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

[Czech_pivo]

I don't think it is an especially wise or financially prudent idea to look at a 6th generation fighter for the RCAF anytime soon, particularly if we do infact get a full F-35 order. That kind of fleet will be relevant and very capable for many decades, which is going to be required for all of these vapourware and troublesome 6th gen programs to prove themselves worthy of serious consideration by the RCAF. We should be focusing on the F-35 and domestically produced drone wingmen escorts to bulk the combat capability of the force.


I have no interest in Chunmoo because it is unsuitable for our requirements, hence it losing to the HIMARS. One of the primary selling points of HIMARS is its mobility and the ridiculous array of very capable weapons it currently has and is actively being developed, including items like increasingly capable guided munitions and especially anti-ship missiles. Chunmoo does not have access to these weapons and in all likelihood will not in the future, we'd be stuck with sub-par Korean systems that currently don't exist or are in development. Chunmoo also doesn't have the mobility we are looking for without taking into consideration the paper truck mounted version, which I am skeptical about. I personally don't really care about trying to force LM to build trucks and missile tubes in Canada, there really isn't much value in producing the systems themselves. If we were talking about the munitions I think that is different however, the build part of the contract isn't especially worthwhile.

I think actively scrapping the most capable system in its class with the best munitions options in favour of an alternative in a time of political tensions and a major trade negotiation is very poor political form, and actively hurts the CAF capability wise.

There has been talk about HIMARS being slow walked, but nothing has actually backed this up anywhere besides the rumour mill in a very anti-US political atmosphere.


I do not have an issue with producing torpedoes in Canada at all. I do have issues with producing K9 as presumably bringing in Hanwha to build a tracked system we have no interest in (or a slow, wheeled truck based system we also do not want) will be actively taking work away from GDLS Canada, who is already established with a substantial workforce, facility and capability in Canada who seems to be basically ear marked as the winner for the artillery procurement at this point. Given the largely European deployment focus for the program as well, I am not particularly moved by the idea we're going to be using these systems in the North and thus need to have them tracked?

I have issues just handing the contract off to Redback when we have a seemingly very competitive program that has a lot of platforms who are offering something similar to what the Koreans are giving us. Turning around and entirely opening our wallet to a single partner in Asia seems very sub-optimal to me, especially when we expect much of this equipment to be stationed in Europe and must be workable/interoperable with our allies forces there.

Valid counter-points. I appreciate your thoughts/experience/opinion.

I would add only 2 other points; 1) having a competitor to GDLS located in Canada wouldn't be such a bad idea and 2) we shouldn't box ourselves into a corner by thinking that we won't need a tracked set of IFV's or Artillery pieces in the future.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I would add only 2 other points; 1) having a competitor to GDLS located in Canada wouldn't be such a bad idea and 2) we shouldn't box ourselves into a corner by thinking that we won't need a tracked set of IFV's or Artillery pieces in the future.

I agree that having redundancy is good on paper however similar to our shipbuilding strategy, we have to be careful about creating too many mouths that we cannot feed in the medium to long term. If Hanwha goes through all of the trouble in setting up a facility for say K9 but loses the IFV contract, what are they going to do with this new facility? What if the same happens with the eventual tank replacement and they lose to a European system? I find it very unlikely Hanwha can maintain such a facility just on upkeep and retrofits, and I find it even more unlikely that they will divert work from their domestic Korean facilities to keep an unprofitable Canadian facility operational.

I'm going off the requirements and sentiments that the Army has seemingly expressed at the moment, I don't think its especially worthwhile to pine over potential capabilities when the Army has stated they aren't interested and want clear counterparts. Getting overly lost in the hypotheticals is fun for armchair commentators but I wouldn't confuse it for actual procurement or policy.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I agree that having redundancy is good on paper however similar to our shipbuilding strategy, we have to be careful about creating too many mouths that we cannot feed in the medium to long term. If Hanwha goes through all of the trouble in setting up a facility for say K9 but loses the IFV contract, what are they going to do with this new facility? What if the same happens with the eventual tank replacement and they lose to a European system? I find it very unlikely Hanwha can maintain such a facility just on upkeep and retrofits, and I find it even more unlikely that they will divert work from their domestic Korean facilities to keep an unprofitable Canadian facility operational.

I'm going off the requirements and sentiments that the Army has seemingly expressed at the moment, I don't think its especially worthwhile to pine over potential capabilities when the Army has stated they aren't interested and want clear counterparts. Getting overly lost in the hypotheticals is fun for armchair commentators but I wouldn't confuse it for actual procurement or policy.

Again, valid points, but I would say that having tracked options for Latvia would be a prudent thing, not hypothetical. IF things kicked off in Latvia, the lands east across their borders have few road options in Russia/Belarus, those lands look to be boggy, heavily forested and well suited for tracked vehicles.

 

[KevinB]

I agree that having redundancy is good on paper however similar to our shipbuilding strategy, we have to be careful about creating too many mouths that we cannot feed in the medium to long term. If Hanwha goes through all of the trouble in setting up a facility for say K9 but loses the IFV contract, what are they going to do with this new facility? What if the same happens with the eventual tank replacement and they lose to a European system? I find it very unlikely Hanwha can maintain such a facility just on upkeep and retrofits, and I find it even more unlikely that they will divert work from their domestic Korean facilities to keep an unprofitable Canadian facility operational.

Secondary source in NA is a strategic assets for South Korea as well. It keeps it clear of any potential threats from North Korea.

If they did build a plant, the offsets for domestic manufacturing would give the K2 a massive leg up as a preexisting Canadian manufacturing site and limit risk as opposed to others proposing a plant in their proposal.

I'm going off the requirements and sentiments that the Army has seemingly expressed at the moment, I don't think its especially worthwhile to pine over potential capabilities when the Army has stated they aren't interested and want clear counterparts. Getting overly lost in the hypotheticals is fun for armchair commentators but I wouldn't confuse it for actual procurement or policy.

I suspect that the CA at 3.5% (and 1.5%) will look to a tracked fleet as well for an IFV. The LAV is not the be all and end all, especially if Canada plans on having a MBT equipped Mech/Armoured Division. At 2% there was already plans for a 2nd MBT Reg’t and I suspect that 3.5% may make planners look to a 3rd to give each Bde at MBT Reg’t (or a 4th as well if they want a 2 Armoured Reg’t Bde in the Div.). That would allow for the LAV fleet to be moved to the 2nd DoC Div, and give the PRes actual operational capability.

 

[FJAG]

Again, valid points, but I would say that having tracked options for Latvia would be a prudent thing, not hypothetical. IF things kicked off in Latvia, the lands east across their borders have few road options in Russia/Belarus, those lands look to be boggy, heavily forested and well suited for tracked vehicles.

It is very clear that tracked vehicles, especially SPs, have an advantage in the form of tactical mobility. Wheeled are perceived as having an advantage for strategic and operational mobility. I personally consider the latter a false perception and, IMHO, one needs tactical mobility every day in real life while either operational or strategic mobility is something that maybe required occasionally or not at all.

That said, the Canadian Forces drank the Kool-Aid of strategic mobility decades ago and the army still favours that concept. The irrational semi-religious fervor against all things tracked remains strong in Canada.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Just to pour some more gas on this topic today.

Saab sees Canada as 'great' partner to design next-generation fighter jets​

Sweden among many countries working on '6th-generation' military systems​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saab-canada-fighter-jets-9.7112654

 

[Rainbow1910]

Just to pour some more gas on this topic today.

Saab sees Canada as 'great' partner to design next-generation fighter jets​

Sweden among many countries working on '6th-generation' military systems​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saab-canada-fighter-jets-9.7112654

I think I must sound like a broken record at this point but Saab attempting to woo Canada of all partners to join up with it to develop 6th generation fighters and next generation drones should put on full display how desperate they truly are. Truly a situation of the blind leading the blind, with neither party having proven records in large drone development/production or 5th generation fighter design/production, let alone going right to 6th generation aircraft lol.

Of amusing note though:

According to sources familiar with the matter, the leadership of the Royal Canadian Air Force is not in favour of the possible purchase of Gripen fighter jets in the near term. In terms of sixth-generation fighters, their preference is joining GCAP, sources said.

Can't say I'm surprised that the RCAF is the only organization acting like responsible adults, while the PMO is pushing some political nonsense behind the scenes to undermine our capability overall. Seems obvious who wants what in these talks about a mixed fleet.

 

[AvroArrow92]

I think I must sound like a broken record at this point but Saab attempting to woo Canada of all partners to join up with it to develop 6th generation fighters and next generation drones should put on full display how desperate they truly are. Truly a situation of the blind leading the blind, with neither party having proven records in large drone development/production or 5th generation fighter design/production, let alone going right to 6th generation aircraft lol.

Of amusing note though:



Can't say I'm surprised that the RCAF is the only organization acting like responsible adults, while the PMO is pushing some political nonsense behind the scenes to undermine our capability overall. Seems obvious who wants what in these talks about a mixed fleet.

I personal take the position take the good with bad, the RCAF leadership is dog shit I’ve seen it. Massive retention crisis, massive maintenance backlog, and massive corporate malaise.

I never forget the air div commander coming down and blaming all the air crew at Trenton that them leaving was because they were not loyal to the institution. If that is the level of leadership we have we deserve everything we get as a force. This was after this same air crews where bending over backwards keeping the air bridge to Europe open and sending crews on that bs rotation to Comox because of the bs C295. Any thanks? Any understanding or this people were moving the world already for them nope.

 

[Quirky]

There are rumours circulating that the Feb 2 fuselage signing ceremony for Canada's first F-35 was specifically kept low key and photos will not be released by the Govt/Lockheed Martin due to concerns that their publication will undercut the ongoing fighter review in the eyes of the public. If it is indeed true, it does not bode well for future F-35 orders if we are walking on egg shells to such a degree all the way up to such a high level.......

Article on this out now. Shame they won't release the photos of our first F-35 in Canadian paint, yet. Is Canada the first country to hold back photos of their first F-35?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There are rumours circulating that the Feb 2 fuselage signing ceremony for Canada's first F-35 was specifically kept low key and photos will not be released by the Govt/Lockheed Martin due to concerns that their publication will undercut the ongoing fighter review in the eyes of the public. If it is indeed true, it does not bode well for future F-35 orders if we are walking on egg shells to such a degree all the way up to such a high level.......

Some of that can be attributed to mid level meddlers who try to "protect and insulate" their bosses, often without direction and often to promote their own self-importance.

 

[Kirkhill]

Air National Guard Raises Concerns About Losing Fighter Missions | Aviation Week Network

The Air National Guard is facing uncertainty in how it will meet some of its homeland defense requirements as the Air Force retires aging aircraft.

aviationweek.com

“If we don’t have a strong recapitalization plan, those units may be looked at to divert into other missions outside of a flying mission,” she told reporters during a Feb. 25 briefing at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Air Warfare Symposium.

Losing a fighter unit, or transitioning to a different mission, forces the Guard and the rest of the Pentagon to figure out how to keep aircraft on alert. This could require active duty Air Force units to serve on homeland defense alert, or a “joint force solution”—potentially involving U.S. Navy aircraft.

....

So, if the Air Guard doesn't get useful kit that allows them to contribute effectively in their spare time then somebody is going to have pay full-timers or else explain the gaps in the coverage. Perhaps the RCAF can supply the CAPs over Alaska and Greenland.

 

[KevinB]

Air National Guard Raises Concerns About Losing Fighter Missions | Aviation Week Network

The Air National Guard is facing uncertainty in how it will meet some of its homeland defense requirements as the Air Force retires aging aircraft.

aviationweek.com

“If we don’t have a strong recapitalization plan, those units may be looked at to divert into other missions outside of a flying mission,” she told reporters during a Feb. 25 briefing at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Air Warfare Symposium.

Losing a fighter unit, or transitioning to a different mission, forces the Guard and the rest of the Pentagon to figure out how to keep aircraft on alert. This could require active duty Air Force units to serve on homeland defense alert, or a “joint force solution”—potentially involving U.S. Navy aircraft.

....

So, if the Air Guard doesn't get useful kit that allows them to contribute effectively in their spare time then somebody is going to have pay full-timers or else explain the gaps in the coverage. Perhaps the RCAF can supply the CAPs over Alaska and Greenland.

We are reducing airframes. So yes some of the Air Guard fighter squadrons are being re-rolled. This has been a known thing for a while. Some in the Guard just refuse to accept it.

As far as personnel cost go, ready aircraft crews are a wash for Air Guard or USAF Active duty as the crews and maintainers are full time positions.

I

 

[suffolkowner]

It is very clear that tracked vehicles, especially SPs, have an advantage in the form of tactical mobility. Wheeled are perceived as having an advantage for strategic and operational mobility. I personally consider the latter a false perception and, IMHO, one needs tactical mobility every day in real life while either operational or strategic mobility is something that maybe required occasionally or not at all.

That said, the Canadian Forces drank the Kool-Aid of strategic mobility decades ago and the army still favours that concept. The irrational semi-religious fervor against all things tracked remains strong in Canada.

i think with respect to wheeled vehicles the idea that you can "road" them to the operation theatre has been shown to be incorrect. Believe iv posted a couple of articles on that in the past

 

[Good2Golf]

The only other reasonable option for a dual fleet is the F-15EX which is also made here.

IMHO Canada should be trying to figure out what LocMart can offer for production in Canada for secondary production of items.
I’d suggest HIMARS, and a variety of rockets and missiles.

Rafales built in Quebec with a side order of non-US nuclear collaborative protection.