The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,109
- Points
- 1,260
Loachman said:
But my sense is that emotion is exactly what Prime Minister designate Trudeau offered to the Canadian people ... his platform wasn't exactly empty but one can hardly call it comprehensive. He promised change and many people bought change because, presumably, they didn't like (an emotion) the direction in which our country was headed. Part of that change will, I think must involve keeping some promises: scrapping the F-35 might be a bit expensive but only a few tens of thousands of Canadians will notice that, millions, even tens of millions will applaud the change.
- Reaction score
- 4,319
- Points
- 1,120
http://www.aviatorshotline.com/aircraft/turbine-military/canadair/canadair-cf-5d-0
Why don't we track down a few of these, or re-open the production line again?
Made in Canada solution....?
Why don't we track down a few of these, or re-open the production line again?
Made in Canada solution....?
- Reaction score
- 17,714
- Points
- 1,010
In naval terms, it would be like building a new run of Mackenzie Class DDE....
Pointless.
Pointless.
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Points
- 1,090
SeaKingTacco said:
Wouldn't they be better armed than AOPS?? :
We will see what Trudeau does. I have a feeling that once the RCAF get to speak on their own behalf then things might change. Its not like the decision has to be made immediately. If things were done properly we would get a mix of F-18's, Growlers and F-35's (or some other type of mixed fleet) but god forbid we have more than one type of fighting aircraft. We can have 7 different ways to haul people and cargo but only one way to deliver metal on target. Either way wouldn't we need more than 65 aircraft if we get something other than the F-35? The capability issue defined the number of platforms.
Also, if Leslie is whispering in his ear we are all screwed. Complete lack of understanding of logistics that guy.
- Reaction score
- 4,319
- Points
- 1,120
SeaKingTacco said:
Agreed....but...
Made in Canada
Twin Engine
There's most of what the media would understand or care about....
The "D" is a dual - a twin-seat trainer version. Why pick that one?
The F5 had no radar at all, therefore no air-to-air capability. It had no all-weather or night capability. It was slow and had very short range, especially when armed.
The dual had no guns, due to the space required for the extra cockpit.
It is not made anywere, Canada or otherise. Tooling no longer exists. That would all have to be recreated from scratch. Modern manufacturing methods would require considerable redesign as well.
Nobody else would buy an ancient and limited-performance aircraft that would end up costing more than the F35.
Why would you want to do this? Do you hate fighter pilots that much?
What's next - reinvented Shermans for the Armoured guys?
The F5 had no radar at all, therefore no air-to-air capability. It had no all-weather or night capability. It was slow and had very short range, especially when armed.
The dual had no guns, due to the space required for the extra cockpit.
It is not made anywere, Canada or otherise. Tooling no longer exists. That would all have to be recreated from scratch. Modern manufacturing methods would require considerable redesign as well.
Nobody else would buy an ancient and limited-performance aircraft that would end up costing more than the F35.
Why would you want to do this? Do you hate fighter pilots that much?
What's next - reinvented Shermans for the Armoured guys?
- Reaction score
- 4,319
- Points
- 1,120
No, it was an example...that specific aircraft appears to be up for sale on the civilian market right now.
- Reaction score
- 88
- Points
- 330
If it's got a frikkin' laser cannon, why not ;DLoachman said:
- Reaction score
- 1,518
- Points
- 1,040
So I went online to check out what was meant by a fourth generation fighter, acknowledging that there are but a handful of the fifth generation jets out there, of which the F 35 is one (as far as I understand).
My very limited research found that there are a number of 4th Gen fighters out there, some of which are even now being developed.
Assuming that we want fair competition combined with capability, and a nod to our greatest ally (the US), I see the following jets as able to fulfil the roles that the CF 188 currently fill. Thinking about jets that had their first flights at least in the 1990s, the list shrinks. These are some of the possible jets that are 4th Gen (all types), and will not include any from either Russia or the People’s Republic of China:
Typhoon (Eurofighter GmbH)
HAL Tejas (India)
F 2 (Japan)
FA-50 (Korea)
F/A-18 Super Hornet (USA)
In development are the following:
HAL Tejas Mark II (India)
F-15SE “Silent Eagle” (USA)
Just looking at the 5th Generation fighters, they are all in development, less the F22, and that is a “no export” fighter, so it’s off the books. So, I would probably think that a 4th Generation fighter is the way to go. It can be delivered reasonably soon, and would be flying in time to replace our CF 188s.
We have a big country, so of all the metrics, I looked at range.
Typhoon: 3790 km
Hal Tejas: 3000 km
F2: 834 km
FA-50: 1851 km
F/A-18: 3330 km
I think it would be clear that the F 2 and the FA-50 would be cut from the list.
Next, thanks to the CF 104, we have a phobia of single engine fighters. So, the Hal Tejas is off the list.
This leaves the Typhoon and the F/A-18 Super Hornet. I’m sure there are many more variables (are they still in production? If not, can they be ramped up again? How much extra? What of training?)
As I caveat, I'm not a fighter guy, and I barely understand pilots when they talk, so would it be a fair assessment to suggest that we get either the Typhoon or the F/A-18 Super Hornet?
My very limited research found that there are a number of 4th Gen fighters out there, some of which are even now being developed.
Assuming that we want fair competition combined with capability, and a nod to our greatest ally (the US), I see the following jets as able to fulfil the roles that the CF 188 currently fill. Thinking about jets that had their first flights at least in the 1990s, the list shrinks. These are some of the possible jets that are 4th Gen (all types), and will not include any from either Russia or the People’s Republic of China:
Typhoon (Eurofighter GmbH)
HAL Tejas (India)
F 2 (Japan)
FA-50 (Korea)
F/A-18 Super Hornet (USA)
In development are the following:
HAL Tejas Mark II (India)
F-15SE “Silent Eagle” (USA)
Just looking at the 5th Generation fighters, they are all in development, less the F22, and that is a “no export” fighter, so it’s off the books. So, I would probably think that a 4th Generation fighter is the way to go. It can be delivered reasonably soon, and would be flying in time to replace our CF 188s.
We have a big country, so of all the metrics, I looked at range.
Typhoon: 3790 km
Hal Tejas: 3000 km
F2: 834 km
FA-50: 1851 km
F/A-18: 3330 km
I think it would be clear that the F 2 and the FA-50 would be cut from the list.
Next, thanks to the CF 104, we have a phobia of single engine fighters. So, the Hal Tejas is off the list.
This leaves the Typhoon and the F/A-18 Super Hornet. I’m sure there are many more variables (are they still in production? If not, can they be ramped up again? How much extra? What of training?)
As I caveat, I'm not a fighter guy, and I barely understand pilots when they talk, so would it be a fair assessment to suggest that we get either the Typhoon or the F/A-18 Super Hornet?
- Reaction score
- 17,714
- Points
- 1,010
It is a fair assumption to assume that whomever offers the best bribe industrial offset package will win.
The military utility/fighting capability of the aircraft barely enters the equation.
Look- the only aircraft "we" (we being official Ottawa) really care about keeping out of Canadian Airspace are the USAF ones. We need to have enough fighter capability so the US does not assume sovereignty of our airspace, but not enough to actually matter in a fight.
It is the way of the world, kids...
The military utility/fighting capability of the aircraft barely enters the equation.
Look- the only aircraft "we" (we being official Ottawa) really care about keeping out of Canadian Airspace are the USAF ones. We need to have enough fighter capability so the US does not assume sovereignty of our airspace, but not enough to actually matter in a fight.
It is the way of the world, kids...
- Reaction score
- 4,319
- Points
- 1,120
Soooo....back to the CF-5...? ;-)
Loachman said:
Well, the CF-5 was never designed to be capable of interdiction. Its short range, relatively low speed and limited ordnance handling capability pretty well relegated it to being a ground strike platform, and if I recall correctly, this is generally how the CF-5 was employed in the CF, chiefly with CRV-7 rocket pods and the odd 500-pound bomb here and there.
- Reaction score
- 17,714
- Points
- 1,010
Can we move away from the CF 5 discussion in the context of this thread?
It about as relevant as discussing the Centurion in the context of what Canada needs in a new tank.
It about as relevant as discussing the Centurion in the context of what Canada needs in a new tank.
Eland2 said:
Exactly what I saw in Petawawa in a demonstration in the fall of 1973. One CF-5 driver screwed up the FAC's orders and dropped a HE bomb about 500 metres from the packed stands of spectators, but on the other side of some trees. The transmissions were being broadcast live over the PA system and the FAC (a fighter pilot himself) tossed severe "F bombs" down range, mostly about the ability and professionalism of his erstwhile colleagues.
And SKT is right, but I feel strongly about the lack of a "Give a Sh.t" factor in the RCAF about support to land forces.
SeaKingTacco said:
What is relevant is whether we want a true multi-role fighter (like the F-18 or the F-35) or if we want to get back into microfleets. Back in the day, the CF-101 was air-to-air and intended for NORAD, CF-104 was intended for NATO ground attack, and CF-5/116 was strictly for taking pictures and dropping napalm on people who were unlikely to shoot back.
The occasional talk about a new F-5, or a new Arrow ignores that neither aircraft was multi-role. And from what I understand, the institutional memory of the RCAF is that the days of having three types of fighters weren't happy ones, and that multi-role is the way to go.
