Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[pkcasimir]

Your comment about the current POTUS being irrelevant and the Republicans taking control of both Houses in the Mid Terms make it partisan. We have no tolerance for US political shenanigans spilling on to the Forum. FYI the Canadians and other non US posters are more aware of US politics that they sometimes would like to be. I am not penalising you this time, but making the point very clear. If you want to push it, the next encounter won't be so nice.

That's total nonsense and totally arbitrary. Numerous commentors on this forum have made partisan derogatory comments about the current Prime Minister of Canada and you have not declared them partisan. Why? The statement that the current President is nearly irrelevant is just as attritutable to a Democrat as it is a Republican. The fact that I characterize the current President doesn't make me a Republican or partisan and it demonstrates your complete lack of sophistication to conclude that a criticism is automatically a partisan Republican one.
Further, your statement that "the next encounter won't be so nice" is quite childish and your threats don't intimidate me. I suggest you grow up.

 

[John Fedup]

Personally, I think Canada will select Gripen E. It is cost effective and meets Canada's needs. Also, it uses F404 engine so Americans should be satisfied. Based on public opinion, there is very little public support for expensive jet purchase. Gripen E buy should be very popular with the Canadian public who not only want a budget jet but also tilt more towards neutrality. Personally, I'm quite surprised Eurofighter Typhoon is not in the bidding process considering Canada and the UK historically have close ties. I personally would be satisfied with a Eurofighter Typhoon buy for the Canadian air force.

As others have noted the Typhoon was not cost effective. Most Canadians don’t have a clue about fighter jets or anything else with a pointy end. Whatever Canada buys has to be viable for 40 plus years. No 4th Gen fighter will be viable in 15-20 years. Imagine the political turmoil on having to once again replace jets after only 20 years! Any Saab deal involving Quebec production will not be popular with most Canadians, IMHO, especially me.

 

[swerve]

Personally, I think Canada will select Gripen E. It is cost effective and meets Canada's needs. Also, it uses F404 engine so Americans should be satisfied. ...

F414 - slightly modified & with some Swedish parts, IIRC.

The Gripen A/B/C/D has a Swedish-built version of the F404, but not the E.

 

[Paull Fuzzball]

F414 - slightly modified & with some Swedish parts, IIRC.

The Gripen A/B/C/D has a Swedish-built version of the F404, but not the E.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[koxinga]

No 4th Gen fighter will be viable in 15-20 years.

But what does "viable" mean? Able to do a basic combat air patrol? Effectiveness against a peer level competitor with access to LO technology and a full breath of sensors across multiple dimensions and the associated fusion?

If I am optimistic, 6 generation fighters would be entering service around that timeframe. You are probably going to see true "fighter size" unmanned combat platforms or at least manned LO platforms with loyal wing mans and the whole FCAS vision becoming a reality. At that stage, even a manned 4.5 gen design would have problems coping other than the most basic air sovereignty mission.

A platform choice today (which means delivery in 4 - 5 years and IOC in another 2) may well have a short life span.

 

[Paull Fuzzball]

As others have noted the Typhoon was not cost effective. Most Canadians don’t have a clue about fighter jets or anything else with a pointy end. Whatever Canada buys has to be viable for 40 plus years. No 4th Gen fighter will be viable in 15-20 years. Imagine the political turmoil on having to once again replace jets after only 20 years! Any Saab deal involving Quebec production will not be popular with most Canadians, IMHO, especially me.

Not necessarily. F-15 is a much older design compared to Gripen and US air force is investing heavily in new versions such as F-15EX over the next few decades. Gripen may have limited capability due to its small size, but it is sufficient for Canada's needs which is mainly peacekeeping missions and Arctic air patrol.

 

[SolarWind]

Not necessarily. F-15 is a much older design compared to Gripen and US air force is investing heavily in new versions such as F-15EX over the next few decades. Gripen may have limited capability due to its small size, but it is sufficient for Canada's needs which is mainly peacekeeping missions and Arctic air patrol.

I am not well versed in Arctic air patrol and craft range, but it would seem Gripen's small size might make its range a bit too short in order to effectively patrol the vastness of the Arctic. On the other hand, modernized F-15 may be better suited for that. I mean, you could patrol in a single engine propeller plane, a helicopter, or a cargo jet, but why do you need a fighter plane and is the Gripen well suited for that need? Gripen was designed by a country with a relatively small land mass to be cost effective as opposed to existing alternatives. May be a mismatch for NORAD in my opinion.

 

[Mikeymike]

Gripen may have limited capability due to its small size, but it is sufficient for Canada's needs which is mainly peacekeeping missions and Arctic air patrol.

That may be your interpretation of Canada's Fighter needs but is not how I believe the RCAF would see them.

The below is from Strong, Secure, Engaged and seems to make it clear they are expected to perform across the full spectrum of threat environments. This includes in both NORAD and NATO environments.

 

[STURM]

The Typhoon is too expensive to procure and operate

Compared to Gripen yes but in terms of hourly operating costs, including post flight maintenance hours, would be interesting to find out how it compares to the
F-35.

 

[STURM]

As for whether or not the Gripen E is "cost effective" that too is questionable, '

Its main selling point is that it offers comparable capabilities to larger more expensive twin engine platforms [highly debatable] whilst also being cheaper to operate and maintain. Saab also makes the claim that because it was originally designed to be maintained/serviced by concsripts, that it's easier and faster to train ground support petsonnel than would be the case with other types.

I can see why Gripen would be an interesting proposition for certain air arms whilst not being suitable for others.

 

[John Fedup]

If Canada never intends to utilize fighters beyond North America then 4th fighters could be considered but who knows what air threats will exist 20 years from down the road that could challenge NA airspace. Allies wouldn’t appreciate an RCAF that only operates in Canada. As for the US acquisition of a 40 year old design, albeit modernized, I doubt it is a wise investment. It’s range and and huge weapons load is attractive and the USAF has other air assets to minimize risk by having a well planned strike package. Also, political considerations forced the acquisition.

 

[John Fedup]

Its main selling point is that it offers comparable capabilities to larger more expensive twin engine platforms [highly debatable] whilst also being cheaper to operate and maintain. Saab also makes the claim that because it was originally designed to be maintained/serviced by concsripts, that it's easier and faster to train ground support petsonnel than would be the case with other types.

I can see why Gripen would be an interesting proposition for certain air arms whilst not being suitable for others.

I guess the case could be made for a mixed fleet, Gripen for Canadian airspace and a much smaller F-35 fleet for overseas work. Two dozen RCAF F-35Bs could be a useful addition for assisting allies with suitable naval assets to make use of them.

 

[Paull Fuzzball]

I guess the case could be made for a mixed fleet, Gripen for Canadian airspace and a much smaller F-35 fleet for overseas work. Two dozen RCAF F-35Bs could be a useful addition for assisting allies with suitable naval assets to make use of them.

Depends how much budget is available. Operating multiple types is expensive. For overseas and peacekeeping missions large long range drones should suffice.

 

[John Fedup]

Depends how much budget is available. Operating multiple types is expensive. For overseas and peacekeeping missions large long range drones should suffice.

Agree, supporting two jets would be a pain but the capability could be useful. As for budget, hard to say, depends on the ratio and how many. I doubt the political will exists for any kind of combat drone that could operate in contested airspace, either in a hot war or peace making mission. Peacekeeping, an oxymoron IMHO

 

[STURM]

I guess the case could be made for a mixed fleet, Gripen for Canadian airspace and a much smaller F-35 fleet for overseas work.

On paper yes but in reality would it be worth the effort and resources to set up and mantain 2 seperate training and support infrastructures?

 

[STURM]

I doubt the political will exists for any kind of combat drone that could operate in contested airspace, either in a hot war or peace making mission.

Can any UAS operate in contested airspace? We've seen them operating sucessfully in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Nargano Katabakh,Ethiopia /Tigray and various other places but never in contested airspace, at least not yet.

 

[John Fedup]

Can any UAS operate in contested airspace? We've seen them operating sucessfully in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Nargano Katabakh,Ethiopia /Tigray and various other places but never in contested airspace, at least not yet.

Something may exist that could possibly operate in contested airspace other than tier one AD capability countries. As for drones capable of air to air combat, very much doubt for now.

 

[Paull Fuzzball]

Canada does not have the budget of China and Russia to match their air power. Canada's primary focus in modern times is peacekeeping, anti piracy, humanitarian missions. Sure, manned jets still have their place, but the bulk should be focused on drones. Gripen E is not designed for air superiority. It is multi role, albeit with reduced capability due to small size. Does it serve Canada's needs? Absolutely. Is it the best choice for Canada's manned jets? Personally, I think so. What Canada ultimately comes up with in 2022 or later for the final selection remains to be seen.

 

[SolarWind]

I think UAV operation in contested airspace is problematic due to EW with jamming cutting off communications and asset becoming vulnerable to takeover. This is why autonomous robotics is of such interest and it is indeed developing quickly, isn't 6th gen supposed to include AI piloting of fighters? If Canada could wait until 6th generation, perhaps a better choice could be made. For now, Canada has to decide what it is exactly that they want now and in future.

 

[John Fedup]

I think UAV operation in contested airspace is problematic due to EW with jamming cutting off communications and asset becoming vulnerable to takeover. This is why autonomous robotics is of such interest and it is indeed developing quickly, isn't 6th gen supposed to include AI piloting of fighters? If Canada could wait until 6th generation, perhaps a better choice could be made. For now, Canada has to decide what it is exactly that they want now and in future.

Autonomous operation via AI is the goal for developers. For Western democracies, likely a hard sell for many. The Canadian government has to figure out a suitable manned fighter that doesn’t require replacement for the next 40 years before worrying about combat/strike UAVs. If stealthy UCAVs guided by AI arrive earlier than expected, there will be many unhappy 5th Gen users.

I think such workable and affordable UCAVs are a long way off…not something I will see in my lifetime…assuming no major medical breakthroughs.