[Canadian_Mind]

Regina Regina:

Other than trainers we are only getting one type of jet. Multi roll air to air and air to ground.

Please don't take this the wrong way Regina, but I really hope this line of thinking dies with your generation (military planners and politicians). The F-35 debacle is the proof that you can't fit all your capabilities into one plane effectively. Better 24 each of 2-3 types of "cheap," specialised aircraft vs. only 24 of the expensive jack-of-all-trades aircraft. Costs less when you lose one, whether it in terms of dollars, capability, or as an overall percentage of your force.

I suppose the expensive multi-role makes sense if you have a very limited number of pilots and bases, but we're a country of almost 40 million people, not 20. We have the capability to support a proper, diversified air fleet. We just lack the political will to deal with the initial pinch. 5 years after a diversified purchase, no one civvie side would know the difference or care anymore. They'd be busy panicking over the next environmental catastrophy or finding new ways to make gender identification even more fucked up.


Bart, I disagree. I think the F-18E/F would be a good stopgap solution, but the airframe is getting old. The Eurofighters are a more efficient platform and can do everything the F-18s can, but better. The exception would be carrier duties. Considering they cost about the same, why not go with the better performer?

[BartSimpson]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Bart, I disagree. I think the F-18E/F would be a good stopgap solution, but the airframe is getting old.

I agree with you. But it's the best choice extant for the moment. If perhaps we get a pro-defense President on 1/20/2017 I'm hoping the F-22 will come back into production and then you folks can ride our coat tails on a 2500 plane order.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

The Eurofighters are a more efficient platform and can do everything the F-18s can, but better. The exception would be carrier duties. Considering they cost about the same, why not go with the better performer?

The problem with the Eurofighter is that you can't ever leverage our spares and kit. You're on your own with that thing if there's ever a serious furball.

With the 18 or the 22 if TSHTF the RCAF can always get some of our leftovers from Davis-Monthan and take them home and they'll fit right in.

The Eurofighter is going to be the same PITA for you folks that the Leopard was especially since you're not going to be satisfied with the ready-to-own Eurofighter, oh no. Your procurement chain is going to have to cock up these planes with imperfect Canadian kit that will replace the European kit that was purpose-made, thoroughly tested, and proven.

With the 18 or the 22 you already have Canadian content built into the damn things anyway. I don't recall any Canadian content in the Eurofighter so that means your version will be a disaster with half your order destined to become hangar queens before they're even built.

For me one of the factors you folks have to consider with a fighter is how you're going to satisfy both the RCAF mission needs and the complexities of your own procurement chain.

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

I think all of the ideas are fine. We just don't need it and can't afford it 24/7/365.

I agree. That's why I've long advocated the idea that Canada should have two tiers of fighters.

A state of the art (enough) jet for confronting Russia, China, and (honestly) to impress the US that your military isn't a joke.

And something like the Brazilian AT-29 Super Tucano for the lion's share of patrols and sovereignty demonstrations. Just hang a lot of pointy white things on the wings and have a decent AWACS capability that can permit your Tucanos to fire at extreme long range and you'll be bad enough to make Ivan and Joe Chink think about it before messing with you.

[Canadian_Mind]

Regardless of what aircraft we go with our procurement chain needs to be completely dismantled and built into something far more efficient.

I get what you mean about having parts local. But given the way the globe works these days, Europe is just as local as the US is... I don't think either the USA or Europe has Canada's best interests at heart. So as far as I'm concerned it's purely business. As far as availability of parts and equipment, so long as we have access to the designs our industry should be able to replicate spares should WWIII break out and the original manufacture is no longer able to deliver.

That said, F22s would be really nice if we could get them for under $100 million apiece.

[BartSimpson]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Regardless of what aircraft we go with our procurement chain needs to be completely dismantled and built into something far more efficient.

I think that's true for everyone.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I get what you mean about having parts local. But given the way the globe works these days, Europe is just as local as the US is... I don't think either the USA or Europe has Canada's best interests at heart. So as far as I'm concerned it's purely business. As far as availability of parts and equipment, so long as we have access to the designs our industry should be able to replicate spares should WWIII break out and the original manufacture is no longer able to deliver.

It's not just the supply chain issues it's the interoperability of the support and logistics chain that follows using the European kit.

Allow me to summarize my point:



I bring that up because Rick Hillier brings it up often enough. Seems there can be no end of specialized tools that end up not using the right electrical outlets or voltages when you go with the Euro kit.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

That said, F22s would be really nice if we could get them for under $100 million apiece.

Easy: Let the USAF and USN order the first 500 or so and then negotiate for your order at the end of the F22B run - that way you get the platform that doesn't have the first generation bugs AND you can let the US eat the development and production set up costs.

[Winnipegger]

Mmm. Technical stuff. Bart: I realize you joked, but the Eurofighter Typhoon is an air force only craft. It can't land on a carrier. If you want something like that to fly from a carrier, the Dessault Rafale 'C' is the closest.

The Eurofighter is the closest to the old Avro Arrow. So it will hold a special place in Canadian hearts. However, it's expensive.

The F-22 has another problem: US Congress passed a law prohibiting any form from export. Canada and the US are supposed to have joint continental air defence through NORAD, but Congress did not make an exception. That law would have to be changed before Canada could buy any.

[MeganC]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Mmm. Technical stuff. Bart: I realize you joked, but the Eurofighter Typhoon is an air force only craft. It can't land on a carrier. If you want something like that to fly from a carrier, the Dessault Rafale 'C' is the closest.

The Eurofighter is the closest to the old Avro Arrow. So it will hold a special place in Canadian hearts. However, it's expensive.

The F-22 has another problem: US Congress passed a law prohibiting any form from export. Canada and the US are supposed to have joint continental air defence through NORAD, but Congress did not make an exception. That law would have to be changed before Canada could buy any.

That's stupid not to sell it and then not make it anymore.

[garryb]

Don't forget that the Avro Arrow was designed and built by Canada in 1959 and still exceeds the current military specifications. most of the designs since then are based on Arrow technology.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

The headline is kind'a funny when put into perspective though. When we first picked up the -18s, the CF-5s they were replacing also beat them in dogfights, within visual range. At BVR the F-5s didn't stand a chance but at Mk1 eyeball range, they did a pretty good job on the CF-18s

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The headline is kind'a funny when put into perspective though. When we first picked up the -18s, the CF-5s they were replacing also beat them in dogfights, within visual range. At BVR the F-5s didn't stand a chance but at Mk1 eyeball range, they did a pretty good job on the CF-18s

With modern tech the fighter is really nearing functional obsolescence much as the battleship once did.

Your post wisely clues in on this evolution that's taking place.

The modern fighter is a stand-off platform that isn't really all that awesome at dogfighting. Probably the best dogfighter of the modern age is still the old Skyraider because it could turn well inside any jet - even the F-22 - and bring to bear a devastating amount of firepower.

But for a Skyraider to win it has to get close enough to the enemy and in the case of the Skyraider the tactic was to let the enemy come in too close and then kill him.

An F-18 would swat a Skyraider from the sky before the Skyraider ever knew it was there.

And it's because the weapons systems on the F-18 and in theatre are so awesome.

And you can put those weapons systems on pretty much anything else.

The USAF is experimenting with dirigibles that would take station around the US perimeter or in a war zone and their job would be to deny the enemy access to the air. They could be controlled remotely and they could fire missiles from long distances that could then be controlled by multiple controllers along the missile's flight path - or they could just be fired and assigned to select their own targets.

Missiles can be fired from drones that can make 13G turns.

Really, within our lifetimes we will see the end of the fighter just the same as our grandfathers saw the end of the battleship and the horse cavalry.

Which is why I favor less expensive platforms like the Brazilian fighter for sovereignty demonstrations and routine patrols. Why spend a fortune on the generation fives when generation six will render them obsolete?

[Winnipegger]

Regina Regina:

garryb garryb:

Don't forget that the Avro Arrow was designed and built by Canada in 1959 and still exceeds the current military specifications. most of the designs since then are based on Arrow technology.

No it does not exceed current military specifications. That is a myth that has been chanted since the 60's.

Avro Arrow could supercruise at altitude at mach 1.5; the only fighters today that can are F-22 (mach 1.82), Eurofighter (mach 1.5), and Russian PAK FA (mach 1.6). Arrow mark 1, the prototype with the J75 engine, could supercruise at 36,000 feet at mach 0.91, or 50,000 feet at mach 1.06, and top speed mach 1.98. The Dessault Rafale can supercruise at Mach 1.02. Arrow had a top speed with afterburner in flat level flight of mach 2.5; the F-22 mach 2.25, Eurofighter mach 2.0, PAK FA mach 2.3, Rafale 1.8. F-22, Eurofighter, and PAK FA are designed for a G load of -3/+9. Rafale -3.6/+9, so it can handle more negative Gs than the others. Specifications from the Canadian Air Force from 1953 for an all weather interceptor required it withstand 2 g, but the Arrow as built could handle -3/+9.

In comparison to today's aircraft, the Arrow was big and heavy with a small weapons load. But its performance was impressive. Especially considering the Mark 2 was built in 1959. Serial# 206 was fully complete except installation of engines. The engines were finished and behind it in the factory. The engines just had to be inserted, bolted in, fuel line and control systems connected. It would have required 8 hours to complete all that. That's when it was scrapped.

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Which is why I favor less expensive platforms like the Brazilian fighter for sovereignty demonstrations and routine patrols. Why spend a fortune on the generation fives when generation six will render them obsolete?

Yet the USAF is trying to murder the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the weapon platform that's twice destroyed the Iraqi armoured corps and is the terror of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. All so the Air Force can take the paltry amount of money that the A-10 receives for maintenance, training, and ordnance and shift the money to the black hole of the F-35 boondoggle. This is why I absolutely favour the A-10 to be transferred to the United States Army where it can continue to do the close-support/low-level assault role it still does better than any other weapon system out there.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Which is why I favor less expensive platforms like the Brazilian fighter for sovereignty demonstrations and routine patrols. Why spend a fortune on the generation fives when generation six will render them obsolete?

Yet the USAF is trying to murder the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the weapon platform that's twice destroyed the Iraqi armoured corps and is the terror of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. All so the Air Force can take the paltry amount of money that the A-10 receives for maintenance, training, and ordnance and shift the money to the black hole of the F-35 boondoggle. This is why I absolutely favour the A-10 to be transferred to the United States Army where it can continue to do the close-support/low-level assault role it still does better than any other weapon system out there.

The USAF political leadership (brass) want the A-10 abolished because of their prejudice against ground support and I agree that the A-10 should be transferred to the US Army who really need it for support.

Over in the dusty place it was always nice to know that the Navy had our backs. The Army pukes never enjoyed that same assurance from the bus drivers.

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I still think we should opt for 192 Eurofighters to start, organised into 5 combat squadrons; Comox, Cold Lake, Yellowknife, Bonnyville, and Gander, as well as either one large or two small training squadrons located in Cold Lake & Bonnyville. Squadrons on the coasts would serve a primarily coastal interdiction & air intercept role, while the inland squadrons would focus on CAS and Air Superiority roles.

Over the long term I'd like to augment the inland squadrons with a squadron each of Warthogs to serve the CAS, leaving the Euro to be primarily air superiority. For the coastal squadrons I'd like to have a dedicated interceptor aircraft for bombers & long range naval strikes, while the Eurofighters would again be dedicated to coastal air superiority and local naval interdiction.

All in all we'd end up just shy of 400 combat jets by 2030, 240 of which would be frontline, and the rest would be training. Certainly not the numbers the Chinks or the Ruskies rock, but certainly enough to defend ourselves if they come knocking.

First off, a fighter squadron in the RCAf is 12 planes, so you probably mean 5 Wings, not squadrons, as 192 would be 13 full strength squadrons (although one or two would probably be composed if twin seat trainers).

Second, as much I as would love to see that air force, it won't happen. Hell, when I was young, I dreamed of an air force equipped with squadrons of F-20s to supplement the F-18s, a couple flotillas of frigates and destroyers and a bigger army.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country want more money for health care, day care, pension plans, education and everything else. And now that the Boomers are started to hit 65, health care costs will skyrocket over the next couple decades.

Still, I agree that the Euro would be a good final fighter for the RCAF - we just have to accept that we'll get 60-80 instead of what we really need.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Really, within our lifetimes we will see the end of the fighter just the same as our grandfathers saw the end of the battleship and the horse cavalry.

Which is why I favor less expensive platforms like the Brazilian fighter for sovereignty demonstrations and routine patrols. Why spend a fortune on the generation fives when generation six will render them obsolete?

^ This