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

[Colin Parkinson]

If we go for, say 44/44 split, the good thing is that we will still retain all the F35 contracts and possibly gain Gripen contracts as well.

 

[Furniture]

Maybe. But it can get worse.

White House official pushes to axe Canada from Five Eyes intelligence group

A top White House official has proposed expelling Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network to ramp up pressure. Read more

financialpost.com

If they do that, they would be proving to all of their other partners that they are unserious about partnerships, further diminishing their importance in the world.

 

[PuckChaser]

Ukraine has learned that the US can and will restrict your ability to use their weapons in ways that may be damaging to your national survival.

CAF leadership are hopefully noticing that and reconsidering their default position of being a vassal state to Canada's southern neighbour.

Europe did the same thing to them.

We're only looking like a vassal state because we've been freeloading for decades and now are hell-bent on buying any garbage we can to stick it to them. We're going to cut off our nose to spite our face.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Ukraine has learned that the US can and will restrict your ability to use their weapons in ways that may be damaging to your national survival.

CAF leadership are hopefully noticing that and reconsidering their default position of being a vassal state to Canada's southern neighbour.

The Ukrainians (and others) have seen not just the US do this sort of restricting the use of their weapons, I believe that the Swiss did so, as well as the Germans, French and Brits.

It becomes a case of reading the fine print when contracts are signed. I mean, how many of us really take the time to read them? Just imagine a world where car manufacturers built in a 'kill switch' on their cars based on number of km/miles you speed over the limit? Let's say that if you go over 50km/hr over the limit the 'kill switch' kicks in and reduces the speed to the limit and effectively takes over the driving of the car to the near dealership where they repossess the car immediately from you with no recourse or compensation?

If this pivot towards Saab and the Swedes is true and this is an attempt to re-establish an ability that we once had and were once very good at - building our own fighter aircraft - is that really and truly a bad thing? Carney has been saying, loudly, repeatedly, that 'the old way of doing things is over,' this 'alliance' with Saab might be the first, tangible, front and center building block of this new approach.

I don't see Canada getting away from being a partner - a partner - in the Golden Dome and with NORAD continuing going forward. The best approach with this is getting 65 F35's and being an active, wallet is open, not for someone to pick it clean, but open to spend on our fair share accordingly on the Golden Dome. Please remember that Carney early on announced our spending on the JORN radar with Australia. That to me was an attempt to show good faith to the US, that we were getting this moving ASAP and were starting to take our responsibilities seriously.

There's a reason why the Brits, Germans, Italians and others are still flying 2 sets of fighters, its called 'independence', its called 'freedom of action', its called 'maintaining a form of sovereignty' because they still have the ability to produce their own fighters if the shit hits the fan. Maybe its time that we do as well?

 

[Czech_pivo]

If they do that, they would be proving to all of their other partners that they are unserious about partnerships, further diminishing their importance in the world.

They've wanted to do the same with NZ for a number of years now.

The Brits are now on record for not sharing any intel with the US related to anything drug related in the Carib or southern hemisphere.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The E7 is still being made and sold. Who said it's not on offer anymore?



The L3 offer could have AAR.



1) She just started the job.

2) Public Servants don't get to criticize government policy publicly. Topshee can talk a lot now because there's no contract on the table or even an RFP out.

And there's a contract on the table or a RFP with Saab? I don't see anything then stopping her from talking about the Saab issue.

 

[Rainbow1910]

However this is the Gripen E/F we are talking here, which is what the super hornet was the original F18. Slightly different beast, bigger and badder, and more modern.

Might as well go full high low concept then, F35 provides first strike, gripen is your bomb truck

Indeed however, even the Gripen E/F being bigger, badder and more modern cannot hold a candle to something like the F-35, which has become the standard for western airforces for years at this point. Our adversaries are developing more modern sensor suites, more advanced weaponry and even their own 5th generation stealth platforms, it seems like an exceptionally poor idea to me in 5-10 years to start procuring an aircraft that is only peer with some enemy capabilities now, let alone whenever it enters service and especially throughout its service life.

I'd personally prefer to stick to the original plan and not deal with Gripen at all, but we'll see how much political interference happens going forward. Having another CF-5 going forward does not appeal to me very much.

Take note of Brazil's Gripen E delivery schedule.

Gripen Deliveries to Brazil Delayed by 8 Years, Cost Overruns Equal 6 Extra Fighters | Defense Express

Deliveries of Gripen fighters to Brazil, initially set to finish by early 2024, are now delayed and will stretch out until 2032

en.defence-ua.com

The Brazilian Air Force has officially admitted that the Gripen E/F fighter delivery program from Saab, partially localized through Embraer, is facing serious setbacks due to significant delays in aircraft handovers as well as increased costs. Originally, the Gripen deliveries were expected to be completed by early 2024. However, the updated schedule now stretches well beyond that. According to the revised timeline: one aircraft will be delivered in 2025, four in 2027, five in 2028, two in 2029, three in 2030, and five each in 2031 and 2032. This means Brazil will face an eight-year delay in receiving its full fleet of Gripens.

On top of that, the programs cost has risen by 13%. As the brigadier general noted, with the additional money being spent, Brazil could have purchased six more fighters at todays market value. The original contract, signed in late 2014, covered the delivery of 36 Gripen E/F fighters for $5.4 billion. Under the terms, some aircraft would be produced in Sweden while others would be assembled in Brazil at Embraer facilities. However, the localization of production or rather, assembly in Brazil has itself taken 11 years to implement.

This is the sort of agreement we're signing onto, the 3-5 year estimate by Saab is entirely laughable. Something approaching a decade of setup for first delivery at the minimum seems more likely, so waiting even longer to get yesterdays aircraft.

They aren't the only project. There's a ton of pressure now to make sure Canadian primes get business. I'm seeing this at my level. So I can imagine the discussions going on elsewhere.

What has me worried was Joly openly campaigning for this. That was unprecedented. And no way she was doing that without some leeway from the rest of cabinet. I think this offer to build 150 Ukrainian Gripens may have pushed it over the line. Effectively getting an export market.

I am honestly just as or more worried about the Globaleye knowing how inappropriate that is for our ops.

Anybody who's pushing for Ukraine to get 1/3 or 1/2 of ALL GRIPEN PRODUCTION FROM 1980's UNTIL TODAY is not in touch with reality, even with this proposed Canadian facility which will be building jets for Canada if it ever exists, not Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't have the funds for this, and Saab doesn't have the ability to deliver all those aircraft on anything approaching even a delayed timeline.

Having some kind of AEW capability is better than none at all however, GlobalEye isn't especially well suited to long duration Arctic NORAD missions, yes.

We’ve not heard a word from any CAF/RCAF Sr Officers about any of this. Topshee can’t seem to not stop talking about the sub project and a few other tops related to the RCN. Why so quiet for the head of the RCAF? Have they been beaten down? Are they not a strong champion for the RCAF, does no one care what they say? It will be interesting to see if they say anything.

Topshee is very much an anomaly within CAF leadership circles, nobody is out pounding the pavement and making their opinions/plans known quite like he is.

The E7 is still being made and sold. Who said it's not on offer anymore?

NATO just dropped their order like it was on fire, while it seems entirely up in the air if the USAF will continue purchases given the ongoing political SNAFU around the E-7. Confidence around US support and interoperability has been entirely eroded around the E-7 and with Carney pledging for a Canadian made AEW&C platform and Bombardier standing there with their hands out in this political environment, E-7 for Canada is entirely dead.

If this pivot towards Saab and the Swedes is true and this is an attempt to re-establish an ability that we once had and were once very good at - building our own fighter aircraft - is that really and truly a bad thing? Carney has been saying, loudly, repeatedly, that 'the old way of doing things is over,' this 'alliance' with Saab might be the first, tangible, front and center building block of this new approach.

I'd be much more supportive of this if the timelines, effort and cost required were realistic and especially if it wasn't attached at the hip to an export failure of a jet which is decidedly behind the times now, let along going forward. Losing out on the capability of an entirely F-35 based RCAF seems like a questionable tradeoff for a bunch of dubiously relevant, souped up light fighters originally fielded decades ago with a small customer/operator base.

Do people expect the RCAF to build the next Avro Arrow once we build some Gripen sub-components domestically and assemble Saab produced aircraft kits? Is Saab the right partner to get into business with when they have zero experience with 5th generation fighters or large drones, let alone the fact all of the major powers have seemingly moved onto 6th generation fighters with drones at this point? Saab comes off as a desperate partner who doesn't have a whole lot to offer, not sure they are who I'd want our aviation sector to be joined at the hip with. They are ultimately trying to undercut LM's products out of our market after they already lost the last competition, people should atleast acknowledge that this is a pivot by Sweden to take advantage of our political situation to satisfy their own market demands at the end of the day.

 

[GR66]

The Golden Dome angle is an important part of this as well.
Can the US really bitch if we go with 65 F35’s (as well as Gripen E’s) and the Golden Dome as well? Factor in 12 subs with land strike capabilities as well and the 15 Rivers and 12 CDC’s?
At the end of the day it’s about bringing back Canadian abilities, Canadian capabilities and rebuilding Canada’s armed forces.

When was the last time a French or Italian or German or Spanish or Dutch or Norwegian warship crossed the Strait of Taiwan? Are their warships monitoring illegal activities off the coast of North Korea? Are their planes flying anti-smuggling operations against North Korea, China or Russia out of Japan? Do they send their subs from the nice, warm, calm waters of the Mediterranean out to the coastlines of North Korea?

Not to take away from your general argument that Canada is expanding its capability to participate in many ways but to be fair to our other NATO allies it should be noted that they contribute on a global level as well...it just doesn't make Canadian news when they do.

German Navy Taiwan Strait Transit Draws Criticism From China

Two German Navy ships have transited the Taiwan Strait on their way to the Philippines among criticism by Chinese officials.

www.navalnews.com

The German Navy and the United Nations’ North Korea sanctions

Through their Indo-Pacific Deployment, German naval forces are also involved in curbing North Korea’s nuclear buildup.

www.bundeswehr.de

French naval vessel, patrol aircraft monitor North Korea sanctions around Japan | NK News

A French naval vessel recently carried out surveillance against illegal North Korean ship-to-ship transfers around Japan, reflecting Paris’ commitment to monitoring sanctions violations after dispatching a patrol aircraft for the same purpose last month. The French navy frigate FS Prairial took...

www.nknews.org

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not to take away from your general argument that Canada is expanding its capability to participate in many ways but to be fair to our other NATO allies it should be noted that they contribute on a global level as well...it just doesn't make Canadian news when they do.

German Navy Taiwan Strait Transit Draws Criticism From China

Two German Navy ships have transited the Taiwan Strait on their way to the Philippines among criticism by Chinese officials.

www.navalnews.com

The German Navy and the United Nations’ North Korea sanctions

Through their Indo-Pacific Deployment, German naval forces are also involved in curbing North Korea’s nuclear buildup.

www.bundeswehr.de

French naval vessel, patrol aircraft monitor North Korea sanctions around Japan | NK News

A French naval vessel recently carried out surveillance against illegal North Korean ship-to-ship transfers around Japan, reflecting Paris’ commitment to monitoring sanctions violations after dispatching a patrol aircraft for the same purpose last month. The French navy frigate FS Prairial took...

www.nknews.org

Good to see that some of our Euro friends are out leaving the safe confines of the Baltic and Med for more interesting waters.

Would like to know if these are 'one offs' or is the German navy crossing the Straits of Taiwan 2+ times a year.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'd be much more supportive of this if the timelines, effort and cost required were realistic and especially if it wasn't attached at the hip to an export failure of a jet which is decidedly behind the times now, let along going forward. Losing out on the capability of an entirely F-35 based RCAF seems like a questionable tradeoff for a bunch of dubiously relevant, souped up light fighters originally fielded decades ago with a small customer/operator base.

Do people expect the RCAF to build the next Avro Arrow once we build some Gripen sub-components domestically and assemble Saab produced aircraft kits? Is Saab the right partner to get into business with when they have zero experience with 5th generation fighters or large drones, let alone the fact all of the major powers have seemingly moved onto 6th generation fighters with drones at this point? Saab comes off as a desperate partner who doesn't have a whole lot to offer, not sure they are who I'd want our aviation sector to be joined at the hip with. They are ultimately trying to undercut LM's products out of our market after they already lost the last competition, people should atleast acknowledge that this is a pivot by Sweden to take advantage of our political situation to satisfy their own market demands at the end of the day.

I understand the concerns about timelines, but when do we, or anyone, have the luxury of 'perfect' timelines? We are dealing with shitty timelines on the delivery of the Rivers due to output constraints with Irving and viable alternatives to produce in parallel elsewhere. The Halifax's will cease to exist well before the last River is built. On the flip side, we are moving at breakneck speed (and some here are bitching about it) on the sub project in order to get as many subs in the water as possible to help maintain this fragile capability, to help offset the pending loss of the Halifax's before scalable numbers of Rivers are delivered and to save money overall be mothballing the Victoria's ASAP.

There is nothing stopping us in working with the Swedes going forward on their development of a new 6th gen fighter, in parallel in tooling up new skills and abilities while producing Gripen E's. Maybe this timeline is 'rushed' because of this very thing? I've read time and time again on the RCN forum pages about how the building of the AOPS first was necessary to allow us to regain the ability/skill/knowledge of how to build warships again after 25+yrs of doing nothing. Why can't the Gripen E production and teaming up with SAAB/Sweden be seen as something similar? I can see logic, lots' of it, in this approach. Who's to say that the Gripen's won't be merely a stepping stone to something built inhouse and much better?

Again, I'll say this, buy 65 F35's, (and the Golden Done), keep everyone 'happy' south of the border and possibly within NATO, but start to look after our own needs first.

As an outsider looking in, the RCAF looks to be the most 'American' of the 3 branches within the CAF. I mean the 2nd in Command at NORAD is a RACF member, consistently, correct? Sounds like they might be just a bit biased towards US based solutions. Just my 2 cents. This potential pivot to a non-US partner might be hard to accept.

 

[Quirky]

There's a reason why the Brits, Germans, Italians and others are still flying 2 sets of fighters, its called 'independence', its called 'freedom of action', its called 'maintaining a form of sovereignty' because they still have the ability to produce their own fighters if the shit hits the fan. Maybe its time that we do as well?

We can't stop pilots from going to big red and are struggling to keep the CF-18s flying with enough aircrew. You're talking about doubling our fighter force when people are walking out the door. Who in their right mind is going to hop into a Gripen E in 2030-35? You'll have them sitting in the hangars collecting dust.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We can't stop pilots from going to big red and are struggling to keep the CF-18s flying with enough aircrew. You're talking about doubling our fighter force when people are walking out the door. Who in their right mind is going to hop into a Gripen E in 2030-35? You'll have them sitting in the hangars collecting dust.

Simple question - once the new pay structure is up and running, what will be the salary for a pilot moving from a CF18 over to being a pilot at 'big red?'

 

[Rainbow1910]

I understand the concerns about timelines, but when do we, or anyone, have the luxury of 'perfect' timelines? We are dealing with shitty timelines on the delivery of the Rivers due to output constraints with Irving and viable alternatives to produce in parallel elsewhere. The Halifax's will cease to exist well before the last River is built. On the flip side, we are moving at breakneck speed (and some here are bitching about it) on the sub project in order to get as many subs in the water as possible to help maintain this fragile capability, to help offset the pending loss of the Halifax's before scalable numbers of Rivers are delivered and to save money overall be mothballing the Victoria's ASAP.

There is nothing stopping us in working with the Swedes going forward on their development of a new 6th gen fighter, in parallel in tooling up new skills and abilities while producing Gripen E's. Maybe this timeline is 'rushed' because of this very thing? I've read time and time again on the RCN forum pages about how the building of the AOPS first was necessary to allow us to regain the ability/skill/knowledge of how to build warships again after 25+yrs of doing nothing. Why can't the Gripen E production and teaming up with SAAB/Sweden be seen as something similar? I can see logic, lots' of it, in this approach. Who's to say that the Gripen's won't be merely a stepping stone to something built inhouse and much better?

Again, I'll say this, buy 65 F35's, (and the Golden Done), keep everyone 'happy' south of the border and possibly within NATO, but start to look after our own needs first.

As an outsider looking in, the RCAF looks to be the most 'American' of the 3 branches within the CAF. I mean the 2nd in Command at NORAD is a RACF member, consistently, correct? Sounds like they might be just a bit biased towards US based solutions. Just my 2 cents. This potential pivot to a non-US partner might be hard to accept.

There is a difference between a perfect timeline and a remotely workable timeline, do you think waiting potentially around a decade from agreement for domestic Gripen E delivery is a good idea when the airframe is just about workable in todays threat environment? It sounds flat out irresponsible to spend the amount of effort, funding and time to set up Gripen production when the design is fundamentally behind the curve compared to 5th gen platforms like F-35 that were designed many years ago. Why do we have to saddle the RCAF with a sub-par aircraft that has a very dubious future relevancy prospect to secure a seat at the table for a 6th generation program? If the Gripen had better export potential I could see, but we're only being used as component manufacturing and assembly, not full on domestic production.

Why don't we partner with somebody who doesn't require a sacrifice to our current and future airfleet capability just to buy fidelity with? I've mentioned it before that Saab has no experience with even stealthy 5th generation jets, let alone 6th generation designs and their associated UCAV wingmen. Are they really the partner we want, when nobody seemingly wants them? That's an awfully expensive, time consuming and questionably relevant stepping stone to get an opportunity to team up with the industry dullard as far as next gen platforms go currently.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Keep the F-35 order. This will satisfy NORAD interoperability requirements and expeditionary capabilities requirements. Buy 30 Grippens. Put 10 in Cold Lake for FLIT, and put 10 in Bagotville and Cold Lake as proficiency platforms/Red Air, to be flown by F-35 pilots who are dual qualified.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There is a difference between a perfect timeline and a remotely workable timeline, do you think waiting potentially around a decade from agreement for domestic Gripen E delivery is a good idea when the airframe is just about workable in todays threat environment? It sounds flat out irresponsible to spend the amount of effort, funding and time to set up Gripen production when the design is fundamentally behind the curve compared to 5th gen platforms like F-35 that were designed many years ago. Why do we have to saddle the RCAF with a sub-par aircraft that has a very dubious future relevancy prospect to secure a seat at the table for a 6th generation program? If the Gripen had better export potential I could see, but we're only being used as component manufacturing and assembly, not full on domestic production.

Why don't we partner with somebody who doesn't require a sacrifice to our current and future airfleet capability just to buy fidelity with? I've mentioned it before that Saab has no experience with even stealthy 5th generation jets, let alone 6th generation designs and their associated UCAV wingmen. Are they really the partner we want, when nobody seemingly wants them? That's an awfully expensive, time consuming and questionably relevant stepping stone to get an opportunity to team up with the industry dullard as far as next gen platforms go currently.

Fair play, valid points.

Sadly I think our dance partners are rather limited at this point. I don't see the Brits/Germans/Italians giving up any domestic manufacturing to team up with this. Japan, not happening.

Maybe what will pan out (if this Saab rumour turns out to be correct) is us teaming with the Swedes and in turn both of us teaming with the South Koreans in a 6th gen fighter. The relationship between the 3 of us in the aerospace sector will be linked together through Bombardier and its Global 6500 plane. South Korea currently doesn't have a 6th gen partner, maybe what's being worked on behind the scenes is a future partnership between the 3 countries on this approach? If we team with the SK's on the subs, our relationship with them will be cemented.

Would the 3 of us working together on a new 6th gen fighter and UCAV wingmen be a viable solution going forward?

 

[Rifleman62]

10,000 new jobs could soon come to Canada Quebec, Swedish manufacturer says​

And that's all that matters. Keep Quebec happy and votes.

If we are absolutely fucken stupid ( and we are - see CF 5 )we will get 4th generation Gripens and fly them for 40 years like the CF 18, starting approximately 2030.

Forget about what's best for the CF to fight and survive with less casualties in the long term, think stay in power.

 

[GR66]

People act like having Gripens in a mixed Gripen/F-35 fleet would be the equivalent of sending our pilots to war in Sopwith Camels. The Gripen is a pretty capable 4/4.5 Gen fighter and would stand up well against the 4/4.5 Gen fighters our potential enemies still have in large numbers.

It would also be useful used in conjunction with the F-35 as the Panther will work best when remaining stealthy with internal stores only and using its passive sensors to avoid detection. The Gripen could then act as a missile truck with 10 x hardpoints carrying BVR missiles like Meteor to take out targets identified by the F-35's.

I continue to personally believe that we should stick with our order for 88 x F-35's but I simply don't buy into the argument that the RCAF will somehow be a crippled lame duck if we went for a split fleet.

 

[Quirky]

Simple question - once the new pay structure is up and running, what will be the salary for a pilot moving from a CF18 over to being a pilot at 'big red?'

It's not just pay.

F-16 Fighting Falcon

Discover the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the world’s most capable 4th generation multirole fighter. Explore Lockheed Martin’s advanced fighter capabilities.

www.lockheedmartin.com

A block 70/72 F-16 would be a proven platform, and flown by other countries.

 

[dapaterson]

Keep the F-35 order. This will satisfy NORAD interoperability requirements and expeditionary capabilities requirements. Buy 30 Grippens. Put 10 in Cold Lake for FLIT, and put 10 in Bagotville and Cold Lake as proficiency platforms/Red Air, to be flown by F-35 pilots who are dual qualified.

Gripen as FFLIT is an interesting concept.

But my understanding is that maintenance of quals for the fighter force is already challenging; would maintaining dual qualifications be a viable CoA?

 

[YZT580]

We can't stop pilots from going to big red and are struggling to keep the CF-18s flying with enough aircrew. You're talking about doubling our fighter force when people are walking out the door. Who in their right mind is going to hop into a Gripen E in 2030-35? You'll have them sitting in the hangars collecting dust.

Humbug. Question: Why do pilots smile during thunderstorms? Answer: they think someone is taking their picture? Seriously, pilot are a rare breed. Carl Millard used to charge Air Canada and CPAir pilots for the privilege of flying right seat in his DC3's and getting rated. They were flying for an airline, they had their ratings but the allure of being Dak rated brought out their wallets anyways. Start with the Air Cadets and increase the number of flying scholarships that you hand out. Take the senior cadets out to Morden or Moose Jaw and strap them into the back seat of a modern trainer for an hour or two and you will snare enough to keep those Gripens manned. I don't know how the Americans do it with their National Guard pilots but if it works, try and emulate it with reserve pilots for the Gripens if you have to.