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

[ArmyRick]

I am a big fan of the F15X, but yea a decent sized chunk of the F35 is made here, I think we would need some F15X parts contracts and new POTUS that loves Canada to make our government even think about it.

Agreed. At this point, the sooner we run out the Trump clock, the sooner we can move forward with US relations. Am I not mistaken but we also have P8 Poseidons and MQ9s on order from the US of A?

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks for that, wait and see I guess.

Any idea how they decide what the fourth number in the sequence will be?

For example, CC-177 701. How did they decide the Globemaster should have 701 as its number instead of 501 or 901 or what have you? The Kingfisher is 5, the Aurora is 1, the Chinook is 3, I could go on. Makes no sense.

I know the CF-18 single seats are 7, and two seats are 9 and the Aussie museum pieces are 0. Just never made sense to me.

Yes, there is some logic to it. DGAEPM overall, the DAEPMs and DTAES (Aerospace Engineering PMs or fleet managers, and the Technical Airworthiness and Engineering Support) in particular, with a bit of 1 CAD A3 OA (Operational Airworthiness) thrown in there. The intent is to separate as much as possible, the blocks of fin numbers across the RCAF and also to clearly separate sub-types of a particular aircraft type. C-130s are an example like 3## for E/H models and 6## for J models. Chinooks win the most-types awards at three: 0## for original C-models, 2## for interim D-models in AFG and 3## for the current F-model fleet.

 

[dapaterson]

Chinooks win the most-types awards at three: 0## for original C-models, 2## for interim D-models in AFG and 3## for the current F-model fleet.

Yeah, look at the project leadership there... no wonder they're all over the place

 

[Good2Golf]

Yeah, look at the project leadership there... no wonder they're all over the place

One should always question the sanity of anyone okay with flying something that has six pieces of flappy fiberglass careening between each other at over 750km/h.

 

[OldSolduer]

One should always question the sanity of anyone okay with flying something that has six pieces of flappy fiberglass careening between each other at over 750km/h.

I actually kinda like those guys.

 

[armrdsoul77]

One should always question the sanity of anyone okay with flying something that has six pieces of flappy fiberglass careening between each other at over 750km/h.

 

[ytz]

We wouldn’t be in the mess of having to buy fighters right now (with our backs against the wall), if successive governments, supported by the now “elbows up people”, had not continually kicked the fighter replacement project down the road…

I have special contempt for Fuhr.

Guy went from being one of us to a shill for Boeing because he thought the SH would be an easy transition. Swore up and down we needed two engines in Arctic. After the SH plan blew up, he's now trying to sell the Gripen while memory holing all his past talk about needing two burners.

Amazing how much he forgot about why we have fighters and what it takes to win in one.

 

[ytz]

I am a big fan of the F15X

Why?

Like I get the bomb truck appeal. But what's the point of another fighter fleet?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Bomb truck is one element, Chances of both fleets being grounded for issues is limited. Less issues with maintenance and I suspect less security requirements.
The F15x is faster and flies higher. Carries significantly more payload, has a far greater airframe life and and lower maintenance costs. Designed to compliment the F35 and having it reduces the air frame hours on the F35 fleet, on missions not requiring stealth.

 

[ytz]

Bomb truck is one element, Chances of both fleets being grounded for issues is limited. Less issues with maintenance and I suspect less security requirements.
The F15x is faster and flies higher. Carries significantly more payload, has a far greater airframe life and and lower maintenance costs. Designed to compliment the F35 and having it reduces the air frame hours on the F35 fleet, on missions not requiring stealth.

Guess you're just going to ignore the massive overhead of a second fleet.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Guess you're just going to ignore the massive overhead of a second fleet.

Yea well I was in we flew 3 different types of fighters and most of that part stocking and maintenance records were done by hand or on computers that barely had any memory. But somehow we managed.

 

[YZT580]

Guess you're just going to ignore the massive overhead of a second fleet.

Except for training massive extra overhead is by and large a red herring. To maintain a fleet any vehicle or aircraft you require X number of spares that is lineally linked to the number of vehicles in that fleet. When you double the fleet you more or less double the number of spares you need on hand. The same goes for staff. You need Y number of ground personnel per aircraft. I don't care if it is an F35 or a CF100 although the simpler a/c probably needs fewer hours spent on it so in that way you actually save a bit. In this case the a/c actually perform different functions and are better at different things. Buying all F35 is a compromise on some aspects of our requirements. It is in the training where we would have to spend the extra bucks and that doesn't come cheap but you would end up with a more usable air force in the end

 

[ytz]

Except for training massive extra overhead is by and large a red herring. To maintain a fleet any vehicle or aircraft you require X number of spares that is lineally linked to the number of vehicles in that fleet. When you double the fleet you more or less double the number of spares you need on hand. The same goes for staff. You need Y number of ground personnel per aircraft. I don't care if it is an F35 or a CF100 although the simpler a/c probably needs fewer hours spent on it so in that way you actually save a bit. In this case the a/c actually perform different functions and are better at different things. Buying all F35 is a compromise on some aspects of our requirements. It is in the training where we would have to spend the extra bucks and that doesn't come cheap but you would end up with a more usable air force in the end

It's not just spares for the airplane. You need an entire tech and supply chain for all your ancillaries like targeting pods, without which must 4th gen have much less utility these days.


There's also the entire technical and operational overheard. WSMs, OAs, etc aren't free.

 

[NavyShooter]

Add the entire SM/LCMM office set that would need to be added to support another fighter jet.

 

[ytz]

Add the entire SM/LCMM office set that would need to be added to support another fighter jet.

This is what I mean. People only think about the unit or depot level. There's an OA, TA/WSM, LCMM for each fleet. But even at the wing level there's a SET for each fleet. There's at least a few people in Force Development and Flight Testing for each fleet as well. And then even a lot of this for major ancillaries like targeting pods.

Then, for the fighter enterprise, you have the whole EW support chain. 414 exists just to program countermeasures. And a massive chunk of their work is the fighters. That work is about to grow exponentially with the F-35, P-8, Globaleye, etc.

But of course, some like operator only thinks of overhead as their instructor pilot and the clerk who books hotel rooms.

 

[ytz]

Yea well I was in we flew 3 different types of fighters and most of that part stocking and maintenance records were done by hand or on computers that barely had any memory. But somehow we managed.

When you were in, aircraft were controlled by gears and pulleys and communications was two cans connected by string. J/k

I don't think people actually understand how much more complex aircraft are today. But to give you an understanding. Space Shuttle had 400 000 lines of code. F-35 has 24.7 million lines of code. When you were in pilots were still controlling their radars by picking scan modes. A scan, B Scan, etc An F-35 formation has zero pilot input on Radar scan modes. The formation will self-prioritize across targets, scanmodes and assigned mission parameters, in a manner that is transparent to the operators. And it's doing this hundreds to thousands of times per second which is why a human can't do it. And because these aircraft are this complex, they can't be managed like the aircraft of your era.

I don't mean to be rude. But it's really little saying you'll manage an electric typewriter the same way you'll manage a laptop. After all, they both get plugged in to the wall.

The parts management problem is a very small problem today (other than when LockMart is behind). A lot of parts are line replacement units (LRUs). Pull, replace and send to contractor.

 

[YZT580]

When you were in, aircraft were controlled by gears and pulleys and communications was two cans connected by string. J/k

I don't think people actually understand how much more complex aircraft are today. But to give you an understanding. Space Shuttle had 400 000 lines of code. F-35 has 24.7 million lines of code.

So, with its limited bits and bites was there a real problem with the shuttles? Did they fail accomplish the task they were given?

When you were in pilots were still controlling their radars by picking scan modes. A scan, B Scan, etc An F-35 formation has zero pilot input on Radar scan modes. The formation will self-prioritize across targets, scanmodes and assigned mission parameters, in a manner that is transparent to the operators. And it's doing this hundreds to thousands of times per second which is why a human can't do it. And because these aircraft are this complex, they can't be managed like the aircraft of your era.

so plug and play. There is no involvement when things are pre-programmed. The initial Canadian ATC system was designed around a 64k computer. It looped within loops and managed to stay within real-time parameters which was no mean feat. It also did or was capable of most of the conflict prediction that our current system does; only with hundreds of thousands, if not millions more lines of code. Our systems are not really that efficient; they simply rely on computer memory to accomplish the tasks that their predecessors did with efficiency. And yes, they do things that my generation never thought of but realistically many of them are nice to have sometimes but at other times are a real pain in the ass.

I don't mean to be rude. But it's really little saying you'll manage an electric typewriter the same way you'll manage a laptop. After all, they both get plugged in to

I would love it if my laptop was half as efficient as my underwood. When I type F on a typewriter it prints F, when I type F on my laptop it asks me if I didn't really mean to type T. (sarcasm) Ever since they did away with the original word perfect series creative writing on a computer has become a constant struggle between man and machine.

It's not just spares for the airplane. You need an entire tech and supply chain for all your ancillaries like targeting pods, without which must 4th gen have much less utility these days.


There's also the entire technical and operational overheard. WSMs, OAs, etc aren't free.

Commercial user programmes seem to be geared towards the brainless.

the wall.

The parts management problem is a very small problem today (other than when LockMart is behind). A lot of parts are line replacement units (LRUs). Pull, replace and send to contractor.

Which further reduces the skilled labour required. A tech plugs in the tech computer and runs analysis programme. Programme says card 6 has an error. He unplugs card 6 and plugs in a new one. Ships card 6 back to supplier and re-runs the analysis programme.

 

[YZT580]

It's not just spares for the airplane. You need an entire tech and supply chain for all your ancillaries like targeting pods, without which must 4th gen have much less utility these days.

Which is a function of the number of a/c you have. As long as you aren't running 1 of each type, the number of pods, tires, engines is directly proportional to the number of a/c and not, within reason, the type.

There's also the entire technical and operational overheard. WSMs, OAs, etc aren't free.

This would indeed be an extra cost but i don't think it would be a prohibitive one.

Apart from basic maintenance does the F35 give us the option of doing our own major overhauls or do the a/c go back to the dealer? If we bought a fleet of Gripens we might even save a bit on maintenance since we will have the resources to do so after assembling them.

 

[Furniture]

This is what I mean. People only think about the unit or depot level. There's an OA, TA/WSM, LCMM for each fleet. But even at the wing level there's a SET for each fleet. There's at least a few people in Force Development and Flight Testing for each fleet as well. And then even a lot of this for major ancillaries like targeting pods.

Then, for the fighter enterprise, you have the whole EW support chain. 414 exists just to program countermeasures. And a massive chunk of their work is the fighters. That work is about to grow exponentially with the F-35, P-8, Globaleye, etc.

What are the actual number for those tasks, and what parts of those tasks can be double hatted?

EW is a pretty broad domain, and until you're down into the weeds on software and hardware specirfic details there is likely a lot of work that overlaps quite a bit.

My point is, nobody is denying that a mixed fleet adds to the support numbers/requirements, the real question is: What are the numbers, and can a CAF of 100K absorb that number?

In what other areas can we make savings? How much is the CAF willing to give-up to meet the GoC priorities of minimizing American content? Is the RCAF willing to die on the "F-35 or bust" hill?