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

[MarkOttawa]

Thirty-six RCAF fighters for NORAD, no fixed NATO commitment (new government porkie?):

No fighter jet requirement for NATO: report

Canada is not required to provide a certain number of fighter jets to NATO, says a Defence Department report that's raising fresh questions about the Liberal government's rush to buy a new warplane.

The report, published in June 2014 by the research arm of National Defence, says that while Canada supports NATO and contributes aircraft and other military assets when possible, "there is no hard minimum requirement for the NATO commitment."

That means the only actual requirement Canada must meet in terms of providing fighter jets is its obligation to defend North America along with the U.S.

The government has repeatedly stated in recent months that the military does not have enough CF-18s to both defend North America and fulfil its obligations to NATO. It says that is why a new plane is needed sooner rather than later.

But neither the government nor the Defence Department have said how many jets Canada actually needs, saying that to reveal the numbers would jeopardize national security...

The Defence Research and Development Canada report suggests that a maximum of 36 aircraft are required to be operational at any time to help defend North America, and that "anything beyond this number is in excess of the current requirement."

Those planes don't all have to be on high alert waiting for an attack, the report says. Some can be involved in training or NATO operations, and would be called back if required.

Canada currently has 77 CF-18s, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said only about half of them are operational at any given time. The report confirms those numbers, but also says the military can make do with 65 fighter jets.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said the report may not shoot down the government's arguments for rushing to replace the CF-18s, "but it certainly points out the fact that a lot of this is very ill-defined."..
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6795095-no-fighter-jet-requirement-for-nato-report/

You don't say. 

Mark
Ottawa

 

[suffolkowner]

I hope you can clarify your thinking on that one - because, frankly, unless you have considerable undeclared medical expertise, I would not be wanting you to be equipping any operating theatre I might have occasion to visit.

Chris

Why would you need medical expertise to equip an operating theatre? Nice to have? Maybe? That seems like a management decision to me, one that does not preclude field expertise but shouldn't necessitate it.

As far as JMT's numbers he's really just repeating what's been accepted on this forum for many other platforms. Why would it be different for AAR?

So airlines have three times more planes than fly every day to support their 99%+ dispatch rate?  ???

I'm pretty sure they don't, and I've never maintained a fleet profile based on the rule of three. I've just assumed the operational/performance requirements of military platforms were dictating fleet numbers, but maybe it's just the result of spending someone else's money

 

[Quirky]

Canada currently has 77 CF-18s, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said only about half of them are operational at any given time.

:rofl: :rofl: Maybe on a good week.

 

[jmt18325]

So airlines have three times more planes than fly every day to support their 99%+ dispatch rate?  ???

Airlines don't have to have their planes available 24 hours a day.

 

[jmt18325]

I hope you can clarify your thinking on that one - because, frankly, unless you have considerable undeclared medical expertise, I would not be wanting you to be equipping any operating theatre I might have occasion to visit.

I wouldn't want a general practitioner deciding that either. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Airlines don't have to have their planes available 24 hours a day.

???

For all their scheduled flights, they certainly do, especially international carriers.

I would love to see some reference explaining this rule-of-three that you are referring to...the "back-up to the back-up to the asset" one is employing.

Mind you, perhaps I should explain to my wife why I should get two more cars, especially if my boss says he wants me at work with 99%. reliability.

 

[CBH99]

While your at it, I think you need to explain to your wife why you need 2 more wives also. 

The back-up, and then the back-up to the back-up. 

:bowing:

 

[Journeyman]

While your at it, I think you need to explain to your wife why you need 2 more wives also. 

Careful what you wish for.  I vaguely recall an old Star Trek episode where Harry Mudd ended up with multiple harpy wives.  :crybaby:

 

[PuckChaser]

Careful what you wish for.  I vaguely recall an old Star Trek episode where Harry Mudd ended up with multiple harpy wives.  :crybaby:

Or if it backfires, and your wife demands 2 more husbands so she has 99% "up time".

 

[Kirkhill]

With respect to the need for an appropriate knowledge base on which to make decisions ....

I am familiar with  young MBAs advising companies on best practices with never a day in the woods behind them.

I am familiar with government inspectors and industry QA/QC types similarly handicapped.  Likewise for young engineers.

I am familiar with the consequences of the problems associated with all of those unfortunate individuals.

For my money I would much sooner engage somebody that had worked in the environment for which they are to be held accountable, gained experience in the tasks, capabilities and requirements of the field, and then learned how to effectively manage and administer.

But that is just me.

I know that it is an uncommon position amongst many administrators.

 

[suffolkowner]

With respect to the need for an appropriate knowledge base on which to make decisions ....

I am familiar with  young MBAs advising companies on best practices with never a day in the woods behind them.

I am familiar with government inspectors and industry QA/QC types similarly handicapped.  Likewise for young engineers.

I am familiar with the consequences of the problems associated with all of those unfortunate individuals.

For my money I would much sooner engage somebody that had worked in the environment for which they are to be held accountable, gained experience in the tasks, capabilities and requirements of the field, and then learned how to effectively manage and administer.

But that is just me.

I know that it is an uncommon position amongst many administrators.

I'm familiar with all that as well and don't disagree with what you've said. I just haven't found the opposite to be true either.

 

[suffolkowner]

???

For all their scheduled flights, they certainly do, especially international carriers.

I would love to see some reference explaining this rule-of-three that you are referring to...the "back-up to the back-up to the asset" one is employing.

Mind you, perhaps I should explain to my wife why I should get two more cars, especially if my boss says he wants me at work with 99%. reliability.

rule of 3 or 4ths, I understood to be fairly common militarily. Thus our requirement for 15 CSC even though not all 15 will be deployed or "working" at the same time or Afghanistan where obviously more troops were involved than those in country. With the F-35 simulator time is expected to greatly reduce the need for that extra third or fourth

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am going to jump to JMT's defence. I do not agree that you need to have a fighter, aviation, or even a military background to effectively contribute to this debate. In that sense, his military (or lack of) experience are of no interest to me.

I think what you do need to possess is an open mind, and a willingness to admit that you have reached the limits of your knowledge.

Sorry for the tangent.

 

[CBH99]

Sorry for the tangent?  Pretty polite post.

Man, if that's what you consider a tangent.... 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sorry for the tangent?  Pretty polite post.

Man, if that's what you consider a tangent....

I am having an off day...

 

[jmt18325]

Thanks.  Generally, when I reach the limits of what I know or think to be true, I just stop talking.  Like I keep saying, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Didn't offend me.

 

[Kirkhill]

If lack of knowledge were a pre-condition for debating on this site, I would have been chucked years ago.

Nevermind.  You know what I meant.

 

[Good2Golf]

One should not confuse assets required to support a force in being, a force generation capability and requisite depth for rotational deep maintenance and other reconstitution as a standing requirement for "3 of everything."  Sometimes force structures have something that requires 2, 3, 4 even 5 or more times of something (that includes people, not just equipment) than one might see operationally committed to an activity.  The only way to determine actual numbers of a particular weapon system is to devolve the maximum commitment into a composition of elements that support the associated Concept of Operations and Concept of Support.  If someone (GoC) said CAF/RCAF fighter force need only provide a NORAD force and that is a maximum op force of two 2-plane interception detachments in the North (example only) then one conducts the Estimate based on the mission analysis and associated factors and deduces a certain force structure that includes FOL and MOB requirements and a fleet size flows from that.  In assessments such as that, one will find that a "%" dispatch rate is actually a factor that figures little in the calculus, or at least does not deduce into what some might see as a linear or at least proportional scaling to required fleet size.  An operational capability for something like the aforementioned double 2-pack (4 aircraft) might actually drive something 'like' a small fleet of 24 to 30 aircraft.  That's 6 or 7 times, not 3. 

I was not trying to be immediately dismissive, jmt, of your 3:1 ratio out of hand, but rather to point out that one must determine what is required from a logicical, deductive method that follows the process driven by: Policy > Plans > Capability > Requirements > Specifications > System Design > Acquisition > Implementation > In-service support > Modification/Update as required > Initiation of replacement system acquisition > Disposal.

The important take-away in this is that the front-end of this process seems...well...undefined/unspecified by Government at the moment.  Perhaps as Defence Policy Review comes to completion, the process will be allowed to run its course and we'll see if we need 65, or 80, or 24-30, of however many fighter aircraft we need and go from there?

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[suffolkowner]

I think the NORAD requirement is 36 fighters, which is how we arrive at a fleet 65.