Canadian Military News

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Another question...

I know that the preferred plane seems to be the F-35, but the SAAB might be more politically 'sellable' due to it's low cost for operation (comparatively). If the gov't had simply made the decision to go with the Gripen and we were already in the flight training phase, as other countries are, with delivery in 2023, would we be in a much better place right now?

I guess a better question would be that is an upgrade to Gripen still vastly ahead of whatever we are currently doing?

I'm not a supporter of the F-35 by any stretch, but I am in the minority. I think the Gripen E is more than adequate for Canada's needs. However, I believe the opposite is true when it comes to politics. Namely, the USA will bitch and bellyache and NORAD will moan and groan and, at the end of the exercise, the GoC will choose F-35.

I believe Gripen E is a better option than upgraded CF-18. But, like I wrote earlier, this latest announcement about CF-18 upgrades means the G0C will kick the can down the road some more with respect to new fighter procurement.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Sounds like mechanical failure has been ruled out in the Cyclone crash and it's looking like a possible software issue may have been the cause.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyc...rash-1.5613239

Unfortunately, the CBC article has taken some liberties with what the RCAF presented in the news conference. Here is the link to the presser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG0i...ature=youtu.be

Murray Brewster writes about "flight control glitch" but neither officer implied there was a flight control glitch. Brewster also writes about software "bias" but what is software "bias"? A coding error? What there was was a bias signal built up in the pitch channel in Flight Director mode of the Flight Control Computer.

My interpretation of this briefing is that the system did what it was supposed to but the CAF/RCAF/pilot were not aware - or did not understand - the work the onboard computer performed. Basically, the pilot did not provide the necessary input to achieve the desired output. Evidence of that is from the briefing: there was a lot of "we were not aware".

[btimbit]

Worth mentioning the missiles they just bought would be compatable with whatever new jet they order as well

[wookster]

Sorry if this was already posted but the BBC has an interesting article on the Avro Arrow. Good read.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...unts-a-country

[edslunch]

That was one damn sexy plane

[Bindair Dundat]

Originally Posted by edslunch

That was one damn sexy plane

Visually? You bet.
Damned straight she's a beauty.


Operationally?
Not so much.
While it looked really good and the time to climb figures were exceptional? The problem is that once it is established at FL50 heading North out of North Bay (or Cold Lake, or Bagtown, or wherever) it has less than 1 hour on internal fuel before it needs to find a perch. This is a significant issue with the design.
The reality of the matter is; The CF-105 was designed to meet an O/R (operational requirement) that no longer existed.
At the same time the RCAF was faced with the challenge of re-defining the role of 1 CDN Air Division and re-equipping it to meet the new tasking.
Concurrently, the RCAF had to look at a major purchase of medium range transport aircraft (C-130's) to replace/obviate the inadequacies in the current fleet. Above and beyond this is the #### ton of money which was already allocated to building RCAF Cold Lake, RCAF Bagotville, etc...
The deal for the F-101's to do the NORAD thing was good. Forcing us into the BOMARC was money we never spent.


The offsets in the deals for the Northern Radar lines paid for the whole Bomarc thing.
The money (offsets) could have been better spent.



I am an RCAF kid, dating back to my DOB. Born in Bagottville, QC. in 1964

[CaptainCrunch]

The Arrow was a great plane in a limited amount of time. But frankly by the time the Arrow reached operational status, it probably would have found that the mission it was designed for didn't exist anymore.


The Arrow was designed as a high altitude high speed interceptor designed to intercept Soviet long range bombers. However Bomber concepts were completely changing. Their mission which originally was to be high altitude to get away from most anti-aircraft defenses in the early 50's had changed due to advances in radar and missile technology to low level below the horizon insertions, which the Arrow wasn't really suited to do. Even if they would have modified the Arrow to low altitude interception, I believe that it would have likely found it's mission changed again with the advent of the ICMB and sub launched missiles.



In terms of comparable. It probably compared most closely to something like the Mig-25 which was a mach 3 interceptor that could operate at 67,000 feet. But ended up being heavily modified to become a advanced recon and photographic plane in the late 60's.


Canada with its shrinking defense budget really couldn't afford a expensive single role interceptor when the mission had changed so much. The Army and Navy were concerned about spending so much money on this plane as well.


A airforce made up of a single multi-role fighter bomber made a lot of sense, and modifying the Arrow to cover both roles would have been hideously expensive and require a complete redesign. Avro also was continually changing its designs adding costs to the plane.


A missile defense that could deal with bombers and a multi-role fighter that could do low level interceptions and close air support made sense.


there was a movie made about the Arrow a few years ago that inflamed feelings about the Arrow. They had scenes as the Arrow program was being shut down of American' AirForce generals screaming to buy up the prototypes, but that never happened.



The market for the Arrow would have never really developed. Small countries with small airforces would have wanted multi-role. Larger airforces that had numerous airframes including interceptors usually had their own solutions, the UK, The American's etc had their own protected aircraft industries.


Frankly the biggest boondoogle was that the Airforce at the time didn't have much future vision, and even though there were strong indications that the high altitude bomber mission profile was winding down they went all in on that mission, and spec'd out a plane that would have hit obsolete status fairly quickly.


I read a book on the Arrow a few years ago, because there were claims that Avro was looking at designs based around a multi-role airframe, but the avionics, control system, sensors, weapons and weapons hardpoints and even the engines would have had to be redesigned from the ground up, as well as the airframe designed built around high altitude high climb would have been a poor low altitude performer.


There was talk of the British being interested in buying the Arrow as an interim interceptor until their own F-155 program was completed, but the Arrow wouldn't have been ready on time for the British to set up a production line, and again the mission had changed.


What Canada should have done was cancel the Arrow, and complete the Iroquis engine and build that for export.


The decision to cancel the Arrow while unpopular was the right decision.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The decision to cancel the Arrow while unpopular was the right decision.

I personally don't think it was handled properly, they didn't just cancel the program, they erased it from existance and killed an industry that could have been very successful for Canada.

The government has put good money into bad projects since time began, keeping this one afloat and scaling it back could have kept Canada in the game for years to come.

From a purely operational point of view it may have been the right call but for our country I think it was the wrong call.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think there was going to be a lot of market for the Arrow, and the countries with developed airforces had their own aerospace industries. The closest they came was to a possible interim order for the British who were already developing a high speed high altitude fighter.


I also don't think that a Canadian made fighter plane makes a lot of sense without an international market that isn't going to be big enough to support it. I mean we barely spend money on fighters. And if we were going to build a lets say Arrow as a F-18 replacement, it would be far more expensive then the approximately 9 billion or so that we're spending now on the program because we'd have to pay the development costs, which are sizeable.




The cost of development for a fighter is long and hugely expensive, and tough to penetrate. The Arrow was a great plane for its type, but that type wasn't really going to last long and was already nearing its end of life.



Canada would have been better served if they had been a component expert for fighter planes, engines, and sensor systems instead of air frames.


The aerospace industry whether civilian or military is hugely money intensive and competitive. We've seen that Bombardier has really not made a massive impact and require a lot of government help.

[speede5]

I think your selling us short. the game changed quite a bit over the 60's-80's, there were lots of oppotunities to design and build military aircraft in country, for export, etc.

It's too late to re-enter the game, but to fill some of the niches in the early years would have been quite easy had we kept the industry healthy rather than letting the braintrust head south.

[CaptainCrunch]

Canadians forced to hitch rides with the British for the Latvia mission



https://globalnews.ca/news/7161336/c...-plane-latvia/

Canadian troops have been forced to hitch a ride with the British military to get to and from Latvia due to a shortage of working planes.


Canada has 540 troops in Latvia, where they form the core of a 1,500-strong multinational battlegroup established by NATO three years ago. Similar battlegroups led by Britain, Germany and the U.S. have been established in Estonia, Lithuania and Poland, respectively.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Canadians forced to hitch rides with the British for the Latvia mission



https://globalnews.ca/news/7161336/c...-plane-latvia/

Sigh.
This article is trash. We weren't forced to "hitch" a ride with the British. We asked them instead of, say, chartering a civ aircraft. This is exactly how the NATO movement credits system is supposed to work anyway.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Sigh.
This article is trash. We weren't forced to "hitch" a ride with the British. We asked them instead of, say, chartering a civ aircraft. This is exactly how the NATO movement credits system is supposed to work anyway.

Right, but we wouldn’t need a ride from the Brits if we had functioning planes which is the point of the article.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Right, but we wouldn’t need a ride from the Brits if we had functioning planes which is the point of the article.

Nah, that's not the issue either. Hitching a ride with the Brits is a non event. They hop on our planes too. Having two jets down for repairs/maintenance isn't uncommon

Only take away here is maybe we need to buy a few more transport planes after converting two of the Polaris' into tankers. All the C-17's must be configured/used for Cargo missions right now I guess. But it's not an issue of not having functioning planes, just a sign that maybe we need a few more

Edit: Similar to when we needed to lease a an-124 for the Haiti mission which led to us buying a few Globemasters.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Nah, that's not the issue either. Hitching a ride with the Brits is a non event. They hop on our planes too. Having two jets down for repairs/maintenance isn't uncommon

Only take away here is maybe we need to buy a few more transport planes after converting two of the Polaris' into tankers. All the C-17's must be configured/used for Cargo missions right now I guess. But it's not an issue of not having functioning planes, just a sign that maybe we need a few more

Edit: Similar to when we needed to lease a an-124 for the Haiti mission which led to us buying a few Globemasters.

So more operational aircraft like I just said.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

So more operational aircraft like I just said.

Not really, you seemed to be suggesting that it was embarrassing that they didn't have enough functioning. A big difference from simply not having enough

[CaptainCrunch]

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/20.../#.XyHNQedMGUm

OTTAWA — A Quebec shipyard that pushed the federal government to buy second-hand icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard is now late in delivering the much-needed vessels as it works to increase their capabilities.


Ottawa agreed to purchase the three used civilian icebreakers at a total cost of at least $827 million from Chantier Davie in August 2018 after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau surprised many by announcing negotiations with the shipyard earlier that year.


The decision followed an intense lobbying campaign by Davie as well as the Quebec government and federal opposition parties for Ottawa to give the shipyard more work.
While the first vessel was quickly delivered and thrown into action following a paint job and some minor conversion work to meet the coast guard's needs, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans says the others have yet to enter service.


The second vessel was supposed to be ready by the end of 2019, but the department now says it won't be delivered until the end of this year and a delivery date for the third has not been finalized.


Department spokesman Benoit Mayrand attributed the delays to the need to upgrade the Norwegian-built vessels so they meet Canadian regulations and increase their endurance and icebreaking capabilities.


This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2020.

[BloodFetish]

I don't keep on top of these things, but has there ever been a large procurement of another countries used equipment that has actually worked out well for Canada?

[CaptainCrunch]

Newest Canadian artic ship joins the Navy.


The HMCS Harry DeWolf



I'm not sure that its really a warship at all, and I'm not sure of its purpose, and I didn't like it when the Cons announced that this was the design. Maybe Baron you can jump in on this.


But with 1 25 mm gun and 2 machine guns and one helicopter, its really not designed for sub hunting, has no real defensive capabilities and its relatively slow at 17 knots in un iced water. I guess it drags the flag but not much else.


Its not a warship to me, more like a coast guard ship.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Newest Canadian artic ship joins the Navy.

I'm not sure that its really a warship at all, and I'm not sure of its purpose, and I didn't like it when the Cons announced that this was the design. Maybe Baron you can jump in on this.

It's not designed to be a warship. Its purpose is to patrol Arctic and offshore waters, which could include the Caribbean and the African coasts. It's not designated to operate in conflict zones. Does its role and perceived threat require it to need a bigger gun from Day 1? No. Have the Kingston frigates been in danger of attack recently? No.

However, if push comes to shove, higher calibre guns and/or missile systems can be added to the boat.

I remember the same arguments were made against the MCDVs and they have done their job well. The AOPS will play a significant role performing hydrographic work in the Arctic. This is a significant job because our charts for the Arctic are inadequate. Increasingly, there are more cruise ships up there and it's a scenario just asking for a SAR operation. Thus, it's an important role for the RCN to prevent future SAR ops by doing the hydrographic work now.

Yes, this sounds like a Coast Guard job, but the Coast Guard has its own problems and they need to revitalize their fleet. Even so, the Arctic is large enough that there is room for both RCN and CCG participation.



At the end of the day, at least it's a new ship.