[Thanos]

Not to mention what everyone's forgotten or chosen to ignore. The Arrow was an interceptor designed to interdict and shoot a small nuclear weapon at a cluster of Soviet long-range bombers. It wasn't designed as a dogfighter or as a ground-support assault aircraft. It became obsolete, along with all the American-built interceptors of the era, when the Soviets (just like the Americans) put most of their first-strike nuclear weapons aboard ballistic-missile submarines and into hardened land-based missile silos. The last effective use of purpose-designed interceptors was in the Vietnam war, when the North Vietnamese for a time were able to successfully use the MiG-21 against American B-52 bombers. But even then the MiG-21 was mostly a shoot-and-scoot racehorse. It's time in the sun was short because American F-4 Phantom II pilots in both the US Navy and Air Force learned pretty quickly that the MiG-21 pilots had a pretty small bag of tricks. In time, thanks to the Phantom II, the B-52's became far more vulnerable to the SAM-2 anti-aircraft missile batteries the North Vietnamese deployed than they were to the MiGs.

[Winnipegger]

Regina Regina:

It's cruise speed was .9 Mach and Super-cruise is a modern engine term, post 1959. It also didn't have as good weight to thrust ratio compared to fighters like the F18 etc. The engines also belched out trails of black smoke which could be seen for miles, which was typical of the day. Years ago I worked with a CF100 pilot who went to see it fly and was scheduled to fly it when in service. He told me it had no proven weapons system and more importantly no ejection system. It was just wings and engines. Still impressive for the day though.

The Arrow mark 1 with J75 engine had a cruise speed at 36,000 feet of mach 0.9. One of the requirements the Canadian air force gave the engineers in 1953 was ability to cruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. Engineers at the time yelled, claimed it was unreasonable, how could a 1950s aircraft do that? They cried in their beer, then when they sobered up in the morning, they got down to work. Avro Arrow mark 2 with the Iroquois engine could cruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. The mark 1 could cruise at mach 0.9 at 36,000 feet, or mach 1.06 at 50,000 feet. Although competitors don't want to admit that.

It also had fire-and-forget Sparrow missiles. And all systems on-board the aircraft. That's because it had to operate over Canadian territory, most of which is far from any air force base. American aircraft at the time radioed return signal from radar to a base on ground, which used a large computer to process the data, then radio results back to the aircraft. So American aircraft of the day couldn't operate beyond radio range of the air base. And American Sparrow missiles required the pilot to remotely "fly" the missile into the target. And the Arrow had fly-by-wire. The first American fighter to have that was the F-16. When did its first prototype fly? Arrow was the best fighter of its day.

Well, the fire-and-forget missiles were under development, they weren't finished at the time Arrow was scrapped. It did have an ejection system, although I don't know its state at the time it was scrapped.

But yea, it was an interceptor; not a dog fighter. And didn't have all the fancy electronics of today's aircraft. And no stealth. But still, if you want a modern fighter that can do everything Arrow could, there are only 3: F-22, Eurofighter, and PAK-FA. Of those, only Eurofighter is available to Canada. Rafale is equivalent to Arrow mark 1.

[Winnipegger]

Years ago the British Royal Air Force did a study with simulators operated by their top pilots. They compared various fighters to MiG-35. Eurofighter had a kill ratio of 10:1, Rafale only 1:1. F-22 was the best, my memory is vague but it was over double the Eurofighter. Now Russia is developing an equivalent to F-22: the PAK-FA. Russia hadn't challenged Canada's sovereignty in the arctic, they were content with their wedge from Siberia to the north pole, but with the current Ukraine thing they're probing all NATO countries. Shouldn't we have something that could go toe-to-toe with PAK-FA?

[Thanos]

If the conventional wisdom is that drones are the imminent wave of the future then why are we wasting time and money even buying more manned fighters at all? If we could get x number of drones for the cost of one F-35 then wouldn't the logical thing to do to buy the drones instead? Or is the dumb-fuck thinking so prevalent know at DOD Procurement and in the PMO that we have to waste $100 billion on the F-35 first before we smarten up and get on the inevitable drone bandwagon?

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

If the conventional wisdom is that drones are the imminent wave of the future then why are we wasting time and money even buying more manned fighters at all? If we could get x number of drones for the cost of one F-35 then wouldn't the logical thing to do to buy the drones instead? Or is the dumb-fuck thinking so prevalent know at DOD Procurement and in the PMO that we have to waste $100 billion on the F-35 first before we smarten up and get on the inevitable drone bandwagon?

The not-so-secret is that the drones have to be able to function independent of ground control and the tech isn't quite there just yet.

So in the meantime we still need some generation five fighters and the F-22 is not a bad investment because a number of sources indicate the plane already has the ability to be slaved to ground control and it is probably going to be compatible with a self-directed computer driving it.

[Winnipegger]

Well, yea. I said before, bring all our CF-18s out of mothballs, ensure they're all upgraded to current standard. Not all got the last round of upgrades. Use them until unmanned fighters are ready.

Anything makes more sense than F-35. Could could probably list the reasons more eloquently than I. But the US was starved for money, looking for someone else to pay for their 5th generation fighters. F-35 was supposed to be the hacked-down export version. It started as a combination of several fighter programs, but became the hobbled export 5th generation fighter. They expected to pay for both American F-35 and F-22 fighters that way. Canada was one of the targets (marks) they seriously thought they could pawn this off on. The Chrétien/Martin Liberals signed onto development and construction of some components, because that would keep Canadian industry current, and would earn more money than they spent. But they had no intention to actually buy any. Then US bureaucrats convinced the Harper Conservatives that the Liberals had committed to buying them. And Conservatives are very strongly tied to Republicans. At the 2006 Liberal leadership convention, I met David Orchard and his followers. A couple of them said Republicans had bought their membership into the Conservative party, and they still have the receipts to prove it. Later that year I was called to the US embassy in Winnipeg, asked how much support Stéphane Dion had within the Liberal Party. So the F-35 may simply be a means to use Canadian money to subsidize the American defence industry.

[Winnipegger]

Regina Regina:

As I pointed out before. The current CF18s are not able to be upgraded to current avionics. They canot integrate with NATO fighters and can only provide limited support such as bombing. Having more of the same does nothing for us. I believe there was 128 originally but I don't know how many are left or how many are the dual seat trainers.

As I said before, current operation CF-18s *HAVE* been upgraded. If they don't have the upgrades you want, that doesn't matter. They are upgraded. Some aircraft in storage had those same upgrades, others didn't. In order to put all in service, those not upgraded will have to be. More of the same.

But to your point: why can't they be upgraded further?

[Winnipegger]

Sounds like a salesman's negotiating ploy. Can the upgrades you're talking about fit in a SuperHornet? If so, you have to ask why.

[Robair]

Super Hornet is a larger aircraft. Quite a bit larger.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

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.

There are a couple problems with that line of thinking.

A-10s may be great at destroying large numbersof tanks and AFVs, but the days of massed tank battles are a thing of the past - at least for a generation or two when US military power has declined and someone else's has increased to the point where the aggressor stands a chance.

The other is that the U S Army has been forbidden from using armed fixed-wing aircraft since the USAF came into existence.

Still, I agree that the A-10 is a badass and should be kept because it is bought and psid for already.

[xerxes]

Not to mention it's incredibly cost effective. Their unit cost is around $10m per and they are very easy to maintain and repair. Compared to the F1 car that is the F-35, it's a steal and still effective. The Taliban may not have armoured divisions like the Soviets had, but its' the still the last thing many a Taliban fighter has seen or heard....

[Canadian_Mind]

bootlegga 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.

A fighter squadron in the RCAF is 12 planes only because when they last downsized the air force, they didn't want the bad publicity of disbanding squadrons. The solution was to cut the squadrons in half. They still function as a single squadron of 24 aircraft; but, as far as the books and media are concerned (and the number of officer positions, can't cut those), they are two "squadrons" organised into a wing.

So my plan would be to use this to an advantage. We'd be re-equipping all 4 of our squadrons with the proper number of airframes, and reassigning 1 to the Pacific coast, and one to the Atlantic. Given the Arctic sovereignty the feds have a hard on for, adding a 5th squadron specifically for the arctic would not be a hard sell.

As to the numbers specifically, you can't just take all the fighters and put them on the front line or in training squadrons (like they plan with the F-35s). You need to account for losses which WILL occur, both in training and on operations (whether combat losses or accidents). For every five frontline aircraft you have one primary training aircraft, or 20%. There is some complex math to account for combat losses and accidents, of both combat aircraft and training aircraft. But in general it's worked out to about 33% for both.

When you crunch the numbers:
120 front line
40 spare
24 training
8 spares training
192 total.

To maintain what we have:
48 front line
16 spares
9 training
3 spare training
76 total.

We currently have a few less spare front line aircraft, but we have a few more training aircraft then that currently. I think the reasons for this are because when we budgeted 80 for upgrades, they weren't intended to last for nearly as long. This would also allow capability to train more pilots than what we currently have for aircraft so that if shit hits the fan we can buy surplus/pull the rest out of mothballs.

All the healthcare funding in the world could very well evaporate if China or Russia were able to actively influence our internal policies. People seem to have forgotten that, and it seems like quite a few boomers have the attitude of "not my problem."

bootlegga bootlegga:

There are a couple problems with that line of thinking.

A-10s may be great at destroying large numbersof tanks and AFVs, but the days of massed tank battles are a thing of the past - at least for a generation or two when US military power has declined and someone else's has increased to the point where the aggressor stands a chance.

The other is that the U S Army has been forbidden from using armed fixed-wing aircraft since the USAF came into existence.

Still, I agree that the A-10 is a badass and should be kept because it is bought and paid for already.

It's not just about tanks. The A-10 has proven itself great for CAS in general. it already dominates the battlefield and I attest to it having saved dozens of Canadian lives in Afghanistan, in spite of the enemy's lack of tanks and their dispersed combat practices. The damn thing can make itself useful in almost any situation where there is at least one bad guy with a gun. We'd be doing ourselves a favour if we acquired a squadron or two should the USA decide to ditch it.

With modern avionics, the A-10 could be turned into a half-decent air combat platform as well. I wouldn't send it on an air superiority flight, but you could send it into enemy airspace and it could effectively defend itself against enemy fighters. It could pull off coastal patrols in a pinch.

Robair Robair:

Super Hornet is a larger aircraft. Quite a bit larger.

It's also slightly slower and has decreased maneuverability & thrust-weight ratio over the conventional Hornet. It's not really bad, just a con to weigh against the pros. This is why I like the Eurofighter; for the same cost as a super hornet you get a smaller, faster, more maneuverable, similar technological capability, and a long range. You lose the carrier capabilities though. It does damn near everything the Super Hornet does, but better. Buy it as it is, and buy the plans for all the spare parts. Should the euro-weenies not deliver parts, send the plans to industry.

There were plans to begin retrofitting the Eurofighter with thrust vectoring engines. That would be a treat. It could probably out-turn a missile at that point if it wouldn't end up killing the pilot with all the G forces.

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

The A10 would get stomped by any fighter.

Depends on the pilot of the A-10 and the pilot of the aggressor.

Because even if it was a Eurofighter vs. the A-10 if the A-10 driver can bring the 30mm cannon to bear on the Eurofighter then that's the end of the scenario.

Precedent:

http://vnafmamn.com/Skyraider_vs_MIG17.html

[Winnipegger]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

A fighter squadron in the RCAF is 12 planes only because when they last downsized the air force, they didn't want the bad publicity of disbanding squadrons. The solution was to cut the squadrons in half. They still function as a single squadron of 24 aircraft; but, as far as the books and media are concerned (and the number of officer positions, can't cut those), they are two "squadrons" organised into a wing.

I thought we have two wings, each with one combat squadron. The Cold Lake wing also has the training squadron. Each combat squadron consisting of 24 aircraft. Looks like that adds up to the same number of aircraft that you said. But when I said I want two more combat squadrons, that's 24 aircraft each.

We will need extras for long-term maintenance. However, combat losses? Forget holding back aircraft for combat losses. We'll have a few extra twin seaters that can be used for combat, but mostly just buy some more. As the US replaces F-18s with F-35, they'll have surplus F/A-18s to sell. Use that as our reserve for combat losses.

Of course I keep talking about keeping CF-18 Hornets, re-purpose them as bomb trucks, and add to the force an air superiority fighter. The only question is Eurofighter or develop our own leading edge unmanned combat air vehicle.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

It's not just about tanks. The A-10 has proven itself great for CAS in general. it already dominates the battlefield and I attest to it having saved dozens of Canadian lives in Afghanistan

Yes, the A-10 is very cost effective, and does tank hunting and close air support very well. The concern is surface-to-air missiles and shoulder-launched missiles (MANPAD). That's its vulnerability. That was the argument to replace them with F-16s, and now the aircraft that will replace F-16s. You could argue that F-35 is not a cost effective replacement for F-16 either, but that's the argument. How do you respond to the concern re missiles?

Robair Robair:

Super Hornet is a larger aircraft. Quite a bit larger.

SuperHornet is about 30% larger, depending which statistic you measure. Why would that matter for electronics? Why couldn't we put SuperHornet electronics on our Hornets?

[BRAH]

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 A-10 is a proven Workhorse in the field why the hell would anyone want to shelf it?