http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/v ... sp?id=2167
News Release
Canada's New Government Signs on to phase III of Joint Strike Fighter Program and Secures Access to up to $8 Billion in possible contracts for Canadian Industry
GOC NR - 06.090 - December 12, 2006
OTTAWA - The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence and the Honourable Maxime Bernier announced that Canada's aerospace and defence industry will have access to billions of dollars in industrial opportunities following the signature of Memorandum of Understandings regarding Canada's participation in Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program.
In a ceremony yesterday at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the Department of National Defence formalized their continued partnership with the United States Department of Defense in the JSF program. Canada is the second of eight partner nations to sign the MoU for the third phase of the JSF program - the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development phase.
"Our continued participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program affords Canada the unique opportunity to take advantage of the technological benefits and economic opportunities that come with that participation," said Minister O'Connor. "Our signing underscores Canada's commitment to the program and is indicative of our strength as a partner in defence."
Canada's participation in the JSF program will strengthen relationships and interoperability with our Allies, and will provide a number of benefits such as unique access to technical and operational data and royalties on third party sales. While participation in this next phase does not commit the Department to purchasing the multi-role aircraft, it is helping to define and evaluate DND's future requirements for the next generation of fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18 and its capabilities.
The Department of Industry also signed MoUs with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Pratt & Whitney and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team to provide Canada's aerospace and defence industry with access to up to $8 billion in industrial participation opportunities in the JSF Program.
"Canada's New Government is maximizing the opportunities the Joint Strike Fighter Program provides to Canadian businesses," said Minister Bernier. "This will consolidate the position of Canada's aerospace industry at the forefront of aerospace and defence technology now and well into the future."
These MOUs will attract investments, stimulate technology development, allow commercialization of innovative ideas, and bring high quality long-term business opportunities to Canada.
They relate to important aerospace technologies for Canada, such as major structural assemblies; landing gear maintenance; advanced composites; high-speed machining; simulation and training; propulsion; and health and monitoring technologies. The government will continue to identify new opportunities for Canada's aerospace industry as the program evolves over time.
"Canada's participation in the JSF Program has been a model for cooperation among government, industry and defence," said Tom Burbage, Executive Vice President and General Manager of F-35 Lightning II Program Integration for Lockheed Martin.
"Our government has worked hard to promote the interests of Canada's aerospace and defence industry on the world stage and is pleased to have secured opportunities to bid on important, lucrative contracts," continued Minister Bernier.
Peter Boag, President and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, welcomed the news. "Canada's continued investment in the JSF Program holds real promise for aerospace firms," said Boag. "The access this provides to advanced manufacturing processes using next generation materials will yield significant returns for Canada. Opportunities of this magnitude are rare - a direct outcome of the industry working cooperatively with the government to advance Canada's leadership role in aerospace technology."
The Joint Strike Fighter Program is a U.S.-led multinational effort to build an affordable, multi-role stealth fighter aircraft. International participants include the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, Australia and Canada.
Canada has participated in the JSF Program since it began in 1997 by contributing to the Concept Demonstration Phase and, in 2002, by signing the System Demonstration and Development MOU.
To date 54 Canadian companies, universities and research institutions have won 154 JSF related contracts valued at approximately CDN $157 million, with the potential for additional opportunity and growth as we proceed with Phase III.
The JSF/F-35 will be the single largest fighter aircraft program of the first half of the twenty-first century, with a total estimated program value in excess of US$276 billion.
Canada's JSF Participation
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
I like fast, loud airplanes as much (probably more than) the next guy, but ...
As a taxpayer, how about spending money on stuff we need (eg airlift and close air) before we buy stuff we don't need?
Dollar for dollar, I'm sure we would get more bang for our dollar from helicopter gunships vs supersonic fighters. Which is better to support our deployed troops?
When was the last time a Canadian fighter pilot created air superiority by shooting down an enemy aircraft?
Afganistan? Nope.
Gulf II? Nope.
Gulf I? Nope.
Bosnia? Nope.
Vietnam? Nope, we didn't even show up for that one.
Korea? Yes!
So, we have to go back FIFTY-FIVE years to see a Canadian use a fighter jet to shoot down another aircraft.
Objectively, I think we can say that all the taxpayer's money spent on supersonic fighter jets since 1951 has been a waste of money, that would have been much better spent on an A-10 or better yet apache/longbow.
Heck, an ancient A-1 would do a much better job of close air, which is what we need.
I'm just not sure Canada is such a rich country that it can afford to waste money so frivolously.
As a taxpayer, how about spending money on stuff we need (eg airlift and close air) before we buy stuff we don't need?
Dollar for dollar, I'm sure we would get more bang for our dollar from helicopter gunships vs supersonic fighters. Which is better to support our deployed troops?
When was the last time a Canadian fighter pilot created air superiority by shooting down an enemy aircraft?
Afganistan? Nope.
Gulf II? Nope.
Gulf I? Nope.
Bosnia? Nope.
Vietnam? Nope, we didn't even show up for that one.
Korea? Yes!
So, we have to go back FIFTY-FIVE years to see a Canadian use a fighter jet to shoot down another aircraft.
Objectively, I think we can say that all the taxpayer's money spent on supersonic fighter jets since 1951 has been a waste of money, that would have been much better spent on an A-10 or better yet apache/longbow.
Heck, an ancient A-1 would do a much better job of close air, which is what we need.
I'm just not sure Canada is such a rich country that it can afford to waste money so frivolously.
Background: There were 22 RCAF pilots who served in Korea on exchange with the USAF, flying Sabres, and one RCN carrier pilot flying USN Panthers. Combined, these guys shot down 9 MiG-15's, damaged 10 and had 2 probables.Hedley wrote:Korea? Yes!
So, we have to go back FIFTY-FIVE years to see a Canadian use a fighter jet to shoot down another aircraft.
No argument from this quarter, Hedley. In the Seventies, when we were looking to replace the Voodo & Starfighter, I felt then we needed a mixed buy: F-18's for NORAD, and A-10's for NATO.
We shouldn't be getting the JSF, but these things are always about politics and feeding at the trough, first. Equipment suitability and performance come somewhere after that.
Personally I'm surprised as hell that we have gotten this far with a new fighter aquisition. Were it up to the Liberals/Bloc/NDP I'm sure there would never be another fighter in the Canadian inventory. Three cheers for the Conservatives.
I agree fully with the need for a decent close air support machine like the A10 or the Apache, but economics rears its ugly head as always. Canada can only buy so much equipment and so has to get the most bang for its buck as it were. That means buying multi-role aircraft. It is true that no Canadian has actually shot down an aircraft in many years but that doesn't mean we haven't done air defence with our fighters. CF-18's were very active flying combat air patrols in G1, there just wasn't anything to shoot down. And being an excellent mud mover as well the Hornets have done a LOT of that in recent conflicts.
We can't ignore the requirement to defend, or at least make an effort to defend our gargantuan airspace. For that we need a fighter. Fortunately the JSF will be an excellent attack aircraft as well. The only drawback I can see is the single engine which isn't ideal for the great white north, but maybe the engine reliability makes that concern manageable.
Political requirements and military requirements aren't always incompatible and I think the Hornet proved that very well. I personally think the JSF would be a great machine for the CF if we can only keep the Liberals out of power long enough to get it.
I agree fully with the need for a decent close air support machine like the A10 or the Apache, but economics rears its ugly head as always. Canada can only buy so much equipment and so has to get the most bang for its buck as it were. That means buying multi-role aircraft. It is true that no Canadian has actually shot down an aircraft in many years but that doesn't mean we haven't done air defence with our fighters. CF-18's were very active flying combat air patrols in G1, there just wasn't anything to shoot down. And being an excellent mud mover as well the Hornets have done a LOT of that in recent conflicts.
We can't ignore the requirement to defend, or at least make an effort to defend our gargantuan airspace. For that we need a fighter. Fortunately the JSF will be an excellent attack aircraft as well. The only drawback I can see is the single engine which isn't ideal for the great white north, but maybe the engine reliability makes that concern manageable.
Political requirements and military requirements aren't always incompatible and I think the Hornet proved that very well. I personally think the JSF would be a great machine for the CF if we can only keep the Liberals out of power long enough to get it.
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
The bottom line is that a military the size of Canada's can only afford one modern high-performance fixed wing aircraft. That dictates that the aircraft must be capable of filling all the roles that the CF takes on. It follows that the aircraft must be a competent multi-role performer...which the Hornet was. The JSF will also be a competent muti-role performer. I will readily agree that something should have been looked at a decade ago to bridge the gap between the aging hornets and the future JSF...but given the lack of political will for defence spending in Canada between 1989 and 2001, that was never in the cards.
As far as the A-10 goes...as much as I love that aircraft, purchasing it would be an impossibility. It's been a long, long time since any were made, and even the modernized versions are rife with the same problems that are causing so many difficulties with our Hornets.
Let's also bear in mind that the A-10 was designed for a single purpose...to rip apart Soviet tank and motor rifle divisions on the North European plain. The aircraft was literally built around a high veolcity 30mm rotary cannon firing APDSDU ammunition...which means that the aircraft accepts many design compromises when you look at it's ability in other areas. If you're attacking an enemy consisting of BMP's and T-72's defended by ZSU-23-4 Shilkas, you'd be hard pressed to find an aircraft better or more survivable than the A-10. However, for the conflicts that Canada faces today, the slow speed, short legs, and mission-specific design of the A-10 put severe limits on the usefulness of the aircraft.
Let me put it to you this way...if you have the luxury of carrying a number of knives with you, a filet knife is perfect for cleaning the fish you just caught. But if you only get to carry one knife, that same filet knife will be of very limited usefulness when it comes time to build a lean-to or shave kindling. Wouldn't you rather choose a KA-Bar so that you can do a reasonable job of accomplishing all the tasks instead of excelling at one specific thing and failing miserably at the rest?
As far as the A-10 goes...as much as I love that aircraft, purchasing it would be an impossibility. It's been a long, long time since any were made, and even the modernized versions are rife with the same problems that are causing so many difficulties with our Hornets.
Let's also bear in mind that the A-10 was designed for a single purpose...to rip apart Soviet tank and motor rifle divisions on the North European plain. The aircraft was literally built around a high veolcity 30mm rotary cannon firing APDSDU ammunition...which means that the aircraft accepts many design compromises when you look at it's ability in other areas. If you're attacking an enemy consisting of BMP's and T-72's defended by ZSU-23-4 Shilkas, you'd be hard pressed to find an aircraft better or more survivable than the A-10. However, for the conflicts that Canada faces today, the slow speed, short legs, and mission-specific design of the A-10 put severe limits on the usefulness of the aircraft.
Let me put it to you this way...if you have the luxury of carrying a number of knives with you, a filet knife is perfect for cleaning the fish you just caught. But if you only get to carry one knife, that same filet knife will be of very limited usefulness when it comes time to build a lean-to or shave kindling. Wouldn't you rather choose a KA-Bar so that you can do a reasonable job of accomplishing all the tasks instead of excelling at one specific thing and failing miserably at the rest?
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
The CF Hornets were exchanging shots with Serbian MiG's in the 1998 Kosovo War. No fighters were shot down as far as I remember by CF pilots. Sometimes, the CF deploys in situations where the possibility of the enemy putting up fighters is a real risk, whenever or not it is a high end Sukhoi Su-27 or a lowly MiG-19.Hedley wrote:I like fast, loud airplanes as much (probably more than) the next guy, but ...
As a taxpayer, how about spending money on stuff we need (eg airlift and close air) before we buy stuff we don't need?
Dollar for dollar, I'm sure we would get more bang for our dollar from helicopter gunships vs supersonic fighters. Which is better to support our deployed troops?
When was the last time a Canadian fighter pilot created air superiority by shooting down an enemy aircraft?
Afganistan? Nope.
Gulf II? Nope.
Gulf I? Nope.
Bosnia? Nope.
Vietnam? Nope, we didn't even show up for that one.
Korea? Yes!
So, we have to go back FIFTY-FIVE years to see a Canadian use a fighter jet to shoot down another aircraft.
Objectively, I think we can say that all the taxpayer's money spent on supersonic fighter jets since 1951 has been a waste of money, that would have been much better spent on an A-10 or better yet apache/longbow.
Heck, an ancient A-1 would do a much better job of close air, which is what we need.
I'm just not sure Canada is such a rich country that it can afford to waste money so frivolously.
Who cares whether we actually shot down something in the past 50 years, the fact is Canadian fighters played an important role in a period known as the "Cold War" which less about actual performance and more about potential. JSF? Perhaps better at mud-moving and whatnot, but in terms of air superiority over a large airspace (which should be our #1 priority) I truly believe that the Typhoon should be looked at. I doubt we can afford more than one aircraft, and its a pinch to buy even one new type, but we also cannot afford to simply disband decades of jet fighter experience, techniques, schools, and support that the CF, CAF, and RCAF have developed in the past century.
Ok...maybe you should read the above posts, Lommer. We're only getting one aircraft. Why wold we buy one that specializes in only one aspect of the overall fast jet mission that the CF performs? Well-rounded is what we're looking for. The Eurofighter is a multi-role aircraft, but is half a generation behind the JSF.
Besides that, if air superiority was all we were looking for, the F-22 would be the logical choice.
Besides that, if air superiority was all we were looking for, the F-22 would be the logical choice.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
It has been my unfortunate experience as an engineer over the decades that something designed to do everything passably, does nothing well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel
How many Cdn F-188's are currently in Afganistan, tangling with Taliban MiGs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel
I am still puzzled by the unstated premise put forth that Canadians use supersonic fighter jets to establish air superiority. No, we don't. We wished we could afford to, but that's not the same thing.Thus, the large expensive Edsel that was planned to be all things to all people suddenly stood for excess, not progress.
How many Cdn F-188's are currently in Afganistan, tangling with Taliban MiGs?
Okay, a couple of points here:
1. In terms of single engine, yes, Canada turned down the preferred F-16 when replacing the Voodoos for that reason, however the single-engine issue of the F-35 is being overlooked on account of its far-superior reliability.
2. I'd love to see Typhoons on the ramp, however the cost would be greater, there wouldn't be nearly as many interests for the Canadian aerospace industry, and it is definately going through its own growing pains at the moment (air-to-ground issues to be sorted out, airframes already at their designed stress limit, etc...)
3. F-22?!?!? Yeah, I wish! Canada can neither afford the airframe itself or the infrastructure required to support stealth security/technology, something the US would definately look at through a microscope before selling.
4. To the Einstein above who questioned Canada's fighter role - uninformed people should stop talking out of their ass. We may not have SHOT DOWN anything since Korea, but that ability is a small speck of dust in the desert of the Hornet's scope of operations. Between NORAD duties domestically (patrolling during 9/11, G8 summit, suspicious airliners etc.), air patrolling and air-to-ground strikes abroad, and the ability for close-air suport for the army. Having a military is as much of a deterrent to potential hostile acitivity as it is an offensive measure.
5. I'm hoping the Taliban MiG comment was a joke!
1. In terms of single engine, yes, Canada turned down the preferred F-16 when replacing the Voodoos for that reason, however the single-engine issue of the F-35 is being overlooked on account of its far-superior reliability.
2. I'd love to see Typhoons on the ramp, however the cost would be greater, there wouldn't be nearly as many interests for the Canadian aerospace industry, and it is definately going through its own growing pains at the moment (air-to-ground issues to be sorted out, airframes already at their designed stress limit, etc...)
3. F-22?!?!? Yeah, I wish! Canada can neither afford the airframe itself or the infrastructure required to support stealth security/technology, something the US would definately look at through a microscope before selling.
4. To the Einstein above who questioned Canada's fighter role - uninformed people should stop talking out of their ass. We may not have SHOT DOWN anything since Korea, but that ability is a small speck of dust in the desert of the Hornet's scope of operations. Between NORAD duties domestically (patrolling during 9/11, G8 summit, suspicious airliners etc.), air patrolling and air-to-ground strikes abroad, and the ability for close-air suport for the army. Having a military is as much of a deterrent to potential hostile acitivity as it is an offensive measure.
5. I'm hoping the Taliban MiG comment was a joke!
Sigh.
1) Canada doesn't establish air superiority. Other countries do. Get over it.
2) There are many better aircraft for air to ground than an F-18 or JSF. Why not look at them?
I know, who cares about getting value for the taxpayer's dollars, just keep on wasting them in the grand Canadian tradition.
1) Canada doesn't establish air superiority. Other countries do. Get over it.
2) There are many better aircraft for air to ground than an F-18 or JSF. Why not look at them?
I know, who cares about getting value for the taxpayer's dollars, just keep on wasting them in the grand Canadian tradition.
Okay...Canada doesn't establish air superiority...but we contribute to maintaining it. Canadian fighters have been flying intercepts within NORAD's airspace for a lot of years.
The world's best attack aircraft is useless if you don't have and maintain that air superiority. A good multirole aircraft (and that is not an oxymoron) can have different elements of the same squadron flying in different roles on the same mission.
I don't think that anyone here would argue that within their own time periods, the F-16 and F-18 did yeoman service as multi-role aircraft. That's what the JSF is.
By the way, Hedley...which aircraft that are currently in production and meet NATO standards are better than the JSF at air-to-ground?
2's blind...I was not suggesting the purchase of the F-22, simply informing Lommer that if Canada's priority was air superiority and nothing but, then that would be the correct purchase.
The world's best attack aircraft is useless if you don't have and maintain that air superiority. A good multirole aircraft (and that is not an oxymoron) can have different elements of the same squadron flying in different roles on the same mission.
I don't think that anyone here would argue that within their own time periods, the F-16 and F-18 did yeoman service as multi-role aircraft. That's what the JSF is.
By the way, Hedley...which aircraft that are currently in production and meet NATO standards are better than the JSF at air-to-ground?
2's blind...I was not suggesting the purchase of the F-22, simply informing Lommer that if Canada's priority was air superiority and nothing but, then that would be the correct purchase.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
Absolutely correct. I don't think the issue is us establishing air superiority, rather having the ability to defend ourselves in a hostile environment IF we were ever deployed there. Also, the point has been made numerous times, we have NORAD commitments (which is our number one job at the moment,) that would be severely limited if we only flew air to ground machines.1) Canada doesn't establish air superiority. Other countries do.
Enter the reason why we have the F-18. Superb air to air fighter, and mud mover. Does both jobs extremely well. Also, having two engines is ideal for our vast open spaces.2) There are many better aircraft for air to ground than an F-18 or JSF. Why not look at them?
The problem with other dedicated air to ground fighters is just that, they're dedicated air to ground. We will never have two fighter fleets again, so we need something that can do both jobs well. F-18s, JSF, Typhoon (although no gun.. kinda makes me squeemish).. all good choices.
Personally, I can't even come close to speculating as to what we'll be getting in the future to replace the Hornet, if anything at all. But for what she does now, the CF-18 does it well.
w squared - yeah, I understood that you were joking; just highlighting why it's not even an option
skosh - although a complicated controversy throughout it's early years, the Typhoon has an integral 27mm Mauser cannon, same as what's mounted in the F-3 and GR4
hedley - you military?
skosh - although a complicated controversy throughout it's early years, the Typhoon has an integral 27mm Mauser cannon, same as what's mounted in the F-3 and GR4
hedley - you military?
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
Hedley,
Think of it this way. If we only had ground attack we would have to rely on other countries to provide escort. We know that NATO can't be relied on these days, so we would have to self-escort. Bam, you need a second fighter type. You pointed out we can't afford 2 types. Hence, buy multi-role.
//break//
The Typhoon gets over-looked alot. It may not have a radar signiture as small as the latest American designs, however it is one of only 2 fighters in the world capable of "super-cruise", supersonic flight sans afterburner (or so my sources say).
I'm not saying it's right for Canada, but it's an option. I think we all realise that there will probably never be another war where 'the West' will see a fighter force equal to it in technology or skill, but that doesn't mean we should neglect the fighter.
Is it not better to have a rediculous advantage, so large a gap that it's almost laughable? Is that not how you prevent friendly casualties in the modern era of the squeemish public? Pay now in dollars, or pay later in blood, your choice people.
Think of it this way. If we only had ground attack we would have to rely on other countries to provide escort. We know that NATO can't be relied on these days, so we would have to self-escort. Bam, you need a second fighter type. You pointed out we can't afford 2 types. Hence, buy multi-role.
//break//
The Typhoon gets over-looked alot. It may not have a radar signiture as small as the latest American designs, however it is one of only 2 fighters in the world capable of "super-cruise", supersonic flight sans afterburner (or so my sources say).
I'm not saying it's right for Canada, but it's an option. I think we all realise that there will probably never be another war where 'the West' will see a fighter force equal to it in technology or skill, but that doesn't mean we should neglect the fighter.
Is it not better to have a rediculous advantage, so large a gap that it's almost laughable? Is that not how you prevent friendly casualties in the modern era of the squeemish public? Pay now in dollars, or pay later in blood, your choice people.
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
I am the first to agree that Canada's GDP spending on defense is a laughable embarrassment, and our military is atrophied and crippled from decades of neglect - don't get me started on the wanker Trudeau, or Paul Hellyer (Minister of Defense and UFO whacko) for that matter.Pay now in dollars
Still, Canada is not a rich country. I think it makes sense to spend money on what the military NEEDS, not on what it would be nice to have.
I think it's pretty clear the military needs airlift and close air support. It would be nice to do the "white scarf knights of the air" thing but realistically we cannot afford to do so, and haven't done in decades.
Just a quick outline of my reasoning:
1) Canada's most important fast-jet role is maintaining air superiority in North American Airspace in support of its NORAD commitments.
2) Canada cannot afford 2 types, nor will we be permitted to purchase the F-22 even if we could afford it. Also, as attractive as many Russian/soviet aircraft are, the political and economic climate will not support purchasing one of these types.
3) I would rather see a twin engined figher operating in Canadian airspace, especially if Northern sovereignty missions are increased in the future.
4) I would rather see an aircraft that has already experienced some growing pains, rather than a brand new aircraft set to experience a slew of expensive problems. People on a budget don't buy brand new ferrari's, they buy used cars that get the job done. If they do buy a ferrari, they can't afford to replace it until it is ancient and falling apart at the seams. I'm not saying that Canada needs to buy a Taurus, just not a Bugatti.
This rationale lead me to the Typhoon, though I was not aware of the airframe problems mentioned. I also realize that ground-attack is an important mission for the CF, but I would assert that even though that capability is excercised more often, it is not THE most important mission - NORAD air superiority is.
1) Canada's most important fast-jet role is maintaining air superiority in North American Airspace in support of its NORAD commitments.
2) Canada cannot afford 2 types, nor will we be permitted to purchase the F-22 even if we could afford it. Also, as attractive as many Russian/soviet aircraft are, the political and economic climate will not support purchasing one of these types.
3) I would rather see a twin engined figher operating in Canadian airspace, especially if Northern sovereignty missions are increased in the future.
4) I would rather see an aircraft that has already experienced some growing pains, rather than a brand new aircraft set to experience a slew of expensive problems. People on a budget don't buy brand new ferrari's, they buy used cars that get the job done. If they do buy a ferrari, they can't afford to replace it until it is ancient and falling apart at the seams. I'm not saying that Canada needs to buy a Taurus, just not a Bugatti.
This rationale lead me to the Typhoon, though I was not aware of the airframe problems mentioned. I also realize that ground-attack is an important mission for the CF, but I would assert that even though that capability is excercised more often, it is not THE most important mission - NORAD air superiority is.
We're getting airlift in the form of C-17s. This leaves us to choose between close air support and air superiority if we're unwilling to drastically expand our budget. I still assert that air superiority is our most important mission, and disagree that we haven't performed that duty in decades. Sure, we haven't shot anything down since Korea, but CF-18s and the -101s and -104s before them have intercepted airliners and other military aircraft quite recently. Wasn't it just a few months ago that some -18s intecepted some Russian bombers that accidentally broached the ADIZ while on excercise?I think it's pretty clear the military needs airlift and close air support. It would be nice to do the "white scarf knights of the air" thing but realistically we cannot afford to do so, and haven't done in decades.
Lommer, you are absolutely correct. Further to that, I think a very valid argument in favour of fighters is that the US already voices concerns over how lax Canada's defence of the vast space between the US and the north pole is. The only way a retirement of our fighter force (which I may interject makes up our "close air support" of which we are apparently in need) would be acceptable to the Americans would be to have US squadrons operating out of Canada. Personally, I'd rather spend the money, but hey, I'm just one tax payer out of millions...
I may be wrong, but ...
If you asked a sailor how the military should spend some money, I would be very surprised if you weren't told that the highest priority is ships and submarines and other floaty things.
If you asked a guy in fatigues how the military should spend some more money, I would be very surprised if you weren't told that the highest priority is tanks, armoured personnel carriers, artillery, and other stuff that the boy scouts would dearly love to have but aren't allowed to.
If you ask a fighter pilot how the military should spend some more money, I would be very surprised if you weren't told that the highest priority is really fast, pointy airplanes that are great fun to roar around in.
If you ask a bomber pilot how the military should spend some more money, I would be very surprised if you weren't told that the highest priority is really big airplanes that can drop a huge pile of bombs.
Does anyone here see a pattern? Bueller?
If you asked a sailor how the military should spend some money, I would be very surprised if you weren't told that the highest priority is ships and submarines and other floaty things.
If you asked a guy in fatigues how the military should spend some more money, I would be very surprised if you weren't told that the highest priority is tanks, armoured personnel carriers, artillery, and other stuff that the boy scouts would dearly love to have but aren't allowed to.
If you ask a fighter pilot how the military should spend some more money, I would be very surprised if you weren't told that the highest priority is really fast, pointy airplanes that are great fun to roar around in.
If you ask a bomber pilot how the military should spend some more money, I would be very surprised if you weren't told that the highest priority is really big airplanes that can drop a huge pile of bombs.
Does anyone here see a pattern? Bueller?
The issue here isn't what a fighter pilot thinks money should be spent on, or what an airshow pilot thinks money should be spent on.
If you understood what we as an airforce, and specifically a fighter force are mandated to do at the moment, I.E. NORAD number one pri, then everything else, you'd see that whats being said here actually makes sense. We need the pointy thing to do what we do for NORAD, and we need the pointy nosed thing to do the CAS, and everything else we train to do.
Skosh
If you understood what we as an airforce, and specifically a fighter force are mandated to do at the moment, I.E. NORAD number one pri, then everything else, you'd see that whats being said here actually makes sense. We need the pointy thing to do what we do for NORAD, and we need the pointy nosed thing to do the CAS, and everything else we train to do.
Heck, an ancient A-1 would do a much better job of close air, which is what we need.
Skosh
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
Clearly air power is the most effective and cheapest way to assert soveriegnty over our territory. Ships are great, but they are far more expensive and can't cover as much territory.
If you're going to have an air deterrent, it has to be armed. Between anti-sub patrol planes (read CP-140) and air-intercept/surface attack (read CF-18 ) Canada can defend against all intruders. Is that all we need? Is it a total force, able to stand on it's own... not really, but if push came to shove, the two could (in sufficient numbers) maintain our borders.
I'm not saying scrap the Navy. And if we want to do anything outside our borders we need land forces. But the point is, the air element can defend the borders of the country (please don't start with the "USA could still take us", they can @#$! up just about anyone in the world) aginst most likely incursions. To do that, you need air-to-air capability. Intercepting suspect aircraft in a cargo plane doesn't make much sense.
Peacekeeping and world stability operations are not the reason d'etre for a military. As pointed out by so many, continental defence is the priority. Ground support is availible to the army with the current mix. We satisfy all needs (in theory, perhaps not in #s or will to use the power we have/spend the money for deployment) with the current setup.
There is hardly a credible 'western' airforce in the world without a multi-role fighter. The only one I can think of is New Zealand, and I believe they depend on Aus for air defence (don't quote me). Unless we want the same arrangement with the Americans, we need intercept capability.
If you're going to have an air deterrent, it has to be armed. Between anti-sub patrol planes (read CP-140) and air-intercept/surface attack (read CF-18 ) Canada can defend against all intruders. Is that all we need? Is it a total force, able to stand on it's own... not really, but if push came to shove, the two could (in sufficient numbers) maintain our borders.
I'm not saying scrap the Navy. And if we want to do anything outside our borders we need land forces. But the point is, the air element can defend the borders of the country (please don't start with the "USA could still take us", they can @#$! up just about anyone in the world) aginst most likely incursions. To do that, you need air-to-air capability. Intercepting suspect aircraft in a cargo plane doesn't make much sense.
Peacekeeping and world stability operations are not the reason d'etre for a military. As pointed out by so many, continental defence is the priority. Ground support is availible to the army with the current mix. We satisfy all needs (in theory, perhaps not in #s or will to use the power we have/spend the money for deployment) with the current setup.
There is hardly a credible 'western' airforce in the world without a multi-role fighter. The only one I can think of is New Zealand, and I believe they depend on Aus for air defence (don't quote me). Unless we want the same arrangement with the Americans, we need intercept capability.
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
