Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Hatter

Interesting quotes on the short flight range. Could that be an issue for sovereignty purposes in the arctic? There's a lot of space to cover up there.

That's been one of my main concerns all along. We just don't have the bases to spread these things out far enough to have an effective coverage.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hatter

Interesting quotes on the short flight range. Could that be an issue for sovereignty purposes in the arctic? There's a lot of space to cover up there.

I got the impression the article was talking about the STOVL version with respect to range, the A variant, according to Wikipedia the A variant has double to combat radius of the CF-18.

[Azure]

What will the US do now? Read today that ongoing costs for the F-35 jets would be around $1.1 trillion. With the coming budget cuts, they obviously can't afford that.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You've heard of Norad right the North American airspace defense treaty. Just because we would require America's help in case of an invasion doesn't mean that we don't have to pay a substantial share of the responsibility and that means having capable air craft to assist in the defense of our airspace. The other consideration is if we do get involved in another mission like Afghanistan, it would be prudent for Canada to be able to supply its own air support and cover instead of entirely depending on another nations.

We can't cheap out and show a lack of commitment to our defense. We can't cheap out and show a lack of commitment to our allies.

Beside, its unlikely that a Russian invasion is going to have a massive amount of air fighter support, they don't have the tanker capability to do that, and the range is too great.

the likely first strike would be using long range high speed bombers firing long range cruise missiles which is what fighters are designed to go after. This is something where the Russians for example have amped up their training now that the Russian Military is back on the rise.



It would probably be accompanied by an air mobile and amphibious assault along the west coast and through the North West.

So we would need fighter bombers to establish air to ground support to deny russians their beach heads. and to attrite their numbers.

On top of that, one of the considerations are Nato based missions like the one in Libya, where Canada played a fairly major role, however the CF-18's that came back from the mission had 5 years of airtime added onto their airframes.

As much as you don't like it, its necessary to contribute to the defense of your nation even if you are in a defense pact with your southern nation because beyond the fact that you have to contribute there is no guarantee that they would be available to help.

And when you are forced by population and by budget to have a smaller military then you make sure that its well trained and properly equipt so it can punch above its weight class and effectively grind up the enemy and slow them down until help can arrive from your allies. We saw what years of Liberal and Conservative neglect did to our Military in Afghanistan and in Bosnia.

I agree with all of this but come to a different conclusion, if we are absoloutly reliant on the US we should buy the fighter that fufills that role as cheaply as possible but buy more of them.

Personally I think Canada is better suited to having twice as many super Hornets than a handlefull of expensive and likely difficult to keep in the air F35's, actually I think we would probably be well served to adopt Sweden's tactic of accepting that the airfeilds would be gone in less than an hour and fly jets out of country roads and improvised strips which is all but utterly impossible with the non STOL F35.

If we go to 'war' it won't be for a decade or more (it would presuppose the US had fallen and was no longer powerfull enough to stop it) assuming Russia or China decides to bully us they will fix their range problems first, a reletively easy task, they would not plan on invading us, just push us around enough to get us to agree to whatever trade treaty they wanted us to sign, war between modern capitalist economies is no longer one of invasion, it is of creating economic client states, we have already been 'captured' by the US, any move by China would be to get us to agree to their dominance, we would likely already be in half a mind to agree poltically to this anyway.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

I got the impression the article was talking about the STOVL version with respect to range, the A variant, according to Wikipedia the A variant has double to combat radius of the CF-18.

There's the rub, people are getting confused by the three vairents, the A variant that we're buying can go twice as far as the CF-18.

The C variant uses a completely different power plant and is short range and designed.

At the end of the day Canada has basically signed a letter of understanding in buying the plane. We haven't signed the formal purchase contract. Lockheed Martin is either going to have to find a way to cut the final price tag or risk losing a massive amount of orders.

Money hasn't changed hand enmasse and Canada for example has the major negotiating tool of being able to walk away because the cost is nowhere near the cost the was presented.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There's the rub, people are getting confused by the three vairents, the A variant that we're buying can go twice as far as the CF-18.

The C variant uses a completely different power plant and is short range and designed.

At the end of the day Canada has basically signed a letter of understanding in buying the plane. We haven't signed the formal purchase contract. Lockheed Martin is either going to have to find a way to cut the final price tag or risk losing a massive amount of orders.

Money hasn't changed hand enmasse and Canada for example has the major negotiating tool of being able to walk away because the cost is nowhere near the cost the was presented.

The Eurofighter, Rafale, Silent Eagle and Gripen (except combat range) beat the F-35 handily with combat and non combat range. I'm thinking more planes for equal equivalent of money is a better deal.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The Eurofighter, Rafale, Silent Eagle and Gripen (except combat range) beat the F-35 handily with combat and non combat range. I'm thinking more planes for equal equivalent of money is a better deal.

The range of the f-35 is shorter then those planes but well within the range of our requirements.

The F-35 is far better then those planes in terms of capability and long term usage.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The range of the f-35 is shorter then those planes but well within the range of our requirements.

The F-35 is far better then those planes in terms of capability and long term usage.

It is in theory. Those planes are proven. The F-35 to a large extent is still on the drawing board.

[Codes]

I think the point Crunch is making is that while some of these other aircraft have comparable specifications, they are essentially already on their way to obsoletion. I am of the mind that we should spend more to buy the superior aircraft that will still be relevant in the years to come.

However, I don't mean to imply carte blanche on spending, but if the price point per plane for the F-35 program is reduced to closer to what we were promised, then I think that is the most effective use of our defense funds.

I just don't believe in cheaping out to avoid short term pain, when we already know the technology is advancing and evolving in such a way that going any other route would put the lives of our pilots at risk.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Codes

I think the point Crunch is making is that while some of these other aircraft have comparable specifications, they are essentially already on their way to obsoletion. I am of the mind that we should spend more to buy the superior aircraft that will still be relevant in the years to come.

However, I don't mean to imply carte blanche on spending, but if the price point per plane for the F-35 program is reduced to closer to what we were promised, then I think that is the most effective use of our defense funds.

I just don't believe in cheaping out to avoid short term pain, when we already know the technology is advancing and evolving in such a way that going any other route would put the lives of our pilots at risk.

The flip side to that argument is that new radar and detection technology may render stealth obsolete anyway. The US had a policy of "fly before you buy" untol the F-35 and now it's costing them and their allies dearly. I'm more comfortable buying proven aircraft. This silent eagle sounds pretty awesome, stealthy but can transform into the strike eagle as soon as stealth isn't needed.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The flip side to that argument is that new radar and detection technology may render stealth obsolete anyway.

This has always been the case. At the end of the day, I don't care how radar absorbent your aircraft is, it's still a large hunk of metal in the air.

Look at submarines for another example - when they got too silent to locate, we learned how to detect and measure their effect on the earth's magnetic field.

[Codes]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The flip side to that argument is that new radar and detection technology may render stealth obsolete anyway. The US had a policy of "fly before you buy" untol the F-35 and now it's costing them and their allies dearly. I'm more comfortable buying proven aircraft. This silent eagle sounds pretty awesome, stealthy but can transform into the strike eagle as soon as stealth isn't needed.

The problem I have with your counter-argument is that new radar technology may render stealth obsolete. Until this is proven unequivocally, that it is fact, then I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to use this as motive for not investing in advanced stealth technology, or the most advanced technology.

I'm worried that if Canada chooses to purchase a different aircraft, it will be another expensive, ineffective "stop-gap" solution that will endanger our pilots and troops and weaken the ability of the Canadian Forces to protect our country's civilians and sovereignty.

This is something Canada cannot afford.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Codes

The problem I have with your counter-argument is that new radar technology may render stealth obsolete. Until this is proven unequivocally, that it is fact, then I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to use this as motive for not investing in advanced stealth technology, or the most advanced technology.

I'm worried that if Canada chooses to purchase a different aircraft, it will be another expensive, ineffective "stop-gap" solution that will endanger our pilots and troops and weaken the ability of the Canadian Forces to protect our country's civilians and sovereignty.

This is something Canada cannot afford.

The only nations who could realistically invade Canada are the US, China and Russia. The US is our ally and if we take on China or Russia 65 aircraft isn't gonna make much of a difference.

Stop gap aircraft are better than an aircraft which may get scrapped because of its insane cost.

[Codes]

A "stop-gap" solution is almost never the best way to go. 9 times out of 10, you'll end up paying more money in the long run than if you had stuck to your more expensive, primary choice. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has been famous for doing this and subjecting the Canadian Forces to subpar equipment that has directly resulted in loss of life, which can't be measured in dollars.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

It is in theory. Those planes are proven. The F-35 to a large extent is still on the drawing board.

The capabilities of the F-35 are not on the drawing board. the final checks of the technology for example are in the testing stage and having final work done on them.

the technologies of the other planes with the exception of the Silent eagle which is further back in development of the F-35 are known and inferior to the F-35

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Codes

A "stop-gap" solution is almost never the best way to go. 9 times out of 10, you'll end up paying more money in the long run than if you had stuck to your more expensive, primary choice. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has been famous for doing this and subjecting the Canadian Forces to subpar equipment that has directly resulted in loss of life, which can't be measured in dollars.

Stop gap strategies are ######ed when it comes to military technology for a country like Canada where your aircraft have a 30 year life span with stop gamp you end up in 10 year replacements instead.y.

We saw Canada attempt this with the CF-5 which was horrible, the CF-104 star fighter famously known as the widow maker.

We saw decisions like that kill service men with the Iltis Jeep, we'll buy pieces of crap with no armour to protect the passengers.

We're seeing how stop gap thinking thanks to Chretien effected the replacements of the SeaKing and left us hideously undecided.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The only nations who could realistically invade Canada are the US, China and Russia. The US is our ally and if we take on China or Russia 65 aircraft isn't gonna make much of a difference.

Stop gap aircraft are better than an aircraft which may get scrapped because of its insane cost.

I've argued this above and repeated times, if you are in a military alliance with someone in like the States you still have to pull your weight and spend on your military to your capabilities.

If China or the Russians invade Canada for example, the other issue is that its going to be a North American invasion and American priorities are going to be American defense so they might not be able or willing to use assets to defend Canada immediately so our 65 aircraft and small military will be forced to punch above their weight and fight a delaying action until we can get help from our allies.

And having second rate equipment and a small military is ######ed. If you have a small military you give them the best possible equipment to allow them to punch above their weight.

It also effects moral.

Frankly if there was a Chinese or Russian invasion it would be very tough for them to establish air superiority in the opening days of the war because they wouldn't have the bases and logistics to do it. That's where our 65 planes would have an advantage in battlefield support and working to prevent the easy creation of beachheads and logistical tracks.

And if you have 65 advanced aircraft that are ie generation 5 aircraft they are worth 2 to 3 times the number of their counterparts in older less capable aircraft.

[Codes]

Precisely the examples I was thinking of when I wrote my post, Crunch. I fully agree.

That is why I believe Canada should stay the course with the F-35 program. When the project is complete, they will be the best aircraft available. I do not believe the program will be cancelled, but there will be some hardball played by Canada to negotiate a purchasing price closer to what was promised.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Codes

The problem I have with your counter-argument is that new radar technology may render stealth obsolete. Until this is proven unequivocally, that it is fact, then I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to use this as motive for not investing in advanced stealth technology, or the most advanced technology.

If I had anti-stealth detection capabilities, you can be damn sure I wouldn't use it until the shooting started. We'll never know how good detection systems are until the shooting starts for real, and my guess is it'll turn out that Stealth confers a relatively small benefit.

Unless we're talking about a second tier combatant, in which case Stealth is still a moot point since actively suppressing radar sites has proven to be ridiculously easy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

If I had anti-stealth detection capabilities, you can be damn sure I wouldn't use it until the shooting started. We'll never know how good detection systems are until the shooting starts for real, and my guess is it'll turn out that Stealth confers a relatively small benefit.

Unless we're talking about a second tier combatant, in which case Stealth is still a moot point since actively suppressing radar sites has proven to be ridiculously easy.

Then why are the Chinese, Russians, American's and Europeon aeronautical defense companies throwing their lot into stealth.

Radar theory really doesn't change that much.

Admittedly the F-35 has what's called a stealth radar tracking system which puts out lower background type energy that makes it undetectable, but that doesn't mean that it can effectively pick up stealth actively.

As of right now and you can look at any journal in the world that discusses air doctrine and stealth there isn't a counter that can overcome the air frame reflective irregularities and the RAM materials to get a solid return off of a properly built stealth aircraft.

The Russian's biggest fear isn't ICBM's its deep penetration bombers with stealth technology.


Intercepting ICBM's is a matter of math and computing power.

Defeating Stealth is a whole other thing.