Canadian Military News

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

It's not as sexy as F35 fast jets but don't forget about the four A330 MRTT's that were (rightly) sole sourced to Airbus. That should be formally awarded in 2023.

Interesting bit is how the Lockheed announcement showed Canada's F35's in a boom configuration for mid air refueling. Could be a stock photo, we'll see...

I think they arrive this year, so they'll be used to do refueling on the existing F-18's using the Bobbit system.

I can't see Canada changing to the boom configuration.

[speede5]

^^ I wish I had more thanks to give this post.

[CaptainCrunch]

A little more information on the attempt to keep the Victoria Class Submarines active til the mid 2030's, including a new system to defeat enemy torpedoes.

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/c...ines-1.6001440

A link to a white paper that talks about the need for submarines and a look at their replacement. If we are looking at a deadline of the mid 2030's then we can't wait to long to start the search

https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/replacin...rey-f-collins/

http://espritdecorps.ca/feature/roya...ria-class-subs

[CroFlames]

Doesn't F-35 just make sense?


It seems that the combined US military branches have a mixture of F-18s and 35s, and European NATO allies have a lot of F-18s.



So a mixed fleet of F-35 and F-18 seems to make sense to me, especially since we are closer (physically, politically) to the US than Euro NATO allies. Plus, Europeans are ordering a bunch of F35 to replace the SU and MiGs that are aging out.


I think nothing Russia has compares, so ultimately whatever new generation fighter/multirole craft they get will work. I read a hilarious comment on Reddit once that if there was a conventional war with Russia over this Ukraine business, Russia would be hilariously embarrassed on the battlefield that commanders would start sending dick formations of aircraft to bomb the Kremlin.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Doesn't F-35 just make sense?


It seems that the combined US military branches have a mixture of F-18s and 35s, and European NATO allies have a lot of F-18s.



So a mixed fleet of F-35 and F-18 seems to make sense to me, especially since we are closer (physically, politically) to the US than Euro NATO allies. Plus, Europeans are ordering a bunch of F35 to replace the SU and MiGs that are aging out.


I think nothing Russia has compares, so ultimately whatever new generation fighter/multirole craft they get will work. I read a hilarious comment on Reddit once that if there was a conventional war with Russia over this Ukraine business, Russia would be hilariously embarrassed on the battlefield that commanders would start sending dick formations of aircraft to bomb the Kremlin.

The only time we'd see a mixed airforce concept for Canada is if we deploy to NATO with F-35's to support allies that have 4th generation jets.

The whole concept of a F-35 is to use its advanced sensors and interoperability to scout the battlefield to find threats and then deal with the threats. So for example eliminate anti-air platforms, or use BVR weapons to deal with things like AWACS or enemy fighters. Or to bring in assets to deal with them.

Then you have options, if you remove radar or anti-air or fighters then in a Norad sense you send in the bombers.

In a sense with a pure F-35 you send in a first team with a lighter missile load heavy on anti-air and anti-radar to clean the area, then you can load up F-35's in a rhino configuration to act as pure bombers.

The one thing that Fat Amy really isn't built to do is dog fighting, in fact I read an interview with a F-35 pilot where he stated that if you take a F-35 into a merge, you're a bad driver.

I mean the F-35 isn't going to survive a battle with something like an F-22 which is one of the greatest dog fighters ever made. In a dog fight the F-35 would probably lose to something like a F-16, or 18 or on the Russia side some of the pure dogfighters.

However its likely that those same planes would lose to the F-35 in BVR.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

So a mixed fleet of F-35 and F-18 seems to make sense to me, especially since we are closer (physically, politically) to the US than Euro NATO allies. Plus, Europeans are ordering a bunch of F35 to replace the SU and MiGs that are aging out.

Sadly, we can barely afford to maintain and staff one fleet. Two just makes no sense at all.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think they arrive this year, so they'll be used to do refueling on the existing F-18's using the Bobbit system.

I can't see Canada changing to the boom configuration.

I could see them using boom capability for the F-35, it's something they've considered in the past just for refuelling allies.

Originally Posted by TKB

Absolutely no benefit has been had by the morons canceling the F35 program when they got elected. Captain has said it all so I won’t rehash the absolute stupidity that we’ve got to witness over the past many years in-regards to this.

You both misunderstood my post

Of course they're morons for taking almost 10 years to make a decision most experts could have made in 10 weeks, as is Canadian tradition. I'm just glad they came around rather than force through a sub-par option to not break their 'no f-35' promise. We mostly have Boeing to thank for that, I'm sure. I'm just happy whenever we arrive at the correct result, no matter how we get here, because more often than not that's not the case

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Oh I'm not worried about Pilot recruitment. Now that things are official they'll have a ton of joiners Lining up to fly them.

It really helps to have Shiney new things to dangle in front of new recruits.

I'd have preferred the Saab but that doesn't matter any more. The f-35 will draw pilots. Perhaps the bigger co cern might be recruiting and training techs to keep them airborne.

They always have a long line of people joining, the pilot shortage is more about experienced ones leaving after their initial commitment. I don't think new jets alone changes that, not while it's still a miserable place to spend your entire career. As pilots get older (in pilot years at least, like mid 30s) and their jobs transition into more admin and less flying, leaving starts to look pretty good. It's a problem in every air force in the world, it's a blast while you're a junior officer, then it's all politics after that, and not many pilots signed up for the politics

[CaptainCrunch]

Canada buys a $400 million dollar air defense system for Ukraine.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...such-equipment

I don't know if I'm all on board with this. I mean we've already sent I think around $4 billion to Ukraine in budget and loans that will probably never been paid back. Sent a bunch of weapons from our inventory.

Now we're buying new off the shelf advanced air defense systems for them, when our forces currently don't have any air defense at all.

Honestly there are better things to spend nearly half a billion dollars on at home.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by btimbit

They always have a long line of people joining, the pilot shortage is more about experienced ones leaving after their initial commitment. I don't think new jets alone changes that, not while it's still a miserable place to spend your entire career. As pilots get older (in pilot years at least, like mid 30s) and their jobs transition into more admin and less flying, leaving starts to look pretty good. It's a problem in every air force in the world, it's a blast while you're a junior officer, then it's all politics after that, and not many pilots signed up for the politics

I've watched a couple of interviews with F-35 pilots that talked about the transition from 4th generation fighters to the Lightning and that its not an easy thing because the mind set is different, and a lot of them talk about it being a combination of a pilot and a hacker in the same suit.

And yeah, usually pilots when they hit their mid 30's are transitioning out of their pilot role. Being a fighter pilot is extremely hard on the body. Add to it that a airline pilot makes $120,000 to $150,000 a year for a easier job.

[btimbit]

Plus getting to live in civilization doesn't suck either

[CaptainCrunch]

What are you talking about Cold Lake has incredible cultural and dining options. They have that thing with the stuff, and they serve that hamburger with actual cheddar.

[peter12]

Great time to start a convo about what Canada's military *should* look like. I will start.

Navy:
- surface combatants
- modernized subs
- some kind of helicopter dock/carrier (similar to RAN Canberra)
- modernized ASW aircraft

Airforce:
- F-35 fleet
- heavy lift capability
- modernized utility helos
- attack helos

Army
- medium weight expeditionary brigade
- ATGMs/MANPADs/AA
- ditch tanks
- SPG

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Great time to start a convo about what Canada's military *should* look like. I will start.

Navy:
- surface combatants
- modernized subs
- some kind of helicopter dock/carrier (similar to RAN Canberra)
- modernized ASW aircraft

Airforce:
- F-35 fleet
- heavy lift capability
- modernized utility helos
- attack helos

Army
- medium weight expeditionary brigade
- ATGMs/MANPADs/AA
- ditch tanks
- SPG

What is the purpose of it? Defending Canada proper, engaging in overseas conflicts, or both? Would be really nice if we could pick one.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

What is the purpose of it? Defending Canada proper, engaging in overseas conflicts, or both? Would be really nice if we could pick one.

Pretty simple. Defending Canada's coastline and airspace, meeting continental commitments to NORAD, commitments to NATO abroad.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Pretty simple. Defending Canada's coastline and airspace, meeting continental commitments to NORAD, commitments to NATO abroad.

Well yeah so I think you're saying 'both' - that's where it gets tricky to me, I feel like one needs to take precedence over the other to figure out what military is the best for Canada.

To have one military be tasked with both defending a country as geographically unique as Canada (presumably from a physical attacker), while also being able to simultaneously deploy across the Atlantic/Pacific in a land/air/sea battle, seems like a lot. Maybe more than we can actually do. I'd be cool with focusing hard on one, or the other.

[dammage79]

Based on land mass alone , Canada "should" have a seriously robust defense budget and proper upkeeping and replacement procurement schedule. The numpties on the hill can't help themselves though. And by Numpties I mean ALL politicians, doesn't matter the color of party flag they fly.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well yeah so I think you're saying 'both' - that's where it gets tricky to me, I feel like one needs to take precedence over the other to figure out what military is the best for Canada.

To have one military be tasked with both defending a country as geographically unique as Canada (presumably from a physical attacker), while also being able to simultaneously deploy across the Atlantic/Pacific in a land/air/sea battle, seems like a lot. Maybe more than we can actually do. I'd be cool with focusing hard on one, or the other.

I'm not sure you can focus on on or the other to be honest.

I would be happy with a splitting up of requirements:

- Navy, primary focus on projecting power in and around our coastal waters, SAR work

- Airforce, primary role of projecting power in and around our airspace, including rapid airlift capabilities and SAR work

The Navy & Airforce can offset these with small focused deployments to hone skills and keep interest, but honestly our biggest threat isn't a land invasion, IMO.

- Army (which as an aside if the greatest army of the military) should have a focus on light to medium armoured vehicles. It needs to be a highly mobile army that can get into and out of areas quickly, while bringing maximum lethality. A NATO quick reaction force that is easily deployable to overseas.

The Airforce & Army skills to rapidly deploy overseas can be leveraged during internal domestic needs.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Based on land mass alone , Canada "should" have a seriously robust defense budget and proper upkeeping and replacement procurement schedule. The numpties on the hill can't help themselves though. And by Numpties I mean ALL politicians, doesn't matter the color of party flag they fly.

It is a Canadian tradition

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well yeah so I think you're saying 'both' - that's where it gets tricky to me, I feel like one needs to take precedence over the other to figure out what military is the best for Canada.

To have one military be tasked with both defending a country as geographically unique as Canada (presumably from a physical attacker), while also being able to simultaneously deploy across the Atlantic/Pacific in a land/air/sea battle, seems like a lot. Maybe more than we can actually do. I'd be cool with focusing hard on one, or the other.

Are you prepared to exit NATO then?

Canada has to be able to defend itself. That is a given.

But Canada has commitments abroad. These commitments mean Canada's military has to be able to deploy and perform in conflict zones, and to support our NATO allies. No one thought we'd see a large scale conflict in Eastern Europe again, yet here we are. What happens when the mad man invades non-NATO Finland next? Or what happens if he invades a NATO ally like Estonia?

If we focus only on "one" thing like you suggest, then Canada has to exit NATO, which would be a disaster for our security IMO.