• 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)

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
606
Points
1,060
Interesting take from the admittedly somewhat biased Billie Flynn. Some good points are made, however:

Well I think he's wrong on a few points

1. original order book was for 80 not 65, I think it was the Harper gov't that reduced it not Chretien

2. the 88 fighters are derived from the same planning assumptions as the 65 required to meet our NORAD comittments just with an additional 12 fighters to meet concurrent NATO/NORAD duties

3. This statement seems mostly true to me

More (88 instead of 65), cheaper ($78M instead of $110M), better (Block 4 instead of Block 3), and best ROI (better than 4 to 1) sounds like an incredibly well executed plan even more so with the US ‘Build Back Better’ trend to see Canada get a better deal and squeeze everything from those pesky, insular Yankees.

IMO

Was it the right behaviour from a ally and partner nation, when all other partner nations ponied up for earlier block versions? No
Are we probably wasting our time, money, and personnel with the competition? Yeah probably
Was buying the Australian F-18's a mistake? Yes
Is it a mistake to proceed with the next F-18 update instead of accelerating a F-35 buy? Yes
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
927
Points
1,090
Well I think he's wrong on a few points

1. original order book was for 80 not 65, I think it was the Harper gov't that reduced it not Chretien

2. the 88 fighters are derived from the same planning assumptions as the 65 required to meet our NORAD comittments just with an additional 12 fighters to meet concurrent NATO/NORAD duties

3. This statement seems mostly true to me

More (88 instead of 65), cheaper ($78M instead of $110M), better (Block 4 instead of Block 3), and best ROI (better than 4 to 1) sounds like an incredibly well executed plan even more so with the US ‘Build Back Better’ trend to see Canada get a better deal and squeeze everything from those pesky, insular Yankees.

IMO

Was it the right behaviour from a ally and partner nation, when all other partner nations ponied up for earlier block versions? No
Are we probably wasting our time, money, and personnel with the competition? Yeah probably
Was buying the Australian F-18's a mistake? Yes
Is it a mistake to proceed with the next F-18 update instead of accelerating a F-35 buy? Yes
Agree with everything you said.

Minus one thing…


Our sheer incompetence has actually put us in a better spot than we were.

You mentioned was it right for us to wait so long while other partner nations placed orders for earlier versions.

By virtue, I agree with you.

But by doddling this long, we will be getting far more capable jets than if we had bought a few years ago. Better jets in all tangible ways.

It’s a shame it’s by accident. But it is what it is. How much money will other nations have to come up with to update their older jets?



Overall, agree with everything you stated and the sentiment of your post.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,491
Points
1,140
Well I think he's wrong on a few points
2. the 88 fighters are derived from the same planning assumptions as the 65 required to meet our NORAD comittments just with an additional 12 fighters to meet concurrent NATO/NORAD duties
How will these numbers hold up over the next 30+ yrs with attrition naturally occurring over this time period? Will we not reach a time when we will no longer have enough planes to meet our commitments listed above?

Edit: From what I can see we lost a min. of 20 CF-188’s since they went operational here. If the same attrition rate occurs we can expect to lose 14/15 planes, putting us below of required NORAD commitments, with 0 planes left for any NATO duties.
 
Last edited:

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,491
Points
1,140
How will these numbers hold up over the next 30+ yrs with attrition naturally occurring over this time period? Will we not reach a time when we will no longer have enough planes to meet our commitments listed above?

Edit: From what I can see we lost a min. of 20 CF-188’s since they went operational here. If the same attrition rate occurs we can expect to lose 14/15 planes.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,240
Points
1,090

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,137
Points
1,110
Unlikely, unless we get an announcement really soon, my money is on Israel
Good supposition. I read somewhere that Israel made more than 2000 mods to the F-4, which they received from the US beginning in 1969. Their Super Phantom, which they developed in 1987 (but never deployed) was phenomenal.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
710
Points
1,040

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
610
Points
940

"And going to Europe to buy the next fighter jet would be stepping outside decades of alignment with the U.S., particularly when it comes to continental defence, Perry said — which could lead to repercussions for the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.S."

European countries aren't even buying the gripen. It's been an underperforming embarrassment in every competition it's entered and primarily designed for 2nd and 3rd world developing countries.....

Can't wait to see the circus when we pick it.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,240
Points
1,090
"And going to Europe to buy the next fighter jet would be stepping outside decades of alignment with the U.S., particularly when it comes to continental defence, Perry said — which could lead to repercussions for the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.S."

European countries aren't even buying the gripen. It's been an underperforming embarrassment in every competition it's entered and primarily designed for 2nd and 3rd world developing countries.....

Can't wait to see the circus when we pick it.
I'll admit the E/F Gripen tries to up its abilities, but absolutely, Canada isn't Sweden, our defense needs are extremely different. If we pick it, I'll be shocked but not surprised, we procurement equipment buy counter how many votes a project can buy, not its value as military equipment
 

WestIsle

Guest
Reaction score
24
Points
230
I'll admit the E/F Gripen tries to up its abilities, but absolutely, Canada isn't Sweden, our defense needs are extremely different. If we pick it, I'll be shocked but not surprised, we procurement equipment buy counter how many votes a project can buy, not its value as military equipment

The costs for the latest Gripen appear to be now about the same as the F35 at least thats what the Thai military has said. The irony of this entire journey has been the constant downgrade an increase in cost for all aircraft other then the F35. The original Super Hornet Bid was billing a cheaper plan but with stealth features added while the Griphen was also supposed to have stealth features while also being much cheaper allowing for many more planes being built in Canada. Now the Super Hornet will not get another block upgrade and the Griphen are the same price while having no stealth features while only being assembled in Nova Scotia.
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
610
Points
940
The costs for the latest Gripen appear to be now about the same as the F35 at least thats what the Thai military has said. The irony of this entire journey has been the constant downgrade an increase in cost for all aircraft other then the F35. The original Super Hornet Bid was billing a cheaper plan but with stealth features added while the Griphen was also supposed to have stealth features while also being much cheaper allowing for many more planes being built in Canada. Now the Super Hornet will not get another block upgrade and the Griphen are the same price while having no stealth features while only being assembled in Nova Scotia.

"adding on" stealth features onto a 4th gen non-stealthy aircraft is a hilarious concept. It's like dressing up your son with girl clothing, this doesn't make him a girl. Then again its 2022 so who knows anymore.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,240
Points
1,090
"adding on" stealth features onto a 4th gen non-stealthy aircraft is a hilarious concept. It's like dressing up your son with girl clothing, this doesn't make him a girl. Then again its 2022 so who knows anymore.
Making a Gen 4.5 with a reduced radar profile isn't that laughable, you are taking Gen 5 tech and applying it to a proven airframe as an upgrade. It is a viable option
 
Top