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

[jmt18325]

I think the NORAD requirement is 36 fighters, which is how we arrive at a fleet 65.

The requirement of 65 is necessary to maintain 48 aircraft in combat squadrons.  That doesn't mean that all 48 are ready at any one time.  It leaked a few years ago that it was more like 34.

I also note that the 36 aircraft requirement has nothing on them being available all the time.  If we take the rule of 3s, it seems we're expected to have 12 available all the time.

 

[jmt18325]

I was not trying to be immediately dismissive, jmt, of your 3:1 ratio out of hand, but rather to point out that one must determine what is required from a logicical, deductive method that follows the process driven by: Policy > Plans > Capability > Requirements > Specifications > System Design > Acquisition > Implementation > In-service support > Modification/Update as required > Initiation of replacement system acquisition > Disposal.

The important take-away in this is that the front-end of this process seems...well...undefined/unspecified by Government at the moment.  Perhaps as Defence Policy Review comes to completion, the process will be allowed to run its course and we'll see if we need 65, or 80, or 24-30, of however many fighter aircraft we need and go from there?

I was simply of the belief that we should be using tanker support more in a way that would better allow our air force to protect Canada in an emergency.  I don't know if that would work though, so I'm actually fine with it if we don't need 5 - 7.

 

[NavyShooter]

I think the question I'm pondering (I had this discussion with my brother last night) is, what capabilities do we need our aircraft to have?

Obviously we are required to contribute to the NORAD mission.

What other missions are we involved in, and what aircraft would be suitable?

If we were to get any of the previously listed (Rafale, Grippen, F-35, etc) aircraft, any of them would be capable of meeting the NORAD mission needs.

The next question is, what sort of aircraft would we need for deployed missions?

Are they operating in a permissive (air superiority attained) or non-permissive (enemy has capable air defences)?

If it's the latter case, then the we need an aircraft that is highly survivable in the face of enemy air defences, and the best option there is probably the low observable F-35. 

If we are working in a permissive environment and it's basically an Air-to Ground mission for ground forces support, then do we really need the latest/greatest aircraft?

Part of the problem is that we don't KNOW whether or not our deployed aircraft (whip out the F-18's?) will always be working in a permissive environment, so against the probability that we will NOT be, we need to get the more survivable aircraft, which is the F-35. 

Splitting our fighter fleet for a nation as small as ours makes very little sense, so buying an aircraft capable of meeting both missions is necessary.

NS

 

[Journeyman]

Perhaps as Defence Policy Review comes to completion, the process will be allowed to run its course and we'll see ....

"Perhaps"    op:    (please forgive the lack of 'holding breath')

 

[Good2Golf]

"Perhaps"    op:    (please forgive the lack of 'holding breath')

That's as optimistic as I can be...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I was simply of the belief that we should be using tanker support more in a way that would better allow our air force to protect Canada in an emergency.  I don't know if that would work though, so I'm actually fine with it if we don't need 5 - 7.

I tried to get you to read between the tea leaves the last few times I've responded to your post so I'll be direct this time.  Why are you creating a capability that isn't required?

We fulfill that mission already, without the additional tanker support you're proposing we buy.  A rather needless expense don't you think? 

 

[GR66]

IF the government decides that the F-35 is out for immediate purchase for political reasons and IF they stick to their claim that they are requiring in interim aircraft to fill a "capability gap" would the following be a possible course of action?

The USAF is retiring F-15C due to budgetary issues (the numbers I've read are somewhere around 51 aircraft in the 2015/2016 budget but can't confirm).  Could we purchase those aircraft and then have Boeing do the life-extension and upgrade they proposed in the F-15C2040 program to provide Canada with a short term NORAD fighter replacement for the CF-18's.

This could then allow the government to wait several years before making a decision on a long-term replacement for the CF-18s.  By this time the F-35 will be a know commoditiy and any next generation aircraft/UAVs might be in the development stages.  The government (even Liberals) could at that time choose to purchase the F-35 without the political liabilities of buying them now (assuming that it has by then been proven to be a success and full-rate production prices have dropped as projected).

This could also possibly be a strategy to keep Canada in the F-35 supplier program since we're NOT saying we're not going to by the F-35...just that we're deferring the decision on what aircraft to buy until our interrim aircraft need to be replaced.

 

[suffolkowner]

The requirement of 65 is necessary to maintain 48 aircraft in combat squadrons.  That doesn't mean that all 48 are ready at any one time.  It leaked a few years ago that it was more like 34.

I also note that the 36 aircraft requirement has nothing on them being available all the time.  If we take the rule of 3s, it seems we're expected to have 12 available all the time.

I think the requirement for 36 NORAD(?) fighters drives the 65 to maintain 48 available the total number would be 85(the original number of F-35's for Canada some 10+ years ago now)

65 x 80% x 70% = 36
85 x 80% x 70% = 48

80% aircraft availability
70% aircraft serviceability

the 48/85 would allow one 6 pack for NATO European operations and one 6 pack for Expeditionary operations?

 

[jmt18325]

I think the requirement for 36 NORAD(?) fighters drives the 65 to maintain 48 available the total number would be 85(the original number of F-35's for Canada some 10+ years ago now)

65 x 80% x 70% = 36
85 x 80% x 70% = 48

80% aircraft availability
70% aircraft serviceability

the 48/85 would allow one 6 pack for NATO European operations and one 6 pack for Expeditionary operations?

I would be in favour of 120 and a third combat squadron.  That said, we now have 48 in active combat squadrons.  We don't have 48 active aircraft every day.

 

[jmt18325]

I tried to get you to read between the tea leaves the last few times I've responded to your post so I'll be direct this time.  Why are you creating a capability that isn't required?

We fulfill that mission already, without the additional tanker support you're proposing we buy.  A rather needless expense don't you think?

And if we don't need it that's fine.  I simply thought it would be useful - I apologize for my misunderstanding.

 

[DonaldMcL]

IF the government decides that the F-35 is out for immediate purchase for political reasons and IF they stick to their claim that they are requiring in interim aircraft to fill a "capability gap" would the following be a possible course of action?

The USAF is retiring F-15C due to budgetary issues (the numbers I've read are somewhere around 51 aircraft in the 2015/2016 budget but can't confirm).  Could we purchase those aircraft and then have Boeing do the life-extension and upgrade they proposed in the F-15C2040 program to provide Canada with a short term NORAD fighter replacement for the CF-18's.

This could then allow the government to wait several years before making a decision on a long-term replacement for the CF-18s.  By this time the F-35 will be a know commoditiy and any next generation aircraft/UAVs might be in the development stages.  The government (even Liberals) could at that time choose to purchase the F-35 without the political liabilities of buying them now (assuming that it has by then been proven to be a success and full-rate production prices have dropped as projected).

This could also possibly be a strategy to keep Canada in the F-35 supplier program since we're NOT saying we're not going to by the F-35...just that we're deferring the decision on what aircraft to buy until our interrim aircraft need to be replaced.

The F15C was designed, and mostly outfitted to be an Air-Superiority fighter. Limited strike role. Wouldnt be a good fit. The F15E on the other hand... great purchase 10-15 years ago.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thanks.  Generally, when I reach the limits of what I know or think to be true, I just stop talking.  Like I keep saying, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Like SKT and many others, I wasn't offended;  I asked my question (that I indicated was a serious question), for no other means than to determine where you are coming from, experience-wise etc.  I think that question actually offended you.  If it did, I am not sorry to be honest.  The only thing people can judge the credibility of our posts on here is TI/experience/education of relevance/etc.  I was simply trying to establish yours.  :2c:

Good discussion so far overall, hopefully this post of mine is the last of the little 'derail' from fighter and tanker stuff.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

IF the government decides that the F-35 is out for immediate purchase for political reasons and IF they stick to their claim that they are requiring in interim aircraft to fill a "capability gap" would the following be a possible course of action?

The USAF is retiring F-15C due to budgetary issues (the numbers I've read are somewhere around 51 aircraft in the 2015/2016 budget but can't confirm).  Could we purchase those aircraft and then have Boeing do the life-extension and upgrade they proposed in the F-15C2040 program to provide Canada with a short term NORAD fighter replacement for the CF-18's.

This could then allow the government to wait several years before making a decision on a long-term replacement for the CF-18s.  By this time the F-35 will be a know commoditiy and any next generation aircraft/UAVs might be in the development stages.  The government (even Liberals) could at that time choose to purchase the F-35 without the political liabilities of buying them now (assuming that it has by then been proven to be a success and full-rate production prices have dropped as projected).

This could also possibly be a strategy to keep Canada in the F-35 supplier program since we're NOT saying we're not going to by the F-35...just that we're deferring the decision on what aircraft to buy until our interrim aircraft need to be replaced.

Devil's advocate...why purchase 51 used fighters that have to be upgraded (not an overnight process)?  Would we, in the end, actually be saving any money after the upgrade is complete?  How long would the 'interim' upgraded F-15Cs fly for?  Think of how the GoC likes to stretch the lifespan of any RCAF aircraft.  Sea Kings come to mind as one example.

Waiting 'several years'...and then buying F35s.  My magic crystal ball tells me the GoC would be happy to walk away from the idea completely after spending X dollars on "upgraded F15Cs that can fly until 20XX".

Why do I think the GoC would be happy to push back from the table and spend no more money?  Well, how have they handled the replacement for the CF-18s?  Seems like a pretty good indicator to me.

Or our MHs.

Or our LRPAs.

Or...boots.

Or...

 

[suffolkowner]

I would be in favour of 120 and a third combat squadron.  That said, we now have 48 in active combat squadrons.  We don't have 48 active aircraft every day.

I would be shocked if we ended up with significantly more than 65 fighters, let's not get too carried away with our design your own airforce. Having said that the Defence Review is in progress an I expect significant pressure from the US whether from Clinton or Trump to start doing more of the heavy lifting so maybe you will get your additional AAR

 

[AlexanderM]

I would be shocked if we ended up with significantly more than 65 fighters, let's not get too carried away with our design your own airforce. Having said that the Defence Review is in progress an I expect significant pressure from the US whether from Clinton or Trump to start doing more of the heavy lifting so maybe you will get your additional AAR

I am expecting, and hoping for, pressure from both the US and the EU through NATO concerning our commitment to the military. They need to make it clear to JT that he can't take a page out of his fathers playbook and let other countries foot the bill. Am I wrong to think that we are heading into a Cold War version 2 with Russia and need to do our part?

 

[Good2Golf]

I would be in favour of 120 and a third combat squadron.  That said, we now have 48 in active combat squadrons.  We don't have 48 active aircraft every day.

The RCAF actually has four combat fighter squadrons: 410 TFS, 409 TFS, 425e ETAC and 433e ETAC.  Available/serviceable aircraft are not directly related to how many line squadrons are operating.

Regards
G2G

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good2Golf: Got your digits reversed --Cold Lake 410 actually operational training,
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/4-wing/410-squadron.page

401 the other tactical squadron:
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/4-wing/401-squadron.page

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

I think that actually was an autocorrect, somehow, Mark, but good catch.  Yes, meant to say 401.  I don't know if they still use the RAM call sign, as 401 did when it was a Kiowa unit in 10 TAG.

Chers
G2G

 

[jmt18325]

The RCAF actually has four combat fighter squadrons: 410 TFS, 409 TFS, 425e ETAC and 433e ETAC.  Available/serviceable aircraft are not directly related to how many line squadrons are operating.

Regards
G2G

You're right of course.  What I meant to say is that I'd like to have another combat base worth of fighters - another 24.

 

[PuckChaser]

You're right of course.  What I meant to say is that I'd like to have another combat base worth of fighters - another 24.

Why? Where do the PYs come from? We're a zero sum game for manning, to get your 24 fighters where do you get the 500(ish) PYs to support them? What capabilities get cut?