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

[Czech_pivo]

Aside from OPSEC considerations what you're asking is really difficult to say.

You can look at how many personnel are posted in Cold Lake (about 2000) and Bagotville (1400). But that doesn't tell you how those Wings scale with number of aircraft. There's the overlap with 2 Wing in Bag. And none of this tells you about the overhead across the supply system, tech authorities, ops airports or even infrastructure. Some of those personnel are not even RCAF. Also doesn't speak to how much more would be added with the F-35, given the coming addition of the Security Forces and the mission planner trade.

Beyond that, the F-35 is such a data hoover that we're creating new IT architectures and new intelligence frameworks to collect and exploit the spectrum, imagery, etc with that aircraft. These are capabilities that the RCAF really doesn't do today, but are really essential in the 5th Gen world. The intelligence and IT ramp between the F-35, P-8, MQ-9 and space is pretty substantial. We're talking about billions and hundreds of people. How much does that count towards the F-35 specifically?

What about the training chain? How much of that counts towards the fighters? Can't have a fighter force without FLIT. And if you increase the numbers of fighters those fleets have to grow.

So you tell me what your exact definition is and then we can work on an estimate.

But also, like I've said earlier. It's not raw numbers. Just because you allocate more, doesn't mean you'll have them. It takes at least 4 years of military and flight training to produce a new line pilot in a fighter squadron. Adding RMC, that's 7 years total. 5 for an engineering officer. 2-3 years for most techs. This means, that in a best case scenario, we're taking recruits today who will become techs in 2029, engineers in 2031 and pilots in 2033. So if we're adding more than the 88 forecast jets or doing mixed fleet (which drives inefficiency), then we literally have to start training all of these people today. But hell, right now we don't even have a FLIT to train our pilots. We send them to Texas and Italy.

Thanks for the reply.

Lots to chew on and think about my next set of questions.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Ok, small point of pedantry, directed at no one in particular (in that I’m sure I’ve used it multiple times too), but can we give the “Elbows Up Crowd” diatribe a bit of a break. We all know why we’re in this mess regarding equipping and manning the CAF. The public didn’t care or even know enough to care. I get it, we all do. But, for whatever reason, good/bad/cynical they’re on board with spending and growing right now. Personally, I would prefer the full 88 or more fighters to be F35. I can absolutely understand the argument about 70 or whatever to get us to GCAP. Makes sense to me too. But, the US government is doing everything to derail the purchase as publicly as possible. Can you really blame the average Canadian taxpayer (who granted doesn’t probably know how or why the two aircraft are different) for not wanting to spend money in a store where the proprietor is shit talking your people in boxcar letters? Yes, people should have been more supportive for years, yes they don’t typically know f*#k all about the military, but it’s still them picking up the tab. Right now, they’re willing to do it. Let’s give them credit for that much at least.

 

[ytz]

My preferred solution:

1) Cut back F-35. 60-70. Painful. But guess we gotta give the public something.

2) Increase the number of FLIT.

3) Commit early to GCAP. At least 30 frames.

4) Launch a CCA program.

Dual fleet right now is only half the problem with the Gripen. We plow $10 billion into that piece of shit and we will end up delaying CCAs and GCAP. Instead of a 5th/6th Gen fleet with CCAs in 2050. We'll have a 4th/5th Gen fleet and very little autonomous capability. We'll spend billions to reach 2050 with 2030 capabilities. How do people not see what an insane waste of money that is?

There's also all the other trade-offs. We need that Stand off Jammer/SIGINT fleet. We need more P-8s. We need more Globaleyes. We need more C-17s if the line reopens. We will either need more MQ-9s or another large drone type. Or we can give up all of that and get the Gripen. JFC.

 

[dapaterson]

How do people not see what an insane waste of money that is?

 

[Nvlgzr]

Ok, small point of pedantry, directed at no one in particular (in that I’m sure I’ve used it multiple times too), but can we give the “Elbows Up Crowd” diatribe a bit of a break. We all know why we’re in this mess regarding equipping and manning the CAF. The public didn’t care or even know enough to care. I get it, we all do. But, for whatever reason, good/bad/cynical they’re on board with spending and growing right now. Personally, I would prefer the full 88 or more fighters to be F35. I can absolutely understand the argument about 70 or whatever to get us to GCAP. Makes sense to me too. But, the US government is doing everything to derail the purchase as publicly as possible. Can you really blame the average Canadian taxpayer (who granted doesn’t probably know how or why the two aircraft are different) for not wanting to spend money in a store where the proprietor is shit talking your people in boxcar letters? Yes, people should have been more supportive for years, yes they don’t typically know f*#k all about the military, but it’s still them picking up the tab. Right now, they’re willing to do it. Let’s give them credit for that much at least.

Agree with your assessment. From talking with people in my neighborhood, they haven’t a clue about either aircraft other than one is American and the other is not. Many will say f#$k Trump, don’t buy the F35. The only other thing they now about the airforce is that the Snowbirds are losing their planes. The general public’s understanding of the CF is very limited and fickle. I fear that once Trump is gone that support for the CF will wane.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My preferred solution:

1) Cut back F-35. 60-70. Painful. But guess we gotta give the public something.

2) Increase the number of FLIT.

3) Commit early to GCAP. At least 30 frames.

4) Launch a CCA program.

Dual fleet right now is only half the problem with the Gripen. We plow $10 billion into that piece of shit and we will end up delaying CCAs and GCAP. Instead of a 5th/6th Gen fleet with CCAs in 2050. We'll have a 4th/5th Gen fleet and very little autonomous capability. We'll spend billions to reach 2050 with 2030 capabilities. How do people not see what an insane waste of money that is?

There's also all the other trade-offs. We need that Stand off Jammer/SIGINT fleet. We need more P-8s. We need more Globaleyes. We need more C-17s if the line reopens. We will either need more MQ-9s or another large drone type. Or we can give up all of that and get the Gripen. JFC.

Thoughts on more of these Italian trainers we’re getting and shoehorn them into some light attack fighter to augment the reduced number F35’s. Or is the CCA’s in essence doing that?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And JC and PM.

yes the 3 of them were paying the bill for PET party.

 

[markppcli]

Thoughts on more of these Italian trainers we’re getting and shoehorn them into some light attack fighter to augment the reduced number F35’s. Or is the CCA’s in essence doing that?

Sure, we can use the savings for less F35s for the survivors benefits and funerals.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sure, we can use the savings for less F35s for the survivors benefits and funerals.

Guess you answered the question

 

[ytz]

Thoughts on more of these Italian trainers we’re getting and shoehorn them into some light attack fighter to augment the reduced number F35’s. Or is the CCA’s in essence doing that?

The increased FLIT will improve pilot generation giving the air force a growth pathway. Maybe by 2040 we'll actually have enough fighter pilots to actually operate 100+ fighters.

Using FLIT as fighters has some, but limited utility. Really, they can only be used as training support at home. We wouldn't really deploy them. But they could take a bit of pressure off the F-35 fleet.

The way to really build mass is CCAs. And the Gripen is poorly suited to operate with CCAs, compared to the F-35. Higher pilot workload. Lower bandwidth Datalink. Worse sensor fusion. And CCAs are something we could indigenize given our aero engine and avionics makers.

At the end of the day, the question is what exactly are you trying to accomplish other than some amateurish obsession with making some number bigger? We buy kit to deliver effects (first and foremost)? Buying more FLIT to increase the training pipeline is a positive effect. Buying them for some dollar store fighter fleet? I gotta ask what the point would be? And what are you trying to accomplish?

 

[ytz]

Agree with your assessment. From talking with people in my neighborhood, they haven’t a clue about either aircraft other than one is American and the other is not. Many will say f#$k Trump, don’t buy the F35. The only other thing they now about the airforce is that the Snowbirds are losing their planes. The general public’s understanding of the CF is very limited and fickle. I fear that once Trump is gone that support for the CF will wane.

Accurate.

Honestly, I kinda get now what the Sea King folks must have felt like watching Chretien complain about the EH-101 and calling it a Cadillac. Here we are 3.5 decades later and we're talking about retiring the Cyclone 15 years early because it's been nothing but trouble and the OEM has lost so much money they don't even want to work on the aircraft any more.

The public has some insane ideas on the Gripen. The belief that the Gripen is better suited for the Arctic is some bonkers bullshit. Really, they want to stick it to the Americans and they don't care enough about the CAF to really take any of our concerns seriously. So they are telling themselves whatever they need to justify this. I don't think the politicians are buying this, but they've also got no choice. Kinda hard to defend buying equipment from the country waging economic war against us. Especially now that the layoffs are starting.

The only long shot hope here is somebody realizes that the real long term military and industrial benefit is with a platform that has a future (GCAP and CCA) than one we're the last ditch desperate customer (sucker).

 

[Czech_pivo]

Using FLIT as fighters has some, but limited utility. Really, they can only be used as training support at home. We wouldn't really deploy them. But they could take a bit of pressure off the F-35 fleet.

Thought was using them to fly sovereignty flights over Canada reducing the need to use F35's all the time. Completely aware that they would be next to useless to fly outside of Canada/Alaska.

Now that we have an official role within GCAP, a role that hopefully evolves into a tier 2 player/participant role, am I also leaning towards the lower end of the numbers of F35's purchased, 65-72, as long as we move as quick as possible to close the gaps you've discussed above, previously, and to robustly grow out our facilities and human resources. By purchasing only 15-20 'net new' fighters beyond what we are currently maintaining should substantially reduce some of the bottlenecks and constraints currently facing the RCAF.

And yes, purchasing more P8's and Globaleyes should be on the agenda. With the Arctic now being our front and centre main priority in Canada, along with a future role in JEF, the vast distances to patrol, sufficiently, should necessitate the need for more P8's and Globaleyes - I would think that would also increase the need for more CC330's.....

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Thought was using them to fly sovereignty flights over Canada reducing the need to use F35's all the time. Completely aware that they would be next to useless to fly outside of Canada/Alaska.

Now that we have an official role within GCAP, a role that hopefully evolves into a tier 2 player/participant role, am I also leaning towards the lower end of the numbers of F35's purchased, 65-72, as long as we move as quick as possible to close the gaps you've discussed above, previously, and to robustly grow out our facilities and human resources. By purchasing only 15-20 'net new' fighters beyond what we are currently maintaining should substantially reduce some of the bottlenecks and constraints currently facing the RCAF.

And yes, purchasing more P8's and Globaleyes should be on the agenda. With the Arctic now being our front and centre main priority in Canada, along with a future role in JEF, the vast distances to patrol, sufficiently, should necessitate the need for more P8's and Globaleyes - I would think that would also increase the need for more CC330's.....

I think I see the problem, now.

In your mind, do you see CF-18s today flying “patrols” anywhere in or around Canada?

I can assure you most emphatically that fighters do not sovereignty patrol anything, ever. They launch when a potential threat is detected. Therefore, FLIT aircraft would be of no use in that scenario.

YTZ laid out the best path forward: cut F35s to around 60; increase FLIT to get our pilot numbers healthy; buy into CCAs to give us mass and throw everything into GCAP to bail us out around 2040.

 

[MrWhyt]

Thought was using them to fly sovereignty flights over Canada reducing the need to use F35's all the time.

Armed trainers/light fighter-attack would be useful for the anti-drone work and plinking mud huts, things you really don't need to use F-35 airframe hours for. I'm not in favor of a split fleet but if that is the way it goes then it needs to be a high/low mix and the Gripen is to high to be the low end of the mix.

 

[ytz]

Thought was using them to fly sovereignty flights over Canada reducing the need to use F35's all the time.

I'm genuinely curious.

1) What sovereignty flights do you think we do "over Canada"?

2) Why do you think these are or should be done exclusively with fighters?

3) Why you think a trainer with limited range and no AAR capability is suited for this?

And yes, purchasing more P8's and Globaleyes should be on the agenda. With the Arctic now being our front and centre main priority in Canada, along with a future role in JEF, the vast distances to patrol, sufficiently, should necessitate the need for more P8's and Globaleyes - I would think that would also increase the need for more CC330's.....

And where we getting the people and money for all that? The government is now saying 3.5% might actually be spoken for based on current plans.

 

[ytz]

Armed trainers/light fighter-attack would be useful for the anti-drone work and plinking mud huts,

We literally use Griffons for this today. When we have major events like G7, Rotary Wing Intercept is on patrol or QRF for Cessnas and drones. You don't use fast movers for that. An armed trainer is actually overkill for even this.

Beyond that, a Reaper with Hellfires or Akerons can destroy a village of mud huts at significant range without risking a single pilot. Or better yet, use some of those long range fires the CA is fielding. Not everything needs to be delivered by aircraft.

 

[ytz]

In your mind, do you see CF-18s today flying “patrols” anywhere in or around Canada?

Apparently people think our 3 Wg and 4 Wg are simply burning YFR flying CAP in the middle of the country.....

 

[dapaterson]

Apparently people think our 3 Wg and 4 Wg are simply burning YFR flying CAP in the middle of the country.....

The Big Nickle must be protected at any cost.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think I see the problem, now.

In your mind, do you see CF-18s today flying “patrols” anywhere in or around Canada?

I can assure you most emphatically that fighters do not sovereignty patrol anything, ever. They launch when a potential threat is detected. Therefore, FLIT aircraft would be of no use in that scenario.

YTZ laid out the best path forward: cut F35s to around 60; increase FLIT to get our pilot numbers healthy; buy into CCAs to give us mass and throw everything into GCAP to bail us out around 2040.

Well you better tell the PAO's to update what they pump out. I grew up with pairs of fighters being shown "Patrolling Canada's North and coasts" Plus it's not clear who is doing what when you go online and if you use AI, it clearly believes that is the case. Causal observers will conclude that is very much what we use fighters for domestically.
Canadian sovereignty operations - Canada.ca