Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[Vanquish]

Haven't seen any recent news on the C-148. Is $hit still continuing? Certainly any future Seahawk acquisition would require a massive discount as compensation for the paper promise specifications on the CH-148, albeit it was prior to LM's Sikorski purchase. The EH101 cancellation by %unt Chretien still lingers. Not sure on what AW has as replacement for the the EH (AW)101. Does the requirement for a larger naval helicopter still exist? Was the EH101 decided upon back in the day as a cost effective way to add it in as a CSAR (later to become the CH-149)?

When he was Vice-Admiral, Topshee commented on the poor reliabillity of the Cyclone. My understanding from other reports such as from True North Strategic Review point out that the Cyclone has suffered from poor operational readiness. Mind you this is from a year ago but I haven't seen any recent news that points to an improvement in readiness.

Let's Talk with Noah (12/15/25): More Cyclones, Drones, What Replaces the Twotter?, NOSH

Happy Monday!True North Strategic Review is a reader-supported publication.

www.truenorthstrategicreview.ca

Q4. Does the RCAF have a preferred aircraft in mind to replace the CH-148?

Anything that isn't Cyclone. Doesn't matter what so long as we can service it and it can work. There is a lot of love for MH-60 Romeos. They're available, use a lot of similar equipment to the Cyclone, they work, they fly, there is at least some form of offer from LockMart on the table for them, and they could be delivered quick.

I don't like the idea of rewarding someone after they spend years leading us into a crisis; however, a helicopter that can fly is better than one that can't. It's as simple as that. Merlin is obviously what most want, and it shares some advantages in already being tailored to the future River-class, sharing North Atlantic commonality with the UK and Norway, and commonality with the Cormorant fleet.

However, delivery for them is slower, and there are systems and equipment we would apparently want that would need to be integrated. It could be a long-term solution, but it isn't the immediate "we might end up looking for." There is also a desire to see what NTACS does, and where it sort of falls with the wider Rotary fleet.

Right now, Maritime helicopters are not part of its mandate, however, it could be a major influence on a future choice depending on what they get. That would still be over a decade out though. We might need something in the next five or so, depending on who you believe when it comes to the state of the Cyclone fleet.

So preferred option is a strong word. It's what's available that matters most. We want something that works. That evidently isn't Cyclone. It's no longer about what's nice to have, or the perfect solution. We are past that stage.

 

[Terran]

Regardless of intent to invade, Canada cannot ignore the repeated statements of the President of the United Statements declaring his desire to Annex Canada into the United States.

Said President has also made demands as part of negotiations that would result in a reduction of Canadian sovereignty and has also made extremely hostile statements and decisions that affect the Canadian Automotive industry and even interfered with the opening of a Bridge (of all things, a bridge?!?) that was completely paid for by Canada with part ownership gifted to a US State.

A president who leaves office in 828 days. Just a little over 2 years.
Fact is we have no idea what was said at the table only the US has commented with details which deeply contradicts with the Carney team. Has time passed it seem more rhetorical games. With Ottawa egging on the rhetoric for a rally the flag of popular sentiment.
The effects of which are doing even more economic uncer

If Canada wants to purchase non-US helicopters there are many options available. Canadian assembly is definitely possible if desired, though the level of Canadian content would likely be fairly low.

There isn't really an alternative to Chinook at the high end, but other than that, options exist.

That’s the list I gave. The S70M for Special operations forces alternatives.
AW149, H175M, MH90 being the off the shelf option the closes match. With a few extra added. I didn’t include any Russian models but the H175 does have a Chinese origin.
The main thing is though it will take a few years to run a bid and competition meaning the Canadian SOF will be shlumming in the CH146. A “Militarized” Civilian Bell 402.

IMO Gripen would be a mistake at this point in time. Realistically Typhoon or Rafale are probably better options. GCAP is too far away, I highly doubt the RCAF Hornet fleet is going to be viable for another 10-15 years.

The only reason the F-35 deal hasn't been completed is the hostility that the US President has shown towards Canada which makes it extremely difficult to politically justify such an expensive purchase.

Dassault was expected to pitch for CF-X but they withdrew due to the NORAD commitments and concerns over data share. Typhoon was about as serious as those who wanted Canadian F15E. Canada ran the program with a Bias to Single engine fighters due to cost of maintenance. And it makes sense. Canada has spent the last 10+ Years building out the infrastructure based on the assumption of F35. Pulling a hard turn around is penny wise Pound foolish. As they already spent billions in the process. With the hard about face driving even more.

 

[swerve]

A president who leaves office in 828 days. Just a little over 2 years.
Fact is we have no idea what was said at the table only the US has commented with details which deeply contradicts with the Carney team.

What we do know is that under the current leadership, US comments can't be relied upon. They sometimes contradict other US comments. For example, there have been US comments about the Greenland agreement which contradict the published text of the agreement. Given that, there's an understandable tendency to believe Canadian statements over what emerges from the USA.

Yes, Trump's going to leave office in 2 years & 3 months, but think about what he's done so far. He's disrupted economies around the world, pissed off almost all his allies, broken his word so often nobody trusts the USA any more, appointed incompetents & idiots galore (Hegseth - really? Live internet broadcast of a firing squad?) . . . .

Canada walked away from a trade deal when the USA demanded new conditions at the last minute, including restrictions on Canadian sovereignty. The USA was not negotiating in good faith. Anyone would have walked away from it.

 

[Terran]

What we do know is that under the current leadership, US comments can't be relied upon. They sometimes contradict other US comments. For example, there have been US comments about the Greenland agreement which contradict the published text of the agreement. Given that, there's an understandable tendency to believe Canadian statements over what emerges from the USA.

Yes, Trump's going to leave office in 2 years & 3 months, but think about what he's done so far. He's disrupted economies around the world, pissed off almost all his allies, broken his word so often nobody trusts the USA any more, appointed incompetents & idiots galore (Hegseth - really? Live internet broadcast of a firing squad?) . . . .

Canada walked away from a trade deal when the USA demanded new conditions at the last minute, including restrictions on Canadian sovereignty. The USA was not negotiating in good faith. Anyone would have walked away from it.

And on the other side of that Canada was making new demands of its own which in a bargaining position results in new counters. The Canadian Sovereignty claim comes down to “Trust me Bro.” With no details as to what the threat was.
Was it on the French language media? Doubt DC would give a Marde.
Chinese Steel imports? Those caused US Tariffs to be put in place and are doing more harm to Canada.
The Advise when signing new trade agreements? That’s par for the Course in FTAs and I guarantee the EU would demand more.
Make territorial demands?
That would have obviously ended negotiations and have the Carney government go full gory details.
Did they demand a formal apology for Pineapple on Pizza? What was it?
You say the US was acting in bad faith.
With Canada having acted in contradiction to the CUSMA agreement repeatedly since its signing. A Boycott by Provincial Government operated Alcohol distribution Companies isn’t exactly free trade and it’s hurt more Canadian businesses than American. So yeah you’re playing the Victim card.
Ottowa Being rather Hypocritical on the “Fortress North America” line by accepting Chinese steel and aluminum in contradiction to its own protectionist laws of buying Canadian.
Well you can point at contradictions in statements made in Washington I can do the same with Ottawa. Ultimately though the result is a circular argument of political statements.
The longer this continues though the harder its going to hit the Canadian economy. The Withdrawal from negotiations of a trade deal no matter how much of a good feeling to thumb your nose it is at Trump, the action creates instability and uncertainties for would be investment into the Canadian economy and businesses. Resulting in closures, Lay off, relocation of businesses and non interest in investment. So the Government of Canada tries to step in and looks the fool when a factory closes or lays off makes empty threats because they don’t even read their own contracts. Have apparently completely forgotten dozens of talks to the companies they are threatening.

So who’s the Idiot? Because ultimately the instability of Canada on this its inability to run a procurement program or maintain trade relations without having a fit because the PM wants to run on being the Antithesis of the leader Of the American President is only going to weaken the Canadian defense industry, Weaken the Canadian economy, Weaken the Canadian industry. It is Self flagellation as policy.

 

[John Fedup]

@Terran perhaps you should apply for the WH press secretary job as you clearly have all their BS talking points memorized. The new one is kind of weak.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hey guys, we started to veer off from the RCAF topics into political land.

We keep it professional. We can have differing opinions and views, particularly on the social reasoning side. But ultimately we aren't going to solve US politics in here, a Canadian air force thread in a defence forum. Maybe we just draw a boundary around discussions that are about US platforms and aren't US platforms and keep the politics out of it.

 

[John Fedup]

Hey guys, we started to veer off from the RCAF topics into political land.

We keep it professional. We can have differing opinions and views, particularly on the social reasoning side. But ultimately we aren't going to solve US politics in here, a Canadian air force thread in a defence forum. Maybe we just draw a boundary around discussions that are about US platforms and aren't US platforms and keep the politics out of it.

Platform capability, regardless of where is comes, and politics are intertwined, especially wrt military aviation.

SeaKing replacement, Mulroney-Chrétien -Martin feuds resulted in the Cyclone shitshow. The F-35 saga, first a political fight between the Conservatives and Liberals, then a Trump1- junior fight followed by the SH interim order which Trump and Boeing screwed up. Junior’s exit should have seen the F-35 finally sorted then we get the current Trump2 crap. LM’s endless upgrade delays and cost increases didn’t help.

The GlobalEye acquisition, only minor political input.

The BlackHawk deal….a done deal frozen by Trump’s mouth. As for Seahawks replacing Cyclones, no funding has been announced. Makes sense if HH60s are finally purchased and if the RCN is willing to use a smaller naval helicopter. If not, more AW101s as we already have the CH-149 fleet for SAR.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Honestly I think RCAF really missed out on the Superhornet. In Australia they have become very valuable platforms:

• Easy integration of latest weapons, AIM260 and LRASM make this highly capable.
• Old school freedoms. You aren't locked into mission planning in some base in Florida, or part supplies based on some too fancy system. Its a navy plane, so those kind of processes aren't really suitable for the client.
• USN is easy to deal with and has funded upgrades, this is their primary platform, so it absolutely gets priority.
• Growler and F models are really two different platforms, you are really gaining two wholly different capabilities, both valuable even with stealthy fighters.
• Operating costs are pretty good for two engines, and there is already a bone yard of airframes in the US.
• Production is coming to an end, so stockpiling spares is reasonable. Hard for the US to block supply if your warehouse is already full.
• Korea is looking at F-414 and Gripen has F-414, so the most at risk component of the jet is the same part as the gripen. If you did operate the gripen it would have had more commonality.

You would have both the USN and Australia as operators. It is exactly the sort of platform that could be operated a long time without support. With so few 3rd party operators, there is more flexibility to strike deals and joint development.

All your F-18 experience, test stands, support carries straight over, they were designed to operate with the legacy fleet, and make upskilling easy.

If you had 36 F-35 and 36 Superhornets, you probably could skip future manned fighters altogether and just double down on combat drones. Two lines would have given you the fighters extra fast.

Is Canada committing the Cyclone going forward? Or is it definately dying and on the way out?

 

[John Fedup]

Honestly I think RCAF really missed out on the Superhornet. In Australia they have become very valuable platforms:

• Easy integration of latest weapons, AIM260 and LRASM make this highly capable.
• Old school freedoms. You aren't locked into mission planning in some base in Florida, or part supplies based on some too fancy system. Its a navy plane, so those kind of processes aren't really suitable for the client.
• USN is easy to deal with and has funded upgrades, this is their primary platform, so it absolutely gets priority.
• Growler and F models are really two different platforms, you are really gaining two wholly different capabilities, both valuable even with stealthy fighters.
• Operating costs are pretty good for two engines, and there is already a bone yard of airframes in the US.
• Production is coming to an end, so stockpiling spares is reasonable. Hard for the US to block supply if your warehouse is already full.
• Korea is looking at F-414 and Gripen has F-414, so the most at risk component of the jet is the same part as the gripen. If you did operate the gripen it would have had more commonality.

You would have both the USN and Australia as operators. It is exactly the sort of platform that could be operated a long time without support. With so few 3rd party operators, there is more flexibility to strike deals and joint development.

All your F-18 experience, test stands, support carries straight over, they were designed to operate with the legacy fleet, and make upskilling easy.

If you had 36 F-35 and 36 Superhornets, you probably could skip future manned fighters altogether and just double down on combat drones. Two lines would have given you the fighters extra fast.

Is Canada committing the Cyclone going forward? Or is it definately dying and on the way out?

Agree, a RCAF SH fleet of 40+ followed by either another 40 SH or F-35s was the path. Too bad it didn’t happen. As for Cyclone, I am not aware of any replacement but clearly the CH-148 has been a failure. Paper design selection to prevent embarrassment for Chretien’s cancellation of the EH101 order.

 

[Terran]

Rhino Hornets would have been good had they been bought when the program started. But buying in the last Decade would have left Canada gap filling in the 2040s. F35 is the best long term solution if your not planning on buying a fleet more than a hundred aircraft. Projected service life and life cycle planning is well into the 2080s with potential for it until maybe 2100. Super Hornet cuts out in about the 2040s with production just having ended in the last year.

If we are commenting on the S92. As a system it was originally designed for Offshore Oil Drilling support missions and in that role it’s very good. It took on VIP transport for a number of Governments and as long as you’re not landing on grass it’s good otherwise get a helicopter pad.
If they didn’t have the Navalization requirement S92 probably would have been easier.
Then again At least they didn’t buy NH90, because that shows how a purpose designed Naval and Transport Chopper can be worse than CH148. Really they should have bought more AW101s or if they had to go another way just bought Seahawks.

 

[John Fedup]

Rhino Hornets would have been good had they been bought when the program started. But buying in the last Decade would have left Canada gap filling in the 2040s. F35 is the best long term solution if your not planning on buying a fleet more than a hundred aircraft. Projected service life and life cycle planning is well into the 2080s with potential for it until maybe 2100. Super Hornet cuts out in about the 2040s with production just having ended in the last year.

Agree, a SH fleet (30-40) ordered 2018 onwards might not be viable past 2045-50 but along with the 16 F-35s now on order awaiting a GCAP option 2050 is reasonable.

If we are commenting on the S92. As a system it was originally designed for Offshore Oil Drilling support missions and in that role it’s very good. It took on VIP transport for a number of Governments and as long as you’re not landing on grass it’s good otherwise get a helicopter pad.[/QUOTE}
Agree.

If they didn’t have the Navalization requirement S92 probably would have been easier.

We did and the dumb ?uck pollies knew that but still went ahead with a paper design

Then again At least they didn’t buy NH90, because that shows how a purpose designed Naval and Transport Chopper can be worse than CH148.

Not knowledgable enough to judge the NH90 albeit I have read about the problems. The Cyclone costs and problems are more significant IMHO.

Really they should have bought more AW101s or if they had to go another way just bought Seahawks.

Yes to more AH101s and perhaps to Seahawks if a smaller helicopter was deemed ok by the RCN.