The difficulties in recruiting fighter pilots might be another limiting factor in fleet size. If DND manages to turn this situation around, maybe then they would consider ordering a second batch.
Is part of the problem the jets we currently have and the limited hours of flight time? I think of it as the recruitment ads that the government placed, they look good, but we also know that most of our Navy and fighter fleet are older, no knock to service members, but having new fighters, new ships, with this push to invest in our military and providing better benefits and conditions for our service members, we start to change the perception and now those ads hit differently. Maybe investment in both equipment and in the service makes it more appealing for new recruits. Alternatively given the size of the fighter jet program, increasing pay and benefits might also make some movement. But changing perception of how people see the force, and our investments in it, will go a good way to instilling a greater sense of pride, which in turn makes it a more exciting prospect.
Like the range of topics discussed. Have a few questions myself.
Q3 - any discussion about transitioning to directed energy weaponry on a LAV platform?
Q4 - any discussion about splitting the order with a mixed fleet?
Q14 - any inkling on moving toward the Global 8000 platform for special missions? "higher, faster, longer ... "
Q15 - Finally. Replacing the old Otters with a Twotter is a very positive move. I see the MV-75 as a compliment, not a replacement. Does it have arctic capabilities beyond the Otters? I don't think so?
Q16 - I sure hope so. Confirms government decision surrounding diversification is seriously being pursued. The Gripen E/F is so right for a good many reasons. We could offload the 16 F-35's we are on the hook for to someone else in the queue or change order to the B version and/or wait for the super versions of the F-35 which are on the drawing boards.
I'm a big fan of the Gripen, but I think we should keep the initial batch of 16 F35s. This might be unrealistic, but I always thought the F35 and the Gripen would be a good compliment to each other.
I think we will likely need 36 to 40 to have 2 squadrons, one based in Cold Lake and other in Baggotville. I think Gripen would be more practical to maintain in areas like the arctic. Having a squadron in Yellowknife and with bases in Inuvik and Iqaluit, some should be there as well. Also allows us to station some at other airbases like Comox, etc.
Regarding the debate if the RCAF should have a single F-35 fleet for a mixed fleet. The USAF has released an updated report of “the force we need”. In it they advocate that by 2035 for a mixed force of 1558 combat coded fighters of approximately 40% 5th+ fighters (F-22, F-35, NGAD) and 60% 4th+ generation fighters (F-16, F-15). These numbers do not include CCA aircraft.
If we were to move to a tier I and tier II, essentially like AUS, and given the high cost of the River Class. Would it make sense for us to get 3 larger destroyers like the KDX III batch II, reduce our Rivers to 6 or 7 ships, with the second batch having 32 VLS. These would be our tier one and similar to AUS Hobart and Hunter Class. For the tier 2 buy updated Mogami frigates like AUS did, but maybe 12 of them. They can do littoral, asw, mines and they come with unmanned vehicles. They could fill roles like escorts or work on own, very automated and pack a punch. Pohjanmaa corvettes and several year-round polar frigates with VLS in the Arctic designed in house and would round out the fleet working with subs and autonomous vehicles. The KDX is 1.3 B CAN, if it could maybe upgraded, and it does allow for updates, to AN SPY 6 from its 1DV, and say when outfitted at a generous 10B purchase estimate for 3, and based on AUS export purchase of the Mogami @ 12 ships it would cost us about 10B though we could order more and 6 Rivers at 42B, this program would cost us around or closer to 62B CAN rather than 105B. Having the other ships built in SK and Japan to keep costs down. This would give us at least 21 hulls, 9 Aegis nodes, a lot of VLS and replace our fleet faster. With the reduction in Rivers, we could fast track and have the Pohjanmaas built here and several year round Arctic frigates. I feel this model gives more flexibility, and layered defense, where the Rivers are eating up a lot of capital, and many other areas in defence could use some of that that capital. All of the ships are Aegis or work with Aegis and f35, and if subs were bought from Hanwha, our fleet would be very interoperable with Pacific allies and as well as NATO. The KDX and KSS could use similar missiles with the KVLS launcher on KDX, while also having traditional MK.41; though it having 2 KVLS launchers one could be converted to a second MK.41. Thoughts?
The difficulties in recruiting fighter pilots might be another limiting factor in fleet size. If DND manages to turn this situation around, maybe then they would consider ordering a second batch.
Is part of the problem the jets we currently have and the limited hours of flight time? I think of it as the recruitment ads that the government placed, they look good, but we also know that most of our Navy and fighter fleet are older, no knock to service members, but having new fighters, new ships, with this push to invest in our military and providing better benefits and conditions for our service members, we start to change the perception and now those ads hit differently. Maybe investment in both equipment and in the service makes it more appealing for new recruits. Alternatively given the size of the fighter jet program, increasing pay and benefits might also make some movement. But changing perception of how people see the force, and our investments in it, will go a good way to instilling a greater sense of pride, which in turn makes it a more exciting prospect.
Like the range of topics discussed. Have a few questions myself.
Q3 - any discussion about transitioning to directed energy weaponry on a LAV platform?
Q4 - any discussion about splitting the order with a mixed fleet?
Q14 - any inkling on moving toward the Global 8000 platform for special missions? "higher, faster, longer ... "
Q15 - Finally. Replacing the old Otters with a Twotter is a very positive move. I see the MV-75 as a compliment, not a replacement. Does it have arctic capabilities beyond the Otters? I don't think so?
Q16 - I sure hope so. Confirms government decision surrounding diversification is seriously being pursued. The Gripen E/F is so right for a good many reasons. We could offload the 16 F-35's we are on the hook for to someone else in the queue or change order to the B version and/or wait for the super versions of the F-35 which are on the drawing boards.
I'm a big fan of the Gripen, but I think we should keep the initial batch of 16 F35s. This might be unrealistic, but I always thought the F35 and the Gripen would be a good compliment to each other.
I think we will likely need 36 to 40 to have 2 squadrons, one based in Cold Lake and other in Baggotville. I think Gripen would be more practical to maintain in areas like the arctic. Having a squadron in Yellowknife and with bases in Inuvik and Iqaluit, some should be there as well. Also allows us to station some at other airbases like Comox, etc.
Regarding the debate if the RCAF should have a single F-35 fleet for a mixed fleet. The USAF has released an updated report of “the force we need”. In it they advocate that by 2035 for a mixed force of 1558 combat coded fighters of approximately 40% 5th+ fighters (F-22, F-35, NGAD) and 60% 4th+ generation fighters (F-16, F-15). These numbers do not include CCA aircraft.
If we were to move to a tier I and tier II, essentially like AUS, and given the high cost of the River Class. Would it make sense for us to get 3 larger destroyers like the KDX III batch II, reduce our Rivers to 6 or 7 ships, with the second batch having 32 VLS. These would be our tier one and similar to AUS Hobart and Hunter Class. For the tier 2 buy updated Mogami frigates like AUS did, but maybe 12 of them. They can do littoral, asw, mines and they come with unmanned vehicles. They could fill roles like escorts or work on own, very automated and pack a punch. Pohjanmaa corvettes and several year-round polar frigates with VLS in the Arctic designed in house and would round out the fleet working with subs and autonomous vehicles. The KDX is 1.3 B CAN, if it could maybe upgraded, and it does allow for updates, to AN SPY 6 from its 1DV, and say when outfitted at a generous 10B purchase estimate for 3, and based on AUS export purchase of the Mogami @ 12 ships it would cost us about 10B though we could order more and 6 Rivers at 42B, this program would cost us around or closer to 62B CAN rather than 105B. Having the other ships built in SK and Japan to keep costs down. This would give us at least 21 hulls, 9 Aegis nodes, a lot of VLS and replace our fleet faster. With the reduction in Rivers, we could fast track and have the Pohjanmaas built here and several year round Arctic frigates. I feel this model gives more flexibility, and layered defense, where the Rivers are eating up a lot of capital, and many other areas in defence could use some of that that capital. All of the ships are Aegis or work with Aegis and f35, and if subs were bought from Hanwha, our fleet would be very interoperable with Pacific allies and as well as NATO. The KDX and KSS could use similar missiles with the KVLS launcher on KDX, while also having traditional MK.41; though it having 2 KVLS launchers one could be converted to a second MK.41. Thoughts?
What kind of expansion is clearance diver looking at? Taking over the role of NTOG and maritime interdiction?