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

[dimsum]

Snowbirds have entered the chat -- I hear they are burning an effigy of you currently...


I was just being snarky with the Demo team comment earlier.

But there probably would be an F-35 solo demo plane, like what we have now with the CF-18.

 

[KevinB]

But there probably would be an F-35 solo demo plane, like what we have now with the CF-18.

WTF - does anyone care to see a 40 year old plane - other for the train wreck factor that it may drop out of the sky?

 

[suffolkowner]

I like the idea of grabbing a few extra F-35 to demonstrate a little more resolve against authoritarian powers. If we can figure out how to train pilots on a reasonable timeline, then this might be my suggestion:
View attachment 69769

cell phone thumbs

 

[Dana381]

WTF - does anyone care to see a 40 year old plane - other for the train wreck factor that it may drop out of the sky?

The 60 year old Tutors still put on a great show

 

[KevinB]

The 60 year old Tutors stillput on a great show

Clearly you haven't seen an F-22 team put on a show...

 

[lenaitch]

Too soon?

I was hoping for 140 personally.

WRT NORAD, if the RCAF was to want to dispatch all of the F-35 (once available) for an expeditionary force inside a US Coalition - I am sure the USAF would gladly cover the gaps.
That sort of tit for tat is done all of NATO, and I am sure it wouldn't be an issue for a short term NORAD requirement...

We operated over 400 CF-100s in the '50s and '60s, then about 130 CF101s in the '60s-'80s (along with CF-5s and CF-104s). The price tag goes up - the numbers come down. At some point in the future, out sole plane and pilot will be busy.

The Sim for the F-35 is pretty impressive - so your training squadron could also double as a demonstration team

It was my understanding all along that training (and major maintenance) would be done in the US. Could be wrong.


Now, about in-air refueling . . .

 

[lenaitch]

Clearly you haven't seen an F-22 team put on a show...

Difference between zoom-zoom and aerial ballet.

 

[GR66]

The Sim for the F-35 is pretty impressive - so your training squadron could also double as a demonstration team

What's the point of an "invisible" fighter for a demonstration team...kinda defeats the purpose, no?

 

[dimsum]

Now, about in-air refueling . . .

It was downselected to the Airbus A330 MRTT a while ago. That aircraft can do both boom and probe/drogue.

 

[Dana381]

Clearly you haven't seen an F-22 team put on a show...

No, I almost saw the F-35 at London 2019. We left and were almost to the car when I saw it flying above the Diamond building. the 2.5 seconds I saw was impressive. I was so dissapointed, we left because for some reason I don't remember we thought the show was over.

 

[suffolkowner]

But if you don't include the Aussie planes, then our current level of 72 operational planes would be 72-X = ? operational planes - this strengthens the argument to buy more than 88 planes.

I dont think thats right, did we not have 76 before the Austrailian purchase raising it to 94 total. So we add 18 and lose 22?

I am still wondering about the requirements. How many is enough and how many more would be better?

I’m not knocking the 88 one way or another.

I legit want to know what we actually need. Can we man our NORAD commitments and still have enough for expediationary purposes if that were to be the case?

Anyone know?

What are the calculation criteria the military uses when it goes through calculating how many jets we need?

I'm assuming something along the lines of:

• X hours are required for NORAD missions.
• 6 pack for multinational missions.
• Maintenance time required per hour of flying.
• Number hours required for training
• hours of other expected missions
• Plug into computer... get 88 aircraft.

I could see the number of aircraft the CPC wanted 65 going to 88 as a function of two things. Better information of maintenance time (aka longer time in maintenance then originally expected) and/or government direction on mission changes (more NORAD hours, a 12 pack deployability instead of a 6 pack etc...).

The SOR details aren't required here. More of a big hand small map sort of overview.

The numbers are derived from a RCAF availability and sustainability metric.(80% and 70% I dont remember which is which real life performance will obviously vary) When you multiply those two numbers together you will get the 65 fighters needed to provide the 36 fighters for NORAD. One expeditionary six pack rises the total to 77 and two six packs to 88

Now, about in-air refueling . . .

The Airbus 330 MRTT has already been preselected as I understand it as the KC-46 didnt make the cut so easy peasy

 

[Kirkhill]

WTF - does anyone care to see a 40 year old plane - other for the train wreck factor that it may drop out of the sky?

Not as funny as it might be.

2010 Lethbridge Alberta Airshow Practice

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2315028330

 

[Czech_pivo]

I dont think thats right, did we not have 76 before the Austrailian purchase raising it to 94 total. So we add 18 and lose 22?



The numbers are derived from a RCAF availability and sustainability metric.(80% and 70% I dont remember which is which real life performance will obviously vary) When you multiply those two numbers together you will get the 65 fighters needed to provide the 36 fighters for NORAD. One expeditionary six pack rises the total to 77 and two six packs to 88


The Airbus 330 MRTT has already been preselected as I understand it as the KC-46 didnt make the cut so easy peasy

This article quotes 75, both single and double seaters.

It's Official: Canada's CF-18 Hornet Fighters Are Set To Get New Advanced Radars

AN/APG-79(V)4 radars are part of a badly needed upgrade package for Canada's legacy Hornets as the country continues to struggle to buy new fighters.

www.thedrive.com

Someone else on here provided information earlier that the numbers was sitting at 72.

My point is, we bought 138 F-18s 40yrs ago (when we had only 25m pop.). Now we are buying only 88 (and now we have 38m population, 50% higher).

Do you know think that those 88 will be down to under 75 in say 25, 30yrs time? Why do we always, always buy the absolute bare minimum, unreal.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

CTV’s got it now too

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberals-expected-to-launch-negotiations-to-bu

[QUOTE="brihard, post: 1734109, member: 3429"] y-f-35-fighter-jets-1.5837647[/QUOTE]

As the government slides this across the finishing line......

MSN

According to the article it's not a done deal yet and could still fall through. Not likely mind you, but possible. And if I'm not mistaken it still has to.go before Parliament for final approval. I'm sure the NDP and BQ might have a say.

 

[Underway]

I dont think thats right, did we not have 76 before the Austrailian purchase raising it to 94 total. So we add 18 and lose 22?

The numbers are derived from a RCAF availability and sustainability metric.(80% and 70% I dont remember which is which real life performance will obviously vary) When you multiply those two numbers together you will get the 65 fighters needed to provide the 36 fighters for NORAD. One expeditionary six pack rises the total to 77 and two six packs to 88

I feel like with this information I can make a logical deconstruction of the entire "numbers" situation. The availability metric and sustainability metric is the entire basis for these varying numbers based on government direction to the RCAF on their missions.

Canada requires 36 fighters for NORAD. This was the CPC COA. The entire fleet replacement was coming during/on the heels of a big economic downturn. The NSPS was already announced and another big ticket purchase was likely not politically palatable. Thus when the RCAF presented their COA's the CPC went for the lowest cost options (I don't know for sure this is all supposition).

Like @suffolkowner stated: 36/.80/.70= 64.3 planes or 65 planes to ensure the NORAD mission parameters are met.

Strong Secure Engaged stated that Canada must meet its "NORAD and NATO" commitments. I know a lot of people don't put much stock in this document but for all intents and purposes, it's direction for the CAF to follow. NATO commitments meant that the calculation needed to change by 6 aircraft at a minimum but 12 is much more robust. (again supposition on closed door thinking)

Again from @suffolkowner calculation: 48/.80/.70= 85.7 or 86 aircraft. 88 is pretty close to that number.

So there is the reasoning behind the numbers. Do we need more aircraft for our missions? Nope. Not unless we expand the missions by the looks of things. Which of course we could do. But given that it meets the assumed mission parameters why go out and get more? At least initially we'll probably have a challenge just looking after 88.

 

[Underway]

An addendum to my post above.

FINALLY! Getting new jets.

 

[DBNSG]

I was under the impression that Trudeau's friend Gerry had the RCAF fighter requirement study removed from the internet before he left the PMO. I however remembered the simple formula. Take the total number of A/C multiplied by 80%.That sounds correct as deep maintenance removes 1 in 5 A/C from day to day operations. My Dad used to be an RCAF transportation Officer helping to run AMU's at Shearwater and Ottawa and explained the
CC 137 scheduling to me when I was a kid. 4 flying 1 deep fix.

Day to day snags reduce the availability to 70% of the remaining A/C . Using that formula with the complete 138 Ship CF -18 fleet got Canada down to 77 active Fighters which I believe is what the Central European Conventional Arms treaty allowed Canada to contribute to the European theatre.

Will Trudeau's government commit say 12 F -35's to Lakenheath in England?
That would improve recruitment. Base two of the coming KC -30's to Brize Norton and poof
a NATO contribution.

 

[KevinB]

Difference between zoom-zoom and aerial ballet.

Nope. The 22 is a ballet with some Zoom.
I saw the demo team in Chile several year ago. 180 turns on a dime, near hover pivots and then turn 90 to the sky hit burner and disappear upwards.

It was the first time I had ever been in total awe at an aircraft capability. It seemed unreal.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I was under the impression that Trudeau's friend Gerry had the RCAF fighter requirement study removed from the internet before he left the PMO. I however remembered the simple formula. Take the total number of A/C multiplied by 80%.That sounds correct as deep maintenance removes 1 in 5 A/C from day to day operations. My Dad used to be an RCAF transportation Officer helping to run AMU's at Shearwater and Ottawa and explained the
CC 137 scheduling to me when I was a kid. 4 flying 1 deep fix.

Day to day snags reduce the availability to 70% of the remaining A/C . Using that formula with the complete 138 Ship CF -18 fleet got Canada down to 77 active Fighters which I believe is what the Central European Conventional Arms treaty allowed Canada to contribute to the European theatre.

Will Trudeau's government commit say 12 F -35's to Lakenheath in England?
That would improve recruitment. Base two of the coming KC -30's to Brize Norton and poof
a NATO contribution.

Lakenheath? Pass.

 

[suffolkowner]

This is one of the studies I got the fleet numbers from, cant find the other right now but yes it was removed by Trudeau government