Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

Novascotiaboy said:

Can we all agree that 6th generation aircraft are likely to be fielded successfully in the early 2040 time frame does it not then seem plausible that because we have dithered for so long it may be better to purchase a 4.5 generation fleet as an interim?

A SH or Gripen purchase now would allow us to sell off 20 year old aircraft to a lessor state air force where these aircraft would serve well in their environment. This would allow us to formally plan and truly participate as a partner in whatever program we feel offers us the most benefit.

Click to expand...

Given the lack of any definition of what would constitute a 6th generation fighter, it would be IMO at least, irresponsible to try and make that sort of prediction, especially for something as important as national/multi-national air defence planning.

Using the F-35 and F-22 fighters as benchmarks, it was years from the time the initial development programmes were started before a recognizable prototype of what is now in service emerged. The F-22 had it's first flight in 1997, but the initial start of what led to that programme was an RFI in 1981. The F-35 had it's first flight in 2006, but programmes which were amalgamated to become the JSF programme started, some of them at least, as far back as 1983, with most having started in the early 1990's. With those sorts of timelines in mind, any current work towards developing a 6th generation fighter could easily take 15+ years before the first flying example emerges, and then another decade beyond that for it to start entering service.

That would put such a replacement at possibly existing starting in the mid-2040's, at which point it might, or might not be available for Canada to order, it might, or then again might not be affordable for Canada to purchase, and it might or might not be available for delivery in a time frame which Canada could work with. OTOH it is also distinctly possible that the current developmental programmes could end up getting cancelled like happened with the A-12 Avenger II, the NATF, etc.

Going with a 4.5 gen replacement, now, would deliver a capable fighter jet at the present time, but within a decade and quite possibly less there would be a rapid drop off in terms of viability of such a capability in contested air spaces. Something people seem to forget is that 4.5 gen fighters first started entering service nearly 20 years ago (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet first flight in 1995 and IOC in 2001...). To introduce an older generation fighter into primary/front line service now, with the expectation that this aircraft generation which is already fast approaching it's sell-by date could realistically serve an entire generation of 25-30 years of service is IMO a plan for failure given the known and approaching potential threats as well as the potential for future programmes to fall over.

Lets put this 6th Gen fighter into context.

The UK, Sweden & Italy are working on one. That'll be great until the RAF, RN and UKMOD get involved in the nitty gritty and start stuffing things around. The best UK acquisition in recent times - the P-8A Poseidon, bought MOTS through FMS.

The French, German and Spanish FCAS going to hit roadblocks with arguing between the French and Germans over workshare, French throwing hissy fits & pulling out a la Eurofighter, or if they stay in, later with Germany blocking / stalling arms sales to some countries. That happens already with the Typhoon.

The USAF has the NGAD program, and is retiring a portion of its B-1 bombers, A-10 Warthog attack planes, RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drones, KC-135 and KC-10 tankers and C-130H planes in the FY21 budget. The Pentagon is attempting to cut US$2.2 billion from its FY20 defense appropriations budget to pay for Trumps border wall and this will include 2 F-35As, 4 C-130Js and 8 MQ-9 Reapers for the USAF. So it's not good. In the long term the USAF is tring to divest itself of 4th gen aircraft such as the F-15s and A-10s to free up funding for 5th and 6th gen assets, but Congress kiboshes this everytime AND won't give them the funding for such, PLUS, POTUS thieves funding from them to build his wall, because Congress won't approve funding his wall.

The USN NGAD (ex F/A-XX) is their 6th gen fighter program. Like the USAF, they and the USMC are losing aircraft due to plundering of treasure for a certain wall. In this case; 2 F-36B, 2 MV-22, and 1 P-8A.

As for the rest, realistically they are of no interest to Canada, unless Australia start sniffing burning eucalyptus leaves and decided to cleansheet design and build one of their own.

The poms, Swedes and Eyties are looking at 2040; the Jerries, frogs and Spaniards maybe 2040, the Yanks, well USAF reckon 2030 and USN haven't given any details. The USAF estimate I'll take with a very large dose of salt. They have form with acquisitions and dates, and it isn't good at all.

So any talk of Canada jumping straight from 4th gen to 6th gen is absolutely bullshit for 2 reasons:

• The current fighter aircraft of the RCAF wouldn't last until 2045 - 2065 with out being rebuilt from scratch.
• The Canadian political classes and bureaucracy would ensure so many delays that 8th gen combat aircraft would be flown before a decision would be made.

Based on the RCAF requirement to be an NATO partner which could mean operating fast jets in potentially very contested airspace, the F-35 is the solution. If a decision was made to limit fast jet operations to North America then something like a F-15EX may be considered for its range and weapons capacity. I can’t see any opposing 5th Gen aircraft threatening North America due to range issues and a carrier threat seems very unlikely as well for the next 25-30 years. Even unmanned 5thGen fighters with increased range would be a stretch. Nevertheless, the advantages of the F-35 would be a better choice even for solely North American operations. With the USN signalling the end of SH acquisitions and only limited F-15EX production, the F-35 is looking like it will be the choice, lowest price and work for Canadian aerospace companies will help too.

Yet another extension for the fast jet replacement....what a Fu$$ing joke..embarrassment actually. It is save to say the pilots that will fly our future jets will not need to be born for another 10-15 years from now. By the time they can enter flight school perhaps an order for used F-35s will be issued to Australia.
Canada grants extension to the deadline for preliminary responses to the Future Fighter Capability Project Request for Proposals - Canada.ca

John Fedup said:

Yet another extension for the fast jet replacement....what a Fu$$ing joke..embarrassment actually. It is save to say the pilots that will fly our future jets will not need to be born for another 10-15 years from now. By the time they can enter flight school perhaps an order for used F-35s will be issued to Australia.
Canada grants extension to the deadline for preliminary responses to the Future Fighter Capability Project Request for Proposals - Canada.ca

Click to expand...

If I were to venture a guess, I would say that either SAAB, Boeing or both are having difficulty meeting the requirements and asked for the extension. The govt granted the extension as they do not want a competition with only one conforming bidder. Major embarrassment if the only viable bidder is the one you rejected before the process started.
I would like to know who asked for the extension and why?

As a theoretical question ... what would happen if both SAAB and Boeing dropped themselves out of the race?

Would Canada continue the competition out of sheer stubbornness even though they were down to a single competitor?

Would they restart the process using a different set of selection criteria?

Who knows ... I doubt they do.

hauritz said:

As a theoretical question ... what would happen if both SAAB and Boeing dropped themselves out of the race?

Would Canada continue the competition out of sheer stubbornness even though they were down to a single competitor?

Would they restart the process using a different set of selection criteria?

Who knows ... I doubt they do.

Click to expand...

I doubt that such a decision would be about being stubborn, rather I suspect it would depend on who the decision makers are and what political outcome they are seeking.

An unfortunate reality of many defence procurement decisions is that the important or deciding factors are often completely unrelated to anything involving defence. Canada is by no means along in this regard, though they do have some rather glaring examples, like the Sea King replacement saga and now the fighter replacement.

hauritz said:

As a theoretical question ... what would happen if both SAAB and Boeing dropped themselves out of the race?

Would Canada continue the competition out of sheer stubbornness even though they were down to a single competitor?

Would they restart the process using a different set of selection criteria?

Who knows ... I doubt they do.

Click to expand...

Good question. Had junior received a majority mandate in the last election, IMO he would restart the tender process as he really doesn’t want to buy anything. With a minority government he may have to accept the outcome, even if it is a sole LM responce.

I would like to think this kit is already installed on our Cyclones as it was a tender requirement although the initial deliveries lacked this capability, something I vaguely recall.

Reports are coming in that a RCAF CH-148 cyclone is missing from a RCN frigate involved in NATO exercises Off the coast of Greece.

The RCAF is having a tough time.
Just released has been the sad news that an Pilot has been killed when a pair of Snowbirds were taking part in an aerobatics display in BC to thank emergency workers for COVID 19

According to this report the pilot ejected and survived but another person was in the aircraft (the Tudor can sit two side by side), a public affairs officer who died. I guess part of the investigation will explore what kind of emergency training do guest passengers get? Nothing in reports I have seen suggest she was trained for flying Tudors. This along with the recent Cyclone crash is making 2020 look grim for the RCAF.https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/plane-crash-kamloops-1.5573930

John Fedup said:

According to this report the pilot ejected and survived but another person was in the aircraft (the Tudor can sit two side by side), a public affairs officer who died. I guess part of the investigation will explore what kind of emergency training do guest passengers get? Nothing in reports I have seen suggest she was trained for flying Tudors. This along with the recent Cyclone crash is making 2020 look grim for the RCAF.https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/plane-crash-kamloops-1.5573930View attachment 47384

Click to expand...

Very sad whenever incidents like this occur. If she remained in the aircraft and didn’t eject I’d say 100% the crew training will be looked at, as well as the wisdom in flying ‘supernumery’ crew in an ageing aircraft without command eject (my understanding- Tudor not fitted for command eject).

If what I think has happened occurred, this incident has some unfortunate familiarities with the Red Arrow Valley Crash.

Just had a quick glance at the Red Arrow Valley crash report and wrt additional person on board the issue of how prepared these extras would be in an emergency ejection seems to be a concern. Too early to determine yet however. The age of these Tudors is an issue. Considering how long the RCAF fighter replacement is taking, a Tudor replacement will happen around two to three decades after the second coming of JHC.

John Fedup said:

According to this report the pilot ejected and survived but another person was in the aircraft (the Tudor can sit two side by side), a public affairs officer who died. I guess part of the investigation will explore what kind of emergency training do guest passengers get? Nothing in reports I have seen suggest she was trained for flying Tudors.

Click to expand...

Very sad, & a good question.

But please . . . . TUTOR - as in one who gives tuition, an appropriate name for a trainer. Nothing to do with 16th century English monarchs.

swerve said:

Very sad, & a good question.

But please . . . . TUTOR - as in one who gives tuition, an appropriate name for a trainer. Nothing to do with 16th century English monarchs.

Click to expand...

Thanks Swerve. Clearly you are the best spell checker on this site. I vaguely recall you corrected me on the use and spelling of moot way back.

Official announcement on Snowbird incident

Posting the official announcement from the RCAF on the incident. Of note, both personnel did eject.

south said:

Very sad whenever incidents like this occur. If she remained in the aircraft and didn’t eject I’d say 100% the crew training will be looked at, as well as the wisdom in flying ‘supernumery’ crew in an ageing aircraft without command eject (my understanding- Tudor not fitted for command eject).

If what I think has happened occurred, this incident has some unfortunate familiarities with the Red Arrow Valley Crash.

Click to expand...

The deceased's family, friends and colleagues are going through enough at the moment without others needlessly speculating upon the causes. The accident hasn't been fully investigated yet and there is nothing to be gained from speculation on what may or may not have happened. Best to leave any speculation to the accident investigators.

Black Jack Shellac said:

Official announcement on Snowbird incident

Posting the official announcement from the RCAF on the incident. Of note, both personnel did eject.

Click to expand...

Good to know she at least had a chance at survival and the training to eject. I guess it will be a long wait until we know exactly what happened.

This article is the latest on recovery efforts wrt the recent Cyclone crash.