Canadian Fighter Replacement

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

There's a simple way to find out: make an open competition...

Who decides the definition of an "open competition"?

Should the requirements include stealth? [F-35]
Should they include a two-engine requirement? [EF]
How much customization for interoperability with the USAF should be mandated? [Rafale]
Should there be a price cap, and if so how high? [Gripen E]
When should the deliveries be scheduled? [SH]

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

read the quote: "how do you assess it is the best wvr fighter on the market?"

your questions are beside the point

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 3,280

Those requirements were written specifically to ensure that only the F-35 can meet them, or play to it's relative (unproven) strengths.

Yes I agree, in particular this one:


The possession of stealth capabilities that make detection by enemy sensor systems exceedingly difficult.

In case somebody doubts this requirement is tailormade for F-35 consider the following "gedankenexperiment":

Imagine that instead of building the F-35, the USAF had ordered a "super F-16". In such a situation no a/c with "stealth capabilities" would have been available. Do you think this would have meant that the Canadian Air Force would not be able to find a new jet to replace the Hornets? Of course not. They simply would have had to accept one of the others.

I wonder if stealth really was an official requirement in Canada though; if it were (or is) then it makes the evaluation committee look rather silly.

In Norway they did not make such a mistake. Instead they made other requirements that were very difficult (or impossible) to meet without stealth, but without mentioning stealth explicitly. This was even admitted by one of the members of the committee, who made a comment without really thinking through what he was saying...

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

Considering that they are out of reach of any enemy fighter, or even awacs, which would have little to do anyway overthere, the "stealth" requirement can hardly be justified unless they plan for a complete change in their international policy and decide to go waging wars on other continents on their own (in which case they'll need also a few aircraft carriers, and a whole lot more combat aircraft to begin with...)

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815

The "trends" are irrelevant if you know anything about Canadian ROE. The ability to engage WVR is essential in this country...no matter if it has not taken place recently. If you are a F35 fan fine, but you clearly don't understand this country nor it's unique circumstances that make first day strike fighters far less relevant than interceptors. The A2A mission is more relevant and more frequent than bombing over denied air space which could have taken place exactly twice in the last 50 years.

Actually it is three just for the Hornet alone, GW1, Bosnia and Libya but that is besides the point.

You should tell the RCAF that their current aircraft, the F/A-18 which they have operated for over 30 years, is not sufficient for the A2A mission. They seem to think it is sufficient.

You also need to understand why the F/A-18 was chosen in the first place. It certainly wasn't due to it being an interceptor, the Hornet frankly does that poorly compared to other alternatives due to its short range, poor thrust and average sized radar. The main reason the Hornet was chosen over the F-16 was the ability to launch a BVR missile while also having a full multi-role ability for A2G missions using a laser targeting pod. Your statements also don't make a lot of sense when you consider that interceptors are typically poor WVR aircraft.

As for ROE, the F-35 possesses superior sensors and data fusion that provide an ability to make ROE decisions at significantly longer range than previous aircraft. The F-35 will not need to progress to WVR to make an ROE decision, it will have all the info it needs, and a decision made, long before it gets that close.

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815

Rather than "betting" on paper specs, just make the things perform for real and compare


That is the last thing Dassault, Eurofighter and Boeing want.

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815

Imagine that instead of building the F-35, the USAF had ordered a "super F-16". In such a situation no a/c with "stealth capabilities" would have been available. Do you think this would have meant that the Canadian Air Force would not be able to find a new jet to replace the Hornets? Of course not. They simply would have had to accept one of the others.


While that is 100% correct it neglects one vital thing. The F-35 does exist and now the Canadians have the ability to acquire a stealth aircraft for the same price, or less, than the alternatives. Surely they would be mad to not pursue the best capability they could acquire for the price they are prepared to pay...

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 253

If you view the likely scenario as Canada using its airforce in conjunction with others on international mission the F35 makes perfect sense for that role.

If you view the likely scenario being Canada using its airforce to patrol the north looking for Russian bombers. Then I don't think any of the available choices are particularly good against a future Russian stealth bomber in the 2030+ time frame. I would expect new Russian bomber by that time to be stealth coupled with a long range multi role radar capable of both air to air and air to ground. That multi role radar coupled with ever increasing air to air missile range, will allow the bomber to carry very long range air to air missiles of 150nm range. If you manage to get in close you will be facing directed energy weapons used both to shoot at you and any missiles you fire.

Arguably this may be to much for any existing fighter to deal with, without using multiple planes as attrition in order to overwhelm the bomber.

Whatever fighter Canada chooses it will have to live with until 2050.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

That is the last thing Dassault, Eurofighter and Boeing want.

er, it is LM, who did not want it, asking the nations to buy on what they promised on paper

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

That is the last thing Dassault, Eurofighter and Boeing want.

I am sure we have had this discussion before. Clearly a competition such as the Swiss or the Singaporeans held would allow manufacturers to demonstrate how their aircraft will operate in Canada.

It is clear that the only people who would be unhappy with that would be LM (assuming that it takes place in the next couple of years).

I don't doubt that the F35 will operate very well after 2020, but equally a European product will be serving the UK or France in its ultimate form all the way through to 2040. The Canadians are operating Hornets which are old enough to have been ditched by other operators so lets not pretend they will need the very latest kit in 2050.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

To be picky, Canada's main defence lies across its southern border. That's what renders any potential invader unable to support an attack for any serious amount of time.

...and this is the main reason they will buy American in one form or another (IMHO)

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

er, it is LM, who did not want it, asking the nations to buy on what they promised on paper

Given that there are several different nations flying the F-35 right now I think we can dispense with this rubbish...

Besides, France tried hard to sell the Rafale before it was operational (see for instance the first offer to the UAE), they just weren't successful. As a 5th generation fighter the F-35 has generated far more interest.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

I am sure we have had this discussion before. Clearly a competition such as the Swiss or the Singaporeans held would allow manufacturers to demonstrate how their aircraft will operate in Canada.

It is clear that the only people who would be unhappy with that would be LM (assuming that it takes place in the next couple of years).

The Canadians are still members of the program and know a great deal about the F-35. It is hardly as if they need to take Lockheed's word for what the F-35 offers or the current status of the program.

I don't doubt that the F35 will operate very well after 2020, but equally a European product will be serving the UK or France in its ultimate form all the way through to 2040. The Canadians are operating Hornets which are old enough to have been ditched by other operators so lets not pretend they will need the very latest kit in 2050.

Buying a 4th generation fighter just as they are going out of production would be a terrible decision, not just from a capability/cost standpoint, but from a long-term sustainment standpoint. Every new weapon, datalink, software update, etc, all would have to be paid for by someone and as the operators of 4th generation aircraft dwindle it will be harder and harder to find someone to pick up the tab. Even today the Eurofighter program participants struggle to get on the same page for even updates like the AESA.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

er, it is LM, who did not want it, asking the nations to buy on what they promised on paper

You forget about LM's other product, F-22, which had demonstrated the effectiveness of stealth and situational awareness from data fusion of APG-77, ALR-94 and AAR-56. "Promised on paper" had nothing to do with buying decisions when there were flying examples of the claimed capability.

F-35 does little that F-22 has not already accomplished except add EOTS and helmet sight to further enhance SA.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

Eurofighter or Rafale are all going to be going for another 25 years even if you just look at RAF or French use. They are both likely to be operational beyond that with other nations and have a clear upgrade path now with an MLU not even specified yet.

It is a mantra of pure F35 supporters that everything else is out of date. I would counter that the F35 is absolutely not the best aircraft for everyone and that Europe will 100% be producing an alternative ( in one form or another) for decades to come. It will be spectacularly good at certain tasks and I'm sure will be fantastic for the UK in the form currently envisaged. However, Canada buying the F35 would be like the RAF replacing older Typhoons with F35s..... oh hang on....

As to Canada knowing about the F35 because they build bits, that may be true to some extent. They do not know how good it is compared to other fighters though do they?

Clearly a competition is in order, but perhaps for the same reason as Japan or Korea, it is likely a waste of time and a Canada would be better off doing what the Australians did (making a random decision based on geopolitics rather than military capability).

Member for

8 years 2 months

Posts: 119

I'd only be comfortable with the f-35 if it can show in actual flight testing the ability to be on par with or better than the other aircraft WVR. It would also be interesting to see just how stealthy it is against IRST and from the side. The BVR argument for the F35 is a lot of wishful thinking. We don't engage BVR and it will rely on the ability of those missiles to actually hit if we did.

Member for

8 years 2 months

Posts: 119

If the plane can fight as well as it's peers in A2A sure. But there's enough reason to be concerned if it can compete with other planes on offer or the reference threat. It's all marketing until they can prove it

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

Given that "dogfighting" is the least used aspect of modern air warfare, why would it be you top criterion for the F-35?

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 93

You forget about LM's other product, F-22, which had demonstrated the effectiveness of stealth and situational awareness from data fusion of APG-77, ALR-94 and AAR-56. "Promised on paper" had nothing to do with buying decisions when there were flying examples of the claimed capability.

F-35 does little that F-22 has not already accomplished except add EOTS and helmet sight to further enhance SA.

The UK and Aust have had F-22 exchange pilots. Those two air forces want stealth.

Member for

8 years 2 months

Posts: 119

Given that "dogfighting" is the least used aspect of modern air warfare, why would it be you top criterion for the F-35?

It's a baseline requirement. If it can't fight within visual range it's a scary proposition as any nations only fighter. There's enough information out there to suggest that it's a legitimate point of concern. Alongside an F 22 F 15 or Typhoon to protect it...sure.