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

[suffolkowner]

According to testimony in the commons defense committee by the head of the airforce, 65 is the number of aircraft at min he needs to meet our obligations to NORAD, and NATO. Probably where the 65 F-35 number came from way back when. That said if we bought exactly 65 airframes, the moment we have an accident does that mean we no longer have enough to cover NORAD and NATO? will we operate a mixed fleet in the future of SH + what ever wins the competition? (assuming it's not the SH which in my belief if it was a fair and open competition I don't think it would win)

I don't believe there is a specified number of airframes obligated to NATO(just the 36 to NORAD), although I doubt our allies are impressed with our plan/commitment to 65 aircraft

 

[Canuck_Jock]

I suspect that it's more likely that five years was chosen to put it past the next election.

As for the previous post, it's pretty telling that the MND is obviously a neophyte Cabinet Minister because he's such a terrible liar.

Maybe Trump, Brexit, and punting the status quo are  the wave of the future -- voters tired of being talked down to as though they're idiots (even the ones who clearly are).



NOT INTENDING TO START ANOTHER MINDLESS POLITICAL THREAD -- Please keep this on Zoomie Fighter stuff.

It may be harsh to say so, but I think MND 'Badass' has reached the limits of his capacity on this. Running the Ministry is ever so slightly more complex than a Reserve Unit. He might have personal credibility as a soldier, but as a Cabinet Minister he is a politician and, call me old fashioned on this, but politicians are paid to weigh options, consider the consequences...then make a decision. In government, but not in power.

As for numbers of airframes, pick a random number between say, 50 and 100. Deduct 1/3. Declare that number to NORAD.

 

[suffolkowner]

And it's the plan that post 2017, we'll be operating only ~65 CF-18s.  That seems to be a number too small, given your reasoning.

I agree but I'm not in charge of the budget

 

[MilEME09]

I don't believe there is a specified number of airframes obligated to NATO(just the 36 to NORAD), although I doubt our allies are impressed with our plan/commitment to 65 aircraft

Personally I'd want to see a 1 for 1 buy of new aircraft at either our current number or if we somehow saw a large budget increase, the original Hornet fleet size.

 

[Kirkhill]

...
It still seems real strange to me to announce a purchase/lease before coming to terms with the vendor
....

My guess is that the government just wanted to get this behind them as much as possible because there may be a lot of fancy dancing necessary if Kinder-Morgan is approved.  And XL, Canada East and even Northern Gateway still in the offing.

The Carbon Tax and the Coastal Plan seem to be being set up to supply cover.

But - as Journeyman said - stick to the zoomie stuff here.

 

[Quirky]

Just to jump on OldBoatDriver's line of questioning:

Can anyone elaborate on current NORAD/NATO/Training breakdown of operational aircraft per squadron?

Bagotville
425 - 16 Aircraft?
433 - 16 Aircraft?

Cold Lake
401 - 16 Aircraft?
409 - 16 Aircraft?
410, Training & AETE - 13 Aircraft combined?

[Worked numbers backwards based on the Ivison article stating that there are currently 77 operational aircraft in total]

Operational aircraft (single seat) are more or less evenly divided between the gun squadrons in CL and BG. Each of those squadrons has two or more duals. AETE has two which are used for testing and one more is in the tech training unit. 410 has a majority of dual seat jets with a couple of them being singles.

what I can figure out correct or not, I don't know. The "Gap" seems pretty easy to reason out

77 x 80% availability x 70% serviceability = 43

43 - 36 for NORAD = 7 fighters left over for all other contingencies - Is that a gap? Seems pretty tight to me

Availability is around 95% and serviceability around 80% if not higher. I don't see a gap based on the OPS in Libya and Iraq/Syria, we don't send more than a 6 pack anyway.

I think 32 aircraft (F35s) on each coast is more than sufficient to meet our needs. 16 per squadron would be a good number and they would rotate deployment taskings. 410 as it is right now would not be needed as all pilot training is done in sims or down south. The other jet would be our airshow bird to show the public what their money bought them.

 

[Scoobs]

The Super Hornet was never a recommendation to the Government.  This will cost billions as the SH is not a Hornet.  Different engines, avionics, etc.  This means different support tools, etc.  This means increased costs.

One recommendation was to extend the life of the current CF188s until the new a/c was in service.

Another consideration was to purchase the Kuwaiti F18s as they have low hours on them.  Kuwait is buying new fighters.  These F18s would have allowed for flying F18s until the new fighter was ready.  This overall cost was in the 500 million range.  It would have taken approximately 4 weeks per a/c to get them ready for us.  This option would have meant zero need for new training, support equipment, etc.  It is my understanding that the Minister didn't even want to listen when being briefed this option, literally.

This has gone over like a lead balloon in the Air Force procurement world.

The reason being given for buying 18 SHs is Industrial Regional Benefits.

 

[Quirky]

Another consideration was to purchase the Kuwaiti F18s as they have low hours on them. 

The reason being given for buying 18 SHs is Industrial Regional Benefits.

Having personally seen Kuwati F18s up close, we wouldn't be getting a deal. They look very aged for their hours, all that time in the desert sun and exposed to the sand has worn them down. Our jets had sand absolutely everywhere after OP IMPACT, I can't imagine what theirs would look underneath all the panels. 

If the SHs are just white tails, what benefits will we receive? The line is already established along with suppliers and I doubt Boeing will change that for a measly 18 leased aircraft.

 

[MilEME09]

If the SHs are just white tails, what benefits will we receive? The line is already established along with suppliers and I doubt Boeing will change that for a measly 18 leased aircraft.

I don't think there are any white tail SH right now, the lines are busy pushing out SH and Growlers for the USN (As they were originally about to close in 2017), the Kuwait buy now, that keeps the line open until 2018 so we would be at the back of the line with deliveries as early as 2018/2019

 

[jollyjacktar]

Todays Bruce MacKinnon cartoon on the subject.  :nod:

Chronicle Herald Cartoon

 

[suffolkowner]

Operational aircraft (single seat) are more or less evenly divided between the gun squadrons in CL and BG. Each of those squadrons has two or more duals. AETE has two which are used for testing and one more is in the tech training unit. 410 has a majority of dual seat jets with a couple of them being singles.

Availability is around 95% and serviceability around 80% if not higher. I don't see a gap based on the OPS in Libya and Iraq/Syria, we don't send more than a 6 pack anyway.

I think 32 aircraft (F35s) on each coast is more than sufficient to meet our needs. 16 per squadron would be a good number and they would rotate deployment taskings. 410 as it is right now would not be needed as all pilot training is done in sims or down south. The other jet would be our airshow bird to show the public what their money bought them.

the 80% availability and 70% serviceability are for planning purposes, it doesn't matter if you exceed the numbers at any given point in time, only if you fall below  [lol:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Todays Bruce MacKinnon cartoon on the subject.  :nod:

Chronicle Herald Cartoon

Now, that is going full circle for the family: When Trudeau Sr. was in power, he was often pictured as a ditherer himself. As a result, a cartoonist in Montreal drew a circular track with a limousine driving around on it. The Caption read: "Ah! Ah!, said Mr. Trudeau in the car, we are at a turning point in the affairs of the state".

;D

 

[Rifleman62]

Canuck_Jock:

It may be harsh to say so, but I think MND 'Badass' has reached the limits of his capacity on this. Running the Ministry is ever so slightly more complex than a Reserve Unit. He might have personal credibility as a soldier, but as a Cabinet Minister he is a politician and, call me old fashioned on this, but politicians are paid to weigh options, consider the consequences...then make a decision. In government, but not in power.

If you remember way back when the Minister was appointed, ERC said the same thing but much, much more eloquently as his norm.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

He is one voice in many, I think his main failing is that he is a good soldier and follows his marching orders, perhaps to much.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Perhaps he is also doing the best he can to influence from the inside, toeing the line enough to keep his post because he fears what a replacement might do.  How many people have had to deal with wanting leadership above them yet weathered the storm to keep as straight a track as possible until the winds of change blew again?

 

[a_majoor]

Meanwhile, in the real world, the F-35 continues to demonstrate new capabilities. Spotting and controlling a missile from another platform is just the first step towards what the US is calling the "Third offset". Canada buying lesser jets would only make sense if we also buy long range missiles and "stealth" weapons pods like the demonstrated by the Advanced Super Hornet so out planes can act as useful bomb and missile trucks for their American controllers in the command F-35's.

One consequence of tis Liberal dithering is Canada's contributions to coalition missions will become increasingly irrelevant not only in terms of numbers, but even in effectiveness, further reducing our already tenuous influence on the world stage.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/f-35b-controls-missiles-on-aegis.html

F-35B controls missiles on an Aegis equipped destroyer to shoot down a drone

The Marines completed a proof-of-concept test in which a Marine Corps F-35B detected a cruise-missile decoy (a drone), passed targeting information to a remote sensor, and set up a shot by an Aegis combat system of the sort you’ll find on modern destroyers. A battery controlled by the Aegis fired a live SM-6 missile, which took down the drone.

The Aegis weapon system is on 33 ships

The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. Under MDA and Navy plans, the number of BMD-capable Navy Aegis ships is scheduled to grow from 33 at the end of FY2016 to 49 at the end of FY2021. The figure for FY2020 may include up to four BMD-capable Aegis cruisers in reduced operating status as part of a program to modernize 11 existing Aegis cruisers

The SM-6 has a range of up to 290 miles.

 

[Journeyman]

.... Canada's contributions to coalition missions will become increasingly irrelevant .....

But if a government wants our coalitions limited to sharing campfire songs with our blue-hatted Bangladeshi and Ethiopian comrades in arms, what better way to limit our options than self-disarmament.....

 

[PuckChaser]

Interesting article here from Lee Berthiume, with an important piece quoted below:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/11/23/former-military-procurement-chiefs-slam-liberals-fighter-jet-plan/#.WDck01yq3Nh

The government has refused to say how much it expects to pay for the Super Hornets, or what it will do with them if another jet fighter wins the promised competition.

But Ross and Williams predicted the figure could run anywhere between $3 billion and $8 billion, depending on what is included and how long they are kept.

Officials say the cost of the Super Hornets won't hit the government's bottom line or make the deficit any bigger in the short term because there is already $9 billion set aside by the previous Conservative government for the purchase of fighter jets.

However, there is no extra money in the fiscal framework for another tranche of jets. Those planes will need fresh financing to the order of many billions of dollars.

Analysts have long warned that the military is dealing with unrealistic expectations under a tight spending cap, though the government says it will address that problem with a new defence policy next year.

These 18 aircraft are being financed out of the $9B set aside for the F-35. If there's no new money, the table is heavily tilted towards SH in the competition, or else we make do with significantly less airframes of whatever plane wins the competition.

 

[MilEME09]

Interesting article here from Lee Berthiume, with an important piece quoted below:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/11/23/former-military-procurement-chiefs-slam-liberals-fighter-jet-plan/#.WDck01yq3Nh

These 18 aircraft are being financed out of the $9B set aside for the F-35. If there's no new money, the table is heavily tilted towards SH in the competition, or else we make do with significantly less airframes of whatever plane wins the competition.

ig Thats the case I'd be crying fowl right now if I was any one but Boeing

 

[Canuck_Jock]

Perhaps he is also doing the best he can to influence from the inside, toeing the line enough to keep his post because he fears what a replacement might do.  How many people have had to deal with wanting leadership above them yet weathered the storm to keep as straight a track as possible until the winds of change blew again?

Imagine if you took someone, oh I don't know, say an ordinary beat cop and put them in charge of a complex organisation of 100,000 personnel, $19 Bn annual budget and the requirement to make decisions that will affect operational effectiveness for decades to come. Not a good idea! Oh, wait... :facepalm:

Sorry, good intentions and tough looking happy snaps does not cut the mustard. Further afield, the best Sec Def the UK has had of late spent his formative career in medical equipment and consultancy. No military experience but loads of experience effectively running large orgs.

As for the SH/CF-18, there is some commonality but it will still be, at best, a fleet within a fleet.