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

[Nvlgzr]

Boeings used to have a great reputation, then things changed.

Boeing’s problem was integrating McDonnell Douglas management into theirs. Nothing good came of it.

 

[Fabius]

So why could a licensed indigenously built fighter not be able to benefit from the licensor’s baseline in-service support and upgrade program.

It may or may not. If you’re going to depend on another country to plan and fund the upgrades and do the actual heavy lifting can it be said to be indigenous? Is it going to help you develop your industry?
Again it goes to what is the end state or the entire program.

And wasn’t that the case with the F-35 when Canada joins the JSF Program? Why would this be a problem for a non-US program but was okay for a US-program?

For the JSF we were only a Tier 3 partner not what I would describe as one of the main ones, ie Tier 2. Even so I would not argue that our approach to the JSF / F35 procurement was a good one or that it is one that would work if we are trying to establish a robust indigenous industry and capability as a major partner.

Why would industry value or trust the relationship if we bail when it comes time to buy aircraft? Same for our partner nations?

 

[YZT580]

And why don't we want to invest in defense? Because voters don't see an advantage in it perhaps? Would having lots of well-paid jobs in the defense industry likely change opinions on the matter?

Look at GDLS, the CA never seems to have problems getting more LAVS. The GoC isn't talking about cutting RCDs for the RCN, despite them costing more than the F-35s...

you are too hard on the voters. They don't really know. The blame goes to the governments which weren't adult enough to invest wisely but instead chose to tailor their budgets to grab the most votes. In many ways similar to the Roman circuses. Plus, as discussed in other areas many of our Canadians weren't born here and have no reason to want to defend the place however many have lived in countries with significant military presence and would probably accept it as being necessary

 

[Good2Golf]

It may or may not. If you’re going to depend on another country to plan and fund the upgrades and do the actual heavy lifting can it be said to be indigenous? Is it going to help you develop your industry?

You said earlier a licensed indigenously built aircraft. That means it’s licensed from somewhere else., like Canadait Sabres. US design licensed and built in Canada. Or CF-5/116 Freedom Fighters. ISS still coordinated with the OEM.

If that’s not what you meant, then what do you mean?

Again it goes to what is the end state or the entire program.

Which I proposed.

For the JSF we were only a Tier 3 partner not what I would describe as one of the main ones, ie Tier 2. Even so I would not argue that our approach to the JSF / F35 procurement was a good one or that it is one that would work if we are trying to establish a robust indigenous industry and capability as a major partner.

And any collaboration in a European 6th Gen fighter program like GCAP, which I personally prefer, would likely learn from the lessons of tepid collaboration like the JSF program.

Why would industry value or trust the relationship if we bail when it comes time to buy aircraft? Same for our partner nations?

No different than what should the JSF JPO trust us and keep the Canadian aerospace suppliers still in the program, which it does. So a mediocre F-35 program is still better than what another joint program based say in Europe could ever be?

You asked for input, which I gave. If your view is different than mine, that’s fine. We don’t have to see things the same way.

If I were OM for a day (or long might have a decision last) I would have put more focus on the operational capability, and as I have said over a long duration months thread, I would have pushed for a second fleet based on the Rafale M, a nuclear strike capable (as the F-35 is) fighter aircraft that is a proven interoperable with U.S. aircraft (only non-US fighter to integrate and operate from a USN Nimitz-class carrier — without MADL btw), and reinforcing French and European aerospace industrial capacity.

 

[Maxman1]

Alternatively, people are trying to have a discussion about the advantages of having domestic capacity to build fighter aircraft, and it gets derailed by "but the F-35 is better".

Or people get too wrapped up in the idea of a plane being built here that they miss the forest for the trees, namely that a limited run of final assembly doesn't give us a domestic industry.

If we stick to the current model of just buying from the Americans every 40+ years the RCAF will continuously find itself stuck with old and worn-out aircraft.

No, we're continually stuck with old equipment because we don't replace it in time, and almost always don't buy enough in the first place.

For example, the government was at one point going to buy Super Hornets as an interim, then canceled and bought used Hornets from Australia.

Looking at the NSS, there is zero reason we couldn't have an National Aircraft Strategy for the RCAF as well.

Shipbuilding and fast jet building is really apples and oranges.

 

[Maxman1]

Couple of thoughts. Maybe if we get Gripens to go with our F35 fleet, I think Sweden would really like a fleet of LAV6s and/or LAV ACSV. Hint, cough, hint.

Pretty sure Sweden is set for armoured vehicles.

 

[Fabius]

You said earlier a licensed indigenously built aircraft. That means it’s licensed from somewhere else., like Canadait Sabres. US design licensed and built in Canada. Or CF-5/116 Freedom Fighters. ISS still coordinated with the OEM.

The Canadair Sabre in the Mk 6 variant actually is a good example of what I mean. It was significantly improved by Canada independent of the US or other nations. Specifically all Mks were powered by Canadian designed engines.

The same is true of the CF-5, specifically the development of the CRV-7 rockets in Canada to arm it.

Although the aircraft is certainly a licensed version, I see the indigenous component meaning that over time the aircraft is upgraded and modernized with specific avionics, weapons, perhaps engines etc. that are all designed, tested and built in Canada.

Hence growing the Canadian industrial and technological capacity.

 

[Good2Golf]

Although the aircraft is certainly a licensed version, I see the indigenous component meaning that over time the aircraft is upgraded and modernized with specific avionics, weapons, perhaps engines etc. that are all designed, tested and built in Canada.

WHO amongst us here can say definitively that that cannot happen with the Gripen?

Alas, my preferred Rafale M will likely never see the light of day, so I’ll leave things back to the F35 versus JAS39 crowd.

 

[Fabius]

WHO amongst us here can say definitively that that cannot happen with the Gripen?

It could happen with any aircraft. My point is simply two things:

1. That’s how you develop and maintain a defence industry.
2. It’s more expensive than piggybacking off of another forces modernization efforts.

 

[Good2Golf]

1. Yes. However, bespoke comes at a notable cost. The more you’re your own program, the more you’re on your own.

2. Which is precisely a collaborating path, with varying degrees of work share, is the way to go.

Which leads right back to my saying your option 2 and 3, back when you posted…no to bespoke indigenous cap, and yes to participate with a current capability and maximize fabrication in Canada where possible, and yes to collaborating with other partner nations for a Gen 6 alability.