Our arctic circle neighbour and one of the biggest threats to arctic sovereignty is putting massive funds into developing not only 5th generation all purpose fighters, but also spending a ton of money on upgrading their frontal aviation units which consist of bombers and planes with anti-ship missiles.
The Russians are also spending a ton of money on next generation submarine technology and their newer boats have a slight quieting and sensor edge on the current American fleets.
I don't buy the argument of buying cheaper or buying near obsolete technology if you have an expectation of a 30 or 40 year life cycle. Remember when we bout the CF-18, they were bleeding edge fighters at the time and a smart purchase because they could keep up to the technology curve until now and could go through generational upgrades.
You just got that off "The Hunt for Red October" didn't you?
Really looking forward to your ground forces part. Have we gotten rid of all the Leo C2's yet? Acquiring the 2a4 and a6 was really exciting. Also the future of our LAV's, particularly whatever happened to finding a tracked IFV to work alongside the tanks. Whatever happened to that CV90 vs Puma thing a few years ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I still don't see why we need a 5th gen plane. I think we should look realistically at what would get the job done. The chances of Canada going alone against a country with 5th gen fighters in the future is gong to be pretty slim, looking back at our historical uses. Canada will always be better at fulfilling unique rolls in joint missions, rather than trying to keep up with the US.
Buying 65 fighters to replace our original fleet of well over 100 doesn't seam like a great plan, and given the size of our country I think we would be better of with a greater number of cheaper planes.
Not bad points, but the way I see it we can either get a Gen V plane now and be set for 40-50 years, or get something else and be in this exact place again in 2-30 years. The reason the CF-18 did so well for us was because it was able to last a long time before starting to show it's age
Is buying brand new 4th gen planes going to make them not useful for 40 years though? Lets face it, "stealth" is a fools errand. Various levels of stealth have been defeated over the years. By going 5th gen, you may buy 10 years. So what else is the F35? A bunch of brand new technology that is going through serious growing pains.
The chances of Canada dog fighting or engaging Russia with long range weapons is slim. When was the last time we did something other than dropping bombs? We really need jets to assist NATO, and assert sovereignty over the North. I haven't seen anything to convince me that the F35 is the only way to do this for the next 35 years, or even the best way.
Is buying brand new 4th gen planes going to make them not useful for 40 years though? Lets face it, "stealth" is a fools errand. Various levels of stealth have been defeated over the years. By going 5th gen, you may buy 10 years. So what else is the F35? A bunch of brand new technology that is going through serious growing pains.
I agree. However, the stealth aspect of the F35 gets the publicity because it's "sexy" to the public because it is apparent and identifiable to the public. The reality, though, is the F35's advantage is its C4ISR ( Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance).
Network integration is such an integral part of US operations and it's light years ahead of anything else. Even the RCAF. Imagine, if you will, the CF18s sit at the end of a spoke, where the hub is the US C4ISR element. The F-35 will, in a way, make each aircraft a mini-hub in a distributed system - gathering information and distributing it to other fighters in its network. This will have the biggest change on the fighter's concept of operations, not its stealth ability.
The F35s challenges lie in the fact that its main selling points require extremely complex avionics and they present scheduling and cost challenges.
Will the F35 be the answer? I have my doubts. But there really aren'y any other options right now at this stage of the procurement process.
I do wonder though about the significant reduction of aircraft types that seems to be happening in the industry. The aircraft seem to be becoming more and more complex (and expensive) in order to replace several different role-specific airframes. I worry that (the collective) "we" in the West may end up putting too many eggs in a single basket if the F35 becomes THE western combat aircraft of choice. Is there not an advantage to having multiple aircraft types each with their own strengths and weaknesses? I think so.
Perhaps there would be an advantage to Canada selecting a different, more specialized aircraft to complement, rather than supplement, an American F35 fleet.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Is buying brand new 4th gen planes going to make them not useful for 40 years though? Lets face it, "stealth" is a fools errand. Various levels of stealth have been defeated over the years. By going 5th gen, you may buy 10 years. So what else is the F35? A bunch of brand new technology that is going through serious growing pains.
The chances of Canada dog fighting or engaging Russia with long range weapons is slim. When was the last time we did something other than dropping bombs? We really need jets to assist NATO, and assert sovereignty over the North. I haven't seen anything to convince me that the F35 is the only way to do this for the next 35 years, or even the best way.
Simply because it's already a decades old design. I'm not dead set against it, if the price is right, and Dassault seem willing to bend over backwards to get the contract. I'd be all for an open competition, but keep in mind that if Canada back away from the F-35, they won't be allowed back in the program without paying a steep fee. And good luck getting any Lockheed Martin contracts back in Canada for a long time. It'd be nice if they just held open competition from the start but they didn't, and it's almost a lose lose at this point.
There are several other choices that aren't decades old designs, from what I understand, these are considered 4.5 gen fighters.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
F-15K Eagle
F-15SG Eagle
Su35
Rafale
Typhoon
I don't think we need to be on the bleeding edge to have an effective air force. Plus these are proven designs that would could buy now, instead of stretching our CF18's for another decade.
There are several other choices that aren't decades old designs, from what I understand, these are considered 4.5 gen fighters.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
F-15K Eagle
F-15SG Eagle
Su35
Rafale
Typhoon
I don't think we need to be on the bleeding edge to have an effective air force. Plus these are proven designs that would could buy now, instead of stretching our CF18's for another decade.
With respect to the SHornet, we're too late to purchase it. I believe the plan is to close the production line in 2017. Was it considered a few years ago? I do not know but probably not.
Furthermore, even if we did purchase it, it would be deep into its life cycle. The USA plans to replace it by 2030. The ramification is that the US Govt would no longer support it and the Cdn govt would be on the hook for maintenance and upgrades.
Finally,the the Industrial Regional Benefits would be minimal. I'm not saying I support IRB, but it is a major factor in government procurement.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
If you're going to focus on the North then you'd better be spending more then 2% at least over the next 10 years as we need the replacement ships for the navy including ice friendly ships. upgrades to our airforce for quick reqponse, and improvements to our sensor nets and intelligence gathering.
I want to add that the concept of peacekeeping is over and useless. Putting lightly armed blue beret'd troops into trouble spots is stupid,
Peacekeeping has to be peace enforcement especially in this day and age of rebel groups and insurgents.
I might agree on peacekeeping thinking about it more. Keep in mind you follow the military and people like me are casual observers just making casual comments.
You advocate for more military spending it seems, so, lets say you were to get your 2%... where do you spend it.
While I promote adding muscle up north, lets face it, Russia will outclass us no matter what we spend. But we need to be seen to be making a real effort there, I think.
Doubling the military budget is not going to happen anyway, but Im sure you already know that.
Despite all the craziness in the world I feel pretty safe where we are at military spending where its at, and I dont even think another 1 percent of GDP would make us much safer.
I should add, I do not know many people in the military, but those I do know seem to have a comfortable life other than the whole deployment issue--- that is, while theyre on Canadian soil--- and I suppose Im speaking about officers, but it seems to me they do well. I know of a young reservist also and hes scraping by but he doesnt put a lot of time in either.
There are several other choices that aren't decades old designs, from what I understand, these are considered 4.5 gen fighters.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
F-15K Eagle
F-15SG Eagle
Su35
Rafale
Typhoon
I don't think we need to be on the bleeding edge to have an effective air force. Plus these are proven designs that would could buy now, instead of stretching our CF18's for another decade.
If those are our choices, I might tend toward the Rafale as well. With full maintenance ability given to Canada, it would offset some of the cost with employment benefit. I also don't think that we should be paying a premium for stealth capability. The way that technology is being surpassed, I don't think that stealth will last the lifespan of the plane.
I would also like a scenario where Canada builds at least two heavy icebreakers for the Arctic, but I know that we will have to make do with the smaller ones on order.
I know that we have responsibilities to both NATO and NORAD, but from a nationalistic perspective, being able to patrol the Arctic in the air and sea would be our greatest future priority.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
If those are our choices, I might tend toward the Rafale as well. With full maintenance ability given to Canada, it would offset some of the cost with employment benefit. I also don't think that we should be paying a premium for stealth capability. The way that technology is being surpassed, I don't think that stealth will last the lifespan of the plane.
I would also like a scenario where Canada builds at least two heavy icebreakers for the Arctic, but I know that we will have to make do with the smaller ones on order.
The same argument I made, above, against the Super Hornet applies also to the Rafale, although the French expect to keep the Rafale around about a decade longer than the US will with the Super Hornet.
There is no per unit cost savings by purchasing Rafale over F35. They are roughly the same.
We aren't paying a premium for stealth capability. The stealth aspect is irrelevant; it is the avionics that the pilots dig in the F35.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The same argument I made, above, against the Super Hornet applies also to the Rafale, although the French expect to keep the Rafale around about a decade longer than the US will with the Super Hornet.
There is no per unit cost savings by purchasing Rafale over F35. They are roughly the same.
We aren't paying a premium for stealth capability. The stealth aspect is irrelevant; it is the avionics that the pilots dig in the F35.
I highly doubt we'll be flying manned fighters in 30-40 years and certainly not on the front lines. So why not get some tech and manufacturing capability that we don't have and build our own Rafales?
I highly doubt we'll be flying manned fighters in 30-40 years and certainly not on the front lines. So why not get some tech and manufacturing capability that we don't have and build our own Rafales?
I'm not sure what you're trying to state here. Are you stating that you would like to see our aerospace industry develop remotely piloted vehicles for the future or are you stating that our industry should develop/manufacture a fighter for right now(as opposed to buying F35)? Or are you asking if industry should build Rafales right now?
As far as I know, Dassault won't allow the Rafale to be manufactured outside of France. They will guarantee, however, that the plane will be supported if purchased. By that I take it to mean any upgradeable software, avionics, etc will be sent to Canada for integration (Or, more likely, the plane would fly to France and be updated).
The only other plane that was under consideration that would accept manufacturing in Canada is the SAAB Gripen. But, Canadian industry is not even close to being able to do that.
Whether the Canadian aerospace industry wants to develop drones/RPVs likely hinges on significant government backing. I'm not sure there is any stomach for that, from either the government or industry. Ditto for a domestically-produced fighter. That ship sailed a long, long time ago with the Arrow. Back in the days of the Arrow, the Air Force ate up a good 1/2 of the Defence budget. Good for the Air Force, but not anyone else.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
I'm not sure what you're trying to state here. Are you stating that you would like to see our aerospace industry develop remotely piloted vehicles for the future or are you stating that our industry should develop/manufacture a fighter for right now(as opposed to buying F35)? Or are you asking if industry should build Rafales right now?
As far as I know, Dassault won't allow the Rafale to be manufactured outside of France. They will guarantee, however, that the plane will be supported if purchased. By that I take it to mean any upgradeable software, avionics, etc will be sent to Canada for integration (Or, more likely, the plane would fly to France and be updated).
The only other plane that was under consideration that would accept manufacturing in Canada is the SAAB Gripen. But, Canadian industry is not even close to being able to do that.
Whether the Canadian aerospace industry wants to develop drones/RPVs likely hinges on significant government backing. I'm not sure there is any stomach for that, from either the government or industry. Ditto for a domestically-produced fighter. That ship sailed a long, long time ago with the Arrow. Back in the days of the Arrow, the Air Force ate up a good 1/2 of the Defence budget. Good for the Air Force, but not anyone else.
Agreed with your post.
I want to add that I'm not convinced that drones will ever make for front line fighter options because of the risk of a advanced enemy developing ways to either compromise or destroy the data links between controllers and aircraft.
So far drones have been fairly effective in terms of air to ground against what I would class as primitive militarys. But the Chinese and Russians Americans and other nations have entire military branches dedicated to cyber warfare.
I'm also convinced that a remote pilot doesn't have the situational awareness and with data links the response times to make drones effective air to air platforms at this time. And a droid brain doesn't have the creativity or improvisational skills of a human pilot.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I highly doubt we'll be flying manned fighters in 30-40 years and certainly not on the front lines. So why not get some tech and manufacturing capability that we don't have and build our own Rafales?
And you think buying a fighter is expensive. and takes a long time. Building a military aerospace industry for a 65 fighter contract over 40 years makes little to no sense.
On top of it, its not worth it for a small airforce, and as we've seen the export market for military aircraft is brutally competitive.
Even at the cost adjustments the F-35 is not a profit machine.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
