What is the right mix aircraft and helicopters for CF?

[WPA]

Hello,

Just what to see what some people feel in the right mix if aircraft and helicopter in types and units for the Canadian forces.

Some people feel that Canada just need the C130s and airbus 310's and the C17s was a waste of money. what do you think?

How about the helicopters?

When you look at Britain, Italy, France, US and have alot of types in service? Does that mean Canada made a mistake in buy 100 (not sure on exact #) of Bell 412. Maybe Canada should of bought less bell and more eh101 or other type?

What do you think the future make of aircraft should be?

[Dash-Ate]

the more the better is needed in every arm of the defense!

[Nark]

Whats the mission?

Do you want an answer that would look cool at an airshow, or one that will complete the mission?

[LH]

Canada must always be extremely careful of what military equipment they build or buy other places. The length of time that they retain it in active service is as long as 40+ years and in many cases those operating it are younger than the equipment. Ergo, the record shows that those R/W being purchased to replace the aging SeaKing will have to last 42 years and the state-of-the-art-Frigates will have to last 40-50 years. Many of Canada's past Air Force a/c have gone from being retired from service directly to museums in Canada and abroad.

[auto4]

With the mission they're doing right now, we need an Air Force to support ou ground troop, Blackhawk, Chinook, gunship, Harrier, herc and C-17...

[RatherBeFlyingInCanada]

My pick for CF A/C if we would expect to maintain an effective self-sustaining combat force:


Helicopters:
Apaches or Cobras
Chinooks
Griffons

Airlift:
C-17s
C-5's
C-130's
Boeing 777's to replace our A310's

Fighter A/C:
Mig 29's or Su 27's (we'd be able to get them at a very good price from the Russians)
A-10's (lots of them sitting in Arizona)

[LH]

Yeah, me too guys. I like your lists a whole lot. Unfortuneately, they are from a 'champagne budget' and we have a 'beer budget'. On top of all that, John Q. Canuck ain't going to tolerate the tax monies necessary for all those items you've mentioned. He'll tolerate some big lump sums but after that it conflicts with National HealthCare budgets, infrastructure budgets, etc., etc. Check out the prices and then you will see some of those gargantuan price tags. Even the updated and modernized version of the F-18 is now in excess of $50M USD PER a/c. That's a $20M increase over and above what Canada paid for them 'way back when'.

Whatever Canada gets, I would like to personally see them be able to operate it without having to canalbalize parts of other a/c in order to keep other ones operating. If we don't have the budgets (for whatever reason) to keep them operating and modern, then forget about it, put them back on the shelf and shop for something else we can afford to operate with a sufficient budget. Also, it would be wise for every Canadian to know that a new state-of-the-art piece of military equipment is considered so for JUST 18 months approximately and then something new has come along somewhere in the world to now make it NOT state-of-the-art anymore. It's a very expensive 'game' we are playing when Canada goes shopping for military equipment and they have to shop most wisely and get equipment that ideally does many things very well and not just one thing very well.

Lastly and forever lastly, FORGET about the Griffons. They are circa 1956 technology. I know that extremely well because I flew the Huey in Vietnam in 1966 and the Griffon (Bell 412) is just another somewhat updated version of that technology. The Bell 204, 205, 212, 214 and 412 are all of 'another day' and let them stay there. They were/are all very good still for the civilian world, but there are much better out there for the military world. I've flown them all for a total in excess of 12,000 hrs and love them all, but for the military it's time to kiss them good-bye. Praise God that they didn't send the Griffon to Afghanistan because it's landings at altitude in those temps would have been 'an arrival' and not 'a landing'. Too hot, too high and couldn't carry sh*t for a load. We would have embarrassed ourselves and it would have cost more lives only because of 'dated' equipment being used in the improper place. So leave all thoughts of the Griffon alone because I first flew the type in 1980 and that makes the type older than some of you posting on here.

['effin hippie]

I've been thinking lately that the CF are going to be fighting assymetrical wars for the forseeable future.

What is needed is a cost effective, persistent, resilient aircraft for close air support and observation.
What keep picturing is the A-1 from the Vietnam era. Doesn't anyone sell a cheap, tough turbo-prop with some armour, a 20mm and a few hard points?
It doesn't need to be that fancy. A Harvard II could be a starting point.

The C-17's were a good buy. We NEED strategic airlift.

I'm not sure if western avionics, radars and weapons are available options in Russian fighters. I know one of the biggest criticisms of the CF fighter force was its inability to network with allies equipment, any new fighter a/c that can't talk to other platforms its fighting along side is a non-starter.

The Helo situation gives me a migraine....

ef

[WPA]

My pick for CF A/C if we would expect to maintain an effective self-sustaining combat force:


Helicopters:
Apaches or Cobras
Chinooks
Griffons

Airlift:
C-17s
C-5's
C-130's
Boeing 777's to replace our A310's

Fighter A/C:
Mig 29's or Su 27's (we'd be able to get them at a very good price from the Russians)
A-10's (lots of them sitting in Arizona)

My list of Aircraft"

Helicopters:
Chinook 16 as stated to be purchased.
H92 cyclone 28 purchased 7 more for spares and service rotation
EH101 SAR if service problem with tail section high levels of vibrations should be replace by a CSAR version H92 with the removal of the sub hunting equipment
put keep the radar and FLIR
NH90 Tactical 50 units, small and light then the H92 and can share the same engines, avionics. However if the H92 proves it worth like the Blackhawk proves to be
to be comparable to the NH90 then go for the H92. However is such a large # being bought the H92 should be built in Canada.

Airlift:
C17 The 4 we have plus we should be able to make a good deal with Boeing for 4 more if it helps to keep the production line open 1 or 2 years longer for them to wait for the US government to purchase more planes and that will happen with the usage of their C17 and C5 are going through.

C130 C130J and C130H would be fine

The fight is a had issue. Do to the land mass and oceans of Canada a two engine plane is a must and leaves the options limited. If just If Boeing comes out with a Block III F/A with super cruise and improved stealth would be a nice cheaper option of to the F22 and better option to the European planes.

PS pardon my grammer

[LH]

Further to my last post. it should also be noted that the F-22 is not available for foreign sales. Australia, Great Britain and Japan have already rexpressed interest for a small number and the US DoD put that restriction on ANY foreign sales. Their 2008 cost to the USAF is $138M per copy. Don't hold your breath waiting for Canadian acquisition .

The C-5 Galaxy is out...... nice a/c, but it's 35 year old technology. Once again, many of the A/F's are older than most on this forum.

C-130 J? State-of-the-art technology with the newer A/F's and their available weapons and electronics suites. The USAF equip them with onboard cannons, 6000 rounds per minute chain guns, FLIR, anti-missile defense systems and still use them for cargo a/c and troop transports. Canada has them on order and that's exactly what is meant by 'multi-functional'.

The F-18's that Canada sent over to the Balkans weren't able to initially work with the USAF and other NATO a/c for the reason I stated before. Our pilots were equal to the very best, the a/c could 'play' with the best, BUT the electronics suites that were needed to fight a modern war and communicate in certain areas were antiquated and that made them sit on the ground until our neighbours to the south supplied enough upgrades to at least have them be of some help. Even then, that only gave them the ability to operate at high altitude and prevented them from operating in support roles at lower altitudes. Again, we could afford to buy the F-18, but couldn't afford to keep them upgraded and STILL sent them into harm's way. Sorry, but if I buy an expensive auto and can't afford to buy proper tires for it, then my heart over-ruled my brain.

[Phaedrus]

I understood that the F-35 was to be the next fighter + multi-role aircraft for the Canadian Forces, along with about 10 other partner nations. (?)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

It's kind of a cheaper version of the F-22 that is approved for international sales, but still top rate and thus only for certain allied nations. (ie. not Pakistan ) Plus, it has VTOL I believe....or at least STOVL. It's only $28-38 million depending on which version you need.

P
"...only $28-38M..." lol

[mellow_pilot]

1- The US navy is planning on operating a single engine fighter. They have in the past. 2 engines is not as big an issue as some make it out to be. (although the peace of mind is nice)
2- The current Super Hornet production model is superior to the JSF in terms of payload, range, and electronic warfare capability (the latter until the Block II JSF goes into production).
3- We don't need more C-17. Leave it alone. We need hangars for the ones we have/will receive. C5? What are you smoking?
4- Helo. We're not losing the Griffs. Forget about it. It's nice to talk about, but will not happen. Chinooks are on their way, but don't be surprised if delayed. Seems like everything else is.
5- You can't put payloads into an AC130. You can arm it or fill it, not both. The amount of modification in turning a Herc into a gunplatform is tantamount to building a new plane.
6- F22 is just plain not needed. Would be sweet, but unnecessary. We don't have a requirement for independent air dominance of foreign airspace.
7- The planes under consideration for replacing the F18 right now are JSF, Super Hornet, and Typhoon. We ain't buying Russian, period. Again an exercise in academic contemplation.
8- JTF2 wants gunships. Apache is nice, cobra is better imho. Cost less, better suited to CAS. Apache is made to kill tanks.
9- VTOL is not needed or wanted (unless we get LPDs, pretend they're assault ships and decide to go marine corps on the world's ass)
10- Coin aircraft are a nice thought, but that's why we buy multi-role fighters.
11- Quit thinking platform, start thinking capability. It's the new modus operandi.
12- I'm going to bed.

[LH]

mellow_pilot ------agree with you totally and with some clarifications on my part because I was obviously ambiguous:

4) Not a chance that we will loose the Griffons because that would leave the CAF with nothing to replace it with the same capabilities. Point being, was that it shouldn't have been bought in the first place considering it's age at that time.

5) My point with the C130J's was that one could do all the things you/I mentioned without having to buy another type of a/c altogether to accomplish it.Didn't mean to suggest that they could be converted from one mode to the other overnight or anything close to it. Some (1-2) could be gunplatforms with electronic suites to provide cover and be used for certain types of specialties and special ops. The rest could be any version needed but they will all be the same a/c and the same purchase and capable of multiple roles IF so needed and deemed necessary.

The guidelines I use are a little dated for sure. Different war, different part of the world, but nonetheless something to paid attention to when deciding on 'how much bang Canada wants for her buck. I served in Vietnam and when planning any action against the enemy these were the figures that were used regarding what the 'cost' would be in men and materiale:

For EACH hour of full combat:

1) 2 a/c (F/W) lost or damaged (fighters, bombers, transports).
2) 5 R/W lost or damaged.
3) 10 personnel KIA or wounded.

Based on those figures alone and based on the operational F-18's that Canada has at the moment (35 by their submission)) our contributiuon to such an effort would not last long. Therefore, I sadly and begrudingly state that we should leave ALL high altitude operations to those friendly nations who have the numbers and can afford to loose that many 'pricey' toys. Point being, is that we can afford to 'play' with the 'big boys' with deep pockets, BUT with a tax base of only 35M, we can't afford to 'play' too long becfore we have to leave the 'game'. "Close ground support?" We can have 'close ground support' and have it in large numbers without having to anti-up $50-$60M for each a/c.

[oldncold]

I.M.H.O. the following

250 f22 raptors for our defense and then we could allow 30 to go afganistan

100 block f super hornets with tail hooks to land on the 2 new nuclear powered aircraft carriers we buid in CANADIAN shipyards.

250 tactical helicopter, including purchasing at a deep discount the pergrine program that was cut as a cost saving measure in the usa. due to there involvement in iraq

50 new buffalo type aircraft for search and rescue with all the latest engines and
avioncis so that they can save ever increasing #of back country sno-boarders
and climbers from themselves.


30 pc12 for coastal patrol ( within 20 miles ) offshore to track the bad guys
and human presence in the arctic at reasonalble cost. it can stay on station for up to 9 hrs at best endurance cruise.

to the ndp er's > a good gov't job is the best form of socializm there is and if that is the case might as well produce something positive ie security and national pride that we can defend our own space and help out.

and to sell it all to the average joe/jane public change the name of the g.s.t to
the general security tax and use that money 30 billion to fund it.

oh well it is a pleasant dream reminded me of the story my dad told me when canada had a n airforce that really could kick some ass in the 1950's

we live in hope but I won't hold my breath!!

[North of You]

reminded me of the story my dad told me when canada had a n airforce that really could kick some ass in the 1950's we live in hope but I won't hold my breath!!

And whose ass are we going to kick now a days with all that heavy metal?

[LH]

Sorry bud, but we got some folks on the ground who are taking heavy fire in Afghansistan who need some modern equipment also. There wouldn't be enough left over for them to buy toilet paper for the ground troops.........and 'that dog won't hunt' as far as this Canadian is concerned.

[ScudRunner]

Air force
Fighters:
SU-37 Terminator
F-35 Jumpjet version (for our new Aircraft Carrier)

Airlift
C-17
C-130J
777's (1 Pimpped for the Prime Minister)

Ceiling Fans
Huey Cobra's
Chinooks
Sikorsky Wirling thingy do

SAR
EH101 Commarants
C-27 Spartan

NAVY

HMCS .
New wicked awesome Aircraft carrier submarine/Prime Ministers House (Me).
its never ending mission to explore Islands around the equater and Amsterdam in search of terrorists.

[wtf_over]

Nice ...

How's the Q treating you?