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

[Eaglelord17]

Less capable is a feature, not a bug.

Sometimes it is. Depending on what it is your planning on doing having something which costs less to run but still accomplishing our goals is sometimes better.

You don’t always need a Cadillac to drive down the street when the Volvo will get you there.

Basic facilities for a basic aircraft for a basic air force and country, right?

At some point the taps will turn off again unfortunately. When Canadians have to choose between even modest cuts to their benefits or our defence budget, the defence budget always goes first. Part of a good strategy is making it so we will function even when those taps shut.

Look at the Leopard 2s we had. Great tank, we failed to maintain them in any level of readiness. Would have been better with a bunch of Leopard 1s as at least we could maintain them for less.

 

[Quirky]

At some point the taps will turn off again unfortunately. When Canadians have to choose between even modest cuts to their benefits or our defence budget, the defence budget always goes first. Part of a good strategy is making it so we will function even when those taps shut.

Is there evidence to support an orphan fleet of gripens will be cheaper to buy and operate than F35s over 40 years?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is there evidence to support an orphan fleet of gripens will be cheaper to buy and operate than F35s over 40 years?

The evidence doesn't matter. Joe from Lequille NS is big mad at the states so the RCAF needs to get a lesser aircraft to sooth his seething anti-americanism.

And you know who we cant thank for that ? Americans.

 

[GK .Dundas]

The evidence doesn't matter. Joe from Lequille NS is big mad at the states so the RCAF needs to get a lesser aircraft to sooth his seething anti-americanism.

And you know who we cant thank for that ? Americans.

You don't know whether to laugh or cry really.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Is there evidence to support an orphan fleet of gripens will be cheaper to buy and operate than F35s over 40 years?

Estimates for the Gripen per flight hour at the high end are 22k/hr (thats high end, very likely could be lower). Estimates for the F35A is 42k/hr.

So about half the cost to operate per flight hour.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You don't know whether to laugh or cry really.

I just look at Canada with a stoic 1000 mile stare now.

 

[markppcli]

Estimates for the Gripen per flight hour at the high end are 22k/hr (thats high end, very likely could be lower). Estimates for the F35A is 42k/hr.

So about half the cost to operate per flight hour.

How many Gripens to have the sensor picture of the F35s? Or air combat capability. Recent examples seem to point to a 6:1 ratio.

 

[Eaglelord17]

How many Gripens to have the sensor picture of the F35s? Or air combat capability. Recent examples seem to point to a 6:1 ratio.

I am not saying the F35 isn’t a better aircraft, simply that there is perks to the Gripen (mainly cost, potentially long term strategic partnership) and depending on the path Canada chooses to take, might be sufficient for our needs.

Realistically who do we need state of the art for most (all?) of what we need to do? Or will a cheaper less capable aircraft do what we need?

The Gripen should be capable of defeating the Russian and Chinese aircraft, our most likely peer to peer adversaries. Plus if we are fighting such adversaries we will be supported by many more quality fighters from our allies as we wouldn’t be fighting them alone.

Otherwise what will the aircraft be doing for us? A airborne bomb truck for use on some third world insurgency?

I seriously question our capability for maintaining the F35 as it is a expensive long term commitment, two things Canada has always been weak at.

 

[Kirkhill]

List of active Canadian military aircraft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

About that mixed fleet...

 

[ytz]

Estimates for the Gripen per flight hour at the high end are 22k/hr (thats high end, very likely could be lower). Estimates for the F35A is 42k/hr.

So about half the cost to operate per flight hour.

Those Gripen numbers are not for the Super Gripens they want to sell us. And the F-35 cpfh has come down over time. The real gap will be narrower and will narrow every year.

It's also a question of what you get for money. In the age of cheap to operate drones, there's no point operating manned aircraft for what a drone can do. The SkyGuardian has a reported cpfh of less than $5k/hr. So ideally you use manned aircraft when you really need a manned aircraft and at that point you should be willing to spend more for that capability.

I get the sense that a lot of people still think we're going to burn a lot of YFR flying circles in the Arctic with manned jets for many decades to come, cause that is what we did in the past. If we have any sense, that won't be the case.

 

[ytz]

The Gripen should be capable of defeating the Russian and Chinese aircraft, our most likely peer to peer adversaries.

Over what time horizon? This is the problem with these discussions. Everybody looks at the news today and thinks the Gripen will be fine. Meanwhile the Air Staff is looking at data points like this"

The Evolution of Russian and Chinese Air Power Threats

Russian and, particularly, Chinese capabilities now pose greater threats to Western air power than in 2020.

www.rusi.org

If we buy Gripens, we are getting them past 2030 and intend to fly them into the 2060s. Can anybody confidently say that the threat picture in 2045 (not even halfway point on aircraft life) will be just fine for non-LO aircraft?

Plus if we are fighting such adversaries we will be supported by many more quality fighters from our allies as we wouldn’t be fighting them alone

We're literally having a national debate on how much we want to rely on those traditional allies. I think there's a growing understanding that reliance comes with a quid pro quo that many Canadians may not want. Albeit, with the irony that buying the Panther creates a dependence the same lot don't like either.

But also, governments have a habit of not putting such assumptions in policy. And then risking the troops anyway when the time comes. Let them state in the defence policy that the RCAF won't fight high end threats outside of a coalition with allies who are bringing more advanced aircraft.

 

[Kirkhill]

Those Gripen numbers are not for the Super Gripens they want to sell us. And the F-35 cpfh has come down over time. The real gap will be narrower and will narrow every year.

It's also a question of what you get for money. In the age of cheap to operate drones, there's no point operating manned aircraft for what a drone can do. The SkyGuardian has a reported cpfh of less than $5k/hr. So ideally you use manned aircraft when you really need a manned aircraft and at that point you should be willing to spend more for that capability.

I get the sense that a lot of people still think we're going to burn a lot of YFR flying circles in the Arctic with manned jets for many decades to come, cause that is what we did in the past. If we have any sense, that won't be the case.

The launch platforms are going to be a lot less critcal than the munitions that fly from them.

And with the trend towards multi-domain munitions, short and long range, high and low speed, all with multi-mode seekers, there is less need to put the launch platform in harms way in the first place.

The launch platform becomes more analogous to the booster stage of a multi-stage rocket.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some of the discussion about a simple fighter revolves around local Air Defence.

How about a flight of CH-146s with APKWSIIs?

3 with a pair of pods with 19 rounds each equals 114 stowed kills.

Launch on alert from anywhere, relocatable, and don't have to be maintained in the air.

Just saying that there are multiple alternatives to any plan.

Even launching target drones with additional rounds for the CH146 pilots to launch and guide.

 

[YZT580]

Those Gripen numbers are not for the Super Gripens they want to sell us. And the F-35 cpfh has come down over time. The real gap will be narrower and will narrow every year.

It's also a question of what you get for money. In the age of cheap to operate drones, there's no point operating manned aircraft for what a drone can do. The SkyGuardian has a reported cpfh of less than $5k/hr. So ideally you use manned aircraft when you really need a manned aircraft and at that point you should be willing to spend more for that capability.

I get the sense that a lot of people still think we're going to burn a lot of YFR flying circles in the Arctic with manned jets for many decades to come, cause that is what we did in the past. If we have any sense, that won't be the case.

I don't think you should count on unmanned a/c in the north for quite a time to come. Sat. coverage is not reliable, distances are huge, and the weather is intolerable a lot of the time. I would guess that it will be the last place to switch to drones. As for flying circles in the north country a squadron of F35s' is overkill, at least as far as the stealth aspect is concerned. Your opponent will be flying Bears and the like. Better to have a single F35 and a bomb truck as a wing mate.

 

[suffolkowner]

How many Gripens to have the sensor picture of the F35s? Or air combat capability. Recent examples seem to point to a 6:1 ratio.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1993121610086404243

I saw this guys rundown on some comparisons between the two