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

[QV]

Maybe we need a Canadian version of the Air National Guard.

 

[KevinB]

Maybe we need a Canadian version of the Air National Guard.

And a significant boost of Defence spending, even beyond 3% GDP spending.

 

[QV]

I won't even pretend to hypothesize what Canada needs as far as fighter lineup... I just know it needs newer and more than it currently has.

I do think the air reserve equation is worth exploring. I do not believe Canada is incapable of finding enough pilots even if it wanted a 200+ fleet. We have 40M people, surely there are enough young people who are interested in fast movers to maintain pilots for a much larger fleet.

All it takes is money and will. Canada lacks both right now unfortunately.

 

[childs56]

I don’t think that you even remotely understand the issues involved.

I understand the issues. Quite well. We have a Airforce that has a hard time recruiting and retaining not only Pilots but Techs. We need to be a bit more diversified then we currently are. Need to offer up something a bit different then we currently have. The same way of doing things is not working.
I am not saying a Fighter Pilot is going to Hop into the Fancy F35 and fly away and be the best of the best. Nor is that same pilot going to jump into a Gripen/ F15 and be able to evade Sams, drop bombs while dog fighting a 7th gen Chinese fighter.
We do need a better solution then what we have right now. One jet with current low serviceability rates and high costs is not going to cut it for us and how we conduct operations across the board.

Do I want a fancy state of the art fighter doing ferry flights across the country landing in unsecured air bases so Pilots can maintain flight proficiency and hours, with high cost per hour. With the added perk they get to see their family and friends across the country, hopefully bring back some lobster and scallops for the Sgn. (take that ability for those flights completely away form them) I wonder if they have a pod you can load with ice and fresh seafood on the F35, maybe if they can be in stealth mode the Treasury Board will never know the true meaning of the mission.

It’s not that simple. If it was all checklists we could just hire minimum wage TFW to follow them.

That tells me one of a few things. But Your telling me You cant have your Techs trained in working on two platforms. That means things have gotten much worse then when I left. Which explains a whole lot.
One still has to have mechanical skills and be able to follow, read and take direction. Any Tech who is doing things by memory all the time is far worse then the one who uses the Maintenance manuals/ lap tops. Every time I performed anything but refueling I referred to the Tech Manuals. Even something as simple as changing the tire had to signed off as per Standards, guess what sometimes they change the cotter pin and or wheel nut to be used. Turns out people had not read the TAM. We had to change the cotter pin and nut of the tire we just swapped.

No, it’s not.

Quick connects are quick connects, bolts are bolts. Engine stands, lifts and cradles are different, torque specs are different as are what fittings/ bolts etc disconnect first or last. But I would hope any Aircraft Mechanic can be trained to work on two aircraft types and be proficient in doing so.
Mind you when I was at the Sqn we had guys who stuck their fingers in holes they should not have as an alignment pin. So I guess standards may have fallen. The same guys who would pull control stick lever when your aligning a the elevator bolt, even after being instructed to not touch a dam thing.

 

[markppcli]

I understand the issues. Quite well. We have a Airforce that has a hard time recruiting and retaining not only Pilots but Techs. We need to be a bit more diversified then we currently are. Need to offer up something a bit different then we currently have. The same way of doing things is not working.
I am not saying a Fighter Pilot is going to Hop into the Fancy F35 and fly away and be the best of the best. Nor is that same pilot going to jump into a Gripen/ F15 and be able to evade Sams, drop bombs while dog fighting a 7th gen Chinese fighter.
We do need a better solution then what we have right now. One jet with current low serviceability rates and high costs is not going to cut it for us and how we conduct operations across the board.

Do I want a fancy state of the art fighter doing ferry flights across the country landing in unsecured air bases so Pilots can maintain flight proficiency and hours, with high cost per hour. With the added perk they get to see their family and friends across the country, hopefully bring back some lobster and scallops for the Sgn. (take that ability for those flights completely away form them) I wonder if they have a pod you can load with ice and fresh seafood on the F35, maybe if they can be in stealth mode the Treasury Board will never know the true meaning of the mission.


That tells me one of a few things. But Your telling me You cant have your Techs trained in working on two platforms. That means things have gotten much worse then when I left. Which explains a whole lot.
One still has to have mechanical skills and be able to follow, read and take direction. Any Tech who is doing things by memory all the time is far worse then the one who uses the Maintenance manuals/ lap tops. Every time I performed anything but refueling I referred to the Tech Manuals. Even something as simple as changing the tire had to signed off as per Standards, guess what sometimes they change the cotter pin and or wheel nut to be used. Turns out people had not read the TAM. We had to change the cotter pin and nut of the tire we just swapped.

Quick connects are quick connects, bolts are bolts. Engine stands, lifts and cradles are different, torque specs are different as are what fittings/ bolts etc disconnect first or last. But I would hope any Aircraft Mechanic can be trained to work on two aircraft types and be proficient in doing so.
Mind you when I was at the Sqn we had guys who stuck their fingers in holes they should not have as an alignment pin. So I guess standards may have fallen. The same guys who would pull control stick lever when your aligning a the elevator bolt, even after being instructed to not touch a dam thing.

You’re arguing fighter pilot training with a 1000 hr plus Fighter Pilot, and air craft maintenance with an air craft maintenance supervisor.

 

[childs56]

You’re arguing fighter pilot training with a 1000 hr plus Fighter Pilot, and air craft maintenance with an air craft maintenance supervisor.

Good for them.
Makes it even worse that a Maintenance Supervisor feels his staff can't maintain two types of aircraft.

 

[Quirky]

Quick connects are quick connects, bolts are bolts. Engine stands, lifts and cradles are different, torque specs are different as are what fittings/ bolts etc disconnect first or last. But I would hope any Aircraft Mechanic can be trained to work on two aircraft types and be proficient in doing so.

I want techs that understand why they're replacing the nuts and bolts. The how is the easy part with todays modern manuals. The longer time I spent on the F-18 the less time I needed to reference the troubleshooting manual, nevermind the R/I of a component. You only need basic mechanical skills to follow a procedure from beginning to end, it takes years and years to understand how the system works. That's the difference between meeting a sortie or an aircraft that's down for days. The ECS system of a hornet is a god damn nightmare to troubleshoot if you don't understand how things work, mechanically and electrically. The manual can only help you so much.

Makes it even worse that a Maintenance Supervisor feels his staff can't maintain two types of aircraft.

You're advocating that we use the same techs for multiple fleets. That just waters down the quality. It's already happening on a single fleet where an AVN tech is expected to fix everything, whereas before they were separated into Riggers, Fitters, etc. We just need more people - enough with the do more with less.

 

[markppcli]

Good for them.

I agree they have a great breadth of first hand knowledge on these topics, both in being the operator / technician as well as managing and training those who are. Their opinions carry a great deal of weight because of that.

Makes it even worse that a Maintenance Supervisor feels his staff can't maintain two types of aircraft.

Sounds like he’s got a view of the coal face and has an informed opinion based on that. I don’t think you do anymore.

 

[childs56]

I want techs that understand why they're replacing the nuts and bolts. The how is the easy part with todays modern manuals. The longer time I spent on the F-18 the less time I needed to reference the troubleshooting manual, nevermind the R/I of a component. You only need basic mechanical skills to follow a procedure from beginning to end, it takes years and years to understand how the system works. That's the difference between meeting a sortie or an aircraft that's down for days. The ECS system of a hornet is a god damn nightmare to troubleshoot if you don't understand how things work, mechanically and electrically. The manual can only help you so much.

I agree the ECS was a pain in the butt, so was trying to find someone Certified to rig the FCS cables.

You're advocating that we use the same techs for multiple fleets. That just waters down the quality. It's already happening on a single fleet where an AVN tech is expected to fix everything, whereas before they were separated into Riggers, Fitters, etc. We just need more people - enough with the do more with less.

No where did I say do more with less.
We need more aircraft, we need more staff.
One person cant fix 5 aircraft at the same time. Oh wait we did that all the time, you more then likely still are. Doesn't make them serviceable.

What I am saying is very simple. Canada can operate a mixed fleet of fighters. Many other countries do so including our peers successfully.
We don't need one aircraft type to perform all the various roles.
I have faith our Pilots can be proficient in two Aircraft types. That does not mean the pilot hops in lets say the CF18 and flys to Alert, then hot seats into a F35 and then interdicts a Russian fighter bomber, finish with that and hop back into the CF18 to deliver a SKAD to a sinking fishing boat off the coast of BC.
I have faith our Techs can be proficient in two Aircraft types. Heck I worked alongside guys who could fix a Tutor in their sleep, Change a gear box in a SeaKing and Rig a elevator on a CF18.

We need more then only way to get more is to ask for more. Be more versatile with what we ask for.
When I left in 07 things were getting pretty bad. The people I know still in are shaking their heads at what they have to deal with across the board. That doesn't mean Techs are bad, short staffed, lack of experience, parts, commonsense etc is very prominent. It is sad to see what we have come to.
We need to have more options across the board instead of one type. L3, Top Aces and GE Canada need more people to draw from.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

View attachment 92878

I haven’t seen a cart start since I had a B-57 on the ramp in Comox!

 

[armrdsoul77]

Didn't know the Cf18 could deploy a SKAD. I guess why not.

Droppable survival kit | Bagotville Air Defence Museum

 

[Good2Golf]

I haven’t seen a cart start since I had a B-57 on the ramp in Comox!

Would you believe the F-22 has cartridge start as well?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Would you believe the F-22 has cartridge start as well?

They make tons of sense. Especially if you need to put down somewhere austere not equipped with a compressor cart. It is also faster from strapping in to airborne. The B-52, if what I read is correct, can be airborne in minutes with a cart start as opposed to a bit over an hour if started conventionally.

I just thought cart start were cool and being a red blooded male, I loved the smell of pyro

 

[Maxman1]

It’s not that simple. If it was all checklists we could just hire minimum wage TFW to follow them.



No, it’s not.

 

[markppcli]

No where did I say do more with less.
We need more aircraft, we need more staff.
One person cant fix 5 aircraft at the same time. Oh wait we did that all the time, you more then likely still are. Doesn't make them serviceable.

Well you said everyone should be cross trained, so in a real way you did say everyone should be doing more with less. They all need more training to hold more qualms and proficiency- ie more work.

What I am saying is very simple. Canada can operate a mixed fleet of fighters. Many other countries do so including our peers successfully.
We don't need one aircraft type to perform all the various roles.

Which of our peers do? Because when you look at actual numbers of people serving we have few “peers.” For example the Spanish airforce, which operates F18s and Eurofighters, has 10,000 more pers that us, and that’s before you consider that their army and naval aviation aren’t part of the Air Force. The French are 3 times our size, and the Italians have 43000 in their Air Force. Who’s this mythical “peers?” The RCAF is, by establishment and not actual serving numbers, quite tiny. To replicate any of our “peers” that operate two fighters we’d need to nearly double it. Which is fine and I’d support but let’s call it what it is.

I have faith our Pilots can be proficient in two Aircraft types. That does not mean the pilot hops in lets say the CF18 and flys to Alert, then hot seats into a F35 and then interdicts a Russian fighter bomber, finish with that and hop back into the CF18 to deliver a SKAD to a sinking fishing boat off the coast of BC.

So then what does it mean? Because that’s precisely what you described, using cheaper air craft to keep up hours. Forgetting, as Max explained in detail, that the actual job is fighting the air craft not simply getting it in the air.

I have faith our Techs can be proficient in two Aircraft types. Heck I worked alongside guys who could fix a Tutor in their sleep, Change a gear box in a SeaKing and Rig a elevator on a CF18.

We need more then only way to get more is to ask for more. Be more versatile with what we ask for.
When I left in 07 things were getting pretty bad. The people I know still in are shaking their heads at what they have to deal with across the board. That doesn't mean Techs are bad, short staffed, lack of experience, parts, commonsense etc is very prominent. It is sad to see what we have come to.
We need to have more options across the board instead of one type. L3, Top Aces and GE Canada need more people to draw from.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When I was in the RCAF operated 3 types of fighter and one ex-fighter type, along with the Tutor.

 

[YZT580]

Well you said everyone should be cross trained, so in a real way you did say everyone should be doing more with less. They all need more training to hold more qualms and proficiency- ie more work.



Which of our peers do? Because when you look at actual numbers of people serving we have few “peers.” For example the Spanish airforce, which operates F18s and Eurofighters, has 10,000 more pers that us, and that’s before you consider that their army and naval aviation aren’t part of the Air Force. The French are 3 times our size, and the Italians have 43000 in their Air Force. Who’s this mythical “peers?” The RCAF is, by establishment and not actual serving numbers, quite tiny. To replicate any of our “peers” that operate two fighters we’d need to nearly double it. Which is fine and I’d support but let’s call it what it is.



So then what does it mean? Because that’s precisely what you described, using cheaper air craft to keep up hours. Forgetting, as Max explained in detail, that the actual job is fighting the air craft not simply getting it in the air.

So the long and the short of it is; the air force is in actuality, an AIR FARCE. Not belittling the serving members at all but there are probably larger civilian flying clubs that have more active pilots than we have in the air force. 88 aircraft do not replace 300 which is the number of 104s and 101s we flew in the 70s. And lets not forget the F5s. There were 135 of those built and they overlapped the others and bridged over to the F18s. The F35 may be far more capable but it can't geographically occupy the same area as a larger fleet. It may be more capable but it will likely be going up against more capable opponents so that benefit is largely negated. In order to adequately protect Canada AND meet our overseas commitments and be seen as having a viable input we need additional aircraft. We've obviously operated mixed fleets before so our major problem would seem to be recruitment. To equal the Spanish airforce would require an airforce of .01% of the Canadian population. If we can't achieve that we might just as well become that 41st state.

 

[Swampbuggy]

So the long and the short of it is; the air force is in actuality, an AIR FARCE. Not belittling the serving members at all but there are probably larger civilian flying clubs that have more active pilots than we have in the air force. 88 aircraft do not replace 300 which is the number of 104s and 101s we flew in the 70s. And lets not forget the F5s. There were 135 of those built and they overlapped the others and bridged over to the F18s. The F35 may be far more capable but it can't geographically occupy the same area as a larger fleet. It may be more capable but it will likely be going up against more capable opponents so that benefit is largely negated. In order to adequately protect Canada AND meet our overseas commitments and be seen as having a viable input we need additional aircraft. We've obviously operated mixed fleets before so our major problem would seem to be recruitment. To equal the Spanish airforce would require an airforce of .01% of the Canadian population. If we can't achieve that we might just as well become that 41st state.

I like that you are predicting the end of 10 current states here.

 

[markppcli]

So the long and the short of it is; the air force is in actuality, an AIR FARCE. Not belittling the serving members at all but there are probably larger civilian flying clubs that have more active pilots than we have in the air force. 88 aircraft do not replace 300 which is the number of 104s and 101s we flew in the 70s. And lets not forget the F5s. There were 135 of those built and they overlapped the others and bridged over to the F18s. The F35 may be far more capable but it can't geographically occupy the same area as a larger fleet. It may be more capable but it will likely be going up against more capable opponents so that benefit is largely negated. In order to adequately protect Canada AND meet our overseas commitments and be seen as having a viable input we need additional aircraft. We've obviously operated mixed fleets before so our major problem would seem to be recruitment. To equal the Spanish airforce would require an airforce of .01% of the Canadian population. If we can't achieve that we might just as well become that 41st state.

I’m not making an argument that we shouldn’t have a larger Air Force. We unquestionably should. I’m just pointing out where we stand in terms of peers.

 

[GR66]

So the long and the short of it is; the air force is in actuality, an AIR FARCE. Not belittling the serving members at all but there are probably larger civilian flying clubs that have more active pilots than we have in the air force. 88 aircraft do not replace 300 which is the number of 104s and 101s we flew in the 70s. And lets not forget the F5s. There were 135 of those built and they overlapped the others and bridged over to the F18s. The F35 may be far more capable but it can't geographically occupy the same area as a larger fleet. It may be more capable but it will likely be going up against more capable opponents so that benefit is largely negated. In order to adequately protect Canada AND meet our overseas commitments and be seen as having a viable input we need additional aircraft. We've obviously operated mixed fleets before so our major problem would seem to be recruitment. To equal the Spanish airforce would require an airforce of .01% of the Canadian population. If we can't achieve that we might just as well become that 41st state.

Expanding the RCAF doesn't have to mean a split fighter fleet. Personally I'm in favour of more than the planned 88 x F-35's. In a counter-intuitive way I think that increasing the fleet size could actually help with the personnel issues on the pilot side.

There doesn't appear to be any lack of people interested in becoming fighter pilots and with improved training throughput you should be able to fill the positions required. So long as you don't increase the number of Squadons/Wings, etc. to take on those aircraft then the ratio of non-flying to flying positions would decrease. That could help retention of those wish to remain flying rather than moving on to staff positions.

Where I see the biggest problem is the technical support for a larger fleet. Misguided educational policies over the last decades have unfortunately directed young people away from the trades and toward more academic education. So it's not just difficult to to find AVN techs, it's hard to find plumbers, stone masons, welders and CNC operators.

On the positive side I think governments have recognized the problem and slowly (verrrrryyyy slowly) more effort is being put into directing young people into the trades. The CAF could play an active part in this in training new techs at an increased scale (working with educational institutes) to build up the trade.