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

[Journeyman]

"The last upgrade to the missile motor on the AIM-9X is the addition of a wire harness....

I read that as 'wire-guided'... like the TOW. 

Having seen TOW wires all over former battlefields around Israel, I thought that could be pretty awkward in the air.    ;D

 

[jmt18325]

JMT, there is literally no way of separating politics from military procurement- especially in Canada.

Maybe not, but all the political theorizing (baseless, at that) gets pretty tiring after going through page after page.

 

[Canuck_Jock]

Scorpions that are equipped with IR missile would only have utility against dissimilar ac, e.g. rotary. Air to air means killing the target 30-50nm away. But we are really missing the bleedin' obvious here.

Has there been a free and fair competition even to select the F/A-18E/F as the interim ac?? Methinks not. :-(

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Maybe not, but all the political theorizing (baseless, at that) gets pretty tiring after going through page after page.

If you read Canadian history, all procurement have always been political. it's the only consistency that we have.

 

[Kirkhill]

Scorpions that are equipped with IR missile would only have utility against dissimilar ac, e.g. rotary. Air to air means killing the target 30-50nm away. But we are really missing the bleedin' obvious here.

Has there been a free and fair competition even to select the F/A-18E/F as the interim ac?? Methinks not. :-(

National Defence - CF-5

Norad - CF-101

NATO - CF-104

 

[Ostrozac]

National Defence - CF-5

I thought that we acquired the CF-5 for Vietnam style expeditionary brushfire wars, hence why it was originally assigned to Mobile Command and was the only one of those three fighters that lacked a nuclear weapons capability.

There is still a niche for cheap aircraft to drop bombs on people who lack the full range of air defence weapons, but the new trend seems to be to use UAV and transport aircraft in the role that used to be filled by light strike fighters like CF-5.

 

[Canuck_Jock]

RCAF 2030: Ground Attack:

RCAF 2030: Air Defence:

As much use as a 'Scorpion' but far more classy (and the aircraft too...):

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we had a viable Air Reserve with active squadrons a Scorpion or prop driven attack aircraft would be a good idea and fairly cheap to run compared to the larger aircraft.

 

[George Wallace]

If we had a viable Air Reserve with active squadrons a Scorpion or prop driven attack aircraft would be a good idea and fairly cheap to run compared to the larger aircraft.

AH HA!  Bring out the Good Idea Faerie and we will have movement in that direction...  :warstory: ...Probably not.

Perhaps if National Defence spending actually did reach 2% of GDP, such luxuries could be a reality......but we know where our Government's loyalties actually lie.....Not with the CAF.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If we had a viable Air Reserve with active squadrons a Scorpion or prop driven attack aircraft would be a good idea and fairly cheap to run compared to the larger aircraft.

What capability would that bring that we don't already have?

 

[dimsum]

Has there been a free and fair competition even to select the F/A-18E/F as the interim ac?? Methinks not. :-(

FTFY.  If the F-model (two-seater, with an ACSO as the Weapons Systems Officer at the back) is selected, I will eat my hat.

 

[dapaterson]

FTFY.  If the F-model (two-seater, with an ACSO as the Weapons Systems Officer at the back) is selected, I will eat my hat.

Of course wr'll get some two seaters.  It's good to have someone to carry the pilot's luggage...

 

[Ostrozac]

FTFY.  If the F-model (two-seater, with an ACSO as the Weapons Systems Officer at the back) is selected, I will eat my hat.

((SARCASM MODE))

No, we won't be buying the E or the F model. We will be buying the G model Growler, and it will be acquired as a Cyber asset.

That's why Commander RCAF wasn't at the briefing  -- those planes will fall under Cyber authority and can therefore ignore 1CAD procedures.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

While this discussion, has invariably headed down the path towards the toilet that is “Canadian Politics” I want to redirect it towards what I believe are the two main issues which have plagued this file from the very beginning (all the way back to when the conservatives paraded out the shiny new F35):

1. The government has a poor understanding of warfare and doesn’t understand the cost/benefit of procuring an F35 vice FA18, Eurofighter, Gripen, etc…

2. The military hasn’t properly communicated the cost/benefit to the government in a way that allows them to make a reasonable decision.  The military also hasn’t framed the discussion in a way that presents procuring an F35 in a favourable light.  I’ve got a couple of thoughts on this:

a. The Canadian Military has a poor understanding of just what capabilities procuring an F35 would bring to the table because the military has a poor understanding of System of Systems (SoS) approach.  This isn’t unique to the Air Force but exists across all services and comes down to institutional culture, limited resources and lack of intellectual manpower within the Canadian Armed Forces. 

b. The Canadian Military still thinks about military effects delivery in a “platform centric” environment vice one of “distributed functionality”. 

3. I have serious doubts that anyone in the CAF is really thinking that hard about how all our effects we are able to deliver now and in the future, integrate with each other.  Has anyone responsible for the design of future Canadian Air Warfare thought about how the FUTURE FIGHTER integrates with JUSTAS, other Canadian Aviation, Cyber, Space?  How does the FUTURE FIGHTER interact with the Future Surface Combatant?  Will the Future Surface Combatant have a Land Attack Capability that our next generation fighter can utilize?  How does FUTURE FIGHTER interact with ground forces?

4. Luckily, others to the South have thought about this.  DARPA has put out a pretty good video on just how they envision these platforms working together. 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwipssD10sTQAhVdF8AKHYE8DxwQtwIIQDAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D77gTSr07Jqs&usg=AFQjCNGms9JP5XgxGvBJWVfMLQ2QMD1ouQ&sig2=Sc1ScuE1ejvBHYPIfUqZnQ

Also, this from DARPA System of Systems Integration and Experimentation (SoSITE) team:

System of Systems Integration Technology and Experimentation (SoSITE)
Dr. John Shaw

Historically, the United States has built its military capabilities on highly capable, multi-function platforms. These platforms have been expensive and have had long development times, but have incorporated sophisticated military technologies that potential adversaries have not had the ability to access or counter. This strategy has been highly successful, leading to a long period of U.S. air dominance.

However, the globalization of technology has made this strategy increasingly unsustainable. Potential adversaries are now able to access advanced technologies with relative ease and incorporate them quickly into military systems—sometimes accomplishing multiple upgrades during a U.S. weapon system’s development and acquisition period.

The goals of the System of Systems (SoS) Integration Technology and Experimentation (SoSITE) program are to: develop SoS architectures to maintain U.S. air superiority in contested environments; demonstrate rapid integration of mission systems into existing and new architectures; and demonstrate the combat effectiveness and robustness of those architectures.

SoSITE aims to demonstrate that an SoS approach to maintaining air superiority: will be militarily effective; can adapt apace with the emergence of new technologies; and will impose on any adversary seeking to counter these systems a financial cost greater than it costs the United States to field.

SoSITE seeks to develop and deliver systems architecture concepts for rapid integration of new U.S. technologies as they are developed, without requiring significant re-engineering of existing capabilities, systems, or systems of systems. A successful SoSITE program will help U.S. forces maintain their advantage in a fast-changing world by facilitating the integration of new technologies faster than near-peer adversaries can adapt to or counter them.

SoSITE will leverage advances in algorithmic, software and electronics technology to pursue multiple objectives: first, to distribute functions across networks of manned and unmanned platforms offering favorable capability-cost tradeoffs; second, to rapidly integrate advanced mission systems onto manned and unmanned platforms using open system architectures; third, to apply warfighter-managed autonomy to coordinate distributed effects; and fourth, to enable system heterogeneity to reduce common-cause vulnerabilities and provide system adaptability.

http://www.darpa.mil/program/system-of-systems-integration-technology-and-experimentation

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What capability would that bring that we don't already have?

A place to keep semi-retired fighter pilots gainfully employed, trained up and able to tell exciting stories in the Mess. Not to mention actually having more aircraft to bring to fight if ever something big and bad happening which leaves you zero time to build up. 

 

[dimsum]

A place to keep semi-retired fighter pilots gainfully employed, trained up and able to tell exciting stories in the Mess. Not to mention actually having more aircraft to bring to fight if ever something big and bad happening which leaves you zero time to build up.

The one big problem would be that aircrew quals are fairly frequent - pilots must fly at least once a month, and different mission sets practiced frequently.  Can Class A folks keep that up indefinitely?

 

[Quirky]

So assuming we divide up the SH equally and 410 doesn't get any, that leaves about 4-5 per for each squadron. So what good will those 4-5 be? Are they going to be used for NORAD/QRA duties only, will they perform local training missions? 18 total seems like a useless amount. They will probably just be integrated into the current squadrons with current pilots and techs being qualified on both airframes. Billions wasted.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Quirky,

Why would you assume that the RCAF is stupid enough to penny packet 18 aircraft amongst 4 Sqns?

Which would require 4 sets of tooling. And 4 sets of spares. And every Sqn to maintain two sets of quals. On two completely different aircraft.

I can predict with nearly one hundred percent certainty that all 18 will go to one Sqn.

 

[BurmaShave]

So assuming we divide up the SH equally and 410 doesn't get any, that leaves about 4-5 per for each squadron. So what good will those 4-5 be? Are they going to be used for NORAD/QRA duties only, will they perform local training missions? 18 total seems like a useless amount. They will probably just be integrated into the current squadrons with current pilots and techs being qualified on both airframes. Billions wasted.

Would be inadvisable to integrate them into current squadrons. They're different aircraft.

I think this is one of the common misunderstandings I see (particularly in the CBC comments section). The Super Hornet is not interchangeable with the legacy Hornet. They had 10% structural commonality when the airframe was new. Everything about the Rhino, from the (stupid!) canted pylons, to the cute little diamonds of RAM around the IFR probe, is completely new, and will not fit with the C/D Hornet. The F414 fits in the same space as the F404, but it, too, is completely new, using the hot section from the YF120, blisks, and FADEC. The only point of commonality is the avionics fit on the Block 1 Super Hornet, but that's long gone (and why would we want a plane with the same avionics, anyways? Gimme that AESA).

Trying to fit it in a legacy squadron would be a nightmare. There's no way you could be current on two aircraft. Trying to stay current on one aircraft is a full time job. You'd need two sets of spares, maintainers would have to be dual hatted (and maintainer currency is a full time job, too). It'd be like trying to have Eagles and Mudhens in the same squadron, only worse, because at least those aircraft share some spares.

Perhaps this is why we bought the Super Hornet? To trick the public into thinking we're buying a "super" version of our current planes?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Trying to fit it in a legacy squadron would be a nightmare. There's no way you could be current on two aircraft. Trying to stay current on one aircraft is a full time job. You'd need two sets of spares, maintainers would have to be dual hatted (and maintainer currency is a full time job, too). It'd be like trying to have Eagles and Mudhens in the same squadron, only worse, because at least those aircraft share some spares

From a pilot point of view, flip-flopping betwen the two is a non-issue.  It feels the same, flies the same and I don't think you'd need two entirely different type ratings.  It's a similar leap than from legacy to R2. We flew both interchangeably for quite some time.

Apart from a couple of emergency procedures (hydraulics and the fact there is no mech reversion in the flight controls) even the checklists are the same.