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

[Kirkhill]

Seahawks? Not Aw101? After all, the helicopter deck, hanger and Mission Bay (2 choppers in tandem) were originally laid out for the Merlin.

On the plus side with the smaller SH70 there is more room for UAVs and given the pass through between the hangar and the mission bay on the Type 26 Rivers you might even be able to transport three SH70s.

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 2 – configuration and contents - Navy Lookout

In the previous article we considered the design and development of the Type 26 frigate mission bay. Here we take a more speculative look at how this flexible space could be used. Given the timeframe, there has understandably been minimal official comment about what may be carried within the...

www.navylookout.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile...

We are also involved in this game.

Airbus Joins Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier, Mitsubishi and COMAC in Thrilling Race for Future of Aircraft Manufacturing, New Update is Here - Travel And Tour World

Airbus joins Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier, Mitsubishi and COMAC in the thrilling race for the future of aircraft manufacturing, new update is here. The battle for dominance in aircraft manufacturing has never been more intense.

www.travelandtourworld.com

I would note that Airbus is a multi-national consortium that is currently disrupting Europe's intentions to establish a pan-European solution because of internal national competition between France and Germany.

 

[Kirkhill]

And since we are referencing General Electric vs Rolls Royce

This article compares the civilian offerings and their design principles. They seem to mirror the distinctions between the American V8 of the Ford Mustang and the British V12 of the Jaguar E-Type.

The Striking Differences Between GE & Rolls-Royce Engines

Both are synonymous with reliability and quality, which are vital to producing an industry-leading engine.

simpleflying.com

 

[markppcli]

Station them in Sweden close to Saab for cover for our latvia brigade.

I see more like a cold war level increase, 10 squadrons, 4 in canada, 6 in europe.

Yeah that 5 minutes of onsta will be super helpful

 

[Maxman1]

The E-7 was rejected by NATO, and is being rejected by RoK, who already operates some, which should maybe a be a warning to us that the E-7 maybe isn`t "all that"... AAR is pretty important, but if the aircraft costs so much we can't afford to run them, AAR is a just a cool party trick to be pulled out at RIMPAC and other similar events.

It's also operated by Britain, Australia and Turkey. Also, the exact reason for NATO picking the GlobalEye isn't public, but it probably has to do with their expected patrol areas and mission times being shorter than what we can expect, which favours the shorter range GlobalEye. They're probably going to be flying them almost exclusively over continental Europe, with many NATO airfields nearby.

 

[GR66]

Station them in Sweden close to Saab for cover for our latvia brigade.

I see more like a cold war level increase, 10 squadrons, 4 in canada, 6 in europe.

Why would you want to put the non-stealth, 4th Gen fighter in Europe where AD density is the highest and the stealthy 5th Gen fighter in NORAD where the primary purpose is deterrence which implies being seen by a potential adversary?

 

[Nvlgzr]

AAR is pretty important, but if the aircraft costs so much we can't afford to run them, AAR is a just a cool party trick to be pulled out at RIMPAC and other similar events.

AAR keeps coming up by some as if it is critical. I don’t know if the detractors are aware but the Globaleye has double the range (11000km) of the Wedgetail (6500km) which is replacing the E3 (7400km). Now we are looking to acquire AEW (C?) that we never had before, although we helped to fund NATO E3’s. We are soon to field the MQ9B UAV. Apparently SAAB has partnered with General Atomics to offer Erieye on the MQ9B. If we upgraded our UAV to Erieye and purchased Globaleye there would be some shared technology.
The drawback to the L3Harris is offering is the technology is from Israel . I believe the government optics at this time is to minimize their exposure to Israel purchases.

 

[dapaterson]

For surveillance platforms the on station time is that metric, not the range.

 

[Nvlgzr]

For surveillance platforms the on station time is that metric, not the range.

I’m curious what is the typical on station time and transit times of the E3 and how that would compare with Globaleye.

 

[MilEME09]

Why would you want to put the non-stealth, 4th Gen fighter in Europe where AD density is the highest and the stealthy 5th Gen fighter in NORAD where the primary purpose is deterrence which implies being seen by a potential adversary?

I didnt say F35s in NA and Gripens in europe, simply stated the number of squadrons I'd want to see

 

[GR66]

I didnt say F35s in NA and Gripens in europe, simply stated the number of squadrons I'd want to see

Sorry for the misunderstanding. When in a thread discussing purchasing Gripens and you say "Station them in Sweden close to Saab for cover for our latvia brigade." I think you can understand why it could be interpreted as stationing the Saab Gripens "close to Saab". Why would stationing F-35's close to Saab be a priority?

 

[Swampbuggy]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. When in a thread discussing purchasing Gripens and you say "Station them in Sweden close to Saab for cover for our latvia brigade." I think you can understand why it could be interpreted as stationing the Saab Gripens "close to Saab". Why would stationing F-35's close to Saab be a priority?

I believe he was referring to the Globaleyes…

 

[YZT580]

I believe he was referring to the Globaleyes…

who's on first, what's on second.........

 

[PrairieFella]

That's the running rumor. 30-40 Panthers. 60-70 Gripens. This is going to suck for the RCAF. I'm praying we don't also commit to the Globaleye. Especially now that NATO is cancelling the E-7.

No SA on fighters - why would it suck? Seems like the RCAF comes out with a lot of airframes, fair amount of F35s and a bunch of gripens for less sensitive tasks. Am I totally off base?

 

[ytz]

No SA on fighters - why would it suck? Seems like the RCAF comes out with a lot of airframes, fair amount of F35s and a bunch of gripens for less sensitive tasks. Am I totally off base?

We don't have enough personnel to fully man the fleet we have now. But the plan was to ramp through one transition to 88 F-35s in the end. Now we're ramping through two transitions with more than 100 aircraft total in less than 10 years from today.

 

[ytz]

AAR keeps coming up by some as if it is critical. I don’t know if the detractors are aware but the Globaleye has double the range (11000km) of the Wedgetail (6500km) which is replacing the E3 (7400km).

Not sure where you're getting the numbers. But I hope you're not just looking at the numbers for the base aircraft platform. The thing on the roof is quite draggy. The Globaleye has 11 hrs of endurance. It takes 7 -8 hrs to go from Winnipeg to Alert. If there's no AAR capability, that not a mission the aircraft will be able to do.

 

[YZT580]

Not sure where you're getting the numbers. But I hope you're not just looking at the numbers for the base aircraft platform. The thing on the roof is quite draggy. The Globaleye has 11 hrs of endurance. It takes 7 -8 hrs to go from Winnipeg to Alert. If there's no AAR capability, that not a mission the aircraft will be able to do.

True but if he landed at Alert and refueled he would have a full seven hours to patrol prior to landing either back at Alert or at another point on his patrol. We have lots of airports in the north that can support a biz jet. It may be convenient but it isn't totally necessary to launch a tanker every time. Instead of a tanker have your rendezvousing a/c a replacement Globaleye to take over the patrol. Aerial refueling is nice but it isn't an absolute essential except for combat aircraft

 

[YZT580]

We don't have enough personnel to fully man the fleet we have now. But the plan was to ramp through one transition to 88 F-35s in the end. Now we're ramping through two transitions with more than 100 aircraft total in less than 10 years from today.

So starting today you have 10 years to turn out what 200 pilots, ok say 300. that is 30 per year. Is it a lot: yes. Is it unmanageable: no. You need to stop whining and start doing. How about sergeant pilots and forget the university degree. 50000 flight crew were trained in Canada in WW2 starting from 0 and no school set up in 1939. I think 30 a year is quite manageable.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So starting today you have 10 years to turn out what 200 pilots, ok say 300. that is 30 per year. Is it a lot: yes. Is it unmanageable: no. You need to stop whining and start doing. How about sergeant pilots and forget the university degree. 50000 flight crew were trained in Canada in WW2 starting from 0 and no school set up in 1939. I think 30 a year is quite manageable.

30 fighter pilots. We cannot put 30 pilots through the Fighter Pilot Course a year. It would mean shutting down your font line units to concentrate on training. And then you don’t have anywhere to make them combat ready and upgraded to flight lead.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So starting today you have 10 years to turn out what 200 pilots, ok say 300. that is 30 per year. Is it a lot: yes. Is it unmanageable: no. You need to stop whining and start doing. How about sergeant pilots and forget the university degree. 50000 flight crew were trained in Canada in WW2 starting from 0 and no school set up in 1939. I think 30 a year is quite manageable.

I see.

So, how long have you been posted to 2 Cdn Air Div?