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

[ytz]

It has been stated that we're trying to extract the maximum possible concessions out of Lockheed Martin through this process, so I'd say it's partially that but also the Govt pushing this off due to the unavoidable optics of such a large purchase of a well known American system.

The 16 being bought covers is through 2028. We probably don't have to pay for deliveries in 2029 till 2027 anyway. So the government can keep being ambiguous till payments for long lead items are due in advance (usually 12-24 months ahead of delivery). And even then, they have 18 delivery slots per year for 2029-2032. They don't have to use them all. They can order less. They'll drag this out as long as they can.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is that actually on offer? Every article I've seen always talks about "making" Gripens in Canada. And my that they mean assembly. It's not even clear that Canadian content will be high. Saab is very quiet about that. They'll simply ship us kits to put together it seems.

I don't know. I'm looking for positives, for things that I think they might have to offer that I don't know if we have. Conjecture.

I am happy to see us buy 88 F35s.
I would be happier if we had a funded plan for the next step, whatever that might be. And a sense of urgency.

 

[ytz]

No, you're thinking of the F-117 Nighthawk, which was downed by fluke basically. The radar couldn't be turned on very long because SEAD detected it immediately, and by chance they turned it on at the same instant one had completed a bombing run and still had the bomb bay doors open, which ruined the stealth profile.

Partially correct.

They had poor opsec in Bosnia. They used a similiar ingress route into the theatre. When the Serbs figured it out they parked the radar and launcher there. Spotters called in approaching aircraft. I believe they even fired cold and flashed on the radar after to lock. Which is unfortunately when the victim aircraft opened its bay doors to release.

Stealth is not some magic that makes airplanes invisible. It simply reduces detection ranges and makes getting a lock a lot more difficult. So even if seen, getting a firing solution is difficult.

 

[ytz]

I don't know. I'm looking for positives, for things that I think they might have to offer that I don't know if we have. Conjecture.

I am happy to see us buy 88 F35s.
I would be happier if we had a funded plan for the next step, whatever that might be. And a sense of urgency.

I am not sure we will buy 88 jets. The current political situation makes that difficult for the government. I'm not even a Conservative government would stick to 88 unless there's a firm trade deal that doesn't screw us. Kinda hard to tell auto workers in Ontario that we'll keep buying jets from the US while their jobs move to Michigan.

I just wish it wasn't the Gripen. I would much rather accept the gap, live with 65 Panthers for a few years and start taking GCAP deliveries in 2040.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not sure we will buy 88 jets. The current political situation makes that difficult for the government. I'm not even a Conservative government would stick to 88 unless there's a firm trade deal that doesn't screw us. Kinda hard to tell auto workers in Ontario that we'll keep buying jets from the US while their jobs move to Michigan.

I just wish it wasn't the Gripen. I would much rather accept the gap, live with 65 Panthers for a few years and start taking GCAP deliveries in 2040.

I'd be cool with that as well. Or Typhoons. Or trainers that could cover low end operations as well.

If the Russians and Ukrainians are finding uses for Yaks in counter-drone operations, and the Yanks are arming anything with wings with 70 mm guided missiles then even CF5s with CRV7s and APKWs kits would make an effective local defence against drones.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I'd be cool with that as well. Or Typhoons. Or trainers that could cover low end operations as well.

Using the F-35 in the defence of Canada/North America role is mis-use of a valuable asset. You don't need stealth and all the sensor fusion to go after drug smugglers/terrorist hi-jacked aircraft or the worst case scenario TU-95 Bear-Hs coming over the North Pole.

You can accomplish the same mission with aircraft like the KAI FA-50 or Leonardo's M-346FA.

I just wish it wasn't the Gripen. I would much rather accept the gap, live with 65 Panthers for a few years and start taking GCAP deliveries in 2040.

Or go with the South Korean KF-21. The first basic version of the KF-21 is planned on entering service next year and plans are to field upgraded versions resulting a full stealth version by the 2030s. Much more likely to the KF-21 stealth version in service before the GCAP/FCAS.

 

[GR66]

Using the F-35 in the defence of Canada/North America role is mis-use of a valuable asset. You don't need stealth and all the sensor fusion to go after drug smugglers/terrorist hi-jacked aircraft or the worst case scenario TU-95 Bear-Hs coming over the North Pole.

You can accomplish the same mission with aircraft like the KAI FA-50 or Leonardo's M-346FA.



Or go with the South Korean KF-21. The first basic version of the KF-21 is planned on entering service next year and plans are to field upgraded versions resulting a full stealth version by the 2030s. Much more likely to the KF-21 stealth version in service before the GCAP/FCAS.

I'd agree with you that the F-35 may be a bit of overkill for the NORAD role but if you're going to go with a 2nd platform you need to pick something that prioritises range, payload, interoperability with US platforms and ideally a 2nd seat for controlling CCV's. To my mind the only aircraft that checks all those boxes is the F-15EX.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd agree with you that the F-35 may be a bit of overkill for the NORAD role but if you're going to go with a 2nd platform you need to pick something that prioritises range, payload, interoperability with US platforms and ideally a 2nd seat for controlling CCV's. To my mind the only aircraft that checks all those boxes is the F-15EX.

Unless you wanted to put the aircraft where the people are to boost recruiting and retention. Then you don't need range.

If you are looking for intercepts over the arctic then you need legs.

 

[ytz]

I'd agree with you that the F-35 may be a bit of overkill for the NORAD role but if you're going to go with a 2nd platform you need to pick something that prioritises range, payload, interoperability with US platforms and ideally a 2nd seat for controlling CCV's. To my mind the only aircraft that checks all those boxes is the F-15EX.

An 88 frame F-35v order is in jeopardy because of trade issues with the Americans. And your suggestion is to buy an entire second fleet from the Americans?

Or go with the South Korean KF-21. The first basic version of the KF-21 is planned on entering service next year and plans are to field upgraded versions resulting a full stealth version by the 2030s. Much more likely to the KF-21 stealth version in service before the GCAP/FCAS.

Or simply fly a smaller F-35 fleet for 8-10 years and then start with the sixth gen fleet. The F-35 line is running if we need some replacement orders.

 

[GR66]

An 88 frame F-35v order is in jeopardy because of trade issues with the Americans. And your suggestion is to buy an entire second fleet from the Americans?




Or simply fly a smaller F-35 fleet for 8-10 years and then start with the sixth gen fleet. The F-35 line is running if we need some replacement orders.

I'm of the opinion that we should go with the full F-35 fleet. Some people are suggesting that we should go with a split fleet. I'm simply pointing out that the best fit for a 2nd platform is the F-15EX. Is that likely to happen? No. For exactly the reason you point out.

 

[KevinB]

I'm of the opinion that we should go with the full F-35 fleet. Some people are suggesting that we should go with a split fleet. I'm simply pointing out that the best fit for a 2nd platform is the F-15EX. Is that likely to happen? No. For exactly the reason you point out.

I was flamed for the same.

 

[ytz]

Or trainers that could cover low end operations as well.

Probably the most sensible way to have some kind of skill retention and flying reserve.

Using the F-35 in the defence of Canada/North America role is mis-use of a valuable asset. You don't need stealth and all the sensor fusion to go after drug smugglers/terrorist hi-jacked aircraft or the worst case scenario TU-95 Bear-Hs coming over the North Pole.

It's rarely just Bears coming over the polls. Often they bring more pointy nosed friends. The drug smugglers are going to be dealt with using the MQ-9s. That's your low cost option. Even cheaper than a fighter trainer.

I'm of the opinion that we should go with the full F-35 fleet. Some people are suggesting that we should go with a split fleet. I'm simply pointing out that the best fit for a 2nd platform is the F-15EX. Is that likely to happen? No. For exactly the reason you point out.

Most of us want to see 88 F-35s. But if the caveat is that we can't buy 88 F-35s, the solution is unlikely to be to make up the difference with F-15EXs.

 

[lenaitch]

Or simply fly a smaller F-35 fleet for 8-10 years and then start with the sixth gen fleet. The F-35 line is running if we need some replacement orders.

But where will we be if that "8-10 years" turns into 25-30?

 

[Czech_pivo]

But where will we be if that "8-10 years" turns into 25-30?

The 51st state?

 

[ytz]

But where will we be if that "8-10 years" turns into 25-30?

With substantially more capability than we have today.

People get so wrapped up in counting things like airframes, they forget that real life is more than just airframes. What's the use of having 150 frames if we don't have the personnel, infrastructure, funding etc. to operate all of that effectively? And there's a real risk that being forced to operate two distinct combat fleets during a period of major organizational change will do damage to the force. At least a gap of a few years allows some capacity building to then allow growth into 6th gen ops.