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

[ytz]

You should be talking about sortie rates not "on the ramp" rates. Its availability and surviceability rates times number of aircraft to get the sortie numbers for the mission requirements.

I agree. And without getting close to any opsec, I'll say that the idea that we need 36 ready, or serviceable or available aircraft, etc, exclusively for NORAD tasks doesn't seem logical. It does seem logical to me that ~36 frames will force generate enough to fulfill NORAD demands exclusively. If availability or serviceability is a concern, bump that to 40.

Given the state of the current Hornet fleet, the numbers being thrown around here would imply we should not be deploying a single aircraft to Europe. Because by the math here, we're not meeting NORAD requirements. I find it hard to believe any 1 CAD Commander, RCAF Commander or CDS would ever.allow that.

 

[ytz]

And some reasoned views from Billie Flynn, who does know what he's talking about: The F-35 Debate | Billie Flynn - My Blog

I love his blog. But he's literally the salesman for the F-35 in Canada. Come on....

I share his disdain for the Gripen though.

 

[suffolkowner]

Thirty-six RCAF fighters for NORAD, no fixed NATO commitment (new government porkie?):



You don't say.

Mark
Ottawa

No fighter jet requirement for NATO: report

Canada not required to provide minimum number of jets to NATO: report

www.durhamregion.com

one of the two reports that deal with the RCAF fighter numbers that were deleted by the Liberals with the regards to the Super Hornet/ Hornet purchase

https://thehub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/06-05-Mixed-Fleet-En-final.pdf

another that deals with these issues

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/318/192/robinson.pdf

Ill keep looking for the second report

 

[ytz]

That report has optionality all the way down to just 12 for NORAD. Imagine that.

Essentially that report looks at force generating 36 combat coded (to borrow an American term) with some division between NATO and NORAD. Their conclusion:

The analysis found that a mixed fleet of 38 higher capability aircraft, chosen for their ability to fulfill the most challenging of the NATO missions, and 34 lower capability aircraft, capable of fulfilling Canada’s NORAD obligations, could not provide the same capability as the single fleet of 65 higher capability aircraft.

This is not far from what I said earlier about 40 frames being the minimum sustainable fleet size for a type and that a dual fleet would need to be larger, closer to 100 frames. I have suggested at least 100 frames with some split where no component is less than 40 frames.

 

[suffolkowner]

That report has optionality all the way down to just 12 for NORAD. Imagine that.

i dont think you are reading it accurately

 

[ytz]

i dont think you are reading it accurately

They are looking at the outcome for various combinations where the total mixed fleet is 74 aircraft and then they reach the conclusion that this fleet has limited output if more than 18 aircraft are committed to NORAD (Table 2).

See explanation before that.

The analysis of the mixed fleet structure began by calculating the resources necessary to indefinitely sustain a rotation of six serviceable aircraft for NATO missions. A total of 63 Fleet B aircraft and 71 pilots5 were needed to fulfill this requirement, which is just short of being capable of providing the 36 aircraft needed for NORAD. At first, these numbers may seem quite high. However, the demands (in flying hours) of all the pilots required to sustain this deployment is what drives the number of aircraft in this case. Given these results, optimizing this mixed fleet means either adding two Fleet B aircraft to increase the total to 65 or enough Fleet A aircraft to generate at least six serviceable jets for NORAD. The first option simply reverts the mixed fleet into a single fleet. The second option requires 19 Fleet A aircraft and an additional 22 pilots, which clearly represents a less cost-effective solution.

Another possibility that was investigated was the option of reducing the commitment to NATO of Fleet B in an effort to create a more balanced, and less costly, mixed fleet. In this situation, it was assumed that the NATO rotation would be sustained for a period of one year,6 on six-month rotations. It was determined that 38 Fleet B aircraft, along with 46 pilots, would be required to fulfill the NATO commitment. Similarly, it was also found that 36 Fleet A aircraft and 47 pilots would be needed to provide sufficient aircraft to satisfy the NORAD commitment. Annex A shows the distribution of the 74 total aircraft and 93 personnel while Table 2 shows the capability provided by this mixed fleet.

I agree. If you only buy 74 aircraft in a mixed fleet scenario, the loss of synergy is going to impact mission fulfillment. Take that mixed fleet up to 100 and make sure the second fleet is at least 40 frames and the math works out. And if we're going by the presumption of force generating 36 for NORAD on a given day, than the math above says they need 60 F-35s. That would make the Eurocanard option the minority option at 40+, since that fleet is now only responsible for force generating 1-2 six packs.

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that their math is lining up with the USAF math from the article I posted earlier.

Either way, that paper shows a few things:

1) There's no actual need for 88 F-35s.
2) Their maximum planning scenario is 36 frames for NORAD. And I guess if that happens they'll stop training and supporting deployments.
3) The number is driven by compatibility with NORAD. They looked at a mixed fleet of compatible jets. But Typhoon didn't bid and Rafale withdrew because of CAN/US compatibility.

If we got 60 F-35s and 40 Rafales/Typhoons/Gripens all that happens is that the F-35s will have deployments and training cut if there's a NORAD surge. But generally, they will get deployed a lot less. The 40 Eurocanards becomes the fleet that fills the six pack demand in Europe consistently.

 

[T700]

Is there a reason that attrition doesn’t seem to be factored into any of this?
We lose aircraft it’s pretty much part of the program of owning them.

 

[ytz]

Is there a reason that attrition doesn’t seem to be factored into any of this?
We lose aircraft it’s pretty much part of the program of owning them.

I'm not sure why you think they haven't. Maybe not enough. But they aren't buying just enough for the job.

But also, as long as a production line is running, there's just no sense in buying more aircraft than you need. You're committing capital for aircraft you don't intend to use. And then driving up operating costs too. If the line is closing? Sure.

 

[Underway]

1) There's no actual need for 88 F-35s.
2) Their maximum planning scenario is 36 frames for NORAD. And I guess if that happens they'll stop training and supporting deployments.
3) The number is driven by compatibility with NORAD. They looked at a mixed fleet of compatible jets. But Typhoon didn't bid and Rafale withdrew because of CAN/US compatibility.

This analysis and makes me wonder if we're missing missions and attrition (war stock, accidents, parts shortages etc...). I understand the 88 number included maximum asistance for deploying overseas. I mean Balkans, Libya, Iraq part 1, the RCAF deployed. Given the current international situation we should expect to either a) deploy more aircraft overseas, b) need more aircraft for NORAD as there may be a need and c) replace combat losses.

Then there is the maritime mission that no one is talking about. Dropping ordinance on sketchy Russians in the arctic or helping swat a Chinese fleet. That's generally rolled into NORAD but would be an expansion of such outside of the analysis which is pretty much air defence only.

Either way, is it bad to have more aircraft? Shouldn't we be perhaps expanding our requirements based on mission sets that are unforseen?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not sure why you think they haven't. Maybe not enough. But they aren't buying just enough for the job.

But also, as long as a production line is running, there's just no sense in buying more aircraft than you need. You're committing capital for aircraft you don't intend to use. And then driving up operating costs too. If the line is closing? Sure.

Quick question. Have we ever gone back to the manufacturer and bought replacement fighter aircraft to replace those that we've lost?

 

[T700]

Quick question. Have we ever gone back to the manufacturer and bought replacement fighter aircraft to replace those that we've lost?

I’ve never read about or seen it happen with any fleet. If anything we buy fewer. Aircraft, ships, AFVs.
Sea King 41- replaced with 28 Cyclones
Argus 32 - 18 Aurora
137 CF-18 - 88 F35
20 St Laurent /IRE - 12 Halifax
114 Leo 1- 100 Leo 2

Accidents, fires, overuse, obsolescence.

 

[KevinB]

Quick question. Have we ever gone back to the manufacturer and bought replacement fighter aircraft to replace those that we've lost?

They have tried.
But strangely some manufacturers don’t want to try to build old legacy systems they no longer produce.

 

[Underway]

20 St Laurent /IRE - 12 Halifax

If you want it to be accurate you should include the 4 destroyers on the Halifax ledger. And really comparing an HFX + 280 to the St. Laurents is crazy. Three HFX's by themselves would sink the entire St. Laurent fleet and they wouldn't even have known they were being shot.

 

[suffolkowner]

If you want it to be accurate you should include the 4 destroyers on the Halifax ledger. And really comparing an HFX + 280 to the St. Laurents is crazy. Three HFX's by themselves would sink the entire St. Laurent fleet and they wouldn't even have known they were being shot.

comparison holds if the opponent numbers have followed the same pattern but if not?
Plus add in change in population/GDP

 

[ytz]

Quick question. Have we ever gone back to the manufacturer and bought replacement fighter aircraft to replace those that we've lost?

Fighters? No. But for example we bought a C-17 as the line was ending. We pushed ahead with P-8s as we were worried about the line closing or being repurposed (for E-7s).

Something to keep in mind is that practices change over time. When aircraft were cheap, less maintenance intensive and production runs shorter, it made sense to load up. Now? Less so. As long as you can buy attrition replacements from the line, the only reason to buy them early is some kind of configuration management concern. If we know that the F-35 line is running for the next 15 years, it makes no sense to buy the 1 aircraft per year we might lose. Buy them as we need through the 2030s and a final buy as the line closes. Added bonus, those later aircraft will be substantially more upgraded.

 

[ytz]

I’ve never read about or seen it happen with any fleet. If anything we buy fewer. Aircraft, ships, AFVs.
Sea King 41- replaced with 28 Cyclones
Argus 32 - 18 Aurora
137 CF-18 - 88 F35
20 St Laurent /IRE - 12 Halifax
114 Leo 1- 100 Leo 2

Accidents, fires, overuse, obsolescence.

I've said it before. On the aircraft side at least, some of the changes are step changes in technology so that a 1:1 replacement is like replacing a horse with a Model T at a 1:1 rate. Let's not forget the Sea King literally had vacuum tubes when it entered service. 88 F-35s is substantially more capability than 137 CF-18s.

 

[Quirky]

What is Switzerland and Finland doing with their legacy hornets?

Asking for a friend

 

[T700]

If you want it to be accurate you should include the 4 destroyers on the Halifax ledger. And really comparing an HFX + 280 to the St. Laurents is crazy. Three HFX's by themselves would sink the entire St. Laurent fleet and they wouldn't even have known they were being shot.

It’s the numbers not capabilities that I’m comparing. A fleet of 20 of anything can be doing far more than 12. Simple as 1/2 ton trucks and 1 ton trucks. Smaller fleet will be spread to thin for maintenance and attrition. 2 AORs can’t replace 3.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This analysis and makes me wonder if we're missing missions and attrition (war stock, accidents, parts shortages etc...). I understand the 88 number included maximum asistance for deploying overseas. I mean Balkans, Libya, Iraq part 1, the RCAF deployed. Given the current international situation we should expect to either a) deploy more aircraft overseas, b) need more aircraft for NORAD as there may be a need and c) replace combat losses.

Then there is the maritime mission that no one is talking about. Dropping ordinance on sketchy Russians in the arctic or helping swat a Chinese fleet. That's generally rolled into NORAD but would be an expansion of such outside of the analysis which is pretty much air defence only.

Either way, is it bad to have more aircraft? Shouldn't we be perhaps expanding our requirements based on mission sets that are unforseen?

Why do options a, b and c all have to be independent of each other? Why can’t any of them occur together or, heaven forbid, all at the same time?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Fighters? No. But for example we bought a C-17 as the line was ending. We pushed ahead with P-8s as we were worried about the line closing or being repurposed (for E-7s).

Something to keep in mind is that practices change over time. When aircraft were cheap, less maintenance intensive and production runs shorter, it made sense to load up. Now? Less so. As long as you can buy attrition replacements from the line, the only reason to buy them early is some kind of configuration management concern. If we know that the F-35 line is running for the next 15 years, it makes no sense to buy the 1 aircraft per year we might lose. Buy them as we need through the 2030s and a final buy as the line closes. Added bonus, those later aircraft will be substantially more upgraded.

But what if all the other buyers of the F35 are thinking/planning on doing the same thing? Waiting until the end to buy more replacements?
I seem to remember something similar happening with the end of run of the C17 - there were a total of 10 available, and, if memory serves me correctly India, Canada, Australia and Qatar were all in active competition to get those last 10. We got 1 of the 10.
What if the same thing happens with the end run of the F35 and we need to buy X more but only X-1 or X-3 or even X-5 are available to us?