Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[foxdemon]

On page 50 (previous page) of this thread there was talk about RAAF & Shornets, here is a recent article quoting retired AVM Brown about such matters that will interest some to be posted on the RAAF thread probably - so anyhoo.
Crafting a Fifth Generation Combat Force: The Perspective of Air Marshal (Retired) Geoff Brown 24 Nov 2018 Robbin Laird

My response will consist of a rant followed by a digression, then I will present a counter argument regarding the SHornets and finally write something to make the post relevant to the Canadians.


First off, the rant.


What does AVM Brown mean by “maybe the Poseidon and Triton” (grumble, grumble). Clearly he must have been a fighter pilot. Some platforms are keystones. Both the F-35 and P-8a are of this nature. When it comes to maritime denial missions, the P-8 is a dangerous platform, at least if it were armed with something like LRASM. Fast combat jets don’t have the range.

Think about a carrier group. By the time it was in range of land based tactical AirPower, the carrier airwong would also be in range to attack back. Plus all those cruise missiles the escort ships would bring. That is assuming the carrier even had to get in range of land based tactical aircraft to complete its mission.

The network out at sea should be built around P-8, enabled by Triton, cube stats, JORN, etc. just as tactical air power is built around the F-35, using it’s enablers. AVM Brown sees everything revolving around his fighter jets, but that is only one paradigm of AirPower. Possibly fighter pilots get too much say?


Ok, rant over. Next, the digression.


For the benefit of some readers, we should expand on how the F-35/Growler concept works. The F-35 is LO, but only in shorter frequencies typical if targeting radars. This effectively reduces the range of those radars allowing first engagement against opposing aircraft and creating gaps in SAM radar coverage that can be exploited. However longer wavelength search radars can detect a stealth fighter (stealth bombers being a different kettle of fish).

This is where the Growler comes in. The jammers can inhibit search radars, at least at range. So the F-35s become hard to track as well as hard to target. Furthermore, the Growlers have detection equipment that can receive, categorise and give a bearing on all sorts of emissions, even mobile phones. Three Growlers supporting a strike package can triangulate to give a location then hand the information over to the F-35s. So they complement LO aircraft nicely.

Let’s consider the alternative approach of using 4th gen aircraft with long range cruise missiles to overcome a strong integrated air defense. The cruise missiles will take losses to the air defences and those that get through won’t always hit the most desirable targets. So it would take a lot of missiles and a lot of time to neutralise those defences. In war, the idea is to get inside the enemy’s initiative cycle. Otherwise he will recover from your attacks and maintain organised resistance. This slow and clumsy approach isn’t going to win air superiority. Particularly if your side doesn’t have intergrated air defences of their own and the opposing airforce starts attacking your airfields.

Now, if we were to combine those cruise missiles, at least if they were comparable in range with the F-35 and had data links, with the F-35/Growler group, most of those missiles would get through and the F-35s could direct them onto the best targets (bearing in mind the F-35 is as much a sensor platform as it is a strike aircraft). So a better outcome would be achieved more quickly with the resources employed. The F-35 is often predicted to gain escort drones in future, but the only difference between drones and cruise missiles in that one aspires to get the former back. Cruise missiles would make fine wingmen for F-35s, particularly in light of the F-35’s main failing, which is lack of payload in stealth mode.

So there is state of the art tactical air power. Overcome their defences as rapidly as possible, follow up by destroying as much of their airforce as possible on their own airfields, then roam around bombing at will. The F-35 doesn’t do it all by itself, it needs the Growlers, AWACS and possibly the cruise missiles (not necessarily launched from air platforms).


Ok, digression over. Now, finally, my response regarding retiring the SHornets.


The SHornets were a stop gap between the F-111s and F-35s. Given the F-35s will need up to another decade to be brought into service and mature in capability, the SHornets have to hang around until the late 2020s. But should the RAAF retire them at that point in favour of more F-35s? The currently building tactical Air Force will be the bees knees for a decade or two. But it won’t cut the mustard forever. At some point the RAAF will have to start thinking about jumping on the 6th gen bandwagon. See, if the SHornets were still in service in the early 2030’s about when the next generation of aircraft are getting close to production, the RAAF would have a good arguement to replace its worn out Hornets with the new replacement design. At least the public and pollies could be convinced that way.

I don’t think we need to rush to hasty decisions on exactly when to retire the SHornets.


So what should the Canadians make of this exchange between two Australians? Clearly the AirPower debate in Australia is more sophisticated. This is because Canadian pollies have set the bar so low that the debate is on which single platform is best rather than talking about air doctrine as a whole. Of course the National defense strategy has to be agreed on first, as doctrine follows from that. The politicians have turned your National defense debate into a farce, something to be deflected rather than addressed.


Defence Connect

A recent UK study claims Australia now ranks just below Canada and deserves a place in the G8. Canadian pollies need to wake up or they might find other countries over take Canada and those Canadian pollies won’t be so important anymore.

 

[John Fedup]

The exit of Russia has returned the G7. The recreation of the G8 with Australia makes sense. After a decade or so, Canada’s general decline will see India taking Canada’s place.

 

[Calculus]

Airbus is making a full-court press: Airbus open to a fighter plane assembly plant in Quebec ahead of federal bids | The Star

 

[Calculus]

Now they are doing a CBR sort of thing on them? Which looks to be questionable and costs as much as a new hawk, and only extends life ~30%? And doesn't do a systems update?
Royal Canadian Air Force performing Hawk trainer fatigue-life improvement programme | Jane's 360

The NFTC is an outsourced program (run by CAE). The life extension is meant to bridge the gap until the RCAF selects its new fighter. More information here: CAE plans upgrades to NFTC and jet training fleets - Skies Mag

Note: The article is about two years old now, and refers to the contemplated SH purchase, which was canned after Boeing made a ruckus about the C-series, but it still accurately describes the strategy to replace the current Hawks with new aircraft once the new fighters are selected.

 

[Calculus]

More on RCAF fighter pilot training options: Texas training - Skies Mag

 

[John Fedup]

Airbus is making a full-court press: Airbus open to a fighter plane assembly plant in Quebec ahead of federal bids | The Star

Classic Quebecois BS which is a wake up call to the rest of Canada, kick them out! How much longer do we need to subsidize this province, not to mention putting up with an inferior fighter?

 

[Calculus]

Classic Quebecois BS which is a wake up call to the rest of Canada, kick them out! How much longer do we need to subsidize this province, not to mention putting up with an inferior fighter?

A lot of people on this forum, including you, John, are crapping all over the idea of building fighters in Canada, but I for one welcome the idea. The spillover effect would be profound, and would benefit Canadian aerospace competitiveness for years to come. It could even create a fighter centre of excellence in Canada, and may be a hook into any potential 6th gen European projects, including Tempest in the UK. Canada already has some of the leading aerospace companies in the world, and Montreal is home to the largest aerospace hub in Canada (Aerospace). So, despite your enmity towards Quebec, which I share to a certain extent, it actually makes sense to build these in Montreal. However, many of the components could be manufactured elsewhere in Canada. For example, the landing gear could be built by Devtek in Cambridge Ontario (Products and Services - Héroux-Devtek – Designer, Developer and Manufacturer of Aerospace & Industrial Products). The composites could be built in a number of locations, as Canada is a world leader in aerospace composite construction. Magellan Aerospace in Missisauga comes to mind (Aerostructures - Magellan Aerospace). The engines could be built under licence by Pratt and Whitney Canada (Pratt & Whitney Canada). Selex (the maker of the Captor-E electronically scanned radar) already builds weather radars at a Canadian facility for Environment Canada. There are other companies such as IMP in Halifax (IMP Group), or Field Aviation in Calgary (http://www.fieldav.com/), who could easily contribute. Here is a nice little pamphlet that shows the breadth of the aerospace industry in Canada: https://www.international.gc.ca/inv...ssets/pdfs/download/canada-aerospace-2014.pdf

If Airbus could do all this within the project budget, it would not be a bad outcome. From a capability perspective, I agree wholeheartedly the F35 makes the most sense, but when, other than the possible exception of T26 for the Navy (still not 100% certain!), has DND ever gotten what they wanted? It's always a compromise. Even the current Hornet fleet was a compromise - the RCAF wanted the F15. In this case, if the compromise is Typhoon, built in Canada, that's not the worst possible outcome. That would be a SH buy, made in St. Louis, in my opinion.

I welcome rebuttals.

 

[John Fedup]

I still think a 4 th Gen jet is a bad investment for Canadian defence, period. Even if Airbus were to centralize the Typhoon build in Ontario and the majority of its Canadian components manufactured west of Quebec, it still is a hard sell IMO. The lesson the C-Series demonstrates is Canada can only rise so far in the aerospace sector. Canada threw away its chance for aerospace stardom when it didn’t revamp the Arrow into a multi role fighter and worse abandoned the Iroquois engine development, the latter which was cutting edge.

 

[Todjaeger]

IMO the resources contained in the shield and Canada’s EEZ are not all that important. Between First Nations and environentlists opposition along with government incompetence, development of these resources isn’t happening.

I think you have missed at least part of the point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make. There are natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable in the Arctic as well as in the Canadian Shield. Russia has already demonstrated an interest in at least some of those resources by planting a flag on the ocean floor where the North Pole is, and by trying to expand their northern EEZ claims out to where they claim the continental shelf ends, past the normal 200 mile EEZ limit. While Canada might not want to, or be in a position to exploit some of those natural resources, it is not outside the scope of possibility that Russia might start encroaching on Canadian claims in the north. Heck, from a fisheries perspective, one already sees countries like mainland China with fishing vessels that have been observed and sometimes seized operating in the EEZ claims of other nations far from China, Australia comes to mind as an example of where that has happened. If the conditions improve in the Arctic where it becomes easier and safer for vessels to operate, it would be foolish not to assume that others will attempt to do so given the resources which would likely be available to exploit, regardless of whether or not Canada wants or agrees to their exploitation. Should Canada not take action to defend her claims, or lack the ability to do so, then one might first see foreign fishing vessels operating illegally within Canada's EEZ, then after that there might be exploration vessels for undersea mining and/or petroleum, and then perhaps oil platforms or even establishment of a land facility. For those who think something like this could not happen, one has to remember that six years prior to the outbreak of the Falklands War, Argentina established a base on Thule Island in the South Sandwich Islands and maintained that base until the British landed to retake South Georgia as part of the Falklands War and forced the Argentinians to leave. Depending on how well Canada maintains situational awareness of the far north, it could be weeks or more before the gov't in Ottawa might become aware of another country operating within Canada's claim areas.

A lot of people on this forum, including you, John, are crapping all over the idea of building fighters in Canada, but I for one welcome the idea. The spillover effect would be profound, and would benefit Canadian aerospace competitiveness for years to come. It could even create a fighter centre of excellence in Canada, and may be a hook into any potential 6th gen European projects, including Tempest in the UK. Canada already has some of the leading aerospace companies in the world, and Montreal is home to the largest aerospace hub in Canada (Aerospace). So, despite your enmity towards Quebec, which I share to a certain extent, it actually makes sense to build these in Montreal. However, many of the components could be manufactured elsewhere in Canada. For example, the landing gear could be built by Devtek in Cambridge Ontario (Products and Services - Héroux-Devtek – Designer, Developer and Manufacturer of Aerospace & Industrial Products). The composites could be built in a number of locations, as Canada is a world leader in aerospace composite construction. Magellan Aerospace in Missisauga comes to mind (Aerostructures - Magellan Aerospace). The engines could be built under licence by Pratt and Whitney Canada (Pratt & Whitney Canada). Selex (the maker of the Captor-E electronically scanned radar) already builds weather radars at a Canadian facility for Environment Canada. There are other companies such as IMP in Halifax (IMP Group), or Field Aviation in Calgary (Field Aviation: Aircraft Modifiers to the World - Field Aviation), who could easily contribute. Here is a nice little pamphlet that shows the breadth of the aerospace industry in Canada: https://www.international.gc.ca/inv...ssets/pdfs/download/canada-aerospace-2014.pdf

If Airbus could do all this within the project budget, it would not be a bad outcome. From a capability perspective, I agree wholeheartedly the F35 makes the most sense, but when, other than the possible exception of T26 for the Navy (still not 100% certain!), has DND ever gotten what they wanted? It's always a compromise. Even the current Hornet fleet was a compromise - the RCAF wanted the F15. In this case, if the compromise is Typhoon, built in Canada, that's not the worst possible outcome. That would be a SH buy, made in St. Louis, in my opinion.

I welcome rebuttals.

I would suggest before welcoming the idea it might be worth considering the cost to establish an assembly line, and/or production lines for the various components a modern fighter would require, the cost to establish a skilled workforce suitable to work on the line or lines, and then figure out a realistic time frame for how long the line would run with orders from Canada.

Based off the Australian assembly of F/A-18A/B Hornets, as well as the steps France and Dassault have taken to keep the Rafale line open and viable(ish) it would seem that the minimum production rate would be about one fighter per month. If one assumes that 88 fighters were to be ordered, based off reports on the RCAF's required fighter fleet size, that should take a hypothetical Canadian fighter factory less than eight years to complete the order, once production starts. If the factory finishes the RCAF order in that time, then the fighter factory (or production/assembly lines) would close before the RCAF was ready to order whatever the replacement would be, since the service life of most modern fighter jets is based around an airframe accumulating ~6,000 flight hours, which usually happens after 20 to 30 years of service. Even if Canada were to plan on retiring the fighters after only 20 years service, the first fighters built would not come up for replacement until about 12 years after the last fighter was built I cannot realistically see Canada being able to score any export orders for fighter jets, since the originating countries for the Canadian fighter would want to be awarded the production orders for 'their' fighter, in order to use the export orders to keep their fighter production lines operating. Also, I cannot foresee Canada placing additional orders just to keep the line open and running, since that would result in Canada ordering ~150 fighters beyond the RCAF requirement for 88.

One of the other big issues with attempting to do domestic production of fighter aircraft, is that much of it would be licensed production of another's design unless a nation's aerospace, engine and avionics industries are large enough and broad enough to be self-sustaining. Given that the Typhoon is referred to as the Eurofighter Typhoon, and a European consortium got together to design and manufacture it, that strongly suggests what is required to maintain an independent fighter production capability is largely beyond most European countries on their own (France and Russia being notable exceptions). Given that a number of the European countries involved in the Typhoon have a larger population and aerospace industrial base than Canada, that suggests that Canada too would have trouble trying to sustain a fighter production and development capability. Now yes, Sweden has managed to do so, so far. However, if one looks at aircraft like the Gripen, while Saab might have designed the aircraft, many of the systems are imported or licensed production of foreign designs. This means not only can the source country potentially block the sale or use of a fighter with foreign components, the ability of a country to continue or engage in new development of a design can be negatively impacted. Take the RM12 which powers the Saab Gripen, it is a licensed production version of a GE F404 engine, with about half the components still coming from GE. Now the RM12 was modified to meet the requirements for the Gripen, without the base IP as well as materials and components sourced from GE, it would not have been developed and built. Given all the various systems a modern advanced fighter has, one cannot help doubting whether or not the small orders that Canada is likely to place would be sufficient to sustain the various aerospace industries and related systems required. Just looking at aircraft numbers, the Euro fighter with the lowest numbers and smallest user base, the Rafale, still has about twice the number produced with more to go on the order book than Canada would ever be likely to order. The Gripen has had about triple the number produced compared with how many Canada would likely get, and the Typhoon more still.

At a certain point, unless large production numbers are feasible, establishing and sustaining a fighter production capability just is not viable due to the high sunk costs to establish production lines, and engage in aircraft development (if any). Assuming Canada continues to get/need less than ~150 fighters, then I think the high costs plus lengthy gaps in fighter production would mean that the benefits to Canada in establish such a capability are significantly outweighed by the costs of doing so.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Another OLD Brownian Quote about Oz Growlers NO FLY mit Oz F-35s but useful for other platforms. Geez & he was a fighter pilot in the RAAF - fancy that - and he made top dog.
The Royal Australian Air Force Shapes a Transformation Strategy 14 Sep 2015 Robbin F. Laird

"...Air Marshal (Retired) Brown “With regard to the Growler, it is not about flying with the F-35 as far as the Growler is concerned, for the F-35 clearly does not need it; but the Growler can be and will be used in many other situations...." top of page 32 http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/Resources/Documents/LairdPlanJerichoReportSep2015.pdf (6.4Mb)

 

[John Fedup]

@Todjaeger ....Canadians and most pollies are content with a non-functioning airforce which lacks the proper tools to enforce Arctic sovereignty and the navy isn’t much better. Land access is limited and the minimal population is First Nations, the very people that block Norhern development either by extortion or outright refusal to allow any development. There might be potential wealth in the Arctic but it won’t be Canada that will be benefiting and frankly this country doesn’t deserve any of it based on its commitment to the region.

 

[John Fedup]

I think you have missed at least part of the point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make. There are natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable in the Arctic as well as in the Canadian Shield. Russia has already demonstrated an interest in at least some of those resources by planting a flag on the ocean floor where the North Pole is, and by trying to expand their northern EEZ claims out to where they claim the continental shelf ends, past the normal 200 mile EEZ limit. While Canada might not want to, or be in a position to exploit some of those natural resources, it is not outside the scope of possibility that Russia might start encroaching on Canadian claims in the north. Heck, from a fisheries perspective, one already sees countries like mainland China with fishing vessels that have been observed and sometimes seized operating in the EEZ claims of other nations far from China, Australia comes to mind as an example of where that has happened. If the conditions improve in the Arctic where it becomes easier and safer for vessels to operate, it would be foolish not to assume that others will attempt to do so given the resources which would likely be available to exploit, regardless of whether or not Canada wants or agrees to their exploitation. Should Canada not take action to defend her claims, or lack the ability to do so, then one might first see foreign fishing vessels operating illegally within Canada's EEZ, then after that there might be exploration vessels for undersea mining and/or petroleum, and then perhaps oil platforms or even establishment of a land facility. For those who think something like this could not happen, one has to remember that six years prior to the outbreak of the Falklands War, Argentina established a base on Thule Island in the South Sandwich Islands and maintained that base until the British landed to retake South Georgia as part of the Falklands War and forced the Argentinians to leave. Depending on how well Canada maintains situational awareness of the far north, it could be weeks or more before the gov't in Ottawa might become aware of another country operating within Canada's claim areas.




I would suggest before welcoming the idea it might be worth considering the cost to establish an assembly line, and/or production lines for the various components a modern fighter would require, the cost to establish a skilled workforce suitable to work on the line or lines, and then figure out a realistic time frame for how long the line would run with orders from Canada.

Based off the Australian assembly of F/A-18A/B Hornets, as well as the steps France and Dassault have taken to keep the Rafale line open and viable(ish) it would seem that the minimum production rate would be about one fighter per month. If one assumes that 88 fighters were to be ordered, based off reports on the RCAF's required fighter fleet size, that should take a hypothetical Canadian fighter factory less than eight years to complete the order, once production starts. If the factory finishes the RCAF order in that time, then the fighter factory (or production/assembly lines) would close before the RCAF was ready to order whatever the replacement would be, since the service life of most modern fighter jets is based around an airframe accumulating ~6,000 flight hours, which usually happens after 20 to 30 years of service. Even if Canada were to plan on retiring the fighters after only 20 years service, the first fighters built would not come up for replacement until about 12 years after the last fighter was built I cannot realistically see Canada being able to score any export orders for fighter jets, since the originating countries for the Canadian fighter would want to be awarded the production orders for 'their' fighter, in order to use the export orders to keep their fighter production lines operating. Also, I cannot foresee Canada placing additional orders just to keep the line open and running, since that would result in Canada ordering ~150 fighters beyond the RCAF requirement for 88.

One of the other big issues with attempting to do domestic production of fighter aircraft, is that much of it would be licensed production of another's design unless a nation's aerospace, engine and avionics industries are large enough and broad enough to be self-sustaining. Given that the Typhoon is referred to as the Eurofighter Typhoon, and a European consortium got together to design and manufacture it, that strongly suggests what is required to maintain an independent fighter production capability is largely beyond most European countries on their own (France and Russia being notable exceptions). Given that a number of the European countries involved in the Typhoon have a larger population and aerospace industrial base than Canada, that suggests that Canada too would have trouble trying to sustain a fighter production and development capability. Now yes, Sweden has managed to do so, so far. However, if one looks at aircraft like the Gripen, while Saab might have designed the aircraft, many of the systems are imported or licensed production of foreign designs. This means not only can the source country potentially block the sale or use of a fighter with foreign components, the ability of a country to continue or engage in new development of a design can be negatively impacted. Take the RM12 which powers the Saab Gripen, it is a licensed production version of a GE F404 engine, with about half the components still coming from GE. Now the RM12 was modified to meet the requirements for the Gripen, without the base IP as well as materials and components sourced from GE, it would not have been developed and built. Given all the various systems a modern advanced fighter has, one cannot help doubting whether or not the small orders that Canada is likely to place would be sufficient to sustain the various aerospace industries and related systems required. Just looking at aircraft numbers, the Euro fighter with the lowest numbers and smallest user base, the Rafale, still has about twice the number produced with more to go on the order book than Canada would ever be likely to order. The Gripen has had about triple the number produced compared with how many Canada would likely get, and the Typhoon more still.

At a certain point, unless large production numbers are feasible, establishing and sustaining a fighter production capability just is not viable due to the high sunk costs to establish production lines, and engage in aircraft development (if any). Assuming Canada continues to get/need less than ~150 fighters, then I think the high costs plus lengthy gaps in fighter production would mean that the benefits to Canada in establish such a capability are significantly outweighed by the costs of doing so.

Exactly spot on regarding the production line costs for a limited run of jets. Same thing for the supply chain. As for future collaboration on a new generation fighter, as a VERY junior partner the involvement will be minimal. Needless to say these economic realities will be lost on Liberals in Quebec. A few billion for 300-500 jobs in Quebec mostly funded by the rest of Canada, what’s not to like? Duh!

 

[John Fedup]

Public Works and DND, the two stars of government procurement have announced some promotions. Only in junior’s world could something like this occur.


Changes in senior public service at DND and Public Services and Procurement Canada announced

 

[Calculus]

I would suggest before welcoming the idea it might be worth considering the cost to establish an assembly line, and/or production lines for the various components a modern fighter would require, the cost to establish a skilled workforce suitable to work on the line or lines, and then figure out a realistic time frame for how long the line would run with orders from Canada.

All your comments are valid, which is why I qualified my statement with "If Airbus could do all this within the project budget,...". Which I'm assuming they could, or the offer wouldn't be on the table. It should be noted that SAAB has made the same pitch in the past, and has in fact established a production arrangement with Embraer for the Gripen (Gripen NG Contract With Brazil Becomes Effective). And that is for 36 airframes. (Further discussed here, in the Canadian context: http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/110).

There is also historical precedent for this, with the Sabre, Starfighter, F5, and CF100 all being built in Canada (the first three under licence, the last an all-Canadian design). And those are just the fighters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_Sabre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-104_Starfighter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-100_Canuck

 

[swerve]

I think the SAAB deal with Brazil is in the hope of Brazil buying & therefore building a lot more than the initial 36. They're to replace the already retired Mirage 2000s & the upgraded F-5Es. But the AMXs (also upgraded) will also need to be retired, & SAAB, & no doubt Embraer will probably propose the Gripen E.

 

[John Fedup]

The Canadian builds were all in the 1950s and early 1960s for much larger volumes (back in the day when pollies funded the RCAF). A production line for a mere 88 jets makes little sense economically. Also the Canadian supply chain back then may have been more extensive as the complexity of components were less exotic than they are today but this is an assumption on my part.

 

[swerve]

The first CF-5/NF-5 flew in 1968 & I think the last (of 240) was delivered in 1972. So 1950s to early 1970s.

 

[John Fedup]

The first CF-5/NF-5 flew in 1968 & I think the last (of 240) was delivered in 1972. So 1950 to early 1970s.

Yes, the date and number for the CF-5 are correct. Also, the earlier builds on other licensed production included 200 CF-104s and over a 1700 Sabres. Also close to 600 CF-100s were built. Many of these jets had licensed built engines by Orenda in Mississauga, Ontario. With these numbers, Canadair licensed built aircraft made sense. Reinventing this capability for 88 jets that won’t be replaced for at least 35 years, I think not.

 

[Calculus]

The Canadian builds were all in the 1950s and early 1960s for much larger volumes (back in the day when pollies funded the RCAF). A production line for a mere 88 jets makes little sense economically. Also the Canadian supply chain back then may have been more extensive as the complexity of components were less exotic than they are today but this is an assumption on my part.

So what is the number at which point it makes sense economically? You must know, as you have emphatically made this statement several times in the last few posts. Please enlighten us.

 

[protoplasm]

So what is the number at which point it makes sense economically? You must know, as you have emphatically made this statement several times in the last few posts. Please enlighten us.

It's not the total number, it's the lowest efficient rate of production for the line. Currently that appears to be approx. 12 per year (one plane per month). The other assumption that needs to be made is the projected lifespan of the planes produced. If we assume a 6000 hour designed airframe life, and 300 funded flight hours per year (both reasonable assumptions for a developed country's airforce) you get a 20 year life. So to maintain a worthwhile ongoing production base that begins to become economical and efficient you'd need to produce 240 planes. That would be the total including all developmental airframes, and then some time for prototyping and ramp up can be allowed for, allowing a slight drop in those numbers. You'd still want to be producing over 200 planes to have a viable fighter aircraft production enterprise. This would need bipartisan longterm commitment, as any wavering would be likely to cause significant shutdown and rebuilding ripples throughout the sector, likely making it unviable.