• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

MTShaw said:
The challenge is supporting an F-35 in one of the coldest, most barren places on the earth.  I agree that the vast majority of our fleet should be composed of the F-35, but we also need something like the Gripen that can be repaired in much more austere conditions. It’s not so simple as mirroring the Americans.  We have differing requirements.

No, we don't, stop making out the RCAF like some special snowflake fighter community with unique requirements. The USAF will have two squadrons of F-35s in Alaska, which is much more austere than anything permanent we have in Canada, including Cold Lake. I don't know how the Gripen will be easier to repair than the F-35, you base this on what, internet marketing by SAAB? You support the F-35 with proper infrastructure like hangarettes in Cold Lake and Bagotville and it will do just fine. Supporting the F-35 will be easier as the supply chain will be much, much bigger than anything SAAB can provide.
 
Quirky said:
No, we don't, stop making out the RCAF like some special snowflake fighter community with unique requirements. The USAF will have two squadrons of F-35s in Alaska, which is much more austere than anything permanent we have in Canada, including Cold Lake. I don't know how the Gripen will be easier to repair than the F-35, you base this on what, internet marketing by SAAB? You support the F-35 with proper infrastructure like hangarettes in Cold Lake and Bagotville and it will do just fine. Supporting the F-35 will be easier as the supply chain will be much, much bigger than anything SAAB can provide.

Not to mention with parts being built in various places aroud the world, and allies also using it, If we have say a 6 pack on EX in say Poland if they need parts we could always buy/borrow them from them, or have them shipped from Italy for example. With SAAB, all spare parts are likely coming out of Europe and SAAB's main factories, meaning a rather large supply chain till the reach canada.
 
MTShaw said:
The challenge is supporting an F-35 in one of the coldest, most barren places on the earth.  I agree that the vast majority of our fleet should be composed of the F-35, but we also need something like the Gripen that can be repaired in much more austere conditions. It’s not so simple as mirroring the Americans.  We have differing requirements.

Where's your source that the Gripen is a magic aircraft that can be "bush fixed" like a Twin Otter instead of needing a hanger and specialized parts/training like literally every other jet aircraft in the last 50 years?
 
Quirky said:
No, we don't, stop making out the RCAF like some special snowflake fighter community with unique requirements. The USAF will have two squadrons of F-35s in Alaska, which is much more austere than anything permanent we have in Canada, including Cold Lake. I don't know how the Gripen will be easier to repair than the F-35, you base this on what, internet marketing by SAAB? You support the F-35 with proper infrastructure like hangarettes in Cold Lake and Bagotville and it will do just fine. Supporting the F-35 will be easier as the supply chain will be much, much bigger than anything SAAB can provide.

FYI.

The average January temp in Anchorage is -3. In Inuvik it’s -30. Comparing apples to pumpkins.  Alaska is warmed by the heatsink we call the Pacific, and Europe is warmed by the trade currents.  Like I said, I’m concerned about the logistics of a plane with known known problems vs a plane that can keep the Beaufort sea clear.  THe Gripen is one option. There’s also (to be practical) the option of another smaller MPA than HMG is considering for the CP-140 replacement, using the electronics on the C295 along with NSM/Harpoon/Exocet on the wing pylons.

I’m floating an idea to solve a real problem. I have aphasia so I hope that makes sense.
 
PuckChaser said:
Where's your source that the Gripen is a magic aircraft that can be "bush fixed" like a Twin Otter instead of needing a hanger and specialized parts/training like literally every other jet aircraft in the last 50 years?

The operational concept of the Swedish Air Force is to do just that. And we do have Hangars in Inuvik for maintenance. So, thanks for the paper tiger, but I’ll pass.
 
MTShaw said:
FYI.

The average January temp in Anchorage is -3. In Inuvik it’s -30. Comparing apples to pumpkins.  Alaska is warmed by the heatsink we call the Pacific, and Europe is warmed by the trade currents.  Like I said, I’m concerned about the logistics of a plane with known known problems vs a plane that can keep the Beaufort sea clear.  THe Gripen is one option. There’s also (to be practical) the option of another smaller MPA than HMG is considering for the CP-140 replacement, using the electronics on the C295 along with NSM/Harpoon/Exocet on the wing pylons.

I’m floating an idea to solve a real problem. I have aphasia so I hope that makes sense.

Beauty.  But the AFB which will be home to the F-35 is Eielson, and it is currently -31 there right now (much colder on average than Anchorage).

C-295 is not a viable option for a CP-140 replacement.  The C-295 does not meet the speed requirement nor the endurance requirement. Keep in mind the primary role for the CP-140 is ASW, so whatever bird you come up with needs to be an effective ASW platform.

If you think the RCAF is setup to mimic the Swedes you are mistaken. The only "bush fixing" will be whatever is needed to get it back to home-plate.

The Gripen will be a costly mistake for Canada if we choose to go with it. 


 
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Beauty.  But the AFB which will be home to the F-35 is Eielson, and it is currently -31 there right now (much colder on average than Anchorage).

C-295 is not a viable option for a CP-140 replacement.  The C-295 does not meet the speed requirement nor the endurance requirement. Keep in mind the primary role for the CP-140 is ASW, so whatever bird you come up with needs to be an effective ASW platform.

If you think the RCAF is setup to mimic the Swedes you are mistaken. The only "bush fixing" will be whatever is needed to get it back to home-plate.

The Gripen will be a costly mistake for Canada if we choose to go with it.
Fair enough.

Just to clarify, I wasn’t trying to put forward the C-295 As a CP-140 replacement, but a midrange surface patrol and enforcement aircraft.

Come to think of it, and F-35 with drop tanks could do the same think of it.

Lightweight Torpedoes for the F-35?  :D
 
From where I sit, you don't need a stealth aircraft to go up against anything that will come in from the north.  The sheer distances dictate that any attack will consist of long range bombers, tankers, and fighter escorts: non of which will be particularly stealthy.  So we need air to air superiority with the ability to fight and regenerate from relatively basic facilities.  Our other commitments i.e. Nato need a totally different aircraft.  The F35 is a good aircraft but it can't do everything.  If it could, the yanks wouldn't be spending all kinds of cash in maintaining and replacing aircraft such as the F15 and the F18 with others of the same bloodline.  Perhaps we need to quit thinking small and acquire two fleets with one dedicated to Nato requirements and the other more suited for protecting our own airspace: particularly the north. And yes, SM I realise that we have difficulty staffing our current squadrons but that is a solvable problem with a little cash and a little out of the box thinking.  We can afford it if we have the will to do it.  The Aussies have
 
MTShaw said:
The challenge is supporting an F-35 in one of the coldest, most barren places on the earth.  I agree that the vast majority of our fleet should be composed of the F-35, but we also need something like the Gripen that can be repaired in much more austere conditions. It’s not so simple as mirroring the Americans.  We have differing requirements.

You realize that Canada was part of the requirement setting process for the JSF partnership, and its primary input into them was cold weather operations. We helped ensure that the aircraft would be sufficiently capable in our arctic. So the claim that its somehow incapable to operate in such an environment is ludicrous - its basically deceptive marketing from Gripen.

Dimsum said:
The cynic in me would say "then why is capability, cost, and benefits valued at 60/20/20 instead of 70/15/15, or 80/10/10", or words to that effect.

But that's if I was a cynic  ;)

The ratios mean very little. If the scoring on any single segment is geared towards just meeting a basic compliance and does not advantage additional capabilities, then its actual value in the competition might as well be worth 0.... which is what the government has been trying to do with this competition. ITBs will play a much larger role in determining the outcome than the 20% they have suggested. That's happen in a number of other competitions lately.
 
YZT580 said:
is a solvable problem with a little cash and a little out of the box thinking.  We can afford it if we have the will to do it.  The Aussies have

The majority of Canadian disagree with you and they pay taxes that fund this little operation. The RCAF and CAF as a whole is seen as a luxury in this country and I doubt many would care if we disappeared overnight. We can't even get recruiting right without it blowing up in our faces and you are advocating two fighter fleets? Not happening.
 
YZT580 said:
From where I sit, you don't need a stealth aircraft to go up against anything that will come in from the north.  The sheer distances dictate that any attack will consist of long range bombers, tankers, and fighter escorts: non of which will be particularly stealthy.

Russia's next generation fighter (Su-57), Long range drone (Ohtoknik) and Bomber (Tupolev PAK DA) are all low observable designs, so thats just factually incorrect. Also given the development of hypersonics and new low observable cruise missiles, we need platforms with the best sensor capabilities to fill in the gaps in Radar coverage - there's really only one option here. You're basically arguing for a threat environment now and trying to dictate capabilities from it. Look even ten years down the line and all of the options, save for one, are inadequate for what we're likely to face.

YZT580 said:
So we need air to air superiority with the ability to fight and regenerate from relatively basic facilities.  Our other commitments i.e. Nato need a totally different aircraft.  The F35 is a good aircraft but it can't do everything.  If it could, the yanks wouldn't be spending all kinds of cash in maintaining and replacing aircraft such as the F15 and the F18 with others of the same bloodline.

The USN will in all likelihood end Super Hornet purchases this year in order to spend money on their next generation fighter NGAD. Also your point belies the fact that the US uses 5th Generation aircraft for the core of their air northern defence capabilities. The United States has not had a 4th Generation fighter in Alaska since around 2007 - its a F-22 force.  Furthermore, the F-35 is already (or very soon) on NORAD duty operating from Vermont ANG.

YZT580 said:
Perhaps we need to quit thinking small and acquire two fleets with one dedicated to Nato requirements and the other more suited for protecting our own airspace: particularly the north. And yes, SM I realise that we have difficulty staffing our current squadrons but that is a solvable problem with a little cash and a little out of the box thinking.  We can afford it if we have the will to do it.  The Aussies have

Basically if we follow your suggestion, we would be trying to think small - lets cheap out and buy a substandard fighter to undertake some sort of ill-defined but unique northern requirements. The Aussies have two fighter fleets, not because the Super Hornet has something special over the F-35, but rather due to circumstances - they faced the early retirement of their F-111s and needed a replacement around 2010, which the F-35 could not be ready. In order to make it worth while, they decided that once sufficient F-35s were available, their SHornet fleet would be migrated over to the Growler Configuration. Thats a force decision that is not relevant for our situation. Similarly to your earlier point, the USAF has F-15s and may buy a few more not because the F-15 is "better" but because of existing force structure and training capacity issues.

Furthermore running two fleets of aircraft would be a massive increase in the cost to the RCAF's tactical fighter fleet, and seriously impact its ability to staff and pilot its aircraft. DRDC did an analysis of this, and found that it made no financial sense to build such a force structure.
 
Man, we better tell Norway that the F-35 won't work in the Arctic, they're buying 52 of the things that beat the Gripen-E (then called NG) in competition. Finland is also running their competition right now, with the Super Hornet the last aircraft evaluated a week ago (https://www.janes.com/article/94239/finland-launches-hx-evaluations-for-f-35a). I'd be willing to put money on the fact that the F-35 will win again.
 
PuckChaser: Here are some very detailed posts on the Finnish HX fighter competition (actual fly-off in winter in Finland!) by an excellent Finnish fellow:

Corporal Frisk [not]
Finnish blogger in reserve, defence and national security.
https://corporalfrisk.com/tag/hx/

Mark
Ottawa

 
In the way that there might have been some pilots who likes the CF-5 better than the CF-18, perhaps your sample set has some strange distribution.  Personally I’d rank them to my preference to fly as:

1. F-35 (the 5th-gen avionics and sensors suite (DAS) and battlespace connectivity is insane and a friend who flies it regularly says it’s got really nice handling compared to a Rhino.
2. Eurofighter.  Canarded twin-engine delta...I hear it has some really nice flight dynamics.
3. Super Hornet (‘Rhino’).  Big but not Eagle or Raptor big, so not quite as cool as the ‘Big Boys’.
4. Gripen E.  (Now that the flight control rules were revised to keep it from bucking into the ground during landing).

That said, seized-rotorcraft aren’t as fun as floppy-winged, so I’d still prefer back-forth-up-down-all around and blowing crunchies’ blue rockets over, so don’t take my word for choices.

Regards
G2G
 
In the end I think the F-35 will be chosen and that we will be able to plug into any production slot that we want. Once the procurement process is engaged versus sole sourcing there is just no stopping the inevitable slowdown. Saab may not even bid due to the "2 Eyes" requirements and that is the reason for the latest 3 month extension. I have no doubt that Saab can compete on costs both purchase and O/M just look Finlands bid where they through in a couple Globaleyes. Also I have seen many a time in the commercial/industrial world where one product was vastly superior to another on O/M, so I would not discount that. But all numbers I have seen suggest that the F-35 should outperform the other 2 finalists on all metrics that are understandable by a layman/casual observer. I also do not understand how stealth is so often discounted in the Air to Air role, I believe that I would want every advantage I could have, and that is what I want for the men and women that are in this position.

To me we have one product on the end of or near the end of its production run, another that is not really in production yet and the final choice the F-35 that is just entering the prime years of its production that was developed and in use by virtually every single one of our allies. In my mind there would have to be some really compelling numbers to alter the outcome

There is an interesting discussion going on over at F-16.net on the long CF-18 replacement thread where recently the topic of Cold Lake was brought up, perhaps some of you are contributors
 
Meanwhile Finland's competition moves smartly, looks thorough on their own ground:

Finns Analyzing Fighter Trials Data

Finnish procurement officials say they expect all five contenders in the country’s HX Fighter competition to remain in the race until the end.

The comments by the Finnish defense ministry’s head of strategic projects, Lauri Puranen, emerged following the conclusion of the HX Challenge. The challenge saw each of the aircraft types deployed to Finland in January and February for flight trials to confirm that the proposed aircraft have met the specifications promised by the manufacturers.

But in an interview with the Finnish business newspaper Kauppalehti, Puranen said the trials showed that not all the specifications promised by the manufacturers had been met.

He said officials were “partially satisfied” and “partly not,” although not all trial data had been analyzed.

“There will always been surprises, but it was known some machines will have shortcomings,” he told the newspaper.

Finland wants to purchase up to 64 fighters to replace its fleet of F/A-18C/D Hornets. Five Western combat aircraft have entered the fray. The British government is leading the marketing effort for the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon, while Washington is pushing both the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. France and Sweden have answered with the Dassault Rafale and the Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen.

Saab announced in June that its offer included its GlobalEye airborne early warning platform. Boeing’s proposals also are believed to include several EA-18 Growler electronic warfare platforms.

Puranen did not say which aircraft suffered shortcomings, although he questioned why four F-35s were sent for the deployment but only two arrived. He noted that one was subsequently unserviceable.

“It [the F-35] could not fly all flights. The other flew all the flights,” he told the newspaper. Finnish media have questioned why such a large footprint was sent with the aircraft, as well as the tanker that supported the flight across the Atlantic. The F-35s were also joined by two U.S. Air Force C-17s carrying support equipment. None of the other fighters deployed had such a large footprint, even Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornets, which also made the crossing. They were joined by a KDC-10 tanker from Omega.

The trials saw a total of 40 missions flown to test aircraft performance, systems and sensors against targets in the air and on the ground.

“Through a joint effort we could create a comprehensive testing environment here in Finland,” said Col. Juha-Pekka Keranen, the Finnish Air Force’s HX Fighter program director.

“Our geographical location and the candidates’ security requirements had imposed limitations on the testing of the most sensitive electronic warfare capabilities in Finland. However, we will be able to verify these vital capabilities in the candidates’ main operators’ own test areas,” Keranen said.

He noted that some of the candidates may still have “aces up their sleeves” in terms of capabilities that could be released after the procurement has been made.

Trials tested the aircraft sensors at range, as well as their resolution and ability to maintain tracking while targets used maneuvering or employed countermeasures. They also determined the workload and speed associated with preparing the weapon system to attack a ground target, and in the case of a long-range attack with standoff weapons, if the aircraft can be provided with more specific target data by a datalink. The flights were also used to measure the each of the fighter’s capability to identify and locate electronic signals and produce situational awareness of the target area.

“In a combat situation, it is vital to know whether the sensors produce sufficiently precise data on both stationary and moving targets, and whether it is possible to utilize the target data in accordance with the requirements of different weapons and weapon systems,” Keranen said.

Defense officials note that the process is still some way from a decision, with a final comparison only possible once the contenders have handed in legally binding best offers, due at the end of 2020.

Finland wants the selected platform to be operational into the 2060s and will judge the bids on military capability, security of supply, industrial cooperation, procurement and life cycle costs, and security and defense policy implications.

“Our Design-to-Cost model aims to maximize the HX’s military capability within the budget,” Keranen said. “However, each change in the HX packages is likely to have an impact on the decision-making areas, meaning that we have to look at the big picture when optimizing the tenders with the manufacturers.”

Helsinki is expected to make a selection in 2021 [emphasis added].
https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/air-warfare-symposium/finns-analyzing-fighter-trials-data

Mark
Ottawa
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/lockheed-delivers-500th-f-35/137066.article


Harder to argue each day with the F35 given it keeps improving
 
MilEME09 said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/lockheed-delivers-500th-f-35/137066.article


Harder to argue each day with the F35 given it keeps improving

That's 5 times the number of Gripen E/F aircraft, and the F-35 is still in LRIP...
 
PuckChaser said:
That's 5 times the number of Gripen E/F aircraft, and the F-35 is still in LRIP...

Indeed.  It was always understood to be the next F-16....mass-produced, multi-national multi-role strike fighter that would have its in-service support costs spread over a large and enduring installed base.

It’ll be ours too...even the current government knows it’s actually the best bang for the fully life-cycle costed buck. They just have to figure out how to get there from the tortuously painful fiasco they backed themselves into with an ‘anything but JSF’ line in the 2015 campaign.
 
Good2Golf said:
Indeed.  It was always understood to be the next F-16....mass-produced, multi-national multi-role strike fighter that would have its in-service support costs spread over a large and enduring installed base.

It’ll be ours too...even the current government knows it’s actually the best bang for the fully life-cycle costed buck. They just have to figure out how to get there from the tortuously painful fiasco they backed themselves into with an ‘anything but JSF’ line in the 2015 campaign.

Unlike, you know, the way they handled that 'new helicopter' thing...  :sarcasm:
 
Back
Top