Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[John Fedup]

When we went to Afghanistan, the army had to rely on coalition air forces for CAS. This is still the case. I have no idea where junior plans on getting this for his BS African mission. He will never buy AH-64s. Although such a mission may benefit from having AT6s, rest assured any money spent on these planes will be at the expense of other needed kit for the RCAF. As for your suggestion of a mixed fleet of AT6s, Growlers, and F-35s, there is no way the RCAF wants to support two fast jets for the next 40 years! As for the AT6s, I am sure the RCAF (and the army) would welcome them but not at the expense of reducing the fast jet fleet.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I agree with you John. What bothers me is that both the beauracracy of government and the senior officers, like so many Canadians, refuse to accept change. Change is a constant and continually fighting the last battle instead of seeing the coming threat doesn't allow you to ever get ahead. Bigger and more expensive isn't always the way to go. In my mind we need to learn from our past mis steps. Our most recent adventures in Astan cost us too many good young men and women, one I knew personally, and we owe it to them and those we lost before to make sure we make every effort to be better the next time because there will always be a next time.

Wolverine aircraft and those like it are not a threat to fast jets but a compliment. The ability to get ones feet wet in an armed turbo prop escorting choppers and straffing Toyota technicals is far more likely than fast air in the coming years. The pure cost savings alone in operations would allow the limited fast jet fleet to focus on their operations both at home and abroad. If things continue and we take a garrison posture towards Russia I see a fighter bomber deployment in the cards. It's been a quarter century since we did this. This is the place for the stealth and the EW and ISR that will help if the #%€£¥ hits the fan. Not the place for a prop plane.

Under successive governments our military has paid the price of our hard fought freedom. We live in difficult times. Our media focuses on fluff while bad things are happening every day. Not a single mention today on any Canadian news outlets of the sinking of the UAE based HSV2 catamaran off of Yemen. We live here in Canada oblivious of the beating drums. Maybe it's time for the proverbial wake up call but it will be too late then as we lack a domestic capacity.

 

[t68]

Originally posted by Nagti in the Kiwi Air Force thread,

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ce-struggles-to-prove-air-power-relev-429948/

A good paragraph that PM Trudeau needs to read, might make it a bit hard for his crusade against the F35

“We need to make the most of this [the F-35],” he says. “When you point out that the Typhoon is more expensive than the F-35, it doesn’t really resonate, because air policing is a good use of them.”

But anyway I generally agree with most of what has been said by Nova and John, whilst I like the capabilty what the Growler represents I don't think it should be in consideration at this time as it opens the door for the PM to go whole Hornets when all avalible funding should go F35, RAAF are getting away with it as we bought it at the right time.


I have to agree about the light AT aircraft it's something I think is missing in most airforces around the world as most see the shiny fast jets as the be all and end all of aerial combat, but it's one area that can be truly multi-role of a fleet within a fleet for not much extra outlay if you have a logistics tail already set and if most of the EO is interchangeable with its fast air brothers.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

t68 I read the post by Ngati and was going to reference it as it has relevance to Canada and many other nations. It's like we have gone blind to the realities that will have an effect on all our lives if someone somewhere does something really stupid. I'm not talking North Korea or China as I don't see either as global military threats yet. Although both posses nukes neither has the ability to project power.

Another Yugoslavia on European soil is more the concern from this chair. How much of a spark is needed to draw western forces directly into the near east of Turkey and Azerbaijan and Armenia and Iran? As I said in my earlier post the likelihood of garrisoning forces in the Baltic with ever increasing amounts of people and equipment will return us to a Cold War that no one wants or needs.

In a perfect world and the AT6C is procured as an A 10 supplement, since it can't really replace the capability of the GAU 8 30 mm cannon, I wonder if there would be more interest from Canada and other countries?

I remember the SF260's that were used during the bush wars in Africa during the late '70's and early 80's with decent results. Air power over irregular forces doesn't have to be $100 million plus fast jets and Apaches to be effective.

Canada being as frugal and defence opposed as we are there may be a possibility if they were compared for purchase against attack helicopters? Since our Griffon utility helicopters are now a quarter century old their replacement can only be 20 years off. Lol

 

[STURM]

I'm not talking North Korea or China as I don't see either as global military threats yet. Although both posses nukes neither has the ability to project power.

China's priority is to be able to project power in its backyard and the periphery. North Korea's priority is being able to fit a nuke load to long range missile; not so much to create trouble but to deter regime change.

I remember the SF260's that were used during the bush wars in Africa during the late '70's and early 80's with decent results. Air power over irregular forces doesn't have to be $100 million plus fast jets and Apaches to be effective.

What comes to my mind are the Alouette 111s armed with 20mm cannons. The first to use the Alo 3 in the 20mm armed ''gunship'' role was the Portuguese, followed by the Rhodesians and then the Malaysians. At the end of the day how successful a particular aircraft will be in counter insurgency ops really depends I suppose on the level of opposition faced.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

So very true STURM. Unfortunately those tasked with being the pointy end typically have little decision making power as to the hardware they end up with to accomplish the given task. That's why it's easy for me to write out a wish list. Because that's about as far as it will ever get.

In the Canadian context we lack so much capability. Our government is quite happy wasting millions upon millions of dollars studying and analyzing the options only to do nothing unless there is a direct benefit to them or their electorate. A prime example was the decision to scrap three distinct helicopter types in the early 1990's and replace them with the Bell 412 Griffon. A sole source contract handed out by the riding MP. Defence in Canada is treated as an economic driver. That's why we have too many bases and too many support staff and generals and admirals.

It's taken 30 years plus to get the replacement for the Sea King and it's far from being fully in service. At least until 2023.

Like so many here I care about a strong defence force appropriate for our needs but we can't even come close. Nations like Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands do a far better job of acquiring hardware in a timely manner.

I was a teenager when the F18's were bought. I remember the CF5, the CF101 and the CF104 flying over my house from base Shearwater in the 1970's. The Sea Kings were acquired four years before I was born. There has been one flying around Halifax all day.

There is far more economic activity maintaining old aircraft than new ones. Keep people working but what happens when this ancient equipment needs to deploy. A quick search online will show what happens. Deployments get delayed and worse good people die. Look at Canadas initial deployment to Astan. Unarmoured G wagons green fatigues and no choppers. CRIMINAL.

 

[John Fedup]

Novascotiaboy right on. Junior will likely deploy forces to Africa without the proper kit or support. They have the track record for doing this. It will be very interesting to see what they propose for CAS should this mission actually occur.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

John there has been talk recently at the various other defence sites we all lurk on that say the government is contemplating another costly investment in the legacy F18 fleet. This is another example of IRB to benefit Bombardier and Quebec.

If this upgrade occurs it will leave only the F35 as a viable option when 2025 comes along as Super Hornet will be out of production and Euro fighters will be 30 years old in design and unlikely to be in production either.

Can't fix stupid.

On another note we should soon start to hear about FWSAR as a choice should soon be made. Once that happens then the losers will line up to sue Canada.

My personal choice is the C295W as more can be acquired and operational costs are known to be less. Hopefully they will get the yellow paint job that the Buffaloes sport. As tactical twins with a ramp they will be very welcome up north as replacements for the long serving Twin Otters as well. With their lower up front cost extra aircraft should be bought to be based up North to reduce the flight time from southern bases. IMHO three for Newfoundland, three for Nova Scotia, three for Trenton, three for Iqaluit on Baffin Island, three for Yellowknife, and 5 for Comox British Columbia for a total of twenty airframes. This would provide a significant improvement in coverage and capability. An E/O turret on each aircraft plus AAR capability will ensure that both C295W and upgraded Cormorants with AAR probes will increase range and safety.

If AAR probes are installed on the Cormorants the Kestrels we bought should also be made airworthy to allow a total of twenty active airframes based alongside the C295W in the same distribution. IIRC we have 13 Cormorants and 9 Kestrels. That leaves two airframes for future use. That distribution should ensure six SAR choppers available across Canada on a 15 minute ready state. I know pie in the sky thinking.

 

[John Fedup]

John there has been talk recently at the various other defence sites we all lurk on that say the government is contemplating another costly investment in the legacy F18 fleet. This is another example of IRB to benefit Bombardier and Quebec.

If this upgrade occurs it will leave only the F35 as a viable option when 2025 comes along as Super Hornet will be out of production and Euro fighters will be 30 years old in design and unlikely to be in production either.

Can't fix stupid.

Hard to see which way junior will exit the hole he dug for himself. I guess one possibility is to fly the CF-18 into the grave by which time he can claim he tried to keep his promise about no F-35 but it's the only jet left. However Boeing will likely get a 28-40 SH order from Kuwait and there might be other opportunities for the SH which could extend the production out into the timeframe junior has to make a decision. I guess it really depends on how the RFQ rigged. In any event a tender will be an embarrassment for him.

On another note we should soon start to hear about FWSAR as a choice should soon be made. Once that happens then the losers will line up to sue Canada.

My personal choice is the C295W as more can be acquired and operational costs are known to be less. Hopefully they will get the yellow paint job that the Buffaloes sport.

Junior will likely favour the C295 to make his friends at Bombardier happy (a partner on the Airbus bid I believe). The RCAF has long favoured the C-27J with its higher cruise speed (sort of useful for SAR where time is critical). It also has better range and higher load capacity and uses the same pallets as the C-130J. It also shares the same engines as our new Hercs. Whether all this justifies the higher cost remains to be seen I guess. I must admit I really like the dark horse in this race, the KC390. It has speed, range, and capacity advantages over the other contenders but given the politics of choosing an aircraft from Bombardier's main competitor, this option is likely DOA. I sure hope there is no legal BS after the tender award as the FWSAR requirement has dragged on long enough.

If AAR probes are installed on the Cormorants the Kestrels we bought should also be made airworthy to allow a total of twenty active airframes based alongside the C295W in the same distribution. IIRC we have 13 Cormorants and 9 Kestrels. That leaves two airframes for future use. That distribution should ensure six SAR choppers available across Canada on a 15 minute ready state. I know pie in the sky thinking.

I was under the impression the 9 Kestrels were purchased for parts needed to support our Cormorants and they lacked flight certificates.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I would be ok with a Super Hornet fleet as long as there were EF18's as well.

Bombardier isn't part of the Airbus bid. ProvinciL Airlines is along with CAE and Pratt and Whitney.

Of the 9 Kestrels seven air airworthy and can be modified. IMP would likely be the prime for any work. There are 14 of 15 original AW -01 CH 149 flying so add seven Kestrels for 21 of the best SAR aircraft in the world.

 

[John Fedup]

I would be ok with a Super Hornet fleet as long as there were EF18's as well.

Bombardier isn't part of the Airbus bid. ProvinciL Airlines is along with CAE and Pratt and Whitney.

Of the 9 Kestrels seven air airworthy and can be modified. IMP would likely be the prime for any work. There are 14 of 15 original AW -01 CH 149 flying so add seven Kestrels for 21 of the best SAR aircraft in the world.

It will be interesting to see if IMP can get 7 of these Kestrels put into service and at what price. Assuming a starting cost of $23m each (lumping the 2 unusable into the cost for the 7 good ones), even if the cost for upgrading is $20-30m per unit, it is likely way better than a new unit from A-W.

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to SH production time frame it may actually be open a little longer as the F-35 committee in Australia reviewing it while stating that there is no other realistic alternative to it they are concerned about any further delays so have instructed defence to look into hedging there bet's, ie: a further acquisition of SH's so the line could be retained for a further 6 to 12 months depending on any Oz order.

 

[John Fedup]

In regards to SH production time frame it may actually be open a little longer as the F-35 committee in Australia reviewing it while stating that there is no other realistic alternative to it they are concerned about any further delays so have instructed defence to look into hedging there bet's, ie: a further acquisition of SH's so the line could be retained for a further 6 to 12 months depending on any Oz order.

I read an article about the Australian committee suggesting a backup plan. I think at this point the F-35 is progressing to the point that a backup plan is not required and an additional Oz buy shouldn't be necessary. Assuming no new USN orders and Kuwait buys 28 SHs, the production line should end before 2020. I am not aware of any other potential buyers.

 

[vonnoobie]

I read an article about the Australian committee suggesting a backup plan. I think at this point the F-35 is progressing to the point that a backup plan is not required and an additional Oz buy shouldn't be necessary. Assuming no new USN orders and Kuwait buys 28 SHs, the production line should end before 2020. I am not aware of any other potential buyers.

No exact aircraft has been identified however most agree (experts and not) that the SH would be the only choice.

They want the hedging strategy completed by 2018 and able to be implemented in 2019 if needed. On of there concerns I think is the Classic will be 35 years old by 2020 when we are meant to be getting a good size number of F-35's, if they are delayed then our capability is either weakened or our pilot's put at much greater risk.

We should have a better idea over the next few years.

 

[Vanshilar]

In regards to SH production time frame it may actually be open a little longer as the F-35 committee in Australia reviewing it while stating that there is no other realistic alternative to it they are concerned about any further delays so have instructed defence to look into hedging there bet's, ie: a further acquisition of SH's so the line could be retained for a further 6 to 12 months depending on any Oz order.

Question is, what recent "further delays" has there been with the F-35? The only one I'm aware of is delivery delays due to the fuel line contamination thing, but that's a supplier issue and can happen with any aircraft, not unique to the F-35.

 

[John Fedup]

No exact aircraft has been identified however most agree (experts and not) that the SH would be the only choice.

They want the hedging strategy completed by 2018 and able to be implemented in 2019 if needed. On of there concerns I think is the Classic will be 35 years old by 2020 when we are meant to be getting a good size number of F-35's, if they are delayed then our capability is either weakened or our pilot's put at much greater risk.

We should have a better idea over the next few years.

We have the same age problem with our CF18s. The Canadian solution is to do a life extension on half our remaining jets so they can fly out to 2025. It is shit solution but it is the only way the RCAF will ever get F-35s. Any SH order as a stop-gap now will allow junior to follow up with an additional SH order down the road. I sure hope this does not happen.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

John

The FWSAR project as you know has been a shambles due IMHO the interference of Bombardier and the Quebec aviation industry. As a result the best chance for those industries to participate in the process and capture "kickbacks" is to go with the C295W. The primary rationale to me is the Pratt and Whitney engines. The C27 has similarities to the C130J but the offsets to Canadian industry isn't there.

These aircraft will never be used for transport other than minor loads. Hopefully they will be bright yellow like I remember the Buffaloes when they flew out east. The C295W is cheaper to acquire and cheaper to operate and that factor will be its ace in the hole. If we were looking for a battle field lifter I would prefer the C27J. It's floor strength and tube size are better suited to the probable loads needed. As much as I like the KC390 it's too big for the role. Awesome capability but it wasn't ready when we needed to replace our legacy Herc fleet.

I hope that the basing solution looks something like this; 3 in Gander, 3 in Greenwood, 3 in Trenton, 3 in Winnipeg, 3 in Yellowknife and 5 in Comox for a total of twenty aircraft. At a reported price of CAN$50 million that's CAN$1 billion for the basic aircraft including the Canadian specific mission systems at likely $5 million each plus life cycle costs. BTW my personal opinion of this stupid requirement is not allowed to be printed. @&$) bean counters. The rule of threes insures one will always be available.

The longer body affords more room for amenities for the crew and more storage for their equipment. For the aircraft hopefully based in Yellowknife the additional cargo capacity over the Twin Otters should be of great benefit.

Although the C295W is moderately slower it's inflight refuelling capability will see it able to stay on station longer.

I would have preferred a mixed fleet consisting of Combat Talon C130J's operating out of Trenton and C295W elsewhere but that was never going to happen.

I also believe the stored Kestrels need to be made airworthy as part of the midlife upgrade of the AW101 SAR choppers in order to fill out the ranks at all SAR bases plus Iqaluit.

We are a huge country with a small population concentrated predominantly within 200 km of the US border. What these aircraft and their immensely qualified crews do for those of us who live near the oceans and waterways of this country is immeasureable. We owe it to them to provide the best solution possible. We have wasted twice the cost of the actual acquisition dicking around while 30 year old aircraft operate in the worst of weather and physical extremes.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

John

I believe a mixed fleet composed of Rhinos, Growlers, F35, Wolverines and Predator B armed RPAS is the best fit for Canada's defence.

Forward deployed Rhinos in Gander, Greenwood, Comox and Inuvik with three aircraft each would offer three ocean coverage at all the typical air and sea routes to the country. Twelve Growler aircraft would be based at Bagotville where they would form an expiditionary and training unit. Six aircraft would be available for deployment worldwide. Given that only Australia and The USN operate the type it's demand in operations with coalition partners would be high.

Cold Lake would be the home of two squadrons of F35 for strike and interdiction, 48 aircraft in total.

A twelve aircraft fleet of armed Predator B would be co-located at Bagotville.

That gives us a 72 fast jet fleet.

In addition I believe we should have a fleet of AT6 Wolverines for helicopter escort, convoy top cover and COIN operations. These aircraft need to be located close to army training areas to work with the troops in the field. Maybe a fleet of 24 aircraft.

In total I am advocating 12 Rhinos, 12 Growlers, 48 F35A, 12 Predator B armed RPAS and 24 AT6 Wolverines.

Affordable. Flexible. Balanced. NEEDED.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ne...f-super-hornet-fighter-jets-to-replace-cf-18s

 

[John Newman]

John

I believe a mixed fleet composed of Rhinos, Growlers, F35, Wolverines and Predator B armed RPAS is the best fit for Canada's defence.

Forward deployed Rhinos in Gander, Greenwood, Comox and Inuvik with three aircraft each would offer three ocean coverage at all the typical air and sea routes to the country. Twelve Growler aircraft would be based at Bagotville where they would form an expiditionary and training unit. Six aircraft would be available for deployment worldwide. Given that only Australia and The USN operate the type it's demand in operations with coalition partners would be high.

Cold Lake would be the home of two squadrons of F35 for strike and interdiction, 48 aircraft in total.

A twelve aircraft fleet of armed Predator B would be co-located at Bagotville.

That gives us a 72 fast jet fleet.

In addition I believe we should have a fleet of AT6 Wolverines for helicopter escort, convoy top cover and COIN operations. These aircraft need to be located close to army training areas to work with the troops in the field. Maybe a fleet of 24 aircraft.

In total I am advocating 12 Rhinos, 12 Growlers, 48 F35A, 12 Predator B armed RPAS and 24 AT6 Wolverines.

Affordable. Flexible. Balanced. NEEDED.

Liberals again considering sole source purchase of Super Hornet fighter jets to replace CF-18s

Putting aside the question of Predator and AT-6, I just can't see how a total of 72 airframes made up of F-35A, Rhino and Growler works in a practical sense, yes of course here in Oz we are going to operate those same three airframes until around 2030, but we are also talking about an RAAF feet of 108 airframes, 36 more airframes, eg, 50% more.

As I understand it, the RCAF currently has approx. 80 Classic Hornets in service, and they are split between 4 operational and 1 training squadron, that's approx. 16 airframes per squadron (and that includes airframes in maintenance and any airframe that is unserviceable from time to time too).

So looking at the numbers you are proposing, 12 Rhinos, 12 Growlers, 48 F-35A, and the Sqn structure you are proposing too, eg 1 Sqn Rhinos, 1 Sqn Growlers and 2 Sqns of F-35A's, where are your training Squadrons for 'each' of these three types? Where? Where is the allowance for maintenance and unserviceable airframes too?

Sorry, but it just doesn't add up to me.

As a counter balance to what I am saying, look at the RAAF.

Currently there are 71 Classic Hornets spread across 3 operational and 1 training squadron (to be replaced, one for one, with 72 F-35As and the same squadron structure too), that is 'nominally' 18 airframes per squadron, which also has to allow for maintenance and unserviceable airframes too.

Also, the current structure for the 24 F/A-18Fs, is split between an operation and a training squadron too.

Current RAAF fast jet structure is a total of 6 Sqns made up of 4 operational and 2 training (one training for each type).

But soon it's going to get a bit more complicated for the RAAF, when the 12 Growlers arrive, they will be assigned to 6 Sqn (the current F/A-18F training Sqn) and all 24 F/A-18Fs will belong to 1 Sqn, the operational squadron.

The last thing I saw published was that the RAAF was considering undertaking some 'basic' flight training for new Rhino crews with the USN as there won't be a separate Rhino training Sqn.

Even with all those airframes it gets a bit complicated doesn't it?


Getting back to the RCAF, and as I understand it, the Canadian Government has said that the replacement for the Classic Hornets will amount to a total of 65 airframes.

If that's the case (regardless of which airframe is eventually chosen, hopefully F-35A), it seems to me that at 'best' the RCAF will end up with 4 squadrons of approx. 16 airframes each, logically 3 operational and 1 training.

Far more manageable, with the number of airframes authorised (65), and one type too.

And even 'if', by some magical chance the RCAF could end up with 72 airframes, I still think it would be better with 72 airframes of the one type, not three.

Cheers,

 

[Novascotiaboy]

John Newman

The current RCAF structure revolves around the basing of aircraft at two primary bases with the occasional deployment of aircraft to the noted bases in my suggestion. Given our vastness I am suggesting that the Rhinos be distributed so that there is one available at all times from these FOB's, thus three per location. As an example the current fighter base at Cold Lake is almost 2000 air kms from Inuvik. Cold Lake to Comox, on Vancouver Island, 1150 km. Bagotville to Gander Newfoundland is 1200 km.

The main base for Super Hornet operation would be Bagotville with 12 Growlers. These would provide the training and the six deployable aircraft and act as the squadron that supplies pilots and crews on rotation to the FOB's. If additional Rhinos are needed to provide attrition aircraft and training aircraft then so be it but given our proximity to the USN it makes more sense to pay for the priviledge and use their numbers for training. Basically what I am advocating is the Rhinos are for home use and the Growlers are deployable. The aircraft and crews at the FOB's would be similar to the situation with the flight of RAF Typhoons deployed to the Falklands.

Like New Zealand there is no direct aggressive air threat to Canada but there is a need for interception of undeclared aircraft and maritime strike if needed. We do not need a fifth generation fighter to do this. We need long legs and ruggedness with the ability to provide weapons delivery if needed. There was a time during the cold war when we fielded hundreds of interceptors from bases across the country but times have changed and like everything else in our lives we operate with minimums and manage risk differently.

The 48 F35's would be three squadrons as you suggest with two operational and a training squadron. Again given our proximity to the USAF assets why not take advantage of this as well. These aircraft would be our primary overseas deployable aircraft to operate with coalition partners. They would also be available for home use if needed but other than the odd aggressive moose or beaver there isn't much threat in north central Alberta.

There is no doubt that our two countries have similarities but also differences with regard to defence. I have said this before but Canada has to become a niche force because we can not be everything for every situation. If our legacy CF18's were not so old I could see them being the home defence but time has an effect on these systems regardless of how well they have been maintained.

Junior will fulfill his promise of not buying the F35 under his watch. It will cost us penalties. But he and his Libtard cronies don't care about that. Its all about political face.