MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,701
- Points
- 1,210
If we bought Rafales, you might as well make it a posting to FranceSounds like a permanent posting to Europe with a couple squadrons of RCAF Rafales in German bases.
If we bought Rafales, you might as well make it a posting to FranceSounds like a permanent posting to Europe with a couple squadrons of RCAF Rafales in German bases.
So slow the AA radars will think it's a flock of seagulls and won't realize the mistake, till the loadmaster start lobbing M67 grenades out the door and plinking with a .303Twin Otter isn't ITAR![]()
I think they just trialed a non-ITAR engine in them.Doesn’t make it the best alternative for Canada. Rafale far better if we’re going to split-fleet things. Non-ITAR controlled (Gripen remains ITAR controlled), nuclear weapon capable, future compatibility with *USN CVNs if we go with Rafale M, follow-on fabrication in Canada, etc.
If I were King/PM/advisor for a day, in the current climate, here’s what I’d do:
- Assess a pure-NORAD min F-35 fleet. I agree with you, it is likely more than 16. I don’t know the particular task and force generation sortie rate to support that since I didn’t do any hard Cheyenne Mtn/Peterson AFB time, but my gut says it would be in the mid-30s to low-40s area as a min. Intent would be to address Continental defence/se requirements for: a) valid alliance reasons; and b) address the past ‘not doing our share’ rhetoric. I would commit Canada to purchase this many F-35s…and order them.
- for the Expeditionary role, non-NORAD role, I would think of a fleet of Rafale similar size to the Continental defence/se requirements. The Rafale is no slouch in its own right. More than likely far more operationally capable than some of the “5th Gen” fighters out there (Su-57 anyone).
Hence F-15 EX for NORAD role.I would switch your fleets around.
The F-35 for NORAD is a waste of resources. The main threat is old Russian (Chinese?) bombers releasing lots of ALCMs. For that you need a aircraft that can carry lots of AAMs. The F-35 doesn't have the internal capacity to carry large number of missiles and would have to mount them externally, negating its stealth capability.
The Rafale on the other hand has up to 14 hardpoints so it can carry lots of AAMs to take out Russian launched ALCMs. Perfect for NORAD.
The F-35 was designed, using its stealth and sensor/communication capabilities to penetrate enemy first lines defenses, not to chase after wayward aircraft, drug smugglers, aircraft hijacked by terrorists or worse case Russian/Chinese bombers.
![]()
They proposed one a long time ago but it went nowhere, they haven't done anything recently with engines that I am aware of. Profits aren't there with the Gripen to justify the integration, testing and fielding.I think they just trialed a non-ITAR engine in them.
Agreed. With the integration into NATO, the reality of not really being able to sell non ITAR stuff jumps up.They proposed one a long time ago but it went nowhere, they haven't done anything recently with engines that I am aware of. Profits aren't there with the Gripen to justify the integration, testing and fielding.
Didn't Rafales take a few hits recently in the latest Indo/Pak dustup?
One can hope. The K2 can do some real cool shit that puts Leos and Abrams to shame in some ways.Makes you wonder if the decision fell to SK for Subs and Tanks…
I take both sides claims with salt, but it looks like they got cocky and perhaps were lured into a SAM trap.![]()
How Pakistan shot down India's cutting-edge fighter using Chinese gear
The downing of the Rafale, the jewel of India's fleet, surprised many in the military community and raised questions about the effectiveness of Western military hardware against untested Chinese alternatives.www.reuters.com
Interesting @Good2Golf
Personally the only split fleet I think makes sense is the F-35A and F-15 EX. Regardless of option, I don’t think a split fleet for the RCAF makes a great deal of sense without a requirement for a lot more airframes.
If we bought Rafales, you might as well make it a posting to France
Didn’t pan out, still an ITAR-controlled Volvo-built GE-licensed F414.I think they just trialed a non-ITAR engine in them.
I would switch your fleets around.
The F-35 for NORAD is a waste of resources. The main threat is old Russian (Chinese?) bombers releasing lots of ALCMs. For that you need a aircraft that can carry lots of AAMs. The F-35 doesn't have the internal capacity to carry large number of missiles and would have to mount them externally, negating its stealth capability.
The Rafale on the other hand has up to 14 hardpoints so it can carry lots of AAMs to take out Russian launched ALCMs. Perfect for NORAD.
The F-35 was designed, using its stealth and sensor/communication capabilities to penetrate enemy first lines defenses, not to chase after wayward aircraft, drug smugglers, aircraft hijacked by terrorists or worse case Russian/Chinese bombers.
![]()
Didn't Rafales take a few hits recently in the latest Indo/Pak dustup?
If by 6th Gen, you specifically mean the F-47, then perhaps if they are used as an optionally-piloted aircraft. Otherwise, numerous 4/4* Gen fighters would be able to control CCA (collaborative combat aircraft) with applicable connectivity embodied.Isnt one of the benefits of the F35 program was to be able to control Unmanned wingmen (6th gen fighters). In theory you need less Manned fighters to be able to cover the same foot print using a compliment of unmanned aircraft.
yes but the F35 is stealthy where the others are not at the same level.If by 6th Gen, you specifically mean the F-47, then perhaps if they are used as an optionally-piloted aircraft. Otherwise, numerous 4/4* Gen fighters would be able to control CCA (collaborative combat aircraft) with applicable connectivity embodied.
In some specific radar bands yes. Not in all sensor bands, particularly longer wavelength radar and EO/IR. The first C in CCA doesn’t mean they have to be flying in formation, so the geometry of the battlespace and distribution of all effectors in the kill chain matters as well, not just the stealthiness (in particular bands) of one of the platforms.yes but the F35 is stealthy where the others are not at the same level.
The F35 with the sidekick mod (which Canada will have) can carry six AIM120s internally, plus an additional eight AIM 120s and two AIM9x externally, in "Beast" mode. It would be no slouch in the scenario you describe above. True it loses stealth, but the Rafale (or F-15 EX) would as well.I would switch your fleets around.
The F-35 for NORAD is a waste of resources. The main threat is old Russian (Chinese?) bombers releasing lots of ALCMs. For that you need a aircraft that can carry lots of AAMs. The F-35 doesn't have the internal capacity to carry large number of missiles and would have to mount them externally, negating its stealth capability.
The Rafale on the other hand has up to 14 hardpoints so it can carry lots of AAMs to take out Russian launched ALCMs. Perfect for NORAD.
The F-35 was designed, using its stealth and sensor/communication capabilities to penetrate enemy first lines defenses, not to chase after wayward aircraft, drug smugglers, aircraft hijacked by terrorists or worse case Russian/Chinese bombers.
![]()
We know the old EA6B technically was stealthily also. By blacking out the airspace. But it would jam, confuse and scatter signals all across the spectrum. Similar role the Growler can do and other platforms can do.In some specific radar bands yes. Not in all sensor bands, particularly longer wavelength radar and EO/IR. The first C in CCA doesn’t mean they have to be flying in formation, so the geometry of the battlespace and distribution of all effectors in the kill chain matters as well, not just the stealthiness (in particular bands) of one of the platforms.
I am excited to see where things go, especially since other countries are actively seeking these platforms. In a multi role multi platform multi coverage.Definitely a place for multi-static sensor fusion, integration and networking in the current and future in the JADC2-enabled battle space.