• 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)

Can someone explain to me why the Air Forces always seem to need more personnel to support the "next" generation of fighter aircraft, while the Navies and Marines who fly next gen jets are capable of doing so with just about the same number of support personnel? I mean, the USN and the Marines don't seem to need more people on the aircraft carriers or the amphibs to support he F-35 B's and F-35 C's when replacing the Harriers AV-8B's or the F-18E/F's.
 
Can someone explain to me why the Air Forces always seem to need more personnel to support the "next" generation of fighter aircraft, while the Navies and Marines who fly next gen jets are capable of doing so with just about the same number of support personnel? I mean, the USN and the Marines don't seem to need more people on the aircraft carriers or the amphibs to support he F-35 B's and F-35 C's when replacing the Harriers AV-8B's or the F-18E/F's.
theres some numbers in that thread for the RCN too. Time will tell if the numbers for the F-35 (+4300) and River's (+1400 for 3 ships) are reasonable?
 
theres some numbers in that thread for the RCN too. Time will tell if the numbers for the F-35 (+4300) and River's (+1400 for 3 ships) are reasonable?
I think @Oldgateboatdriver was referring to the support pers for Naval Air rather than the RCN.

But from Wiki, it looks like the number of fighter aircraft per Carrier Air Wing has decreased. I don’t think the number of pers on that carrier has decreased.

 
I find those numbers to be highly suspect. Furthermore in the USAF the support trades aren’t as broadly trained. Generally across the CAF the positions are occupied by less personnel than would be standard for US Mil positions.
 
Can someone explain to me why the Air Forces always seem to need more personnel to support the "next" generation of fighter aircraft, while the Navies and Marines who fly next gen jets are capable of doing so with just about the same number of support personnel? I mean, the USN and the Marines don't seem to need more people on the aircraft carriers or the amphibs to support he F-35 B's and F-35 C's when replacing the Harriers AV-8B's or the F-18E/F's.

Policy Hawk did…….and PBO……

I find those numbers to be highly suspect. Furthermore in the USAF the support trades aren’t as broadly trained. Generally across the CAF the positions are occupied by less personnel than would be standard for US Mil positions.

Yup. RCAF does not have a CF-18 jacking tech jack the plane so an CF-18 wheel tech can remove the wheel for a CF-18 brake tech to then fix the brakes and they all sequentially reverse their individual task…
 
I find those numbers to be highly suspect. Furthermore in the USAF the support trades aren’t as broadly trained. Generally across the CAF the positions are occupied by less personnel than would be standard for US Mil positions.
as do I.

49 extra personnel per F35 over the F18 or 81 using straight USAF numbers?

for the ships

467 extra personnel per River or 778 using straight US numbers

That just seems like a huge amount. I know we are understaffed and that the Leo2's use up a lot more man hours than the Leo1's (10x?) but still
 
some interesting tidbits

36 for Bagotville and
52 for Cold Lake


"The new 7,400 m2 QRA facility at CFB Bagotville will include aircraft hangar bays, office space and sleeping quarters for personnel, and a 17,000 m2 secure fenced compound surrounding the facility. Once completed, it will help CAF personnel support Canada and the NORAD mission and quickly respond to any threats in North American airspace."

pretty big in addition to the standard building

Construction begins on new $131 million Air Force Expeditionary Capability facility at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville - Canada.ca

"The main building in the new facility will measure approximately 15,000 m², which is roughly three football fields in size. Additional exterior space double the size will be reserved as part of the fenced compound for use as personnel parking, exterior storage, and staging space for deployments."



anyone have a feel for the personnel requirements stated here?

Oh god damn it the Gripen crew is all over an commented, I’ll have to leave for a week.
 
There are increased support demands for more technically advanced platforms. To say nothing of the increase in demand for network management and for intelligence work because of the sensor data.
You’re pushing for just more Army PRes, aren’t you? Then we just have to buy a few thousand more toques and gloves for them…
 
There are increased support demands for more technically advanced platforms. To say nothing of the increase in demand for network management and for intelligence work because of the sensor data.
A lot of that is (or should be) infrastructures and AI/ML.

Generally there are less maintenance requirements for modern systems, but those requirements can be more technically complex (akin to fuel injection versus a carburetor).
 
A lot of that is (or should be) infrastructures and AI/ML.

Generally there are less maintenance requirements for modern systems, but those requirements can be more technically complex (akin to fuel injection versus a carburetor).
Or, a skilled welder to join steel plates vs a few people banging on rivets with hammers and such.
 
A lot of that is (or should be) infrastructures and AI/ML.

Generally there are less maintenance requirements for modern systems, but those requirements can be more technically complex (akin to fuel injection versus a carburetor).
Maintenance hours per operating hour increase with more modern platforms. It's a problem the Canadian Army experienced with the introduction of the Leo 2 fleet.

On the F35, the security clearance requirements are increased for everyone. That will also strain the personnel system.
 
Maintenance hours per operating hour increase with more modern platforms. It's a problem the Canadian Army experienced with the introduction of the Leo 2 fleet.
That’s not necessarily true, the Leo2 platform is a notorious maintenance pig though.

But if you look at a UH-60 compared to a UH-1, the 60 costs more / blade hour, but actually requires less maintenance hours. When one looks at availability rates, modern equipment can often be more expensive/usage hour, but has a heck of a lot more available hours — so it’s not apple to apples, unless you only plan on showing things for a parade or aerial demonstration team ;)

Maintenance time isn’t necessarily the same thing as money, and while I agree that modern maintenance can be expensive, it’s not generally as expensive as trying to keep obsolete items running.



On the F35, the security clearance requirements are increased for everyone. That will also strain the personnel system.
That simply due to Canada’s absolutely shit security process. Back in the 90’s when TCCS was rolling out - everyone needed a Secret simply to use the radio - but the CAF ignored that and most troops at the time had Enhanced Reliability or Restricted Clearances (which I don’t even think is a thing anymore).

I remember doing the Security Audit of the CA Embassy in Afghanistan, and you needed a TS to access parts of the Embassy, and half the folks with me didn’t even have a Secret.
The MP’s at the Embassy were less than impressed about that aspect.

A Secret should be easily processed by the time folks are out of Basic - and a TS can easily be processed by the time those who need start trade training. A SCI requires two years (theoretically) with a TS, so that can limit personnel employment but most pipelines that are requiring an SCI are going to burn that two years up prior to the SCI being needed.

Heck we used to waiver Secret background investigations if the initially screening was clear (and some folks got interim TS on waivers before we learned the hard way that background investigations actually should be conducted prior).

Security Clearance issues are infrastructure at this point, most equipment requires a TS at min at this point for Operational items. The fact the CAF hasn’t addressed this in the past 2 decades is on the CAF for being an ostrich it’s not like it is something that it wasn’t aware of.
 
some interesting tidbits

36 for Bagotville and
52 for Cold Lake


"The new 7,400 m2 QRA facility at CFB Bagotville will include aircraft hangar bays, office space and sleeping quarters for personnel, and a 17,000 m2 secure fenced compound surrounding the facility. Once completed, it will help CAF personnel support Canada and the NORAD mission and quickly respond to any threats in North American airspace."

pretty big in addition to the standard building

Construction begins on new $131 million Air Force Expeditionary Capability facility at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville - Canada.ca

"The main building in the new facility will measure approximately 15,000 m², which is roughly three football fields in size. Additional exterior space double the size will be reserved as part of the fenced compound for use as personnel parking, exterior storage, and staging space for deployments."



I would have thought that, in this day and age, we would start to build QRA facilities out of concrete and steel. Maybe partially underground. But what do I know…

anyone have a feel for the personnel requirements stated here?

 
The interesting thing when you pulling data, it can lead weird places.


If you pull CBO's based Excel data for FY23


There are 2,680 PY allocated to F-35A USAF Squadron based on current FY23/34 data.

“Direct” personnel and costs are associated with a major combat unit, “indirect” personnel and costs are associated with units that support the major combat unit, and “overhead” personnel and costs are associated with the major combat unit’s share of administrative or overhead activities. For more information, see Chapter 1. The numbers shown here are rounded to the nearest 10 personnel or $10 million; more detailed information is presented in Appendixes A and B.

When you get into Appendix B
353 PY are the actual number of positions in a F-35A Squadron
1,287 is the Indirect PY allocated towards an F-35A Squadron
1,034 Overhead PY are allocated towards an F-35A Squadron


Based on FY21, data that the PolicyHawk guy seems to being off about there where 3,070 but that is neither current nor reasonable when one actually looks at the breakdowns.

When you start pulling what exactly those PY's are well then it gets really really weird (NIPR or SIPR connection needed for that).
 
Back
Top