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

[Czech_pivo]

To begin with the naval growth is not as substantial as you think. We are going from 12 Halifax Class and 4 Tribals to 15 RCDs. Next, those ships will all have a maritime helicopter and surveillance drone onboard. Beyond that, the combination of P-8s, MQ-9s and satellites (DESSP) that is coming online, is both higher total platform count and more capabilities than we've ever had before. So I'm a little confused here on what you think is lacking?

You seem to have memory lapse.
Have you forgotten 12 new subs and a range between 8-12 new light frigates?
In addition, to compare our Halifax’s in ability to the Rivers is like a Ford Pinto to a Lexus.
15 Rivers
12 Subs
12 Light Frigates
6 AOPS

That’s a pretty substantial blue water navy there.

 

[Nvlgzr]

We are also adding a capability that we never had of our own; AEW&C aircraft. Yes, we contributed to NATO’s E3 program.

 

[Nvlgzr]

You seem to have memory lapse.
Have you forgotten 12 new subs and a range between 8-12 new light frigates?
In addition, to compare our Halifax’s in ability to the Rivers is like a Ford Pinto to a Lexus.
15 Rivers
12 Subs
12 Light Frigates
6 AOPS

That’s a pretty substantial blue water navy there.

And ORCA’s are possibly been replaced in larger number. Keep in mind the Kingston class is being payed off.

 

[ytz]

Have you forgotten 12 new subs and a range between 8-12 new light frigates?

Sure. And the AOPS. But those will all either have organic helicopters and/or VTOL drones onboard. And subs aren't generally followed around by aircraft. So again, what's the gap here? Do you think every combatant is followed around by fighters?

Also, I'm not sure I'd call the CMMC a "light frigate". That's quite the reach for a vessel planned to be 60% smaller than a Halifax Class Frigate.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sure. And the AOPS. But those will all either have organic helicopters and/or VTOL drones onboard. And subs aren't generally followed around by aircraft. So again, what's the gap here? Do you think every combatant is followed around by fighters?

Also, I'm not sure I'd call the CMMC a "light frigate". That's quite the reach for a vessel planned to be 60% smaller than a Halifax Class Frigate.

Talk to VA Topshee, his words, not mine.
And the tonnage is 2,500+ so I don’t see how that 60% smaller

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Selling features on brochures that people eat up like donuts in a canteen. Where is the testing and data to prove these claims? Has the Gripen E ever landed in a location that other fighters could not? Can the Gripen land on Canadas northern gravel roads?

Apparently not! I google searched your phrase in bold and got this back:

These are results for Can the Gripen land on Canada's northern gravel roads
Search instead for Can the Gripen land on Canadas northern gravel roads

AI Overview


No, the Gripen is not designed to land on Canada's northern gravel roads, although it can operate from austere runways like highways
. The Gripen's capability is for operating on short, narrow stretches of motorway, which are paved, not gravel. A gravel road would likely damage its landing gear and pose a risk of foreign object debris (FOD) ingestion into the engines, which could cause catastrophic failure.

 

[ytz]

Just noticed I typed an incorrect number. We have 5 Polaris not 3. My dog likes to help sometimes. Apologies. Still we are getting twice the number of aircraft available for AAR or troop transport, plus they are higher capacity and will be able to support both types of AAR. Truly a win-win.

We are going from 5 Polaris to 9 Huskies. That alone is an 80% increase in capacity in that fleet. With AAR specifically, we are going from 2 Polaris tankers with 88 000 lbs of fuel capacity to 8 Husky tankers with 111 000 lbs of fuel capacity. It's over 500% increase in fuel offload capacity. This is what I mean by people not looking at the capability growth here.

 

[ytz]

Talk to VA Topshee, his words, not mine.
And the tonnage is 2,500+ so I don’t see how that 60% smaller

So still 50% smaller than a Halifax. Give or take.

But getting back to the topic at hand, what lack of air coverage are you concerned about?

 

[dapaterson]

The capability growth also requires crew growth beyond just increased platform numbers. Increased time on station, decreased turn around time on the ground both contribute to requirements for more crews.

To say nothing of the huge investment necessary in IM/IT and intelligence handling and processing, which dwarfs the demands in pretty much every other area.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not sure where people come up with this stuff. Video of a Hornet departing Castlegar with an even shorter runway:

Load is a big part. But fighters can adjust tactically to use smaller airfields. They just go light on gas and hit the tanker as soon as they are airborne.



Which is a rather silly selling feature. This is a function of the air force, not the airplane. We just demonstrated this capability with our own Hornets:

Even done with an F-35 in Finland:

But also, nobody talks about the trade-offs when designing for substantially more off-field ops. The Gripen has beefier landing gear for its size. That imposes space and weight penalties on that aircraft.

Ultimately, it's telling that none of the Scandinavian or Baltic neighbours facing the same threat environment chose the Gripen. Guess off field performance wasn't that big a deal.

Not sure where people come up with this stuff. Video of a Hornet departing Castlegar with an even shorter runway:

Load is a big part. But fighters can adjust tactically to use smaller airfields. They just go light on gas and hit the tanker as soon as they are airborne.



Which is a rather silly selling feature. This is a function of the air force, not the airplane. We just demonstrated this capability with our own Hornets:

Even done with an F-35 in Finland:

But also, nobody talks about the trade-offs when designing for substantially more off-field ops. The Gripen has beefier landing gear for its size. That imposes space and weight penalties on that aircraft.

Ultimately, it's telling that none of the Scandinavian or Baltic neighbours facing the same threat environment chose the Gripen. Guess off field performance wasn't that big a deal.

Further to...

One of the reasons I seem to recall the F18 was bought was that its more rugged carrier construction, with tailhook, made shortfield landings possible

Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Wqj5mNi-dsY/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEhCK4FEIIDSFryq4qpAxMIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJD&rs=AOn4CLDmtt5coeR5qJ_D7TTgIqMDS5W1yQ

 

[ytz]

To say nothing of the huge investment necessary in IM/IT and intelligence handling and processing, which dwarfs the demands in pretty much every other area.

This is my pet question in every townhall. Great to see GOFOs get wide eyed. There's work being done finally to reform the CAF intelligence and IT enterprises. Especially the secure cloud stuff. And a lot of projects are demanding automated PED and archiving.

 

[Czech_pivo]

So still 50% smaller than a Halifax. Give or take.

But getting back to the topic at hand, what lack of air coverage are you concerned about?

I didn’t say I was concerned about lack of air cover.
I said that the RCAF was likely going to be larger than what has been talked about on here due to the substantial increase in size of the RCN.

 

[Maxman1]

Beyond that, the combination of P-8s, MQ-9s and satellites (DESSP) that is coming online, is both higher total platform count and more capabilities than we've ever had before.

Before the Aurora, we had 33 CP-107 Argus.

 

[Kirkhill]

Check out this video, "norwegian f35 landing with chute" https://share.google/25geeO5rDCH1d9q92

I wonder how the F18 or F35 would make out on a Boxtop runway?

RAF in the Arctic Circle for Operation Boxtop

Twelve members of No. 99 Squadron RAF have spent the past week in the Arctic Circle to help resupply the most northerly station on Earth. The RAF C-17 Globemaster aircrew and ground support crew have been working along

www.raf.mod.uk