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

[Retired AF Guy]

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?

Well Canada does have the Future Fighter Lead-in Training Program that is looking for a new trainer aircraft. More can found here:

FFLIT

Canadian Defence Review

 

[Quirky]

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

If the snowbirds continue post-tutor, it won’t be a jet. Likely the PC-21 as they’re already, or will be eventually, flown in Moose Jaw. The Aussies use them for their air demo team and they work just fine.

 

[KevinB]

Two things to preface this....

(1) I know nothing about flying machines.
(2) Normally I am dead against multiple supply chains for something.

But wouldn't getting the F35 for continental defence and something else (Grippen) to use as expeditionary? Maybe I have that backwards...

Canada needs a American linkable Fighter for NORAD.

Expeditionary is a tough question, as for situations like Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Iraq, the F-35 is a little overkill, but in the past the US Military has been the #1 CotW.

Future Expeditionary is a tougher question as the USA may not be the Coalition leader (or a participant at all) - and depending upon the threat you may want more stealth than bomb truck applications.

I really don't attend any USAF Conferences, outside the AFSOF and CSAR areas, and things related to JFE or SOF deployment stuff - so I am clearly not a great resource for Air Force wing'ey pointy end things.

But that said, as I noted above if one matrixes Canada's potential needs - if one looks for a split fleet now, the "best" options are F-35 and F-15EX, which is likely not politically palatable.
I fail to see any logical purpose to acquire Grippens - other than a short sighted F You to the USA.
A split fleet in 10-15 years and @ytz has pointed out the best likely COA.
As much as I think the best time to plan 10-15 years out is now, I would think that Canada may be best off waiting 3 years and seeing what occurs for the next Presidential Election down here.
We may just end up best of friends again.

 

[Baz]

Canada needs an American linkable Fighter for NORAD.

Kevin, I think that is an over simplification.

The F-35 is best for expeditionary; as a matter of fact, I feel if Canada wants to properly do joint and combined expeditionary properly they have to have the F-35. It is a proper, multi-role, strike fighter. It is also a very capable ISR platform.

In order to use that ISR capability you need the supporting enterprise. PED (processing, exploitation, and dissemination) requires a lot of resources. When doing expeditionary ISR, having the common platform means you can also have common PED, which is a big deal. Ditto for targeting execution.

NORAD is different. We don’t need “US platforms.” We need interoperable platforms. That means:

• interoperable status reporting and tasking; the Air tracking Order processes ensure that
• interoperable NORAD procedures; NORAD itself ensures that
• interoperable data sharing for air defence; Link-16 ensures that (so you also need Link-16 on your AEW&C and tanker platforms, both with Over The Horizon Range Extension).

I’d prefer the F-35 for both, but I think the Gripen could be acceptable for the NORAD role (maybe get more of them and have them permanently dispersed; ie Gander, Greenwood, Bagotville, Trenton, Cold Lake, and Comox). Use the F-35s we do get for 1 or 2 Squadron equivalents of Expeditionary capability, and permanently organize them in the most likely deployment size.

 

[GR66]

Kevin, I think that is an over simplification.

The F-35 is best for expeditionary; as a matter of fact, I feel if Canada wants to properly do joint and combined expeditionary properly they have to have the F-35. It is a proper, multi-role, strike fighter. It is also a very capable ISR platform.

In order to use that ISR capability you need the supporting enterprise. PED (processing, exploitation, and dissemination) requires a lot of resources. When doing expeditionary ISR, having the common platform means you can also have common PED, which is a big deal. Ditto for targeting execution.

NORAD is different. We don’t need “US platforms.” We need interoperable platforms. That means:

• interoperable status reporting and tasking; the Air tracking Order processes ensure that
• interoperable NORAD procedures; NORAD itself ensures that
• interoperable data sharing for air defence; Link-16 ensures that (so you also need Link-16 on your AEW&C and tanker platforms, both with Over The Horizon Range Extension).

I’d prefer the F-35 for both, but I think the Gripen could be acceptable for the NORAD role (maybe get more of them and have them permanently dispersed; ie Gander, Greenwood, Bagotville, Trenton, Cold Lake, and Comox). Use the F-35s we do get for 1 or 2 Squadron equivalents of Expeditionary capability, and permanently organize them in the most likely deployment size.

I've suggested before that having a 4/4.5 Gen fighter for the NORAD role instead of the F-35 would be less of an negative operational impact on the CAF then it would be a negative logistical and support impact.

 

[Rainbow1910]

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 think we will end up buying all 88 jets, as the economy of scale within the F-35 program is very difficult to beat, the RCAF has their plans entirely built around the F-35 and the aircraft is so heavily interoperable with the US/our allies abroad. I feel a reason its being drug out so long is to find a time where they can announce the full purchase optimally, without pissing people off and giving it enough fluff to land properly with the public. Any other option at this point is so inferior in so many ways than even if we get some kind of domestic offset, I don't see it being able to get off the ground.

My concern with any of the 6th gen offerings is how far away they are, how crowded/problematic/political each program is, how untested everything is and how eye bogglingly expensive it is thought they will be. If people think the F-35 is overkill for NORAD missions, what will they think if we procure a bunch of brand new jets with a sticker tag potentially 3x - 4x of the F-35?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think we will end up buying all 88 jets, as the economy of scale within the F-35 program is very difficult to beat, the RCAF has their plans entirely built around the F-35 and the aircraft is so heavily interoperable with the US/our allies abroad. I feel a reason its being drug out so long is to find a time where they can announce the full purchase optimally, without pissing people off and giving it enough fluff to land properly with the public. Any other option at this point is so inferior in so many ways than even if we get some kind of domestic offset, I don't see it being able to get off the ground.

My concern with any of the 6th gen offerings is how far away they are, how crowded/problematic/political each program is, how untested everything is and how eye bogglingly expensive it is thought they will be. If people think the F-35 is overkill for NORAD missions, what will they think if we procure a bunch of brand new jets with a sticker tag potentially 3x - 4x of the F-35?

Next iteration will be

How many 300,000 USD cruise missiles will be bought?

How many 3,000,000 USD recoverable Valkyries will be bought?

How many 30,000,000 reusable CCAs will be bought?

How many 300,000,000 Gen 6s like GCAP will be bought?

 

[childs56]

I think we will end up buying all 88 jets, as the economy of scale within the F-35 program is very difficult to beat, the RCAF has their plans entirely built around the F-35 and the aircraft is so heavily interoperable with the US/our allies abroad. I feel a reason its being drug out so long is to find a time where they can announce the full purchase optimally, without pissing people off and giving it enough fluff to land properly with the public. Any other option at this point is so inferior in so many ways than even if we get some kind of domestic offset, I don't see it being able to get off the ground.

My concern with any of the 6th gen offerings is how far away they are, how crowded/problematic/political each program is, how untested everything is and how eye bogglingly expensive it is thought they will be. If people think the F-35 is overkill for NORAD missions, what will they think if we procure a bunch of brand new jets with a sticker tag potentially 3x - 4x of the F-35?

Canada was always after 6th Gen Fighters and the Tech behind them.
We will need to have intern fighters until the tech is their for AI jets.
Part of the F35 program was to command and control multiple wingman jets. I believe it was up to 4 per F35, that was a pipedream.

Time going forward, the US program needs Canadian Tech to make things work. Our people allow the black boxes to talk to each other. I think part of the ongoing issue of the newest updates for the F35 is the US wants to go it alone. Are trying to alienate sensor/ program fusion provided by other partners.

 

[Remius]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/swedish-king-canada-visit-9.6971674

Sweden doing Sweden things to get a deal.

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/swedish-king-canada-visit-9.6971674

Sweden doing Sweden things to get a deal.

Does Rolls Royce have facilities in Montreal as well?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Does Rolls Royce have facilities in Montreal as well?

Chatter (in the last handful of days) on YouTube about Rolls-Royce putting their engine into the Gripen for Canada.

 

[Remius]

Does Rolls Royce have facilities in Montreal as well?

How Montreal Keeps the World Flying: 75 Years of Rolls-Royce Canada Aerospace

The most prestigious business jets the world over rely on Rolls-Royce engines to power them through the skies. And, for 75 years, those engines have relied on Montreal’s world-class repair and overhaul facility to keep them in top shape.

www.innovatingcanada.ca

 

[Czech_pivo]

How Montreal Keeps the World Flying: 75 Years of Rolls-Royce Canada Aerospace

The most prestigious business jets the world over rely on Rolls-Royce engines to power them through the skies. And, for 75 years, those engines have relied on Montreal’s world-class repair and overhaul facility to keep them in top shape.

www.innovatingcanada.ca

Well then, I'm going to say that we about to announce a Gripen with Rolls-Royce engines - along with 2+ squadrons of F35's.

 

[Rainbow1910]

There has been talk about putting another engine into the Gripen for years at this point, but it all comes around to the point that the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze. The jet was never and likely will never be popular enough to justify the substantial regime to design, integrate, test and certify a new engine into the airframe. Even if you remove the engine, the Gripen is still chock full of ITAR components and thus able to be disrupted by the US regardless.