You really seem to be missing the point. The Space Shuttle worked just fine. But it took that much code to run it. And all that code has to be maintained. It also generates output. That output drives work. So if a given system has 100X the code for example, it's not unreasonable to expect a 10x demand in overall manning. Best I can say without really getting into the weeds. The code comparison was to show you the relative difference in complexity.
No it doesn't. It just drives demands for different labour and different skills.
The F-35 and P-8 alone are driving the creation of 3 new trades in the RCAF and substantially changing a whole bunch of doctrine, TTPs, etc.
Just because a bunch of retired Boomers think it's all mumbo-jumbo doesn't change the reality of the transformation the RCAF has to pull off.
Depends. How much of that growth is allocated to the RCAF and in what time horizon. Double the RCAF in size and maybe we'll be able to operate two fleets. Insist that we many two fighter fleets in 2035, and I tell you right now, there will be lots of parked aircraft wasting away....
As it stands, everybody is basically crossing fingers and hoping that pilot training plans will meet current fleet projections in 2035. And these were all sized for the fleet plans we have. Increase the fleet projection for 2035, and you now have to substantially change the training system to deliver more. We aren't even buying enough lead in aircraft, for example, to train more pilots than the what we need for the 88 F-35. Imagine having to double the FLIT pipeline in like 7 years. I don't think something like that would happen. I think the RCAF would just quietly park aircraft.
No. And really, we're all preparing ourselves mentally to get stuck with Cyclone 2.0. But the math is just not mathing. The personnel growth (both planned and actual) is not lining up the visions that people have off two fleets. I hate the assertion that this is just some RCAF fetish with American kit. When I hang up my uniform every night, I'm still Canadian and I want this country succeed. However, I also recognize that an institution that has been starved for literally decades can't just pivot on a dime. There is no spare capacity. And there's a lot of people in staff jobs, standards, etc. working multiple jobs or more than their allocated share and burning out.
And in the immediate term, the question becomes what do you tradeoff. For example, we still have exercised the two options on the P-8s. We only booked 6 Globaleyes, instead of 8. We have a Deep Sensing and Electronic Attack capability on the books with another half dozen (probably) Globals. We have space capabilities, various EW and munitions projects we want to pull off over the next decade or so. Hell, 1 Wing is proposing completely replacing the Griffon with a mix of medium lift, attack helos and theatre level MALE UAS. How much of all that should get scrapped to buy fourth gen jets that will obsolete within a decade of delivery and have very low YFR flown because we don't have the techs or pilots anyway?
If you're in the Navy, you should be mad as hell that nobody is pushing for more P-8s. If you're in the Army, you should be upset that you might be riding a Griffon in 2035 thanks to the Gripen and have zero deep sensing and EA capability. None of the chuds online think of opportunity cost. But it's disappointing that so many people here who wore a uniform can't seem to grasp this either.
