Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by wooohooo

Haven't you seen Top Gun? You clearly need two engines so when one gets shot out, you have the second one. Amateur

Until you fly through Ice man's jet wash, then your boned whether you have one engine or two.

[Fire]

I like how so many people become fight jet experts when this topic comes up.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Fire

I like how so many people become fight jet experts when this topic comes up.

Actually no one has claimed to be an expert, we're all just discussing the topic. Feel free to give your two cents.

[dammage79]

Probably moot in this topic but was there an idea floating around of re-desigining and modernizing the avro aero? R&D would probably cost an arm and a leg but having a canadian made, modern multi-purpose fighter would secure alot of jobs in the future.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Probably moot in this topic but was there an idea floating around of re-desigining and modernizing the avro aero? R&D would probably cost an arm and a leg but having a canadian made, modern multi-purpose fighter would secure alot of jobs in the future.

the Arrow was a straight high level interceptor designed to take out Soviet Bombers. It was expected to go in at high speeds get target locks and fire. It wasn't designed to be a dog fighter, or a ground attack plane.

Your not talking an upgrade, you would be talking a complete redesign, and those costs would be huge, plus we would have to create a manufacturing and logistics system.

It would be several times more expensive then anything else on the market.

The Avro was a great plane at the time, but it was built for the single role of knocking the expected high speed soviet bombers out of the sky.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Probably moot in this topic but was there an idea floating around of re-desigining and modernizing the avro aero? R&D would probably cost an arm and a leg but having a canadian made, modern multi-purpose fighter would secure alot of jobs in the future.

There was a proposal for a new arrow but I think that a) it would cost too much and b) wouldn't be a stealth aircraft killed the idea. Too bad the original got canned, maybe the US and others would be buying jets from us rather than the other way around.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fire

I like how so many people become fight jet experts when this topic comes up.

[dammage79]

I see the F-35 like this, its perfect for this country's needs but getting bent over a barrell is a definite no-go. Too many times the Canadian military has been fisted by other countries over purchases of military equipment. The British subs, sea-king helicopters are the two main black eyes that come to mind. Last thing we need is another stupid investment by paying more than agreed upon and getting less than we were going to get in the first place. If R&D in Canada can come up with a functional and successful design I would rather pay more and have the thing built here than dump and waste the money else where. IIRC the fine print in the purchase order of the F-35's was that they didn't come with the engines.

[Jacks]

I thnik the Sea Kings were fine in the 60's and 70's, the replacements in the 90's would probably have been fine too if they weren't cancelled.

The subs are an example that sometimes trying to pay less can cost you more. The government never should have bought those heaps of crap. We ended up buying them for a lot less than new ones would have cost but what is the point if we can't even use them.

[afc wimbledon]

The trouble with this conversation is the assuption that we need a plane that is effective, frankly we don't, we are the Air National Guard of Canada, we will never need to 'sneak in' and bomb anything.

If we buy a US plane that can do the sneaking in and then we ever follow the yanks off to Iran they will find a mission to justify the money we shovel Lockheeds way but they don't need us there strategically and if we went out and bought a few old phantoms from Crazy Als discount Fighter Store it would make no difference to the yanks or us.

The purpose of our military is too enable the politicians to score brownie points with the yanks by throwing in a small force to what ever hare brained scheme they have come up with, the yanks neither want or need us militarily, they just want some token force to presuade the UN and their own people they arn't actually invading some desert crap hole, as it appears fairly clear the US people have no appitite for that any more it is unlikely anything we buy now will be used for anything other than tooling around Cold Lake or the like.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Avro was a great plane at the time

I'd argue it wasn't even a great platform at the time - between the rapid evolution of ICBM's, and the harsh lessons about missile-only platforms and high altitude bombing practices in Vietnam a few years later, the Arrow was not only a misguided strategic vision, but basically obsolete before it ever had a chance to make it to production.

The mystique of the Arrow greatly, greatly outweighs any prominence it would have had in production and actual deployment.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Sorry the hawk is leased not loaned. In any event it's not ours permanently.

Sort of. Bombardier leases the Hawk from Militair who purchased them with/for DND but at the end of the contract DND owns them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The trouble with this conversation is the assuption that we need a plane that is effective, frankly we don't, we are the Air National Guard of Canada, we will never need to 'sneak in' and bomb anything.

If we buy a US plane that can do the sneaking in and then we ever follow the yanks off to Iran they will find a mission to justify the money we shovel Lockheeds way but they don't need us there strategically and if we went out and bought a few old phantoms from Crazy Als discount Fighter Store it would make no difference to the yanks or us.

The purpose of our military is too enable the politicians to score brownie points with the yanks by throwing in a small force to what ever hare brained scheme they have come up with, the yanks neither want or need us militarily, they just want some token force to presuade the UN and their own people they arn't actually invading some desert crap hole, as it appears fairly clear the US people have no appitite for that any more it is unlikely anything we buy now will be used for anything other than tooling around Cold Lake or the like.

Part of the Canada's strategy is to move away from that strategy which is frankly stupid.

Canada is trying to build a self reliant military force not a ######ed token UN peace keeping force which is failed thinking anyways.

Logistically Canada has decided that it has to be self dependant on deployed forces and be able to provide their own methods of transportation and supply instead of paying inordinate rental dollars to foreign countries. This also improves Canada's ability to be able to respond to natural disasters and other issues in this country.

One thing that we learned in Afghanistan is that we can't depend on other countries to provide support for our forces there in terms of fire support and in terms of in field transportation, and we can't keep renting these capabilities

Artic Sovereignty is also becoming a large issue and to do that you need to have a efficient interdiction force which includes a fairly robust airforce. People can deny it but Russia is spending a lot of money in upgrading their frontal aviation which includes long range bombers.

On the naval front the focus is on replacing our command and control 60 year old destroyers and enhance our frigate force so that we can patrol and protect all of our shores.

We are also repairing the damage not just caused by successive liberal governments but also the BM consevative government that nearly lead to the rust out of the armed forces and its destruction as an effective force in any way.

the thinking on your part is the same thinking that put our troops in the field in Afghanistan in woodland camo with inadequete vehicles that effectively killed our soliders.

the strategy of a smaller force with top line equipment is the smarter and long term more cost effective method.

On top of that, I think its ridiculous that we have an expectation of another nation protecting our sovereignty with no cost.

It leads to the quote by a president in our former CDS' book where he stated that in one of his first meetings with the President of the United States the newly incoming prime minister was told "Some day a man in this office, and maybe not this president will get sick of footing Canada's defense bill"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I'd argue it wasn't even a great platform at the time - between the rapid evolution of ICBM's, and the harsh lessons about missile-only platforms and high altitude bombing practices in Vietnam a few years later, the Arrow was not only a misguided strategic vision, but basically obsolete before it ever had a chance to make it to production.

The mystique of the Arrow greatly, greatly outweighs any prominence it would have had in production and actual deployment.

Its was a single use platform designed at a time when the battlefield was changing rapidly.

It was fast, had a high ceiling, wasn't a great dog fighter (It wasn't meant to be) had poor visibility. but it had a innovative weapons concept.

Your right, it has been over romantized over time, but as a straight bore interceptor with one mission in mind, there wasn't anything in the world that would touch it.

But if you asked that plane to dog fight or provide troop support it couldn't do those jobs.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its was a single use platform designed at a time when the battlefield was changing rapidly.

It was fast, had a high ceiling, wasn't a great dog fighter (It wasn't meant to be) had poor visibility. but it had a innovative weapons concept.

Your right, it has been over romantized over time, but as a straight bore interceptor with one mission in mind, there wasn't anything in the world that would touch it.

But if you asked that plane to dog fight or provide troop support it couldn't do those jobs.

The air-to-air unguided nuclear rockets it was intended to carry were bar-none my favourite idea.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Part of the Canada's strategy is to move away from that strategy which is frankly stupid.

Canada is trying to build a self reliant military force not a ######ed token UN peace keeping force which is failed thinking anyways.

Logistically Canada has decided that it has to be self dependant on deployed forces and be able to provide their own methods of transportation and supply instead of paying inordinate rental dollars to foreign countries. This also improves Canada's ability to be able to respond to natural disasters and other issues in this country.

One thing that we learned in Afghanistan is that we can't depend on other countries to provide support for our forces there in terms of fire support and in terms of in field transportation, and we can't keep renting these capabilities

Artic Sovereignty is also becoming a large issue and to do that you need to have a efficient interdiction force which includes a fairly robust airforce. People can deny it but Russia is spending a lot of money in upgrading their frontal aviation which includes long range bombers.

On the naval front the focus is on replacing our command and control 60 year old destroyers and enhance our frigate force so that we can patrol and protect all of our shores.

We are also repairing the damage not just caused by successive liberal governments but also the BM consevative government that nearly lead to the rust out of the armed forces and its destruction as an effective force in any way.

the thinking on your part is the same thinking that put our troops in the field in Afghanistan in woodland camo with inadequete vehicles that effectively killed our soliders.

the strategy of a smaller force with top line equipment is the smarter and long term more cost effective method.

On top of that, I think its ridiculous that we have an expectation of another nation protecting our sovereignty with no cost.

It leads to the quote by a president in our former CDS' book where he stated that in one of his first meetings with the President of the United States the newly incoming prime minister was told "Some day a man in this office, and maybe not this president will get sick of footing Canada's defense bill"

We don't spend nearly enough to be self reliant and there is no chance Canadians would be prepared to make the sacrifices neccersary (health care higher education etc) to build a military that can defend the country and fullfill our political obligations.

I would actually argue the purchase of the F 35 signals that we are planning on continueing to use our military as little more than a diplomatic chips, there is little need for a multi role aircraft if we arn't planning on following the US around like a puppy, the defence of the arctic would call for a specific role aircraft, a long range interceptor, and little else.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

We don't spend nearly enough to be self reliant and there is no chance Canadians would be prepared to make the sacrifices neccersary (health care higher education etc) to build a military that can defend the country and fullfill our political obligations.

I would actually argue the purchase of the F 35 signals that we are planning on continueing to use our military as little more than a diplomatic chips, there is little need for a multi role aircraft if we arn't planning on following the US around like a puppy, the defence of the arctic would call for a specific role aircraft, a long range interceptor, and little else.

Our military has always been a chip or a pawn of sorts as our population doesn't match our size, if Russia somehow wanted to come over the Arctic and take Canada it would take a lot more than a long range interceptor to stop them. Our military's role is for NATO responsibility...not to defend our own country.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

We don't spend nearly enough to be self reliant and there is no chance Canadians would be prepared to make the sacrifices neccersary (health care higher education etc) to build a military that can defend the country and fullfill our political obligations.

Hard to argue with that.

I would actually argue the purchase of the F 35 signals that we are planning on continueing to use our military as little more than a diplomatic chips, there is little need for a multi role aircraft if we arn't planning on following the US around like a puppy, the defence of the arctic would call for a specific role aircraft, a long range interceptor, and little else.

So, what would you suggest Canada, as a nation, do militarily? It seems you're against us continuing to "follow the US around like a puppy". What's your alternative?

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Actually no one has claimed to be an expert, we're all just discussing the topic. Feel free to give your two cents.

One engine bad, two engines good, but three engines the best.

[CaptainCrunch]

Thanks for your contribution