- Reaction score
- 11,861
- Points
- 1,160
The same way they do in every other country. Everybody wants jobs in return fo government money.
The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
The same way they do in every other country. Everybody wants jobs in return fo government money.
Good. The more leverage we use the better.
Clearly they are a bit spooked by recent discussions.
Hybrid COA is finally entering the public discourse:
open.substack.com
In the F-35 v. Gripen debate, is there a silent third option?
Could an even less capable aircraft cut the Gordian Knot that's strangling Canada's fighter procurement?
open.substack.com
- Reaction score
- 5,953
- Points
- 1,160
Somebody been reading our forums?Hybrid COA is finally entering the public discourse:
In the F-35 v. Gripen debate, is there a silent third option?
Could an even less capable aircraft cut the Gordian Knot that's strangling Canada's fighter procurement?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,902
- Points
- 1,260
Hybrid COA is finally entering the public discourse:
In the F-35 v. Gripen debate, is there a silent third option?
Could an even less capable aircraft cut the Gordian Knot that's strangling Canada's fighter procurement?
From the article:
"Could an even less capable aircraft cut the Gordian Knot that's strangling Canada's fighter procurement?"
I actually prefer this to the Gripen.
One less type. And an aircraft with all the features that the Gripen has to let pilots build time and experience. Also, we have to buy a trainer anyway. The Hawks have been retired.
But also this turns the argument of the Gripen as Minimum Viable Product on its head. The FA-50 is basically as capable as a HEP 1 Hornet. More in some ways. AESA radar. Helmet Mounted Displays. Link 16. Capable of air to air refuelling. And can launch the full inventory of our ordinance. Half the price of a Gripen.
One less type. And an aircraft with all the features that the Gripen has to let pilots build time and experience. Also, we have to buy a trainer anyway. The Hawks have been retired.
But also this turns the argument of the Gripen as Minimum Viable Product on its head. The FA-50 is basically as capable as a HEP 1 Hornet. More in some ways. AESA radar. Helmet Mounted Displays. Link 16. Capable of air to air refuelling. And can launch the full inventory of our ordinance. Half the price of a Gripen.
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,834
- Points
- 810
If we are in a scenario where politics dictates some kind of domestic aerospace production agreement, I would much rather see that capital spent on something like FA-50 compared to Gripen. If adopting some light fighters is what it takes to eventually get our full order of F-35A's, it seems like assembling and integrating them into the airforce would be far less of a disruption than something like the Gripen. If I recall correctly, the FA-50 even uses the same F-404 engine as our existing Hornet fleet.
We need a replacement for the Snowbirds and the FFLIT, that's a good few handful of airframes alone there. It wouldn't ultimately surprise me if KAI and Lockheed Martin give us an offer like they did with Egypt to set up a domestic production facility for FA-50, to fill those unarmed aircraft orders and transition into the armed variants later to keep the line going. It helps that unlike the Gripen, there seems to be actual international demand for the FA-50 given its low cost and operational requirements. Undercutting Saab with their own arguments about cost effectiveness would be amusing.
This would all be predicated on us getting our full 88 F-35A order, trading any F-35A's for light fighters is a nonstarter in my opinion.
- Reaction score
- 5,953
- Points
- 1,160
Ukrainian F-16 pilot sets record for shooting down missiles in one flight
Read more
Our greatest airborne threat isn't enemy fighters or bombers over our territory but rather the missiles they (and potentially enemy submarines) launch against our territory.
FA-50s can sling Meteors. Something that is only now being integrated into the F-35. That's the longest range BVR missile in NATO inventory. So yes, this thing could hunt Bears if it had to. And do so for a lot less than an F-35. Think of it as a great fleet for Dom Ops and a nice bridge for pilots to build fast jet time and experience. They get to learn 5th gen stuff like AESA radars, fusion with datalinks, using HMDs and HOBS missiles, etc. before going to the F-35.
Will add too that we pay Top Aces for a lot of stuff that we could do in house. And this fleet could do that. Think of the times we pay Top Aces to support training JTACs for the Army. Or providing missile simulations for the Navy. All of that can be done by young pilots building time and experience.
Ukrainian F-16 pilot sets record for shooting down missiles in one flight
Read morenewsukraine.rbc.ua
Our greatest airborne threat isn't enemy fighters or bombers over our territory but rather the missiles they (and potentially enemy submarines) launch against our territory.
Shooting down missiles using fighter patrols is insanely inefficient and expensive. Ukraine is forced to do this by circumstance. Presumably we should be developing IAMD that doesn't require us to do this. Also, it's not clear how much we would do this domestically in any meaningful frequency.
- Reaction score
- 11,861
- Points
- 1,160
From the article:
"Could an even less capable aircraft cut the Gordian Knot that's strangling Canada's fighter procurement?"
The issue is not buying a less capable F35 as a front line fighter. It is buying a more capable Hawk as a lead in trainer. With 20% of the flying cost of the F35.
- Reaction score
- 5,953
- Points
- 1,160
Air launched missiles are part of an IAMD system. Fighters can also move much more quickly to an area where they are needed than land or sea-based platforms. With BVR missiles (QB'd by F-35's and AEW aircraft) they can also take out enemy aircraft (or ships?) before they launch their missiles, likely before they are in range of land-based missile defence systems.
- Reaction score
- 11,861
- Points
- 1,160
I see air-launched missiles as a reserve capacity, a quick reaction force held against the inevitable unplanned event.
If there is a credible threat that permits the develoment of a planned response then ground launched systems are much more cost effective to maintain at readiness. Wooden rounds on static launchers.
And the longer the range if the rounds the fewer you need and the fewer launchers you need.
We would need lots of 10 to 50 km NASAMs systems.
Fewer 150 km SM6 SAMs
Still fewer F35s, F18s and FFLITs. But those require airfields and hangars and tankers and ground crew.
My personal favourite is something like the rocket launched, 5600 km Valkyrie that could be cued by an MQ9 and deliver a pair of AIM 120s and a couple of Sidewinders along with EW effects. Or a couple of SDBs and Brimstones.
Stored in seacans and deployed from fields and parking lots.
- Reaction score
- 5,953
- Points
- 1,160
Correct. We are not currently in a state of armed conflict.
If however we were to go to war with Russia or China as part of an alliance then what potential military threats might we face? Is it inconceivable that we might face air or sub-launched cruise missiles against our fleet and naval bases? Against our NORAD radar sites? Against our airfields? Critical infrastructure? Is that not exactly the reason we have fighters in the first place?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 20,769
- Points
- 1,260
Do we actually know what we are doing?
