• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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



In a world where nothing really matters...
So do they play team 'Red' or team 'Blue' in those exercises?
 
So do they play team 'Red' or team 'Blue' in those exercises?
It’s unfortunate but we are reaping what we have sowed.
The highest bidder wins. No sense of loyalty peddling their skill in similar fashion of pro athletes and “pros” from another line of work.

At least the “pros” admit what they are.
 
It’s unfortunate but we are reaping what we have sowed.
The highest bidder wins. No sense of loyalty peddling their skill in similar fashion of pro athletes and “pros” from another line of work.

At least the “pros” admit what they are.


Loyalty is so over-rated, don't you think?
 
Dual fleet rumint is getting stronger. This is probably happening. Just hoping the numbers and scheduling don't put us in a total hurt locker.
I wish someone would grow a brain and make the Saab deal for a plant to design and build 72 (or more) CCV's based on the Gripen's technology to go along with our F-35's instead of replacing some of the F-35's with Gripens.

Our NORAD CCV requirements call for a very long range and relatively high weapon load capacity due to the extreme distances involved which makes the design more like a trimmed down crewed fighter design rather than a beefed up missile design.

Saab and Canada would still get their plant to build large sovereign aircraft (along with the jobs that entails), Canada would still get the 88 x F-35's it needs (and not trigger the man-child in the US by cutting our order) and I bet Saab (and this plant) would have much better chances of securing additional foreign sales for a CCV then they would for Gripens. Seems like a win-win all around.
 
Dual fleet rumint is getting stronger. This is probably happening. Just hoping the numbers and scheduling don't put us in a total hurt locker.
IF this turns out to be correct, in your opinion, what numbers could you live with.
 
IF this turns out to be correct, in your opinion, what numbers could you live with.

50 allows two operational squadrons and an OTU. 65 allows three sqns. 72 allows four smaller (12 a/c) squadrons with slightly less attrition margin. I really hope we get to 50 at least.

This is very old article. But it gives an idea of how fleet sizing is done.

 
I wish someone would grow a brain and make the Saab deal for a plant to design and build 72 (or more) CCV's based on the Gripen's technology to go along with our F-35's instead of replacing some of the F-35's with Gripens.

The Gripen frame isn't particularly optimized for CCAs. And we don't need them for it. Honestly, I fully believe Bombardier with help from another company could build a decent clean sheet.
 
50 allows two operational squadrons and an OTU. 65 allows three sqns. 72 allows four smaller (12 a/c) squadrons with slightly less attrition margin. I really hope we get to 50 at least.

This is very old article. But it gives an idea of how fleet sizing is done.

If it comes to this, maybe 65 is the number they go with. With 65 it goes back to the older number that Harper put forward in the past. It allows the Liberals to put to the Conservatives and say, we are just going back to what you previously proposed.......Kind of takes the wind a bit out of their sails.
 
In theory, as long as the line is open, we can acquire attritional replacements on an as needed basis.

In practice, in a shooting war, those timelines may be unacceptable.
 
Back
Top