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

[KevinB]

We know the old EA6B technically was stealthily also. By blacking out the airspace. But it would jam, confuse and scatter signals all across the spectrum. Similar role the Growler can do and other platforms can do.

The pedant in me would say that is not stealth - but the opposite.
Instead of nothing, there is everything. Which for some operations/applications will have the same desired affect, and others not at all

- I will step down from my soapbox now

But the F35 was built on sensor fusion,stealth and command and control.
A F35 sqn in theory would bring a level of command and control never seen in a modern battlefield. Eliminating the need for AWACS similar platforms in the battle space.
If it all works in practice is to be seen.

I'm still not convinced that it will eliminate the need for an AWACS - as if the F-35's are transmitting the amount of data needed to fill the air picture, then they won't be very stealthy.
Emissions control is a big thing regardless if your out for a walk, flying, riding the waves, or underneath the waves. There are a lot of folks in senior positions that seem to miss that while one can passively accept some data - that whatever is pushing out data is going to be a fairly large beacon, and I am not a convert to the idea that the amount of data "required" can be done easily, or as resistant to detection and interference as some believe against a Near Pear State Actor.

We are seeing a switch from large AWACS plane to smaller platforms. With different setups. Is interesting to see. The United States has been leading the charge.
Time will tell.

Personally I think the decision to forgo the E-7 in favor of Spacial assets and the E-2 are utterly in the wrong direction.
It smacks to me of "last war'ism" and ideas of operating AEWAC above conflict areas.

 

[Remius]

If I were King/PM/advisor for a day, in the current climate, here’s what I’d do:

- Assess a pure-NORAD min F-35 fleet. I agree with you, it is likely more than 16. I don’t know the particular task and force generation sortie rate to support that since I didn’t do any hard Cheyenne Mtn/Peterson AFB time, but my gut says it would be in the mid-30s to low-40s area as a min. Intent would be to address Continental defence/se requirements for: a) valid alliance reasons; and b) address the past ‘not doing our share’ rhetoric. I would commit Canada to purchase this many F-35s…and order them.

- for the Expeditionary role, non-NORAD role, I would think of a fleet of Rafale similar size to the Continental defence/se requirements. The Rafale is no slouch in its own right. More than likely far more operationally capable than some of the “5th Gen” fighters out there (Su-57 anyone).

This.

We likely need more than 16 and having 16 is useless. Up it to NORAD commitments or at least enough for continental defence and then look elsewhere for expeditionary commitments.

Enough to not completely upset the unpredictable types south of us. Strengthens our diversified alliances and appeases Canadians who want nothing to do with more American purchases.

Would probably piss off everyone but to much lower degree than an all or nothing approach to this.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This.

We likely need more than 16 and having 16 is useless. Up it to NORAD commitments or at least enough for continental defence and then look elsewhere for expeditionary commitments.

Enough to not completely upset the unpredictable types south of us. Strengthens our diversified alliances and appeases Canadians who want nothing to do with more American purchases.

Would probably piss off everyone but to much lower degree than an all or nothing approach to this.

Agreed.

The 'old' number of 88 airframes was agreed upon in the 'old world', pre-Trump and 'pre-2%, moving to 3.5%. I'm in the camp that when the numbers come out it will be north of 88.

 

[CBH99]

We know the old EA6B technically was stealthily also. By blacking out the airspace. But it would jam, confuse and scatter signals all across the spectrum. Similar role the Growler can do and other platforms can do.
But the F35 was built on sensor fusion,stealth and command and control.
A F35 sqn in theory would bring a level of command and control never seen in a modern battlefield. Eliminating the need for AWACS similar platforms in the battle space.
If it all works in practice is to be seen.

We are seeing a switch from large AWACS plane to smaller platforms. With different setups. Is interesting to see. The United States has been leading the charge.
Time will tell.

Question for those who can answer...

With the F-35 bringing that unprecidented C2 capability, is the smaller AWACS platform even necessary?

Is the reason the US is going all in on space based assets because they feel the F-35 can provide a similar level of sensing & networking as the AWACS has, so feel like they have that capability still?



(Someone mentioned putting all of their eggs in one basket, re space based assets - leaves them vulnerable. I'm sure they've thought of that though. So maybe they aren't putting them all in one basket, but their 'air domain C2' just looks a lot different now than it did during the era of the E-3?)




Edit - Nevermind, KevinB kinda answered the question.

 

[Good2Golf]

Question for those who can answer...

With the F-35 bringing that unprecidented C2 capability, is the smaller AWACS platform even necessary?

Is the reason the US is going all in on space based assets because they feel the F-35 can provide a similar level of sensing & networking as the AWACS has, so feel like they have that capability still?

(Someone mentioned putting all of their eggs in one basket, re space based assets - leaves them vulnerable. I'm sure they've thought of that though. So maybe they aren't putting them all in one basket, but their 'air domain C2' just looks a lot different now than it did during the era of the E-3?)

Edit - Nevermind, KevinB kinda answered the question.

Like your financial advisor would recommend for a diversified portfolio, so too should one not count on a single source of battlespace awareness. F-35s collaborate to an informed, networked battlespace but don’t do it on their own.

Recall the Pakistani AEW/AWACS plane that guided the PAF’s fighter to within close enough distance unseen that their long range missile shots took out the Indian’s Rafale? AEW/AWACS in the right place and time (a lot longer in the air than a unitary F-35) are valuable parts of the see and kill chains.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I willing to take the over/under numbers that Carney is hoping to link Tuesday's meeting with Trump to an announcement on the F35, HiMars and some positive trade news. Otherwise, why bother going to meet Trump.

 

[JLB50]

Given that at least some of the fighters will be the F-35, is the Saab the only contender remaining? Is the Rafale totally out of the picture at this point?

 

[dapaterson]

Given that at least some of the fighters will be the F-35, is the Saab the only contender remaining? Is the Rafale totally out of the picture at this point?

Twin Otter with a shotgun enters the conversation.

 

[Quirky]

I willing to take the over/under numbers that Carney is hoping to link Tuesday's meeting with Trump to an announcement on the F35, HiMars and some positive trade news. Otherwise, why bother going to meet Trump.

Maybe get a round in at Trump National?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Agreed.

The 'old' number of 88 airframes was agreed upon in the 'old world', pre-Trump and 'pre-2%, moving to 3.5%. I'm in the camp that when the numbers come out it will be north of 88.

I'm going the opposite direction because of the increased problems with the F-35A programs including increased cost Canada will buy fewer aircraft. But we will still buy a the F-35A and here I'm just WAGGING it at 54 F-35A. In compensation and here I "walk the plank" to keep the Americans happy we choose Lockmarts/KAI collaboration the TF-50 fighter for Canada's
Future Fighter Lead-In Training aircraft .

Again, its Friday evening and this is just wild-eyed speculation on my part, so enjoy.

Cheers!!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Since we are doing speculation, my numbers:

44 x F35 (2 gun sqns and an OTU)
62 x Rafales (3 gun sqns and an OTU)
24 x TF 50 lead in trainers

 

[Czech_pivo]

Since we are doing speculation, my numbers:

44 x F35 (2 gun sqns and an OTU)
62 x Rafales (3 gun sqns and an OTU)
24 x TF 50 lead in trainers

I’m at 64 F35’s, I’d buy the rest of it.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I think its basically an impossibility that the RCAF will operate a mixed fighter fleet anytime soon, given how much the RCAF desires the F-35A and ultimately, the fact all of the alternatives have significant issues to various degrees (interoperability, cost, combat viability, production rates, etc). The govt is kicking the can on the review because it is very high profile procurement of American equipment in an unpopular period, but I'll bet the 88 will come in their entirety.

Basically the only reason you see other partners buying beefed up 4th gen fighters at this point is the lack of domestic 5th+ gen alternates and politics cutting them off from the F-35. We do not have these issues, so if baffles me why so many others are willingly pushing for inferior fleets of mixed aircraft. If we get to a point where we are seriously concerned about the US undermining our ability to utilize the F-35, we've passed a point where the US can get similar results on any other hypothetical Canadian fleet by directly threatening us/the origin nation for those platforms. All of the talk about domestic production of modern fighter aircraft is laughable and a huge waste of time/effort/money for Canada.

If the US administration tells Sweden to cut Canada off from the Gripen's supply chain and support network or the US will level tariffs/sanctions on them, we'll be just as screwed as if the US did it to us themselves. Nobody is going to stick their necks out for Canada in a worse case scenario like this.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think its basically an impossibility that the RCAF will operate a mixed fighter fleet anytime soon, given how much the RCAF desires the F-35A and ultimately, the fact all of the alternatives have significant issues to various degrees (interoperability, cost, combat viability, production rates, etc). The govt is kicking the can on the review because it is very high profile procurement of American equipment in an unpopular period, but I'll bet the 88 will come in their entirety.

Basically the only reason you see other partners buying beefed up 4th gen fighters at this point is the lack of domestic 5th+ gen alternates and politics cutting them off from the F-35. We do not have these issues, so if baffles me why so many others are willingly pushing for inferior fleets of mixed aircraft. If we get to a point where we are seriously concerned about the US undermining our ability to utilize the F-35, we've passed a point where the US can get similar results on any other hypothetical Canadian fleet by directly threatening us/the origin nation for those platforms. All of the talk about domestic production of modern fighter aircraft is laughable and a huge waste of time/effort/money for Canada.

If the US administration tells Sweden to cut Canada off from the Gripen's supply chain and support network or the US will level tariffs/sanctions on them, we'll be just as screwed as if the US did it to us themselves. Nobody is going to stick their necks out for Canada in a worse case scenario like this.

Straight up - dark but truthful.
Our geography dictates that no Calvary will be coming over the ridge line to help us.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think its basically an impossibility that the RCAF will operate a mixed fighter fleet anytime soon, given how much the RCAF desires the F-35A and ultimately, the fact all of the alternatives have significant issues to various degrees (interoperability, cost, combat viability, production rates, etc). The govt is kicking the can on the review because it is very high profile procurement of American equipment in an unpopular period, but I'll bet the 88 will come in their entirety.

Basically the only reason you see other partners buying beefed up 4th gen fighters at this point is the lack of domestic 5th+ gen alternates and politics cutting them off from the F-35. We do not have these issues, so if baffles me why so many others are willingly pushing for inferior fleets of mixed aircraft. If we get to a point where we are seriously concerned about the US undermining our ability to utilize the F-35, we've passed a point where the US can get similar results on any other hypothetical Canadian fleet by directly threatening us/the origin nation for those platforms. All of the talk about domestic production of modern fighter aircraft is laughable and a huge waste of time/effort/money for Canada.

If the US administration tells Sweden to cut Canada off from the Gripen's supply chain and support network or the US will level tariffs/sanctions on them, we'll be just as screwed as if the US did it to us themselves. Nobody is going to stick their necks out for Canada in a worse case scenario like this.

It is fun to play with numbers.

 

[childs56]

I think its basically an impossibility that the RCAF will operate a mixed fighter fleet anytime soon, given how much the RCAF desires the F-35A and ultimately, the fact all of the alternatives have significant issues to various degrees (interoperability, cost, combat viability, production rates, etc). The govt is kicking the can on the review because it is very high profile procurement of American equipment in an unpopular period, but I'll bet the 88 will come in their entirety.

Basically the only reason you see other partners buying beefed up 4th gen fighters at this point is the lack of domestic 5th+ gen alternates and politics cutting them off from the F-35. We do not have these issues, so if baffles me why so many others are willingly pushing for inferior fleets of mixed aircraft. If we get to a point where we are seriously concerned about the US undermining our ability to utilize the F-35, we've passed a point where the US can get similar results on any other hypothetical Canadian fleet by directly threatening us/the origin nation for those platforms. All of the talk about domestic production of modern fighter aircraft is laughable and a huge waste of time/effort/money for Canada.

Interesting, but a software glitch can ground an entire fleet within minutes with a platform such as the F35. Or a technical failure can ground, limit usage etc. Hence why two types of Aircraft should be looked at. Even if we buy F16 I would like to see us operate two fleets for the simple fact is if one fleet goes down we have a backup.

If the US administration tells Sweden to cut Canada off from the Gripen's supply chain and support network or the US will level tariffs/sanctions on them, we'll be just as screwed as if the US did it to us themselves. Nobody is going to stick their necks out for Canada in a worse case scenario like this.

Sure, the US can tariff everyone around the world. Then Sweden can limit goods exported to the US and can you imagine not having IKEA furniture and nuclear equipment etc. The humanity.
I think Europe is getting as tired of Trumps bullying as Canada is. So it would be interesting to see if they tried this.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Interesting, but a software glitch can ground an entire fleet within minutes with a platform such as the F35. Or a technical failure can ground, limit usage etc. Hence why two types of Aircraft should be looked at. Even if we buy F16 I would like to see us operate two fleets for the simple fact is if one fleet goes down we have a backup.

I find these claims a bit silly given that multiple other airforces have also moved over to single fighter F-35 fleets and this has seemingly never been a real concern. Buying, maintaining and operating a wholly different fighter design "just in case" one of these issues comes up seems like very poor financial advise to me, when you can instead work to make sure these problems don't happen in the first place.

Sure, the US can tariff everyone around the world. Then Sweden can limit goods exported to the US and can you imagine not having IKEA furniture and nuclear equipment etc. The humanity.
I think Europe is getting as tired of Trumps bullying as Canada is. So it would be interesting to see if they tried this.

Europe basically folded to the recent barrage of tariffs placed upon it, what makes you think they will suddenly grow a spine when its the small potatoes instance of just bullying Canada? They'll sell us down the river so quick that it'll make your head spin.

 

[childs56]

I find these claims a bit silly given that multiple other airforces have also moved over to single fighter F-35 fleets and this has seemingly never been a real concern. Buying, maintaining and operating a wholly different fighter design "just in case" one of these issues comes up seems like very poor financial advise to me, when you can instead work to make sure these problems don't happen in the first place.

Who are those countries?

Europe basically folded to the recent barrage of tariffs placed upon it, what makes you think they will suddenly grow a spine when its the small potatoes instance of just bullying Canada? They'll sell us down the river so quick that it'll make your head spin.

Did they really fold? Or is it the the US is such a large trade partner they had to appease the US for the time being. Europe has a way to come full circle and make up any lost money.
The US sold us down the so quick it wasn't funny. Many of those people who voted for Trump are not begging Canadians to please buy their products, and or visit their Cities.

 

[KevinB]

Y’all need to understand something about the concerns of software and hardware — if we don’t want anyone in the world to fly - we can do that, because of the USAF.

 

[childs56]

Y’all need to understand something about the concerns of software and hardware — if we don’t want anyone in the world to fly - we can do that, because of the USAF.

Only because you have a multi fleet.