• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Loachman said:
Relocated where, and at what cost?

Existing airports of suitable size are generally busy enough and lack additional space, but some might be possible - there'd still be a sizeable cost for the necessary infrastructure, though.

How about a nice place, near one of Canada's largest city, two 3.7 km long runways, barely used at about 15% capacity right now? It's called Mirabel international airport. Still in the middle of farm land with good all around clear area (no noise complaint). Live in Laval and it's 30 minutes to the base while your significant others can work anywhere in Laval/Montreal area with a 45 mins to 60 mins commute (by transit) and even shorter by car if not working right downtown.

WIN-WIN.
 
SupersonicMax said:
So you are suggesting our two fighter bases be in Quebec?

Well, Abbottsford Airport can definitely hold CF-18s...
 
Penhold is remote enough, longest runway is only 1600m though so that would need to be fixed.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 
Pat bay is 2km runway, which likely limits the stores they can use , another one of the issues is a bunker for weapon stores. There is just enough room for some new hangers at Pat Bay or Abbotsford, you could station a squadron there and in Comox, the Pat Bay group could use the existing support services at CFB Esquimalt, keep the munitions and some ready aircraft at Comox, cycling pilots and ground crew through or post some of the ground crew there, use off base accommodation as much as possible in both places. The Bluehairs will whine, but the businesses will likely be happy. 

Mind you Whideby Island has 2.3km runways and in Google Earth has 51xF-18 and 14xP-3's in an area smaller than CFB Comox
 
Dimsum said:
Pretty much what the Aussies do, minus one Sqn in Tindal, Northern Territory...but that was more of a political move as they were moved from Malaysia.  Their fighter squadrons are based near their cities and if they need more than the local training area, they deploy there.

The major problem trying to (re?) follow the Aussies and base the fighters in less remote areas is the infrastructure needed.

Tindal was built at Katherine NT as it was assessed as more secure than coastal Darwin, and because flying is less affected by the monsoon than is the case at any coastal location across northern Australia.
 
Colin P said:
So as I understand it, the main issue with pilot/airframe tech retention is being based in Cold lake for most of their career, correct? Can the squadrons be relocated and Cold Lake used as training area, pilots, ground crew and aircraft rotate out of?

Speaking from first hand experience, I can tell you from a techs point of view that Cold Lake's biggest issue will always be location. You are three hours away from civilization, you have no life after work and winters are brutal. Meanwhile, PLD $ amount is just a token joke and PMQ costs are still way more than they should be (not that it affects me anymore). Our Airbus or any civilian charter rarely lands on base during the winter months because we have no deicing capability, forcing a 4 hour bus ride to YEG. Canada's largest fighter base that's under frost and winter 7-8 months of the year can't deice airplanes. Unreal.

Cold lake is just a generally horrible place to be posted and I already see how the newer generation of techs will just leave after a few years or remuster just to be posted out. Being stuck there for a minimum of ten years isn't worth it.

The fighter squadrons are bleeding qualified and experienced techs, buying Super Hornets won't fix the problem. They'll just land in cold lake and be parked inside the hangar with no one to maintain them. It's happening now with our current jets, they sit on jacks for weeks and weeks because no one is left to fix them.
 
SupersonicMax said:
So you are suggesting our two fighter bases be in Quebec?

I was merely suggesting to Loachman that there was at least one airport with sufficient facilities that was not overly busy contrary to his assertion, nothing else.

However, and you are one the SME on this, let me know whether the following would be workable and help with retention for the fighter community:

What if all of the fighter force was located in a single facility, at Mirabel, permanently, but with  "six-packs" rotating to one or two other facilities in Canada (such as Cold Lake, Comox, Bagotville or Goose Bay) for one month deployment, with everyone getting two such deployments a year? The whole community would be able to  establish a good living for themselves around the North side of Montreal, with their dependants able to find stable employment and schooling, up to and inclusive of University. Proximity to 25 CF Supply Depot would mean IORs could be obtained in a few hours, by car, truck or even helicopter if need be. Similarly, locating near 55% of the aerospace industrial base of Canada would make many other things simpler. Combine that with the night life, theatre, shows, movies, musical venues and festivals together with sports and other activities found only in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, on the one hand, and the most affordable cost of housing for cities over 500,000 in Canada.

What do you say? Could it be done? Would it help with retention?

P.s. You could leave "jet" training in the prairies as it is run by contractors and they don't seem to have problems finding personnel.

 
MilEME09 said:
As could Calgary, or any other major airport in Canada.

My suggestion is use Saskatoon, they have the room at the airport and it's still close enough to utilize the CLAWR. The city is large enough and has all the facilities and resources for anyone to live a normal life outside of work.
 
Boeing vs the retired generals on Super Hornet vs F-35:

Boeing strikes back at former air force commanders

Boeing is firing back at a group of former Canadian air force commanders who are asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to reconsider a plan to buy Super Hornet aircraft as an interim measure for Canada’s fighter jet capability gap.

The former commanders released an open letter to Trudeau last week, arguing in favour of scrapping the plan to buy 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim measure while the government seeks a long-term replacement for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fleet of CF-188 Hornets.

“While we have great respect for those generals’ service to Canada, unfortunately the criticisms spelled out in the letter don’t hold up to scrutiny,” said Boeing in a statement released to Skies on Feb. 27

“Additionally, the generals’ proposed solution, while appealing on first thought, is not a practical way of solving the capability gap today and does nothing to ensure the RCAF has the equipment needed to fulfill its missions in the future.”

Boeing responded to four claims in the open letter, including the idea that Canada should seriously examine buying legacy Hornets. The letter claimed both the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force will have surplus F-18s that are “very close in configuration” to Canada’s own.

But Boeing said neither the U.S. nor Australia has surplus F/A-18s to sell to Canada.

“The United States Navy, which flies F/A-18s, is facing a major strike fighter shortage,” said Boeing.

“The problem is so bad that in the United States, that the Defense Department has taken to museums to find spare parts needed to repair its current legacy F-18 fleet,” the company added, citing a report in the Breaking Defense online magazine.

“Like Canada’s CF-18s, American legacy Hornets are approaching the end of the airframe’s designed lifespan and the cost to keep them flying is multiplying. Given that fact, and the fact that the U.S. Navy’s version of the F-35 won’t be combat ready for several more years, the U.S. Navy is looking to purchase new Super Hornets, which the U.S. plans to fly well into the 2040s.”

Boeing added that Australia’s legacy F/A-18 fleet isn’t an option, saying the country faced a capability gap similar to what Canada faces today. The country purchased 24 Super Hornets [actually to replace F-111s not legacy Hornets] to ensure Australia’s air combat capability edge is maintained until the full introduction into service of the planned F-35A Lightning II, said Boeing.

“Even if used Hornets were available, they would only compound the 50 per cent availability rate of the RCAF CF-18 fleet,” said Boeing.

The company also disputed a claim about similarities between the Super Hornet and existing CF-188s. The former air force commanders said it is a “different airplane, requiring its own training system for pilots and technicians, as well as new flight simulators, logistic support and maintenance organizations specific to the Super Hornet.”

Boeing said the Super Hornet was designed specifically to ensure an easy transition from the legacy Hornet.

“The Super Hornet, while a completely new, highly survivable aircraft, was designed to have common maintenance procedures with the legacy Hornet,” said Boeing. “It takes just 120 hours for Classic Hornet maintainers and one month for aircrews to transition to Super Hornets, including ground strike and weapons training.”

Boeing also disputed a claim that the RCAF would have to draw personnel from the existing CF-188 fighter fleet to help bring into service a new and more complex fleet of fighter aircraft. The former air force commanders said it would be necessary to recruit, train and qualify several hundred new technicians and dozens of pilots.

“The RCAF could easily deploy CF-18s from one of its squadrons to the other three to ensure operational availability while freeing existing personnel and assets to support Super Hornets,” said Boeing
[emphasis added].

The company’s final criticism was of the idea that buying, operating and supporting an interim fleet of Super Hornets would be an expensive proposition.

“Everyone agrees that the Royal Canadian Air Force needs a modern fighter fleet to ensure Canada can defend its borders and meet its NORAD and NATO treaty obligations,” said Boeing, adding the current CF-188 fleet was introduced into RCAF inventory starting in 1982 and was scheduled to be retired in 2006.

“Given the age of the planes and the lack of spare parts, keeping these plans [sic] flying is increasingly expensive and time-consuming,” said Boeing. “Purchasing legacy Hornets, if they were available, might appear cheaper in the short term but the maintenance costs and required modifications for these jets would be much higher than that of new F/A-18 Super Hornets. Ultimately Canadian taxpayers would see that the idea of acquiring legacy Hornets would be a much more expensive proposition than the generals’ letter claims.”

Boeing said the addition of F/A-18 Super Hornets to the Canadian fleet will automatically and immediately increase fighter availability, as well as the capability of the entire fleet through buddy tanking, advanced sensors and data-sharing capabilities.

“The Super Hornet, with its designed-in stealth, premiere AESA [active electronically scanned array] radar, and multi-role capabilities, will bring the latest generation of technologies to the RCAF,” Boeing concluded.

“By any measure, the interim buy is a cost effective and smart way to ensure the RCAF can meet Canada’s commitments.”
https://www.skiesmag.com/news/boeing-strikes-back-former-air-force-commanders/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Quirky said:
The fighter squadrons are bleeding qualified and experienced techs, buying Super Hornets won't fix the problem. They'll just land in cold lake and be parked inside the hangar with no one to maintain them. It's happening now with our current jets, they sit on jacks for weeks and weeks because no one is left to fix them.

I talked to a AVS tech who was on his QL5 in borden a couple years back, he told me that a Civilian company was offering him big bank to jump ship and join them once he had his qualifications. Cold lake or a nice six figure salary with a good company? wonder which one most techs would pick? The CaF, and by extension the RCAF isn't competitive, or maybe it would better to say they lack the incentives to have members stay, especially in tech trades.
 
Quirky said:
Speaking from first hand experience, I can tell you from a techs point of view that Cold Lake's biggest issue will always be location. You are three hours away from civilization, you have no life after work and winters are brutal. Meanwhile, PLD $ amount is just a token joke and PMQ costs are still way more than they should be (not that it affects me anymore). Our Airbus or any civilian charter rarely lands on base during the winter months because we have no deicing capability, forcing a 4 hour bus ride to YEG. Canada's largest fighter base that's under frost and winter 7-8 months of the year can't deice airplanes. Unreal.

Cold lake is just a generally horrible place to be posted and I already see how the newer generation of techs will just leave after a few years or remuster just to be posted out. Being stuck there for a minimum of ten years isn't worth it.

The fighter squadrons are bleeding qualified and experienced techs, buying Super Hornets won't fix the problem. They'll just land in cold lake and be parked inside the hangar with no one to maintain them. It's happening now with our current jets, they sit on jacks for weeks and weeks because no one is left to fix them.

Cue jmt18325 "You don't know the plan, you're just guessing" ...
 
So you're not completely predictable, then - yet.

Yes, it was informative - especially the bits about "parked" and not enough people.

Somebody should have mentioned those earlier.
 
The remoteness of Cold Lake (and CFB's in general) I've seen mentioned in numerous threads.  Obviously the expense to relocate much of the CF to more urban (or near-urban) locations would be huge, but would it solve some long-term, nagging issues that prevent the CF from better connecting with the public and better being able to retain (expensive) trained personnel, and possibly even better perform some of its functions?

Governments, especially this Liberal government have pushed infrastructure spending as a way to kick-start a sluggish economy.  If you're going to spend federal money on infrastructure then this at least would be one potential use that could have a lasting positive effect.

Besides the money for the infrastructure itself and the cost of transiting troops to/from the major training areas, what are the other negatives?

(feel free to move to another thread if too much of derail)
 
Loachman said:
So you're not completely predictable, then - yet.

I'm always glad when people take such an interest in my well being.

Yes, it was informative - especially the bits about "parked" and not enough people.

It says to me we should base the new jets in Bagotville.  Or, make a new base altogether.
 
Back
Top