Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

That's how I felt about the interview - I would like to have heard what Pierre would have said if asked:

- "What are your thoughts on the current crop of competitors planes?"
- "What would you suggest a government do for fleet renewal in the current budget restricted climate?"

It's easy for people to bring problems - I often like to ask if they have solutions.

Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for what Pierre and the Fighter Mafia achieved with the F-16.

But it seems that every interview he's done since then has been an ego interview where he's trying to protect his legacy.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Why don't we just get our Canadian aerospace industry to develop and build drones? That's certainly within their abilities and it also keeps costs down and opens up new export markets.

Why do we need manned fighter craft for Canada's needs today anyway?

Terrible idea, didn't you see Iron Man II?

[Doodlebug]

Time to revisit the super hornet?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-milewski.html

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...e-to-the-f-35/

[jeffman]

I think that having a super hornet in 2040 would be like having f 5 today

[Zulu29]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...ate=2013-05-14

Wonder if this changes the future for the F35 even more.

[CaptainCrunch]

I still don't believe that Drones will ever completely replaced manned aircraft. There are too many vulnerabilities, plus humans are just better instinctual and innovative pilots.

For reconnaissance and some ground assaults sure, but drones will be in addition to airforces not the main component of.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I still don't believe that Drones will ever completely replaced manned aircraft. There are too many vulnerabilities, plus humans are just better instinctual and innovative pilots.

For reconnaissance and some ground assaults sure, but drones will be in addition to airforces not the main component of.

I think within a generation or so drone performance will be indistinguishable from manned aircraft as they will essentially be manned, just the pilot will be in an office in Passadena

[Vulcan]

That thing looks right out of some sci-fi writer's imagination.

Spoiler!

[Thor]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

What is the deal with that? How does a country have no army and get others to take care of them?
I read a bit and it said Iceland was considered important against the Soviets so NATO stepped in then. Does Iceland pay NATO for the protection/services or is defense just seen as not important to them?
Iceland is a partner in NATO so if there is a NATO led mission somewhere do they contribute at all or just hang back?

Not trying to sound rude, just curious. Although I do think Canada should flex some muscle and land 20 soldiers in Iceland for an occupation.

Well as you say we are strategically located, mind you since the cold war ended much less so. NATO considers us a must hold area, so yeah they pay for this and not the Icelanders, in fact it was often popular to protest the American base here in Iceland before it closed.

When you only have 300,000 people, you don't have an army, it would be near impossible to afford even a bare bones force. The best we could do is a swiss type situation, but Iceland has little need for that with so many powerful allies nearby.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think within a generation or so drone performance will be indistinguishable from manned aircraft as they will essentially be manned, just the pilot will be in an office in Passadena

The first defense against that, shut down the data and communications link and effectively either crash the mission or send the drones back at you.

[jofillips]

IMO the sole use of drones would certainly be a clear sign that Canada is disbanding its armed forces and withdrawing further and further from the world stage...
And its kinda ironic for us to complain about Iceland considering the depleted sized units that are left here.....

[Zulu29]

Bump

News story the other day saying the Air Force is relaxing medical benchmarks for fighter pilots as they are having a hard time retaining/recruiting pilots. They are also hiring British pilots released due to budget cuts in the UK. The medical issue is a cause for concern to me, hiring Brit pilots not so much.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Bump

News story the other day saying the Air Force is relaxing medical benchmarks for fighter pilots as they are having a hard time retaining/recruiting pilots. They are also hiring British pilots released due to budget cuts in the UK. The medical issue is a cause for concern to me, hiring Brit pilots not so much.

Also semi related, the Sea Kings will be retired next year as the government forges ahead with its Cyclone program. Sikorsky says that we will have fully operational cyclones in......2018. So what do we do for the two years in between? Perhaps the entire fleet will be ready in 2018 and as we get a cyclone we retire a sea king?

If the medical benchmarks are only based on theoretical situations, but nothing that would realistically hinder them, then I think it is fine.

Recruiting talent from other countries is perfectly fine IMO (whether British or whatever).

[photon]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...BrandChannel=0

Canada is poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, sources familiar with the process told Reuters, marking a major renewal of Canada's fighter fleet and helping contain costs of the expensive defense program.

An 18-month review of Canada's fighter jet needs has concluded that the government should skip a new competition and proceed with the C$9 billion ($8.22 billion) purchase, three sources said.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by photon

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...BrandChannel=0

Good. It's the best option when you look at the totality of the requirements and who our allies are. I just wish we were buying more.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Good. It's the best option when you look at the totality of the requirements and who our allies are. I just wish we were buying more.

Yeah 65 hardly seems like enough when you consider training, NORAD commitments and northern patrols.

[dammage79]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35...port-1.2666758

This article here thinks it favors the F-35 as well but also says nothing is certain yet.

Canada really needs to do this right and take the proper steps. Thats a boat load of money to toss around on something that is almost a write off with the delays and problems its having.

They need to hold an open competition IMO, theres a CBC news story that also made sense as it also says that these procurements also need to create Canadian jobs, and lots of them.

Its a shame Eurofighter and Dassault won't even get the chance to try and sell their tested and successful product. You know, the planes that are actually out there doing things.

7 years behind, the problems are piling higher and faster on the F-35. The price tag, even if its a tad cheaper now.

Why the hell wouldn't you shop around? makes no sense.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35...port-1.2666758

This article here thinks it favors the F-35 as well but also says nothing is certain yet.

Canada really needs to do this right and take the proper steps. Thats a boat load of money to toss around on something that is almost a write off with the delays and problems its having.

They need to hold an open competition IMO, theres a CBC news story that also made sense as it also says that these procurements also need to create Canadian jobs, and lots of them.

Its a shame Eurofighter and Dassault won't even get the chance to try and sell their tested and successful product. You know, the planes that are actually out there doing things.

7 years behind, the problems are piling higher and faster on the F-35. The price tag, even if its a tad cheaper now.

Why the hell wouldn't you shop around? makes no sense.

The biggest issue is that we know Canada needs to buy an airframe to last them 40 years. The other fighters in a open competition will be obsolete long before, at least the F35 with its bleeding edge technology will still be somewhat ok for that time frame. The F35 was also selected with the low numbers in mind, in theory you can do more with less with the f35 and have a better inter operability with NATO.

As China and Russia and India and Pakistan are all working towards a next gen fighter platform its logical that Canada buys a next generation fighter.

If you take into account inflation Canada's f-18 purchase was a similar cost.

As for the troubles list people are all too easily combining all the problems of three different f-35's and claiming that its problems with all of the aircraft. The main problem right now with the Canadian variant which is a problem across the aircraft is with the flight helmet, but that's a solvable issue and problems have been getting reduced with that.

I think the F-35 is still the smartest choice for a Airforce that holds onto fighters for more then a generation.

[karl262]

I think whenever you develop something so cutting edge there will be bugs to work out and it will be expensive. That's progress for you!
This fighter jet is going to be very important for Canada over the next 40 years, so lets buy 100 and get on with it. Based on Canada's military procurement history, this jet will probably have to last 50 years anyway.

[SebC]

I wonder if a single aircraft fleet is the problem. If we upgraded more frequently, we wouldn't need bleeding edge as much at the time of purchase.

Perhaps that's outweighed by the difficulties of having two different types.