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

[HavokFour]

For me, I want to see as much as possible signed and sealed before the next election occurs.
If someone else comes next, I want it to be as difficult and as next to impossible for things to be cancelled or cutback on.

Completely agree. Especially if the F-47 is destined to be a US only thing like the F-22, best time to start making plans for the future is now.

 

[OldSolduer]

I get the cynicism. But also, nothing about how defence is being funded, reorg'd and planned today is in line with our history over the last two decades.

Actually our entire history post WW1.

 

[Good2Golf]

Again, as a US Taxpayer none of that means a lot.
IIRC the ‘wealth’ was spread around as to the expected purchase quantity.

No. That’s incorrect.

Workshare was to be based on initial investment and support not aircraft orders I thought(case in point Japan wasn't a partner but is the largest F35 purchaser outside the U.S. yet it's work share reflects it FMS status).

This is correct.

Can't wait for us fo reneg on our commitments only to buy them after a decade long delay.

Mindful of course that Canada didn’t commit to buying any JSFs at all until 2010…well after 13 years of observer status (like in GCAP now) in the Concept Demonstration Phase started in 1997 as an ‘Informed Partner’ and subsequent upgrade to participant in the System Development and Demonstration Phase in 2002 and the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development phase in 2006.

Of note, when Canada signed the PSFD MOU in 2006, its position as a producer of JSF components wasn’t secured by purchase of any F-35s, but rather contribution of over half a billion dollars (551 MUSD) into the program.

In 2003, the United States invited the current partners to participate in the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development phase of the program. In December 2006, Canada signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The cost for Canada to participate in this phase is approximately U.S.$551 million over the course of the 2007-2051 timeframe. This contribution will be used to cover Canada's portion of production, sustainment and follow-on development costs, including common tooling, sustainment, and follow-on development activities.

Ref: Canada News Centre - Canada's Next Generation Fighter Capability : The Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lightning II

The U.S. position of bullying F-35 current and future operators, many who are key integrated members in its production, is more than a bit shortsighted. Part of the reasons the JSF Program brought so many nations into the development and production program was to provide capabilities cheaper and with greater certainty than American aerospace fabrication could assure. *If the U.S. went “Fortress America” in further F-35 production by cutting all the international partners out of the program, production would essentially cease and the aircraft would eventually become an unsustainable technological orphan. This would pretty much be the definition of ‘cut your nose off to spite your face.’

 

[tomydoom]

Actually our entire history post WW1.

Louis St Laurent was pretty decent for defence.

 

[ytz]

Again, as a US Taxpayer none of that means a lot.
IIRC the ‘wealth’ was spread around as to the expected purchase quantity.

The wealth was spread around to court orders. But it was spread around to amortize development costs across a wider base.

There was no guaranteed buy. And even the US services themselves have substantially reduced the number of projected orders. Insisting that foreign partners be held to a higher standard that the US would be quite novel and a boneheaded way to kill future orders. Also, a huge chunk of the US Military and taxpayer cost advantage comes from these foreign partners and foreign order. The F-35 offers incredible value, in no small part, because for every 5 frames the US buys, the foreign partners buy 2. That has contributed to reducing ongoing development costs and unit costs substantially.

Eldridge Colby had a long whiny screed on Twitter yesterday whining about Middle Powers not buying from the US. I don't think they actually thought defence dollars would be diverted in such quantity and with such speed elsewhere. And I am guessing the spreadsheets at the Pentagon are starting to show how painful this will be for both DoD and the taxpayer going forward. I put it to you that this is well earned after all the threats and bullying. Had this been simply about geopolitical realignment ("We're going off to IndoPac."), it wouldn't have been the same. When the Danes had to plan to blow up runways in Greenland and moved blood over, the calculus changed. Colby is probably discovering that the math is not so great now. All his dreams of some grand force to fight China are probably getting repriced as fast as his screen refreshes.

Coming back to your post. The US is free to show even more hostility by ripping up existing access. But you shouldn't be surprised when suddenly prices for everything DOD is planning on buying for the next two decades doubles in price. Hope you're prepared to pay for that as a taxpayer.

 

[ytz]

Other than silliness in Canada with Gripen, I would argue the real threat to the F-35 is GCAP. There's a nice lineup of F-35 (current and future) customers showing interest in GCAP. If the program runs well (big if), why would these customers have follow on orders for the F-35?

Somebody should ask the F-35 JPO what the economics would be if they lose 500 projected orders in the late 2030s and 2040s.

 

[dapaterson]

Other than silliness in Canada with Gripen, I would argue the real threat to the F-35 is GCAP. There's a nice lineup of F-35 (current and future) customers showing interest in GCAP. If the program runs well (big if), why would these customers have follow on orders for the F-35?

Somebody should ask the F-35 JPO what the economics would be if they lose 500 projected orders in the late 2030s and 2040s.

The JPO might be able to make some of its readiness targets with hundreds less jets to support.

 

[Kirkhill]

For me, I want to see as much as possible signed and sealed before the next election occurs.
If someone else comes next, I want it to be as difficult and as next to impossible for things to be cancelled or cutback on.

Signatures aren't worth much. Especially when cancellations are covered by tax dollars.

30 years later and we're debating the aircraft we signed up for in 1997.
36 years since we signed for the Merlins only to have them cancelled 33 years ago.

Events, dear boy!
A week is a lifetime in politics.

I figure if it isn't in your hand before the next government it is vapourware.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Signatures aren't worth much. Especially when cancellations are covered by tax dollars.

30 years later and we're debating the aircraft we signed up for in 1997.
36 years since we signed for the Merlins only to have them cancelled 33 years ago.

Events, dear boy!
A week is a lifetime in politics.

I figure if it isn't in your hand before the next government it is vapourware.

Then it comes down to the status quo until the events are solidly in motion or rolling the dice and hope for the best.
Harper’s pair of JSS’s got built and 6 AOPS’s got expanded to 8. Hope does spring eternal.

 

[Kirkhill]

Then it comes down to the status quo until the events are solidly in motion or rolling the dice and hope for the best.
Harper’s pair of JSS’s got built and 6 AOPS’s got expanded to 8. Hope does spring eternal.

Those were Canadian jobs/votes. No politician was going to cancel those votes.

F35s, Merlins, Leos, M109s - furriners! Waste of good graft.

 

[KevinB]

Other than silliness in Canada with Gripen, I would argue the real threat to the F-35 is GCAP. There's a nice lineup of F-35 (current and future) customers showing interest in GCAP. If the program runs well (big if), why would these customers have follow on orders for the F-35?

Somebody should ask the F-35 JPO what the economics would be if they lose 500 projected orders in the late 2030s and 2040s.

I really don’t see as much overlap.

I think the 2030’s as a timeline for production ready aircraft beyond overly optimistic to laughable. This is a consortium that hasn’t built a Gen 5 aircraft. There will be teething pains.

Frankly I think Canada should try to jump deeper into it than observer. As I think diversifying (or at least the option for diversifying) a good thing.

I think that it’s got 2038-2040 before it hits LRIP, which would allow Canada (and others) a time to give it an honest evaluation before committing to a fleet transition, and conducting a transition over a graceful period, not when your flying an airframe that has been ridden hard and put away wet one too many times.

 

[ytz]

I really don’t see as much overlap.

I think the 2030’s as a timeline for production ready aircraft beyond overly optimistic to laughable. This is a consortium that hasn’t built a Gen 5 aircraft. There will be teething pains.

Frankly I think Canada should try to jump deeper into it than observer. As I think diversifying (or at least the option for diversifying) a good thing.

I think that it’s got 2038-2040 before it hits LRIP, which would allow Canada (and others) a time to give it an honest evaluation before committing to a fleet transition, and conducting a transition over a graceful period, not when your flying an airframe that has been ridden hard and put away wet one too many times.

I think you forget that the Japanese, Italians and British anchoring this effort are among the highest F-35 partners, with substantial parts of the F-35 supply chain there. They didn't build a 5th Gen. Sure. But they aren't exactly inexperienced either. All three countries have also being continuously manufacturing combat aircraft and have plenty of experience seeing through programs.

I also think everybody who thinks GCAP will be slow and lazy keep missing the urgency of the Japanese who have flat out said they'll quit if the program isn't heading towards target timeline and performance goals. Living beside China, Russia and North Korea tends to keep them disciplined.

I hope we'll be moving from observer to partner in due course. But for now, being the the first outside participant is a great sign. For all the talk, nobody else has managed to negotiate entry. Even as observers. We're the first.

If this thing stays on plan, I actually would bet on partnership and a reduction in Panther frames to ~70. Realistically, there's no need for 88 frames if a second fighter fleet is going to be inducted a decade after the last F-35 directly.

 

[Good2Golf]

Signatures aren't worth much. Especially when cancellations are covered by tax dollars.

30 years later and we're debating the aircraft we signed up for in 1997.
36 years since we signed for the Merlins only to have them cancelled 33 years ago.

Events, dear boy!
A week is a lifetime in politics.

I figure if it isn't in your hand before the next government it is vapourware.

You need to move beyond the *belief that Canada signed up to buy aircraft in 1997. That simply is not the case. Heck, JPO hadn’t even eliminated Boeing’s ugly AF X-32 jet, so nations didn’t even know what the aircraft was going to be. It was, as I and others have pointed out, joining the design, production and sustainment side of the industry and capability. Saying we’ve been flopping for 30 years…pedantically 29, not 30…is not accurate at all. Technological partner nation in the design, fabrication and support since 1997, yes, but not until 2010 did Canada signal an intent to buy airframes. Five years later, in 2015, the government signaled that it would no longer buy the airframes. Then back on in 2023, but for only 16 and 14 more this year.

 

[Kirkhill]

You need to move beyond the believe that Canada signed up to buy aircraft in 1997. That simply is not the case. Heck, JPO hadn’t even eliminated Boeing’s ugly AF X-32 jet, so nations didn’t even know what the aircraft was going to be. It was, as I and others have pointed out, joining the design, production and sustainment side of the industry and capability. Saying we’ve been flopping for 30 years…pedantically 29, not 30…is not accurate at all. Technological partner nation in the design, fabrication and support since 1997, yes, but not until 2010 did Canada signal an intent to buy airframes. Five years later, in 2015, the government signaled that it would no longer buy the airframes. Then back on in 2023, but for only 16 and 14 more this year.

I understand that.

But we are still flying CF-188s from 1982 and we don't have any replacements in the air. And our helicopter woes continue. With some notable exceptions.

We did not commit in 1997.

But neither does signing up as a GCAP observer commit us today.

...

One thing that really concerns me is that events may continue to overtake design.

The F18 was conceived in the mid 70s. And is still flying 50 years later.

The F35 was conceived in the mid 90s and is now a 30 year old design, notably one that has been produced at low rates with constantly evolving designs and which is currently being delivered with lead weights where its radar should be.

The F35 design philososophy is more congruent with the battlefields of the F18 than the present day.

...

The GCAP programme is supposed to deliver a demonstrator by 2027 (1 year) and be in service by 2035 (9 years).

The Japanese pressure may be as much about maintaining the relevance of the design as the proximity of the threat.

While the F35 and the GCAP grind forwards and FCAS fails completely the following aircraft are sprinting forwards

Kratos MQ-58 Valkyrie
Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat
Anduril YFQ-44 Fury
GA-ASI YFQ-42 Dark Merlin
Northrop Grumman YFQ-48 Talon Blue
Shield AI XBat
Bayraktar Kizilelma
And many more.

Concurrently missiles and one way effectors with comparable flight profiles to F18s and F35s, but considerably longer legs, are being developed and fielded in their hundreds in timeframes of months.

It is getting harder to predict the operating environment for 2030 let alone 2040. And that applies equally to destroyers and submarines.

 

[ytz]

The F35 was conceived in the mid 90s and is now a 30 year old design, notably one that has been produced at low rates with constantly evolving designs and which is currently being delivered with lead weights where its radar should be.

The F35 design philososophy is more congruent with the battlefields of the F18 than the present day.

So much wrong here. Drawing up requirements in the mid-90s does not make this a 90s aircraft. They didn't have the electronics they were planning on using, when they started working in the 90s. Let alone the material science that allows things like GaN radars. It was all just emerging at the time. The aircraft was bleeding edge. Probably a big part of why it had so many teething problems.

Moreover, there's a routinely wrong assumption that people make about F-35 obsolescence being similar to the past because they don't understand how effective the modularity of the F-35 and the agile methodology of C2D2. Just look at how much the onboard computational power has increased since launch. It's orders of magnitude. You won't see anything like this on 4th Gen over that same timeframe. Absolutely ridiculous to say it's more congruent to the F-18 than today. There's nothing close in how the F-35 operates. The pilot literally cannot operate the radar. It's a hive mind that figures out what is the threat and how it should react itself. Watch:

Your analogy is akin to saying that a smartphone today is similar to my brick Motorola in university because they can both make phone calls.

Lastly, the Americans being a bit late on their own GaN radar is embarrassing. But hardly a failed program. Every international customer is still getting their aircraft with their GaAs radar.

It is getting harder to predict the operating environment for 2030 let alone 2040.

Just not true for the air combat environment.

Also, some people not noticing drones and automation a decade ago, doesn't mean everybody is clueless what things will look like a decade from now.