The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,752
- Points
- 1,160
You're thinking of the 414, which is an enlarged version for the Super Hornet.
- Reaction score
- 9,228
- Points
- 1,160
Aussie Christmas present.
- Reaction score
- 1,732
- Points
- 1,160
“Bitchin’ Betty” Says Farewell: Beloved Voice Behind Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet Retires
1,605,050 views • Mar 7, 2016
Stern. Sharp. Bossy. All have been used to describe the voice of the Boeing F/A-18’s cockpit warning system. The pilots and technicians refer to the voice as "Bitchin’ Betty," a time-honored tradition that is also potentially lifesaving.
@flynnparish9833
8 years agoEaster egg in the system: If pilot still doesn't listen to the warning system, Betty takes over the flight control and calls the pilot's parents.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,637
- Points
- 1,160
Just throwing this out there for discussion in light of the increasingly turbulent relations between the US and Canada...
A couple of general observations:
What if we instead:
A couple of general observations:
- Canada needs new fighter aircraft...and if we're expected to take on a greater burden of NA defence then we may end up needing even more that we currently have planned.
- Even if the number of manned aircraft that we have doesn't increase we will likely still need more trained pilots to control any uncrewed systems that eventually come online.
- Canada will almost certainly continue to cooperate with the US in NA defence through NORAD so we will continue to require a high degree of interoperability
- F35 is the most capable fighter currently available and makes the most sense for Canada in a defence of NA role within NORAD
- There are concerns however with having our only fighter aircraft supplied and supported by a country that has explicitly stated its desire to absorb us as a nation.
- Elon Musk (who currently has the ear of the POTUS and wields a chainsaw in making cuts to US government spending) has previously come out strongly against the F35 in favour of uncrewed systems. This could put the long-term prospects for the F35 platform in question.
- Based on the turbulent relations between Canada and the US it is in Canada's interest to find domestic and/or non-US alternatives for our military hardware.
What if we instead:
- Stay in the F35 program but reduce our order to the 65 aircraft originally planned. Keeps us moving forward at the current pace and doesn't waste the infrastructure investments and training that is already underway. Also keeps us interoperable with the US (and doesn't burn any bridges like a total cancellation would)
- At the same time we strike a deal with Saab to build a limited number of Gripen-E's in Canada (say 48?). It does create duplication in the fighter fleet but it's not like we haven't dealt with multiple fleets before. In addition to getting us some non-American fighters is gets us experience in the construction of combat aircraft.
- As part of the deal with Saab to build Gripen's in Canada we at the same time partner with them on their Flygsystem 2020 6th Generation Fighter development program. This program is expected to include a family of crewed and un-crewed systems.
- When the Gripen replacement is expected to come online in the 2050's - 2060's we would switch our Gripen-E production over to the new Fighter (and UCAVs) to replace both our F35's and Gripen-E's with a Canadian-built fighter.
Can we freaking stop with the Gripen? Is this the new Avro Arrow for you guys?
It's an aircraft that's closer to a late block F-16 than a next gen fighter. And it's not ITAR free either.
If we're not buying F-35s because of relationship issues with the US, the runner-up would be the Rafale. And then the Typhoon. Definitely not the Gripen. If we're cutting back to free up room for something else, there's no point buying a second fleet. Simply join a program like GCAP or FCAS to get a more capable aircraft and workshare.
The only way that the Gripen ends up in RCAF colours will be if it's bought as the LiFT component of FACT.
It's an aircraft that's closer to a late block F-16 than a next gen fighter. And it's not ITAR free either.
If we're not buying F-35s because of relationship issues with the US, the runner-up would be the Rafale. And then the Typhoon. Definitely not the Gripen. If we're cutting back to free up room for something else, there's no point buying a second fleet. Simply join a program like GCAP or FCAS to get a more capable aircraft and workshare.
The only way that the Gripen ends up in RCAF colours will be if it's bought as the LiFT component of FACT.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,637
- Points
- 1,160
The end goal of the Gripen would be to get production in Canada of the Next Gen. Saab fighter. The Gripen would be an available design that has already been offered for IP transfer and production in Canada. It gets us up and running building an existing design that does much of what we need a fighter to do at less cost than the Rafale or Typhoon.
A Canada-Sweden partnership would make much better sense for Canada than a Canada-France or broader Canada-EU partnership.
We have 4 x the population and GDP of Sweden which would make us much better placed to negotiate an agreement that benefits both countries. I highly doubt that we would ever get a chance to see Rafale or Typhoon (or GCAP or FCAS) production in Canada and we would definitely be the junior partners in any business relationships with those companies.
- Reaction score
- 2,738
- Points
- 1,160
Canada isn’t getting any Gripens.
Ever.
Ever.
If we're facing a situation with a poor relationship with the US, there's only one Western country that goes out of its way to avoid ITAR as much as humanly possible. And that's France.
Not to mention, the the Rafale is more capable than the Gripen. I don't think many people get how small the Gripen. It's basically somewhere between a trainer and full size fighter. Perfectly designed for Sweden. Not so great for a huge country like Canada.
To be clear, all these other options are subpar to the F-35. The comparison made between pilots who go from 4th Gen jets to the F-35 is that it's like going from a Motorola flip phone to an iPhone 10. The level of information, networking and automation is next level. And I don't think the Europeans will actually get there till their next gen programs (GCAP and FCAS).
So in the worst case, where we are cutting the F-35, then the best runner-up outcome to me is to cut a sweeping deal with the French, Rafales and FCAS partnership for the RCAF, shortfin Barracudas for the RCN, etc.
So in the worst case, where we are cutting the F-35, then the best runner-up outcome to me is to cut a sweeping deal with the French, Rafales and FCAS partnership for the RCAF, shortfin Barracudas for the RCN, etc.
- Reaction score
- 30,438
- Points
- 1,090
Except the F35 can be completely shut down by the US.
PrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,308
- Points
- 760
I think it behooves the USA to not turn off our F35s so as to not plunge their foreign military sales off a cliff. We should buy the reduced number that we were originally looking at (66 or whatever it was) and then risk manage with a secondary fleet of Rafales or Typhoons. Maybe 40 or so. We've had mixed fleets before.
- Reaction score
- 30,438
- Points
- 1,090
I am not counting on the current US administration to do anything rational.
PrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,308
- Points
- 760
An unfortunate but astute point.
- Reaction score
- 24,524
- Points
- 1,360
True….however, if the US chooses to indiscriminately play games with assured access to the digital battle space, upon which an F35 is a contributing-distributing-employing *node, then having a risky and uncertain platform, no matter how advantageous the underlaying technology is, is less of a force multiplier than it was pre-instability.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,264
- Points
- 1,160
The entire f-35 program is designed to place a lot of money and jobs in as many congressional districts as possible making it too juicy to fail. However, DP makes a good point.
This is just not true. They can mess with parts. They can make it very hard to support and modify the aircraft. But the much rumoured "kill switch" is a myth.
Given timelines involved, if there's any reduction in order, there's just no point ordering anything else. Just join FCAS or GCAP. We're talking about finishing deliveries for the current F-35 buy in 2032. That's not FOC. Or looking at order cancellation and getting something else. Meanwhile, GCAP targeting EIS in 2035. FCAS targeting EIS in 2040.
So if we're buying a reduce order of Rafales or Typhoons, there's no point of a second fleet. Just start the transition to Euro sixth Gen right away.
