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

[jmt18325]

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

Spoken like someone who sees a shortfall in our current capability.  But enlighten me, rather than just making condescending statements.

 

[jmt18325]

And someone who forgot about that little OP IMPACT thing that's been going on for...almost 2 years now.

How does anything that I said say that I forgot we've had one tanker deployed since 2014?  That only underscores that we need more of them.  Australia is going to have what, 9, with a similar fighter force.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Spoken like someone who sees a shortfall in our current capability.  But enlighten me, rather than just making condescending statements.

The primary purpose of the CC150 tankers is to support the planes on expeditionary operations, not NORAD, Dom Ops, etc...

Does it make sense to use aircraft based in Trenton to refuel fighter aircraft launching from Bagotville or Cold Lake?  Especially when the primary direction of travel for said fighter aircraft on NORAD operations is usually OUT not IN.

The H Model Hercs are primarily used for SAR with tactical refuelling being a secondary duty.  Lets not even mention that Hercs are slower than Molasses in comparison to a CF18, not exactly what you want when dealing with a situation that requires QUICK REACTION.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

How does anything that I said say that I forgot we've had one tanker deployed since 2014?  That only underscores that we need more of them.  Australia is going to have what, 9, with a similar fighter force.

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.

6-7 tankers total wouldn't likely every = 6 or 7 tankers available for the PLYPRO at any (most) times.  Not sure what your background is, but a fleet is never at 100% serviceability for ops.  :2c:

 

[jmt18325]

Does it make sense to use aircraft based in Trenton to refuel fighter aircraft launching from Bagotville or Cold Lake?  Especially when the primary direction of travel for said fighter aircraft on NORAD operations is usually OUT not IN.

I wish people would actually read what I say and respond to that.  I said part of the plan would be to move the AAR aircraft to the bases with the fighters, so that they'd be closer.  They could then be used for training, deployments, and transit.  Fighters that need to stay on scene of a NORAD deployment longer could do so without having to return to an FOB to refuel.

The H Model Hercs are primarily used for SAR with tactical refuelling being a secondary duty.  Lets not even mention that Hercs are slower than Molasses in comparison to a CF18, not exactly what you want when dealing with a situation that requires QUICK REACTION.

Which is why they aren't all that useful in such a situation.  They're fine for deployments and training though.  Something like the A330 MRTT, much more so.

 

[jmt18325]

6-7 tankers total wouldn't likely every = 6 or 7 tankers available for the PLYPRO at any (most) times.  Not sure what your background is, but a fleet is never at 100% serviceability for ops.  :2c:

6 - 7 tankers would mean that you'd have 2 available all the time (sometimes more, but fleet logistics generally means you need a 3 to 1 and sometimes a 4 to 1 ratio), while still having one available to send elsewhere to contribute.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

6-7 tankers total wouldn't likely every = 6 or 7 tankers available for the PLYPRO at any (most) times.  Not sure what your background is, but a fleet is never at 100% serviceability for ops.  :2c:

It's definitely nothing related to Trigonometry or Time & Space.

I wish people would actually read what I say and respond to that.  I said part of the plan would be to move the AAR aircraft to the bases with the fighters, so that they'd be closer.  They could then be used for training, deployments, and transit.  Fighters that need to stay on scene of a NORAD deployment longer could do so without having to return to an FOB to refuel.

Which is why they aren't all that useful in such a situation.  They're fine for deployments and training though.  Something like the A330 MRTT, much more so.

I read what you said, it makes no sense and ignores simple math i.e. speed, distance and time. 

Co-locating refuellers with the fighters you say?  Do you expect fighter aircraft to slow down and wait for the refuellers to catch up or do you plan on having refuellers doing big circles around the Arctic circle for all hours of the day?  I think you need to go back to the drawing board, the logistics of your plan need a rework. 

 

[jmt18325]

Co-locating refuellers with the fighters you say?  Do you expect fighter aircraft to slow down and wait for the refuellers to catch up or do you plan on having refuellers doing big circles around the Arctic circle for all hours of the day?  I think you need to go back to the drawing board, the logistics of your plan need a rework.

I'm not sure why this is difficult.  They leave at the same time.  The fighter of course gets there first.  The AAR asset stays back within range of the fighter, acting as an airborne FOB, negating the need to land for fuel.  This is how they are used in places like Impact.  This is why Australia needs 9.  I'm not just dreaming this up. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm not sure why this is difficult.  They leave at the same time.  The fighter of course gets there first.  The AAR asset stays back within range of the fighter, acting as an airborne FOB, negating the need to land for fuel.  This is how they are used in places like Impact.  This is why Australia needs 9.  I'm not just dreaming this up.

That works well when you're doing on station bombing.  When doing an interception, not so much. 

What would make more sense would be to base refuellers in the North so they can meet the fighter aircraft as they arrive up North.  An interception of the interceptors. 

You're significantly underappreciating the size of the Canadian NORAD region.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I wish people would actually read what I say and respond to that.  I said part of the plan would be to move the AAR aircraft to the bases with the fighters, so that they'd be closer.  They could then be used for training, deployments, and transit.  Fighters that need to stay on scene of a NORAD deployment longer could do so without having to return to an FOB to refuel.

While it sounds good in theory, the problem is that we don't have dedicated AAR aircraft; its a secondary role not their primary role (SAR, transport, etc). The RCAF doesn't have enough aircraft that they can be permanently stationed at Cold Lake and Bagotville when they are required somewhere else.

Secondly, I'm not sure about Bagotville, but when I was in Cold Lake pretty much all of the training was done locally, so there is no need in having a AAR asset sitting on the tarmac doing nothing. Mind you, Cold Lake has the CLAWR right next door, so the situation in Bagotville might be different.

Finally, dispersing your AAR aircraft around the country creates logistical problems as it adds another link in your re-supply chain. For example, a Herc in Bagotville breaks down, you have to fly the part (and possibly the repair crew)in from somewhere else. If it breaks down at its homebase, you walk down the flight line and get the part.

 

[jmt18325]

What would make more sense would be to base refuellers in the North so they can meet the fighter aircraft as they arrive up North.  An interception of the interceptors. 

That only works if you're sure that every intercept will have to be in that direction.  That wouldn't do much to cover the coasts.

 

[jmt18325]

While it sounds good in theory, the problem is that we don't have dedicated AAR aircraft; its a secondary role not their primary role (SAR, transport, etc). The RCAF doesn't have enough aircraft that they can be permanently stationed at Cold Lake and Bagotville when they are required somewhere else.

And it's one area I'd be happy to spend more money so that could be the case.

Secondly, I'm not sure about Bagotville, but when I was in Cold Lake pretty much all of the training was done locally, so there is no need in having a AAR asset sitting on the tarmac doing nothing. Mind you, Cold Lake has the CLAWR right next door, so the situation in Bagotville might be different.

And maybe that's the case.  Maybe it's not as needed as I think after all.

Finally, dispersing your AAR aircraft around the country creates logistical problems as it adds another link in your re-supply chain. For example, a Herc in Bagotville breaks down, you have to fly the part (and possibly the repair crew)in from somewhere else. If it breaks down at its homebase, you walk down the flight line and get the part.

That's always a problem.  That's why I don't advocate for any more than a splitting.  Of course that's probably all fantasy.

Sorry for the off topic.

 

[Harrigan]

Why not list all the F35 operators though?

Surely "..plus many others..." isn't going to confuse anyone.  We all know that there are plenty of buyers out there for the F35.

However, listing off countries that are "thinking about" buying an aircraft is subjective, not relevant, and defeats the point of the list, which is to show that no matter what aircraft we buy, there will be other NATO/Allied countries flying it.  We won't be buying an orphan.

Harrigan

 

[YZT580]

It may not be an orphan but it will definitely be a grandfather and no, combat aircraft are not like vintage wines, maturing with age, they become the major feature at airshows but that is the only purpose they serve.  All aircraft listed are capable of effective operations over the next decade so if we are just trying to bridge a gap in availability almost any of them will suffice.  It is an expensive solution but understandable.  But we don't need to fill a gap as our current aircraft are sufficient for our needs until the mid-20's. 

We are looking for a replacement aircraft to operate until at least 2050 and, unless I am totally mistaken there is only one aircraft available at the moment and that is the F35.  We can't afford an interim fleet.  Perhaps the U.S. will allow us to purchase a six pack of  mothballed F18's and bring them back up to standards if a short-term solution is needed.

 

[a_majoor]

While it sounds good in theory, the problem is that we don't have dedicated AAR aircraft; its a secondary role not their primary role (SAR, transport, etc). The RCAF doesn't have enough aircraft that they can be permanently stationed at Cold Lake and Bagotville when they are required somewhere else.

Secondly, I'm not sure about Bagotville, but when I was in Cold Lake pretty much all of the training was done locally, so there is no need in having a AAR asset sitting on the tarmac doing nothing. Mind you, Cold Lake has the CLAWR right next door, so the situation in Bagotville might be different.

Finally, dispersing your AAR aircraft around the country creates logistical problems as it adds another link in your re-supply chain. For example, a Herc in Bagotville breaks down, you have to fly the part (and possibly the repair crew)in from somewhere else. If it breaks down at its homebase, you walk down the flight line and get the part.

While there is a lot to be said for that argument, the real issue in Canada is the sheer distance between places. We actually need far more aircraft simply to ensure that they will arrive on station in a timely manner rather than after an eight hour ferry flight. Fighter aircraft, by their very nature, are short legged, so they need support in the form of tankers and so on to reasonably close by.

Of course we are now talking about issues that should be discussed in a proper defense review and articulated in a white paper, but since the current government seems to have already situated the estimate, we may have to wait into the 2020's to have that discussion.

 

[Loachman]

Fuel stops are handy times to eat and stretch one's legs. I never, ever, envied fighter pilots' ability to refuel mid-flight. Never. Not once. Even a teensy-weensy bit.

There's the old story of fighters refuelling from a tanker, doing rolls and other show-offy stuff while waiting their turn. After a while, the tanker pilot asked them if they wanted to see something really impressive. They said "Sure", and politely backed off to give the big, lumbering beast some room. After ten minutes had elapsed while the tanker just droned on, straight and level, the tanker pilot said "Well? What did you think of that?" "You didn't do anything", one of the fighter pilots complained. "Oh, yes, I did", said the tanker pilot. "I got up, walked to the back of the plane, had a leak, got a cup of nice, hot coffee and a delicious sandwich, chatted with a couple of my guys, and just sat back down again".

 

[MarkOttawa]

YZT580:

We are looking for a replacement aircraft to operate until at least 2050 and, unless I am totally mistaken there is only one aircraft available at the moment and that is the F35.

Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen E will all be flying into 2040s.  After that, given tech evolution (revolution?) I would think bets on what sort of airframes are needed for current fighter missions should be off.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

YZT580:

Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen E will all be flying into 2040s.  After that, given tech evolution (revolution?) I would think bets on what sort of airframes are needed for current fighter missions should be off.

Mark
Ottawa

So, as referred to earlier in this thread, with the USN replacing the Super Hornet with the F/A-XX in the mid-30s, who will be still operating the SH, and how many will be left, across which the burden of continued in-service support will be borne?  ???

 

[DonaldMcL]

I'm in awe that this is still an argument.

Why, if given the opportunity, would you not want the latest and greatest for the same price as something old.

Super Hornets were a great option, 15 years ago. There's zero reason to buy something virtually outdated at this point and sink hundreds of millions more to upgrade it in a few years to keep up with "emerging technological advances" in the future.

"But but but Canada doesn't need stealth technology." Maybe, maybe not, I wouldn't have thought we'd be flying combat missions over Libya, Syria and Iraq either. The stealth "option" comes at virtually no cost. Think of it as buying a new vehicle. Most come with power windows/locks now-a-days... do you NEED it? No, of course not. But if it costs little to nothing you're not going to turn it down.

Also, the supply system isn't awesome in Canada. There's something to be said for having the ability to walk across the tarmac and getting a part for your aircraft while in theatre, vice trying to find that part scattered somewhere across the world by one of the few countries still operating it. Doesn't really happen? The Aurora fleet would disagree.

 

[Harrigan]

Why, if given the opportunity, would you not want the latest and greatest for the same price as something old.

I agree wholeheartedly, except I am quite certain that in this particular case, we don't have that opportunity.

Most of the discussion on this site (and elsewhere) focuses exclusively on the purchase price as the cost of the aircraft, as though that is the only measure of cost comparison.  It isn't - by a long shot.  There are MANY other costs associated with this purchase that must be factored in to assess the overall cost or benefit of an option.  Operating costs are many, many more times more than purchase costs, but we hear very little discussion of them.  Costs to rebuild our FOL's to suit the new aircraft.  Costs to replace the AAR fleet if required to tank the new aircraft.  Existing base infrastructure may not suit the new aircraft.  All of these costs matter.  It is simply not a question of whether an aircraft is $85M now or $110M now or whatever.  If that was the case, then I agree that there is hardly a discussion - with all things being equal, one buys the newest and greatest. 

Except that all things aren't equal.  Which is why the same questionnaire was sent out to all five companies.

Plus, there is little point in pining for the government to buy an aircraft solely on the basis of operational performance.  We all wish it were so, but why waste our time?  We know that industrial benefits are just as important (or more important, by far, for some governments).  Yet we never see discussion on the relative merits of the 5 x companies industrial benefits policies.

Harrigan