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

[ytz]

The concern I have is that you will end up with a less than optimal number of F-35 and keep them longer than reasonable (just like the CF-18 and CPF and etc etc. )

That could happen even with the 88 frames down the road.

There's no point trying to plan for a hypothetical four decades from now. It's possible to plan for the next 10-15 years.

 

[ytz]

The point I was trying to make was against those who promote buying the minimal number of F-35s (and either assuming we keep the F-18s flying or buying something else) and wait in hope of the next generation is on time.

GCAP is under a ton of pressure to deliver because the main customer (Japan) is facing a resurgent China and won't tolerate slippage. They want it in service by 2035. And they have threatened to simply go their own way if they have to. So I trust them to mostly keep this on track. 2040 first delivery for us, gives us 9 years between the last F-35 delivery (assuming 65 frames) and first GCAP delivery, while giving that program 5 years to mature their flying.

 

[KevinB]

That could happen even with the 88 frames down the road.

There's no point trying to plan for a hypothetical four decades from now. It's possible to plan for the next 10-15 years.

Agreed, the CAF has a history of buying less and less and keeping it past its shelf life.

My primary concern with less than 88 F-35 is that (and even with 88 F-35) is that the GoC will decide that the F-35 can last another election cycle again and again and then in 2065 will look for 45 Airframes as a replacement.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Agreed, the CAF has a history of buying less and less and keeping it past its shelf life.

My primary concern with less than 88 F-35 is that (and even with 88 F-35) is that the GoC will decide that the F-35 can last another election cycle again and again and then in 2065 will look for 45 Airframes as a replacement.

The King and Queen of Sweden are in Ottawa and Montreal from 18 Nov to 20 Nov. Willing to bet a 50 pack of Timbits that we announce some sort of SAAB Gripen production deal then.

We'll be going with a mixed fleet.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

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.

Agreed. The F-15EX would have been perfect, but unfortunately, was not offered. And looking back, the F-15 Eagle was one of entrants to replace the CF-5, CF-101, and CF-104 but was rejected because it cost to much; something about that stinginess that seems to run through Canadian politics.

 

[Maxman1]

Saab is also a partner in the T-7 Red Hawk. Maybe Saab could be convinced to build that in Canada if we chose it to replace the Hawk and Tutor.

Boeing–Saab T-7 Red Hawk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dana381]

Agreed, the CAF has a history of buying less and less and keeping it past its shelf life.

My primary concern with less than 88 F-35 is that (and even with 88 F-35) is that the GoC will decide that the F-35 can last another election cycle again and again and then in 2065 will look for 45 Airframes as a replacement.

Honest Question here,

Is it possible for Canada to keep the F-35's "past its shelf life" or will it be like my Windows computer and when the updates stop coming the machines usability drops off a cliff forcing a replacement sooner than wanted?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That could happen even with the 88 frames down the road.

There's no point trying to plan for a hypothetical four decades from now. It's possible to plan for the next 10-15 years.

The Chinese might disagree with you. In infrastructure you want to plan to at least 50 year horizons.

 

[Kirkhill]

Still on the hunt for a decent conjecture as to why SAAB may be chatting with Bombardier.

....

Throwaway line 1 - even Yaks are being effective against drones.
Throwaway line 2 - you don't need legs if you want to place jets where the people are
Throwaway line 3 - a high end trainer with low end combat capabilities

Result - looking for jet trainers

Canada has cashiered its Hawks, used for maintenance trainers (and Tutors need cashiering)
No Canadian Jet Trainers
So what would the USAF do?

USAF is trading in its F5/T38s for something called the T-7 Redhawk
The Redhawk is a Boeing-SAAB joint effort.

T-7A | Saab

T-7A is designed in accordance with U.S. Air Force military future fighter and bomber pilot training requirements. The specific T-7A is the dedicated variant for U.S. Air Force.

www.saab.com

T-7A Red Hawk

The only digital, next-generation trainer on the market that meets modern training and low-cost needs

www.boeing.com

Boeing–Saab T-7 Red Hawk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

....

What about it?
Any Canadian interest?

 

[Kirkhill]

[“It’s a shock in Washington” France and Rafale reportedly in prime position again to secure a fourth European agreement over the US F 35]

” The line is doing the rounds in defence circles, carried by hushed calls and eyebrow-raising briefings. France’s Rafale is reportedly in pole position —

www.fossewaytreeservices.co.uk

The French Connection

 

[Czech_pivo]

[“It’s a shock in Washington” France and Rafale reportedly in prime position again to secure a fourth European agreement over the US F 35]

” The line is doing the rounds in defence circles, carried by hushed calls and eyebrow-raising briefings. France’s Rafale is reportedly in pole position —

www.fossewaytreeservices.co.uk

The French Connection

Wonder if Portugal is next on that list.

 

[FJAG]

The King and Queen of Sweden are in Ottawa and Montreal from 18 Nov to 20 Nov. Willing to bet a 50 pack of Timbits that we announce some sort of SAAB Gripen production deal then.

We'll be going with a mixed fleet.

My Facebook feeds were cluttered with Grippen-E ads.

 

[Baz]

Honest Question here,

Is it possible for Canada to keep the F-35's "past its shelf life" or will it be like my Windows computer and when the updates stop coming the machines usability drops off a cliff forcing a replacement sooner than wanted?

I am not an F-35 expert. However, I do have experience in building and maintaining military aircraft software, from the uniform (operator) and corporate (requirements management) side, and have written deployed code.

If you think about it, when they stop updating Windows, it is not immediately obsolete. It becomes obsolete for two reasons:

• the other software you’re running gets updated (or you want to upgrade to the latest and greatest). It might not run on your Windows, or more likely it will run slowly. This could be your version of Windows, or it could be your hardware is not up to the task; or
• bugs that were always there get discovered, particularly security vulnerabilities. Because it’s out of support they don’t get fixed.

With a weapon system, particularly an airborne one, it’s different. Nothing gets done individually, it’s all done together. So the first driver goes away. That leaves problems that were always there, which means if you keep using it (we did that for over ten years on the Sea King computer) your forced to accept more latent risks that become known.

However, there’s a caveat. Keeping a system past its shelf life comes with an operational risk. It implies that the primary user (in this case, the US), has determined it is no longer the most effective to update it to keep up with the threat, but rather to replace it. By not replacing it you are effectively accepting the operational risk of not adapting to the threat.

There is a second caveat: this applies to hardware and software. Unless the US completely closes access, then the data (threat libraries, etc) should still be able to be updated. I noticed in another threat the CAF is finally starting to take EW more seriously.

 

[Baz]

With a weapon system, particularly an airborne one, it’s different. Nothing gets done individually, it’s all done together. So the first driver goes away. That leaves problems that were always there, which means if you keep using it (we did that for over ten years on the Sea King computer) your forced to accept more latent risks that become known.

To illustrae this point with an example (albeit a much simpler one than the F35):

When we "upgraded" the computer in the Sea King in the late 1990's (with one that was already obsolete and the USN had declared unsuportable past 2000), there was no plan to either update the main mission simulator or produce procedural trainers. We developed in house both, using custom software which ran on Windows 95, and shared some components. These trainers existed until the retirement of that computer around 2015, and continued to run Windows 95, even though it had gone out of support in 2001.

The reason that was possible was that it was a closed system. We didn't have to worry about threats from the outside (the internet) becuase it was not connected to the internet. Any upgrades to the software were done in house, and therefore the limitations of both Windows 95 and the underlying hardware could be accounted for. As the PC model it ran on was life cycled out of other roles (general office duty) enough of them were gathered up to act as spare (yes, mid 90s PCs were still running fine in 2015).

This doesn't apply just to the military by the way. Lot's of critical infrastructure (eg oil refineries, power plants including nuclear, power distribution, air traffic control, etc) uses the same support model. It has the benefit of being a known entity so not as many unknown issues, but can become expensive to support when spares run out. Hence while for a time there was an active market for running PDP-11 (ant other) mini-computer code on PC architecture. A huge problem happens when some "bright idea guru" decides it should no longer by separate from the internet, "becuase we could do this and this if we just connected it."