BPF, it is not the advancement over the capabilities that the RCAF has now that is neede, but rather an advancement over any potential adversary fielding the latest Chinese or Russian aircraft....T-50 comes to mind. Secondly, th SH does NOT have cost certanties....it will need to be upgraded to remain effective. Upgrades are expensive and not easily defined nor costed with precision.... The MLU of our existing F18's are a perfect example. They are overdue, and way more expensive than any of the original estimates...cheers.Big Pistons Forever wrote:So why does it have to be our stealth aircraft ? After the first few days of Libyan SEAD ops the non stealthy CF 18 was extensively employed. All of the national security, foreign affairs and international objectives of Canada were achieved.Diadem wrote: Oh, and during the intervention in Libya the coalition had to use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy radar and anti-aircraft weapons before deploying fighters to enforce the no-fly zone. Shall I restate that stealth aircraft were able to operate in a warzone from which conventional aircraft were initially prohibited?
Canada has never conducted unilateral strike operations. All of out operations have been part of a coalition of like minded nations. Each of these countries contributed to the extent of the political will not to the extent of the capabilities of the equipment they had. I think that it is in the future national security interests of Canada to maintain the capability for tactical air effects. I have yet to see a cogent argument for why Canada would want to conduct first strike warfare, the principal advantage to a high end stealth platform.
In my mind the choice is simple.
1) Do we go with a as yet unproven F 35 stealth platform with no cost certainty and one that will require substantial investment in the legacy F18 fleet due to the ongoing program delays, or
2) Do we go with the highly proven mature F18E/F platform which has total cost certainty, is available before the current fleet ages out and represents a substantial advance in capability over what we have now ?
The F-35 is not dead
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
tailgunner
- Rank 7
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Well, I'm an enormous critic of the F-35 and I absolutely do recognize this ability based somewhat on experience. What the proponents of the F-35 fail to grasp is that the F-35 isn't the only airplane that will do that. They are also completely ignoring the many, many, MANY shortcomings of that dog not least of which is a cost so prohibitive and uncertain that it's already reduced the numbers down to a skeletal minimum and the airplane isn't even out of development yet.tailgunner wrote:What the critics of the F35 have failed to grasp, is the enormous ability this will provide us in international affairs.
Oh yeah...and it only has one engine. That used to matter before given Canada's unique, vast, empty and inhospitable territory but for some reason isn't a factor anymore. I very much think it still is.
Re: The F-35 is not dead
I think of the one the big issues around this debate (which has indeed gotten circular) is that we don't seem to know exactly what we want our fighters FOR.
So I just remembered the "Canada First Defence Strategy" ... you'd think that should give us a hint, right?
Well no, it turns out it's a a purchasing and economic stimulus package! Other than a few paragraphs at the beginning on the mission, EVERYTHING else is about funding, purchases, industry partnerships, etc.
Nothing about the state of the world, international affairs, terrorism, the rise of asia, etc.
Some defence strategy, that's pretty despicable from a supposedly "law and order", "defence friendly" government. Not to mention that now some years later, you read it and you can't help but, laugh/cry at the same time, given how poorly the hole thing has been going forward and handled.
So how about finding out what the hell all this is supposed to be FOR? I bet we'd agree a whole lot more on the kind of plane we'd like to have if we did that first. It would make the sales job on the F-35 a heck of a lot easier (assuming it is indeed the right plane after all) too, because you could then clearly demonstrate what it is that this aircraft gives us that we need.
So I just remembered the "Canada First Defence Strategy" ... you'd think that should give us a hint, right?
Well no, it turns out it's a a purchasing and economic stimulus package! Other than a few paragraphs at the beginning on the mission, EVERYTHING else is about funding, purchases, industry partnerships, etc.
Nothing about the state of the world, international affairs, terrorism, the rise of asia, etc.
Some defence strategy, that's pretty despicable from a supposedly "law and order", "defence friendly" government. Not to mention that now some years later, you read it and you can't help but, laugh/cry at the same time, given how poorly the hole thing has been going forward and handled.
So how about finding out what the hell all this is supposed to be FOR? I bet we'd agree a whole lot more on the kind of plane we'd like to have if we did that first. It would make the sales job on the F-35 a heck of a lot easier (assuming it is indeed the right plane after all) too, because you could then clearly demonstrate what it is that this aircraft gives us that we need.
Re: The F-35 is not dead
To paraphrase from the above link...(couldn't cut and paste)
- Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD
* So does the CF-35 as a single engine stealth fighter with moderate speed fit this role?
- Support a major international event in Canada such as the 2010 Olympics
* So how does the stealth assist in this mission?
* How do the other capabilities assist?
- Respond to a major terrorist attack
* So does the CF-35 as a single engine stealth fighter with moderate speed fit this role?
- Support Civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada, such as a natural disaster
* So how does the stealth assist in this mission?
* How do the other capabilities assist?
- Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and
* So how does the stealth assist in this mission?
* How do the other capabilities assist?
- Deploy forces in response to crisis elsewhere in the world for shorter periods
* So how does the stealth assist in this mission?
* How do the other capabilities assist?
"If" the link provided these in order of priority how does the CF-35 fit the overall need?
- Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD
* So does the CF-35 as a single engine stealth fighter with moderate speed fit this role?
- Support a major international event in Canada such as the 2010 Olympics
* So how does the stealth assist in this mission?
* How do the other capabilities assist?
- Respond to a major terrorist attack
* So does the CF-35 as a single engine stealth fighter with moderate speed fit this role?
- Support Civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada, such as a natural disaster
* So how does the stealth assist in this mission?
* How do the other capabilities assist?
- Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and
* So how does the stealth assist in this mission?
* How do the other capabilities assist?
- Deploy forces in response to crisis elsewhere in the world for shorter periods
* So how does the stealth assist in this mission?
* How do the other capabilities assist?
"If" the link provided these in order of priority how does the CF-35 fit the overall need?
Re: The F-35 is not dead
The arguments I'm hearing in favour of the F-35 focus more around the last two points (I don't think they're in a particular order of priority mind you). Notably, our ability to more closely operate with allied air forces (Notably the US Air Force, presumably, or more generally NATO) on international operations, and participate in combat missions.
I'm not sure you need the F-35 features for the first four ... Or a fighter at all! For "continental operations", the F-35 seems like overkill ... A pure interceptor is what you want there I'd think (This is what the F-104 was selected for way back when?)?
Still, those bullet points don't tell you much about what our strategy is going to be, or why. International missions? OK, what kind? Why? Where? What's your crystal ball telling you?
There's a number of scenarios where drones are looking more and more appealing ... I mean the ability to loiter for hours if not days with weapons ready to use, sure seems handy. And it's cheaper and you risk less lives (your own anyways!).
Some have alluded at a mixed fleet ... Maybe we should consider a fighter/interceptor + drones (for ground attack and intelligence gathering at least?)?
I'm not sure you need the F-35 features for the first four ... Or a fighter at all! For "continental operations", the F-35 seems like overkill ... A pure interceptor is what you want there I'd think (This is what the F-104 was selected for way back when?)?
Still, those bullet points don't tell you much about what our strategy is going to be, or why. International missions? OK, what kind? Why? Where? What's your crystal ball telling you?
There's a number of scenarios where drones are looking more and more appealing ... I mean the ability to loiter for hours if not days with weapons ready to use, sure seems handy. And it's cheaper and you risk less lives (your own anyways!).
Some have alluded at a mixed fleet ... Maybe we should consider a fighter/interceptor + drones (for ground attack and intelligence gathering at least?)?
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Good points
Now I think we need to consider how many aircraft we have really deployed in the last two missions.
- Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and
- Deploy forces in response to crisis elsewhere in the world for shorter periods
6? 8? 10? Somebody have the real answer?
Now I think we need to consider how many aircraft we have really deployed in the last two missions.
- Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and
- Deploy forces in response to crisis elsewhere in the world for shorter periods
6? 8? 10? Somebody have the real answer?
Re: The F-35 is not dead
24 jets were deployed to Qatar for Gulf War 1, and it took the resources of the entire Canadian fighter community to support that level, tempo and duration of fighter operations. That was also back when Canada was coming off the high of NATO support and had three squadrons in place in Germany along with those based on Canadian soil. We couldn't come close to doing that now.Tom H wrote:Now I think we need to consider how many aircraft we have really deployed in the last two missions.- Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and- Deploy forces in response to crisis elsewhere in the world for shorter periods
6? 8? 10? Somebody have the real answer?
Yugoslavia was 18 jets I believe, and Libya was 6 plus 1 spare.
All of which stands to be corrected by those currently serving.
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Libya was 7 at any given time. Kosovo surged to 18 I believe. Remember that aircraft need to be cycled for maintenance and training needs to continue at home.
We didn't lose anybody in Libya but people got shot at. We survived because our defensive suite was built and designed to counter those threats. Guess what more and more countries acquire? Todays SAMs. We need an aircraft capable of defeating today's threats. I don't think we'll see much more legacy SA-2, SA-3, etc...
We didn't lose anybody in Libya but people got shot at. We survived because our defensive suite was built and designed to counter those threats. Guess what more and more countries acquire? Todays SAMs. We need an aircraft capable of defeating today's threats. I don't think we'll see much more legacy SA-2, SA-3, etc...
Going for the deck at corner
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Thank you for the "first hand" information.
It also confirms what I have been thinking in that we need a mixed fleet.
Taking away from the information you have provided we appear to have a need for 20 (ish) combat aircraft that can seamlessly work with our allies for international missions.
That may or may not be the F-35, but it is a real need.
But what about the rest of the missions?
- Sovereignty patrol and Interception being one that I consider important.
- Other border related issues such as smuggling, fisheries etc.
Frankly I don't see the F-35 (based on published performance etc) being a fit or economical
In my highly biased personal opinion
It also confirms what I have been thinking in that we need a mixed fleet.
Taking away from the information you have provided we appear to have a need for 20 (ish) combat aircraft that can seamlessly work with our allies for international missions.
That may or may not be the F-35, but it is a real need.
But what about the rest of the missions?
- Sovereignty patrol and Interception being one that I consider important.
- Other border related issues such as smuggling, fisheries etc.
Frankly I don't see the F-35 (based on published performance etc) being a fit or economical
In my highly biased personal opinion
Re: The F-35 is not dead
We don't have the manpower for a mixed fleet, let alone one fleet, unless they move 4 Wing to an area without a massive oil industry.Tom H wrote:It also confirms what I have been thinking in that we need a mixed fleet.
Re: The F-35 is not dead
20!?Tom H wrote:Thank you for the "first hand" information.
It also confirms what I have been thinking in that we need a mixed fleet.
Taking away from the information you have provided we appear to have a need for 20 (ish) combat aircraft that can seamlessly work with our allies for international missions.
That may or may not be the F-35, but it is a real need.
But what about the rest of the missions?
- Sovereignty patrol and Interception being one that I consider important.
- Other border related issues such as smuggling, fisheries etc.
Frankly I don't see the F-35 (based on published performance etc) being a fit or economical
In my highly biased personal opinion
6 for ops, 5 in maintenance at any given time. You have 9 left for training new pilots, generating combat ready leads and wingmen AND maintaining currency and proficiency? What about if we want to bump up our commitments to 12 now? Mixed fleet=more overall fighters (compared to a single fleet)The overhead (training, currency, maintenance) cannot be shared and must be duplicated to some level.
Want to conduct kinetic operations in the future (next 40 years)? The only suitable plane available is the JSF
Going for the deck at corner
Re: The F-35 is not dead
If it's an aircraft for all roles, then no mixed fleet I agree, we can'T afford that for sure.
The only way I'd mix is with a much more prominent role for drones, and a well defined set of mission profiles we'd get involved in.
We coudl even develop some new expertise, like UAV-based close air support?
The only way I'd mix is with a much more prominent role for drones, and a well defined set of mission profiles we'd get involved in.
We coudl even develop some new expertise, like UAV-based close air support?
Re: The F-35 is not dead
For the International mission and limited home use seems reasonable.20!?
6 for ops, 5 in maintenance at any given time. You have 9 left for training new pilots, generating combat ready leads and wingmen AND maintaining currency and proficiency?
(6) for overseas deployment...maybe (7)
(5) in maintenance...thought the new gen was supposed to require less maintenance but ok.
(9) for training and limited domestic use under that use...maybe (8)
For those missions, given the overall size of our military, particularly the airforce, seems a pretty reasonable commitment to the mission specific.
If you disagree please explain.
Our International commitment is a political decision and if the Government of Canada can justify a larger commitment to Canadians so be it.What about if we want to bump up our commitments to 12 now?
But from your and Rockies comments I am extrapolating what "I" and other Canadians would likely see as realistic and justifiable.
Certainly..that's the pointMixed fleet=more overall fighters (compared to a single fleet)
Many of the 5th Gen capabilities are likely not needed for the other missions resulting in less expensive aircraft, servicing etc and could act as a lead in the the 5th Gen and the "elite" International unit.
Offset by simpler easier to service aircraft that would allow the expensive 5th Gen to keep hours down to currency, training and mission specific.The overhead (training, currency, maintenance) cannot be shared and must be duplicated to some level.
Could be a Canadian built 4th Gen from another manufacturer or domestic all the way through allowing for a greater domestic benefit ($$$) retained.
Similar approach to South Korea (who has a larger force than ours) and several other countries.
In my highly biased personal opinion
-
tailgunner
- Rank 7
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Tom H,
Name the jet that would fullfill your list. Is it the Eurofighter, SH, or Rafael? These are the options today, and in the next decade. There is no other cheap, able and maintainable fighter sitting on a hidden ramp ready to fly. The S Koreans have proposed an indigenous product that is at least a decade away and billions from ever being real. Canada, in all reality, cannot design a fighter on our own for our own use. There needs to be a reality check for those who believe Canadair/Bombardier/Avro can rise to the challenge. Cheers.
Name the jet that would fullfill your list. Is it the Eurofighter, SH, or Rafael? These are the options today, and in the next decade. There is no other cheap, able and maintainable fighter sitting on a hidden ramp ready to fly. The S Koreans have proposed an indigenous product that is at least a decade away and billions from ever being real. Canada, in all reality, cannot design a fighter on our own for our own use. There needs to be a reality check for those who believe Canadair/Bombardier/Avro can rise to the challenge. Cheers.
-
Old Dog Flying
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:18 pm
Re: The F-35 is not dead
tailgunner: maybe you are foregetting that AVRO did design and build a successful fighter. It flew in 1947 and all of the same arguments were around even then. Insert CF-100 for F-35 and as for having a mixed fleet, we had that back in the 1950s before the Liberals started pillaging and raping the Canadian military. We had Vampires, Mustangs, Sabres, CF-100s and Voodoos although the Mustangs were stood down in 1956,
I've seen them all from my perch in the various towers. We cannot afford a mixed bag just like we could not afford the Arrow: another story for another thread.
Barney
I've seen them all from my perch in the various towers. We cannot afford a mixed bag just like we could not afford the Arrow: another story for another thread.
Barney
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Tailgunner
What I said was...
So when did we become incapable? Defeatist?
It's an aircraft.
The radars, avionics, engines etc are bolt ons to spec.
In my highly biased personal opinion
What I said was...
But my question on this statement...Could be a Canadian built 4th Gen from another manufacturer or domestic all the way through allowing for a greater domestic benefit ($$$) retained.
Have we forgotten the roughly 2000 license built fighters we have already produced (Sabre/Starfighter/CF-5) or the over 600 we both designed and produced (CF-100 Canuck).Canada, in all reality, cannot design a fighter on our own for our own use.
So when did we become incapable? Defeatist?
It's an aircraft.
The radars, avionics, engines etc are bolt ons to spec.
In my highly biased personal opinion
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Tailgunner
Trainer, Advanced fighter lead in, Light attack and now a more advanced fighter version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
Flying and in service, currently negotiating export sales.The S Koreans have proposed an indigenous product that is at least a decade away and billions from ever being real.
Trainer, Advanced fighter lead in, Light attack and now a more advanced fighter version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
Re: The F-35 is not dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_ ... 28CF-18.29Name the jet that would fullfill your list.
For domestic use I have a hard time seeing why we could not "0" time the best we have and build new as needed under license.
As Australia has already done with theirs.
By the Way...the Australians re-tubbing program was done by L-3 in Canada as I recall so we have the technology.
Re: The F-35 is not dead
"Kinetic" operations covers a lot of territory and fails to explain about 1000 different variables, all of which we can choose or not choose to partake in. So saying the F-35 is the only suitable plane is simply not true. In fact by reducing your window down to 30 years instead of 40 that also opens up other options and buys time during which anything can happen. Including somebody building a fighter that actually fits all of Canada's needs and is affordable.AuxBatOn wrote:Want to conduct kinetic operations in the future (next 40 years)? The only suitable plane available is the JSF
Painting a box that only the F-35 fits in is poor, maybe even incompetent management of an obscenely expensive program.
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Kinetic means flying over some non-friendly country with thr intent to drop weapons or shoot their aircraft down. I can guarentee that they will retaliate, like they did in the Gulf, Kosovo and Libya. Except their weapons will likely be more recent...
The Hornet entered service in 1982 and will likely retire well into the 2020's, making it more than 40. It's not unrealistic to expect the NGF to last as long.
The Hornet entered service in 1982 and will likely retire well into the 2020's, making it more than 40. It's not unrealistic to expect the NGF to last as long.
Going for the deck at corner
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Why is it necessary to use a term like "kinetic" to describe what the airplane does? Hasn't "fighter" adequately done that all these years?
-
tailgunner
- Rank 7
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Re: The F-35 is not dead
ODF,
Surely one cannot equate what AVRO built in 1947 to what is required in the form of a 5 generation fighter. As i recall, the only other nation to use our CF - 100's was Belgium. The Canuck may have suited our needs , but it was a dismal failure on the international sales floor. Cheers.
Tom,
Integration of systems is what makes a 5 gen fighter 5 gen. The 4 th gen have performance capabilities that may exceed the latest 5 th gen fighter, but they lack the complete system integration. One cannot simply bolt on an AESA radar and think that it would be feasible. Nor, the RWR sensor suite etc....
Licence building airframes is a far cry from a clean sheet design. And yes, we have lost that ability in Canada. Defeatest? No. But reality must sometimes prevail. Cheers.
Surely one cannot equate what AVRO built in 1947 to what is required in the form of a 5 generation fighter. As i recall, the only other nation to use our CF - 100's was Belgium. The Canuck may have suited our needs , but it was a dismal failure on the international sales floor. Cheers.
Tom,
Integration of systems is what makes a 5 gen fighter 5 gen. The 4 th gen have performance capabilities that may exceed the latest 5 th gen fighter, but they lack the complete system integration. One cannot simply bolt on an AESA radar and think that it would be feasible. Nor, the RWR sensor suite etc....
Licence building airframes is a far cry from a clean sheet design. And yes, we have lost that ability in Canada. Defeatest? No. But reality must sometimes prevail. Cheers.
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Around the same time fighters had computers installed in them.Tom H wrote:So when did we become incapable?
All of which come from US manufacturers anyway.The radars, avionics, engines etc are bolt ons to spec.
Do not compare disassembling and reassembling a fighter to building a 5th generation fighter from the ground up. Any monkey can remove a bolt, reinstall a bolt. It takes manpower, experience, knowledge and money to build a new fighter from scratch. Canada has none of those things.Tom H wrote:By the Way...the Australians re-tubbing program was done by L-3 in Canada as I recall so we have the technology.
Re: The F-35 is not dead
Tailgunner
To the AESA radar, yes in fact you can bolt one on as per the Italian F-104S that ended up with essentially the complete F-16 electronics package in the early 2000s and others that have done the same.
We can build world class business jets, airliners, the Hawk trainer, some of the best high tech medical and other equipment in the world and people claim we don't have the ability...someone needs to explain that one to me cause it is not supported by the evidence.
We have the talent, we have the industrial capability...what we seem to be missing is the will and the confidence.
We are choosing to fail and sorry I never choose to fail.
Frosti
Canada has the
- Manpower
- Experience
- Knowledge
Money is a political decision
But you're gonna need to explain your side a heck of a lot better to convince me how a country that leads in so many high technology areas, has on the ground expertise in the latest aviation production technology and a past history of successfully producing the "type" of airframe required suddenly mysteriously can't.
In my highly biased personal opinion
Which is why I said 4th Gen and specific to domestic use.Integration of systems is what makes a 5 gen fighter 5 gen. The 4 th gen have performance capabilities that may exceed the latest 5 th gen fighter, but they lack the complete system integration. One cannot simply bolt on an AESA radar and think that it would be feasible.
To the AESA radar, yes in fact you can bolt one on as per the Italian F-104S that ended up with essentially the complete F-16 electronics package in the early 2000s and others that have done the same.
Which is why I left both options on the table, my thoughts being time not ability.Licence building airframes is a far cry from a clean sheet design.
Sorry disagree.And yes, we have lost that ability in Canada. Defeatest? No. But reality must sometimes prevail.
We can build world class business jets, airliners, the Hawk trainer, some of the best high tech medical and other equipment in the world and people claim we don't have the ability...someone needs to explain that one to me cause it is not supported by the evidence.
We have the talent, we have the industrial capability...what we seem to be missing is the will and the confidence.
We are choosing to fail and sorry I never choose to fail.
Frosti
I didn't, you didn't read...I said specificallyDo not compare disassembling and reassembling a fighter to building a 5th generation fighter from the ground up.
To support a lesser number of purchased 5th Gen aircraft for International commitments.Could be a Canadian built 4th Gen from another manufacturer or domestic all the way through allowing for a greater domestic benefit ($$$) retained.
Talk about vehemently disagreeing with someone and tag you're it.It takes manpower, experience, knowledge and money to build a new fighter from scratch. Canada has none of those things.
Canada has the
- Manpower
- Experience
- Knowledge
Money is a political decision
But you're gonna need to explain your side a heck of a lot better to convince me how a country that leads in so many high technology areas, has on the ground expertise in the latest aviation production technology and a past history of successfully producing the "type" of airframe required suddenly mysteriously can't.
In my highly biased personal opinion
