• 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)

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
5
Points
430
Inspir said:
You would think NATO would have some sort of membership rule stating 'own up to the 2% GDP or you're out'. Do you think if NATO started talking about booting nations out it would really sway the government to start taking Defense spending more seriously?

Enforcing that would cut the membership by over half.  [:D
 

Jay4th

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
There is an excellent research paper in the "Vimy Papers" on the CDA institute website about the fighter replacement program.  It is called "The Fourth Dimmension"
I found it a grat insight into the procurement of aircraft and how badly it can be screwed up.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,778
Points
1,090
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-announcement-1.3862210


My apologies if already posted.

I can understand if the government wants to see how the JSF shapes up in a few years, before totally committing to buying them.  I can understand purchasing an interm aircraft if it helps with availability & service rates, as it did for the Australians.

I don't understand how a full blown competition was held within a few months, back in the 80's - when all we had was pen, paper, typewriters, and the odd fax machine.  And how it can take so much longer today.
 

Canuck_Jock

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
...as it did for the Australians

Mmm, the big difference is that the Aussies have them.  Real aircraft. With a kangaroo painted on their sides; quite a few flying in combat out in the sand pit as we chat.  Ours are, well...(wet finger in air) maybe 6 or 7 years away?

Canadian defence procurement.  A shower of sh!te that always commands cross-bench support in government no matter what...

NATO 2% commitment?  Arguably the only positive aspect of Trump's otherwise sordid platform was the threat to hold our feet to the fire and get 2% from all countries (only 4 meeting it, IIRC).  Us and most of Europe has been living off a peace dividend long past its geo-political sell by date.

And another thing:  [:mad: !!!
 

Inspir

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Canuck_Jock said:
NATO 2% commitment?  Arguably the only positive aspect of Trump's otherwise sordid platform was the threat to hold our feet to the fire and get 2% from all countries (only 4 meeting it, IIRC).  Us and most of Europe has been living off a peace dividend long past its geo-political sell by date.

And another thing:  [:mad: !!!

 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    117.1 KB · Views: 260

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,310
Points
1,160
Technoviking said:
That will be our plan, and then realize just before sending out the punt squad that this is the CFL...  :p

Still play football in Canada?

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,310
Points
1,160
Did we buy the 6 pack of CH-47Ds for Afghanistan as an Interim Measure?  Or did we acquire them?

Canadian Pilots in USN seats?
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,437
Points
1,360
My bet, we buy 18 super hornets and retire the legacy hornets by 2025 as planned.  No new competition is ever held and we end up with a token force only used for continental commitments effectively becoming NZ of the North.  Well on our way to becoming even more irrelevant than we were before.
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
180
Points
680
You are forgetting the Trump factor. The Trump factor in defense, trade protectionism(chicken/eggs/dairy), carbon tax etc. A bunch of amateurs in Ottawa who will soon be put in their place. Mr.IQ 0 and buddy Butts will soon have wet pants.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Having only 18 jets would break our NORAD and Canadian defence commitments.  If anything were to happen, it would simply be the CF-18s bing forever upgraded along side the SH.

This is actually good news for the F-35.  It pretty much means we're going to buy it, - as it will be one of only 2/3 choices come ~2021.  It means to me that the government knows it had to buy the F-35, but has to keep their promise for now.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,129
Points
1,060
Or it can buy SH, and cook the books for the procurement to overweight the "existing infrastructure and training" card to stick us with an orphan fleet until 2060s.
 

caocao

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Talking about infra, do our hgrs in CL and Bagot able to support the SH or are we going to need new hgr doors?
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,559
Points
1,140
New hangar doors?!  I don't know how big you think a SH is but...  doors should be the least of our concerns.  All of our hangars can fit at least a Herc and some an AWACS. 
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
453
Points
980
Rifleman62 said:
You are forgetting the Trump factor. The Trump factor in defense, trade protectionism(chicken/eggs/dairy), carbon tax etc. A bunch of amateurs in Ottawa who will soon be put in their place. Mr.IQ 0 and buddy Butts will soon have wet pants.

I am still hoping that Mr Trump fires Trudeau.

He doesn't have to do it in his first hundred days, and it can even wait until after Hillary, Bill, and their minions are in jail, but someday...
 

Downhiller229

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Frustrating (but predictable) play to save face and try to dodge a political bullet from the wall they backed themselves into.

Glass half full, if we get the growler convertible ones and keep them as EW platforms after we take delivery of F35s in 5 years then it will be a positive development... Only if
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,778
Points
1,090
jmt18325 said:
Having only 18 jets would break our NORAD and Canadian defence commitments.  If anything were to happen, it would simply be the CF-18s bing forever upgraded along side the SH.

This is actually good news for the F-35.  It pretty much means we're going to buy it, - as it will be one of only 2/3 choices come ~2021.  It means to me that the government knows it had to buy the F-35, but has to keep their promise for now.


Holy crap JMT.  I think you are giving this government WAY too much credit in their ability to plan for the future.

 

BurmaShave

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
130
MarkOttawa said:
So some Super Hornets after all as "interim measure"?  How many, any Growlers (good for expeditionary)?  Further to this,

is the fix in?  Anonymice abound:

Perish the thought that the Liberal Party's political needs might be another consideration.

Mark
Ottawa

Can one of the experts give me orientation on this? I don't know much about squadrons and logistics.

Are the gains of the Super Hornet worth the associated headaches of having two fighter types? Is it simple expediency?

Do we need an interim fighter? Are our fighter needs so pressing that we can't wait for a competition to happen? (Or, cynically, is the opposite true? Is this a way of kicking the horrifically expensive fighter purchase down the road, Liberal style?)

Why the Super Hornet? Is there any commonality left between the Hornet and the Rhino? For similar price, why not get Strike Eagles (not the gold-plated Slam Eagle. $100 million is pushing it)?
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
946
Points
1,060
I think I posted this link before regarding fleet requirements single/mixed fighters

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page

the 18 SH should contribute 10 towards the NORAD requirement of 36 leaving the remaining 26 to be covered by the original hornets (46 x0.8 x0.7 = 26). So my guess is that the liberals think they can keep at least 46 of the hornets going in the interim
   
 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
34
Points
530
suffolkowner said:
I think I posted this link before regarding fleet requirements single/mixed fighters

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page

the 18 SH should contribute 10 towards the NORAD requirement of 36 leaving the remaining 26 to be covered by the original hornets (46 x0.8 x0.7 = 26). So my guess is that the liberals think they can keep at least 46 of the hornets going in the interim
 

All hail the maintainers; perhaps the libs will give 'em a pay raise for the hell they are going to be living/working with to keep in the air.  And, while we're at it, how about them SK rotor-head maintainers too.  Sigh.
 
Top