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

[Good2Golf]

The jets that RCAF flew at the time of the competition were century series and the experience with them was probably one of the drivers. At that time the brass no doubt lacked a complete understanding of the leap in technology inherent in the new teen series.

…buuuut, knew enough to know they wanted an F-15 instead of an F-16?

The only aircraft I’ve flown that had an engine fail on me was a twin-engine, go figure.

 

[YZT580]

…buuuut, knew enough to know they wanted an F-15 instead of an F-16?

The only aircraft I’ve flown that had an engine fail on me was a twin-engine, go figure.

Murphy

 

[Good2Golf]

Murphy

He’s one of the GOATs in aviation.

 

[Maxman1]

You of course realize the RCAF is already a mixed fleet with both fixed and rotary winged aircraft.

You do realize those are two wildly different platforms and not at all comparable to adopting two fighter jets of overlapping roles and broadly similar capabilities.

It is important that you understand that, to know you are actually engaging in good faith.

problem of a Pilot shortage

It's not pilots. We need people to maintain the jets. Right now, we don't have enough for the CF-18s and squadrons have to group their technicians together just to get by, something that can't be done if those squadrons are running different planes.

Many of our Allies who are similar in size operate(d) a mixed fleet fighters.

And none of them replaced one aging jet with two different jets of the same role.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Expansion would require a direct order from the government - its not an implied order.

Unfortunately I don't have that kind of power. But in the course of a discussion forum...

The obvious implied task of any expansion of kit is also the expansion of people resources.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You do realize those are two wildly different platforms and not at all comparable to adopting two fighter jets of overlapping roles and broadly similar capabilities.

It is important that you understand that, to know you are actually engaging in good faith.

You'd be surprised to know I do.

And all these different platforms need different personnel, sustainment and maintenance folks and materials. Compounded by the extreme standards aircraft spares require.

All exacerbated by the different environments they operate from.

Again the implied task when an expansion of capabilities and kit happens is an expansion of personnel, material and maintenance resources.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Do you have a reference for this case of "can't" ism that is apparently the source of all our issues as opposed to critical equipment age out? And an example of this incredible different Aussie approach?

I thought that the RCAF solved that aging out issue by spending billions in buying second hand Aussie equipment in regards to the CF188's?

Are the CC177's, CC130J's, Chinooks, Cyclones, Kingfishers and CC144's considered equipment that has aged out?

The RAAF has a programme that is designed to graduate 105 pilots a year? What is the current intake that the RCAF can graduate yearly?

 

[Rainbow1910]

That really is a great question. SAAB is trying to sell a package deal with future partnerships. SAAB is on the leading edge of various systems and programs. But they are not on the leading edge of funding and support. That will always go to the US.
Gripen is not the only part of the package. It is the sensor fusion/connection/usage of both aerial, ground and subsea systems together that makes this a package worth looking at.
The entire warfare suit from SAAB encompasses more than a simple Gen4 aircraft. The fact that they just installed their Early Warning system on a MQ9 last month

Saab is not on the leading edge of as many systems, especially regarding military aviation, as they want people to believe. They have some seriously capable electronic warfare suites and sensors for example with the Arexis EW system, but the fact that so much of the Gripen relies on imported equipment shows Saab's inability to inhouse many different capabilities. They have great ambitions regarding unmanned aerial systems, but their actual pedigree and experience with them is fairly limited. They claim to have some very capable domestic datalink systems with Gripen E, but I've heard very little about them in practice given how sparse the aircraft are in service.

Saab is indeed a valuable partner for a number of different areas, but they infamously oversell themselves so I would be cautious as to saying how valuable such a partnership would be in practice.

My issue is Saab seems to want to force Gripen as part of a larger cooperative package, which I am not supportive of given the implications adopting that aircraft would bring to the RCAF.

Considering the original partnership has already failed, the newish German Spanish partnership is not confirmed. I am not sure if Sweden would join that anyways on any level. There are talks of various groups partnering up to provide a 6th gen program. Who really knows till the infighting stops and they actually put things forward.
Exciting times to be part of new builds and investing money.

Saab and Sweden as a whole is going to have to pick one of the programs, because they do not have the expertise or funding to embark on their own indigenous 5th or 6th gen fighter program. Even if they retain the Gripen and pivot to unmanned systems, there is fundamentally a limit to the viability of 4th gen jets in a world increasingly filled with stealthy aircraft and the systems designed to counter them.

In all likelihood, a German-Spanish partnership will come about as Germany will not be permitted into GCAP without causing Japan and Italy to throw up their hands and leave.

That would be 100% wrong. The Swedish Government has funded their own research into their program. looking at 2027-2030 for prototypes an such. No doubt SAAB has been working on this program for many years already.
As aside Airbus is possibly looking at partnering up with SAAB. But who really knows who will partner with who in the end Europe is a roll the dice and see who plays nice tomorrow for the next week.

I was fairly sure it wasn't funded, but it seems like it is. That is my bad on faulty information. Anybody generally would be happy to have Saab however, they are going to be relegated to a junior partner and only bring so much to the table in these various agreements.

SAAB provides some of the best electronic suits int he world.
I do not think there is any desperation. Sweden does not have the industrial capacity to build equipment like others do. Nor do they have the resources to do so.
In the past partnering with other European countries becomes a who is more in charge than the other.
I think SAAB is looking for a partner who is interested in making a move towards a broad range of R&D along with manufacturing. Canada can provide that secure partnership.
I would like to see a Canada, Sweden, South Korea partnership on not only a 6th Gen but on future tech across the board.

Agreed, as I explained above.

There is fairly clearly desperation behind Saab pitching the Gripen, because basically no other company/nation will relentlessly pitch their aircraft on the terms they stipulate, to as many nations as they do. The Gripen has not been an export success by most metrics, especially with the E/F model and Saab's military aerospace division needs sales to keep their production lines open. Pulling Canada or another major party onboard, especially if it means domestic workshare, helps reinforce and prop up their industry.

I'm more than happy to partner with nations like Saab for programs that align, but not if that required adopting the Gripen as a stipulation to that agreement. Some folks hold up an agreement with Saab as this golden ticket for our aviation industry, but I am far more pessimistic given the issues they themselves have at home that our partnership won't solve and we still have to deal with.