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

[Journeyman]

Wouldn't that actually be a key requirement in properly fulfilling the NORAD role for any new RCAF fighter?

Freudian slip. 

They already know a "CF-35" would be interoperable with an F-35.  Clearly  the decision has already been made, and you just pointed out the leak. 


[Great.  Civic holiday, so I can't buy more stock in tinfoil    ]

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I don't claim any expertise in the deep, dark hidden meanings and biases written into procurement requirements but this bit in the section on interoperability seemed very interesting to me:

I know that technically the F-35 hasn't yet achieved IOC (but from what I've read here it is imminent) and it is some time off before it achieves FOC but since the F-35 will be the primary fighter of the USAF going forward does it not seem strange that interoperability with it is not even mentioned in the document?  Wouldn't that actually be a key requirement in properly fulfilling the NORAD role for any new RCAF fighter?

Interoperability is largely achieved through having the proper TDL data links. As most aircraft currently use Link 16 (and possibly Link 22 in the future as the replacement for Link 11) the aircraft must be equipped with a MIDS (Multifunctional Information Distribution System) radio in order to tie into the Integrated Air Defence System (IADS), which includes Air-based, Ground Based, and sea-based air defence systems). To some extent, you could attach a MIDS to a WW1 era bi-plane and it would be interoperable.

Other interoperability factors such as proper connections for A2A refuelling, etc can be better explained by fighter types...

 

[GR66]

Interoperability is largely achieved through having the proper TDL data links. As most aircraft currently use Link 16 (and possibly Link 22 in the future as the replacement for Link 11) the aircraft must be equipped with a MIDS (Multifunctional Information Distribution System) radio in order to tie into the Integrated Air Defence System (IADS), which includes Air-based, Ground Based, and sea-based air defence systems). To some extent, you could attach a MIDS to a WW1 era bi-plane and it would be interoperable.

Other interoperability factors such as proper connections for A2A refuelling, etc can be better explained by fighter types...

If interoperability is all about the data links then why mention specific aircraft that you're required to be interoperable with at all (the document specifically cites F-15C, F-16C and F-22A).  If you are going to mention specific aircraft than it just seems a little strange to NOT mention the aircraft that will be the primary fighter aircraft of the USAF for decades to come.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

If interoperability is all about the data links then why mention specific aircraft that you're required to be interoperable with at all (the document specifically cites F-15C, F-16C and F-22A).  If you are going to mention specific aircraft than it just seems a little strange to NOT mention the aircraft that will be the primary fighter aircraft of the USAF for decades to come.

There are technical aspects to interoperability as well, such as the hook ups for A2A refuelling but I would assume that all US built aircraft have similar technical standards for such things.

As for why the F35 isn't mentioned? Beats me... the whole NATO fleet should be interoperable in terms of datalinks so in theory they should have listed every single NATO fighter type... though in terms of being in an IADS or maintaining SA the datalink interoperability is the critical technical factor. Perhaps they just wanted to avoid any mention of the F35?

 

[SupersonicMax]

The F-15C, F-22 and F-16C are NORAD fighters.  The KC-135 is one of the NORAD tankers.  That's why those are mentionned and not the F-35s or any other NATO fighters.

 

[GR66]

The F-15C, F-22 and F-16C are NORAD fighters.  The KC-135 is one of the NORAD tankers.  That's why those are mentionned and not the F-35s or any other NATO fighters.

Thanks for the clarification.  Is the F-35 not planned to replace any of the above mentioned fighters in the NORAD role?  If not, is there a reason that the F-35 is not being planned for use in that role by the USAF?

 

[MarkOttawa]

USAF F-35As will be with NORAD in Alaska--our fighters will work with them:

1) Eielson selected to receive operational F-35A aircraft
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/712879/eielson-selected-to-receive-operational-f-35a-aircraft.aspx

2) Keeping Hornets’ eyes on target

Royal Canadian air force (RCAF) Cpl. Yannick Deschesnes, 425th Tactical Fighter Squadron, polishes a visor for a CF-18 Hornet pilot’s helmet at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, May 7, 2015, during RED FLAG-Alaska 15-2. Deschesnes is an aircrew flight equipment technician, but also holds four other maintenance positions within the RCAF. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Shawn Nickel/Released)
http://www.eielson.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/1819/Article/642402/keeping-hornets-eyes-on-target.aspx

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Harrigan]

I am not going to jump into this F35 vs the rest debate.

However, surely we can all agree on one thing: All five aircraft on offer would provide the RCAF with an upgrade on its current fighter force.  We can at least take solace in the fact that no matter what aircraft is chosen, it will be an upgrade.

There are other issues which I am more interesting in hearing answers to, but they tend to get lost amongst the noise of "F-35 is awesome because....." and "F-35 sucks because...." ad nauseum.

1. Purchase cost is a small part of the overall price tag - what about operating costs?  Surely that is a far more important figure in the big picture. 

2. AAR - What would the cost be to get new tankers to support the new fighter if the new fighter requires a different system than our current mix of Airbus/Herc?  Surely that calculation must be added into the mix?  They are not unrelated.

3. Are our northern FOLs compatible with the new fighters?  What is the cost to upgrade these sites, including runway extensions if required?  Again, that is not an unrelated cost - it must be factored into the decision.

4. What industrial offsets will the five companies offer?  LM has been very vocal about the 'potential' economic benefits of buying their offering, but as far as I know they are not guaranteeing any industrial offsets - only the opportunity to bid for contracts. (and I am certain someone on here will swiftly correct me if this is incorrect)  The other four would no doubt have to offer guaranteed industrial offsets to counter the greater potential value of the LM programme.  It will be interesting to see what they offer, and what Canadian companies become involved.

5.  Intellectual property.  We know that Canada won't 'get the codes' on the F-35.  What about for the other four aircraft?

6.  Should we go for the bare minimum number of aircraft, or buy something less capable but more numerous?  Many of us on here know exactly what that minimum is, and why.  But should we start already at the bare minimum required at the beginning of an aircraft's service life?

7. What do we intend to use them for?  If NORAD plus the occasional sixpack vs a relatively benign threat, then probably anything will do.  If we need a first night door-kicker, then maybe only a couple of options.

I have not seen definitive answers to any of these questions.  I have seen a lot of "Company X estimates...", and "expected" and plenty of glossy brochures and promises from all five companies, but one has to take all of the PR with a grain of salt.  They are trying to sell us something.

But at the end of the day, we'll buy a new fighter that will be a step forward from where we are now.  And unlike some of the doomsayers out there (on all sides), no matter what aircraft we choose, we will join other like-minded NATO/Allied nations in fielding a primary fighter that will be in service for at least the next 25-30 years:

F-35 - US + many others
Eurofighter - UK, Germany, Spain, Italy
Rafale - France
Gripen - Czechs, Hungary, Sweden
Super Hornet - USN, Australia

No matter what is chosen, we won't be alone.

Harrigan

 

[PuckChaser]

2. AAR - What would the cost be to get new tankers to support the new fighter if the new fighter requires a different system than our current mix of Airbus/Herc?  Surely that calculation must be added into the mix?  They are not unrelated.

I think that's the biggest issue with the F-35A, its boom-fueled by default. Only the B and C models are equipped with probe and drogue system. Definitely either added cost to have them modified on the assembly line, or even larger cost to purchase 2 new refuellers.

 

[Loachman]

Which we will have to replace soon anyway, or tap into US/other tankers.

Question for Max: How frequently do we need to use our tankers? Is this a capability that we need continually given our limited supply of fighters?

 

[SupersonicMax]

The CC-130 and CC-150 tankers are, from my understanding, coming to end of life.  Maybe it's time to buy KC-46s?  Flexible AAR capabilities (Boom and Drogue) and thr ability to deploy our maintainers and some equipment along with the jets.

 

[SupersonicMax]

We use them a fair bit to transit places, on Operations.  It is, IMO, a capability we need to keep.  We can't rely on contractors (Omega) or the US to deploy us.

 

[PuckChaser]

The CC-130 and CC-150 tankers are, from my understanding, coming to end of life.  Maybe it's time to buy KC-46s?  Flexible AAR capabilities (Boom and Drogue) and thr ability to deploy our maintainers and some equipment along with the jets.

Is there a project already started from what you're aware to do options analysis for replacement? If not, we'd likely be 10 years into new aircraft before a replacement started being delivered.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think that's the biggest issue with the F-35A, its boom-fueled by default.

I'd say the biggest issue with the F35 is Facebook  ;D

 

[jmt18325]

I think that's the biggest issue with the F-35A, its boom-fueled by default. Only the B and C models are equipped with probe and drogue system. Definitely either added cost to have them modified on the assembly line, or even larger cost to purchase 2 new refuellers.

Well we have 6-7 refuelers now, so we're going to need more than 2.

 

[jmt18325]

Is there a project already started from what you're aware to do options analysis for replacement? If not, we'd likely be 10 years into new aircraft before a replacement started being delivered.

There are two parallel peojects going on.

1 involves a life extension of the CC-150 needed after 2026, and the other involves a whole new aircraft in around the same time frame.  Requirements for the new aircraft, if they go that way, are stated to be awaiting the outcome of the fighter decision.

 

[Loachman]

Well we have 6-7 refuelers now, so we're going to need more than 2.

I am not sure how much we use the Hercs, though, or if at all aside from training.

Max?

 

[jmt18325]

I am not sure how much we use the Hercs, though, or if at all aside from training.

Max?

I have no information on that either.  I believe we used them over Libya in 2011, and that they're at RIMPAC right now.  I say 6-7 because I'm not sure if the aircraft that caught fire while on exercise in Florida ever reentered service.

For proper coverage, we'd need 5 - 7, I would think.  6 would give us one available all the time at each base.  I'd also propose moving 3 of them to be closer to the fighters in the west.  5 would probably be the bare minimum to operate all the time, and 7 would give us the ability to deploy one without losing capability at home.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

But at the end of the day, we'll buy a new fighter that will be a step forward from where we are now.  And unlike some of the doomsayers out there (on all sides), no matter what aircraft we choose, we will join other like-minded NATO/Allied nations in fielding a primary fighter that will be in service for at least the next 25-30 years:

F-35 - US + many others
Eurofighter - UK, Germany, Spain, Italy
Rafale - France
Gripen - Czechs, Hungary, Sweden
Super Hornet - USN, Australia

No matter what is chosen, we won't be alone.

Harrigan

Why not list all the F35 operators though?

I'll do it for you

USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, RN, Italian Navy, Italian Air Force, Australia, Israel, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Japan, Korea.

Who else is considering it?

Belgium
Finland
Greece
Poland
Romania
Spain

and some others are interested, namely:

Saudi Arabia
Taiwan
UAE

I have no information on that either.  I believe we used them over Libya in 2011, and that they're at RIMPAC right now.  I say 6-7 because I'm not sure if the aircraft that caught fire while on exercise in Florida ever reentered service.

For proper coverage, we'd need 5 - 7, I would think.  6 would give us one available all the time at each base.  I'd also propose moving 3 of them to be closer to the fighters in the west.  5 would probably be the bare minimum to operate all the time, and 7 would give us the ability to deploy one without losing capability at home.

Spoken like someone who has no clue how our refuellers are actually used  :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Spoken like someone who has no clue how our refuellers are actually used  :

And someone who forgot about that little OP IMPACT thing that's been going on for...almost 2 years now.  Keeping 1 tanker deployed on a sustained op has to be included in the mix because it takes at least 1 tail, plus crews and techs out of the 'other stuff that's going on' loop.  It also eats up lots of fuel, YFR and time between 2nd and/or 3rd line maint.