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

[Rainbow1910]

Mixed fleet we go.....

John Ivison: Sources say Ottawa considering Swedish jets over F-35s for half of fleet

All the signs point to Ottawa buying fewer than half the number of F-35s it said it would and Carney's speech in Davos explains why.

nationalpost.com

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-sources-say-ottawa-considering-swedish-jets-over-f-35s-for-half-of-fleet

View article without paywall

removepaywalls.com

Sources have told National Post that half of the jet-fighter fleet Canada ends up buying (by value) could be Swedish. David McGuinty, the minister of defence, told the Post on Tuesday, “No decision has been reached.”

A total unsubstantiated nothingburger from NP and can't say I'm especially surprised. The whole article is nationalist muck raking without much substance. His source is likely Minister Joly who wants more Bombardier plant jobs in her riding lmao.

EDIT: It's also something to consider that Saab set out a requirement for Canada to buy 72 Gripen E/F in order to qualify for a assembly plant domestically. Given the purchase cost of the Gripen E being basically the same as the F-35A or higher in some cases, you'd be looking at something like a 44/44 split between aircraft going off the quote above. Not even enough to get the domestic plant according to Saab.

 

[MilEME09]

Only way I see this working is if we ordered more than 88, close to the 138 number we had of F18s originally.

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-sources-say-ottawa-considering-swedish-jets-over-f-35s-for-half-of-fleet

View article without paywall

removepaywalls.com

A total unsubstantiated nothingburger from NP and can't say I'm especially surprised. The whole article is nationalist muck raking without much substance. His source is likely Minister Joly who wants more Bombardier plant jobs in her riding lmao.

EDIT: It's also something to consider that Saab set out a requirement for Canada to buy 72 Gripen E/F in order to qualify for a assembly plant domestically. Given the purchase cost of the Gripen E being basically the same as the F-35A or higher in some cases, you'd be looking at something like a 44/44 split between aircraft going off the quote above. Not even enough to get the domestic plant according to Saab.

Why do we believe that the number of 88 F35's, or fighters in general, that was stated as our end point in Jan of 2023, will still be the number of fighters that Canada will need under the current situation that we are now in? The number of ships/subs for the RCN is going up from what was 'required' back in Jan 2023 - the imminent contract on 12 subs and the much talk about 12 CDC, are proof. That stated size of the CDN Army is planned for a massive increase in overall size. Why do we still think that the number of fighters is still going to be stuck at 88?

 

[MilEME09]

Why do we believe that the number of 88 F35's, or fighters in general, that was stated as our end point in Jan of 2023, will still be the number of fighters that Canada will need under the current situation that we are now in? The number of ships/subs for the RCN is going up from what was 'required' back in Jan 2023 - the imminent contract on 12 subs and the much talk about 12 CDC, are proof. That stated size of the CDN Army is planned for a massive increase in overall size. Why do we still think that the number of fighters is still going to be stuck at 88?

Also normally 1/3 of a fleet is down for maintenance, so split fleet would have less AC available. So we would need a higher buy to maintain the availability we need

 

[Rainbow1910]

Why do we believe that the number of 88 F35's, or fighters in general, that was stated as our end point in Jan of 2023, will still be the number of fighters that Canada will need under the current situation that we are now in? The number of ships/subs for the RCN is going up from what was 'required' back in Jan 2023 - the imminent contract on 12 subs and the much talk about 12 CDC, are proof. That stated size of the CDN Army is planned for a massive increase in overall size. Why do we still think that the number of fighters is still going to be stuck at 88?

Unlike the Army and Navy, the Airforce has not released, talked or even let rumours slip about additional fighter buys. Everything has pointed to the 88 order being carried forward, with not a peep to the contrary.

Let me know when we hear literally anything to the contrary, and I'll change my belief on the subject.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Why do we believe that the number of 88 F35's, or fighters in general, that was stated as our end point in Jan of 2023, will still be the number of fighters that Canada will need under the current situation that we are now in? The number of ships/subs for the RCN is going up from what was 'required' back in Jan 2023 - the imminent contract on 12 subs and the much talk about 12 CDC, are proof. That stated size of the CDN Army is planned for a massive increase in overall size. Why do we still think that the number of fighters is still going to be stuck at 88?

I wonder if the tenor of this discussion would be different if a given number of F35's had actually been executed by the Harper government. Like if we were sitting at 65 and were faced with today's geopolitical situation, looking to expand the overall fleet while prioritizing a defense industry strategy.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Unlike the Army and Navy, the Airforce has not released, talked or even let rumours slip about additional fighter buys. Everything has pointed to the 88 order being carried forward, with not a peep to the contrary.

Let me know when we hear literally anything to the contrary, and I'll change my belief on the subject.

Not sure how to answer that.

One argument could be that the heads of the Army/Navy are seeing what the future is, what the current environment is, and they are aggressively moving towards it and addressing what they can.

Another argument could be that the heads of the Army/Navy see a chance to 'Empire Build' and they are looking to increase the size and prestige of their respective branches.

Another could be that the head of the RCAF is not correctly reading the lay of the land and is not moving fast enough in an incredibly fast moving situation.

Another could be that the RCAF is so bent on getting only F35's that its hoping that the current situation/environment blows over in 5-7yrs that they can put forward a proposal then to increase the 88 F35's to the 110-120-130 range and point to the increased capabilities of the RCN and Army as a reason why they need more F35's.

And I'm well aware that there are a few dozen other arguments into between those above.

But what would be true, is if the RCN gets its 12 subs and 12 CDC's, as well as the 15 Rivers and that the Army is able to grow in size and capability that is being put forward, is the fact that the RCAF would be the 1 arm of Armed Forces that didn't grow/expand enough to meet our future needs.

 

[dapaterson]

Not sure how to answer that.

One argument could be that the heads of the Army/Navy are seeing what the future is, what the current environment is, and they are aggressively moving towards it and addressing what they can.

Another argument could be that the heads of the Army/Navy see a chance to 'Empire Build' and they are looking to increase the size and prestige of their respective branches.

Another could be that the head of the RCAF is not correctly reading the lay of the land and is not moving fast enough in an incredibly fast moving situation.

Another could be that the RCAF is so bent on getting only F35's that its hoping that the current situation/environment blows over in 5-7yrs that they can put forward a proposal then to increase the 88 F35's to the 110-120-130 range and point to the increased capabilities of the RCN and Army as a reason why they need more F35's.

And I'm well aware that there are a few dozen other arguments into between those above.

But what would be true, is if the RCN gets its 12 subs and 12 CDC's, as well as the 15 Rivers and that the Army is able to grow in size and capability that is being put forward, is the fact that the RCAF would be the 1 arm of Armed Forces that didn't grow/expand enough to meet our future needs.

RCAF is growing - the Husky fleet; they're joining the RCN and CA and getting UAS...

 

[Rainbow1910]

Not sure how to answer that.

One argument could be that the heads of the Army/Navy are seeing what the future is, what the current environment is, and they are aggressively moving towards it and addressing what they can.

Another argument could be that the heads of the Army/Navy see a chance to 'Empire Build' and they are looking to increase the size and prestige of their respective branches.

Another could be that the head of the RCAF is not correctly reading the lay of the land and is not moving fast enough in an incredibly fast moving situation.

Another could be that the RCAF is so bent on getting only F35's that its hoping that the current situation/environment blows over in 5-7yrs that they can put forward a proposal then to increase the 88 F35's to the 110-120-130 range and point to the increased capabilities of the RCN and Army as a reason why they need more F35's.

And I'm well aware that there are a few dozen other arguments into between those above.

But what would be true, is if the RCN gets its 12 subs and 12 CDC's, as well as the 15 Rivers and that the Army is able to grow in size and capability that is being put forward, is the fact that the RCAF would be the 1 arm of Armed Forces that didn't grow/expand enough to meet our future needs.

Another argument is that the Army and Navy are seeing all of the political and economic will to expand the CAF, and have pounced on it to a pretty aggressive degree. Many of their plans are optimistic to say the least and are likely to see many cuts, especially as a lot of things aren't funded, aren't well supported and barely exist as programs properly (The RCN is very guilty of this).

The RCAF is expanding, but to a much more reasonable degree and using much more solid ground than the RCN, who in comparison is acting like a kid who just got the Sears catalogue in early December. I feel the RCAF is much more in touch with reality, given their constant contact with NORAD and the realities of their day to day operations.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Another argument is that the Army and Navy are seeing all of the political and economic will to expand the CAF, and have pounced on it to a pretty aggressive degree. Many of their plans are optimistic to say the least and are likely to see many cuts, especially as a lot of things aren't funded, aren't well supported and barely exist as programs properly (The RCN is very guilty of this).

The RCAF is expanding, but to a much more reasonable degree and using much more solid ground than the RCN, who in comparison is acting like a kid who just got the Sears catalogue in early December. I feel the RCAF is much more in touch with reality, given their constant contact with NORAD and the realities of their day to day operations.

In the RCNs defence we are used to operating on unsteady platforms.

For ref:

 

[ytz]

Then we need to go full Rafale.
There is no other option, if you want to avoid ITAR.

It's never been about sovereignty. The whole Gripen thing started with jobs. All the internet warriors made this about sovereignty.

I don't think the answer is cutting back on the F35s. I think the answer is a mixed fleet, I know sacrilege.

Buy the 88 (or what ever F35s) and XX(X?) Grippens too.

I can see a role for both.

Dual fleet arguments have been thoroughly hashed. So I won't go through them.

A big problem is sequencing here. Unless there are enough F-35s purchased to retire the Hornet fleet, we'll be looking at a situation where the RCAF is flying three fighter fleets at the same time. Utter insanity. Even if they want to do dual fleet. I wish it was something like 60 F-35s and 70 Gripens with the Gripens arriving in 2032 when the Hornet is retired.

 

[YZT580]

It's never been about sovereignty. The whole Gripen thing started with jobs. All the internet warriors made this about sovereignty.



Dual fleet arguments have been thoroughly hashed. So I won't go through them.

A big problem is sequencing here. Unless there are enough F-35s purchased to retire the Hornet fleet, we'll be looking at a situation where the RCAF is flying three fighter fleets at the same time. Utter insanity. Even if they want to do dual fleet. I wish it was something like 60 F-35s and 70 Gripens with the Gripens arriving in 2032 when the Hornet is retired.

asking as one who hasn't had to deal with OW procurement policies for a number of decades, is there a vague possibility that 1) your overlords are capable of reasoning this out and 2) the people with the pen in OW are smart enough to listen?

 

[Czech_pivo]

It's never been about sovereignty. The whole Gripen thing started with jobs. All the internet warriors made this about sovereignty.



Dual fleet arguments have been thoroughly hashed. So I won't go through them.

A big problem is sequencing here. Unless there are enough F-35s purchased to retire the Hornet fleet, we'll be looking at a situation where the RCAF is flying three fighter fleets at the same time. Utter insanity. Even if they want to do dual fleet. I wish it was something like 60 F-35s and 70 Gripens with the Gripens arriving in 2032 when the Hornet is retired.

Just to help me understand this 'dual fleet' argument in terms of what looks like is on the horizon for the rotary arm of the RCAF where there looks to be 3 separate helo's on the ask - 1 for SOF's, 1 for tactical lift and then another to be 'dual' use for ASW with the RCN and for 'attack/recon'. The 'dual use' helo will more than likely require specialization in order to perform both of these roles.

So, if the rotary arm (if I can use that term) will be flying 3 separate airframes, one of which will be in essence be specialization into 2 different roles, then why can't we have 2 separate fighters? Each of those different helo's will require their own set of maintenance workers, pilots, tools, hangers, supply chains, etc. etc.

 

[suffolkowner]

Just to help me understand this 'dual fleet' argument in terms of what looks like is on the horizon for the rotary arm of the RCAF where there looks to be 3 separate helo's on the ask - 1 for SOF's, 1 for tactical lift and then another to be 'dual' use for ASW with the RCN and for 'attack/recon'. The 'dual use' helo will more than likely require specialization in order to perform both of these roles.

So, if the rotary arm (if I can use that term) will be flying 3 separate airframes, one of which will be in essence be specialization into 2 different roles, then why can't we have 2 separate fighters? Each of those different helo's will require their own set of maintenance workers, pilots, tools, hangers, supply chains, etc. etc.

I thought it was back to 4
Heavy
Recce
Utility
Attack

then
SAR
then
MH

but the non beating wing fleet has lots of different platforms too just one Attack platform unless we count the upcoming P8's?

 

[Furniture]

Just to help me understand this 'dual fleet' argument in terms of what looks like is on the horizon for the rotary arm of the RCAF where there looks to be 3 separate helo's on the ask - 1 for SOF's, 1 for tactical lift and then another to be 'dual' use for ASW with the RCN and for 'attack/recon'. The 'dual use' helo will more than likely require specialization in order to perform both of these roles.

So, if the rotary arm (if I can use that term) will be flying 3 separate airframes, one of which will be in essence be specialization into 2 different roles, then why can't we have 2 separate fighters? Each of those different helo's will require their own set of maintenance workers, pilots, tools, hangers, supply chains, etc. etc.

The cynic in me says because the USAF has F-35s, and the RCAF always first asks "how can we be more like the USAF?"

But thats just my experience working with people indoctrinated into the RCAF.