[EyeBrock]

I think we have to assess our needs according to potential threats.

Personally I like the Gripen and/or something capable but cheap.

Air defence wise we just need to able to knock down Taliban airliners for now.
The Russian threat of yesteryear has faded and the Gripen is more than capable of defending us against the next levels of threat , such as the rapidly expanding Chinese military.

Who else is gonna attack us?

The Gripen has a capable air support role that could be there flying around Khandahar now, instead we have to rely on the US for Cap, air support and rotary wing ops. Very sad indeed ( harkens to MCB’s ‘weak Canada’ thread).

The F35 on the other hand, very expensive but very multi-role.
It would mean the CF Air Command (Let’s go back to the RCAF, this “Air Force” with nothing in front of it is very silly) could deploy on ships to provide our troops flexible air cover. Let’s be real, our guys haven’t had Canadian fighters providing air cover since Korea. It’s about time we had an air arm that does its job in fighting with the Army. The CF18’s have provided sod all since they came in.

The CF even had the Brits and Germans covering sovereignty patrols and intercepting Soviet/Russian incursions from CFB Goose Bay because of lack of will to defend our own airspace.

It’s time we either payed up to defend ourselves like the Aussies do very well with the same budget, or just give up on offensive airpower like the Kiwi’s have done.

Choose Canada!

[BartSimpson]

I'm also a fan of the assymetrical school of thought with air superiority for nations that don't have trillion dollar budgets. The assymetrical ideas include:

Use an inexpensive platform like the F-20 and fit it out to carry some serious ordinance.

Update older but effective platforms such as the Skyraider, A-26, P-51 to use for inexpensive close-in support thereby saving money on non-critical missions such as showing the flag where deploying a CF-18 would be overkill and a waste.

In theory, you can launch a Sidewinder or even an AMRAAM from an Otter.

The idea is to save your first-class platforms for national security missions and to leave the grunt work to cheaper platforms.

The USA does this to some extent by having C-130 Coast Guard aircraft do the show-the-flag missions and ostensibly saving the serious stuff for when the poop hits the fan.

[EyeBrock]

Totally agree Bart. All we need in the Afghan theatre is more than the Taliban have.
Not F35 but an F18 will more than adequately fill the need we have.

Our problem is the lily-livered Air Command brass and the lack of political will to defend our grunts properly. They should be out there now providing CAP’s and air support instead of in Bagotville defending fuck all.

Think, if we had proper air cover would that idiot from the USAF ANG have dropped his load on the PPCLI?

The whole thing is very silly and needless.
I see our MEDEVACS going on US Black Hawks to go to US Field Hospitals and the worst is watching our guys do emplaning drills on Dutch Chinooks that we sold to them.

Very sad.

It can be done for the cash we have now, look at the Aussies!

[SireJoe]

How about we employ some Canadians to create a new, better, all Canadian fighter for the military to use? I have never liked the idea of getting crap from other countries as we always do. I mean if we can employ our own people to make something that is purely Canadian....why the hell not? Im sure it would cost a pretty penny to start up, but I think its better to keep money in Canada as opposed to sending it abroad. If they dont want to upgrade till 2020 then we got lots o' time to build a better faster fighter to kick to shit out of the americans

[EyeBrock]

Nice idea but the cost is totally prohibitive. Even the Yanks do joint ventures these days.

[SireJoe]

pptthh. Details. Its time to sink the 100 year old russian subs and 90 year old carriers and start building our own crap. You know, if this is what we did instead of buying garbage from others, I would be more pro-military spending. I just enjoy the fact that we would help to create new jobs and better products that we made ourselves....sniff....makes me all patriotic.

[bootlegga]

SireJoe SireJoe:

pptthh. Details. Its time to sink the 100 year old russian subs and 90 year old carriers and start building our own crap. You know, if this is what we did instead of buying garbage from others, I would be more pro-military spending. I just enjoy the fact that we would help to create new jobs and better products that we made ourselves....sniff....makes me all patriotic.

We do build plenty here in Canada. Our Coyotes (and all the other LAV III variants) are made here, as are the C7s, Halifax frigates, and parts for our new S-92 choppers. My guess is we might even build those Arctic icebreakers here too.

We just can't afford to spend $20 billion developing a fighter plane...

[EyeBrock]

I agree Bootlegger. The Brits spend way more on defence than we do but I can't think of a fighter/GA aircraft since the 60's they funded and developed on their own.

SEPECAT Jaguar, Anglo-French

Tornado, Anglo-German-Italian

Typhoon, ditto

Harrier mks after GR3, Anglo-US

Most choppers they fly are international consortiums too......

We need some clarity here, nationalism aside.

[twister]

knowing the way canada thinks... Boeing has nothing to worry about.. Canada will not go to Europe , or Russia for our next aircraft.. nope we will buy what ever the US says we should have... especially at clearance prices....

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

We just can't afford to spend $20 billion developing a fighter plane...

I agree. But you could rationally invest a reasonable sum in developing advanced versions of existing and past aircraft that would be suited to specific missions.

A P3 Orion is still an unbeatable ASW platform. Update it with modern components for the wings, new multiblade turboprops, employ some stealth tech, and you've got a viable platform for the next 30 years.

Unbelievable as it sounds, the Pentagon is seriously studying an update of the B52 as there is absolutely no substitute for the venerable heavy bomber. Many of the current B52s in service are closing in on fifty years old and there's no replacement for them on the horizon.

Frankly, it isn't irrational for Canada to consider deploying updated Spitfires for low-intensity missions such as coastal interdiction and show-the-flag.

You can hang war shots on a Spit the same as you can from a CF-18.

[Canadian_Mind]

quick question: arn't WW2 aircraft more manuverable than modern counterparts anyways?

[BartSimpson]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

quick question: arn't WW2 aircraft more manuverable than modern counterparts anyways?

Hell, yes.

The Skyraider at the end of the Vietnam war had a superior kill ratio to the Migs then in use by the Russians and the NVAF.

The Skyraider could accelerate faster than the Migs, out corner them, and the killing manuever was when the Migs climbed after a Skyraider. The more advanced pilots could slew the Skyraider around and bring to bear the eight fifty-caliber guns and the 20mm anti-tank most of them carried.

The first Mig kill in 1966 was a huge surprise but then others followed and the plane became a very popular sight to ground troops as when the Hobos were around the NVAF would keep the hell away.

[maritimematt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree Bootlegger. The Brits spend way more on defence than we do but I can't think of a fighter/GA aircraft since the 60's they funded and developed on their own.

SEPECAT Jaguar, Anglo-French

Tornado, Anglo-German-Italian

Typhoon, ditto

Harrier mks after GR3, Anglo-US

Most choppers they fly are international consortiums too......

We need some clarity here, nationalism aside.

Went tits-up with the TSR2

[BartSimpson]

And South Africa had P51 Mustangs in service well into the 1980's for the exact reason that they could stomp the crap out of the few Migs that the Russians and Cubans were driving in the Angola war. The Mig was actually constrained by its high performance and the overconfidence of the pilots. The P51 didn't generate enough of a heat signature for a heat seeker so the Migs would have to close with guns, the P51 would turn far tighter than the Mig and then out accelerate it in the same turn.

Any fighter jock will tell you that if your circle is smaller than the other guy's then you've won.

So imagine a hypothetical Canadian fighter with stealth characteristics and a naturally low heat signature to begin with and then modified with modern heat dispersion techniques and you have a machine that would be awesome especially in a place like Afghanistan.

[maritimematt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

We just can't afford to spend $20 billion developing a fighter plane...

I agree. But you could rationally invest a reasonable sum in developing advanced versions of existing and past aircraft that would be suited to specific missions.

A P3 Orion is still an unbeatable ASW platform. Update it with modern components for the wings, new multiblade turboprops, employ some stealth tech, and you've got a viable platform for the next 30 years.

Unbelievable as it sounds, the Pentagon is seriously studying an update of the B52 as there is absolutely no substitute for the venerable heavy bomber. Many of the current B52s in service are closing in on fifty years old and there's no replacement for them on the horizon.

Frankly, it isn't irrational for Canada to consider deploying updated Spitfires for low-intensity missions such as coastal interdiction and show-the-flag.

You can hang war shots on a Spit the same as you can from a CF-18.

Great point - don't go the way of the RAF and others in being locked into something like Typhoon - a system to deal with a moribund threat. And on the 'Buy Canadian' tack, don't let the flag get in the way of good kit. The RAF's rollout of Typhoon has been one long catastrophe - and Typhoon is in the inventory mainly for political reasons (even though it's a first rate air-defence system, about time after the Tornado F3). The nose mounted cannon in the Typhoon is a great example - RAF didn't want a cannon, tried to get rid of it and couldn't - tried to replace it with a concrete dummy and couldn't (screwed up the aerodynamics) and so now has the cannon but won't stump up for the ammunition.