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

[Furniture]

Unless we are reverting to building much much less technologically advanced equipment Canada will always be incapable of supporting a self sustaining defence industry.

Canada can be part of a larger supply chain, but we will never be independently able to produce everything we need. Not even when the ball the drops. Never.

That isn't the goal. The goal is the ability to build kit.

If we are using parts from elsewhere, that's fine. If the original design comes from elsewhere, that can be fine too. In a global world, almost nothing is made entirely "in house".

 

[Czech_pivo]

That isn't the goal. The goal is the ability to build kit.

If we are using parts from elsewhere, that's fine. If the original design comes from elsewhere, that can be fine too. In a global world, almost nothing is made entirely "in house".

Look at how much of the AOPS or JSS or Rivers are built in Canada? Only the AOPS's had the engines built here, none of the weapons systems, none of the radars. We built the 'frame' and the piping, the rescue boats and in the case of at least the AOPS's we used steel from China.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That isn't the goal. The goal is the ability to build kit.

If we are using parts from elsewhere, that's fine. If the original design comes from elsewhere, that can be fine too. In a global world, almost nothing is made entirely "in house".

What do you think we will be able to assemble here when the ball drops ?

 

[Altair]

Look at how much of the AOPS or JSS or Rivers are built in Canada? Only the AOPS's had the engines built here, none of the weapons systems, none of the radars. We built the 'frame' and the piping, the rescue boats and in the case of at least the AOPS's we used steel from China.

And you don't have the RCN former and or current heads coming out and complaining about the process or the kit they are getting.

Same with LAV, you don't hear the CA coming out asking for the boxer, or saying they can only use the boxer.

 

[KevinB]

It wasn't intended as a flex, it was simply highlighting that the army keeps getting LAVs because we make them.

If the CAF wants to have kit updated at a regular pace, then selecting kit made in Canada is the smart choice.

I would say that the smart choice is not the 1 million LAV army, but like NSS finding a design, and having it built in Canada - which is kinda how the LAV started -- design was licensed by DDGM from the Swiss MOWAG - and then General Dynamics bought out GM’s Defense part of Diesel Division.

Have a competition -- pick 2-3 short listed “winners” and work out the best option for Canada in terms of production from those three entities.

Now I do not see this working for Aviation, at least not in a practical manner for Canada.
1) I think we can agree that if there is a split fleet the F-35/F-15 EX would be the best choice from a combat capability standpoint.
2) Politically that isn’t going to happen, and the RCAF personnel training issues have been explained that a split fleet will devastate the RCAF.
a) Until recently the RCAF had been going down the path of a pure fleet F-35 for fighters.
b) RCAF already has significant pilot training back logs, and based on some other RCAF personnel on this board it appears that pilot training isn’t the only training shot fall.

If all the money and jobs go to foreign countries, Canadians will be less inclined to want to spend the money.

110%.
But what my major argument is here, is don’t pick a lemon hoping that it may eventually become an Apple tree.



As such, what does Canada need from the Aviation section:
Obviously a Replacement Fighter ASAP: which quite frankly is the F-35 for a whole litany of reasons that anyone who is honest with themselves will accept.

Given the desire to Eurofy things - what does that leave open? GlobalEye seems to be a done deal with Saab, that leaves the F-35 Replacement Program/Gen 6 Fighter program - which we have mulled over, and to me that is GCAP. andwhy I think Canada should be at least a tier 3 member, not an observer, and even it if takes LocMartCanada involvement with a lot of GoC money I think you need to push for a Tier 2 Role there. As well as GoC investment into CCA and UAS systems.

Plus the demand to be able to create spares and munitions for all CAF platforms in times of need -- basically the GoC/DND holding TDP/Models etc for systems to be able to find a second or tertiary source of supply in times of crisis.

 

[Furniture]

Look at how much of the AOPS or JSS or Rivers are built in Canada? Only the AOPS's had the engines built here, none of the weapons systems, none of the radars. We built the 'frame' and the piping, the rescue boats and in the case of at least the AOPS's we used steel from China.

That's my point, parts can come from other places, but putting it all together is still a major task, and that can be done here.

When I owned a '09 Colorado, the alternator was made by Mitsubishi. That didn't make my truck less Chevy, it just made it more reliable by having a high quality alternator.

What do you think we will be able to assemble here when the ball drops ?

Lots of things... often times the delay is the final assembly of parts into a platform, not the supply of components. Also, if we already have an industrial base, we can start making components in a war. If we allow our industry to die because right now we can buy stuff cheaper elsewhere, we won't have capacity when the need arises.


In the end, it's about planning the logistics of staying in a fight past the first round of wearhouse stores...

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's my point, parts can come from other places, but putting it all together is still a major task, and that can be done here.

When I owned a '09 Colorado, the alternator was made by Mitsubishi. That didn't make my truck less Chevy, it just made it more reliable by having a high quality alternator.

Lots of things... often times the delay is the final assembly of parts into a platform, not the supply of components. Also, if we already have an industrial base, we can start making components in a war. If we allow our industry to die because right now we can buy stuff cheaper elsewhere, we won't have capacity when the need arises.

In the end, it's about planning the logistics of staying in a fight past the first round of wearhouse stores...

I think you are overly optimistic about the challenges the global supply chain will face when the ball drops. I doubt we will have a flow of parts and systems here to assemble next higher assys. Unless its American.

As for planning for the logistics of staying in the fight, I agree. Which is why we should be going to places that will deliver us what we need the fastest and for the reasonable price. If that's Canada, so be it. If its SK so be it. If its the USA so be it. But the default should not be Canada.

And we should be buying more than we think we need, if you intend to stay in the fight past the first few blows placed. In this context, max out the F35 and back them up with 150 Gripens.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think you are overly optimistic about the challenges the global supply chain will face when the ball drops. I doubt we will have a flow of parts and systems here to assemble next higher assys. Unless its American.

As for planning for the logistics of staying in the fight, I agree. Which is why we should be going to place that will deliver us what we need the fastest and for the reasonable price. If that's Canada, so be it. If its SK so be it. If its the USA so be it. But the default should not be Canada.

And we should be buying more than we think we need, if you intend to stay in the fight past the first few blows placed. In this context, max out the F35 and back them up with 150 Gripens.

Its about 'backfilling' baby. Need a pair of 30mm's for each River - buy 4-6 extras and store them. Rinse and repeat with other external, long lead pieces.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Its about 'backfilling' baby. Need a pair of 30mm's for each River - buy 4-6 extras and store them. Rinse and repeat with other external, long lead pieces.

Thats exactly my intent.

We need to buy more than what our TO&Es dictate by probably by a large factor. And invest in massive warehousing as well as 3rd and 4th line repair facilities.

Continually life cycle stuff from long term storage, to activation, to use, back to long term storage and then replacement; mix and match as required.

The easy example is trucks. If our TO&E says we need 1000 trucks we should buy 4000. With 1000 in use and the other 3K in various points of the life cycle process.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Thats exactly my intent.

We need to buy more than what our TO&Es dictate by probably by a large factor. And invest in massive warehousing as well as 3rd and 4th line repair facilities.

Continually life cycle stuff from long term storage, to activation, to use, back to long term storage and then replacement; mix and match as required.

The easy example is trucks. If our TO&E says we need 1000 trucks we should buy 4000. With 1000 in use and the other 3K in various points of the life cycle process.

I would even venture to say, move the 'backfill' items out and away from Halifax and Esquimalt as they will be tier 1 targets. Place them within a 1 day drive of those locations and guard them accordingly.

 

[KevinB]

Thats exactly my intent.

We need to buy more than what our TO&Es dictate by probably by a large factor. And invest in massive warehousing as well as 3rd and 4th line repair facilities.

Continually life cycle stuff from long term storage, to activation, to use, back to long term storage and then replacement; mix and match as required.

The easy example is trucks. If our TO&E says we need 1000 trucks we should buy 4000. With 1000 in use and the other 3K in various points of the life cycle process.

The old IDF model was a 3:1 and 75% rule.
1) Hold 3 in reserve for everyone of something you have fielded
2) Replace anything that has less than 75% of its life left.

The logic was that any given day they could be at war, and needed to be able to count on the equipment in use to last, as well as have a large stack of replacements.

Probably a much easier sell with “cheap” Army equipment as opposed to Air Force and Navy items.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The old IDF model was a 3:1 and 75% rule.
1) Hold 3 in reserve for everyone of something you have fielded
2) Replace anything that has less than 75% of its life left.

The logic was that any given day they could be at war, and needed to be able to count on the equipment in use to last, as well as have a large stack of replacements.

Probably a much easier sell with “cheap” Army equipment as opposed to Air Force and Navy items.

Our problem is we think too small.

United States Navy reserve fleets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

National Defense Reserve Fleet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sierra Army Depot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is the true the power of the US Military.

 

[FJAG]

The old IDF model was a 3:1 and 75% rule.
1) Hold 3 in reserve for everyone of something you have fielded
2) Replace anything that has less than 75% of its life left.

The logic was that any given day they could be at war, and needed to be able to count on the equipment in use to last, as well as have a large stack of replacements.

Probably a much easier sell with “cheap” Army equipment as opposed to Air Force and Navy items.

Here's my $0.02 on that. Yes, you need that "reserve" equipment but you also need partially trained "reserve" personnel. That means that your "reserve" equipment need not necessarily be sitting in a war stocks warehouse. That's a purely peacetime bean counting concept. Much of it can be with designated reserve units that can provide both the equipment and personnel replacements.

The problem, like always, is costs - balancing capital acquisition with personnel and other operations and maintenance cost. All things being equal and governments being governments you end up with a system like Canada's where the CAF fights tooth and nail to retain every full-time PY and buys just enough equipment for its deployed force with a small training add-on.

 

[KevinB]

Here's my $0.02 on that. Yes, you need that "reserve" equipment but you also need partially trained "reserve" personnel. That means that your "reserve" equipment need not necessarily be sitting in a war stocks warehouse. That's a purely peacetime bean counting concept. Much of it can be with designated reserve units that can provide both the equipment and personnel replacements.

I do not consider “reserve” equipment to be equipment reserve units have -- to me that is all operation front end equipment.
Reserve Equipment is extra stuff in long term preservation storage (ideally some pre-deployed) beyond what is on the books for current units RegF or PRes.

The problem, like always, is costs - balancing capital acquisition with personnel and other operations and maintenance cost. All things being equal and governments being governments you end up with a system like Canada's where the CAF fights tooth and nail to retain every full-time PY and buys just enough equipment for its deployed force with a small training add-on.

I am a fan of Pink Slips for people over equipment in a lot of cases.
You can generally make a 3x combat arms force from a well trained force.
Cpl’s become Sect Commanders, Sgt’s become Platoon Commanders, Coy Commanders become BN CO’s etc.

You cannot magically make equipment anymore. Nor rapidly make a lot of high tech positions

 

[FJAG]

I do not consider “reserve” equipment to be equipment reserve units have -- to me that is all operation front end equipment.
Reserve Equipment is extra stuff in long term preservation storage (ideally some pre-deployed) beyond what is on the books for current units RegF or PRes.

I don't think we North Americans run "all-in" armies anymore. Even y'all.

The new world order and the Ukraine experience have changed that. The new world order is limiting what we're prepared to do because of the cost; and Ukraine has taught us that attrition rates in Class A equipment is high. Both of those mean that manned reserve equipment is a necessity.

I am a fan of Pink Slips for people over equipment in a lot of cases.

I'll certainly agree on the full-time side. Based on the overarching principle that "your army can only be as large as the country can afford and the government is prepared to commit," the place where you have to start creating savings is in the recuring annual costs. Full-time personnel not only eat up massive salaries and pensions, but also housing and support infrastructure, and recurring annual training costs.

I've been told by one CDS that protecting the human capital is the most important decision . I disagree with that. Keeping combat capabilities alive is important and that is through a judicious mix of people, equipment, and munitions. When the latter two fall below the critical point in order to save the first then your balance is out of whack.

You can generally make a 3x combat arms force from a well trained force.

Cpl’s become Sect Commanders, Sgt’s become Platoon Commanders, Coy Commanders become BN CO’s etc.

I'm a firm believer in that and the ability to generate 3 x 1. In fact I see it as a double 3 x 1. A 30 RegF / 70 ARes structure is the first layer for a near combat ready units. Further, a proper 30/70 unit can be the mobilization base with the addition of 70% new recruits. In the aggregate, any battalion based on one RegF company and a share of headquarters and combat support should be able to generate not only a full battalion with its reservists but a light brigade in mobilization. In other words 10% RegF, 20% ARes and 70% new recruits. That's a good ROI.

You cannot magically make equipment anymore. Nor rapidly make a lot of high tech positions

If you support your industry properly and build it right then you can do better.

I question the term "anymore." I don't think that you ever could. WW2 started out with very few forces with any major level of mechanization. Even the German blitzkrieg armies were mostly horse drawn.

The only reason that there was an opportunity to build up the forces was the ability to convert existing industries far from the front lines to produce the implements of war in the gap between 1939/40 to 1944. After that was reduced to the issue of how to get that equipment and people from the factory/base to the front line.

This is why I'm more of a manned equipment guy. You need to be able to replace or replenish the division that you commit while mobilization (in the broad sense happens. Like all wars before us (except the Confederate army) a large part of your force needs to stay out of action to generate/regenerate the committed force. The only thing that I can think of that skews that is if non-repairable/recoverable equipment losses start to outpace personnel losses. I agree that that needs to be factored into the reserve stocks. That generally hasn't happened during conflicts over the last few decades (including the big wars which have all been relatively short). Ukraine is changing that equation, but then it is also changing the equation on heavy metal v munitions loss/ usage rates.