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

[KevinB]

I've said it before. On the aircraft side at least, some of the changes are step changes in technology so that a 1:1 replacement is like replacing a horse with a Model T at a 1:1 rate. Let's not forget the Sea King literally had vacuum tubes when it entered service. 88 F-35s is substantially more capability than 137 CF-18s.

I agree with that in principle.

My concern is that when more airframes are needed, it may be due to an event that results in many others nations trying to get in line with LocMart as well.

Which is why I believe the ‘Loyal Wingman’ UAS is so important. Having force multipliers and expendable ‘crewmen’ to help safeguard the fleet.

 

[Fabius]

Are we looking to buy another Chinook and Cyclone to replace the ones we have lost?

I think that answer might give some insight into our overall attrition replacement plan.

 

[ytz]

But what if all the other buyers of the F35 are thinking/planning on doing the same thing? Waiting until the end to buy more replacements?
I seem to remember something similar happening with the end of run of the C17 - there were a total of 10 available, and, if memory serves me correctly India, Canada, Australia and Qatar were all in active competition to get those last 10. We got 1 of the 10.
What if the same thing happens with the end run of the F35 and we need to buy X more but only X-1 or X-3 or even X-5 are available to us?

First of all, the OEMs provide warning well in advance when the lines are closing. That will be especially true for a fighter production line. End of line doesn't mean the very, very last year possible.

Next, on the C-17, blame the government of the day. They were extremely reluctant to buy more airlift. And it took substantial effort from the Air Staff to convince them to buy the one frame they did. That's politics. Not a problem of procurement.

If there's enough of a last minute surge in orders, companies will extend their lines. To some extent this is happening now on the P-8. They are businesses at the end of the day.

On the topic at hand, if we have more than one loss per year, it will actually be higher than historical average. The CF-18 loss rate is about 0.5 per year historically. The F-35 should perform better and a smaller fleet should mean lower losses. We shouldn't see more than one every 3 years. Given that the fleet is supposed to last till 2060, that's about 10 frames over that time (2030-2060) with 2-3 of those losses during the 2030s when the line is running. Ordering 10-15 frames in 2038-2040 is hardly onerous when the line is pumping out 150 frames per year. Added bonus? All those airplanes will be on TR4 or even TR5 with Block VI or even Block VII software.

People also underestimate obsolescence in this new world. The USAF is already taking 10 year old early Block F-35s out of combat units and making them aggressors because they don't think they are capable enough for combat. As soon as the mold line changes, the clock starts on obsolescence. Think of it like buying a smartphone. You only get so many software updates before you need new hardware. Modern fighters are not far from this model. This is why it's actually worth while to hold off or stagger purchases. You'd find it crazy if I said you should buy two smartphones in 2025 so you have a spare to use in 2030 in case your phone breaks.

 

[Underway]

People also underestimate obsolescence in this new world. The USAF is already taking 10 year old early Block F-35s out of combat units and making them aggressors because they don't think they are capable enough for combat. As soon as the mold line changes, the clock starts on obsolescence. Think of it like buying a smartphone. You only get so many software updates before you need new hardware. Modern fighters are not far from this model. This is why it's actually worth while to hold off or stagger purchases. You'd find it crazy if I said you should buy two smartphones in 2025 so you have a spare to use in 2030 in case your phone brbreaks.

This seems odd to me. The vast majority of US fighter assets are still 4th Gen (like 80% or something) but somehow the 5th generation isn't good enough for combat?

But good ol F15, 16 and 18 are?

 

[Underway]

Why do options a, b and c all have to be independent of each other? Why can’t any of them occur together or, heaven forbid, all at the same time?

Because I was typing on my phone and the essay went on long enough. You are quite right.

 

[YZT580]

First of all, the OEMs provide warning well in advance when the lines are closing. That will be especially true for a fighter production line. End of line doesn't mean the very, very last year possible.

Next, on the C-17, blame the government of the day. They were extremely reluctant to buy more airlift. And it took substantial effort from the Air Staff to convince them to buy the one frame they did. That's politics. Not a problem of procurement.

If there's enough of a last minute surge in orders, companies will extend their lines. To some extent this is happening now on the P-8. They are businesses at the end of the day.

On the topic at hand, if we have more than one loss per year, it will actually be higher than historical average. The CF-18 loss rate is about 0.5 per year historically. The F-35 should perform better and a smaller fleet should mean lower losses. We shouldn't see more than one every 3 years. Given that the fleet is supposed to last till 2060, that's about 10 frames over that time (2030-2060) with 2-3 of those losses during the 2030s when the line is running. Ordering 10-15 frames in 2038-2040 is hardly onerous when the line is pumping out 150 frames per year. Added bonus? All those airplanes will be on TR4 or even TR5 with Block VI or even Block VII software.

People also underestimate obsolescence in this new world. The USAF is already taking 10 year old early Block F-35s out of combat units and making them aggressors because they don't think they are capable enough for combat. As soon as the mold line changes, the clock starts on obsolescence. Think of it like buying a smartphone. You only get so many software updates before you need new hardware. Modern fighters are not far from this model. This is why it's actually worth while to hold off or stagger purchases. You'd find it crazy if I said you should buy two smartphones in 2025 so you have a spare to use in 2030 in case your phone breaks.

There is no consideration that I can see to account for combat losses. Wouldn't having a couple extra in the hanger be a prudent thing?

 

[ytz]

This seems odd to me. The vast majority of US fighter assets are still 4th Gen (like 80% or something) but somehow the 5th generation isn't good enough for combat?

But good ol F15, 16 and 18 are?

Not unusual at all. They've decided they want similarly configured F-35s in line squadrons. And they see their older F-35s being more useful as training aids.

F-35 Stealth Fighters Are Revolutionizing The USAF's Aggressor Force

We spoke to the boss of the 65th Aggressor Squadron, flying the F-35 — the Air Force’s latest red air incarnation.

www.twz.com

There is no consideration that I can see to account for combat losses. Wouldn't having a couple extra in the hanger be a prudent thing?

They do have extras though. If they buy 88 and their reports say that 76 will let them force generate 36 on the ramp on a given day, they basically have a dozen extra frames.

Also, what kinda combat losses do you envision for a fifth gen fleet?

 

[Fabius]

In terms of mass a fleet of 36 F35s airborne can carry the following missile load out;
Internal bay only: 216
Internal and External: 576

I wonder what those missile load outs x the kill probability of the missiles would equal?

The Aim 120 operational pK seems to be at least 80%. So 216 Aim 120s should equal the ability to kill 172 En systems.

As another data point the Russia aerial attacks into Ukraine have featured the heaviest attacks being in the 150-300 aerial systems (mix of UAS and cruise missiles).

Just something to consider when looking at fleet size and probable threat pictures.

 

[ytz]

The paradigm has changed. The old model of buying a bunch of planes and running major upgrade programs every 10 years just doesn't work. For 5th gen and later software matters. Just like the monthly updates on your smartphone and computer. And just like consumer electronics, software can reach hardware limits.

We see this with the F-35 and its cooling problem. The thing is a flying server and needs cooling, just like a server room. But since it lacks cooling, the software has to be throttled. One of the recent Block Upgrades is physical upgrades to add cooling capacity. Part of the reason for the switch from Gallium Arsenide to Gallium Nitride on the radar is to reduce the power draw which in turn reduces cooling demands.

The way that these evolving problems are managed is continuous development. Every 5 - 7 years the physical configuration of the F-35 changes to include new hardware. Some of that can be retrofitted to older aircraft. Some of it can't, if the mold line (outer shape) changes. Tech Refresh 3 (TR3) is the first mold line change in the F-35 program and it's why we insisted all deliveries are post-TR3.

In the new world, what matters is software support and manufacturing capacity that allows continuous replacement over time. We will not be able to do what we did with the Hornet, flying it for 30 years after the line closed.

 

[Fabius]

We will not be able to do what we did with the Hornet, flying it for 30 years after the line closed.

Canada: Challenge accepted eh! Hey dude watch my beer I got this.

 

[ytz]

In terms of mass a fleet of 36 F35s airborne can carry the following missile load out;
Internal bay only: 216
Internal and External: 576

I wonder what those missile load outs x the kill probability of the missiles would equal?

The Aim 120 operational pK seems to be at least 80%. So 216 Aim 120s should equal the ability to kill 172 En systems.

As another data point the Russia aerial attacks into Ukraine have featured the heaviest attacks being in the 150-300 aerial systems (mix of UAS and cruise missiles).

Just something to consider when looking at fleet size and probable threat pictures.

What scenario are you imagining where Russia can deliver the same tonnage across the Arctic sea, as they do against Ukraine next door? Also, reaching the Arctic isn't enough. Most of our critical infrastructure is quite far from the Arctic frontier.

Lastly, relying an million dollar AAMs delivered by 5th Gen aircraft, to counter cheaper drones and cruise missiles, is a plan for economic suicide. Cost asymmetry is a thing.

 

[Fabius]

What scenario are you imagining where Russia can deliver the same tonnage across the Arctic sea, as they do against Ukraine next door? Also, reaching the Arctic isn't enough. Most of our critical infrastructure is quite far from the Arctic frontier.

Simply saying that considerations of mass are still a concern. Exact scenarios are always guesses.

Lastly, relying an million dollar AAMs delivered by 5th Gen aircraft is a plan for economic suicide. Cost asymmetry is a thing.

Agreed but I think you missed my overall point, which is again mass. Even with the F35 and a 100% pK of its load out, considerations of ability to mass effects in time and space are still a factor. The threat can and will change and while a AAM might be overkill it also might not be.

 

[armrdsoul77]

And they see their older F-35s being more useful as training aids.

It was determined to be prohibitively expensive to upgrade the early production jets. Turns out concurrency wasn't such a good idea.

British Government Says It Might Pass On $27M Upgrade For Some Of Its F-35s

"A concept called “concurrency” has long imposed a variety of costs on the F-35 program from the very beginning. Under this plan, Lockheed Martin began actually building Joint Strike Fighters knowing full well that there would be a need to insert fixes and modifications over time, albeit the scale and scope of those rework requirements were grossly underestimated. The idea, in theory, was that this was supposed to reduce costs by ramping up production earlier than normal.
In practice, the decision drove up costs, created schedule delays, and has created a need for costly fixes and updates."

 

[YZT580]

Not unusual at all. They've decided they want similarly configured F-35s in line squadrons. And they see their older F-35s being more useful as training aids.

F-35 Stealth Fighters Are Revolutionizing The USAF's Aggressor Force

We spoke to the boss of the 65th Aggressor Squadron, flying the F-35 — the Air Force’s latest red air incarnation.

www.twz.com

They do have extras though. If they buy 88 and their reports say that 76 will let them force generate 36 on the ramp on a given day, they basically have a dozen extra frames.

Also, what kinda combat losses do you envision for a fifth gen fleet?

F35 goes up against another 5th generation. Someone is going to lose. I am a firm follower of Murphy, a gentleman whose presence should always be considered.

 

[ytz]

F35 goes up against another 5th generation. Someone is going to lose. I am a firm follower of Murphy, a gentleman whose presence should always be considered.

I'm a believer in maintaining credibility with the public and not using extreme scenarios to justify something unlikely, eventually making the public think you will say anything to get your toys.

Sure the other side's 5th Gen is a threat. But that other side is not just facing Canada individually. And that other side (Russia) still doesn't have large numbers of 5th gen and will struggle to project what they have across the Arctic.

Let's hear your actual scenario. Who do you imagine we should be planning to fight and how many 5th Gen do you think they are throwing at Canada itself?

 

[ytz]

It was determined to be prohibitively expensive to upgrade the early production jets. Turns out concurrency wasn't such a good idea.

British Government Says It Might Pass On $27M Upgrade For Some Of Its F-35s

"A concept called “concurrency” has long imposed a variety of costs on the F-35 program from the very beginning. Under this plan, Lockheed Martin began actually building Joint Strike Fighters knowing full well that there would be a need to insert fixes and modifications over time, albeit the scale and scope of those rework requirements were grossly underestimated. The idea, in theory, was that this was supposed to reduce costs by ramping up production earlier than normal.
In practice, the decision drove up costs, created schedule delays, and has created a need for costly fixes and updates."

There's no way to build modern aircraft without concurrency and continuous development. And yes, it costs more. Welcome to the 21st century I guess.

That example does show why it doesn't make sense to get all your aircraft at once. If there aren't substantial cuts to Canada's order, come 2032, Canada will have a substantially more advanced F-35 fleet than the UK. Our aircraft will literally multiples the computing power allowing for radar collection, 50% more missile carriage and engine improvements that might even allow more range and excess thrust. Now imagine what 2040 F-35s will be capable of.

 

[OldSolduer]

There's no way to build modern aircraft without concurrency and continuous development. And yes, it costs more. Welcome to the 21st century I guess.

And Canada - whatever party is in power - will continue to cheap out and not take things seriously.

 

[YZT580]

I'm a believer in maintaining credibility with the public and not using extreme scenarios to justify something unlikely, eventually making the public think you will say anything to get your toys.

Sure the other side's 5th Gen is a threat. But that other side is not just facing Canada individually. And that other side (Russia) still doesn't have large numbers of 5th gen and will struggle to project what they have across the Arctic.

Let's hear your actual scenario. Who do you imagine we should be planning to fight and how many 5th Gen do you think they are throwing at Canada itself?

At the moment, the odds are pretty fair that we will end up fighting Russia in Europe before 2030 so that is your scenario. The second possibility of course remains China sometime around 2028 according to the Chinese who really want Taiwan. Now in both scenarios we will be fielding maybe one flight of 6 plus our current F18s which is sad but possible so we will not be up to strength but we need to look to the future and to do that you should consider the past rather than worrying about credibility. Roll back pre 2014. Would you have predicted the current mess? That's only 11 years ago. So consider these a/c will have to do us until at least 2050: a quarter century give me a reasonable guarantee that another Ukraine isn't going to arise or how about another gulf war or an Afghanistan with sophisticated drones added. The Americans lost one F117 in Yugoslavia and that certainly wasn't against a peer group. A couple of extras aren't an extravagance: they are simply insurance.

 

[GR66]

Some of the discussions around numbers for a mixed fleet seem to be suggesting F-35's for the NORAD role and a Euro aircraft for the NATO role. Personally I think that's backward. The only likely airborne threat to Canadian territory is missiles launched by long range bombers or from subs/ships offshore. We're not going to see Su-57's or J-20's flying over Canada so the need for stealth is not a factor for the NORAD mission.

IF we were to go for a mixed fleet I'd definitely plan for the F-35's for the expeditionary role where they are likely to require stealth against enemy AD systems and 5th Gen fighters. We can then use our 4th or 4.5 Gen fighters for the NORAD role.

In a hypothetical mixed-fleet scenario personally I'd go with something like 36 x F-35's for the expeditionary role (and because they're not being used for the NORAD role you could keep them all at one base and reduce the security upgrades required for our various facilities) and the rest of the fleet for the NORAD role.

My armchair Air Marshall pick would be the F-15 EX for the NORAD role. Faster, greater range and greater payload than the F-35 and a longer expected airframe life. A real missile truck that can carry more missiles and get to position faster and stay on station longer than the F-35. It also has the 2nd seat so when UCAVs are (hopefully) brought online there's an operator available to control them.

I know the F-15 EX is GASP and American product, but as I've mentioned previously it is very much in the US interest that we are capable of defending our airspace against any foreign attack so I can't see a situation where they would choose to limit our ability to do so.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some of the discussions around numbers for a mixed fleet seem to be suggesting F-35's for the NORAD role and a Euro aircraft for the NATO role. Personally I think that's backward. The only likely airborne threat to Canadian territory is missiles launched by long range bombers or from subs/ships offshore. We're not going to see Su-57's or J-20's flying over Canada so the need for stealth is not a factor for the NORAD mission.

IF we were to go for a mixed fleet I'd definitely plan for the F-35's for the expeditionary role where they are likely to require stealth against enemy AD systems and 5th Gen fighters. We can then use our 4th or 4.5 Gen fighters for the NORAD role.

In a hypothetical mixed-fleet scenario personally I'd go with something like 36 x F-35's for the expeditionary role (and because they're not being used for the NORAD role you could keep them all at one base and reduce the security upgrades required for our various facilities) and the rest of the fleet for the NORAD role.

My armchair Air Marshall pick would be the F-15 EX for the NORAD role. Faster, greater range and greater payload than the F-35 and a longer expected airframe life. A real missile truck that can carry more missiles and get to position faster and stay on station longer than the F-35. It also has the 2nd seat so when UCAVs are (hopefully) brought online there's an operator available to control them.

I know the F-15 EX is GASP and American product, but as I've mentioned previously it is very much in the US interest that we are capable of defending our airspace against any foreign attack so I can't see a situation where they would choose to limit our ability to do so.

Weaning ourselves off of American weaponry is a decades long project.

Spy 7 radars are good. How about the Thales SMART-L that was jointly developed with Canadian funds, adopted by many European navies, including the RN, as well as by the RCAF (3 - Bagotville, Cold Lake and an Expeditionary unit)? And capable of supplying data to US assets employing Co-Operative Engagement sufficient to successfully engage an incoming ballistic missile at range.

US Navy Uses SMART-L Radar Data to Intercept a Ballistic Missile in Space

In a large U.S.-led military Missile Defence exercise, the U.S. Navy`s USS Paul Ignatius used data from Thales` long-range surveillance radar SMART-L MM/N to conduct a

www.defenceturkey.com

Interoperable does not have to mean identical.