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

[Eland2]

So I went online to check out what was meant by a fourth generation fighter, acknowledging that there are but a handful of the fifth generation jets out there, of which the F 35 is one (as far as I understand).

My very limited research found that there are a number of 4th Gen fighters out there, some of which are even now being developed. 

[...]

We have a big country, so of all the metrics, I looked at range. 
Typhoon:  3790 km
Hal Tejas: 3000 km
F2: 834 km
FA-50:  1851 km
F/A-18: 3330 km

I think it would be clear that the F 2 and the FA-50 would be cut from the list. 

Next, thanks to the CF 104, we have a phobia of single engine fighters.  So, the Hal Tejas is off the list.

This leaves the Typhoon and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.  I’m sure there are many more variables (are they still in production?  If not, can they be ramped up again?  How much extra?  What of training?)

As I caveat, I'm not a fighter guy, and I barely understand pilots when they talk, so would it be a fair assessment to suggest that we get either the Typhoon or the F/A-18 Super Hornet?

Well, given that there is some parts commonality between the Super Hornet and the existing CF-18 fleet, I would hazard a guess that we would opt for the Super Hornet long before we would go for the Typhoon, which would require an entirely new maintenance infrastructure.

 

[CBH99]

Not trying to take this thread around full circle by any means, so feel free to not respond to this post. 

Just in reference to the options listed above - Typhoon or Super Hornet.  If your looking at twin engine, modern aircraft - have to count include the Rafale in your list. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Not trying to take this thread around full circle by any means, so feel free to not respond to this post. 

Just in reference to the options listed above - Typhoon or Super Hornet.  If your looking at twin engine, modern aircraft - have to count include the Rafale in your list.

Since there are variants that first flew in the 90s, sure. And it has good range. There's the three.

 

[NavyShooter]

What is relevant is whether we want a true multi-role fighter (like the F-18 or the F-35) or if we want to get back into microfleets. Back in the day, the CF-101 was air-to-air and intended for NORAD, CF-104 was intended for NATO ground attack, and CF-5/116 was strictly for taking pictures and dropping napalm on people who were unlikely to shoot back.

The occasional talk about a new F-5, or a new Arrow ignores that neither aircraft was multi-role. And from what I understand, the institutional memory of the RCAF is that the days of having three types of fighters weren't happy ones, and that multi-role is the way to go.

We want....that's the key statement there.

What WE want doesn't really enter the equation...what we want is the F-35, and the decision is effectively made...we're not getting it.

So, the question now becomes, what do we get instead? 

The answer lies in the definition of what we need our Airforce to do, and that definition will come from the government that's decided we're not getting F-35's.

If the government decides that it's a matter of showing the flag, participating in exercises, and doing minimal tasks in support of national operations, then we don't need much more than a CF-5, since it'd meet the "Made in Canada" and "Twin Engine" and "Show the Flag" capabilities....

Not that it is what we as a military have defined as our ACTUAL need (based on historical employment and deployment), but if the government is looking to save money on the fighters to put into the ships, then maybe we will end up with something like the Hawk ($33 mil est.) or maybe the Scorpion ($20 mil est):

http://www.scorpionjet.com/aircraft-features/

Based on the immediate pull-back from the expeditionary mission against ISIS, is a multi-role capable aircraft what the current government sees that we need?  Or will we be told that we need a less capable platform?

NS

 

[a_majoor]

Since the real next fighter is likely to be none at all, this should take some of the edge off:

Hornet Ball 2015 Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6xcamVTE3Y

 

[NavyShooter]

Oh, and maybe if the decision is for a 'on the cheap' alternative like the Hawk or the Scorpion, it could also be considered for the roles of:

-Trainer
-Snow-Bird replacement

One fleet of aircraft for the whole shebang?

 

[GR66]

Assuming that the F-35 is off the table and a Liberal governments is going to be less likely to "whip out" our fighters for expeditionary roles, would there be any benefit to purchasing something like 40 new, upgraded F-15Cs?  Something like the proposed F-15C2040 (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/afa/2015/09/15/boeing-positions-f-15-as-f-22-supplement/72316414/)?

I don't know what the cost per unit would be, but I've seen figures for the F-15SG which are in the $60 million range, so if the F-15C2040 is in that same ballpark it would be cheaper than the F-35.

The F-15C2040 is strictly an air-to-air fighter so we'd be giving up on the dual role capability (and reducing the number of aircraft to 40 from a proposed 65 F-35s) so our fast air would be relegated to the NORAD role.  But at least it would be an aircraft that is very well suited to that role with long range, and a large weapon load.  I'd think that the US would feel confident in our ability to do our fair share in defending North American airspace with that aircraft and it would probably be very welcome overseas in helping deter countries like Russia or China from looking for military solutions with their neighbours.

Money saved on replacement fighters could (wishful thinking I know!) be invested in restoring our Navy and transforming our organizational structure, etc.  We could then a few years down the line look at either adding some F-35's to our fleet to re-establish a multi-role capability (once the F-35 has completed development and become a proven commodity) or look at whatever is then in development as a replacement/supplement to the F-15C2040s.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some USAF, USN views on stealth etc.:

…the service’s [USAF’s] own air warfare experts at Nellis AFB, Nev., freely admit that stealth works best when complemented with other capabilities like electronic attack—and those officers recognize the need for a platform like the EA-18G Growler. Detection via radar is decided by the signal to noise ratio—stealth reduces the signal while jamming increases the noise. That’s just basic physics—ideally, one works both sides of the problem to achieve the best results.

At the tactical level—as I recently discussed with a good friend who is an Air Force Weapons School grad with lots of stealth experience—a four-ship of F-35Cs supported by Growlers and E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes and other naval assets is likely to be more effective than a four-ship of Super Hornets operating with the same support assets. While the F-35C does not have good kinematic performance, it does (or will eventually) have stealth, excellent sensors and phenomenal electronic warfare capabilities. Indeed, combining the F-35C with the Super Hornet might work very well in a scenario where the Joint Strike Fighter is used as a spotter for the F/A-18E/Fs. Indeed, the Navy’s director of air warfare Rear Adm. Mike Manazir told me as such a couple of years ago when I was at the U.S. Naval Institute.

But the problem for the Navy is that the F-35C is expensive both to buy and sustain onboard a carrier. There are many in the Navy that simply don’t believe that any added performance benefits the F-35C brings to the table would be worth the massive additional cost. Moreover, there is a growing understanding in the naval community that the F-35C fundamentally does not have the range or payload needed to keep the carrier relevant in the anti-access/area denial environment of the Western Pacific. Indeed, there have been suggestions that the Navy truncate or cancel its portion of the Joint Strike Fighter buy. But only time will tell…

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-militarys-1000000000000-question-stealth-worth-it-14158

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Eland2]

We want....that's the key statement there.

What WE want doesn't really enter the equation...what we want is the F-35, and the decision is effectively made...we're not getting it.

So, the question now becomes, what do we get instead? 

The answer lies in the definition of what we need our Airforce to do, and that definition will come from the government that's decided we're not getting F-35's.

If the government decides that it's a matter of showing the flag, participating in exercises, and doing minimal tasks in support of national operations, then we don't need much more than a CF-5, since it'd meet the "Made in Canada" and "Twin Engine" and "Show the Flag" capabilities....

Not that it is what we as a military have defined as our ACTUAL need (based on historical employment and deployment), but if the government is looking to save money on the fighters to put into the ships, then maybe we will end up with something like the Hawk ($33 mil est.) or maybe the Scorpion ($20 mil est):

http://www.scorpionjet.com/aircraft-features/

Based on the immediate pull-back from the expeditionary mission against ISIS, is a multi-role capable aircraft what the current government sees that we need?  Or will we be told that we need a less capable platform?

NS

I could actually see the government opting for something like 80 - 90 Scorpions or Hawks to handle ground-strike missions and purchase a fleet of 45 - 50 F/A 18 Growlers or the same number of Typhoons or Rafales, or possibly even F15C's (as someone else posting to this thread has suggested) to handle interdiction duties in critical areas and also take care of any coalition-type missions we might find ourselves involved in later on.

The manned-bomber threat disappeared long ago, and indeed, it was that threat, plus the need to allocate air assets to Canada's NATO contingent in Germany that drove the purchase of the CF-18. Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.

 

[vonGarvin]

The manned-bomber threat disappeared long ago, and indeed, it was that threat, plus the need to allocate air assets to Canada's NATO contingent in Germany that drove the purchase of the CF-18. Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.

These may be old, but these have far from disappeared.

 

[dimsum]

I could actually see the government opting for something like 80 - 90 Scorpions or Hawks to handle ground-strike missions and purchase a fleet Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.

RPAs have so far only been used in air-to-ground surveillance and/or strike, with the Triton (still in development) being designed for maritime surveillance.  No RPAs (so far) have been designed for air-to-air engagements.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would also point out that the problem of controlling an RPA north of 70 degrees is also ridiculously expensive, either in terms of satellites or a UHF repeater every 200NM...

TANSTAAFL...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

TANSTAAFL...

The Arctic, like the moon, is indeed a harsh mistress.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

well played, good sir!

 

[SupersonicMax]

I could actually see the government opting for something like 80 - 90 Scorpions or Hawks to handle ground-strike missions and purchase a fleet of 45 - 50 F/A 18 Growlers or the same number of Typhoons or Rafales, or possibly even F15C's (as someone else posting to this thread has suggested) to handle interdiction duties in critical areas and also take care of any coalition-type missions we might find ourselves involved in later on.

The manned-bomber threat disappeared long ago, and indeed, it was that threat, plus the need to allocate air assets to Canada's NATO contingent in Germany that drove the purchase of the CF-18. Similarly, technology has advanced to the point where drones could be used to handle most of the air patrols and surveillance missions in the country's far north with the idea of sending up a fighter jet or two only if the situation really demands it.

Hawk or Scorpion for strike ?!  What pod are you going to put on that?  How much payload will it have?  Who is going to integrate all that?

Not going to happen.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It's been said before, but perhaps it's worth saying again... the best thing we can do is suck back, prepare a white paper that outlines exactly what we want/need to do, and then buy an airframe that meets that mission. I think that ruling the F35 out right off the hop was a poor choice, but having some strategic guidance and then procuring systems that meet that mission makes perfect sense.

The Liberals have noted that their main effort is going to be the navy... hopefully there's some sort of strategic guidance to back why, what, or how. Who knows, maybe naval aviation air will make a comeback

*Realized aviation was the wrong term 

 

[NavyShooter]

Hawk or Scorpion for strike ?!  What pod are you going to put on that?  How much payload will it have?  Who is going to integrate all that?

Not going to happen.

Max,

Like it or not, the statement Not buying F-35 was pretty clear.

Followup statements to the effect that Save money to fund naval upgrades are a bit less detailed, but with the pull-back from a stealthy strike fighter, and looking at the other options on the table...well, like it or not, the Hawk and Scorpion are probably on there.

Consider the idea of the Scorpion...they have no foreign military sales as of yet, but if the Canadian Government said "let us setup the production line" and we started building them, well, we'd have economic benefits/offsets with a made in Canada solution that would make everyone in Quebec happy.  (Can you say Bombardier Partnership?)

Is it what we WANT?  Nope.  We WANT the F-35.  Got it. 

Is it what we might end up getting?  Yup.  Even though it meets almost none of the Military's requirements...but here's what it would meet:

1.  Not the F-35 (Campaign promise)
2. Twin Engine (public perception)
3. Made in Canada possible (Quebec...Bombardier...votes?)
4. Capable of showing the flag
5. Cheaper than almost anything else on the market...while giving a 'minimal' capability

If we got a pile of Eurofighters, or Rafales, or F-15's, we'd be almost at the same pile of coin that the F-35 would run us, with no industrial offsets likely. 

Additionally, as mentioned, we could use the Scorpion as a trainer, as the Snow-bird replacement, and as our 'fighter/bomber'...even though we all know it's not ideal (at all) for that use.

I'm hoping I'm wrong, and that we get a much more capable aircraft, but I could see this happening, couldn't you?

NS

 

[SupersonicMax]

I am not talking about getting the F-35 (I understand that they will not consider it) but rather not getting those simili-fighter aircraft (Hawk and Scorpion) that would do us no good. It would not meet the requirement for range, endurance and payload.

Requirements are much more specific that the 5 items you said.

 

[Kirkhill]

As I have noted elsewhere - and after a couple of days calming - I have come to the conclusion that Justin, as healer of the land, should follow the advice of Hippocrates and "first, do no harm".

The least harm he can do on this file is do nothing.  By the time of the next election in 2019 the Hornets will still be flying - albeit at a reduced rate and the F35 will be a better defined option.  All Dr. Justin has to do to keep his promise is do nothing.  Don't alter the commercial arrangements currently in place.  Just don't buy a replacement Fighter - yet.

Let him focus on the Navy - and get the AOPS hulls, and the AORs in the water and get a hard start on the CSC (and maybe a BHS).

Let him focus on the FWSAR programme - Even if he bought Challengers and more Hercs and Medium helos, or 295s or C27s he would only add assets that the RCAF and the CAF could find a use for if not the primary choice.

Let him focus on the LVMP and get new trucks on the road.

Let him focus on a new suite of light support weapons (machine guns, mortars, ATGMs, MANPADS).

Let him focus on a new (Made in Quebec - Purely Protective) GBADs system.

Let him focus on sorting out a structure to support and maintain all the technical marvels both in the field and in garrison.

Let him focus on sorting out Reserve/Regular force integration.

Let him focus on sorting out the recruiting, training, career management, "asset disposal" problems of Human Resources.

If he can get that lot sorted before 2019 he will have astounded me, done you lot a lot of favours and done no harm to the NGF file - or to the politically well connected Montreal Aerospace Industry.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I have no dog in this fight, but: No way in hell would a "Scorpion" ever be built or participated in by Bombardier.

The Scorpion incorporates proprietary technology of, and is mostly put together by their arch-ennemy in the field of business jets: Cessna.

And BTW, not even Textron markets its Scorpion as a fighter. They market it as a ground support/reconnaissance bird.