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

[KevinB]

I mentioned 65 because somewhere up thread we were told that was the actual commitment and the 88 number is a possible increase. 10-20 years is what I assume it would take us, Canada being Canada, to actually develop our own manufacturing capabilities….if we can do it faster that would be awesome. I always thought the F15EX would be a great fit for us….but I want as much autonomy as possible.

Canada will never have a fighter industry.
The numbers are too small, and that aspect means it would only be a foreign design manufactured in Canada for an enormous surcharge.

Due to NORAD and NATO being tied to US sensors and infrastructure, I don’t know how viable it is to attempt to diversify.

 

[Genetk44]

I get what your saying.... but why would we not be able to have a fighter industry if Sweden can?

 

[PrairieFella]

Canada runs on feelings, not common sense and rationality.

Compared to our neighbours we're the pinnacle of rationality.

 

[Kirkhill]

Stay the course. Buy the F 35.

But as has been said before look elsewhere for the next generation fighter.

Get Bombardier serious about making long range jet/rocket/ramjet powered drones

 

[GR66]

I get what your saying.... but why would we not be able to have a fighter industry if Sweden can?

Sweden has an existing fighter industry and all of the sub-industries to support it. Canada would have to build the industry from scrap which would be much more expensive than keeping an existing industry going.

Also fighters are getting more complex and expensive with each new generation. There is a reason why the planned replacements for the Rafale and the Eurofighter are multi-national collaborations. It's simply too expensive for any one country to develop their own even if they have an existing industry. Sweden's own Next Generation Fighter program is already in serious question and they are looking at joining one of the other teams and abandoning their own project. Gripen is quite likely the last purely domestic fighter you'll see out of Sweden.

 

[Quirky]

Compared to our neighbours we're the pinnacle of rationality.

That's not a standard to follow.

 

[PrairieFella]

If we go for 66 F35 could we not add just as many Rafales for EU integration? F35 may be our best option for NA but wouldn't rafales be easier to integrate on NATO tasks overseas? For F35 say 30 in Bagotville, 30 in Bloggins AFB or whichever US base they make us park them at since we dont meet the requirements in Cold Lake yet and then have some in warstock for whatever the air force equivalent is. For rafale have 30 in Poland or Germany, 30 somewhere in Canada to hedge our f35 bet and another six in warstock.

 

[KevinB]

I get what your saying.... but why would we not be able to have a fighter industry if Sweden can?

Keep in mind Sweden wasn’t in NATO till very recently. They had to do a lot of things on their own, and accept a lot of limitations.

 

[Genetk44]

Sweden has an existing fighter industry and all of the sub-industries to support it. Canada would have to build the industry from scrap which would be much more expensive than keeping an existing industry going.

Also fighters are getting more complex and expensive with each new generation. There is a reason why the planned replacements for the Rafale and the Eurofighter are multi-national collaborations. It's simply too expensive for any one country to develop their own even if they have an existing industry. Sweden's own Next Generation Fighter program is already in serious question and they are looking at joining one of the other teams and abandoning their own project. Gripen is quite likely the last purely domestic fighter you'll see out of Sweden.

Ok….that makes sense. Understood.

 

[KevinB]

Get Bombardier serious about making long range jet/rocket/ramjet powered drones

Better yet a Westerner who has drive and innovative ideas.

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep in mind Sweden wasn’t in NATO till very recently. They had to do a lot of things on their own, and accept a lot of limitations.

And?

They still have 80% of something.
We have 100% of nothing.

They also have their own small arms, ammunition, energetics, missiles, radar, sonar, eo/ir, comms, vehicles, bearings, electronics,

Carl Gustafs, AT4s, NLAWs, Bills, Strix, RBSs of various types, Archers, Bandvagns, CV90s, Stridsvagn 103s (yes I still like that old relic as a field gun), Bofors 40 and 57, Gripens.....ad nauseam.

We could. We have chosen not to because it was easier to do nothing and trust in our neighbours.

 

[KevinB]

And?

They still have 80% of something.
We have 100% of nothing.

They also have their own small arms, ammunition, energetics, missiles, radar, sonar, eo/ir, comms, vehicles, bearings, electronics,

I don't think you'd be so impressed if you looked up close on a lot of it, as the country of origin on a lot of the mission systems stuff isn't local...

Carl Gustafs, AT4s, NLAWs, Bills, Strix, RBSs of various types, Archers, Bandvagns, CV90s, Stridsvagn 103s (yes I still like that old relic as a field gun), Bofors 40 and 57, Gripens.....ad nauseam.

Half of that isn't Swedish, or at least Swedish anymore, as BAE bought out a few of their players.

We could. We have chosen not to because it was easier to do nothing and trust in our neighbours.

They did what they had to do, now Canada is in the spot Sweden was in the 1960's...
Sink or Swim.

 

[CBH99]

Sweden has one of the best arms industries in the entire world.

It often produces kit that is more useful, reliable, capable, and unique compared to what comes out of mainland Europe these days. (The Carl G lineup instantly comes to mind, but the Visby class corvettes, CB-90, Gripen series, etc are all solid & capable pieces of kit)


Like Kevin said, Sweden hasn't been in NATO until recently & in their attempts to stay neutral they were forced to do a lot on their own. That isn't the case anymore.

...

That being said, Canada could be more of an arms producer than we currently are.

We have a few aircraft manufacturers in Canada, Bombardier being the big one - and they have gotten more serious about building up their defense portfolio (finally) - drones would be a welcome addition to that portfolio

We do make excellent combat rifles via Colt Canada (formerly Diemaco)

There is no reason Canada couldn't produce its own loitering munitions, it's own small drones for use at the section/platoon/company level, it's own missiles (the ESSM is essentially Canada's missile in a lot of ways), it's own logistics vehicles, etc

We could, and should. There's no valid reason (as far as I can think of anyway) that in 2025, we can't produce some of the basics for our own defense outside of uniforms and some small arms ammo.

...

Something about combat aircraft in the Canadian context that I've never quite understood is the "buy American fighters so our aircraft can communicate with theirs for the NORAD mission..."

In the NATO context, when conducting operations overseas, NATO aircraft all seem to be able to communicate with each other & share data with each other just fine...

So if Rafales or Typhoons can communicate & coordinate with American aircraft just fine during NATO operations, why would it be any different if Canada bought a European fighter and used it for NORAD??

Or is that more of a marketing ploy??

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don't think you'd be so impressed if you looked up close on a lot of it, as the country of origin on a lot of the mission systems stuff isn't local...

Half of that isn't Swedish, or at least Swedish anymore, as BAE bought out a few of their players.

They did what they had to do, now Canada is in the spot Sweden was in the 1960's...
Sink or Swim.

Like I said earlier - Just keep swimming

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't think you'd be so impressed if you looked up close on a lot of it, as the country of origin on a lot of the mission systems stuff isn't local...

Half of that isn't Swedish, or at least Swedish anymore, as BAE bought out a few of their players.

They did what they had to do, now Canada is in the spot Sweden was in the 1960's...
Sink or Swim.

And why did BAE buy them out? Because they were making stuff that worked. And had been for a long, long while. As to quality of engineering and manufacture, I have a lot of experience with the Swedes.

 

[Czech_pivo]

And why did BAE buy them out? Because they were making stuff that worked. And had been for a long, long while. As to quality of engineering and manufacture, I have a lot of experience with the Swedes.

I keep hearing Robert Frost in my head. We are at a crossroads and we need, we must, chose a path forward for to standstill is death.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

 

[KevinB]

...

Something about combat aircraft in the Canadian context that I've never quite understood is the "buy American fighters so our aircraft can communicate with theirs for the NORAD mission..."

In the NATO context, when conducting operations overseas, NATO aircraft all seem to be able to communicate with each other & share data with each other just fine...

So if Rafales or Typhoons can communicate & coordinate with American aircraft just fine during NATO operations, why would it be any different if Canada bought a European fighter and used it for NORAD??

Or is that more of a marketing ploy??

Much more too it than that -- in the days of zero trust handshake systems before any data is transmitted - you can operate with "other people" but it won't be the same seamless integration. You can talk to others fine, but you aren't pulling up the targeting data or getting the same electronic document sent back and forth.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sweden has an existing fighter industry and all of the sub-industries to support it. Canada would have to build the industry from scrap which would be much more expensive than keeping an existing industry going.

Also fighters are getting more complex and expensive with each new generation. There is a reason why the planned replacements for the Rafale and the Eurofighter are multi-national collaborations. It's simply too expensive for any one country to develop their own even if they have an existing industry. Sweden's own Next Generation Fighter program is already in serious question and they are looking at joining one of the other teams and abandoning their own project. Gripen is quite likely the last purely domestic fighter you'll see out of Sweden.

List of military aircraft of Sweden - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you look at that list you will find that Sweden started out buying aircraft from all sides before they built their own industry from 1930.

AB Svenska Järnvägsverkstädernas Aeroplanavdelning (English: Swedish Railroad Workshops' Air Plane Department), commonly shortened to ASJA, was a Swedish aircraft manufacturing company.

Based in Linköping, Sweden, it was established during late 1930 as a subsidiary venture of the industrial conglomerate AB Svenska Järnvägsverkstäderna (English: Swedish Railway Workshops Co). production activity centred around licensed production of aircraft designed by other companies, but it also pursued its own designs, such as the ASJA L1 Viking and ASJA Viking II. In 1936, ASJA held discussions with Bofors towards creating a common company for design and manufacturing of aircraft; on 31 March 1937, the two companies formed the short-lived AB Förenade Flygverkstäder (AFF). During 1939, ASJA was acquired and integrated into a new entity, Svenska Aeroplan AB (more commonly known as Saab).

A railway locomotive factory learned how to make planes under licence before it started building its own. That company became SAAB.

UAV | Air | Saab

Advanced solutions to complex challenges. Our UAV programme has all the capabilities necessary for a wide variety of military defence, civil security and maritime sectors globally.

www.saab.com

https://www.eetimes.eu/saab-robert-lindegren-on-drone-swarms-edge-ai-and-the-future-of-autonomous-warfare/

From concept to impact - Saab and the Swedish Air Force Deploy "Loke"

In a remarkable feat of collaboration, the Swedish Air Force, the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), and Saab together with partners have successfully evaluated concept "Loke" in a mere 84 days. This innovative new capability is designed for detecting and countering hostile drones...

www.saab.com

There is no magical point of origin for any of these companies, Swedish or otherwise. In @Czech_pivo 's terms they just kept swimming. And their governments kept backing them because the alternative was unacceptable.

 

[ytz]

65 isn’t enough. 10-20 years is way too long for a supplement let alone a replacement.

72 operational F-35 and 48 operational F-15EX (or Rafale etc) would be a decent sized fleet for Canada (plus training and spares of each).

65 was based on NORAD + NATO (a single six pack) task. Policy on that has not changed.

But if we're getting a second fleet that is European, we can actually go much lower on the F-35 count and basically make that the NORAD fleet. Say 40 frames. And then buy used Rafales or Typhoons with 15-20 years of life in them to bridge till the 6th gen programs in late 2030s EIS.

Admittedly the largest fighter fleet in NATO is the F-16, with the F-35 being set to be number 2 then eventually supplant the F-16 as #1

LockMart should actually be worried about this statistic now. Trump could end up making the Typhoon #1 outside the US.

Even if the US decided to take a hard turn, the resources of NATO could likely come to a work around to make the F-35 work as planned, as there is really no other choice.

Doubtful. The US refused to share source code with even the UK. I don't buy the crazy conspiracy theories (muh "kill switch"). But given that there have been plenty of issues on data sharing within this program long before Trump, the rest of NATO is right to not give the F-35 the benefit of doubt post-Trump. The F-35 can't be cut out completely. But orders can be minimized. And if the Europeans are smart, their 6th Gen programs will now go all out to both speed up and be ITAR-free.

 

[KevinB]

65 was based on NORAD + NATO (a single six pack) task. Policy on that has not changed.

But if we're getting a second fleet that is European, we can actually go much lower on the F-35 count and basically make that the NORAD fleet. Say 40 frames. And then buy used Rafales or Typhoons with 15-20 years of life in them to bridge till the 6th gen programs in late 2030s EIS.



LockMart should actually be worried about this statistic now. Trump could end up making the Typhoon #1 outside the US.

That would be embarrassing for everyone…

Doubtful. The US refused to share source code with even the UK. I don't buy the crazy conspiracy theories (muh "kill switch"). But given that there have been plenty of issues on data sharing within this program long before Trump, the rest of NATO is right to not give the F-35 the benefit of doubt post-Trump. The F-35 can't be cut out completely. But orders can be minimized. And if the Europeans are smart, their 6th Gen programs will now go all out to both speed up and be ITAR-free.

The difference is asking, and doing. If you decide to go it outside the US, you aren’t concerned about feelings with cracking code.