• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Fighters

Both the F-22 and F-23 were offered as two seat strike aircraft in various paper studies, being the rough equivalents of the F-111 in their proposed configurations. While interesting ideas (and possibly worth exploring), nothing ever came of this and the ideas (and the F-22 program itself) were shelved.

Once again, in the Canadian context we need long range aircraft given the distances within Canada and the even greater distances needed to project power from Canada. A heavy aircraft like the FB-22 or FB-23 proposals would also be able to do things like carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles, for example, providing a much greater degree of flexibility to the Airforce and Forces in general.

In the real world, such aircraft do not exist (The SU-34 is probably the only analogue), so once again we are back to the CF-35.
 
Yeah, I don't think the CF has the clout to resurrect the FB-22, but it would certainly fit the bill. The Indian 2-seater variant of the PAK-FA would also likely tick the boxes, but it's obviously a non-starter for geopolitical reasons.

But the F-22 would be a perfectly adequate substitute in my mind. I would far prefer to have single-seat F-22s than twin-seat Super Hornets.  One of the biggest things that I see coming from multi-crew fighters moving forward is their ability to manage U(C)AVs, which is something the Americans are already greatly appreciating about the F-15E. This is something a Super Hornet should have little difficulty with, as opposed to an F-22 pilot who could easily find himself busier than a one-legged man in the proverbial contest.
 
Occam said:
News to me.

Not to me, and yes, i dont know a bit on that subject.

But (generally speaking) you're not going to install Link 22 on a generation 4.0 aircraft because it's likely near the end of its service life, right?

I would agree with that. But if we were to buy Typhoon and wanted link 22 ( if it doesnt come with it already) then we have it put in.........Link 22 in a Typhoon talks to link 22 in an F-35........no "generation" problem.
 
CDN Aviator said:
Not to me, and yes, i dont know a bit on that subject.

That may be why.  I've instructed it.

I would agree with that. But if we were to buy Typhoon and wanted link 22 ( if it doesnt come with it already) then we have it put in.........Link 22 in a Typhoon talks to link 22 in an F-35........no "generation" problem.

I think you just proved my point for me.  Typhoon is not a 4th generation fighter, it's a generation 4.5 fighter (new ones off the line anyways, and older ones are being updated).  Bringing a gen 4.0 up to Link-22 is pointless as the rest of the airplane is nearing the end of its service life.  Generation 4.5 aircraft are not, and can be expected to be used for many more years.  You're just not getting the broad description that Generation "whatever" is trying to convey, and why using that term is appropriate when describing aircraft capabilities in general.
 
On the other side of the world...

http://sortofpolitical.blogspot.com/2011/04/nation-that-takes-national-defense.html

A nation that takes national defense seriously, and then there's Canada...
Australia may buy more Super Hornets amid F-35 delays

"(Reuters) - Australia is considering buying 18 Boeing-built Super Hornet warplanes for around $1.6 billion to plug a hole in defence capabilities left by expected delays in Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a report said on Monday.

Australian defence officials plan to raise concerns about project delays and the possibility of a serious gap in Australia's air defences from 2020 onwards when they visit the United States this week, the Australian newspaper said.

Military chiefs were preparing options to plug the gap, including the A$1.5 billion ($1.6 billion) purchase of 18 extra F/A-18F Super Hornets, adding to 24 of the aircraft bought in 2007 to fill a strategic hole, the paper said, without naming sources."

I'm trying to conceive of our Canadian "minority" government snapping up a total of 42 F/A-18F Super Hornets just to keep our DND in top form, while we wait for our 65 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to hit the ground. (For some reason this image of flying pigs keeps popping up in my mind...)

They're ultimately replacing 71 F-18 Hornets now in service.

And how many F-35s are they considering to this end?

"Australia plans to buy up to 100 stealthy F-35 Lightning's for an estimated A$16 billion and has so far ordered 14, with the air force's first squadron hoping to be operational by 2018"

That would be 100, for an estimated $16 billion (Australian dollars).

Keep in mind, Australia is a nation of 22,000,000, two thirds that of Canada, with a DND charged with protecting considerably less area and coastal waters.

But here's the kicker...

"Australia has already begun a multi-billion-dollar upgrade of its military that includes new air defense destroyers, two large amphibious assault ships, helicopters, tanks, long-range cruise missiles and 12 new submarines costing $25 billion."

Ummm...I'll pause now while you take a moment to pick your jaw up off the floor.

Okay, it's only fair to mention that Australia faces their own brand of challenges regarding national defense. They're relatively isolated over there on the far side of the Pacific, and not all that far removed from potentially aggressive nations like China and N. Korea. They also happen to have experienced attacks by foreign forces on their sovereignty.

Which is to say, they understand what "national defense" truly is all about.

Additionally, they're not members of mutual defense organizations like NATO and NORAD, with their formidable and immediate clout upon whom Canada can rely should push ever come to shove.

Not to mention that Aussies don't share a common border with the world's most potent military super power.

Nevertheless, in bringing forward these comparisons with a nation with whom we have very much in common historically, culturally, and politically, the point I'm trying to make here is this:

I find the positions eternally adopted by Canada's Liberal/Left regarding our own national defense disgraceful and repugnant. Their approach to re-equipping our Canadian air force with F-35s, as put forward in no uncertain terms during this election, simply stated is just more of the same old tired and defeatist bullshit that has come to be the underpinnings of their ideological contempt for all things military, and their pathetically amateurish, childish, and impotent notions of what Canadian sovereignty is all about. The very foundation of the Liberals' concept of defense of our own air, lands, and seas rests upon a delusional, yet stunningly smug, certainty that in the event of any real threat to Canada, it simply is a given that the Americans will rush to cover our sorry asses for us, period, end of story.

I can still remember Stephane Dion's shockingly astounding flippancy during a parliamentary debate on Canada's ability to defend our Arctic sovereignty, when he quipped, to paraphrase: "What are we going to do, go to war with the Russians?" MPs on his side of the house clearly thought this was damn funny stuff, as they all shared in a good laugh.

IOW, message to Russians, and anyone else with designs on our Arctic treasure: You want it? It yours, come and get it! We already give up.

The unspoken, but still tacitly understood assumption being, of course, providing the good ol' US of A...you know, our reliable big brother just to the south of us...will ever in your wildest dreams let you get away with it.

How utterly and appallingly shameless can they possibly get.

I can't help but think that the hundreds of thousands who fought for the freedom of Canada during the 20th century, and the tens of thousands who died for it, must be turning in their graves.

sigh
 
Don't forget their Tiger ARH's, new AOR's, extra C-17 airframes, and the Bay-Class Amphib they just bought from the RN (in addition to the two flat-tops under construction).

With a smaller military budget than Canada.
 
Do the Aussies have to worry about the votes of one province every time they procure military hardware?
 
As the article said, they are in a very lonely position. If you want a lesson in just how far out an limb they can be, take a look at early 1942. A lot of their navy and three of their four active divisions (and the one that was not had most of its strength in Singapore) were in the Middle East - North Africa theatre, the RAAF did not have any modern fighters at home and the Brits balked at both returning their forces and providing them with modern equipment. To make matters worse, the Japanese carrier task force that attacked Pearl Harbor did the same to Darwin a short while later. (A lesson in sea power?)

Sorry for the hijack, but it explains a lot of their attitude towards defence spending.
 
Old Sweat said:
As the article said, they are in a very lonely position. If you want a lesson in just how far out an limb they can be, take a look at early 1942. A lot of their navy and three of their four active divisions (and the one that was not had most of its strength in Singapore) were in the Middle East - North Africa theatre, the RAAF did not have any modern fighters at home and the Brits balked at both returning their forces and providing them with modern equipment. To make matters worse, the Japanese carrier task force that attacked Pearl Harbor did the same to Darwin a short while later. (A lesson in sea power?)

Sorry for the hijack, but it explains a lot of their attitude towards defence spending.


:highjack:
The Brits balked at providing us with modern equipment, too - leading, eventually (1942/43), to an emergency refit and retraining programme for an overstretched, ill-equipped and under-trained Canadian Navy.
 
And....to hijack this even more.....Australia does not have a "big brother" .
 
Jim Seggie said:
And....to hijack this even more.....Australia does not have a "big brother" .

:off topic:

Interestingly enough Australia is being wooed by America, China and even India - all offering sweetheart trade deals and more if Australia will just stop dealing, on favourable terms, with the other two. Thus far the Aussies have resisted all the blandishments, including from the USA.

:highjack:    :sorry:
 
ERC

The Brits balked at providing us with modern equipment, too - leading, eventually (1942/43), to an emergency refit and retraining programme for an overstretched, ill-equipped and under-trained Canadian Navy.

I believe that part of the problem was Mackenzie King's instance that the forces be supplied with Cdn manufactured and in some cases designed (Ram tanks) equipment as much as possible. WRT the Navy, Cdn GE radar that froze solid, Corvettes that would not be withdrawal from operations to make modifications. Cdn Corvettes were considered "wet" as the British lengthened the forecastle on theirs, Canada delayed. After all we had to continue to build the third largest Navy.

Often Cdn Film Unit captioned photos stating the equipment in the photo was "built at Ford Ontario" plant.

At the Quebec Conference, Mackenzie King was the host, not a participant. He was driven around and around the hotel until the delayed completion of the conference just to join FDR and Churchill for a photo op to dupe the Cdn people into thinking he was a wheel.

Yes it was wartime feel good propaganda. King was a Liberal. He fought the war as a politician. "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription.", while Cdn infantry units were well below strength. How many casualties did this cost? Look at some of the headstones in Europe. The dead are not, e.g. all 18-25 YOA. I asked myself why my regiment has headstones for Rifleman (Privates) in their thirties and forties in 1944/45.
 
A few comments on points above:

First: Australia's military budget is bigger than Canada's (2010: AUS: 24 B US$, CAN: 22.8 B US$ - in %of GDP: AUS: 2% CAN: 1.4%);

Second, re: WWII: It was the Canadian government - under the direction of C.D. Howe - minister of everything - that insisted on Canada profiting from the war as much as possible to industrialize the country. Canadian corvettes coming back from the UK with better electronics or upgraded AA guns saw them striped in Canada by the dockyards because they were not on the fitted list.

Third: The choice is not  (and should not be) between F-35's and AOR's: They are both in the "budget", so to speak. It really riles me when the parties not forming the government constantly make it sound as if it is a choice between one or the other (Most damning right now is how the Liberals in their Quebec ads - yes they are still playing different ads in French in Quebec than in English for the rest of Canada - make it sound as if the Conservatives want to spend 29 B$ on 65 fighters in one shot, while they would not spend a dime on that. This is of course false on two planes: First, the 29 B$ is spread over 30 years, making it a very reasonable program within a 24 B$ annual budget envelope of which it already forms part. Second: before we knew we would go into an election, Mr. Ignattief's position was that the purchase should go through a competitive process - not that the Liberal's would not make such purchase to replace the CF-18's. Their way may just as well produce the purchase of the same plane at about the same price, but in any event, the cost of their replacement program would not be substantially lower than what is envisaged by the Conservatives. RANT OFF!).
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Mr. Ignattief's position was that the purchase should go through a competitive process

If you ever have a couple hours to kill check this out.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw">Nova JSF Battle of the X Planes</a>

These things were tested to the top of the sky... literally...

You really see that they picked the best possible option.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Mr. Ignattief's position was that the purchase should go through a competitive process - not that the Liberal's would not make such purchase to replace the CF-18's. Their way may just as well produce the purchase of the same plane at about the same price, but in any event, the cost of their replacement program would not be substantially lower than what is envisaged by the Conservatives. RANT OFF!).

They also said that they'll put on hold all defense procurement until they review (read: hack and slash) all of our requirements so if theres no requirement, there's no purchases.
 
PuckChaser said:
They also said that they'll put on hold all defense procurement until they review (read: hack and slash) all of our requirements so if theres no requirement, there's no purchases.

Yeah, but we'll all get a free University education when we get out.  ::) 
 
It may be a looooong wait for Iggy to come across with the cash if he is anything like Lieberals of the past.  But I know I could use some edumacation.  Let's see, pottery class or basket weaving......
 
jollyjacktar said:
It may be a looooong wait for Iggy to come across with the cash if he is anything like Lieberals of the past.  But I know I could use some edumacation.  Let's see, pottery class or basket weaving......

I recommend "Popular Music of the 70's". Should be an easy 'A' for the ...older crowd.  ;)
 
Back
Top