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

[Czech_pivo]

There is no "rest of the order" to cancel. Canada has ordered 16. And signalled a potential purchase of a total of 88. But there are no program agreements for anything beyond the initial 16.

True
Just like how we have funded only the first 3 Rivers. We have signaled a potential purchase of a total of 15. But there are no program agreements for anything beyond the initial 3 - correct statement?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Correct.

 

[Baz]

Usually because we can't afford them and they are too much capability for us. It's kinda funny that we're calling that our new ships are "destroyers" with only 24 VLS cells. Compare that to what an American Arleigh Burke has. And then look at how much ammo some destroyers expended during engagements with the Houthis.

Cost for US Warships is an issue, but the way they design them for crewing is more so. They have a lot more people on their ships.

The number of VLS cells does not determine what a ship is called. Truthfully, it's becoming more of a statement then anything else. Frigate, destroyer, cruiser, and battleship used to have specific meanings and roles, but that has gone by the wayside.

We called the St Laurents et al Destroyers (DDH), but they were only 2260 tons, and in reality had no air defence. The Iroquois class were also destroyers at 4400 tons, but the Halifax was called a frigate at 4735. The Rivers are 8000, which is comparable to a Burke Flight I at 8300.

The Rivers are a very capable all round surface combattant, but are not optimized for area air defence as much as the Burke. The are also intended to carry AEGIS as the combat system.

The latest flights of the Burkes are not really destroyers. They've taken on the capability and role of the retiring Ticos, and are also as large (a Tico is 9600 tons). In other words, they are specialized for area air defence and for all intents and purposes are cruisers (in the old way of speaking).

 

[YZT580]

Part of Canada's problem is that we are constantly comparing ourselves to the crumbling empire that's bankrupting itself to stay ahead of everybody else.

The Rivers will be some of the most advanced and capable warships on the planet. When we have all 15 we will be operating a fleet of surface combatants larger than most other navies as well...

yes, we do have an annoying tendency to put ourselves down and that couples with another annoying trait: pessimism, can be very depressing

 

[OldSolduer]

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

This would be worse and I can't say I blame the others.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This would be worse and I can't say I blame the others.

Article came out in Feb of this year - when Trudeau was still PM.

Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist who helped Trump win in 2016, said Canada needed to realize that Trump was not trolling Trudeau but was serious about wanting to annex the country.

He said Canada lacked the resources to defend itself particularly as China attempts to become an Arctic power. But he said any move to evict Canada from the Five Eyes would be a counter-productive move that would just end up hurting America.

“Canada punches way above their weight. If you look at military history, they’ve been the best ally we’ve had,” Bannon said.

 

[ytz]

The number of VLS cells does not determine what a ship is called. Truthfully, it's becoming more of a statement then anything else. Frigate, destroyer, cruiser, and battleship used to have specific meanings and roles, but that has gone by the wayside.

The Rivers are a very capable all round surface combattant, but are not optimized for area air defence as much as the Burke. The are also intended to carry AEGIS as the combat system.

I am not trying to implying the RCDs aren't highly capable. But the two other versions of the exact same type are both being classified as FFGs in their navies. Beyond our desire to puff up, what makes the RCD categorically different from the other two?

I will disagree a tad that the number of VLS doesn't determine type. VLS alone? No. Total firepower? Kind of. And basically everything called a destroyer these days has a lot more of everything including VLS.

The latest flights of the Burkes are not really destroyers. They've taken on the capability and role of the retiring Ticos, and are also as large (a Tico is 9600 tons). In other words, they are specialized for area air defence and for all intents and purposes are cruisers (in the old way of speaking).

Sure. But even ignoring the creep in classification these days, the RCD is still coming online with less than the very first Burke.

yes, we do have an annoying tendency to put ourselves down and that couples with another annoying trait: pessimism, can be very depressing

We have also have a bad habit of falling to various Canadianism mythologies. Usually about how we make up for in skill what we lack in equipment. I've heard that one my whole career. It's usually just cope. Sometimes we actually just have less stuff. Also, no matter how good you are, sometimes numbers matter. Quantity has its own quality, as the phrase goes.

 

[ytz]

There is no "rest of the order" to cancel. Canada has ordered 16. And signalled a potential purchase of a total of 88. But there are no program agreements for anything beyond the initial 16.

I am fairly sure we have an LOI in there for 88. It probably underpins some of the workshare we get. Just because we paid down the first lot, doesn't mean we didn't make soft commitments for more.

 

[OldSolduer]

We have also have a bad habit of falling to various Canadianism mythologies. Usually about how we make up for in skill what we lack in equipment. I've heard that one my whole career. It's usually just cope. Sometimes we actually just have less stuff. Also, no matter how good you are, sometimes numbers matter. Quantity has its own quality, as the phrase goes.

We do and the enduring ones are the "militia myth" and the second is "we're peacekeepers" myth.

 

[Baz]

I am not trying to implying the RCDs aren't highly capable. But the two other versions of the exact same type are both being classified as FFGs in their navies. Beyond our desire to puff up, what makes the RCD categorically different from the other two?

I will disagree a tad that the number of VLS doesn't determine type. VLS alone? No. Total firepower? Kind of. And basically everything called a destroyer these days has a lot more of everything including VLS.

Sure. But even ignoring the creep in classification these days, the RCD is still coming online with less than the very first Burke.

I think inclusion of AEGIS makes a huge difference. Sure, call them a Frigate, but don’t conflate Destroyer with Air Defence Destroyer. We don’t need a ship optimized for area air defence only.

Having said that, one of the options for the Type 45 replacement, which is an air defence destroyer, is to expand on what Canada has done beyond the 26s. Basically, Canada decided that their 26s would be more capable in air defence than RN and RAN, because both of those navies have dedicated AAW platforms.

Of note, Flight 1 and early Flight 2 Burkes had no hangars, so could not embark a helo, only recover it. So they had their limitations. They tried to use the Burke to replace everything including the OHPs, Spruances, and Ticos, and that has made them very expensive ships. Hence the Constellation class.

I can be very critical of the RCN, but in this case they’ve so far been able to push a very capable all round ship, in relatively large numbers, and a single configuration. The number of cells for area air defence Standards may prove to be of concern, but there will be plenty of quad packed ESSMs for self defence.

 

[Baz]

We do and the enduring ones are the "militia myth" and the second is "we're peacekeepers" myth.

And the “we are the best at every aspect of ASW” myth. I can tell you for a fact the Canadian Sea King was never as good technically as either the USN or RN ones…

 

[Kirkhill]

Access Restricted

This article points out that the Americans have been dragging their heels on incorporating weapons, especially foreign ones, in the F35.
Apparently the Brit F35Bs are only certified with Paveway IV, AMRAAM and ASRAAM. And the Brits have been with the program since 1995 and received their first operation aircraft in 2018.

The new Brit Apaches are flying with US Hellfires/JAGMs rather than their own Brimstones for similar reasons.

Meanwhile folks in Eastern Europe have been cross patching all weapons on all platforms.

 

[Maxman1]

We do and the enduring ones are the "militia myth" and the second is "we're peacekeepers" myth.

And the “we are the best at every aspect of ASW” myth. I can tell you for a fact the Canadian Sea King was never as good technically as either the USN or RN ones…

And "the Arrow was the best plane ever designed".

 

[Kirkhill]

Another point attributable to Topshee. He was talking about the subs but it applies generally.

The government is in the business of fast tracking strategic industrial alliances that can supply jobs and weapons...in that order.

 

[dapaterson]

I am fairly sure we have an LOI in there for 88. It probably underpins some of the workshare we get. Just because we paid down the first lot, doesn't mean we didn't make soft commitments for more.

The JSF Program is an unusual beast. It's not a traditional procurement vehicle. And the JPO is quite familiar with Canada's theoretical orders not manifesting when expected / if at all.

 

[suffolkowner]

For the F35 we pay program fees as a partner nation dependent on our purchase number of record. Something that has been adjusted in the past