Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions
- Thread starter John Fedup
- Start date
There's nothing to intercept. There hasn't been any interception for decades. The costs do not justify the means.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Think again.
www.upi.com
www.rcinet.ca
www.stripes.com
NORAD, Royal Canadian Air Force intercept Russian plane off Alaskan coast - UPI.com
U.S. and Canadian forces worked together to intercept two Russian reconnaissance aircraft off the coast of Alaska on Monday, according to North America Aerospace Defense Command and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
www.upi.com
Canadian CF-18s intercept Russian fighter jet near Romanian airspace
NATO officials scrambled a pair of Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-18 Hornet fighter jets to intercept a Russian Su-27 Flanker operating near Romanian airspace over the Black Sea on Sept. 23, the Canadian military announced Friday. The Canadian aircraft were scrambled by NATO’s southern Combin
www.rcinet.ca
US, Canadian fighters intercept Russian bombers off Alaskan coast
Two U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets and two Canadian CF-18 Hornet fighters on Thursday morning intercepted the long-range, nuclear-capable Russian bombers north of Alaska over the Beaufort Sea.
If the US wants to intercept, they can do that. Canadians need not spend money to intercept.Think again.
NORAD, Royal Canadian Air Force intercept Russian plane off Alaskan coast - UPI.com
U.S. and Canadian forces worked together to intercept two Russian reconnaissance aircraft off the coast of Alaska on Monday, according to North America Aerospace Defense Command and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Canadian CF-18s intercept Russian fighter jet near Romanian airspace
NATO officials scrambled a pair of Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-18 Hornet fighter jets to intercept a Russian Su-27 Flanker operating near Romanian airspace over the Black Sea on Sept. 23, the Canadian military announced Friday. The Canadian aircraft were scrambled by NATO’s southern Combin
US, Canadian fighters intercept Russian bombers off Alaskan coast
Two U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets and two Canadian CF-18 Hornet fighters on Thursday morning intercepted the long-range, nuclear-capable Russian bombers north of Alaska over the Beaufort Sea.
That is considered extortion. US cannot force Canada to intercept.
Terran
Well-Known Member
No it’s not. Obligation isn’t to the US it’s to Canadian citizens. Based on the last few interactions with you, I am not sure if you are a Troll of just uneducated in regards to defense issues.
I posted three stories of Canadian Air Force interceptions One was in defense of Canada itself another Alaska in cooperation with the US.
As a Sovereign nation Canada has the obligation to defend its territorial integrity, interest and citizens. That includes by air. As a Polar nation Canada is under pressure from Russia whom has been pushing its own territorial claims in the Arctic ocean.
The US has treaties of mutual defense with Canada. Those treaty are to aid in Canadian defense and sovereignty by way of arms and capacity. To deter potential conflict.
Manned fighters allow that capacity. Unmanned aircraft of various types can assist yet they have limits.
I posted three stories of Canadian Air Force interceptions One was in defense of Canada itself another Alaska in cooperation with the US.
As a Sovereign nation Canada has the obligation to defend its territorial integrity, interest and citizens. That includes by air. As a Polar nation Canada is under pressure from Russia whom has been pushing its own territorial claims in the Arctic ocean.
The US has treaties of mutual defense with Canada. Those treaty are to aid in Canadian defense and sovereignty by way of arms and capacity. To deter potential conflict.
Manned fighters allow that capacity. Unmanned aircraft of various types can assist yet they have limits.
MOD WARNING TO ALL- Please avoid the use of one liners. They don't typically help any discussion and don't explain positions. We often find that they lead to escalation. Multiple posts of one liners are against rules.
Also Mods are now watching this thread. Please avoid use of hyperbole, please be careful in use of language, add more context, ensure we have a good clean, productive and positive discussion and we don't digress into personal feuding. Pause and review before posting.
Also Mods are now watching this thread. Please avoid use of hyperbole, please be careful in use of language, add more context, ensure we have a good clean, productive and positive discussion and we don't digress into personal feuding. Pause and review before posting.
Last edited by a moderator:
Manned interceptions are incredibly dangerous, see video below. You need to put a manned jet very close to a pretty big plane within meters of each other. It could very well lead to crash and death of the pilot. It is far safer to do it with a drone. Not to mention much less cost and faster response that comes with drones compared to manned jets.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Yet also less able to do the job. No drones today do intercept missions they can’t. It’s a three fold mission.
1) catch up.
The easy bit.
2) assessment of the situation,
Is it a airliner gotten lost, just a patrol or a nuclear bomber armed for war?
Is the crew happy to see you or are they missing and a ghost plane? You can say drones have optics all you like but there is a difference between a pilot at 30,000 ft seeing the situation in high def and a low res flat screen image of the same from a soda straw displayed on a screen. Some military aircraft types are the same as those used for civilian types that means needing to see up close.
3) Make contact.
Seems easy but not everyone can always talk to each other. If the radio of an airliner is out how does a drone communicate? Hand signals are limited but an option for manned machines. The pilot acts as an intermediary talking to his bosses and the intruder who may or may not be hostile.
The first part sure a Drone could do that, second and third not so much. Drone fighters are being talked about yes but to augment manned not instead of. A manned machine offers a flexibility not covered by an Unmanned. As for less cost not really it’s just a question of where your payment is. Is it in the sky or in ground stations? Particularly if you are building a large drone for this mission. The way the Russians and Chinese have been doing intercept missions is more aggressive and dangerous. Yet it still has to be done.
1) catch up.
The easy bit.
2) assessment of the situation,
Is it a airliner gotten lost, just a patrol or a nuclear bomber armed for war?
Is the crew happy to see you or are they missing and a ghost plane? You can say drones have optics all you like but there is a difference between a pilot at 30,000 ft seeing the situation in high def and a low res flat screen image of the same from a soda straw displayed on a screen. Some military aircraft types are the same as those used for civilian types that means needing to see up close.
3) Make contact.
Seems easy but not everyone can always talk to each other. If the radio of an airliner is out how does a drone communicate? Hand signals are limited but an option for manned machines. The pilot acts as an intermediary talking to his bosses and the intruder who may or may not be hostile.
The first part sure a Drone could do that, second and third not so much. Drone fighters are being talked about yes but to augment manned not instead of. A manned machine offers a flexibility not covered by an Unmanned. As for less cost not really it’s just a question of where your payment is. Is it in the sky or in ground stations? Particularly if you are building a large drone for this mission. The way the Russians and Chinese have been doing intercept missions is more aggressive and dangerous. Yet it still has to be done.
[Mod edit: Text deleted, as it is factually untrue and made without basis]They are wholly unnecessary.
These spy planes hug the border. There's no way to make them leave unless they are fired upon or rammed. [Mod edit: That is not how interceptions work. Please stop with these low quality posts. Have a look around. Members are pointing out your mistakes, learn from them or you will be banned]
P-8 do these flights near the Russian airbase in Syria pretty much every week and Russians don't even bother to intercept.
These spy planes hug the border. There's no way to make them leave unless they are fired upon or rammed. [Mod edit: That is not how interceptions work. Please stop with these low quality posts. Have a look around. Members are pointing out your mistakes, learn from them or you will be banned]
P-8 do these flights near the Russian airbase in Syria pretty much every week and Russians don't even bother to intercept.
Last edited by a moderator:
Terran
Well-Known Member
Excuse me but you yourself just posted a video of an Intercept by Russian fighters of a P8.
www.newsweek.com
It’s one thing to leave alone when it’s not your airspace quite another when it is.
Interception are also used in counter smuggling, civil security and safety missions. Any time someone pops up where they shouldn’t be.
It’s not a publicity stunt it’s an essential function. Most intelligence aircraft these days do stand off, yet the still get intercepted as a signal of sovereignty ability and to keep them in there lane. Farther the interceptor is also gathering intelligence as they often are taking photos and using onboard systems to listen to the electronic signatures of the intercepted. It’s when spy aircraft or intruders go answered that ambition troubles start. That’s usually seen as a sign of a state in both decline and open for targeting.
Russia Checks U.S. Military in Syria, May Sell Missile System to Iraq
Russia is attempting to expand its military influence in the Middle East as the United States' global posture faced additional strain from the coronavirus pandemic and rival forces.
www.newsweek.com
It’s one thing to leave alone when it’s not your airspace quite another when it is.
Interception are also used in counter smuggling, civil security and safety missions. Any time someone pops up where they shouldn’t be.
It’s not a publicity stunt it’s an essential function. Most intelligence aircraft these days do stand off, yet the still get intercepted as a signal of sovereignty ability and to keep them in there lane. Farther the interceptor is also gathering intelligence as they often are taking photos and using onboard systems to listen to the electronic signatures of the intercepted. It’s when spy aircraft or intruders go answered that ambition troubles start. That’s usually seen as a sign of a state in both decline and open for targeting.
Russians very rarely intercept P-8 off the Syrian coast. They only did it a few times max. As for interceptions, it's another word for escorting them while they spy hugging the border. You can do that with a drone. Drones are cheaper to build, be built in the hundreds, pilots are easy to train, very little maintenance, and best of all faster to deploy into the sky than a manned jet can. With a manned jet the pilot has to change into a g suit which can take more than 10 minutes. With a drone you can send it into the air within a minute on notice. You also don't need supersonic jets to intercept because these big spy planes are subsonic. That's why every country is focusing on drones now rather than manned jets. For exampleExcuse me but you yourself just posted a video of an Intercept by Russian fighters of a P8.
Russia Checks U.S. Military in Syria, May Sell Missile System to Iraq
Russia is attempting to expand its military influence in the Middle East as the United States' global posture faced additional strain from the coronavirus pandemic and rival forces.
It’s one thing to leave alone when it’s not your airspace quite another when it is.
Interception are also used in counter smuggling, civil security and safety missions. Any time someone pops up where they shouldn’t be.
It’s not a publicity stunt it’s an essential function. Most intelligence aircraft these days do stand off, yet the still get intercepted as a signal of sovereignty ability and to keep them in there lane. Farther the interceptor is also gathering intelligence as they often are taking photos and using onboard systems to listen to the electronic signatures of the intercepted. It’s when spy aircraft or intruders go answered that ambition troubles start. That’s usually seen as a sign of a state in both decline and open for targeting.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,474
Terran, troll alert, I think further engagement with Fozraro is, as the Borg say, “futile”Excuse me but you yourself just posted a video of an Intercept by Russian fighters of a P8.
Russia Checks U.S. Military in Syria, May Sell Missile System to Iraq
Russia is attempting to expand its military influence in the Middle East as the United States' global posture faced additional strain from the coronavirus pandemic and rival forces.
It’s one thing to leave alone when it’s not your airspace quite another when it is.
Interception are also used in counter smuggling, civil security and safety missions. Any time someone pops up where they shouldn’t be.
It’s not a publicity stunt it’s an essential function. Most intelligence aircraft these days do stand off, yet the still get intercepted as a signal of sovereignty ability and to keep them in there lane. Farther the interceptor is also gathering intelligence as they often are taking photos and using onboard systems to listen to the electronic signatures of the intercepted. It’s when spy aircraft or intruders go answered that ambition troubles start. That’s usually seen as a sign of a state in both decline and open for targeting.
Anyway, Canada will not make a decision about new fighter jets next year. There is no money for it, not even for Gripen. Funds have been diverted to recover education system because schools were shut down because pandemic.
Heck, Turkey decided to go for drones rather than F-35. Drones can be built in the hundreds and pilots trained in the thousands. Turkey won in Syria, Libya, Karabakh solely on drones. It's very fast to develop new drones. For example, Russia took 10 years to develop Su-57, only 2 years to develop S-70. These are some of the reasons Canada is focusing on drones rather than manned jets.
Heck, Turkey decided to go for drones rather than F-35. Drones can be built in the hundreds and pilots trained in the thousands. Turkey won in Syria, Libya, Karabakh solely on drones. It's very fast to develop new drones. For example, Russia took 10 years to develop Su-57, only 2 years to develop S-70. These are some of the reasons Canada is focusing on drones rather than manned jets.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,476
Turkey was cut off from buying F-35s. Other members have pointed the flaws in your posts in this thread and in other threads. Moderators have taken note and have restricted further comments in these threads. I suggest you give it a rest before Preceptor decides to act.
[Text deleted] did not deem [Mod edit: Off-topic attempt to derail thread with factually untrue nonsense deleted.] They determined drones are far more useful than [Mod edit: Off-topic attempt to derail thread with factually untrue nonsense deleted.]Drones are easy to develop and build. Drone pilots are easy to train. Drones are also more stealthy than manned jets due to shaping considering they do not accomodate any crew and therefore have a flatter profile. [Text deleted].
Please return to a discussion on the Canadian Air Force. Further attempts to derail this thread will lead to sanctions.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,478
Apparently the Canadian government is looking for used aircraft again. This time, the acquisition makes more sense, surplus passenger/cargo jets from distressed airlines for replacing old Airbus jets acquired years ago from bankrupt Wardair.
Hopefully they are looking at A330s for tanker conversion. I don’t believe Air Canada has any and they have already had generous bailouts from junior. Air Transat has A330s but may not wish to ditch them yet but there must be numerous foreign opportunities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-second-hand-market-planes-1.5850140
Hopefully they are looking at A330s for tanker conversion. I don’t believe Air Canada has any and they have already had generous bailouts from junior. Air Transat has A330s but may not wish to ditch them yet but there must be numerous foreign opportunities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-second-hand-market-planes-1.5850140
Last edited:
I believe Air Canada has taken advantage of the wage subsidy, which is available for any business, to keep employees on the payroll instead of laying them off, but they haven't gotten the dedicated airline bailout they've been asking for because the government is requiring airlines to fully refund their passengers for cancelled flights which Air Canada refuses to do. I wonder if Air Canada would be more amenable to an offer of a bailout in exchange for providing the government with heavily discounted airplanes instead of passenger refunds? But I'm guessing the Air Canada customers affected wouldn't be as happy with such a deal though.
Israel Approved for KC-46, but USAF Problems Persist | AIN
Israel is now cleared to begin negotiations over the purchase of the still-troubled KC-46A tanker.
www.ainonline.com
It does look like A330s are the only option for tanker conversions since Boeing seems to be refusing to provide licenses to allow further 767 tanker conversions. Boeing forced Israel to buy new KC-46 instead of allowing Israel Aerospace Industries to convert 767s even though Israel Aerospace Industries has previously performed those conversions for Columbia and Brazil. Maybe the Canadian government can quietly hint to Boeing that denying the option to convert 767 aircraft in order to push their new build KC-46 would once again raise questions of trust which could impact future contracts like the Future Fighter tender.
First KC-10 heads to Boneyard as Pegasus comes into the fleet
This KC-10 was in service for more than 33 years, seeing action in operations ranging from Desert Shield to Inherent Resolve.
www.airforcetimes.com
If Canada is open to second-hand tankers, I'm curious if consideration will be given to the KC-10? The US has started retiring them since they consider the 59 KC-10 an orphan fleet relative to the 300+ KC-135 and 179 KC-46 on order. They date from the early to late 1980s which is admittedly older than the late 1980s CC-150s, but that apparently isn't old for a tanker since the US will continue using the KC-135 for decades to come. The KC-10 actually carries more fuel and cargo than the KC-135, KC-46, or A330 MRTT. Private contractors have recently been acquiring KDC-10 so Canada wouldn't be the only operator once the USAF retires them and the maintenance costs aren't likely outrageous if private operators can make a profit. The USAF KC-10 fleet just completed an avionics and cockpit modernization program in the 2010s. Presumably the up-front price of buying ready-to-use (barring minor Canadianization) KC-10 will be cheaper than converting commercial airliners and certainly cheaper than new-build tankers although careful analysis of life-cycle costs will have to be done. Maybe with agreements to provide a certain amount of tanker availability to service NORAD and NATO requests to relieve the demand on US tankers, the US would be willing to sell some of their newer, better condition KC-10 for an aggressive price. It's certainly better for all parties than them sitting in the Boneyard. I'm guessing though that the optics of trading one 1980s tanker for another is politically nonviable even if the KC-10 are more capable.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
My suspicion would be that the KC-10 would be horrendously expensive to operate, 3 man Cockpit crew for starters, which means the RCAF would have introduce Flight Engineers for them, thirsty Engines, and Spare Parts would be getting harder and harder to get hold of. And you would have to ask why are the USAF really getting rid of them, 59 Aircraft is not really a major issue Orphan Fleet wise, the USAF operate smaller Orphan fleets then that. The RCAF would have to train personnel on maintaining an old Aircraft. The Civilian Contractors would be using a lot of ex USAF personnel, who would be quite happy to do a 9-5 job before that doesn’t include all the BS that comes with being in Uniform to operate and maintain the Aircraft.I believe Air Canada has taken advantage of the wage subsidy, which is available for any business, to keep employees on the payroll instead of laying them off, but they haven't gotten the dedicated airline bailout they've been asking for because the government is requiring airlines to fully refund their passengers for cancelled flights which Air Canada refuses to do. I wonder if Air Canada would be more amenable to an offer of a bailout in exchange for providing the government with heavily discounted airplanes instead of passenger refunds? But I'm guessing the Air Canada customers affected wouldn't be as happy with such a deal though.
Israel Approved for KC-46, but USAF Problems Persist | AIN
Israel is now cleared to begin negotiations over the purchase of the still-troubled KC-46A tanker.
It does look like A330s are the only option for tanker conversions since Boeing seems to be refusing to provide licenses to allow further 767 tanker conversions. Boeing forced Israel to buy new KC-46 instead of allowing Israel Aerospace Industries to convert 767s even though Israel Aerospace Industries has previously performed those conversions for Columbia and Brazil. Maybe the Canadian government can quietly hint to Boeing that denying the option to convert 767 aircraft in order to push their new build KC-46 would once again raise questions of trust which could impact future contracts like the Future Fighter tender.
First KC-10 heads to Boneyard as Pegasus comes into the fleet
This KC-10 was in service for more than 33 years, seeing action in operations ranging from Desert Shield to Inherent Resolve.
If Canada is open to second-hand tankers, I'm curious if consideration will be given to the KC-10? The US has started retiring them since they consider the 59 KC-10 an orphan fleet relative to the 300+ KC-135 and 179 KC-46 on order. They date from the early to late 1980s which is admittedly older than the late 1980s CC-150s, but that apparently isn't old for a tanker since the US will continue using the KC-135 for decades to come. The KC-10 actually carries more fuel and cargo than the KC-135, KC-46, or A330 MRTT. Private contractors have recently been acquiring KDC-10 so Canada wouldn't be the only operator once the USAF retires them and the maintenance costs aren't likely outrageous if private operators can make a profit. The USAF KC-10 fleet just completed an avionics and cockpit modernization program in the 2010s. Presumably the up-front price of buying ready-to-use (barring minor Canadianization) KC-10 will be cheaper than converting commercial airliners and certainly cheaper than new-build tankers although careful analysis of life-cycle costs will have to be done. Maybe with agreements to provide a certain amount of tanker availability to service NORAD and NATO requests to relieve the demand on US tankers, the US would be willing to sell some of their newer, better condition KC-10 for an aggressive price. It's certainly better for all parties than them sitting in the Boneyard. I'm guessing though that the optics of trading one 1980s tanker for another is politically nonviable even if the KC-10 are more capable.
Canada would be far better off buying some 2nd hand A-330s and converting them to MRTT, A Number of close Allies are operating them incl Australia, UK, France, Singapore and the ROK, and the A-330 is still in production.
Probably a good time to pick up some 2nd Hand A330s in good condition too, might cost more in the short term but will be cheaper in the long run.
Last edited: