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

[Colin Parkinson]

18 sounds like a number that will keep pilots flying, but forces the government hand to continue with the competition, I suspect some RCAF senior types were very busy trying to slide through the cracks to keep flying and not let the F-35 die completely. Lockmart might decide to not extend or offer any more contracts till we decide. At which point you will have the aerospace industry baying at the politicians heels. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

John Ivison had a pretty clear eyed view of the announcement in this morning's National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-jet-purchase-a-political-solution-to-political-problem

As he clearly states, this was basically a political solution to a political problem: the Liberal's political problem of their own making for issuing idiotic undertakings from ignorance during an election.

Someone in an earlier post in this fora wanted to know where that "gap" came from: As Ivison reminds us, it does not exist as far as the RCAF commander is concerned. We have all we need and it is perfectly possible to do with what we have until such time as a proper competition can be held and a decision made (which would only require a year or so, but put the Libs in a position to include the F-35 - which would likely win - in the competition before the next election).

It is interesting to note what General Vance is quoted as saying about that supposed gap: "The Air Force cannot meet it's current missions AND have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances".

Now this "AND" is important, and is political speak to hide the fact that the Air Force does have all the airplanes it needs to meet its missions. It is only facing those pesky "unforeseen circumstances" that would require extra airplanes.

But here's the problem: When did "meeting unforeseen circumstances" become the standard to decide acquisition numbers for anything in the CF? The Navy stated it need 14 to 15 hulls to meet its missions. Throw in unforeseen circumstances and how many more do you need? You can't tell. It all depends on what that "unforeseen circumstance is, and by definition nobody knows that in advance (or it wouldn't be unforeseen). Same goes for fighters: Depending on those "unforeseen" events, will 18 F-18 E/F be enough, or will you now need 36, or 72? Where do you stop?

That's why "unforeseen" events are not usually taken into consideration when developing plans.

And here's another point: If those stop gap planes are for facing "unforeseen circumstances", then I gather that means they are "extra" to the ones we already have. That would be an increase of more than 25 % of the number of planes. Do we have the personnel to man those extra planes and maintain them? How much expansion in the RCAF personnel will be required and where will the money come from to do it?

Just asking questions here  .

 

[Journeyman]

That's why "unforeseen" events are not usually taken into consideration when developing plans.

Sure they are; that's why you always reconstitute your reserve.  :nod:

Do we have the personnel to man those extra planes and maintain them? How much expansion in the RCAF personnel will be required and where will the money come from to do it?

I've been told to keep this quiet, but the real  reason behind this is being driven by the Canex leather jacket mafia. 
Follow the money.  Follow the money.....  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 

[jmt18325]

So wait, are some of you arguing against keeping the air force at ~80 aircraft?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Semi-technical question from a friend who has had friends disqualified due to being to tall. Does the SH have the same height restriction as the CF-18?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

John Ivison had a pretty clear eyed view of the announcement in this morning's National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-jet-purchase-a-political-solution-to-political-problem

As he clearly states, this was basically a political solution to a political problem: the Liberal's political problem of their own making for issuing idiotic undertakings from ignorance during an election.

Someone in an earlier post in this fora wanted to know where that "gap" came from: As Ivison reminds us, it does not exist as far as the RCAF commander is concerned. We have all we need and it is perfectly possible to do with what we have until such time as a proper competition can be held and a decision made (which would only require a year or so, but put the Libs in a position to include the F-35 - which would likely win - in the competition before the next election).

It is interesting to note what General Vance is quoted as saying about that supposed gap: "The Air Force cannot meet it's current missions AND have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances".

Now this "AND" is important, and is political speak to hide the fact that the Air Force does have all the airplanes it needs to meet its missions. It is only facing those pesky "unforeseen circumstances" that would require extra airplanes.

But here's the problem: When did "meeting unforeseen circumstances" become the standard to decide acquisition numbers for anything in the CF? The Navy stated it need 14 to 15 hulls to meet its missions. Throw in unforeseen circumstances and how many more do you need? You can't tell. It all depends on what that "unforeseen circumstance is, and by definition nobody knows that in advance (or it wouldn't be unforeseen). Same goes for fighters: Depending on those "unforeseen" events, will 18 F-18 E/F be enough, or will you now need 36, or 72? Where do you stop?

That's why "unforeseen" events are not usually taken into consideration when developing plans.

And here's another point: If those stop gap planes are for facing "unforeseen circumstances", then I gather that means they are "extra" to the ones we already have. That would be an increase of more than 25 % of the number of planes. Do we have the personnel to man those extra planes and maintain them? How much expansion in the RCAF personnel will be required and where will the money come from to do it?

Just asking questions here  .

Just to jump on OldBoatDriver's line of questioning:

Can anyone elaborate on current NORAD/NATO/Training breakdown of operational aircraft per squadron?

Bagotville
425 - 16 Aircraft?
433 - 16 Aircraft?

Cold Lake
401 - 16 Aircraft?
409 - 16 Aircraft?
410, Training & AETE - 13 Aircraft combined?

[Worked numbers backwards based on the Ivison article stating that there are currently 77 operational aircraft in total]

I'm sure what most people are trying to wrap their head around is how the current operational legacy hornets are deployed, and how the super hornets would be assigned? 

Does a new unit stand-up so operational numbers go from 77 to 95? 

Does the number of operational fighters stay unchanged at 77, so the Super Hornets go to one specific squadron (with 2 for training), then the other units share the replaced 16 legacy hornets to reduce flight time per year? 

The lack of detail in the announcement (no contract pre-negotiated, no operational plan) seems absurd....the sad part is that too much of our population will still love "Prime Minister Selfie" because he's cuter than Harper was.


M.  :facepalm:

 

[Altair]

So wait, are some of you arguing against keeping the air force at ~80 aircraft?

I'm personally against not holding a open competition as son as possible.

Could have had new aircraft coming in by then end of the decade...now we need to wait until after the next election.

Damn it. Just had to be the Stupid Hornet too.

 

[Canuck_Jock]

John Ivison had a pretty clear eyed view of the announcement in this morning's National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-jet-purchase-a-political-solution-to-political-problem

As he clearly states, this was basically a political solution to a political problem: the Liberal's political problem of their own making for issuing idiotic undertakings from ignorance during an election.

Someone in an earlier post in this fora wanted to know where that "gap" came from: As Ivison reminds us, it does not exist as far as the RCAF commander is concerned. We have all we need and it is perfectly possible to do with what we have until such time as a proper competition can be held and a decision made (which would only require a year or so, but put the Libs in a position to include the F-35 - which would likely win - in the competition before the next election).

It is interesting to note what General Vance is quoted as saying about that supposed gap: "The Air Force cannot meet it's current missions AND have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances".

Now this "AND" is important, and is political speak to hide the fact that the Air Force does have all the airplanes it needs to meet its missions. It is only facing those pesky "unforeseen circumstances" that would require extra airplanes.

But here's the problem: When did "meeting unforeseen circumstances" become the standard to decide acquisition numbers for anything in the CF? The Navy stated it need 14 to 15 hulls to meet its missions. Throw in unforeseen circumstances and how many more do you need? You can't tell. It all depends on what that "unforeseen circumstance is, and by definition nobody knows that in advance (or it wouldn't be unforeseen). Same goes for fighters: Depending on those "unforeseen" events, will 18 F-18 E/F be enough, or will you now need 36, or 72? Where do you stop?

That's why "unforeseen" events are not usually taken into consideration when developing plans.

And here's another point: If those stop gap planes are for facing "unforeseen circumstances", then I gather that means they are "extra" to the ones we already have. That would be an increase of more than 25 % of the number of planes. Do we have the personnel to man those extra planes and maintain them? How much expansion in the RCAF personnel will be required and where will the money come from to do it?

Just asking questions here  .

Oldgateboatdriver, all great questions and discussion. Should the answers not be contained in the assumptions and force levels articulated the Security and Defence Review?

Where is the Review? Anyone seen it?

 

[kev994]

Semi-technical question from a friend who has had friends disqualified due to being to tall. Does the SH have the same height restriction as the CF-18?

I believe the Hawk (fighter lead-in trainer) is the limiting factor here so the size of the SH would not alleviate that issue

 

[Loachman]

So wait, are some of you arguing against keeping the air force at ~80 aircraft?

Even if we had no fighters at all, the a** f**ce would still have more than eighty aircraft.

I'm personally against not holding a open competition as son as possible.

I am still waiting for somebody to define this much-ballyhooed term "open competition". Jet races?

Evaluations have been done. What more is necessary? What has been missed? And, given the security classification of real capabilities, how "open" can any process be?

 

[Kirkhill]

Given that the aircraft and capabilities are so software dependent these days, and that software development is continuous and rapid, how is that going to be managed over a 5 year competition?

 

[jmt18325]

Even if we had no fighters at all, the a** f**ce would still have more than eighty aircraft.

You knew what I meant. 

 

[STONEY]

I watched the MND being interviewed on news channel and i didn't know weather to laugh or cry. I was amazed that he managed to keep a strait face while sprouting drivel while the host had a hard time not laughing at him. Next came the defence critics from the 3 partys . The libs & cons practially got in a brawl while NDP seemed to be talking on another subject. And Vance does he actually believe what he says or is it just the party line, he should do the right thing and fall on his sword. Five years for an open compition really , thats worse than my spelling.  Cheers

 

[jmt18325]

It's more likely that 5 years as seen as the longest that we can wait (kicking the can as far as it can go) even with the interim SH order.

 

[Journeyman]

It's more likely that 5 years as seen as the longest that we can wait (kicking the can as far as it can go) even with the interim SH order.

I suspect that it's more likely that five years was chosen to put it past the next election.

As for the previous post, it's pretty telling that the MND is obviously a neophyte Cabinet Minister because he's such a terrible liar.

Maybe Trump, Brexit, and punting the status quo are  the wave of the future -- voters tired of being talked down to as though they're idiots (even the ones who clearly are).



NOT INTENDING TO START ANOTHER MINDLESS POLITICAL THREAD -- Please keep this on Zoomie Fighter stuff.

 

[Loachman]

You knew what I meant.

Not necessarily - there is a good chunk of the fighter community who seem to think along those lines.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Not necessarily - there is a good chunk of the fighter community who seem to think along those lines.

With these mysterious 18 SH and no reasonable political prospect for a new fleet of 5Gen fighters, that community may in 5-6 years find itself without the numbers to have much clout ... 

 

[suffolkowner]

what I can figure out correct or not, I don't know. The "Gap" seems pretty easy to reason out

77 x 80% availability x 70% serviceability = 43

43 - 36 for NORAD = 7 fighters left over for all other contingencies - Is that a gap? Seems pretty tight to me

Of our 77 fighters  50 have over 6000 hrs - Seems pretty tight as well.

Approximately 25ish fighters had a center barrel rebuild/refurbishment the others were not done due to cost or need? And what airframes were they?

What shape are the fighters left over from the original purchase could they have been rebuilt?

It still seems real strange to me to announce a purchase/lease before coming to terms with the vendor
In the end the F-35 still seems like the long term solution assuming the F-35 is operational 4 years hence

 

[jmt18325]

And it's the plan that post 2017, we'll be operating only ~65 CF-18s.  That seems to be a number too small, given your reasoning.

 

[MilEME09]

And it's the plan that post 2017, we'll be operating only ~65 CF-18s.  That seems to be a number too small, given your reasoning.

According to testimony in the commons defense committee by the head of the airforce, 65 is the number of aircraft at min he needs to meet our obligations to NORAD, and NATO. Probably where the 65 F-35 number came from way back when. That said if we bought exactly 65 airframes, the moment we have an accident does that mean we no longer have enough to cover NORAD and NATO? will we operate a mixed fleet in the future of SH + what ever wins the competition? (assuming it's not the SH which in my belief if it was a fair and open competition I don't think it would win)