Would it make sense to buy, say 20-30 F-35's, and the rest Grippens? I would assume the op-costs for the Grippens are way lower, and they are probably more capable flying in the north, so let them take the hard work horse hours, and the F-35's when we really need them.
Fundamentally, the Government of Canada has to define the mission of the Canadian Armed Forces and - more specifically to this topic - the role the RCAF plays in executing that mission.
Once that happens, it makes life easier for those in the Requirements directorates of the CAF to define the requirement. Unfortunately, senior officers like shiny new things and "situate the estimate" by defining the requirement after they have already decided what their preferred widget is.
Now, if the primary role of the CAF is the defence of Canada (as it should be), then the RCAF does not require an F-35. If Canada insists on deploying a fighter squadron overseas to drop bombs on brown people and technicals in the Middle East, then Canada does not require an F-35.
The Grippen and other aircraft not named F-35 are more than capable of intercepting enemy aircraft (presumably over the Arctic Ocean if one wishes to define the threat as Russian).
I do not advocate purchasing any military equipment, including fighters, that have multi-role capabilities because you end up with something that can't do any of the multi-roles adequately. If you need interceptors, buy them. If you require bombers, buy them. If you require air superiority, buy them. So, to answer Fuzz's question, I absolutely support the notion of different fleets of aircraft. We used to operate that way. However, the RCAF is not currently in a position to support multiple fighter fleets.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Would it make sense to buy, say 20-30 F-35's, and the rest Grippens? I would assume the op-costs for the Grippens are way lower, and they are probably more capable flying in the north, so let them take the hard work horse hours, and the F-35's when we really need them.
For a small airforce nation a multifighter strategy doesn't really work, in fact it makes it more difficult
You have different training for pilots and ground crews. Different parts stores, different tactics
However right now the Gripen jas-29 that we're looking at would come in at about 60 million bucks per plane. The F-35 is going to be between 80 and 90 million per copy and to be honest is a much more capable fighter with a better upgrade path.
If we're going to have a small airforce of like 60 to 70 aircraft that we want to last 30 years, then we should get off of our wallets and buy something that's leading edge now. Instead of going cheap and buying another version of the F-5 freedom fighter.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
For a small airforce nation a multifighter strategy doesn't really work, in fact it makes it more difficult
You have different training for pilots and ground crews. Different parts stores, different tactics
However right now the Gripen jas-29 that we're looking at would come in at about 60 million bucks per plane. The F-35 is going to be between 80 and 90 million per copy and to be honest is a much more capable fighter with a better upgrade path.
If we're going to have a small airforce of like 60 to 70 aircraft that we want to last 30 years, then we should get off of our wallets and buy something that's leading edge now. Instead of going cheap and buying another version of the F-5 freedom fighter.
Such a sexy looking cold war "fighter"... small sleek... looks like they added a cockpit to a cruise missile.
And of course the fact it is the MIG-28 in Top Gun
Such a sexy looking cold war "fighter"... small sleek... looks like they added a cockpit to a cruise missile.
And of course the fact it is the MIG-28 in Top Gun
Looked cool, but it was such a terrible low budget fighter.
It had a really poor air to air radar system, it didn't carry a lot of armaments and while it was fast it had next to no combat radius.
But at least it was safe compared to to the CF-104.
The F-5 was really designed for countries with technically poor rambshackled air forces. It was almost seen by Canadian AirForce leaders as a strategic step back in the capability of the AirForce
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Looked cool, but it was such a terrible low budget fighter.
It had a really poor air to air radar system, it didn't carry a lot of armaments and while it was fast it had next to no combat radius.
But at least it was safe compared to to the CF-104.
The F-5 was really designed for countries with technically poor rambshackled air forces. It was almost seen by Canadian AirForce leaders as a strategic step back in the capability of the AirForce
I don't even think that there was a real fighter jet competition at that time and the CF-5 was pretty much sole sourced because it could be built in Canada, and was a cheap fighter.
It was pretty much outclassed by most other fighters in the world. While it was fast it had Helen Keller radar and no real avionics to speak of. It wasn't a good air to ground platform, the concept was a mess. We basically took a good supersonic trainer plane and called it our primary fighter.
At the same time we bought a lot of them to "support" Canadian Industry and most of them ended up in storage rusting out because of budget issues.
At the same time we had the CF-104 law dart to support Nato in Europe because it was a effective nuclear platform.
this period of procurement should have been called "We really don't know what we're doing" era.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I don't even think that there was a real fighter jet competition at that time and the CF-5 was pretty much sole sourced because it could be built in Canada, and was a cheap fighter.
It was pretty much outclassed by most other fighters in the world. While it was fast it had Helen Keller radar and no real avionics to speak of. It wasn't a good air to ground platform, the concept was a mess. We basically took a good supersonic trainer plane and called it our primary fighter.
At the same time we bought a lot of them to "support" Canadian Industry and most of them ended up in storage rusting out because of budget issues.
At the same time we had the CF-104 law dart to support Nato in Europe because it was a effective nuclear platform.
this period of procurement should have been called "We really don't know what we're doing" era.
I worked a summer at one of our bases is Germany in the 80s when they were still flying the CF-104s. Designed as a high altitude interceptor and having a high tail, the ejection seat fired downwards. Later when they were repurposed as low level attack planes (!) the drill was, before you crash make sure you do a roll so you eject upwards....no wonder they were called the window maker.
The also had no low speed ability due to their rocket with find design and had to land at high speed. I was amazed when the first CF-18 arrived and it seemingly floated down to the runway by comparison.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Looked cool, but it was such a terrible low budget fighter.
It had a really poor air to air radar system, it didn't carry a lot of armaments and while it was fast it had next to no combat radius.
But at least it was safe compared to to the CF-104.
The F-5 was really designed for countries with technically poor rambshackled air forces. It was almost seen by Canadian AirForce leaders as a strategic step back in the capability of the AirForce
No it didn't.
In fact it had NO radar system that could support A2A. What it had was a primitive "bomb toss" computer, far less sophisticated than the NASARR which was installed in the CF-104.
It was safer than the 104 because it had NO mission.
The 104 guys were blasting around over Germany in crappy WX at 500 feet off the deck. The F-5 guys were sitting in the Officer's Clubs in Bag-town and YOD after a hard day of trying to feel relevant.
Huge difference there.
This entire (CF-116) program was a ridiculous waste of OUR money.
Timeline:
The Liberals (under Pearson ca: 1963) finally agree that it would be a good thing if we actually arm the CF-104, so the Air Division (six Strike/two Recon. Squadrons) in Europe can meet it's assigned role in 4ATAF.
Hellyer (Defense Minister) is already figuring out how to meet PM "Mike's" order that Canada should move towards a configuration where our Country's armed forces should become a "lap-dog" to the Global United Nations mandate.
Here's where the CF-5 comes into the picture.
So if we're going to go out and "save the world from itself"?
Well the CF-5 looks like a pretty good little plane for the mission.
Problem is that during the negotiations for the procurement they (PMO) dummied the aircraft down to the point that what emerged from the line in Cartierville was an aircraft which was useless for anything but dropping dumb bombs on infantry armed with rifles and spears.
And as such? The RCAF (sic.) had NO use for it.
Such followed the fiasco of new build CF-5A's flying from Canadair straight into storage in Mountainview.
Where they accumulated...until Trudeau Sr. decided that it would be a good idea to "dispose" of these by selling them to Venezuela.
Which immediately resulted in a number of lawsuits filed by Northrop (well within their right to do so...IMO) against the Government of Canada for infringements on the License Production agreement which Canada agreed to.
That dragged on and was ultimately settled; some say that there's collusion contained within this which led to the CF-18 selection?
I have no solid sources in this regard.
The CF-116D (F-5B/T-38) performed admirably throughout it's service life as a "lead-in" trainer with 419 SQD. in Cold Lake. 419 also had a dozen (or so) singles (CF-116A's) which allowed for advanced (mission) training throughout the 1990's.
The final (stupid; IMO) chapter in this waste of money was the >$1B dumped into the upgrading of the CF-5 fleet (avionics/"glass" cockpits/radar upgrades) and then promptly selling them off to Botswana for pennies on the Dollar.
Again, under a Liberal (Chretien) mandate.
But I digress.
We would have been much better served by doing what the RCAF wanted.
A single fleet (1972) of F-4E's: 240 aircraft built under license in Cartierville with OEL-7 powerplants (built in Downsview), with Attack/Nav Radars built here in Canada as well. This one machine could have saved us from the current mess we are in.
There would be no F-18.
When the F-22 comes along (and we are still REALLY chummy with the US at this point) we buy 60-70 of these for NORAD. They enter service in 2006-7 and we put the old timers in the F-4E fleet out to pasture. At this point the F-4's are only there for the expeditionary/"dumb bomb"role, in support of NATO.
As the F-35 matures we look to buying a fleet of 60-70 of these to replace our expeditionary force and deliveries are complete by 2019.
We are now intimately involved (through the participation in F-22) with the USAF and are in line to be the second nation in the world with a front line "sixth-generation" interceptor in service.
And it would not have cost us much more than what we have pissed away over the years.
And that makes me sad.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bindair Dundat For This Useful Post:
I stand really corrected, I thought that the CF-116 had a base air to Air radar but that upgrade didn't come until later on and it was only put in the F-5A upgrade.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I worked a summer at one of our bases is Germany in the 80s when they were still flying the CF-104s. Designed as a high altitude interceptor and having a high tail, the ejection seat fired downwards. Later when they were repurposed as low level attack planes (!) the drill was, before you crash make sure you do a roll so you eject upwards....no wonder they were called the window maker.
The also had no low speed ability due to their rocket with find design and had to land at high speed. I was amazed when the first CF-18 arrived and it seemingly floated down to the runway by comparison.
I wrote a really vicious reply to your post yesterday when I was six cans into my mission, but I never pulled the trigger...
Probably a good thing.
I'm going to give this a shot today with a clearer head.
First off? You would have been in Baden-Soellingen, it was the sole remaining fast air establishment in CF Europe at the time.
Next? The L-2 ejection seat was never fitted to our aircraft. The only 104's that had it were the first couple of "blocks" of F-104A's built for the USAF in 1956-57.
Next?
When 104's were "repurposed" as a low level Nuclear Strike platform (1960-1968) they gave the WARPAC nightmares. Nothing could catch/touch it on the deck due to it's high wing loading. A CF-104 could penetrate to a range of roughly 400 NM behind the IGB (inter German Border) at a TAS of 800-900 KTAS, this at an altitude of <500 AGL.
Because of the above noted wing loading it rode like a rocket on rails... in air conditions where turbulence made almost all other aircraft of the period un-flyable at such speeds.
As with regards to your comment on landing speeds?
Yes, in this day and age, coming over the threshold @ 175 Kts is certainly not common. However...?
Look at the landing speed on the F-105B/D. The F-102/106. The F-101B. This (+20KTS for a CF-104) was not really seen as an issue.
Kelly Johnson's team actually made huge strides in reducing the landing speed to this "excessive number" through the implementation of "blown flaps". This was a "plumbing" system which pulled air from the engine's secondary compressor stages and ducted it over the top of the wing to increase lift when the aircraft was nearing critical alpha during the approach profile.
Inappropriate failure of this system during this critical phase of flight did indeed lead to losses. So did pitch-up (again at high-alpha) where the wings would block airflow over the high mounted elevator, causing it to stall.
These were not "problems" specifically isolated to the 104. Take a look at the "Sabre Dance" and the accident rate of of the F-100 for an example of this. The F-101 also suffered pitch-up issues until the phenomena was properly understood.
Comparing the approach speed of an aircraft (CF-188) designed with the help of 25 years of aerodynamic developments is rather ridiculous IMO.
In actuality, this early period (which brought about the 104) represents a quantum leap in aerodynamic developments.
One where we went (inside of ten years) from the P-51H/P-47N/F8F (top "fighters" of 1946) to the Century Series aircraft in series production in 1956!
Wrap your head around that one...
To say that they (the engineers) were "pushing the boundaries" is a major understatement.
It's kind of like a guy showing up with a microwave oven while the Neanderthal's are cooking their meat on an open fire...
I (as you might have guessed) grew up in and among the CF-104 community.
These guys accepted the risks associated with their mission sets.
Was the 104 perfect? No.
In the strike mission (1962-71 RCAF) it came darned close though.
In the conventional attack role it was hopeless.
See my previous post for thoughts in this regard.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bindair Dundat For This Useful Post:
I wrote a really vicious reply to your post yesterday when I was six cans into my mission, but I never pulled the trigger...
Probably a good thing.
I'm going to give this a shot today with a clearer head.
First off? You would have been in Baden-Soellingen, it was the sole remaining fast air establishment in CF Europe at the time.
Next? The L-2 ejection seat was never fitted to our aircraft. The only 104's that had it were the first couple of "blocks" of F-104A's built for the USAF in 1956-57.
Next?
When 104's were "repurposed" as a low level Nuclear Strike platform (1960-1968) they gave the WARPAC nightmares. Nothing could catch/touch it on the deck due to it's high wing loading. A CF-104 could penetrate to a range of roughly 400 NM behind the IGB (inter German Border) at a TAS of 800-900 KTAS, this at an altitude of <500 AGL.
Because of the above noted wing loading it rode like a rocket on rails... in air conditions where turbulence made almost all other aircraft of the period un-flyable at such speeds.
As with regards to your comment on landing speeds?
Yes, in this day and age, coming over the threshold @ 175 Kts is certainly not common. However...?
Look at the landing speed on the F-105B/D. The F-102/106. The F-101B. This (+20KTS for a CF-104) was not really seen as an issue.
Kelly Johnson's team actually made huge strides in reducing the landing speed to this "excessive number" through the implementation of "blown flaps". This was a "plumbing" system which pulled air from the engine's secondary compressor stages and ducted it over the top of the wing to increase lift when the aircraft was nearing critical alpha during the approach profile.
Inappropriate failure of this system during this critical phase of flight did indeed lead to losses. So did pitch-up (again at high-alpha) where the wings would block airflow over the high mounted elevator, causing it to stall.
These were not "problems" specifically isolated to the 104. Take a look at the "Sabre Dance" and the accident rate of of the F-100 for an example of this. The F-101 also suffered pitch-up issues until the phenomena was properly understood.
Comparing the approach speed of an aircraft (CF-188) designed with the help of 25 years of aerodynamic developments is rather ridiculous IMO.
In actuality, this early period (which brought about the 104) represents a quantum leap in aerodynamic developments.
One where we went (inside of ten years) from the P-51H/P-47N/F8F (top "fighters" of 1946) to the Century Series aircraft in series production in 1956!
Wrap your head around that one...
To say that they (the engineers) were "pushing the boundaries" is a major understatement.
It's kind of like a guy showing up with a microwave oven while the Neanderthal's are cooking their meat on an open fire...
I (as you might have guessed) grew up in and among the CF-104 community.
These guys accepted the risks associated with their mission sets.
Was the 104 perfect? No.
In the strike mission (1962-71 RCAF) it came darned close though.
In the conventional attack role it was hopeless.
See my previous post for thoughts in this regard.
Sorry if I touched a nerve, these were my recollections as a student in 1984. You’re obviously much better informed and engaged than I was.
Yes I was in Baden–Soellingen, I was counting Lahr as the second base, I didn’t realize it was in the final stages of closing while I was there (I was in a civilian engineering group not plugged into the military much). As an aside, that was a fantastic location for exploring Europe on weekends in my crappy car.
As far as CF-18 vs CF-104 all I can say is that there was tremendous excitement when the new planes started to arrive in large part exactly because of the improvements over the past 25 years. As good as the Starfighter may have been in the day it was clearly well past its prime by 1984.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to cast aspersions on the community who flew and supported the plane with my mis-informed negative impressions. If it helps I thought the 104 was THE coolest plane in the world when I was growing up, well maybe next to the SR-71.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
