• 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)

That would be embarrassing for everyone…

Sign of the times.

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

This is both extreme and difficult. We're getting into the realm of Iran keeping Tomcats going.

And with the F-35, it isn't just aircraft code. Everybody else would have to reverse engineer all the ground side software too. Like ALIS/ODIN.

It's really not worthwhile. This is you're really seeing Europe starting to move more decisively and becoming strict about keeping the spending in Europe. Today's rumour is that Macron is even pushing to exclude the UK from pooled EU funding. They need to especially keep control of intellectual property.

The US should also be worried. What happens to unit costs of the aircraft or even the costs of each development block if the F-35 loses 20% of projected sales?
 
We often try to make one airframe at the fighter level do everything. Intercept, air to air, air to ground etc. I think - and maybe I’m out of my arcs here- we need at least two fighter type aircraft
 
The UK has a projected buy of 138 F35s

So far they have only ordered 48 F35Bs and have taken delivery of 37 as of the end of 2024.
 
What about the flying, maintenance cost comparison? If we went with a mixed fleet, do the European Jet have a better maintenance to flight hour ratio?
 
We often try to make one airframe at the fighter level do everything. Intercept, air to air, air to ground etc. I think - and maybe I’m out of my arcs here- we need at least two fighter type aircraft

I understand how this can seem like scope creep. But modern aircraft are simply that capable. And a lot of that multifunctional capability comes from software. The onboard computers now do data fusion from the Datalink and integral sensors. They prioritize the threat and tell you what to hit first. And what to avoid. Dedicated aircraft were needed when humans had to figure all this out themselves.

There's really only two fighter categories these days: air superiority and everything else. And it's not that air superiority fighters can't drop bombs. It's that they are aerodynamically optimized for air-to-air.

The UK has a projected buy of 138 F35s

So far they have only ordered 48 F35Bs and have taken delivery of 37 as of the end of 2024.

The F-35 is not the primary fighter of the UK. It's the Fleet Defence and Combat Support jet. The Typhoon is the backbone of the RAF combat fleet.

What about the flying, maintenance cost comparison? If we went with a mixed fleet, do the European Jet have a better maintenance to flight hour ratio?

Hard to say. On paper, European 4th Gen are cheaper now. But the F-35 is improving much faster. And some man-hours on the F-35 aren't even wrench time on the aircraft. It's all the software support and data analysis done in a lab.
 
I understand how this can seem like scope creep. But modern aircraft are simply that capable. And a lot of that multifunctional capability comes from software. The onboard computers now do data fusion from the Datalink and integral sensors. They prioritize the threat and tell you what to hit first. And what to avoid. Dedicated aircraft were needed when humans had to figure all this out themselves.

Technical aircraft capability aside.
Is there enough YFR, sim time, etc. in a year for the aircrew to be capable/proficient/expert at all the roles?

Even if the aircraft and aircrew are able to do it all, they can’t do it all at the same point in time and space. I don’t think that’s necessarily an argument for a different airframe but rather numbers.
 
Good example of why operating mixed fighter fleets in Canada unrealistic if not impossible. We can barely scrape together one.


"I understand why this discussion regarding the F-35 is underway and what I would say is this is the wrong weapon system to reconsider," said retired general Tom Lawson, the country's former top military commander and a former consultant for Lockheed Martin.

"There's a very real scenario where everything gets delayed to the point where there are no fighters flying in Canada for a period of time."

Lawson also said operating two types of fighters is something the air force doesn't want to do because of the enormous cost of setting up two training and supply systems, as well as building separate hangars and infrastructure.
 
Technical aircraft capability aside.
Is there enough YFR, sim time, etc. in a year for the aircrew to be capable/proficient/expert at all the roles?

Even if the aircraft and aircrew are able to do it all, they can’t do it all at the same point in time and space. I don’t think that’s necessarily an argument for a different airframe but rather numbers.

Not an expert. A resident fighter pilot can speak up. But I do think modern training methods, and modern technology on the aircraft do allow for proficiency at all those task. Also, you really can't do one without the other these days. The entire point of multirole aircraft is to avoid the need to create giant strike packages of 30-40 dedicate role aircraft to get some bombs on target. The F-35s should be able to evade/fight their way in, do EW as needed, drop ordinance and fight their way back. And they should be able to do that because the automation onboard should be dealing with threats automatically (EW) or prioritizing them for the pilot.

Good example of why operating mixed fighter fleets in Canada unrealistic if not impossible. We can barely scrape together one.


This is situation today. Any mixed fleet we do is at least 7-10 years out from today. That is reasonable time for a capability ramp.
 
With the current political zoo going on, we should say:
"We will honour all existing contracts. But we also must consider that with a deterioration in the relationship between our countries, that it will be in our best interest to consider other means to provide non-ITAR controlled equipment to the RCAF so as to remove the abilty to have our sovereignty interfered with. We regret that things have reached this point, but we must do what we consider best for Canada"
 
With the current political zoo going on, we should say:
"We will honour all existing contracts. But we also must consider that with a deterioration in the relationship between our countries, that it will be in our best interest to consider other means to provide non-ITAR controlled equipment to the RCAF so as to remove the abilty to have our sovereignty interfered with. We regret that things have reached this point, but we must do what we consider best for Canada"
No need for any type of special messaging or signaling that only serves to keep emotions enflamed on both sides. Of course we're going to go ahead with the F-35 purchase (100% for the 16 officially ordered, should be a no brainer for the balance of the original 65 since there is no current alternative that meets our needs and we'll see in the early 2030's how the alternative programs are going and if any of them are a more logical choice for Canada than the F-35).

Right now we're all about dropping US kit in case they cut us off. But who's to say in 2035 that France or South Korea might not do the same if we buy their kit? Yes Trump and his MAGA disciples are lipping off about annexing Canada but seriously the chance of them actually invading militarily is minimal - and if they did frankly it wouldn't matter who's kit we have, we're not going to defeat them in a conventional fight.

However, as long as we remain independent the US actually has a vested interest in our military remaining as capable as possible of defending our territory as it is the back door to potential attack on the US homeland. Europe and South Korea on the other hand have zero self interest in ensuring that our military remains effective.
 
Actually I will argue there is a need to put pressure where we can on the US and having their defense industry talk to the cooler heads and go: "This stupidity is possibly going to cost us billions and jobs". We just need to do it in a classy and measured way that does not burn any bridges long term.

We are in political warfare right now, whether you like it or not.
 
However, as long as we remain independent the US actually has a vested interest in our military remaining as capable as possible of defending our territory as it is the back door to potential attack on the US homeland. Europe and South Korea on the other hand have zero self interest in ensuring that our military remains effective.

I think this part is important. All the talk about joining up with countries across the pond with zero interest in defence of North America is going backwards.
 
Realistically, I do not see any other option for the RCAF besides continuing along with the F-35A buy at this time. We have been paying into this program for quite sometime, having made our interest very clear and have even secured valuable domestic production contracts for the aircraft. Canadian companies are building wing bulkheads, horizontal tails, circuit cards, engine monitoring sensors, landing gear, door uplocks, weapon bay door inserts, wing parts, power/thermal management system controllers, various machined parts, keel beams and hydraulic system parts to name only a few. These aren't just for Canada, but are being sent out onto F-35's throughout the entire international program.

No other options exist that can match the F-35 for cost, capability or interoperability. Many of the premier European fighters are full of ITAR components, have packed production lines, are costly or otherwise sub-par in ways that would cause issues for the RCAF. Same for basically any other realistic offering abroad. You'd need to be dealing with Lockheed Martin potentially taking legal action against the Canadian government for modifying/throwing out the contract, which is going to be costly and time intensive. This goes doubly so if another competition is ran or aircraft sole sourced, you'll see legal action there as well. Our current aircraft cannot keep trucking on, mixed fleets have serious financial and logistical issues while buying another set of used foreign fighters as yet another stop gap is foolish beyond belief.

Next generation fighter programs like GCAP or FCAS have incredibly ambitious performance milestones and delivery timelines, especially coming from nations who haven't even built or designed 5th generation aircraft themselves previously. With the Europeans looking to rearm themselves with these incredibly expensive, larger platforms (something like 3-5 times more expensive per unit than the F-35?), we won't be getting any until 5-10 years after their own airforces start getting them.

I have extreme doubts that the US would even threaten it's F-35 customers with the idea of withholding support, given that even talk of it would entirely collapse trust in the US and their MIC. There is something like 20 foreign customers who have bought or are slated to buy one model or more of the F-35, such threats against Canada specifically will cut the legs out from every single US partner across the globe. If their closest military and economic partner isn't safe from such actions or threats, nobody is. Japan, Israel, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Australia, etc, all of the major contemporary US allies, will all be at serious risk. That is the kind of undermining that does not go away once invoked, and I have a hard time considering it will be.

If the US resorts to putting this kind of pressure on Canada or other partners, we have much bigger things to worry about than just fighter aircraft. The CAF as a whole will be under serious risk of systems being unsupported across the entire force.

I understand the anger within Canada at the US, but we're between a rock and a hard place. Letting nationalism whip us up into a rage and lead us into a pretty bad decision is sub-optimal.
 
Good example of why operating mixed fighter fleets in Canada unrealistic if not impossible. We can barely scrape together one.

Lots of critcal parts are hard to acquire for the F18 legacy jets. As the US military did not retire their legacy jets like they said they were going to. This put a strain on the available critical parts that already had a shortage due to replacement availability and lack of support for upgrades and replacements.
Sad state of affairs. And we were lead to believe that the used Aussies would bridge the gap.
Lol, it bridged someone's pocket book somewhere with tax payers cash.
Nobody believed that including the Liberal Cabinet.
The public did believe it was going to significantly help with the situation. All 8t did was cost millions upon millions of wasted dollars to be spent. Not to mention the frustrations of those involved at the ground level trying to make the best of a horrible situation.
 
Realistically, I do not see any other option for the RCAF besides continuing along with the F-35A buy at this time. We have been paying into this program for quite sometime, having made our interest very clear and have even secured valuable domestic production contracts for the aircraft. Canadian companies are building wing bulkheads, horizontal tails, circuit cards, engine monitoring sensors, landing gear, door uplocks, weapon bay door inserts, wing parts, power/thermal management system controllers, various machined parts, keel beams and hydraulic system parts to name only a few. These aren't just for Canada, but are being sent out onto F-35's throughout the entire international program.

No other options exist that can match the F-35 for cost, capability or interoperability. Many of the premier European fighters are full of ITAR components, have packed production lines, are costly or otherwise sub-par in ways that would cause issues for the RCAF. Same for basically any other realistic offering abroad. You'd need to be dealing with Lockheed Martin potentially taking legal action against the Canadian government for modifying/throwing out the contract, which is going to be costly and time intensive. This goes doubly so if another competition is ran or aircraft sole sourced, you'll see legal action there as well. Our current aircraft cannot keep trucking on, mixed fleets have serious financial and logistical issues while buying another set of used foreign fighters as yet another stop gap is foolish beyond belief.

Next generation fighter programs like GCAP or FCAS have incredibly ambitious performance milestones and delivery timelines, especially coming from nations who haven't even built or designed 5th generation aircraft themselves previously. With the Europeans looking to rearm themselves with these incredibly expensive, larger platforms (something like 3-5 times more expensive per unit than the F-35?), we won't be getting any until 5-10 years after their own airforces start getting them.

I have extreme doubts that the US would even threaten it's F-35 customers with the idea of withholding support, given that even talk of it would entirely collapse trust in the US and their MIC. There is something like 20 foreign customers who have bought or are slated to buy one model or more of the F-35, such threats against Canada specifically will cut the legs out from every single US partner across the globe. If their closest military and economic partner isn't safe from such actions or threats, nobody is. Japan, Israel, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Australia, etc, all of the major contemporary US allies, will all be at serious risk. That is the kind of undermining that does not go away once invoked, and I have a hard time considering it will be.

If the US resorts to putting this kind of pressure on Canada or other partners, we have much bigger things to worry about than just fighter aircraft. The CAF as a whole will be under serious risk of systems being unsupported across the entire force.

I understand the anger within Canada at the US, but we're between a rock and a hard place. Letting nationalism whip us up into a rage and lead us into a pretty bad decision is sub-optimal.
I don't disagree with you, but politically the government has to do something and putting some of the promised F35 contract into question is a tool for the government to exert pressure. I would also invite France to have some Rafel's fly out to Canada to do a show and tell tour.
 
Realistically, I do not see any other option for the RCAF besides continuing along with the F-35A buy at this time. We have been paying into this program for quite sometime, having made our interest very clear and have even secured valuable domestic production contracts for the aircraft. Canadian companies are building wing bulkheads, horizontal tails, circuit cards, engine monitoring sensors, landing gear, door uplocks, weapon bay door inserts, wing parts, power/thermal management system controllers, various machined parts, keel beams and hydraulic system parts to name only a few. These aren't just for Canada, but are being sent out onto F-35's throughout the entire international program.

No other options exist that can match the F-35 for cost, capability or interoperability. Many of the premier European fighters are full of ITAR components, have packed production lines, are costly or otherwise sub-par in ways that would cause issues for the RCAF. Same for basically any other realistic offering abroad. You'd need to be dealing with Lockheed Martin potentially taking legal action against the Canadian government for modifying/throwing out the contract, which is going to be costly and time intensive. This goes doubly so if another competition is ran or aircraft sole sourced, you'll see legal action there as well. Our current aircraft cannot keep trucking on, mixed fleets have serious financial and logistical issues while buying another set of used foreign fighters as yet another stop gap is foolish beyond belief.

Next generation fighter programs like GCAP or FCAS have incredibly ambitious performance milestones and delivery timelines, especially coming from nations who haven't even built or designed 5th generation aircraft themselves previously. With the Europeans looking to rearm themselves with these incredibly expensive, larger platforms (something like 3-5 times more expensive per unit than the F-35?), we won't be getting any until 5-10 years after their own airforces start getting them.

I have extreme doubts that the US would even threaten it's F-35 customers with the idea of withholding support, given that even talk of it would entirely collapse trust in the US and their MIC. There is something like 20 foreign customers who have bought or are slated to buy one model or more of the F-35, such threats against Canada specifically will cut the legs out from every single US partner across the globe. If their closest military and economic partner isn't safe from such actions or threats, nobody is. Japan, Israel, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Australia, etc, all of the major contemporary US allies, will all be at serious risk. That is the kind of undermining that does not go away once invoked, and I have a hard time considering it will be.

If the US resorts to putting this kind of pressure on Canada or other partners, we have much bigger things to worry about than just fighter aircraft. The CAF as a whole will be under serious risk of systems being unsupported across the entire force.

I understand the anger within Canada at the US, but we're between a rock and a hard place. Letting nationalism whip us up into a rage and lead us into a pretty bad decision is sub-optimal.
The more 'both sides present their arguments', the more I'm coming to the conclusion that we stay the path with the F35 - stick with buying 88 airframes.

But - in terms of other purchases, possibly the P8 - either buying the minimum necessary for the short term and either buy someone else's product or growing our own should be on the table. Even if that means 7-10yrs from now we sell our previously purchases P8's to country X and replace those with the other airframe that we bought or grew inhouse.

When you look at our 3 branches - Air, Land and Water -

The Air side will always be the hardiest for us to reduce US dependency on. Volume, technology and NORAD are the trifecta of reasons that this is and will remain so unless NORAD in the future ceases to be 1 of the 3 pillars that I mentioned earlier.

Next up is the Water side in terms of US dependency. Obviously we attempting to rebuild our surface fleet through our own means but when it comes to the 'meat and potatoes' side of things, the 'meat' comes from the US and the 'potatoes' comes from the Europeans. That's been the case with this new build and it was the case with the Halifax's and so on. Which NATO navies don't follow this path?

Lastly the Land side. This is where we can bring home and keep home the most (in terms of %, not in total volume) of our money. We've had a mixed bag of kit since the Korean War and I expect that it will start to tilt alot more to 'in-house' products if we should partners that will allow us to 'own' or 'co-manage' the IP side and the production side. This will come at a cost, meaning upfront cash to buy and build but also from a volume perspective. We will need to proper outfit our regiments with the numbers that they need to grow in size and we will need to equip properly all of our reserve units. This will help with the business case in terms of volumes needed to begin justifying in-country production.

This is just my ramblings after reading/digesting the information provided my others much much more better informed and knowledgeable than me. The F35 should be bought by us, in numbers that show that we are serious about our defense, about the defense of North American and the defense of our NATO partners and the defense of our other Allies around the world.
 
Back
Top