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

[Czech_pivo]

I hope your wrong, but I was thinking along the same lines. They will put it out for tender again.

Please remember that we are legally on the hook for 16 F35’s.
They are coming unless we are willing to break a contract and lose that money - and I doubt we are.
The question is, are will still moving forward with 88 airframes that are all F35’s or we buying less than 88 F35’s and are attempting to buy the delta between the actual number of F35’s that we do buy and something else entirely. If that is the case, do we end up with more than 88 airframes.

Hypothetically we could stick with only the 16 F35’s we are legally required to buy and then we could buy another 80 Gripens for example. I doubt we go this route as we wouldn’t even have 1 single squadron of F35’s operating. But could we buy 3 squadrons and spares worth of F35’s and buy another 4 squadrons and spares with of Gripens? Again maybe but I doubt it.

 

[KevinB]

Given the F-35’s combat record so far it’s impossible to argue against it from a logical standpoint.

The only practical pairing would be with something like the F-15 EX to offer an airframe with a larger payload, and even then I don’t think it is very practical for Canada unless you are looking at increasing the fleet size.

66 F-35 and 48 F-15 EX probably isn’t palatable.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Given the F-35’s combat record so far it’s impossible to argue against it from a logical standpoint.

The only practical pairing would be with something like the F-15 EX to offer an airframe with a larger payload, and even then I don’t think it is very practical for Canada unless you are looking at increasing the fleet size.

66 F-35 and 48 F-15 EX probably isn’t palatable.

But there could be a scenario where will buy 65 F35's, buy the SAAB/Bombardier Global Eye for our AWACS (Germany announced today that Global Eye is its front runner - Germany considers Saab’s GlobalEye as frontrunner for future airborne early warning capability ) and purchase say 62 Gripens that are produced by Bombardier in Quebec?

Not saying that this is the scenario that I want, but it brings fighter production back to Canada, strengthens Bombardier, provides us with AWACS for Arctic surveillance, ensures continued NORAD capability with the US, allows for the Gripen to disburse across smaller airfields in the north if required and provides the ability to move a Gripen squadron to Europe under NATO if needed.

 

[KevinB]

The Gripen is a dead platform.
Investing in it at this juncture is akin to buying the old British submarines, and look how well that worked out.

 

[NavyShooter]

The Gripen is a dead platform.
Investing in it at this juncture is akin to buying the old British submarines, and look how well that worked out.

Which is probably why we'll do exactly that.

/cynicism

 

[Czech_pivo]

The Gripen is a dead platform.
Investing in it at this juncture is akin to buying the old British submarines, and look how well that worked out.

I can't answer that question as I don't have the technical expertise to even begin formulating an answer.

But....always a 'but' with me....answer this question - who and where is Canada most likely to fight?
Is the 'where' the following places:
1) Over northern Canada/Alaska
2) Within somewhere in Europe
3) ?

Is the 'who' the following:
A) Russia
B) ?

Can the Gripen address #2 first and then #1? The 65 F35's primary role will be to address #1

Can the Gripen handle the majority of #A type jets that it could face?

Again, I'm not saying that I'm advocating for a F35/Gripen fleet, I'm raising questions about it. Personally, for me, I'd like to see 102 F35s with the RCAF roundel on them - 5 full squadrons of them proper training/spare numbers purchased.

 

[GR66]

I can't answer that question as I don't have the technical expertise to even begin formulating an answer.

But....always a 'but' with me....answer this question - who and where is Canada most likely to fight?
Is the 'where' the following places:
1) Over northern Canada/Alaska
2) Within somewhere in Europe
3) ?

Is the 'who' the following:
A) Russia
B) ?

Can the Gripen address #2 first and then #1? The 65 F35's primary role will be to address #1

Can the Gripen handle the majority of #A type jets that it could face?

Again, I'm not saying that I'm advocating for a F35/Gripen fleet, I'm raising questions about it. Personally, for me, I'd like to see 102 F35s with the RCAF roundel on them - 5 full squadrons of them proper training/spare numbers purchased.

If you have a solid network of ground, air and space-based surveillance to identify any aircraft (or more likely missiles) entering Canadian airspace do you really need your stealth platform for that?

I'd argue that the F-35 is best suited for our expeditionary ops where the stealth will be required to either penetrate AD coverage or engage enemy fighters. For NA defence you're not going to see SU-57's flying over Vancouver. At worst you're going to see Russian (Chinese?) fighters escorting non-stealthy, long range bombers that are going to launch their cruise missiles from as far away as possible to ensure their own survival...or you'll be engaging sub-launched cruise missiles on their way to their targets.

Personally I think that it makes sense for Canada to go for an all F-35 fleet for the sake of commonality and the ability to use ALL of our aircraft in ANY potential role. I also think that Canada engaging in combat against Russia/China in Europe/Asia is much more likely than either of those countries launching a large-scale missile attack against North America as that would risk being perceived by the Americans as a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and elicit a US nuclear response.

IF Canada were to look at a mixed fighter fleet my preference would be for F-35's/F-15EX's simply due to the EX's range, payload and interoperability with the US's EX fleet which is doing the same NORAD role as ours would be doing. However, buying EX's instead of F-35's would make no political sense (they are both American) and wouldn't make any economic sense (EX is similar or higher up front cost and you lose the benefits of a common fleet).

IF Canada goes with the Gripen it would be a purely political decision. We would lose the benefits of a common fleet and would certainly antagonize the US with the decision. We would probably get some industrial benefits from domestic assembly but would it be enough to counter any potential loses from our current F-35 component contributions? It might breath some new life into the proposed Next-Gen Gripen development if it expanded the user base enough but certainly no guarantees so we would likely end up with a dead-end airframe that will have to be replace with something completely new in 30 years.

Personal opinion? A mixed fleet of say 66 x F-35's and 66 x Gripens (you'd need those numbers at least I think to cover both an F-35 expeditionary wartime mission and maintain sufficient aircraft for defence of North America) would stretch pilot training, technical support for the split fleet and overall cost to the CAF, but I doubt would really have a huge impact on our overall combat capability. 66 x F-35's should be able to support a deployed squadron for overseas operations (I doubt we'd ever send more than that regardless of our fleet mix) and 66 x non-stealth Gripens could handle the NORAD mission in the unlikely event of a large scale attack on North America.

Still...would be a big time waste of money and resources to my mind. Stick with an all F-35 fleet.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Given the F-35’s combat record so far it’s impossible to argue against it from a logical standpoint.

The only practical pairing would be with something like the F-15 EX to offer an airframe with a larger payload, and even then I don’t think it is very practical for Canada unless you are looking at increasing the fleet size.

66 F-35 and 48 F-15 EX probably isn’t palatable.

Is there any information on the operating cost of the EX relative to the 35? Because that would be the only one. A smaller number of Best in Breed front line fighters to provide overmatch in contested air space and a cheaper to operate long range high speed missile truck for sovereignty response and roving arctic/naval A2AD.

And if the missile truck isn't significantly cheaper and easier to keep in the air, it serves no real purpose

 

[Swampbuggy]

If you have a solid network of ground, air and space-based surveillance to identify any aircraft (or more likely missiles) entering Canadian airspace do you really need your stealth platform for that?

I'd argue that the F-35 is best suited for our expeditionary ops where the stealth will be required to either penetrate AD coverage or engage enemy fighters. For NA defence you're not going to see SU-57's flying over Vancouver. At worst you're going to see Russian (Chinese?) fighters escorting non-stealthy, long range bombers that are going to launch their cruise missiles from as far away as possible to ensure their own survival...or you'll be engaging sub-launched cruise missiles on their way to their targets.

Personally I think that it makes sense for Canada to go for an all F-35 fleet for the sake of commonality and the ability to use ALL of our aircraft in ANY potential role. I also think that Canada engaging in combat against Russia/China in Europe/Asia is much more likely than either of those countries launching a large-scale missile attack against North America as that would risk being perceived by the Americans as a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and elicit a US nuclear response.

IF Canada were to look at a mixed fighter fleet my preference would be for F-35's/F-15EX's simply due to the EX's range, payload and interoperability with the US's EX fleet which is doing the same NORAD role as ours would be doing. However, buying EX's instead of F-35's would make no political sense (they are both American) and wouldn't make any economic sense (EX is similar or higher up front cost and you lose the benefits of a common fleet).

IF Canada goes with the Gripen it would be a purely political decision. We would lose the benefits of a common fleet and would certainly antagonize the US with the decision. We would probably get some industrial benefits from domestic assembly but would it be enough to counter any potential loses from our current F-35 component contributions? It might breath some new life into the proposed Next-Gen Gripen development if it expanded the user base enough but certainly no guarantees so we would likely end up with a dead-end airframe that will have to be replace with something completely new in 30 years.

Personal opinion? A mixed fleet of say 66 x F-35's and 66 x Gripens (you'd need those numbers at least I think to cover both an F-35 expeditionary wartime mission and maintain sufficient aircraft for defence of North America) would stretch pilot training, technical support for the split fleet and overall cost to the CAF, but I doubt would really have a huge impact on our overall combat capability. 66 x F-35's should be able to support a deployed squadron for overseas operations (I doubt we'd ever send more than that regardless of our fleet mix) and 66 x non-stealth Gripens could handle the NORAD mission in the unlikely event of a large scale attack on North America.

Still...would be a big time waste of money and resources to my mind. Stick with an all F-35 fleet.

Agreeing with all of the above here, but also adding that we’re still reportedly short on maintainers, pilots and support staff for our current fleet. I’m no expert, but I think it’s unlikely we’ll be in a position to operate a fleet of over 120 fighters any time soon. If we have to have a (comparatively) small number of fighters, be it 65 or the full 88, let’s stick with the best we can get. Even were they to downgrade the F-35 to 65 and buy a supplemental fleet of 40 whatever (Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale) would those planes be actually AS capable as 23 Lightnings? Given all the headaches that logistics, training and stabling two fleets would inflict on the RCAF, I can’t see any sense in this at all.

 

[childs56]

Please remember that we are legally on the hook for 16 F35’s.
They are coming unless we are willing to break a contract and lose that money - and I doubt we are.

EH101 helicopter cost us almost as much as the original contract to cancel as it was to purchase them. Never underestimate the liberal gov when their ideology gets in the way .

Is there any information on the operating cost of the EX relative to the 35? Because that would be the only one. A smaller number of Best in Breed front line fighters to provide overmatch in contested air space and a cheaper to operate long range high speed missile truck for sovereignty response and roving arctic/naval A2AD.

And if the missile truck isn't significantly cheaper and easier to keep in the air, it serves no real purpose

The F15 provided longer range, longer endurance, faster to get there, heavier payload, Can shoot down ballistic missiles. Plus looks cool.

If you have a solid network of ground, air and space-based surveillance to identify any aircraft (or more likely missiles) entering Canadian airspace do you really need your stealth platform for that?

I would say not really. We would need a solid surveillance suit to begin with. But nothing like the bear dipping inside our borders then wham stealthy jet in a 4g negative dive inverted taking a polaroid of the bear. all the while the bear asking where did you come from?

I'd argue that the F-35 is best suited for our expeditionary ops where the stealth will be required to either penetrate AD coverage or engage enemy fighters. For NA defence you're not going to see SU-57's flying over Vancouver. At worst you're going to see Russian (Chinese?) fighters escorting non-stealthy, long range bombers that are going to launch their cruise missiles from as far away as possible to ensure their own survival...or you'll be engaging sub-launched cruise missiles on their way to their targets.

Personally I think that it makes sense for Canada to go for an all F-35 fleet for the sake of commonality and the ability to use ALL of our aircraft in ANY potential role. I also think that Canada engaging in combat against Russia/China in Europe/Asia is much more likely than either of those countries launching a large-scale missile attack against North America as that would risk being perceived by the Americans as a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and elicit a US nuclear response.

I really do not like a all one fleet solution. As we seen a technical glitch can ground an entire fleet resulting in no coverage and having to either use the jet anyways with the problem and hope it works (in some cases it does not) force us to use our back up Jets (which we have none) or asking our allies to provide coverage. Two fleet if not three fleet would be better for technical coverage. Yes Canada can operate 2-3 fleets. we just don't. .

 

[Kirkhill]

Please remember that we are legally on the hook for 16 F35’s.
They are coming unless we are willing to break a contract and lose that money - and I doubt we are.
The question is, are will still moving forward with 88 airframes that are all F35’s or we buying less than 88 F35’s and are attempting to buy the delta between the actual number of F35’s that we do buy and something else entirely. If that is the case, do we end up with more than 88 airframes.

Hypothetically we could stick with only the 16 F35’s we are legally required to buy and then we could buy another 80 Gripens for example. I doubt we go this route as we wouldn’t even have 1 single squadron of F35’s operating. But could we buy 3 squadrons and spares worth of F35’s and buy another 4 squadrons and spares with of Gripens? Again maybe but I doubt it.

And how many CCAs are we buying and from whom?

And what additional missiles, UAVs and LMs are we buying for the Army and the Navy as well as the Air Force.

All of that contributes to Air Power.

 

[childs56]

Agreeing with all of the above here, but also adding that we’re still reportedly short on maintainers, pilots and support staff for our current fleet. I’m no expert, but I think it’s unlikely we’ll be in a position to operate a fleet of over 120 fighters any time soon. If we have to have a (comparatively) small number of fighters, be it 65 or the full 88, let’s stick with the best we can get. Even were they to downgrade the F-35 to 65 and buy a supplemental fleet of 40 whatever (Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale) would those planes be actually AS capable as 23 Lightnings? Given all the headaches that logistics, training and stabling two fleets would inflict on the RCAF, I can’t see any sense in this at all.

We already run multi fleet in the Airforce. We operate Various Helicopters, and fixed wing platforms. Adding two different fighters is not much different.
Being short on maintainers and Pilots is an internal issue. Lots can be done to boost those numbers. But you cant hire pilots and say you will be able to fly this fancy jet in 10 years time just bear with us until then. Oh by the way here is your desk job..... Not how it works.

 

[Czech_pivo]

EH101 helicopter cost us almost as much as the original contract to cancel as it was to purchase them. Never underestimate the liberal gov when their ideology gets in the way .

On this point I disagree with you on.
Carney is NOT a careerist Liberal politician, he's a right leaning pro-business Liberal who's made his previous career in making sound business decisions. As of now, on this subject, Defense, we have yet to see anything that smacks of the stupidity of party (whether Liberal or Conservative) dogma.

 

[childs56]

On this point I disagree with you on.
Carney is NOT a careerist Liberal politician, he's a right leaning pro-business Liberal who's made his previous career in making sound business decisions. As of now, on this subject, Defense, we have yet to see anything that smacks of the stupidity of party (whether Liberal or Conservative) dogma.

Gun confiscation program is exactly an example of this stupidity and not making sound business decisions.
Emissions cap fiasco.
two major examples of stupidity carried forward even though the PM has stated he does not think they are good programs. But will stick with them because the previous government implanted them. If that is not stupidity I don't know what is.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Gun confiscation program is exactly an example of this stupidity and not making sound business decisions.
Emissions cap fiasco.
two major examples of stupidity carried forward even though the PM has stated he does not think they are good programs. But will stick with them because the previous government implanted them. If that is not stupidity I don't know what is.

Its called 'compromise'

If the price to be paid for getting Quebec inline for a pipeline or two, along with a LNG refinery to be built in/across Quebec is continuing to move forward on the Gun confiscation program, is that a compromise worth doing?

I have no dog in the gun confiscation fight, but if I had to pick 1 - continue as is in the previous gun ownership laws or have 2 pipelines be built across Ontario and Quebec, with one of them results in a new export driven LNG facility in Quebec and the other ending up at the Irving facility in NB - guess which one I'm going to chose to allow to happen and which I'm not.

Which of these results in a 'win' for the vast majority of Canadians and which does not? On BOTH sides there are 'losers' but which one drives the most economic gains and has the majority of Canadians behind it?

 

[ArmyRick]

As some of you have said, this decision will be purely political (as most things Liberal), so it will not matter about range, combat effectiveness, payload, etc. It will be what optics the Liberals can gain from whatever decision they move forward with.

 

[childs56]

Its called 'compromise'

If the price to be paid for getting Quebec inline for a pipeline or two, along with a LNG refinery to be built in/across Quebec is continuing to move forward on the Gun confiscation program, is that a compromise worth doing?

Quebec is already online for building their own new LNG plant. But they want to control the narrative of Western Canadian LNG (they want royalties per Bcf/d) on top of the royalties they already get. Nothing more nothing less. They still want to buy cheap middle east oil and ng.

I have no dog in the gun confiscation fight, but if I had to pick 1 - continue as is in the previous gun ownership laws or have 2 pipelines be built across Ontario and Quebec, with one of them results in a new export driven LNG facility in Quebec and the other ending up at the Irving facility in NB - guess which one I'm going to chose to allow to happen and which I'm not.

The gun fiasco has nothing to do with pipeline's. We already have a NG line east. Quebec just wants more control of what they do not own.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool. The gun confiscation has had nothing to do with energy east. If it does now then I say go west and cut Quebec out of any further western energy royalties.

Which of these results in a 'win' for the vast majority of Canadians and which does not? On BOTH sides there are 'losers' but which one drives the most economic gains and has the majority of Canadians behind it?

Again firearms confiscation has nothing to do with Ng or Oil lines going east.
The federal government just needs to tell Quebec the second Ng line is going in. You can either be a positive contribution member of the project or you get nothing.
As for the Oil pipeline. Tell them the same thing. Build the line to the east coast. the money will follow and people will shut up.

 

[YZT580]

Gun confiscation program is exactly an example of this stupidity and not making sound business decisions.
Emissions cap fiasco.
two major examples of stupidity carried forward even though the PM has stated he does not think they are good programs. But will stick with them because the previous government implanted them. If that is not stupidity I don't know what is.

your description is more the definition of insanity than stupidity: repeatedly doing the wrong thing expecting different results.

 

[OldSolduer]

Logic has nothing to do with any purchase of the F 35 nor any other piece of equipment . It’s about votes and how much the LPC can deliver to its benefactors .

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Agreeing with all of the above here, but also adding that we’re still reportedly short on maintainers, pilots and support staff for our current fleet. I’m no expert, but I think it’s unlikely we’ll be in a position to operate a fleet of over 120 fighters any time soon. If we have to have a (comparatively) small number of fighters, be it 65 or the full 88, let’s stick with the best we can get. Even were they to downgrade the F-35 to 65 and buy a supplemental fleet of 40 whatever (Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale) would those planes be actually AS capable as 23 Lightnings? Given all the headaches that logistics, training and stabling two fleets would inflict on the RCAF, I can’t see any sense in this at all.

Gathered from the web:

Gripen claims a operating cost of around $4700-7,000 per hour. Gripen E/F: The newer E/F models are estimated to operate at approximately $6,000–$7,000 per hour, but offer a significant reduction in operational costs compared to the earlier C/D versions

F15EX - an operational cost of approximately $29,000 per flight hour has been cited. This figure is a third of the estimated operating cost of an F-35A, but it encompasses more than just maintenance, including fuel, personnel, and ordnance.

The F-35's cost per hour has varied, with estimates ranging from roughly $33,000 to over $40,000 per hour, depending on the source and the fiscal year it was calculated. Recent reports from 2024 indicate a cost around $34,000 per flying hour in constant 2012 dollars, though other sources cite figures as high as $40,000 per hour or more. This cost includes fuel, maintenance, personnel, training, logistics, and infrastructure