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

[dimsum]

What "logic" is there in requiring a degree in order to be a Pilot? How does a degree in a completely unrelated field make anybody a better Pilot?

Subtle hints: "None" and "It does not".

Put a Corporal and an Officer Cadet through the same selection and training process, and you'll have two people with remarkably similar abilities.

And, yes, the British Army was training Corporal Pilots a few years ago, who would rapidly be promoted to Sergeant. I am not sure if they still train at the Corporal rank, but they certainly still have Sergeant Pilots.

I would not push that model on the whole CF flying operation, but it makes a lot of sense for Tac Hel.

Honest question:  How does TH work out Crew Commanders, etc?  Do you guys use them?  In the LRP world, the CC is a Pilot or a TacNav and while I certainly have no issues with NCM Pilots, for admin/discipline issues, wouldn't it pretty much default to CCs requiring commissions?  Or would it be a matter of always having a commissioned CC and an NCM FO (which prob wouldn't work out in the long term)?

And mods, feel free to split this off from the main thread.

 

[Loachman]

One of the two Pilots is the Aircraft Captain. Other crewmembers are FE (on both Griffon and Chinook), LM (on Chinook), and Door Gunners when required. Obviously, none of them are in any position to command anything. The AMC (Aviation Mission Commander) on an airmobile operation may be a flying Pilot, or he/she may elect to sit in the back where he/she can concentrate on co-ordinating lift aircraft, escorts, and whatever fire support is involved without having to drive and/or navigate as well.

Aircraft captains in the British Army are generally Sergeants, with the Officers actually commanding Flights, Squadrons, and Regiments much the way that an Armoured organization works (ie the Officer commands his tank as well as his Troop, Squadron, etcetera).

A battlefield helicopter is, in reality, a vehicle like a tank or APC/IFV but with a rotor rather than tracks or wheels for mobility, but the a** f**ce is blind to that. The basic ground vehicle crew of commander and driver works best, also, for the basic air vehicle crew.

We were forced to have that backwards in the Kiowa, because the Observer could not command, but only suggest, even though he had the map and sensors (binoculars/stab monocular) while the Crew Commander had to drive while commanding, but with less situational awareness than the Observer had. This doubled the internal communication required while reducing its effectiveness.

At least, with two Pilots in each machine, both of whom are commissioned, that problem is solved - but it is the least of our problems.

 

[rnkelly]

A battlefield helicopter is, in reality, a vehicle like a tank or APC/IFV but with a rotor rather than tracks or wheels for mobility, but the a** f**ce is blind to that. The basic ground vehicle crew of commander and driver works best, also, for the basic air vehicle crew.

How can the Air Force be blind to what a battlefield helicopter is when much of it's leadership comes from the Tac Hel community?  The commander of 1 Cdn Air Div is a Tac Hel guy right now.  Lot's of room to improve, don't get me wrong. 

A degree obviously isn't required to be a pilot, as evidenced by the education entry standards being ANY degree (ie;the famous basket weaving, I've actually met someone with a 4 year degree in the fine art of glass blowing that met the entry standard).  The Air Force isn't blind to this either because they have identified that their pilots were becoming too old when receiving their wings so they hastily created the CEOTP-AEAD entry program where a candidate can go from a high school grad to a degreed winged pilot in 4 years.  Unfortunately for the Air Force some of these candidates aren't 17/18 years old like they wished.

 

[CBH99]

That's more of a huge issue with communicating the opportunity, rather than the pool of applicants being older than the Air Force desires.

Trust me, if you launch an information/recruiting campaign at high schools & colleges across the country...stating that in 4yrs, those people will have a university degree AND be winged pilots in the Air Force, you'd fill up the empty slots pretty quickly!  Especially since that degree is paid for by the government, and you get paid for your service while the service pays for your degree.

I think it's more of a community relations/recruiting issue, not shoving this amazing opportunity right in the face of young Canadians. 


(I assisted in community relations/recruiting in southern Alberta for the CF a few years ago, and high schools LOVED having us there.)

 

[rnkelly]

That's more of a huge issue with communicating the opportunity, rather than the pool of applicants being older than the Air Force desires.

Trust me, if you launch an information/recruiting campaign at high schools & colleges across the country...stating that in 4yrs, those people will have a university degree AND be winged pilots in the Air Force, you'd fill up the empty slots pretty quickly!  Especially since that degree is paid for by the government, and you get paid for your service while the service pays for your degree.

I think it's more of a community relations/recruiting issue, not shoving this amazing opportunity right in the face of young Canadians. 


(I assisted in community relations/recruiting in southern Alberta for the CF a few years ago, and high schools LOVED having us there.)

At the risk of getting even more off topic I'll respond; there isn't a lack of applicants interested in the Pilot occupation.  We attract lots for all entry types but there is a limit in capacity to train them also.  My comment on the age of pilot candidates didn't mean we were lacking applicants.  As long as the applicant can serve the initial term of service, we can't discriminate between a 47, 37 or 17 year old applicant. 

My point was that creative ways are being looked at to get winged pilots in a variety of ways, hopefully the different entry types will be complimentary in the long run too.

 

[tomahawk6]

Trump is suggesting a stealth F/A-18.After all the money sunk into the F-35 program I dont this would be a viable project.Thoughts ?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Stealth, or more accurately low observable, implies a lot more than a special coating.  Stores, fuel, aircraft and surfaces shapes all have to be taken into consideration.  Making the Super Hornet low observable is just not physically possible.

 

[Old Sweat]

Stealth, or more accurately low observable, implies a lot more than a special coating.  Stores, fuel, aircraft and surfaces shapes all have to be taken into consideration.  Making the Super Hornet low observable is just not physically possible.

Damn details keep getting in the way of good ideas that make catchy social media lines, don't they. Thanks for that, SM.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Damn details keep getting in the way of good ideas that make catchy social media lines, don't they. Thanks for that, SM.

They could always re-define "stealth" to fit their political agenda.

 

[tomahawk6]

The plane would have to be re-engineered for internal stores right ? So you might as well build from scratch ?

 

[jmt18325]

Not that I endorse it, but the low observable Super Hornet was to carry a 'stealth' weapons pod.

 

[dimsum]

Not that I endorse it, but the low observable Super Hornet was to carry a 'stealth' weapons pod.

Yes.

As SupersonicMax says, it's more than just a special coating or podded weapons - even from the front, those big engines will be a big RCS target.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Not that I endorse it, but the low observable Super Hornet was to carry a 'stealth' weapons pod.

These pods on canted pylons won't affect range and endurance at all... :

Yes, the olane would need to be re-engineered..

 

[dimsum]

It's one belly mounted pod.

Yes, which is stealthy, but the plane itself is not. 

Also, if the ASH wants to have a decent range/endurance, it'll likely need drop tanks and if it wants more than what the pod can carry, it'll need to mount external weapons - all of which decrease what "stealthiness" it would have already.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

It would be interesting if Boeing received funding from Trump/Pentagon to develop and integrate the under-wing conformal pods that were developed for the Stealth Eagle....

 

[MarkOttawa]

More from May 2016 on Boeing Super Super Hornet proposals--apparently no stealthy weapons pod now:

Boeing resumes Advanced Super Hornet push as US Navy considers fleet size

Boeing Defense has “matured its thinking” about the Advanced Super Hornet concept that it launched in 2013 and flight tested, revealing a scaled-back configuration this week with fewer stealth features and perhaps a greater chance of being picked up by the US Navy.

The new design, which would be mostly common between Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler warplanes, is a mix of new capabilities and upgrades like the centreline fuel tank-mounted infrared search and track (IRST21) sensor, integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and next-generation jammer that are already being introduced as programmes of records.

Upgrades that have not yet been adopted by the Pentagon include an enhanced engine, conformal fuel tanks and an open architecture cockpit with a 48cm (19in) wide-area display.

...
It terms of differences between the Advanced Super Hornet proposal put forward in 2013 – which included low-observable enhancements like an enclosed weapons pod – and the one presented to the media on 11 May, Gillian says “the biggest different is maturation of thought”.

“Twenty-thirteen was really about how great can we make Super Hornet in some of those stealth areas?" he says. "That was a little bit more of a head-to-head discussion [versus the F-35].

"Twenty-sixteen is about complimentary capability and what does the carrier air wing need given the other assets like F-35, [Northrop Grumman] E-2D and Growler that are going to be out there.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-resumes-advanced-super-hornet-push-as-us-navy-425221/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

The plane would have to be re-engineered for internal stores right ? So you might as well build from scratch ?

Yes, and like Max said, it's not just radar-absorbant coatings.  The entire structure, not just outer surfaces, is also designed and tuned to counteract targeted RF bands.  A pod just shields the individual non-stealthy weapons, it in no way improves the stealthiness of the original platform.  In fact, no matter how amazingly stealthy the belly pod is, the interior/concave angles created between the pod and lower fuselage of the Super Hornet will create some pretty interesting reflectors and have some notable RCS spikes at certain lateral aspects.  Note: lipstick (on the sow's ear) is not radar absorbent...

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

So...

Lockheed Martin has been told they have a "competitor"
Boeing has been told they have an "opportunity".

Lockheed has been arguing for a long term commitment for a while.  The counter has been that the F35 "could be better".
Boeing has been arguing they can do stuff too.  The counter has been the F35 is the programme.

So Boeing is now being challenged to put up at the same time Lockheed is being challenged to get their price down.

Lockheed has a plan for getting the price down but it needs the co-operation of the government.
Can Boeing provide a credible alternative?

My betting is that it can't and that this "discussion" will pave the way for a cost reducing plan that involves a long term commitment to the F35.

 

[NavyShooter]

What would happen if Boeing resurrected the XF-32 (shudder based on looks alone) in the "A" model only (air-force version without the tailhook and strengthening of the -C and eliminating the VTOL of the -B) and offered them up as an alternate?

They're ugly as sin, but it'd give them another pan in the fire as a 5th gen fighter option. 

 

[PuckChaser]

What would happen if Boeing resurrected the XF-32 (shudder based on looks alone) in the "A" model only (air-force version without the tailhook and strengthening of the -C and eliminating the VTOL of the -B) and offered them up as an alternate?

It would show how stupid it is to cancel the F-35 now. The cost for Boeing to get up to speed and make XF-32 a viable aircraft to the point of where F-35 is would be astronomical, and set the US back 15 years.

Maybe we can sell Trump the Avro Arrow, its probably only slightly further behind than the XF-32 in development, at least the Boeing plane isn't designed on a napkin.