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

[Rainbow1910]

I don't understand the aversion to a mixed fighter fleet. Canada already operates "mixed fleet" in that we have C130, C17, F18, a few different helos etc. Is one more platform going to break us?

One of the many goals of the New Fighter Aircraft Project which procured the CF-18 Hornet was to consolidate the large cold war fighter fleet into a single, multi-purpose fighter. Given that fighter aircraft are generally the most high performance and advanced aircraft in inventory for an airforce, they subsequently require the most maintenance, certifications, pilot training and substantial logistical tails in comparison to helicopters, cargo aircraft, trainers, etc. Another fighter specifically has the potential to seriously harm the RCAF's personnel and sustainment capability simply due to what these platforms require to fly and continue flying, even a "cheap and simple" fighter like the Gripen E is still an incredibly advanced and complex piece of machinery.

A mixed fighter fleet between say a 4th gen and a 5th gen fighter makes little sense as you are paying a similar cost for a bunch of aircraft that do the same role, except one is worse in capability than the other and neither share the same logistics, upkeep and supply chains as the other. You are doubling up on training requirements for two separate but overlapping fighter types, pilots simply cannot transition from fighter to fighter like they can within a homogenous fleet.

All of this for the dubious goal of an artificially lowered operating cost on the Gripen E? I don't see the logic or the savings that people seem to be pushing for. The RCAF is in bad shape as it is right now, adding two different fighters into the foreseeable future is not going to make that situation better.

 

[Maxman1]

I don't understand the aversion to a mixed fighter fleet. Canada already operates "mixed fleet" in that we have C130, C17, F18, a few different helos etc. Is one more platform going to break us?

Those all have wildly different roles.

 

[GR66]

Those all have wildly different roles.

How similar are the roles of conducting a SEAD mission over Russian territory and flying a missile truck to shoot down incoming cruise missiles over Northern Canada?

 

[Maxman1]

How similar are the roles of conducting a SEAD mission over Russian territory and flying a missile truck to shoot down incoming cruise missiles over Northern Canada?

Last I checked, a C-130 doesn't do SEAD missions.

 

[GR66]

Last I checked, a C-130 doesn't do SEAD missions.

No, but your suggestion was that a split fleet of fighters is not comparable to the more generalized RCAF split fleet of C-130's, CF-18's and C-17's because each of those is specialized for it's role and therefore needs to be a different aircraft type.

I'm simply pointing out that a single fleet, multi-role fighter aircraft will potentially be called on to do multiple different roles which may each require somewhat different capabilities and that many air forces have split fleets of different types of fighter aircraft to conduct each of those roles separately.

Personally I can see pluses and minuses to each approach but will not complain if the RCAF gets a single fleet of 88 x F-35's. I just think the argument that we can't do a split fleet just "because" without at least acknowledgement that there are at least some advantages to a split fleet is a fairly weak argument.

 

[Quirky]

I'm simply pointing out that a single fleet, multi-role fighter aircraft will potentially be called on to do multiple different roles which may each require somewhat different capabilities and that many air forces have split fleets of different types of fighter aircraft to conduct each of those roles separately.

What capability would the F-35 lack for Canadian requirements? I thought the whole point of the F-35 is to eliminate the need for multiple fleets. Other than the US, who is buying new fighters to compliment their F-35 fleet?

 

[Czech_pivo]

What capability would the F-35 lack for Canadian requirements? I thought the whole point of the F-35 is to eliminate the need for multiple fleets. Other than the US, who is buying new fighters to compliment their F-35 fleet?

Italy is buying another 24 Eurofighters.
Germany is buying another 20 Eurofighters
Spain just inked a deal with Turkey for 45 Hurjet trainers

 

[YZT580]

What capability would the F-35 lack for Canadian requirements? I thought the whole point of the F-35 is to eliminate the need for multiple fleets. Other than the US, who is buying new fighters to compliment their F-35 fleet?

England is as are other NATO countries. I will buy the arguments for having a less maintenance intense aircraft available for things like providing aircover over Iceland or intercepting incoming in the Arctic. It makes sense but my greater concern is the numbers. 88 is simply not enough. With the wait time involved in procurement the time to order your replacement aircraft is now or start looking for the T33 molds

 

[GR66]

What capability would the F-35 lack for Canadian requirements? I thought the whole point of the F-35 is to eliminate the need for multiple fleets. Other than the US, who is buying new fighters to compliment their F-35 fleet?

Maybe the reason that countries other than the US are going to single fleets of multi-role fighters is due to the ever increasing costs to make them good at everything. That leaves no money to purchase fighters that are more specialized. That doesn't mean in any way that the F-35 is "lacking".

I've been on team F-35 all along. We should definitely get them. However, could other fighters for example do some NORAD roles as well as an F-35? The US is using the F15-EX...great range, huge missile payload, 2nd seat to potentially control CCV's, lower maintenance costs per flight hour, long airframe life, etc...would be very effective in the NORAD for showing presence and if required shooting down incoming missiles. Does the F-35's stealth help in that role? Would they have to have their radar active negating their stealth?

Again, I'm not anti F-35...just pointing out that a single multi-role fleet isn't the ONLY option. It may - once all factors are considered - be the BEST option for Canada, but it's not the only one.

 

[Maxman1]

No, but your suggestion was that a split fleet of fighters is not comparable to the more generalized RCAF split fleet of C-130's, CF-18's and C-17's because each of those is specialized for it's role and therefore needs to be a different aircraft type.

I'm simply pointing out that a single fleet, multi-role fighter aircraft will potentially be called on to do multiple different roles which may each require somewhat different capabilities and that many air forces have split fleets of different types of fighter aircraft to conduct each of those roles separately.

Personally I can see pluses and minuses to each approach but will not complain if the RCAF gets a single fleet of 88 x F-35's. I just think the argument that we can't do a split fleet just "because" without at least acknowledgement that there are at least some advantages to a split fleet is a fairly weak argument.

First of all, there is no SEAD variant of the Gripen, either in production or proposal, so that argument doesn't hold water.

Second, the F-35 is simply so versatile that there is nothing the Gripen can do that the F-35 can't, and in fact there are many things the F-35 can do that a Gripen can't.

And again, the suggestion wasn't about specialized fighter jets such as SEAD and EW, but just having two multirole fighters for the sake of it.

Having a split fleet of Gripens and F-35s serves no purpose because you are simply duplicating capabilities offered by two incompatible aircraft.

 

[MacNav63]

I would have to say that I lean pretty heavily toward maintaining the F35 order as is, at minimum. That being said, it's worth noting that not everyone purchasing the F35 is going with it as their sole fighter. Within the G7, the UK, Germany, Italy and Japan all seem to plan on maintaining mixed fleets, with Typhoons in the case of the first 3 and F15s in the case of Japan. France of course isn't down to purchase the F35 but does have a mixed fleet of Rafales and Mirages. Israel is operating a mixed fleet and as far as I can tell looks to continue to do so. Australia is going all F35 with the caveat that the do have the Growlers for SEAD. Smaller NATO allies like Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium are going all F35 but the numbers are also smaller. All that to say, notwithstanding our relationship issues, I don't see a reason to cut the F35 order and supplement it with something else. And even if it was a question of adding a 2nd somehow complementary fleet on top of the F35, I don't see why we'd chose the Grippen over the Typhoon, which is operated by the other larger NATO airforces, or the Rafale. Other than because the Swedes are offering to build it in Canada, which strikes me as a recipe for stranded industrial capital. If we want to get back in the game of actually building fighters, and put some distance between us and the US, then let's sign on to the UK/Japan 6th gen project now.

End of rant.