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

[childs56]

If you understand that, why did you suggest this:

Simple Canadian Designed means
A plan is proposed.
A Canadian Aerospace Engineering firm draws up a plan, proposes it and if it looks good we move on to the next step.
Then they approach a Canadian Aerospace Manufacture and asks can you build this. They look at it and go yup.
The three groups sit down and go what parts do need to make XYZ work.
Then they look at Canada industry and ask them what they can provide.
Then they put it all together and build the thing.

The only way it will be economically feasible and sensible for Canada to get input into a modern fighter design is to be part of a consortium.

I disagree, if Canada looks to the future 30 - 40 years down the road.
One plan is for unmanned Aircraft. Canada leads on this technology R&D, such can provide and is providing lots of experience across our allies.

I don't think you understand how much these two are competing and why they are in different fighter programs.

Very much competing but also shared lots of tech with the different processes and equipment used by both. Both have been updating and using each others information to better their own aircraft.
More so the Eurofighter is using equipment from the Rafale program. That's what happens when you put to many fingers in a pot in the R&D of a aircraft program.

 

[Good2Golf]

Simple Canadian Designed means
A plan is proposed.
A Canadian Aerospace Engineering firm draws up a plan, proposes it and if it looks good we move on to the next step.
Then they approach a Canadian Aerospace Manufacture and asks can you build this. They look at it and go yup.
The three groups sit down and go what parts do need to make XYZ work.
Then they look at Canada industry and ask them what they can provide.
Then they put it all together and build the thing.

So Bombardier, or DeHavilland?

 

[GR66]

Yes you can. Dassault previously said it would look at production elements in Canada if the Rafale was selected. US (discrete….at the time) pressure convinced France to move on, which they did.

As well, don’t mistake P&W for P&WC. There is no P&WC product suitable for a 6th gen fighter aircraft.

No complaints about the Rafale as a fighter but assuming that the FCAS program doesn't crap the bed then it will be phased out by Dassault so we'd be looking at a discontinued fighter with no real prospects of build in Canada for the follow-on FCAS to keep a domestic production line running.

Fair enough on the different engine type focus between P&W vs P&WC.

Personally I seriously doubt that the US would do anything to impact the operation of our F-35's because their primary role is to assist in the defence of North America so it would only hurt them. However some on here have questioned our continued participation in the program (or have suggested reducing our purchase to the original 65 and hedging with a non-US alternative going forward). I don't see any advantage of scrapping the F-35 completely. There are no other fighters we can get in the timelines we require to replace the order and doing so would probably trigger some form of non-pleasant response from Lockheed Martin and the US Government. Simply reducing the quantity to the original order number would not make them happy, but would be less likely to trigger a serious response (only the UK, Australia, Israel and Japan would be larger foreign buyers).

With that in mind I'm simply throwing out what I see as the potential options.

• Accept any real or perceived risk related to the F-35 and continue on the current course and look at a replacement in 30 years.
• We could go with an existing non-US fighter like the Rafale or Eurofighter but both those are on course to be replaced by Next Gen fighter programs (FCAS and GCAP) so we'd end up with aircraft that will have limited support for future growth (i.e. a one-shot buy)
• If domestic production is a priority then partnering with Saab for their Next Gen fighter is likely the only option as they need a partner/partners to move their design forward. South Korea might also be interested in joining such a program but I'm not sure their requirements match ours.
• If domestic production is not a priority then we could look at the FCAS or GCAP programs. It's looking like GCAP may end up looking like a better fit for Canada but with either you're just trading dependence on a US product to dependence on a different foreign product.

I'd say we keep on our current course and don't stir the pot with the US and see how things play out over the next four years. If the situation with Trump seriously worsens or the issues remain post-Trump then we reduce our F-35 buy to the original 65 and see which of FCAS or GCAP is looking like the better option for us.

If we however are really serious about wanting to have domestic production of our fighters then we should reach out to Saab ASAP because there is a serious risk that they will fold their program if they don't partner with someone else to cover the cost.

 

[PrairieFella]

So Bombardier, or DeHavilland?

Say what you will about Bombardier, they made pretty good aircraft.

 

[Good2Golf]

Say what you will about Bombardier, they made pretty good aircraft.

They (through perpetuation) built a 2nd gen trainer and maintained a 4th gen fighter someone else built.

That said, they’re more that a bush plane and commuter OEM, so there is that…

 

[Kirkhill]

If a 2nd fleet then....



The difference between Collaborative Combat Aircraft, UAVs and Smart Long Range Cruise Missiles is becoming vanishingly small. With the cost tending towards the LRCM end of the spectrum rather than the Combat Aircraft end.

 

[GR66]

If a 2nd fleet then....

View attachment 91594

The difference between Collaborative Combat Aircraft, UAVs and Smart Long Range Cruise Missiles is becoming vanishingly small. With the cost tending towards the LRCM end of the spectrum rather than the Combat Aircraft end.

CCA'a or UCAV's or whatever the naming flavour of the day is should definitely be on the procurement list and in fact they are integral parts of the FCAS, GCAP and Saab Next Gen programs. This I'm thinking is an area where we could potentially see domestic production if we were to partner with one of the above programs.

 

[YZT580]

If a 2nd fleet then....

View attachment 91594

The difference between Collaborative Combat Aircraft, UAVs and Smart Long Range Cruise Missiles is becoming vanishingly small. With the cost tending towards the LRCM end of the spectrum rather than the Combat Aircraft end.

That photo takes me back to North Bay and the Bomarc era

 

[lenaitch]

That photo takes me back to North Bay and the Bomarc era

A tad more vertical. I don't think there was ever a launch from either of our sites was there?

*****

I don't anything will change but if we had to, a partnership with a European manufacturer seems the way to go. Designing a building an airframe is only part of it. Finding the engines, electronics, guidance systems and weapons that aren't controlled by the US is the other.

The Arrow had two main problems: We had no export market and our domestic market, even with the envisioned fleet numbers, weren't enough to make the project viable; and they were trying to bring on a new and unproven airframe, engine and fire control system all at the same time.

 

[ytz]

Simple Canadian Designed means
A plan is proposed.
A Canadian Aerospace Engineering firm draws up a plan, proposes it and if it looks good we move on to the next step.
Then they approach a Canadian Aerospace Manufacture and asks can you build this. They look at it and go yup.
The three groups sit down and go what parts do need to make XYZ work.
Then they look at Canada industry and ask them what they can provide.
Then they put it all together and build the thing.

I disagree, if Canada looks to the future 30 - 40 years down the road.
One plan is for unmanned Aircraft. Canada leads on this technology R&D, such can provide and is providing lots of experience across our allies.

I don't think you understand how much aircraft development costs. And if you're doing it for a small order size, your unit costs will be spectacular. Just the recent upgrade on the F-35 to Block IV came to $16.5B in development costs. That is for an existing aircraft and changing some electronics, software, and mechanical upgrades. Original development costs are thought to be $40B. So the Americans have spent more on just F-35 development and designing upgrades than we will spend on the entire lifecycle of our F-35 fleet. These costs should tell you why all these countries are partnering up.

You could say we'll make cheaper and less capable aircraft. But that carries substantial operational risk when you have to use them. Is the government willing to restrict employment of a less capable air force to missions it can handle?

 

[ytz]

If a 2nd fleet then....

View attachment 91594

The difference between Collaborative Combat Aircraft, UAVs and Smart Long Range Cruise Missiles is becoming vanishingly small. With the cost tending towards the LRCM end of the spectrum rather than the Combat Aircraft end.

No they aren't. CCAs aren't supposed to be disposable (as a weapon is). They are supposed to bring cheaper mass. And they come with all kinds of capabilities from EW, to buddy tanking to carrying ordinance.

 

[childs56]

I don't think you understand how much aircraft development costs. And if you're doing it for a small order size, your unit costs will be spectacular. Just the recent upgrade on the F-35 to Block IV came to $16.5B in development costs. That is for an existing aircraft and changing some electronics, software, and mechanical upgrades. Original development costs are thought to be $40B. So the Americans have spent more on just F-35 development and designing upgrades than we will spend on the entire lifecycle of our F-35 fleet. These costs should tell you why all these countries are partnering up.

You could say we'll make cheaper and less capable aircraft. But that carries substantial operational risk when you have to use them. Is the government willing to restrict employment of a less capable air force to missions it can handle?

Did all that money go specifically to the F35? was it part of a larger project?
Never said R&D isnt cheap, time is money and money is time.
Developing your own Aerospace program is money well spent across the board.

 

[ytz]

Did all that money go specifically to the F35? was it part of a larger project?

That was just the F-35. And like I said just upgrade block are now over $10B. Modern fighter programs are just that expensive.

Never said R&D isnt cheap, time is money and money is time.
Developing your own Aerospace program is money well spent across the board.

It's a question of opportunity cost. $50B can achieve a lot. There's a heavy burden of proof to show that spending it on developing our own fighters (after all this is money before a single jet is delivered) is the wisest.

There are development cases I support. For example, I think we should do with a Bombardier Global Express what Australia did with its AIRSEW project. But a fighter development program is over the top.

 

[Kirkhill]

No they aren't. CCAs aren't supposed to be disposable (as a weapon is). They are supposed to bring cheaper mass. And they come with all kinds of capabilities from EW, to buddy tanking to carrying ordinance.

I think that depends upon who you are asking. There are advocates for 300, 30 and 3 MUSD solutions. The existing players are generally pushing for the big ticket solutions. The neophytes are convinced they can produce them at scale for the price of a cruise missile. Some of them, like Kratos, have years in the business but have never carried kinetic payloads.

It's not that difficult. It's only rocket science.

....

On my side of the Atlantic the future was Bloodhound



....

That and whatever Gerry and Sylvia Anderson showed me. I gather I'm not the only kid on this site that was raised by them.



They showed me the future. Heinlein, Clarke, Niven and Pournelle told me the future. A future of a US-USSR CoDominium, American Express and private mining companies mining the Moon, the asteroids and Mars and people with personal computers giving them access to all the libraries of the Universe, oh and LA unfit for human habitation due to social engineering.

Clarke's Laws

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Niven's Laws

• Never fire a laser at a mirror.
• Giving up freedom for security is beginning to look naïve. (This one is based on a quote - "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," from Benjamin Franklin.)
• It is easier to destroy than to create.
• Ethics change with technology.
• The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that think as well as you do, but differently.

Niven's laws - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And, of course - Lazarus Long

Always store beer in a cold, dark place.

Cheops' Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget.

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

Rub her feet.

If the universe has any purpose more important than topping a woman you love and making a baby with her hearty help, I have never heard of it.

Never try to teach a pig to sing – it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

And this above all others

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”​

― Robert A. Heinlein

 

[childs56]

That was just the F-35. And like I said just upgrade block are now over $10B. Modern fighter programs are just that expensive.

One has to look at the actual costs or the cost plus of the program. Money diverted here and there for other aspects not spoken to in the process.
if your telling me $10B for a upgrade block that was already suppose to be designed I would say someone is making money with little to any accountability.

I am curious what Israel has spent developing their own F35 program.

It's a question of opportunity cost. $50B can achieve a lot. There's a heavy burden of proof to show that spending it on developing our own fighters (after all this is money before a single jet is delivered) is the wisest.

There are development cases I support. For example, I think we should do with a Bombardier Global Express what Australia did with its AIRSEW project. But a fighter development program is over the top.

Canada was in development of unmanned/ uncrewed Fighter attack aircraft Gen 6 fighter program back when the F35 was being pitched.
Not sure where the program went, but they were heavily into the system process and senser fusion of making something like that succeed.
The costs were spread out over other developmental programs because the sensor fusion can be shared across many applications not just flying fighters.
They looked at the simple aspect that a aircraft could and is built to exceed forces that a human body can not be subjected to.

We have most of what we need to design and build fighter aircraft but the will to do so.

 

[Kirkhill]

And this was a Canadian future once upon a time. The Canadair CL-89 recce drone. It flew a pre-programmed course, took pictures and returned to base to have the film analysed.

And then there was the CL-289

CL-289 / AN/USD-502

Breadth / Length :	1.32 m / 3.61 m
Weight :	220 kg
Autonomy :	30 min / 170 km radius
Power plant :	Turbo jet engine
Maximum speed :	720 kph
Navigation :	Programmed trajectory (inertial guidance, altimetry, doppler)
Payload :	Stereoscopic camera, infrared analyser, flight recorder, real time transmission of images from the infrared analyser to ground operators, from up to 70 km

Main user countries :	Germany
French Army inventory :	55 drones en 4 units​
Typical mission	30-mn 400-km flights at very low altitude allowing rapid and detailed evaluation of targets with transmission of high quality digital images

....

Canada used to be known for innovation and ingenuity. The Arrow and Bras d'Or were only a couple of examples. The entire fleet of DeHavilland STOLs were another. The St-Laurents another. Beartraps. Sonar.

 

[MrWhyt]

Canada was in development of unmanned/ uncrewed Fighter attack aircraft Gen 6 fighter program back when the F35 was being pitched.

 

[childs56]

Lol.
You don't have to believe me. Canadian industry has been working on tech for this concept for a number of years.

 

[Good2Golf]

if your telling me $10B for a upgrade block that was already suppose to be designed I would say someone is making money with little to any accountability.

Want to take a guess how many block updates/upgrades happened after the first F-16As flew?

Hint: a non-zero number.

 

[childs56]

Want to take a guess how many block updates/upgrades happened after the first F-16As flew?

Hint: a non-zero number.

Of course there are always updates and such.
To say an aircraft can do this and it cant, then add a few billion there and few billion there to make it work is simply smart business on part of the manufacturing group, not desirable to the purchaser.
The aircraft was suppose to be built to XYZ standard, it has hit ABC and D. But needs everything else in between. Most Buyers knew some of this initially, but were promised things would come along. Afterall it was a new platform with tons of capability packed into one platform. What I don't think they were prepared for was the actual time frame for such things to be upgraded and working along with the cost of the upgrades. Open sources state these are very alarmingly expensive and delayed.

The F16 is still getting updates and upgrades. Surpassed it's original design spec. I cant imagine in 47ish years the F35 still getting its initial promised tech. Let alone installing conformal fuel tanks, updating its systems to accept different ordinances.
Time will tell, if I am around in 47 years to see the F35 flying into the next 20 years (outside of Canada's fleet) I would be surprised.