F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase

[BurlOak]

What does that have to do with supporting the military? More missions without additional resources isn't necessarily great for us. The Army for example has eaten into their capital base so much with Afghanistan, they might not be properly recapitalized till the middle of the next decade.

I should have used a sarcasm symbol. Regardless of what Trudeau promises or says, he does not see a value in the Military and will make as many cuts as possible and use creative accounting to hide it. If an international incident does occur, and Canada's military needs to get involved, I imagine it will be grossly ill-prepared.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I should have used a sarcasm symbol. Regardless of what Trudeau promises or says, he does not see a value in the Military and will make as many cuts as possible and use creative accounting to hide it. If an international incident does occur, and Canada's military needs to get involved, I imagine it will be grossly ill-prepared.

That's the thing, there's never been a post-WW2 military incident where Canada needed to get involved. We are not obligated to send troops on UN missions, and post-Cold War we've nothing really to do with NATO. So, my thinking is if we're not going to supply the proper kit to our fighting men and women, then we'd better not be sending them into harm's way.

Instead, let's focus on sovereignty declaration and defense, though AIP submarines and (underwater drones?), RCAF combat and transport capabilities for northern defense, etc.

 

[Jasmine18]

I think we should have drones and they can patrol the north.

 

[someMidTowner]

Arrow prototypes aside, has Canada ever operated a delta configuration fighter?

Never a true delta.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think we should have drones and they can patrol the north.

I think we're a way from that today.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Never a true delta.

One of my favourite what-if fighters for Canada is the Mirage 4000. Essentially a 1970s Rafale, twin engined and long range for NORAD and CAS-capable for UN strike missions.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think we should have drones and they can patrol the north.

We are looking at UAVs. And we've had a project office for years:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en...al/2015-vol4-iss1-05-will-justas-prevail.page

The air force has been screaming for years about this. Nobody really has wanted to fund this till now. There is some renewed effort, but that's led to cockups like this:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...second-hand-drones-even-before-getting-the-ok

And who knows how it will turn out with all the trade and politics issues these days. The Americans are willing to let us buy Predators though:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...can-buy-armed-predator-drones-worth-1-billion

 

[Admiral Beez]

We are looking at UAVs.

The Americans are willing to let us buy Predators

The challenge is when it's the Americans we need to monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Internal_Waters#Dispute

As for the F-35, is it beyond the realm of reasonable that the US may withhold spares or tech if there's a trade dispute?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Some recent articles suggesting the recent BBR-Airbus deal is giving better odds for the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace the CF-18.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...ve-the-way-for-canada-to-purchase-eurofighter
Will an Airbus alliance with Bombardier pave the way for Canada to purchase Eurofighter?

http://www.fliegerfaust.com/cf-18-r...ale-ah-the-twin-engine-safety-2500204839.html
CF-18 Replacement - Stealth vs No Stealth - Canada has a Plan B? - Typhoon Eurofighter & Dassault Rafale - Ah The Twin Engine Safety!

 

[kEiThZ]

These analysts....Such BS. The goal of a fighter is combat first and foremost. And it's really hard to explain to civvies. It's really stealth or nothing going forward. Twin engines won't help you at all in combat. In fact, the first warning you'll have about being engaged is when the missile's radar goes active or you IR scanner picks up the the plume of missile, on the way to your tailpipe. The best hope is to build a stealthy frame that if detected, makes it tough to get and hold a lock.

If we don't buy a stealth bird, the government needs to start making restrictions on combat operations mandatory. Because the survivability of our platforms will suck. At present, we put aircraft and crews into combat immediately. Our guys landed in Italy and started bombing runs into Libya within a day. We can't do that without stealth going forward.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If we don't buy a stealth bird, the government needs to start making restrictions on combat operations mandatory.

Which we do. Name me one post-war example where we've engaged in combat ops outside of overwhelming Allied air supremacy. Not including some RCAF pilots exchanged into the USAF during Korea, the air force hasn't engaged in air to air combat since WW2. We have been making the restrictions you mention; we only move earth.

Because the survivability of our platforms will suck. At present, we put aircraft and crews into combat immediately. Our guys landed in Italy and started bombing runs into Libya within a day. We can't do that without stealth going forward.

Okay, so tomorrow or in 2027 we start bombing Nigeria or Libya or whatever 3rd world despotic regime is de rigueur at the UN. How exactly can't we do that with Eurofighters, or even museum-era CF-18s?

If the Eurofighter can meet the needs of the RAF and Luftwaffe, the two European air forces most likely to face top grade opposition like the Su-35 and Su-57 , why exactly is it a terrible choice for Canada?

 

[kEiThZ]

Name me one post-war example where we've engaged in combat ops outside of overwhelming Allied air supremacy.

Kosovo at the start. I know Hornet drivers who had missiles fired their way.

Okay, so tomorrow or in 2027 we start bombing Nigeria or Libya or whatever 3rd world despotic regime is de rigueur at the UN. How exactly can't we do that with Eurofighters, or even museum-era CF-18s?

This is a common Canadian viewpoint. And it frustrates the crap out of those of us in uniform. Do people not realized that the Nigeria or Libya's of 2050 will have equipment that is considered sophisticated today? We are not buying for today. We are buying to have an aircraft that will still have a shot at bringing the pilot home in 2040-2050.

If the Eurofighter can meet the needs of the RAF and Luftwaffe, the two European air forces most likely to face top grade opposition like the Su-35 and Su-57 , why exactly is it a terrible choice for Canada?

Terrible choice? No. I like the Typhoon. But even the Europeans are realizing that stealth is where much not an option going forward. The Typhoon would have been the perfect choice. If we bought it a decade ago.

I don't understand why people don't get this. The public has seen how much smartphones have improved in a decade. Yet, they don't seem to get that similar (or even further) advances are being made in military technology. Radars are getting smaller and cheaper. IR cameras that you can buy commercially have better resolution that the sensors on most missiles we have. Image processing is getting so good that the missiles can tell which aircraft or ship it is and compute an impact point that will maximize damage. AI is getting to the point it can provide an element of leading guidance for missiles. And railguns are coming along so quickly that it's possible they'll make missiles obsoletes on ships in a decade (with first deployments in 5 years). And they have speeds that make missiles look like they're walking (2000 m/s muzzle velocity, Mach 6), with rounds that cost a fraction of what missiles do. And that's before we discuss energy weapons. All this means that we're reaching the point where you cannot employ superior kinematics to evade a threat. The only hope is to maximize every possible way to avoid detection and if detected to avoid a targeting lock. No amount of engines, or maneuverability will save you from a hypersonic projectile fired from a railgun that's been designed to take out an incoming maneuvering ICBM or from a laser.

I always wonder. Do people really think that those of us in the military are clueless and don't understand technology, our jobs and we need to do those jobs despite having a whole cadre of defence scientists, analysts and military officers with advanced science and engineering education? It's almost as if it never occurs to people that we are professionals who know our stuff and are providing advice for the nation's benefit.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Kosovo at the start. I know Hornet drivers who had missiles fired their way.



This is a common Canadian viewpoint. And it frustrates the crap out of those of us in uniform. Do people not realized that the Nigeria or Libya's of 2050 will have equipment that is considered sophisticated today? We are not buying for today. We are buying to have an aircraft that will still have a shot at bringing the pilot home in 2040-2050.



Terrible choice? No. I like the Typhoon. But even the Europeans are realizing that stealth is where much not an option going forward. The Typhoon would have been the perfect choice. If we bought it a decade ago.

I don't understand why people don't get this. The public has seen how much smartphones have improved in a decade. Yet, they don't seem to get that similar (or even further) advances are being made in military technology. Radars are getting smaller and cheaper. IR cameras that you can buy commercially have better resolution that the sensors on most missiles we have. Image processing is getting so good that the missiles can tell which aircraft or ship it is and compute an impact point that will maximize damage. AI is getting to the point it can provide an element of leading guidance for missiles. And railguns are coming along so quickly that it's possible they'll make missiles obsoletes on ships in a decade (with first deployments in 5 years). And they have speeds that make missiles look like they're walking (2000 m/s muzzle velocity, Mach 6), with rounds that cost a fraction of what missiles do. And that's before we discuss energy weapons. All this means that we're reaching the point where you cannot employ superior kinematics to evade a threat. The only hope is to maximize every possible way to avoid detection and if detected to avoid a targeting lock. No amount of engines, or maneuverability will save you from a hypersonic projectile fired from a railgun that's been designed to take out an incoming maneuvering ICBM or from a laser.

I always wonder. Do people really think that those of us in the military are clueless and don't understand technology, our jobs and we need to do those jobs despite having a whole cadre of defence scientists, analysts and military officers with advanced science and engineering education? It's almost as if it never occurs to people that we are professionals who know our stuff and are providing advice for the nation's benefit.

I think I understand your points and POV. But then, if we must buy stealth, is the F-35 the only choice?

Can we hold out for the Typhoon's replacement by buying surplus Super Hornets or Typhoons today?
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/airbus-reveals-tornado-successor-concept-for-2040s/

I think the ignorant public's disdain for the F-35 would lessen once it's in wider service globally, and if the Liberals got behind it. It was PM Paul Martin's pick after all.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think I understand your points and POV. But then, if we must buy stealth, is the F-35 the only choice?

Can we hold out for the Typhoon's replacement by buying surplus Super Hornets or Typhoons today?
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/airbus-reveals-tornado-successor-concept-for-2040s/

We can buy whatever we want. As long as the government fully understands the risks associated with it. We probably don't really need stealth until the mid 2030s. The US Navy and Royal Australian Air Force are both saying they need F-35s beyond 2035. So let's got with that date. So we could buy something else now and then wait to buy a fleet in 2040. Or the government can buy a fleet, with the understanding that there will be consequences to Canada's foreign and defence policies beyond 2035.

But waiting till the 2040s for a replacement aircraft is sheer madness. The CF-18s are already long in the tooth and some of the most high-time airframes of all F-18 users worldwide. It's through some extreme hardwork and engineering of our techs and engineers that we keep that fleet operational and safe. At best, we can do that till 2025, and getting to that date will probably require a billion or more. So diminishing returns and in 2025, their fatigue life will be such that we'll have to start retiring frames. The cost of spares will also skyrocket as other F-18 users start retiring their aircraft. We're already at a point that we're pouring in ridiculous amounts of money to keep these aircraft relevant and flying. The returns on these investments are terrible. And all because the current and previous governments were too inept to launch a replacement program.

$400 million just for structural life extension:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extending-cf-18-lifespan-to-cost-about-400-million-report-1.2869532

And I'd argue that's lowballing it. And this after $2.6 billion a decade ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-cf-18-upgrade-1.3623418

I am going to bet that it'll come to a billion when all is said and done in 2025. That's a billion that could be put towards new aircraft.

I think the ignorant public's disdain for the F-35 would lessen once it's in wider service globally, and if the Liberals got behind it. It was PM Paul Martin's pick after all.

I actually have been surprised to see a little bit more awareness. It's entirely possible that the public is ahead of the government on this. And would accept the F-35 if the government announced it. At minimum, I don't think they would penalize the government for it. At least, they should launch the competition alluded to during the election.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I actually have been surprised to see a little bit more awareness. It's entirely possible that the public is ahead of the government on this. And would accept the F-35 if the government announced it. At minimum, I don't think they would penalize the government for it. At least, they should launch the competition alluded to during the election.

I think this government is afraid to make any decision on this file, or more accurately does not want to be seen as buying combat aircraft. So, they’ll kick this down the road until we’ll into the next mandate. Would Trudeau have bought the Leopard 2 tanks, Globemasters and Chinooks?

Makes one wonder what the CAF would look like had Paul Martin or Dion defeated Harper in 2006 or 2008.