].

The initial joint-strike fighter proposal said Canada was prepared to buy 80 aircraft, replacing the current fleet of CF-18s almost one-for-one.

Deschamps said the decision to move to 65 jets was based on a mixture of "affordability" and what numbers the air force believes "it needs to deliver on our numerous defence missions."..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-jet-purchase-will-be-up-in-the-air-until-2013-1.1093739

Plus 2014 (story Aug. 2016):

No fighter jet requirement for NATO: report

Canada is not required to provide a certain number of fighter jets to NATO, says a Defence Department report that's raising fresh questions about the Liberal government's rush to buy a new warplane.

The report, published in June 2014 by the research arm of National Defence, says that while Canada supports NATO and contributes aircraft and other military assets when possible, "there is no hard minimum requirement for the NATO commitment."

That means the only actual requirement Canada must meet in terms of providing fighter jets is its obligation to defend North America along with the U.S.

The government has repeatedly stated in recent months that the military does not have enough CF-18s to both defend North America and fulfil its obligations to NATO. It says that is why a new plane is needed sooner rather than later.

But neither the government nor the Defence Department have said how many jets Canada actually needs, saying that to reveal the numbers would jeopardize national security...

The Defence Research and Development Canada report suggests that a maximum of 36 aircraft are required to be operational at any time to help defend North America, and that "anything beyond this number is in excess of the current requirement."

Those planes don't all have to be on high alert waiting for an attack, the report says. Some can be involved in training or NATO operations, and would be called back if required.

Canada currently has 77 CF-18s, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said only about half of them are operational at any given time. The report confirms those numbers, but also says the military can make do with 65 [surprise!] fighter jets...
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6795095-no-fighter-jet-requirement-for-nato-report/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[suffolkowner]

Mark, it's pretty clear where the numbers come from, it's also never been a secret. Clearly previous governments were planning on doing the bare minimum. I imagine our NATO allies have been less than impressed, perhaps the Liberal government is moving to get ahead off any stronger opinions coming out of the US in particular.

The Liberal government is also clearly not as comfortable with the risk management of the F-18/F-35 switch over as the RCAF and previous governments have been

I would think the 18 SH would allow greater room in managing the remaining CF-18 airframe's

I think that the plan is for Boeing to buy the SH's back at their end of use (as in the Kuwait deal?)

12 Growlers might have made more sense, if we're going to maintain two airframes in such small numbers.

I would be happier if it didn't appear that this whole process was decided in advance.
If we can't get the SH's up in going in short time I don't see what is gained over procuring the F-35

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

So.....

Do we know if this means we are adding a new squadron?  Or will the SH's go to an existing squadron, with the replaced legacy hornets being distributed to other squadrons?

 

[MarkOttawa]

From RCAF head LGEN Hood–looks like this means that the 18 Super Hornets will be added to the fleet of (now with crash) 76 CF-18s:

…the Government has just announced that it is investing in the RCAF, and that we will grow to meet their policy direction regarding the availability of our fighter capability.

The Government has now directed that we be ready to meet our daily NATO and NORAD commitments simultaneously. The Government has committed to delivering those resources, in part through an open and transparent competition to replace the fighter fleet. Meanwhile, they will enter into discussion with the United States Government and Boeing to augment our present CF-188 fleet.

We will also be provided the additional resources required to continue to fly the CF-188 and a potential interim fleet through to transition to the ultimate replacement aircraft. This will include recruiting and training additional pilots and aircraft technicians….
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=the-government-of-canada-s-investment-in-the-rcaf/ivxn69uj

More resources? Hmmm. Believe it when I see it.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[YZT580]

From previous comments and from observing the time required for the U.S. to approve sales to Kuwait it is evident that we will not be taking delivery of any new aircraft for at least 5 years which is fine because it will take at least that long to train the ground and aircrew required to stand up any new squadrons.  Any open competition could be completed and a total replacement of our current fleet could be underway by that time with the first 18 being added to strength before the first legacy aircraft was retired.  That is just common sense.  So why are we wasting the money buying the SH unless the fix is already in to fully equip with SH and growler aircraft?

 

[SupersonicMax]

It won't take 5 years to train ground and air crews....

 

[a_majoor]

From previous comments and from observing the time required for the U.S. to approve sales to Kuwait it is evident that we will not be taking delivery of any new aircraft for at least 5 years which is fine because it will take at least that long to train the ground and aircrew required to stand up any new squadrons.  Any open competition could be completed and a total replacement of our current fleet could be underway by that time with the first 18 being added to strength before the first legacy aircraft was retired.  That is just common sense.  So why are we wasting the money buying the SH unless the fix is already in to fully equip with SH and growler aircraft?

Nailed it. This way they get to avoid that open competition and the revelation that there is no real alternative to the F-35 if the RCAF is to remain a relevant air force in the medium and long term. Being bomb and missile trucks for USAF planers, targeteers and flight leaders is honourable employment, to be sure, but I wonder how the Liberals will square their reflexive anti-Americanism with stripping the RCAF of the ability to act independently in Canada's interest except in the most limited of circumstances?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Nailed it. This way they get to avoid that open competition and the revelation that there is no real alternative to the F-35 if the RCAF is to remain a relevant air force in the medium and long term. Being bomb and missile trucks for USAF planers, targeteers and flight leaders is honourable employment, to be sure, but I wonder how the Liberals will square their reflexive anti-Americanism with stripping the RCAF of the ability to act independently in Canada's interest except in the most limited of circumstances?

It's a good way to validate our 'second world' status though

 

[HB_Pencil]

Mark, it's pretty clear where the numbers come from, it's also never been a secret. Clearly previous governments were planning on doing the bare minimum. I imagine our NATO allies have been less than impressed, perhaps the Liberal government is moving to get ahead off any stronger opinions coming out of the US in particular.

The Liberal government is also clearly not as comfortable with the risk management of the F-18/F-35 switch over as the RCAF and previous governments have been

I would think the 18 SH would allow greater room in managing the remaining CF-18 airframe's

I think that the plan is for Boeing to buy the SH's back at their end of use (as in the Kuwait deal?)

12 Growlers might have made more sense, if we're going to maintain two airframes in such small numbers.

I would be happier if it didn't appear that this whole process was decided in advance.
If we can't get the SH's up in going in short time I don't see what is gained over procuring the F-35

No, this government doesn't care whether we are meeting our current requirements or not, they were looking for a convenient pretext to get Super Hornets and they thought they found one. I'm not kidding you, that's their intent. Think about the break in logic here: "we really think we need to meet our NATO and NORAD commitment, but we're going to ignore what those allies are doing and select an inferior, more costly aircraft to what everyone else."  That and the fact they can't get the Super Hornet Faster than the F-35. They didn't even discuss the commitments gap with Commander of the RCAF... does that really sound like an government that was overly concerned with it as an actual issue, or wanted to use it to push its agenda? Its the latter, I can assure of that.

Honestly, this government doesn't care about the AF, they just wanted to meet a terrible election promise because they don't like the F-35 / and perhaps cripple the AF's ability to meet overseas contingencies.

Growlers are only ECM aircraft, they are 40% more expensive than a Block III Super Hornet and cannot carry an appropriate a2a loadout.

 

[HB_Pencil]

From previous comments and from observing the time required for the U.S. to approve sales to Kuwait it is evident that we will not be taking delivery of any new aircraft for at least 5 years which is fine because it will take at least that long to train the ground and aircrew required to stand up any new squadrons.  Any open competition could be completed and a total replacement of our current fleet could be underway by that time with the first 18 being added to strength before the first legacy aircraft was retired.  That is just common sense.  So why are we wasting the money buying the SH unless the fix is already in to fully equip with SH and growler aircraft?

Super Hornets won't be available by 2022. The USN has been buying SH through congressional action in the Unfunded Liabilities column for the past two years... while the OSD tried to kill the program. Next year the F-35C buys start to ramp up with USN IOC and the funding will be directed to that program. If the USN stops procuring F/A-18Es after next year, then I suspect Boeing will just replace the 12 USN slots a year with Kuwaiti and Canadian purchases... or add a third aircraft to the line a month if the USN continues to buy. However that gets you to 2020 at the latest. Basically we're buying an orphaned fleet.

This is problematic because there will be ITB issues for the F-35 if Canada selects it in 2022... you won't see 100% because we will have lost out on all important contracts. As a partner we can't get guaranteed workshare. So that leaves only the Gripen.