Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

The current plan is to have the new fighter jets delivered by 2032 all 4 gen fighters will be obsolete by roughly 2040 why are we even considering buying fighter jets that will be obsolete 8 years after we get full delivery.The whole point in being a member of the f35 group is to help fund the development of a fighter to purchase why are we even having a competition,the fighter jet purchase is being so badly bungled by the current government it would be laughable if it wasn't so important
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I see two issues. One, junior, and my views on him are well known:D. The other is an apparent inability to write specifications on required parameters by procurement staff for fear of limiting potential bidders. LO and sensor fusion are two lockout specs needed for beyond 2032 as is a supply chain running for the next 35 plus years along with upgrades. Competitive bidders don’t offer this so IMHO they are free to bugger off.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
I still believe that as a rich country we can afford two distinct types of fast jet. F35 for expeditionary participation with allies and Something else for Domestic tasks as I see the F35 as overkill for NORAD duties.

We need to make sure we are not pigeon holing ourselves with a single fleet of aircraft that are too expensive to operate and maintain. We are never going to be the lead bomb trucks entering hostile airspace by ourselves.

To me Gripen makes sense with local build and domestic support flying from forward bases in the north and along the coasts. F35 for the dazzle dazzle alongside allies.
 
I'm not opposed to a mixed fleet 60 f35 and 40 f15x would be great the f15x has 2 engines top speed Mach 2.5 carries lots of fuel and weapons everything u need for arctic intercepts a small fleet of aew aircraft would be a big help for NORAD missions as would a permanent airbase in the western arctic the gripen is a lite fighter once you add drop tanks and a full weapons load it's speed agility and range will drop off significantly it's fine for a small country like Sweden but not for a country the size of Canada
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I still believe that as a rich country we can afford two distinct types of fast jet. F35 for expeditionary participation with allies and Something else for Domestic tasks as I see the F35 as overkill for NORAD duties.

We need to make sure we are not pigeon holing ourselves with a single fleet of aircraft that are too expensive to operate and maintain. We are never going to be the lead bomb trucks entering hostile airspace by ourselves.

To me Gripen makes sense with local build and domestic support flying from forward bases in the north and along the coasts. F35 for the dazzle dazzle alongside allies.
Sure, Canada could potentially afford two completely different types of combat aircraft, but the question remains, "what advantages to Canada would a currently available fighter other than the F-35 have in post-2030 RCAF service?"

The only advantages some of the currently available fighters have is in initial acquisition and/or operating costs. My memory could be faulty here, but I seem to recall that in the latest production lot, the per aircraft price for the F-35 had dropped to below the per aircraft price of the EF2000 Typhoon. On doing a quick double check, the LRIP 11 lot was USD$89.2 mil. per F-35A and that can be expected to drop further once production transitions from low rate to full rate.

I see no real advantage to Canada doing a domestic build, since that would be expected to raise the per aircraft prices higher than purchasing from an already active production line, and any Canadian production would cease and the line and workers would become idle once the Canadian order was completed would almost certainly be within 5 years of the first Canadian production.

The last bit, operating 4th gen fighters from forward bases in the North and along the coasts seems to me like the expected threat scenario is one I consider unlikely, as it seems to centre on either performing interceptions of un-escorted hostile strike aircraft, or establishing local air superiority. For both scenarios, one has to consider who the expected adversary is which IMO would be Russia. Given the types and ranges of some of Russia's standoff munitions, along with where Russia has some of the northern air bases located, RCAF interception missions would either be only against already launched LACM's, or against sorties of strike aircraft with escorts. For the interceptions of already launched strike missiles, any RCAF fighters would not have to worry about being engaged by hostile air so 4th gen aircraft might be fine (then again, the sensor fusion of F-35's might be needed to detect, target and engage some of the newer missiles). However, failing to plan on having future RCAF 4th gen fighters operating in the North against hostile Russian air including Su-57, is IMO a failure to plan. I see no valid reason for Canada to operate fighter aircraft without giving the aircraft and pilots every advantage possible to win engagements. The LO features of the F-35 plus the sensor fusion should give Canadian pilots an information advantage in Situational Awareness in most circumstances. However, if a RCAF pilot was in a 4th or even 4.5 gen fighter and encountered Russian Su-57 aircraft, then most likely the advantages would lie with the Russia fighters, and therefore the Russian fighters would be more likely to win such an engagement.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Would the F35C be a potential candidate for the requirements of Canada ,my thoughts on this were the nature of the climate and effects on landing fields ,the c model having a more robust landing gear might handle this better ,I mention this having read that such aircraft may require parachute assisted slowdowns on landing , that and and the greater range of the C model might be a consideration ,any thoughts?
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
Todjaeger if one were to look at our history of operations the majority of our air activities do not involve fighter incursions but identification of long range ISR aircraft from Russia or unidentified commercial contacts. A heavy weapons load out isn’t required. Our north is so vast that even the vaunted SU57 can’t hit anything Canadian other than a sheet of ice or rock covered desolate island if at all.

Everyone with an interest is always talking about weapons load out and stealth or 5th generation. I do not disagree that we need to be equipped to assist our allies with the best we can afford for those times when we have to operate in contested air space but Canada also needs to have an aircraft that can go out and look with the mark one eyeball and if necessary show intent that it will enforce its sovereignty. We need to be realistic. A couple of squadrons of F35 and the same of something else. Gripen and Growler or Rhino all work as far as I am concerned. Typhoon and Rafael are national make work programs that we want nothing to do with.

Finally for those not from this country the unofficial role of the Canadian Forces is to provide JOBS. More money has been wasted on innumerable projects over the past half century that either never materialized or acquired shit gear just to provide industrial benefits to political friends and to buy votes.

We can wish all we like that this isn’t the case but our purchasing decisions have been questionable. Want to ensure your product gets bought by the Liberals for the military buy it from Quebec or a French company partnered with a Quebec based company. Eryx comes to mind. So does Bombardier or Canadair before. That’s why I suspect Gripen has the in as they are willing to build here or I should say Quebec.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
One of the reasons Canada selected Hornets was the more robust landing gear and toughness of the naval fighter compared to other contenders at the time (exception the expensive Tomcat). While the better range and robust nature of the naval F-35 would be nice, the extra money would be an obstacle. If we were to consider different versions, I see more merit in a mixed A/B fleet. I believe Norway has developed a landing parachute for their F-35As.

I see no merit in a fixed 4th/5th fleet for Canada. The cost savings would be minimal assuming Typhoons or SH were the 4th Gen choices and the Gripen built by Bombardier would greatly decrease its price advantage IMO and it is the least capable. It is likely the new fleet will have jets flying out to 2075 so 4th Gen jets will well overmatched by then.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I'm not opposed to a mixed fleet 60 f35 and 40 f15x would be great the f15x has 2 engines top speed Mach 2.5 carries lots of fuel and weapons everything u need for arctic intercepts a small fleet of aew aircraft would be a big help for NORAD missions as would a permanent airbase in the western arctic the gripen is a lite fighter once you add drop tanks and a full weapons load it's speed agility and range will drop off significantly it's fine for a small country like Sweden but not for a country the size of Canada
The F-15x would be more expensive as the build number will be much smaller than the F-35. With two engines it may be more expensive to operate although it wouldn’t require stealth maintenance so this might cancel out. Extra missile load and range are a poor trade off for giving up 5 Gen capability, especially with no financial gain and limited capability in future contested airspace situations. As Canada will have only 88 fast jets, the hassle of splitting this number into two fleets just isn’t value for money.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There are multiple points of view from our Canadian contributors, so much so that what seems to be opaque is the position of the CDF leadership regarding the fighter replacement.
Have they, the leadership, proposed a way forward or have they been strategically mute by allowing the government to make the decision?
Surely they must have told the government what capability they require and then advocated strongly for it?
Defence forces don’t always get what they want but at least they can fight for it until the final decision by govt.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
The Vice CDS resigned yesterday with the underlying reason being the lack of leadership of the current CDS.

A purchase of 88 F35 would make us the fifth or sixth largest user. I can’t see that happening.
 
I'm fairly certain the airforce wants the f35 and hey 5th gen fighters are the future but I'm not opposed to a split fleet as long as you have the bulk of the force being f35 and the right 4 gen to go along with it and also realizing the 4 gen will have to be replaced by tempest or whatever in the future I think what's more important than a full f35 fleet or a f35 mixed fleet is that we are the second largest country in the world and 88 fighters are not enough we don't have aew planes or male drones and no permanent airbases in the arctic but hey that's just my opinion and I'm no defense expert or military strategist
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Vice CDS resigned yesterday with the underlying reason being the lack of leadership of the current CDS.

A purchase of 88 F35 would make us the fifth or sixth largest user. I can’t see that happening.
There are some real uncertainties in the CDS/VCDS relationships uncovered in the Mark Norman case. Gen John Vance has many problems here (who knows where Trudeau’s hand in all this is) and as one of the linked podcast commentators says “what a mess”.
It seems Norman will not come back, Wynnyk has angrily resigned so who’s next?

Vice-chief of defence staff resigns, citing plan Mark Norman was to replace him
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Todjaeger if one were to look at our history of operations the majority of our air activities do not involve fighter incursions but identification of long range ISR aircraft from Russia or unidentified commercial contacts. A heavy weapons load out isn’t required. Our north is so vast that even the vaunted SU57 can’t hit anything Canadian other than a sheet of ice or rock covered desolate island if at all.

Everyone with an interest is always talking about weapons load out and stealth or 5th generation. I do not disagree that we need to be equipped to assist our allies with the best we can afford for those times when we have to operate in contested air space but Canada also needs to have an aircraft that can go out and look with the mark one eyeball and if necessary show intent that it will enforce its sovereignty. We need to be realistic. A couple of squadrons of F35 and the same of something else. Gripen and Growler or Rhino all work as far as I am concerned. Typhoon and Rafael are national make work programs that we want nothing to do with.
Thank you for utterly failing to grasp the scenario I presented.

If there was a future incursion of Canadian airspace by hostile (presumably Russian) fighter aircraft, then most likely those fighters are escorting some other aircraft which could be an ISR platform, strike aircraft etc. With that in mind, that a pair of 4th gen RCAF fighters might be sent out to investigate an unknown possibly hostile aircraft in a decade or perhaps 15 years time and on getting close enough to use the Mk I eye balls find out that the contact is actually an AEW or ISR platform, or a flight of strike aircraft, etc. AND that the contact has a fighter escort. Realistically, if the scenario were to unfold like this so far, then the RCAF fighters would most likely already have been getting targeted by the fighter escorts, and/or have been engaged prior to getting close enough to ID.

Keep in min that any new fighters Canada were to order/purchase would likely be intended to see at least 20 years service, so an order placed now would likely be delivered ~2025, with a planned service life until 2045 or later. Most likely starting somewhere around 2030, 4th gen fighters will have become significantly less safe/effective in frontline service unless an area had already been sanitized. To automatically cede a degree of information superiority in future air intercepts because a nation placed a new/recent order for an aircraft design generation that is already being replaced would IMO be quite foolish
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
I didnt miss the point, I am a realist. Canada is not a first world military that has a need for 88 F35s. As Ngati has said to me and others distance is a factor all its own. No in service or planned fighter has the legs to get to Canada were there is anything of value that we need to be concerned about fighting. Pure fact. Check the maps.

If the Canadian air force generals are pushing for F35 as the sole fighter its because of the human nature of A type personalities that permeates the fighter forces of all nations. But what is in the way is that we as Canadians will never ever lead the pack and drop bombs or participate in air to air dog fighting with a peer force one on one. We are not Americans, we are not the British or the French with a colonial past. This is the difference. We have no foot in any game. We are 37 million do gooders that are not going to pick a fight.

We cant even deploy our army outside of our borders with any size or heavy equipment without the aid of allies. We are hard pressed to get thw army to Newfoundland in the aftermath of a hurricane. The few C17s we have are excellent but too few to move a the people and their equipment.

I would pay more taxes if I knew the military would be the recipient. Those in uniform deserve to have the tools to do the job. But they need the right tools for the jobs asked of them. Canada lacks a defined combat role for its forces beyond NORAD and support to NATO and the UN. If we are to develop an offensive capability it should be based around the doctrine of from the sea. I am not advocating carriers but I do believe we need marinized attack and transport helicopters in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

Our multi role fighter aircraft need to have tanker, AEW, and EW support that we lack. We need to buy the whole package not just the flashy bomb trucks.

The F16 was a candidate 40 years ago but lost out to the F18. Yet today Taiwan wants to purchase the latest version the Viper. Still a market for this venerable platform. Who are we trying to kid? The Military Industrial Complex of thw USA is driving the F35. Not need. A29s and soon AT6s will be flying for thw USAF because these are thw right sized hammers for the beligerents we fight at this time. China cant fight in or over Canada and never will. Russia cant either and their ability is far less than at anytime previously. They are not threats except via strategic nuke.

My preference all along has been Gripen built in Canada, even if it has to be built in Quebec. F35A models for the flashy overseas stuff as long as they are supported correctly.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
If the requirement of the buy is jobs perhaps the answer may be to become involved with developing sixth generation projects in Europe of course this is long term .
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I didnt miss the point, I am a realist. Canada is not a first world military that has a need for 88 F35s. As Ngati has said to me and others distance is a factor all its own. No in service or planned fighter has the legs to get to Canada were there is anything of value that we need to be concerned about fighting. Pure fact. Check the maps.
Thank you, again, for not bothering to actually read and process what I posted.

Nowhere did I mention a scenario where a RCAF fighter was sortied to intercept an unknown and/or hostile fighter to prevent that unknown and/or hostile fighter from carrying out a strike against Canadian targets of value.

What I have mentioned, is the very real potential (particularly post-2030) for RCAF air interception missions of high value Russian ISR and/or long-ranged strike aircraft to find the aircraft to be intercepted are accompanied and defended by fighter escorts for at least part of the flight. A pair of 4th gen RCAF fighters would be hard pressed to assert sovereignty over some of the more remote areas of Canada given how much (little) combat support would be available to them, like AEW. Should a pair of these 4th gen fighters encounter a pair of Russian 5th gen fighters with ISR support, then the RCAF situation would be even more skewed and not in favour of the RCAF. Make no mistake, air interception missions have the absolute potential to become an air combat mission in contested airspace. Otherwise air forces around the world could simply kit out long-ranged aircraft like G550's with a few hard points and WVR missiles with IR seekers like ASRAAM, AIM-9X, etc. and use those to both act as ISR nodes and perform long-ranged intercepts.

The service life time frame for the RCAF replacement fighters would likely start in 2025 at the earliest with a retirement date on or some time after 2045. Over the same time period, I also anticipate that there would be an increases level of interest in Arctic resources as well as claims to those resources, and therefore an increase in both the numbers and seriousness of air intercepts/sovereignty infringements. The last bit might be a matter of perspective and what assumptions and projections one has, but to me, the belief that a 4th gen fighter would be adequate/survivable in an air combat environment with a peer-level adversary a decade from now is not being realistic IMO, and in 20 years time even less so.
 
I agree with ya Todjaeger about the Arctic becoming a hotspot in the coming years there's going to be sovereignty incidents in the air and on the water which is why we need a fully equipped airbase in the western arctic Canada claims the northwest passage as it's territory but Europe and America say it's international waters so we are pretty much on our own with regards to defense and sovereignty up there
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Forgive my stray thoughts... I am sure others will correct me.
I didnt miss the point, I am a realist. Canada is not a first world military that has a need for 88 F35s. As Ngati has said to me and others distance is a factor all its own. .
It’s not distance alone - especially if air tanking is available. It’s also response time, I suspect? See above posts by others — you may want to read and think more deeply about the posts?
....are pushing for F35 as the sole fighter its because of the human nature of A type personalities that permeates the fighter forces of all nations.

...But what is in the way is that we as Canadians will never ever lead the pack and drop bombs or participate in air to air dog fighting with a peer force one on one. We are not Americans, we are not the British or the French with a colonial past. This is the difference. We have no foot in any game. .
Maybe because it’s better and cheaper than the alternatives? A built in Canada Gripen must cost more? Who wants to set up a factory for 20-30 fighters? If you want to buy, wouldn’t it be cheaper just to buy direct from the manufacturer to get lowest price - asking to build local, in Canada, is a form of offset. Don’t duplicate the factory line?
We are 37 million do gooders that are not going to pick a fight.
Train your people properly and equip them with proper weapons. The stupid desire to do good alone does the most harm, to a military organisation (which is designed to kill enemies and meet your commitments to NATO). Peace keeping missions or UN Chapter 6 missions require some basic capabilities to avoid casualties. Peace enforcement missions or UN Chapter 7 missions, need a lot more military capability — read up on STRENGTH THROUGH DIVERSITY: THE COMBINED NAVAL ROLE IN OPERATION STABILISE - Working Paper No. 20 by David Stevens. I promise that reading more about Operation Stabilise is worth your time. Take the time to think about this. The 1995 after the Somalia Affair is another case in point, of the harm of to do good.
The few C17s we have are excellent but too few to move a the people and their equipment..
Well maybe you need 6 more Japanese C2s and 2 LPDs? Geez. It’s not even in your country’s plans.
I would pay more taxes if I knew the military would be the recipient...

Our multi role fighter aircraft need to have tanker, AEW, and EW support that we lack. We need to buy the whole package not just the flashy bomb trucks.

...Who are we trying to kid? The Military Industrial Complex of thw USA is driving the F35. Not need. A29s and soon AT6s will be flying for thw USAF because these are thw right sized hammers for the beligerents we fight at this time. China cant fight in or over Canada and never will. Russia cant either and their ability is far less than at anytime previously. They are not threats except via strategic nuke.

My preference all along has been Gripen built in Canada, even if it has to be built in Quebec. F35A models for the flashy overseas stuff as long as they are supported correctly.
You must be kidding yourself. You want to pay a lot more to get less and duplicate some high end NATO capability?

That’s your plan to do better? The Australians have to build the full suite of air power capabilities because they are not in NATO. I just don’t get the logic of paying more to get less, sorry. Really can’t understand - there seems to be no way I can make sense of your post. Maybe I am just dense. Please explain.
 
Last edited:
Top