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

[ytz]

We can make leverage elsewhere where realistic and good alternatives to US purchases exist, the fighter program really isn't one of those.

Literally every program in DND and every industrial sector is going to say this.

The pain will be spread. And we'll all move on. Buying 65 Panthers would leave us no better or worse off than Harper would have done.

Also, the very fact that LockMart is negotiating shows that these decisions are quite impactful and that they perceive we have leverage.

 

[calculus]

Breaking news: NGAD is approved, will be built by Boeing, and will be known as the F47.

Boeing wins Air Force contract for NGAD next-gen fighter - Breaking Defense

Boeing's selection to produce the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter is a game-changer for the company's challenged defense arm.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Good2Golf]

will be known as the F47

CH and F…well played, Boeing!

 

[Nvlgzr]

Breaking news: NGAD is approved, will be built by Boeing, and will be known as the F47.

Boeing wins Air Force contract for NGAD next-gen fighter - Breaking Defense

Boeing's selection to produce the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter is a game-changer for the company's challenged defense arm.

breakingdefense.com

Interesting…canards, large dihedral due to tailless, judging by the canopy it is perhaps F16 size

 

[Nvlgzr]

USAirforce video on X appears not to have canards.

 

[Cloud Cover]

It’s 4 PM EST on Friday before an election is called. Has the CF35 been cancelled yet?

 

[GR66]

Interesting…canards, large dihedral due to tailless, judging by the canopy it is perhaps F16 size

It's just an artists rendition. It's a stealth fighter so obviously it's invisible!

 

[PrairieFella]

Holy fuck - so uhhhh...this was said today by Trump.

Does this shift opinion on F35?

Trump open to selling allies 'toned-down' version of next-gen F-47 fighter

Plane would be 10% less capable, president says, in case countries switch sides

asia.nikkei.com

Light paraphrase -

"We'll sell our allies toned down military planes, because someday, maybe they're not our allies"​

 

[Good2Golf]

Meh…that was already on my bingo card…

 

[GR66]

Holy fuck - so uhhhh...this was said today by Trump.

Does this shift opinion on F35?

Trump open to selling allies 'toned-down' version of next-gen F-47 fighter

Plane would be 10% less capable, president says, in case countries switch sides

asia.nikkei.com

Light paraphrase -

"We'll sell our allies toned down military planes, because someday, maybe they're not our allies"​

Not surprising that the US won't sell the full up F-47 to anyone else, after all they didn't sell the F-22 to any of their allies either. And at this point I guess we shouldn't be shocked that Trump doesn't consider anyone outside the US as anything other than a competitor. Sad that we're ending the era where like minded countries could count on working together to achieving high level goals and entering an era where it's every country for themselves.

 

[Underway]

Meh…that was already on my bingo card…

View attachment 92113

Not to surprised. Lots of countries have "export versions" of their systems. I think the French invented that particular trick.

 

[Underway]

3) The primary adversary in the theatre that we have to worry about is Russia. And they aren't fielding hoardes of fifth gen. So a mixed air force over the Arctic and in Europe will still be overmatch for the foreseeable future.

With the increase in defence budget coming down the road a mixed fleet of "strikers and defenders" is possible. Looking to Australia this is a model that would probably work for Canada.

4) All these dreams of fighting in the Pacific and worrying about China may be over for Canada, if the Americans are abandoning Europe. Limited defence resources will be prioritized. And our commitment to the Indo-Pacific may end up being mostly naval.

The commitment was always going to be mostly naval, with some air assets (refueling, AEC, MPA's and maybe a 12 pack of fighters) added on. If we had 88 F35's that wouldn't change.

As I stated above, 65 airframes is woefully insufficient. 88 airframes are likely workable for NORAD and some limited NATO missions but as the airframes get older and availability drops, especially as we look towards Asia, I do not even think that figure is sufficient. I'd like to see us coming back to something like the 140 that we had with the CF-18 purchase, maybe even 160 if you include the additional option that we never ended up exercising. Obviously the fleet would be highly stretched to maintain, pilot and operate this many aircraft in its current state, but I think it is something to consider.

Disagree.

The calculation for number of airframes was explained on this very thread a long time ago (most people will have missed it). They took the number of airframes needed for the NORAD mission. Added the number of airframes for a 12 pack deployable (or 6 pack rotating deployment). Divide that by the availability rate (availablity of the asset without unplanned downtime = 0.8 or 80%) and the serviceability rate (availability of the asset minus the planned downtime = 0.7 or 70%).

So basically we need 36 aircraft for the NORAD mission available at all times and 12 aircraft available for deployment at all times. That's 48 aircraft. Divide by 0.8 and 0.7 and you get approx 88 aircraft.

So for NA defence we have more than enough fighters to meet our required mission targets (extra 12). IF the numbers are to change then we need to look at why, which would be contributions to a war in Europe or Asia and that would increase the 12 pack deployable numbers. But given the decision to buy 88xF35's that wasn't the original calculation.

So my humble recommendation is to go with 88 F35's and then layer on a second airframe as a COA. That could be a lower tech solution (Gripen) or go for gold and join a 6th Gen fighter program as a contributor (Tempest) and use them for NORAD air superiority.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not to surprised. Lots of countries have "export versions" of their systems. I think the French invented that particular trick.

Although that was never part of the JSF program, which has multilateral legal obligations, but no doubt some wouldn’t have an issue with stress-testing adherence to those obligations.

 

[Fabius]

What drives the 36 and 12 numbers?

 

[Underway]

What drives the 36 and 12 numbers?

Airforce research and math. Probably sortie rates, coverage in airspace and other factors I don't know. The airforce put a lot of effort into this.

The Conservative number of 65 was based almost entirely on just NORAD numbers. The Liberals number increased because their defence policy stated more aircraft for overseas and thus the military added that mission requirement without sacrificing the NORAD one.

The RCN did similar for the submarine numbers. Need one sub at sea at all time in each ocean access to the arctic and one swing sub (for overseas or domestic missions that don't guard the arctic). Given a sub at high:low readyness ratio is 1:3 that calcuates out to 12 submarines. The minimum number is 8 because that sacrifices the swing sub but does cover off both sides of the arctic approaches.

 

[Czech_pivo]

With the increase in defence budget coming down the road a mixed fleet of "strikers and defenders" is possible. Looking to Australia this is a model that would probably work for Canada.

The commitment was always going to be mostly naval, with some air assets (refueling, AEC, MPA's and maybe a 12 pack of fighters) added on. If we had 88 F35's that wouldn't change.

Disagree.

The calculation for number of airframes was explained on this very thread a long time ago (most people will have missed it). They took the number of airframes needed for the NORAD mission. Added the number of airframes for a 12 pack deployable (or 6 pack rotating deployment). Divide that by the availability rate (availablity of the asset without unplanned downtime = 0.8 or 80%) and the serviceability rate (availability of the asset minus the planned downtime = 0.7 or 70%).

So basically we need 36 aircraft for the NORAD mission available at all times and 12 aircraft available for deployment at all times. That's 48 aircraft. Divide by 0.8 and 0.7 and you get approx 88 aircraft.

So for NA defence we have more than enough fighters to meet our required mission targets (extra 12). IF the numbers are to change then we need to look at why, which would be contributions to a war in Europe or Asia and that would increase the 12 pack deployable numbers. But given the decision to buy 88xF35's that wasn't the original calculation.

So my humble recommendation is to go with 88 F35's and then layer on a second airframe as a COA. That could be a lower tech solution (Gripen) or go for gold and join a 6th Gen fighter program as a contributor (Tempest) and use them for NORAD air superiority.

Just out of curiosity, if we need 36 for NORAD and then 12 more available for North America defence, how does that number of 48 compare to what the US believes they need available for NORAD and North American defence?

 

[ytz]

Holy fuck - so uhhhh...this was said today by Trump.

Does this shift opinion on F35?

Trump open to selling allies 'toned-down' version of next-gen F-47 fighter

Plane would be 10% less capable, president says, in case countries switch sides

asia.nikkei.com

Light paraphrase -

"We'll sell our allies toned down military planes, because someday, maybe they're not our allies"​

Meh…that was already on my bingo card…

View attachment 92113

Although that was never part of the JSF program, which has multilateral legal obligations, but no doubt some wouldn’t have an issue with stress-testing adherence to those obligations.

We're already dealing with this, with the F-35 and trying to convince the Americans to share the new GaN AN/APG-85 radar with our incoming Block IV Panthers.

 

[ytz]

If we had 88 F35's that wouldn't change.

I think it would. I think there's an implicit expectation that countries with large fleets of F-35s would show up to the party. And 88 frames, all Block IV, would make the Canadian F-35 fleet one of the largest (4th largest to be exact) and most potent. I think 65 frames would make us the 6th largest customer. Smaller, but not as small as some here think. The US is just that large.

People forget that not all F-35s are the same. The blocks come with substantial upgrades. And Block IV is absolutely massive. Took $20B to develop. Part of the reason FFCP negotiated first delivery in 2026 war to ensure Block IV was operationalized, since this is the first Block where the actual mold line (physical configuration of the aircraft) is changing with Technology Refresh 3 (TR3). Block IV F-35s literally come with 50% more magazine capacity (sidekick) to begin with and multiples increase in computing power (which than enables all kinds of better performance on EW, SIGINT, etc).

Long story short? I do think American planners certainly hoped the country with more Block IVs than anybody else but the US would show up in an Indo-Pac scenario.

Just out of curiosity, if we need 36 for NORAD and then 12 more available for North America defence, how does that number of 48 compare to what the US believes they need available for NORAD and North American defence?

The US isn't sizing its air forces for NORAD missions. For them NORAD is almost an afterthought to their force design. They design their forces to ensure that each combatant command has the resources they need. And when those aircraft are home, occasionally, they do NORAD stuff. This is very different from our mindset.

 

[Good2Golf]

We're already dealing with this, with the F-35 and trying to convince the Americans to share the new GaN AN/APG-85 radar with our incoming Block IV Panthers.

Nothing nefarious (for now), our first four are Block 15 aircraft, and the next 12 as Block 16, and the -85 doesn’t hit the line until Block 17.

 

[PrairieFella]

The US isn't sizing its air forces for NORAD missions. For them NORAD is almost an afterthought to their force design. They design their forces to ensure that each combatant command has the resources they need. And when those aircraft are home, occasionally, they do NORAD stuff. This is very different from our mindset.

They do have an empire to maintain you know