More grist for the F18 replacement mill..

[Duke Point]

reactivate the VooDoo's from all our museums and put a couple of new engines on em…. DONE.

Everything else is a HUGE waste of tax dollars that ---- I and you ---- could spend elsewhere.

Pretty much the dumbest idea I've heard yet. Nice try though.

Our convoluted fighter procurement program is only a reflection of our vastly intelligent Canadian public, along with their ideas, to what our military needs. The government is in no hurry to replace the Hornets because Canadians as a whole, don't really care, about anything really, beyond their borders. Ask your average Canadian and their response will ultimately be "the US will protect us". While that may be true, the US will only defend their own interests, which includes Canadian resources. It will only take a US president to say enough is enough and give Canada an ultimatum to which we will bend over to like the cowards we are.

Please. You knew I wasn't serious right? Those museum relics are rotten to the core, and would likely shed parts all the way down the runway with the first thrust application.

Fighters are an archaic concept perpetuated to groom the egos of "muscle flexing countries" and fighter jocks who live in a bygone era. Drones and sattelites can do nearly everything a fighter jet can do at a fraction of the cost.

Canada will never deploy a fighter force large enough to make -any- difference in -any- theater anyway.

Canada hasn't been serious since the Arrow program was cancelled....why would we be? There is NO threat coming from Russia, China or North Korea that ---any fighter of any capacity--- that Canada could purchase---in the numbers we intend to purchase---would make ANY difference.

Reality sucks if you're an aspiring fighter pilot, but that era has passed, so we shouldn't WASTE money on it.

Ten to twelve new Boeing P8's, about 30 Predator drones and a proper fleet of Icebreaking patrol ships, and a couple of Heavy Icebreakers would be more than sufficient to protect our boarders.....from what exactly, I don't know.

FYI…..No country will be invading Canada......and -any- "serious incursion" ( if there ever is one....EVER) will be dealt with on the political stage.

DP.

[goingnowherefast]

Politics would be lop sided if there's no physical deterrent. Russia wants the arctic, so sends planes to poke into the airspace, challenge sovereignty. Canada sees it on RADAR, and phones the Russians. Russia says "what are you going to do about it? Send a 737 (P8)?"

Fighter jets are political tools. Ocassionally they get used to drop bombs on "terrorists". But primarily they're a political tool.

[Duke Point]

Politics would be lop sided if there's no physical deterrent. Russia wants the arctic, so sends planes to poke into the airspace, challenge sovereignty. Canada sees it on RADAR, and phones the Russians. Russia says "what are you going to do about it? Send a 737 (P8)?"

Fighter jets are political tools. Ocassionally they get used to drop bombs on "terrorists". But primarily they're a political tool.

Fighters are a useless tool period, political or otherwise....what they are is fugging EXPENSIVE....and they're dangerous in the hands of "hotheads". Intercept missions are only wasteful "posturing" missions paid for by taxpayers of both Countries involved.

The idea is to "know whos there"....then find out why....not fight them. What a ridiculous notion in this day and age....Canada dogfighting Russia. Do you have any idea what type of political firestorm would erupt if Russia "invaded" our Continent? A hundered Canadian F-22's wouldn't intimidate Russia. So Russians are staying "in Russia" for other reasons. The fact remains that the US would not allow an invasion of North America....PERIOD.

"What are you going to do about it".....ridiculous comment. There are no amount of fighters that Canadians could afford that would keep Russia at bay if they had the mind to invade....and the US wouldn't even ask our permission to stop them, even on our own soil. We share the largest unguarded border on the planet with the US for a reason, and they wouldn't think twice about crossing it to protect the integrity of the Continent.

Nothing happens on this Continent militarily without the US knowing about it. For us to "deal with invaders" with force, would only be allowed by the US if they think our paltry Air Force could handle it. But it isn't going to happen anyway.

DP.

[AuxBatOn]

Glad to know I am a hothead. Have you ever met and interracted with a fighter pilot for more than 5 minutes? Where's your evidence that we are "hotheads"?

It's not about dogfighting. It's about asserting sovereignty.

[rookiepilot]

Our country needs more unabashed patriots willing to defend sovereignty and what Canada stands for, not the wishy wash version espoused out there.
If that is a hothead so am I.

[pelmet]

It is nice to say that there is no threat in North America and that the US can deal with it, but there are other places than North America such as out deployments in Europe where there is a threat. Our alliance of nations makes us unbeatable right now, but there is a large nation growing in power in Asia and they are aligning themselves with Russia(at least for the moment). That is a threat, whether you want to admit it or not.

Sadly, our govenrments usually will find a way to spend out money. I much prefer F35's to social engineering from lies in reports about supposed genocide.

Sorry guys, no money available for you, it is going to jet fuel to keep all of us free.

[Heliian]

It is nice to say that there is no threat in North America and that the US can deal with it, but there are other places than North America such as out deployments in Europe where there is a threat. Our alliance of nations makes us unbeatable right now, but there is a large nation growing in power in Asia and they are aligning themselves with Russia(at least for the moment). That is a threat, whether you want to admit it or not.

Sadly, our govenrments usually will find a way to spend out money. I much prefer F35's to social engineering from lies in reports about supposed genocide.

Sorry guys, no money available for you, it is going to jet fuel to keep all of us free.

Why don't we just align with them then.

[B208]

It is nice to say that there is no threat in North America and that the US can deal with it, but there are other places than North America such as out deployments in Europe where there is a threat. Our alliance of nations makes us unbeatable right now, but there is a large nation growing in power in Asia and they are aligning themselves with Russia(at least for the moment). That is a threat, whether you want to admit it or not.

Sadly, our govenrments usually will find a way to spend out money. I much prefer F35's to social engineering from lies in reports about supposed genocide.

Sorry guys, no money available for you, it is going to jet fuel to keep all of us free.

Why don't we just align with them then.

I guess you admire their ‘basic dictatorship’. That puts you in esteemed intellectual company.

[Duke Point]

Glad to know I am a hothead. Have you ever met and interracted with a fighter pilot for more than 5 minutes? Where's your evidence that we are "hotheads"?

It's not about dogfighting. It's about asserting sovereignty.

No, they aren't ALL "hotheads".....I didn't say that. It only takes one, and an armed fighter in the hands of one who loses his cool is dangerous.

Yes....I've interacted with many former F-18 guys..... for hundreds of hours on the flightdeck. What I can't figure out is why the majority of them chose to remain FO's when they have had ample opportunity to go left. Its a bit strange.

Asserting Sovereignty? Why? Canada is a Sovereign respected nation, a member of the G8 and G20. Our opinion is taken seriously by every nation that matters. We live in a political/economic world, there is nothing that can't now be achieved through negotiation or sanctions.

Canada's issue isn't having a "fighting force" its having enough eyes on the North, and having a "presence". P8's and icebreakers.

If we "need" fighters for some reason, we can get others well maintained cast-offs cuz we might as well buy them "cheep and obsolete" because they will be for most of their service life anyway......how long do we normally keep fighters....40-45 years?

DP.

[ehv8oar]

FYI…..No country will be invading Canada......and -any- "serious incursion" ( if there ever is one....EVER) will be dealt with on the political stage.

Saying Canada will never before threatened by an invasion of any merit is kinda shortsighted. What if a significant amount of oil is discovered in the arctic region of Canadian territory and in a few years time, when resources are perhaps getting scarcer, Russia decides it wants it.

Look at what happened in Crimea, a limited Russian invasion to get what they want and then the UN talks it out and Russia gets to stay where it is. I'm not sure that in a scenario like that the U.S would risk a full on conflict with Russia to stop them grabbing some Canadian territory.

If Canada's capable of putting up enough of a deterrent though to make Russia take longer in getting that territory then it's less likely they'd consider doing it in the first place.

[Duke Point]

FYI…..No country will be invading Canada......and -any- "serious incursion" ( if there ever is one....EVER) will be dealt with on the political stage.

Saying Canada will never before threatened by an invasion of any merit is kinda shortsighted. What if a significant amount of oil is discovered in the arctic region of Canadian territory and in a few years time, when resources are perhaps getting scarcer, Russia decides it wants it.

Look at what happened in Crimea, a limited Russian invasion to get what they want and then the UN talks it out and Russia gets to stay where it is. I'm not sure that in a scenario like that the U.S would risk a full on conflict with Russia to stop them grabbing some Canadian territory.

If Canada's capable of putting up enough of a deterrent though to make Russia take longer in getting that territory then it's less likely they'd consider doing it in the first place.

That's insane.

There is no way one can predict the political climate 30-50 years down the road. Spending billions on F-35's today won't make any difference then as they will be 20 years obsolete by then. Why don't we wait until there is a clear "need" before we go off spending billions. The Crimea is one thing, as it was formerly in the USSR, and had a significant Russian population...…. but invading the territory of a G8 nation is pure political suicide.

If Canada is at risk of losing the North, ---the US will absolutely annex Canada--- out of securing its northern border before Russia or China ever makes a move.

The US sees North America as its own......resources and all. The only reason Canada is US free, is because there is no imminent threat to the Continent.

We can make up excuses all day about why Canada need the "newest shiny baubles" in the Aviation world. But the fact remains, Canada would never buy enough, nor man enough, nor keep enough flying to intimidate anyone in the first world.

If someone determines we do need a fighter presence in the Arctic....the first step should be building a few more airports north of the 60. A handful of used upgraded F-15's should be easy to come by.

DP.

[B208]

FYI…..No country will be invading Canada......and -any- "serious incursion" ( if there ever is one....EVER) will be dealt with on the political stage.

Saying Canada will never before threatened by an invasion of any merit is kinda shortsighted. What if a significant amount of oil is discovered in the arctic region of Canadian territory and in a few years time, when resources are perhaps getting scarcer, Russia decides it wants it.

Look at what happened in Crimea, a limited Russian invasion to get what they want and then the UN talks it out and Russia gets to stay where it is. I'm not sure that in a scenario like that the U.S would risk a full on conflict with Russia to stop them grabbing some Canadian territory.

If Canada's capable of putting up enough of a deterrent though to make Russia take longer in getting that territory then it's less likely they'd consider doing it in the first place.

That's insane.

There is no way one can predict the political climate 30-50 years down the road. Spending billions on F-35's today won't make any difference then as they will be 20 years obsolete by then. Why don't we wait until there is a clear "need" before we go off spending billions. The Crimea is one thing, as it was formerly in the USSR, and had a significant Russian population...…. but invading the territory of a G8 nation is pure political suicide.

If Canada is at risk of losing the North, ---the US will absolutely annex Canada--- out of securing its northern border before Russia or China ever makes a move.

The US sees North America as its own......resources and all. The only reason Canada is US free, is because there is no imminent threat to the Continent.

We can make up excuses all day about why Canada need the "newest shiny baubles" in the Aviation world. But the fact remains, Canada would never buy enough, nor man enough, nor keep enough flying to intimidate anyone in the first world.

If someone determines we do need a fighter presence in the Arctic....the first step should be building a few more airports north of the 60. A handful of used upgraded F-15's should be easy to come by.

DP.

You are a complete dipstick.

[ehv8oar]

That's insane.

There is no way one can predict the political climate 30-50 years down the road. Spending billions on F-35's today won't make any difference then as they will be 20 years obsolete by then. Why don't we wait until there is a clear "need" before we go off spending billions. The Crimea is one thing, as it was formerly in the USSR, and had a significant Russian population...…. but invading the territory of a G8 nation is pure political suicide.

If Canada is at risk of losing the North, ---the US will absolutely annex Canada--- out of securing its northern border before Russia or China ever makes a move.

The US sees North America as its own......resources and all. The only reason Canada is US free, is because there is no imminent threat to the Continent.

We can make up excuses all day about why Canada need the "newest shiny baubles" in the Aviation world. But the fact remains, Canada would never buy enough, nor man enough, nor keep enough flying to intimidate anyone in the first world.

If someone determines we do need a fighter presence in the Arctic....the first step should be building a few more airports north of the 60. A handful of used upgraded F-15's should be easy to come by.

DP.

Do you know anything about history at all?

I'll try to educate you:

Look at the Falklands conflict when Argentina decided it would be a good idea to invade the Falklands Islands because a) it would distract from the internal problems the current leadership were having at that time and b) because they thought there was the possibility of significant oil reserves being there. The UK had been reducing it's military in that region at the time which gave the Argentinian leadership the idea that if they invaded then the UK wouldn't do anything about it (the UK is a G8 nation). That was a mistaken belief on their behalf but if the UK had kept significant military resources in the region the Argentinians would never have tried in the first place.

A big part of why the UK and France retained nuclear weapons is because if it absolutely came to it and Russia had invaded western Europe in the cold war would the U.S have risked it all to defend territory which isn't it's own, maybe but maybe not. The UK and France having those weapons meant the Russians new they would be facing an adversary that certainly would have defended itself to the max and had the means to do so.

If you gamble on thinking that the U.S would start a full scale war with Russia because some far north Canadian territory gets annexed you might just be proven wrong, but if Canada can defend itself adequately to give the other NATO members time to come to it's aid then that's probably what would happen.

[AuxBatOn]

A “just in time” solution to a fighter force is not an option. Competency is built on decades of experience training and operating with partner nations. You can’t stand up a fighter force one year and expect it to be capable the next.

You need to keep a cadre of capable pilots that are able to teach and mentor the young generations.

[ehv8oar]

A “just in time” solution to a fighter force is not an option. Competency is built on decades of experience training and operating with partner nations. You can’t stand up a fighter force one year and expect it to be capable the next.

You need to keep a cadre of capable pilots that are able to teach and mentor the young generations.

Exactly, it's a long term investment.

[BMLtech]

Another issue nobody is talking about is the age of the RCAF A310 fleet. Those ex-wardair machines are now around 35 years old and must be on the verge of non-viable. I'd say a mixed 737-based fleet order of p8/wedgetail/BBJ would make economic and operational sense. Another plus is commonality with canadian commercial operators which should benefit maintenance and training costs.The tanker requirement is another story. I have a bit of trouble with the notion that a southern-based fighter force has much to do with arctic sovereignty. Maybe if we had a year round arctic fighter base, but still pretty useless without any surveillance capability. Anyone else think that surveillance of the north west passage and arctic in addition to our other coastlines in general is probably one of Canada's most pressing defence needs in the near term? I also think we have been lucky so far that there hasn't been a major airline incident or sea search and rescue op in the high arctic yet with all of the polar activity now. I have my doubts on Canada's ability to respond at present.

[Duke Point]

That's insane.

There is no way one can predict the political climate 30-50 years down the road. Spending billions on F-35's today won't make any difference then as they will be 20 years obsolete by then. Why don't we wait until there is a clear "need" before we go off spending billions. The Crimea is one thing, as it was formerly in the USSR, and had a significant Russian population...…. but invading the territory of a G8 nation is pure political suicide.

If Canada is at risk of losing the North, ---the US will absolutely annex Canada--- out of securing its northern border before Russia or China ever makes a move.

The US sees North America as its own......resources and all. The only reason Canada is US free, is because there is no imminent threat to the Continent.

We can make up excuses all day about why Canada need the "newest shiny baubles" in the Aviation world. But the fact remains, Canada would never buy enough, nor man enough, nor keep enough flying to intimidate anyone in the first world.

If someone determines we do need a fighter presence in the Arctic....the first step should be building a few more airports north of the 60. A handful of used upgraded F-15's should be easy to come by.

DP.

Do you know anything about history at all?

I'll try to educate you:

Look at the Falklands conflict when Argentina decided it would be a good idea to invade the Falklands Islands because a) it would distract from the internal problems the current leadership were having at that time and b) because they thought there was the possibility of significant oil reserves being there. The UK had been reducing it's military in that region at the time which gave the Argentinian leadership the idea that if they invaded then the UK wouldn't do anything about it (the UK is a G8 nation). That was a mistaken belief on their behalf but if the UK had kept significant military resources in the region the Argentinians would never have tried in the first place.

A big part of why the UK and France retained nuclear weapons is because if it absolutely came to it and Russia had invaded western Europe in the cold war would the U.S have risked it all to defend territory which isn't it's own, maybe but maybe not. The UK and France having those weapons meant the Russians new they would be facing an adversary that certainly would have defended itself to the max and had the means to do so.

If you gamble on thinking that the U.S would start a full scale war with Russia because some far north Canadian territory gets annexed you might just be proven wrong, but if Canada can defend itself adequately to give the other NATO members time to come to it's aid then that's probably what would happen.

……. just climbing out from under my historical rock now.

Annexing Canadian strategic oil reserves in the northern territories cannot be compared to the Falklands conflict in any capacity other than that it was a territory that was invaded.....and successfully defended.....if not militarily, then it would have been politically. I don't blame Britian for not keeping a hugely expensive military force patrolling the Falklands.....it isn't worth it...at all. Thatcher's attempted showboat failed to a degree. Neither side made an impressive showing, at all. Besides if 'ol Britannia took weeks to reclaim a few hundered square km from the likes of Argentina....how exactly would we fare militarily against Russia??? Swatting a fly comes to mind.

Russia, nor China are coming to North America any time soon. Any thought that a handful of fighters, however capable would stop Russia is unbelievably delusional. If you want to defend Canada from a threat....get nukes. We have had the knowhow and capability to build them since 1944....we were intimate with the British and Americans in their initial development.

Any thoughts that they will annex parts of Canada, while the Americans cower in fear to avoid involvement are stupid.

This topic is a waste of time. Canada isn't about to be invaded. The US has a very, very serious defensive interest in North American oil reserves, wherever they may be. To think they'd allow Russia to set up shop just East of Alaska is laughable.

Like I said before....P8's to patrol the north, Icebreakers and a few Arctic seaports are all we need...or better, and cheeper yet....just give each northern resident a new Polaris 800 and a Stinger.


DP.

[ehv8oar]

You kinda missed the point entirely there duke point

[Heliian]

Saying Canada will never before threatened by an invasion of any merit is kinda shortsighted. What if a significant amount of oil is discovered in the arctic region of Canadian territory and in a few years time, when resources are perhaps getting scarcer, Russia decides it wants it.

Look at what happened in Crimea, a limited Russian invasion to get what they want and then the UN talks it out and Russia gets to stay where it is. I'm not sure that in a scenario like that the U.S would risk a full on conflict with Russia to stop them grabbing some Canadian territory.

If Canada's capable of putting up enough of a deterrent though to make Russia take longer in getting that territory then it's less likely they'd consider doing it in the first place.

That's insane.

There is no way one can predict the political climate 30-50 years down the road. Spending billions on F-35's today won't make any difference then as they will be 20 years obsolete by then. Why don't we wait until there is a clear "need" before we go off spending billions. The Crimea is one thing, as it was formerly in the USSR, and had a significant Russian population...…. but invading the territory of a G8 nation is pure political suicide.

If Canada is at risk of losing the North, ---the US will absolutely annex Canada--- out of securing its northern border before Russia or China ever makes a move.

The US sees North America as its own......resources and all. The only reason Canada is US free, is because there is no imminent threat to the Continent.

We can make up excuses all day about why Canada need the "newest shiny baubles" in the Aviation world. But the fact remains, Canada would never buy enough, nor man enough, nor keep enough flying to intimidate anyone in the first world.

If someone determines we do need a fighter presence in the Arctic....the first step should be building a few more airports north of the 60. A handful of used upgraded F-15's should be easy to come by.

DP.

You are a complete dipstick.

Name calling really shows your intellectual capacity.

[schnitzel2k3]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/

WASHINGTON — At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.

Lol.

S.

[Alav]

So let's finish that... At it's design service ceiling doing flutter tests. A coating failed. Hasn't happened outside those conditions.

Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program head, said there have been no cases of this problem occurring in the operational fleet and that incidents have been limited to the “highest extremes of flight testing conditions that are unlikely replicated in operational scenarios.”

[schnitzel2k3]

So let's finish that... At it's design service ceiling doing flutter tests. A coating failed. Hasn't happened outside those conditions.

Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program head, said there have been no cases of this problem occurring in the operational fleet and that incidents have been limited to the “highest extremes of flight testing conditions that are unlikely replicated in operational scenarios.”

Yet this limited problem has now created operational limits significantly lower than the original design. Anything beyond M1.2 and full burner is timed on the B/C models.

"For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. However, the time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.

The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

But for both the C and B models, flying at Mach 1.3 over the specified time limits poses the risk of inducing structural damage to the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer.

It is infeasible for the Navy or Marine Corps to operate the F-35 against a near-peer threat under such restrictions, the documents acknowledge."

Doesn't sound like those are 'near envelope' restrictions for a 5th gen fighter. Those sound like limitations for a Korean war MiG.

Hey, but it looks good at the airshows

S.

[AuxBatOn]

This is a temporary operational restriction until the issue can be accurately quantified and, if necessary, fixed. No need to be alarmed, it happens fairly regularly on operational aircraft as issues are uncovered (and yes, we find issues even on well established fleets). But hey, it's for the F-35.

[schnitzel2k3]

This is a temporary operational restriction until the issue can be accurately quantified and, if necessary, fixed. No need to be alarmed, it happens fairly regularly on operational aircraft as issues are uncovered (and yes, we find issues even on well established fleets). But hey, it's for the F-35.

Ths first appeared in 2011. Has this been fixed or is it still being quantified?

S.

[AuxBatOn]

This is a temporary operational restriction until the issue can be accurately quantified and, if necessary, fixed. No need to be alarmed, it happens fairly regularly on operational aircraft as issues are uncovered (and yes, we find issues even on well established fleets). But hey, it's for the F-35.

Ths first appeared in 2011. Has this been fixed or is it still being quantified?

S.

The jet is not at FOC yet. Give it some time to get the snags ironed out.

Edit: It happened once, at the very edge of the enveloppe during flutter testing. It hasn’t happened since. I think it’s a non-issue and I wouldn’t be surprised if the ops restriction has since been lifted.