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

[YZT580]

If, and I realize that that is an enormous If there was a significant acquisition and operational cost advantage to purchase the hornet as a primary aircraft is there a capability to link the SH to the F35 as a delivery vehicle and purchase only sufficient F35's to fulfill the role of tactical commander?  From what I understand the cost advantage just isn't there but I am covering all eventualities in my mind

 

[jmt18325]

Being as a fighter fleet is so important to a country like Canada (relatively isolated), it really is too bad that we don't put emphasis on spending money on this in a way that would allow us to replace and maintain our aircraft in a reasonable manner.  We should have replaced half of a slightly larger fighter fleet 10 years ago, and now been starting to look to replace the other half.

 

[tomahawk6]

I see a future with unmanned fighter aircraft.

 

[childs56]

I see a future with unmanned fighter aircraft.

I think you nailed it on the spot.
The US Navy has mentioned this in one of their briefs about the shortfalls of the F35 and when they look to the future of Air platforms. Why they are hesitant to purchase more F35 if they even take delivery at all. It is interesting that they are looking past manned Jets in the near term, let alone 20-30 years from now. I believe they are already using unmanned refuelers on trial right now.

 

[PuckChaser]

Being as a fighter fleet is so important to a country like Canada (relatively isolated), it really is too bad that we don't put emphasis on spending money on this in a way that would allow us to replace and maintain our aircraft in a reasonable manner.

That would require whoever is in Opposition to not try to make desperate political hay out of the costs of acquiring modern weapons systems, and accept them as the cost of doing business like Australia does. You can't blame the past government for kicking the can down the road without blaming the current government for trying to score political points on the cost of those aircraft. We could have been contract signed, sealed and starting some preliminary training by now if the uproar from the Liberals/NDP wasn't so loud.

 

[dimsum]

If, and I realize that that is an enormous If there was a significant acquisition and operational cost advantage to purchase the hornet as a primary aircraft is there a capability to link the SH to the F35 as a delivery vehicle and purchase only sufficient F35's to fulfill the role of tactical commander?  From what I understand the cost advantage just isn't there but I am covering all eventualities in my mind

Even if there is (I don't know), one of the main advantages of the F-35 is that it is low observable.  If it becomes the tactical commander of a few SH, and if the enemy knows that, then that advantage is lost b/c they'd spot the SH, then immediately know that there's an F-35 somewhere around there. 

In that case, you might as well link it up to something like a P-3 (with hardpoints, wpns in the bomb bay, laser designator...) and use that as a missile truck with the F-35 as the spotter*.  The enemy won't know what hit it (literally!)

As for the UCAV thing, I don't think it's ready in short term (5-10 years).  RPAs in general have some pretty significant limitations at the moment that they are working through, but I don't think it'll be solved in the short-term without massive infrastructure (IT, etc) upgrades.

*See what I did there?  Tangent!

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=SeaKingTacco]


I did not start out as an F35 fan.  However, once I came to understand even the unclassified characteristics of this aircraft, I recognized that it will change fighter tactics forever. By the mid 2030s we will have, essentially, a fighter force fit only for the air show circuit, if we go down the Boeing road.
[/quote]

I'm in the same boat. I'm not a fan of the F35 and I think Lockheed is fleecing a lot of people. If we're going to spend money somewhere (and I think it's better spent elsewhere) then we should do it right and not dump money into squeezing just a little more blood and sweat out of the F18s or buying a Super Hornet as a gap.

 

[jmt18325]

That would require whoever is in Opposition to not try to make desperate political hay out of the costs of acquiring modern weapons systems, and accept them as the cost of doing business like Australia does. You can't blame the past government for kicking the can down the road without blaming the current government for trying to score political points on the cost of those aircraft.

I think that was nothing but petty politicking, so we're on the same page there.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm in the same boat. I'm not a fan of the F35 and I think Lockheed is fleecing a lot of people. If we're going to spend money somewhere (and I think it's better spent elsewhere) then we should do it right and not dump money into squeezing just a little more blood and sweat out of the F18s or buying a Super Hornet as a gap.

I agree with you, but there's really not much else out there - the F-35 is the only new generation aircraft available to us.  I think we could be served well by an air superiority fighter like the Typhoon, but, it's cost prohibitive and lacks stealth.

 

[Quirky]

It all comes down to what our future missions look like and what our government intends to do with the fighters. If the only plan is to tool around the arctic and play hide and seek with Russian bears then hornets would probably fill the need for a few more decades. Same goes for dropping bombs onto sand people with no capability to shoot us down.

I'd be more concerned when we send our jets to the edge of Russian airspace which is littered with their rocket toys. I wouldn't want to be in anything less than a F22 or 35 in that case. I view our whole involvement in the Baltic region as rather laughable, like Putin is scared of our contribution to air "policing".

 

[jmt18325]

The objective of any of those missions is not to scare Russia, or even to confront them.  It's simple a deterrence with the added benefit of placating the Baltic states and keeping them on our side.

 

[Journeyman]

.... is there anyone in the Air Ops community willing to play devil's advocate on the F-35? 

Why does it have to be someone in the Air community?  Wouldn't their "experience and knowledge come with its own inherent biases, which are inevitable as a result of being close to any issue and the prevailing institutional narrative"?

You can't dismiss the opinions of those who have consistently demonstrated that they know what they're talking about in favour of someone parroting internet articles, and then ask the opinion of those with experience you've just rebuffed.

 

[Good2Golf]

Ok, so what is your objective here? I don't think anyone on this thread (including JMT) is saying that an Improved Super Hornet could achieve comparable stealth to the F-35 from a radar signature perspective. However, if you are trying to patronize someone (who you presumably disagree with) until they throw up their hands and go away, you seem to be on track.  My question is "Why"?  I really don't understand the hostility.

So you've judged this to be patronizing?  Should I have accused my professors of being patronizing and trying to hurt my feelings and being unfair when they provided such references for me to use when they assigned...work...in order for me to develop a mental framework of understanding and to gain a deeper appreciation of how RF energy is absorbed and reflected by conducting bodies in a mutli-static EM environment?

So I can't actually offer a reference (which is fascinating to read, BTW, I'm willing to bet it's even more interesting in its native Russian) that some, even jmt, might find at least moderately interesting?  Seems like Social Justice is starting to creep into life at Army.ca.  Change that narrative -- forced respect for those who 'contribute/participate', especially when it goes against 'the institution'.  Those who participate from 'the institution'...reject them and accuse their participation as being personally oriented towards others who are looking to participate in their own way.

So, RCPalmer, perhaps you can give greater insight into the conspiracy against jmt and others here on the replacement fighter thread.  What will make you and other protectorates of jmt sleep easier at night?

G2G

 

[suffolkowner]

Assuming this interim purchase goes thru I still can't see purchasing anything other than the F-35 in the 2021 time frame. The other fighters are barely hanging on right now. If the 18 interim fighters come out of our 65 fighter budget does that mean we're only going to get 47 more fighters of whatever type, or somehow we dump the interim fighters and split the difference. God help us but someone needs to take national defence more seriously in this country

 

[jmt18325]

Assuming this interim purchase goes thru I still can't see purchasing anything other than the F-35 in the 2021 time frame.

I agree with you.  I see this as a face saving move by Trudeau.

The other fighters are barely hanging on right now. If the 18 interim fighters come out of our 65 fighter budget does that mean we're only going to get 47 more fighters of whatever type, or somehow we dump the interim fighters and split the difference. God help us but someone needs to take national defence more seriously in this country

That depends I suppose on if the government is actually serious about their capability gap.  Considering the Super Hornet is expected to operate into the 2030s as an interim aircraft, I'm not sure what will happen.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Assuming this interim purchase goes thru I still can't see purchasing anything other than the F-35 in the 2021 time frame. The other fighters are barely hanging on right now. If the 18 interim fighters come out of our 65 fighter budget does that mean we're only going to get 47 more fighters of whatever type, or somehow we dump the interim fighters and split the difference. God help us but someone needs to take national defence more seriously in this country

Actually, Suffolkowner, it should be more like 95 F-35's if one is to believe our current government: They just identified that the current 77 airframes are not sufficient to meet our obligations and that we need 18 more airframes "urgently" (otherwise, there goes the single source purchase option) to meet them: 77 + 18 =  95.

So, unless they change policy again after the single source purchase so that 65 airframes become, yet again, sufficient, they need to go for 95 on the actual replacement purchase.

C.Q.F.D.

 

[RCPalmer]

Why does it have to be someone in the Air community?  Wouldn't their "experience and knowledge come with its own inherent biases, which are inevitable as a result of being close to any issue and the prevailing institutional narrative"?

You can't dismiss the opinions of those who have consistently demonstrated that they know what they're talking about in favour of someone parroting internet articles, and then ask the opinion of those with experience you've just rebuffed.

I think that is a little unfair.  I haven't dismissed anyone's opinions, certainly not those of the pilots of the broader Air Ops community.  If I offended anyone, I apologize. Everyone has biases.  It is natural and unavoidable.  Part of being an effective critical thinker is to have the self knowledge to recognize one's own biases, and keep an open mind.  In this way, diversity of experience and perspectives which includes "outside" stakeholders such as industry experts not directly involved in the project, congressional oversight committees, competing manufacturers, and ultimately the voting public who will be asked to pay for these things become a useful tool to help overcome inherent bias, and prevent tunnel vision. 

Additionally, I did not speak out in favour of any of JMTs opinions.  All I did was highlight my concern over what I perceived as a dog pile on a dissenting view. I am still not crazy about the manner in which dissenting views are handled on the forum generally.  Admittedly, JMT hasn't done himself any favours in improving the tone of the dialog since I made my original post, so I am starting to regret having said anything at all.

I happen to be in favour of an F-35 purchase myself, and consider the Interim Super Hornet buy to be the worst option of all.  As has been noted here, we are now in a position where a solution to a politically fabricated fighter gap today will create a real fighter gap in a little over a decade. 

We have seen lots of "insider" perspectives in favour of the F-35 and not insignificant "outsider" perspectives speaking out against it.  In an effort to bring the conversation back to its original topic, I simply requested some insider perspectives on the opposing view, asking someone with an Air Ops background to play "devil's advocate" on the F-35. 

When dealing with such a complex set of systems, and an ambiguous future threat environment, there have to be downsides and risks associated with all options.  Identifying those downsides and risks doesn't take away from any argument.  If anything, a frank recognition of the downsides and risks serves to strengthen one's argument because it shows they have kept an open mind.

 

[Good2Golf]

...We have seen lots of "insider" perspectives in favour of the F-35 and not insignificant "outsider" perspectives speaking out against it.  In an effort to bring the conversation back to its original topic, I simply requested some insider perspectives on the opposing view, asking someone with an Air Ops background to play "devil's advocate" on the F-35. 

When dealing with such a complex set of systems, and an ambiguous future threat environment, there have to be downsides and risks associated with all options.  Identifying those downsides and risks doesn't take away from any argument.  If anything, a frank recognition of the downsides and risks serves to strengthen one's argument because it shows they have kept an open mind.

First point...you likely won't get any dissenting views on JSF/F-35 from Air Ops folks, nor from those who are/were part of a 'Line Department' making the case for a capability that the Government wanted the military to be capable of operating as part of the Nation's full-spectrum, combat-capable force.  You should in fact be asking for folks working within PCO or PMO or PSPC or even TBS to be providing their thoughts on what the Gov't at a higher level (than a line Department) think of the characteristics of the required future capability.

On your second point, if there is the level of complexity and ambiguity in the future security environment that you posit (and with which I fully agree), then logic would support having a more robust/survivable capability than a lesser one, no?  F-35 is the former.  F/A-18E is the latter.  The F-16 (and the F-15 as well, as part of the USAF's Gen 4 Hi-Lo fighter system-of-systems) program had very much the same issues of cost, higher during LRIP then settling down as the planned production turned into actual production.  F-35 "Lo" capability (and its F-22 "Hi" sibling [avail only to US, vice the F-15 export for Gen 4 analogy], both using the USAF Hi-Lo framework) budgeting will settle as production moves into Full-rate from Low-rate.

Regards
G2G

 

[Quirky]

The objective of any of those missions is not to scare Russia, or even to confront them.  It's simple a deterrence with the added benefit of placating the Baltic states and keeping them on our side.

Are we not there to provide military support in case a shooting war breaks out? If not then what's the point. You don't send war machines into areas of conflict without the possibility of using them.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Are we not there to provide military support in case a shooting war breaks out? If not then what's the point. You don't send war machines into areas of conflict without the possibility of using them.

Two words:

Hong Kong.