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

[kev994]

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

In Quebec

 

[dimsum]

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

So, what's the next 400-series fighter squadron that needs to be stood up?  >

BurmaShave:  You know full well that's what the Govt was trying to pull over the public.  Also, SHs are freaking loud - much louder than the legacy Hornets.  Hope the offices and living areas near the flightline get some extra sound insulation.

 

[Good2Golf]

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.

Most people here really weren't talking about the pilots (they're pretty good at doing that on their own), but about substantive challenges. 

I'm with BurmaShave and SKT on this one.  Given that the four guns squadrons was a travesty against good judgement and common sense in the first place, let's not even talk about the four-squadron option.  I foresee a split between two guns squadrons East and West and wouldn't be surprised if Cougar-Niner put in a pitch for a few SHs in his own lines.  I'd say 8 in YBG and 10 in YOD and let 4 WComd sort out the internal Cool Pool split.

:2c:

G2G

 

[dapaterson]

I say we retire the Tutors and use the 18x SH for the display team... no point wasting the shiny new stuff on operations...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I say we retire the Tutors and use the 18x SH for the display team... no point wasting the shiny new stuff on operations...

QFTFT

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If they do penny-packet we'll know the intent is lock-in the SH as the eventual permanent solution as all the infrastructure, tooling and training will have already been paid for, which would be an insumountable advantage for the other competitors to overcome.

 

[PuckChaser]

I say we retire the Tutors and use the 18x SH for the display team... no point wasting the shiny new stuff on operations...

Don't need expensive avionics and weapons systems for that use either.

 

[Kirkhill]

The lack of a blue suit at the press conference was noticeable

Canada's CF-18 fighter jets can all fly past 2025, RCAF commander says
The Canadian Press

NOVEMBER 25, 2016 11:26 AM
- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/canada-s-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-all-fly-past-2025-rcaf-commander-says-1.3208923#sthash.2oqmqAXN.dpuf

http://www.timescolonist.com/canada-s-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-all-fly-past-2025-rcaf-commander-says-1.3208923

In keeping with the employment plan of the fighters you might have to also consider the employment plan of CRCAF.

 

[PuckChaser]

Gotta respect Comd RCAF. He knows he's not getting to CDS now, and refuses to pass on a lie for political gain.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Gotta respect Comd RCAF. He knows he's not getting to CDS now, and refuses to pass on a lie for political gain.

Or he was simply ordered to stay away, to avoid any embarrassing questions getting asked...

 

[PuckChaser]

Or he was simply ordered to stay away, to avoid any embarrassing questions getting asked...

Didn't mean the press conference. His written response to clarify his April position could have been a whole lot of backpeddling and ass covering, but he stuck to his position that he did not see a capability gap before 2025.

 

[MilEME09]

Didn't mean the press conference. His written response to clarify his April position could have been a whole lot of backpeddling and *** covering, but he stuck to his position that he did not see a capability gap before 2025.

he just earned a lot of respect in my books for not bowing to the government line, I can see the opposition hammering the government now on if the airforce commander says everything is okay, then where is the problem, oh wait its with the liberals.

 

[QV]

he just earned a lot of respect in my books for not bowing to the government line, I can see the opposition hammering the government now on if the airforce commander says everything is okay, then where is the problem, oh wait its with the liberals.

And now we have an unprecedented gag order on the fighter replacement procurement... this does not pass the sniff test.

 

[dimsum]

What some (most?) aren't talking about - the Arctic interoperability problem.  Good points by Matthew Fisher.

Matthew Fisher: Why the Super Hornets will force Canada out of its own north

LONDON — The most questionable aspect of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s quixotic decision to renege on the promise of an open competition for Canada’s next fighter jet and suddenly ram through the sole-source purchase of Super Hornets — a decision Postmedia News has revealed it is close to making — is that, by doing so, Canada will end up surrendering sovereignty of its Arctic air space to the United States Air Force in about 10 years.

Critics of the F-35 will laugh and say this is hyperbole and melodrama. It is not. Keeping the U.S. safe is the top priority of every U.S. president. If Canada cannot or will not protect its Atlantic, Pacific and northern approaches, its Norad treaty with the U.S. permits Washington to do so.

Russia announced last week that its air force will begin deploying its first stealthy T-50 fifth-generation jet fighters next year. Such a timeline is highly doubtful. But Vladimir Putin has no higher priority than acquiring stealth technologies and, within a decade, T-50s will be deployed at air bases across the top of Russia.

Once this happens, and with threats from T-50-launched cruise missiles and Russian and North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35 will be far more able to shoot down than Super Hornets, the reality is that the U.S. will do whatever it has to to defend itself.

That will mean patrolling Canada’s margins with USAF F-35s, which will use fighter jet-capable airfields in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Inuvik and Yellowknife built mostly with U.S. money in the 1980s.

Worse than that, Washington will insist that Canada’s Super Hornets stay in the rear.

The reason is clear. Four allied air forces operate in the Arctic. The U.S., Norway and Denmark, which defends Greenland and sometimes deploys fighter jets to a base they jointly operate with the USAF at Thule, will soon only be flying state-of-the art F-35s in the Far North. The other country, Canada, will not.

The F-35 is revolutionary in that it will basically be a flying computer with sensor fusion. F-35s flying hundreds of kilometres apart will be able to create a common battle picture. Being stealthy, they will secretly patrol far more safely while collectively surveying vast amounts of territory for information that they can instantly share with each other, spy and command aircraft and ground stations.

Once the Super Hornet is found, as it will be by a stealthy enemy, F-35s in the vicinity will become targets, too. That is why the U.S. will not want Canadian fighters operating anywhere near its warplanes in the north.

A new argument advanced by the government last week is that there is a “credibility gap” for NATO and Norad with the existing F-18 Hornets that must be immediately filled by an interim purchase of Super Hornets. NATO and Norad people have privately but emphatically insisted that no such crisis exists and will not exist for about a decade, so there is no reason for Canada to rush to make a decision.

As for this being sold as an interim buy, with a decision on the F-35 later, this is a red herring. Canada  has neither the money nor the military infrastructure to support two fleets of fighter aircraft.

An older but still persistent argument to support the Super Hornets is that it will be safer to operate in the Far North than the one engine F-35s. Advances in civilian and military jet engine technology long ago made such thinking obsolete. Otherwise, the Pentagon would not have decided that only F-35s will fly from its most northern air base near Fairbanks, Alaska.

The Super Hornets’ advantages in range, payload and an extra engine are irrelevant if the aircraft is not survivable. The Super Hornet will not be invisible to radar so, at a certain point in the not too distant future, it will be shot down long before it can engage the enemy.

With the U.S. defending Canadian air space because of Ottawa’s refusal to buy F-35s, what the RCAF will eventually end up with in the north is a niche capability in air/sea rescue.

That Canada is prepared to cede its defence and sovereignty over all three maritime approaches to the USAF is one of the many reasons that there is extreme disappointment and disbelief across the upper reaches of Canada’s military community about what has been decided. What makes them furious is the government’s refusal to discuss the matter.

Finland has looked at the numbers that Denmark came up with after a competition in which it chose the F-35 over the Super Hornet. As a result, the Finns are believed to be close to deciding that they, too, will reject the Super Hornet in favour of the F-35. If Finland follows Denmark’s lead, it will become the 12th western-oriented air force in a row to choose the F-35 over the Super Hornet, with Canada the only exception.

Canadians should ask themselves: Is everyone who made those decisions — including those confronting similar security challenges in the Arctic — stupid? What is it that makes Canada so unique that it feels it can ignore the collective wisdom of all its allies and friends?

There are no two more important issues for a government than national defence and sovereignty. Such matters must be settled fairly and as transparently as possible. Have the promised open competition to decide what aircraft is best to defend Canada for the next half-century.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fcanadian-politics%2Fmatthew-fisher-why-the-super-hornets-will-force-canada-out-of-its-own-north

 

[PuckChaser]

And now we have an unprecedented gag order on the fighter replacement procurement... this does not pass the sniff test.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/science-and-scientists/

We will value science and treat scientists with respect.

We will appoint a Chief Science Officer who will ensure that government science is fully available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are considered when the government makes decisions.

I guess military/civilian procurement officers are not valued and to be treated with respect...

 

[Quirky]

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

Yes they are different aircraft but they have common similarities. From a maintenance stand point things would only be easier. It wouldn't be all too hard to get the senior CF18 techs qualified on a Super Hornet, AFAIK the "upgrade" course in the Navy is only a month. It's not too hard to follow a maintenance manual.

 

[HB_Pencil]

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:

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

Um, you're off the mark. The people who are most aware of the systems of systems approach work in this specific area. Instead the government told them to shut it, put a gag order on them, then conducted its own procurement process from the minister's office based on what they were told by Boeing Reps and advocates within the political organization.

And if you think this is hyperbole, it isn't. Zero Military involvement in this decision.

 

[NavyShooter]

Yes they are different aircraft but they have common similarities. From a maintenance stand point things would only be easier. It wouldn't be all too hard to get the senior CF18 techs qualified on a Super Hornet, AFAIK the "upgrade" course in the Navy is only a month. It's not too hard to follow a maintenance manual.

And that's why we have flight incidents....

 

[SupersonicMax]

The US Navy has at least one Squadron with a mixed fleet (A/B/C/D/E/F) and had others before.  Maintenance was not an issue for them and is likely not going to be one for us.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The US Navy has at least one Squadron with a mixed fleet (A/B/C/D/E/F) and had others before.  Maintenance was not an issue for them and is likely not going to be one for us.

Jesus wept. So we are likely to make this bad situation worse by penny packeting Super Hornets?

:facepalm: