The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[observor 69]

Fighter jet delays fuelling exodus of pilots from Air Force, insiders say
By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITHOttawa Bureau
Sat., Nov. 24, 2018

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2018/11/24/fighter-jet-delays-fuelling-exodus-of-pilots-from-air-force-insiders-say.html

"In response to the auditor general findings, Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger, commander of the RCAF, said the Air Force is taking steps to help retain aircrews, including measures to improve the quality of life along with changes to how the Air Force trains its pilots to give it “greater flexibility to better meet future personnel demands.”

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

See the problem there, Baden Guy!

It's only now that Comd RCAF is "taking steps", and only "in response to the AG findings". Yet, Comd RCAF should have know for certain and for a long, long time about these problems.

My conclusion: If the AG hadn't reported on the problems, it would have been business as usual for the RCAF and no steps would have been taken.

And SKT, the Mirabel thingy and the pipeline are two different horse.

First, the pipeline would have gone a lot easier if the promoter of the project had been able to explain why they planned to cross the River five miles upstream from the City's water supply intake and what measures they had then taken to guarantee no accident from a project that really didn't benefit the City directly, other than just the general overall benefit from an important province in Canada being serviced, as that benefit was applicable to everyone else outside Alberta.

in the case of Mirabel, well, it is different. First, the airport still has a large exclusion zone around it (not as big as it used to be, but still), so the noise problems are probably the lesser you can get in Canada if you are going to be near an important city, including the fact that you are already North of the metropolitan area and therefore, going further North to train would put you over much less densely populated area (unlike, say, if you tried this near Toronto). Second, you are bringing economic development to the region - so direct benefit. Thirdly, it would locate the base near the heart of Canada's largest concentration of space/aeronautical industry, with the attendant benefits both to the industry and the military from any potential "cross-pollination".

 

[Kirkhill]

I've mentioned in the past that it is my belief that Canada traded participation in Norad for the Autopact in the 60s and the Canada US Free Trade Agreement in the 80s.  Effectively our limited investment in defence bought jobs at GM in Ontario and Quebec.

It is no secret that the current administration in Canada has had variable success in maintaining cordial relations with the current administration in the US on a variety of fronts, including both defence and trade.

The cynic in me wonders if there is a connection with your current problems and this story

https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/gm-closing-all-operations-in-oshawa-ont-sources-1.4191935

Tangent to the Tangent - Unifor, the union at GM Oshawa, is the same union praising, defending and taking credit for the Liberals recent decision to support the media.

Funny old world.  Everything is linked to everything.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Re: Fighter Force.  My back of the envelope solution is to consolidate everyone in Mirabel, and deploy a six pack (or whatever size group is needed) to Cold Lake and Bagotville for 2-3 months at a time on a rotational basis.  Voila.  A single base, located in the area of a major metropolitan area with services available in both official languages.

So, on top of exercises away from their postal code, and deployments...they'd also do 3 months on TD (2 times a year?) at CL or BV.

Sorry, I don't see that as much of a QoL 'increase' that will make people sign the next TOS.  Better?  Perhaps in one way...now, their D HG & E is in the 'major metropolitan area', but they rarely are.

 

[dimsum]

So, on top of exercises away from their postal code, and deployments...they'd also do 3 months on TD (2 times a year?) at CL or BV.

Sorry, I don't see that as much of a QoL 'increase' that will make people sign the next TOS.  Better?  Perhaps in one way...now, their D HG & E is in the 'major metropolitan area', but they rarely are.

I'm thinking that the increase would be that their spouses have a steady location so s/he can get a good job, or something to that effect. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is that, but I also think the "not really around much" because of ex's, deployments and the 3 month TDs...isn't trading a problem for a different one?  :dunno:

 

[dimsum]

There is that, but I also think the "not really around much" because of ex's, deployments and the 3 month TDs...isn't trading a problem for a different one?  :dunno:

I think the "not around much" will be a given, regardless of location. 

I mean this is all just spitballing, but I'd think the CL/BG time would be more of an extended QRA, not that the entire sqn is going.  It boils down to if you're going away anyway, would your spouse want to be in CL/BG and get posted, or be in Mirabel and not get posted unless Ottawa/Winnipeg? 

The RAAF does this with all of their fleets (except the Classic Hornets but not the Super Hornets) and it seems to work out. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe.  I just know, if they are away as much as our fleet, I think "more time away" would create a different issue while it solved another issue.  It's been noted that they are short people (flyers and maint) right now, so the people at the Sqn's would be in that "QRA" rotation more often, and on exercise more often.  I think that would create a different issue.  Being away from home 6 months a year is "easier" than being away 9 months a year...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Maybe the way things are currently going the RCAF eventually goes the way of New Zealand--fighter/strike free force, with USAF paid to take over our NORDAD role, including bases here (if USAF could handle expanded responsibities).  Might that eventually fly with Canadian public opinion? After all, massive increase in RCAF's continental air defence role in Cold War was to provided defence against just such help.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Quirky]

Maybe.  I just know, if they are away as much as our fleet, I think "more time away" would create a different issue while it solved another issue.  It's been noted that they are short people (flyers and maint) right now, so the people at the Sqn's would be in that "QRA" rotation more often, and on exercise more often.  I think that would create a different issue.  Being away from home 6 months a year is "easier" than being away 9 months a year...

What we need to do is move all the available people from day-walking shop jobs back into the gun squadrons. Contract out periodic maintenance, misc shops like tire bay, engine bay and the training squadron. We have plenty of qualified technicians they are just not being utilized properly. If you spread them around the 1st line units there will be plenty to have any sort of rotation you want without being away months at a time.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Government defends fighter farce:

Commons committee questions DND over fighter capability

The first of 88 new advanced fighter jets will be in service by 2025 and the fleet will be operational by 2026, according to officials from the Department of National Defence (DND).

Facing a barrage of questions about the department’s ability to sustain the current fleet of 76 CF-188 Hornets through to their planned retirement in 2032, Jody Thomas, deputy minister of DND, assured members of the House Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Dec. 3 that the aircraft would begin phasing out much sooner.

“The first advanced fighter will arrive in 2025. And the number of mission-ready aircraft will increase quickly to address our NATO and NORAD commitments,” she said. “In fact, we expect to achieve initial operating capability by 2026 with nine advanced fighters ready to fulfil the NORAD mission [emphasis added].”

While the 30-year-old Hornets will remain operational with the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) until 2032, “we will not be flying all of the CF-188s until 2032,” she emphasized. “We will only fly as many as we need to support the transition to the advanced fighter fleet.”

Thomas and other senior officials were called to appear before the Public Accounts committee in the wake of a harsh report from the Auditor General on DND’s risk management of the fighter aircraft fleet and the government’s decision to acquire 18 operational Boeing-built F/A-18A/B Hornets from Australia to bridge a so-called capability gap resulting from a change in policy.

In 2016, the newly elected Liberal government directed the department to ensure it had enough fighter aircraft available at all times to meet the highest NORAD alert level and Canada’s concurrent commitment to NATO. Previously, DND had placed a greater priority on meeting its NORAD obligation.

The Auditor’s report found that in order to meet the new operational requirement, the department determined it needed to increase the fighter fleet by 23 per cent, and the government launched an interim project to augment the fleet.

Initially, the Liberals sought to negotiate with the United States government for 18 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, but cancelled that following a commercial dispute between Boeing and Montreal-based Bombardier, instead opting for 18 Australian Hornets, and up to seven more for spare parts, of the same model and age as the RCAF fleet.

With the RCAF facing “a growing shortage of trained and experienced pilots and technicians,” the Auditor found that DND’s own analysis showed the interim plan would not help “meet the new operational requirement and would make the personnel shortage worse.”

In fact, although the government has earmarked almost $3 billion to extend the life of the CF-188s and acquire and upgrade interim aircraft, it failed to deal with the two “biggest obstacles to meeting the new operational requirement: a shortage of pilots and the declining combat capability of its aircraft,” the Auditor concluded.

In explaining the report to the committee, Jerome Berthelette, assistant auditor general, noted that the RCAF had only 64 per cent of the trained pilots needed to meet the government’s new requirement and “as of April 2018, 22 per cent of technician positions in CF-188 squadrons were vacant or filled by techs not yet fully qualified to do maintenance.”

Several committee members expressed surprise that modernization of the Hornet’s combat readiness had not been incorporated into the upgrade plan, an indication of the “political nature” of many of the decisions involving the fighter preplacement program, said David Christopherson, the New Democratic MP from Hamilton. He suggested the department had only focused on what was needed to keep the jets flying, and not on the combat systems, because the department had expected “a replacement to be in place” by now.

Thomas said the Hornets and interim aircraft would be upgraded “to meet regulatory requirements” and an analysis was underway to assess “additional options to upgrade combat capability.” It is expected to be ready by spring 2019 [emphasis added].

RCAF commander LGen Al Meinzinger said the analysis would “include looking at sensors, weapons, self-protection capabilities and … mission support.”

Among the more worrisome findings for the committee were the department’s plans to address the shortage of pilots and technicians. The Auditor noted that departures and the age of the jets was compounding a series of issues.  Fewer experienced technicians has meant the “average maintenance hours needed for every hour that a CF-188 flew increased from 21 to 24 [between 2014 and 2018].”

For pilots who are expected to fly 140 hours per year to maintain and develop new skills, “we found that in the 2017-18 fiscal year, 28 per cent of pilots flew fewer than the minimum 140 hours. According to National Defence, one reason for these fewer hours was the shortage of technicians to maintain the aircraft,” the said the Auditor.

Both Thomas and Meinzinger emphasized new strategies and programs in place or being developed to steadily improve retention and recruitment, but committee members questioned whether they would be sufficient to meet the need for pilots and technicians.

Meinzinger highlighted the Fighter Capability Maintenance Renewal initiative, intended to add over 200 technicians to frontline squadrons, and a greater effort to encourage retiring or departing pilots to remain in service with the Reserves. He also noted a new air reserve occupation at the Wings intended to alleviate work that would normally be filled by active pilots, allowing “more pilots to fly at the squadron level.”

But he said it would take five to seven years to grow the Air Force enough to close much of the gap in experienced air crews [emphasis added].

“With the fighter renewal initiative, what will happen is, with the contracting of second line maintenance, we are going to be moving approximately 200 serving members forward into first line [maintenance],” explained Patrick Finn, assistant deputy minister of Materiel. “So you are going to see a significant increase in technicians on the flight line fixing aircraft, and we believe that is going to lead to more mission-ready aircraft for our pilots to fly.”..
https://www.skiesmag.com/news/commons-committee-questions-dnd-over-fighter-capability/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

I don't take anything any Canadian government says at value, and not because I'm bitter or filled with apathy at the sheer lack of decisive leadership.

The Canadian political system is it's own worst nightmare.  Every few years, the party in power changes, and so do the people in the various committees.  So while I don't mean personal offense to the individual speaking, he doesn't have a clue what's going to be available and purchased by the 2026 timeframe.  Not a clue.  I doubt he could forecast what's going to be purchased by 2021.

Even with the defense committee having members of the various political parties in it's membership, it still doesn't seem to help all that much.



The real game changer would be doing things like Australia.  While not perfect, they do have support for their white paper from both of the major political parties.  They have a clear vision of what equipment they want, and what capabilities they want, and have done a great job of making that happen regardless of elections.  That's what needs to happen here.

Instead, we get "Well the military wasn't funded well by the previous government..."  REGARDLESS of what political party is in power.  Come up with a common agreement of what we want the military to look like, put aside the "labels" of Liberal or Conservative, get it together, and get it done.  Period.

Until that happens, it's just another guy flapping his gums at what he thinks MIGHT happen -- while he doesn't acknowledge that the new fighters probably won't be purchased while this party is in power either, so his timelines really don't mean jack s**t.

 

[Journeyman]

Until that happens, it's just another guy flapping his gums at what he thinks MIGHT happen -- while he doesn't acknowledge that the new fighters probably won't be purchased while this party is in power either, so his timelines really don't mean jack s**t.

The Defence DMin, Jody Thomas, is a woman.  Don't worry, some pre-decided readers won't let a let a mere absence of factual awareness detract from some posts.  :boring:

 

[CBH99]

Not pre-decided by any means, and you are right - I did overlook that detail.  You are right, and I do apologize.  Point made.


However, gender doesn't change anything in my opinion in regards to the timeframe.  At the end of the day, this particular person won't be in their position long enough to guarantee the new jets will be available for NORAD in 2026. 

The only way that would happen is if both major political parties could agree on some defense issues, and proceed with projects regardless of what party floated the idea or signed the contract.  And in Canada, we don't have that type of bi-party support for key projects to keep things moving along after/between elections.  (My opinion, anyway)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to this earlier post by CHB99,

Kind of relates to the F-15X concept, in which even the USAF is realizing it might be better to replace/supplement the F-15 fleet with upgraded new build aircraft than put all the cards in one basket...
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1543125.html#msg1543125

this is interesting--if cost is US $100M each for 12 should come down quite a bit if bought in more quantity (along with existing foreign sales)--further links at original:

USAF's Next Budget Request Will Include New F-15X Advanced Eagle Fighter Jets: Report
We revealed the existence of the F-15X concept last July and now it seems like it may become a line-item in the upcoming 2020 defense budget.

ast July, I broke a story about the existence of Boeing's F-15X Advanced Eagle concept, one that the plane-maker had been in discussions with the USAF about for many months. That aircraft would be procured to replace America's existing F-15C/D aircraft, the vast majority of which are operated by the Air National Guard. Since my expose, the USAF has officially remained somewhat flippant about the F-15X and its talks with Boeing, which isn't surprising, but according to a Bloomberg report, that is about to change dramatically very soon.

The F-15X airframe would be single seat, but it would incorporate decades of innovations that are being applied currently in the latest F-15 Strike Eagle derivatives being purchased by Saudi Arabia (F-15SA) and Qatar (F-15QA). With an airframe life of a whopping 20,000 hours [emphasis added, would sure suit RCAF), and the latest sensors, flight control systems, and avionics, the F-15X would serve for many decades at an operating cost that Boeing claims will trounce that of the existing F-15C/D fleet—the youngest of which is now 32 years old—basically paying for the airframes with savings within about a decade.

Roxana Tiron of Bloomberg Government writes that the USAF will include "$1.2 billion for 12 Boeing F-15 X fighter aircraft" in its 2020 budget request that is due to be published in February. The story also notes that pressure to buy the F-15X is coming from the powers that be inside the Pentagon that are external to the USAF itself, which would explain the disconnect over potential procurement program with the service's top leadership:

    "The decision to buy the newest kind of F-15 aircraft, so far only sold to U.S. allies, comes from the Pentagon’s top leadership, including with some prodding from Deputy Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan, and not the Air Force, which would be flying the planes, the two people said. Shanahan, a former Boeing Co. executive, recused himself from any decisions related to Boeing when he was confirmed by the Senate."

You can read Tiron's report in its entirety here [ https://about.bgov.com/blog/pentagon-billion-new-boeing-fighters/ ].

Until the budget request is released, these things can always change. But this report would line up with what I have heard about the concept and how it has support from top officials at the Pentagon. We also don't know what the structure of the deal would look like, if it is just for a dozen F-15s or if it also includes additional items and services.

Our sources say that Boeing has been eager to package the F-15X with aggressive business terms in order to make the USAF an Eagle customer once again. This could include a low or even zero cost development of the new subtype, as well as guarantees on unit cost and even the price of elements of the aircraft's sustainment over time. Boeing has been ultra-aggressive with their aircraft bids as of late—a strategy that helped win them the UH-1 replacement tender, the Navy's MQ-25 Stingray tanker competition, and the prized T-X next generation Air Force jet trainer contract.

The idea behind the whole F-15X initiative is not to compete directly with the F-35, but to provide the USAF with a fiscally and operationally attractive "plug and play" option for replacing the rapidly aging F-15C/D fleet comprised of roughly 235 aircraft [emphasis added]. These jets will need invasive and costly upgrades in the coming years in order to remain airworthy and relevant for front-line operations...

The reality is that for many tasks, including the homeland air sovereignty operations, the low-observable features of an F-35 are useless. There are many combat missions that actually benefit from a heavy fighter that can carry large stores over long ranges, as opposed to a stealth fighter with more limited payload and range capabilities. Israel seems to have come to this conclusion as well, incidentally. This is where the F-15X also comes into play for the USAF. Once again, read all about this aircraft and how it fits into the USAF's force structure in my past feature that unveiled it [ http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter ]...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25636/usafs-next-budget-request-will-include-new-f-15x-advanced-eagle-fighter-jets-report

Certainly would seem a good fit for our NORAD mission, the RCAF's most crucial and important one.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If RCAF took over training again and made flight instructors military (maintainers could be mixed) that perhaps would give some stability in postings and remove a post service career that lures people away? 

 

[Quirky]

Perhaps a F-15X would be an easier sell to the Canadian public, regardless of the higher price. It would be a proven airframe and twin-engined for those "long arctic patrols" that Canadians seem to think is a necessity. Not to mention the F-15 would win the beauty contest vs the F35 which is more important than actual capability in Canada. The fanbois would rejoice!

 

[SupersonicMax]

If RCAF took over training again and made flight instructors military (maintainers could be mixed) that perhaps would give some stability in postings and remove a post service career that lures people away?

Instructors are military already.

 

[CBH99]

If Boeing delivers on it's promise to provide an airframe with 20,000 hours of service life - and reduced maintenance to the point that part of the fleet pays itself off due to drastically reduced maintenance...it might not be a bad choice.

I'm nowhere near an expert, and I would absolutely defer to someone like SupersonicMax on issues such as these.


But since NORAD tends to be our # 1 priority, and we don't deploy much more than a 6 pack outside of the country, and haven't been involved in any "Day 1" types of air operations for at least decades now... a state-of-the-art F15 with reduced maintenance, increased performance, and a long service life might not be a bad choice at all??

Does what we need it to do.  Perhaps an easier sell to the public.  And, because we can't seem to move ahead on any major purchases in a timely manner, buys us a bit of a safety margin a few decades from now with the increased airframe hours already built in?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Plus F-15X would have an awful lot of missiles to go after those Russkie arrows (and to carry more than small load F-35A has to go non-stealthy with external carriage, lots less dash speed--see 'Lockheed Touts Non-Existent "Beast Mode" F-35 Configuration With 16 Air-To-Air Missiles' http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17250/lockheed-touts-non-existent-beast-mode-f-35-configuration-with-16-air-to-air-missiles ):

Boeing's Newest F-15 Packs More Than Two Dozen Missiles
...

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22355833/boeing-new-f-15x/

Mark
Ottawa