Canada to buy fewer F-35s than thought!

[swerve]

...
The British are a different story, they have seen very large cuts across the board. Even though im sure it is a hard pill to swallow, you do have to take a look at the capabilities of the new ships! It is hard not to igrnore. In the end the british are still in a good position to play a role in this world. 2 carriers and 3 amphibious ships is not bad at all!

Not quite cuts across the board. And what's this about 3 amphibious ships? Seven currently in service. In the last ten years, the RN has seen a very large increase in amphibious capability: one new LPH, two old LPDs replaced by two 50% larger ships, five Round Table LSTs replaced by four Bay class LSDs, each over twice the size & payload, & a new capability in the form of six Point class militarised ro-ros in civilian ownership, but under a deal which guarantees availability to the RN.

i.e., the UK has considerably increased its sealift & amphibious assault capabilities, while cutting front-line combat forces. It's doing much the same with the air force, increasing transport capabilities, though with a current shortfall, until the A400M is in service.

 

[battlensign]

May I inquire why the British and the French, and the Germans can reduce their aircraft and ship's inventories, but Canada can't?

They had 12 frigates and 4 destroyers before, and will continue to have 12 frigates afterwards. A cut of four destroyers whereas the British have cut what appears to be six destroyers....
QUOTE]

'Cause I said so! :

On a more serious note:

1) Who said it was acceptable for the Brits and French to make those reductions? (obviously as hardware cost increases limitations come into play, but 6 Destroyers from the RN? It's a tragedy!:shudder )

2) Not to mention, the Canadian reductions to 65 JSF would mean only 3 (possibly 4) squadrons........ critical mass?

3) I really hope that Canada gets another 4 new AWDs sometime soon......

Brett.

 

[Sea Toby]

May I inquire why the British and the French, and the Germans can reduce their aircraft and ship's inventories, but Canada can't?

They had 12 frigates and 4 destroyers before, and will continue to have 12 frigates afterwards. A cut of four destroyers whereas the British have cut what appears to be six destroyers....
QUOTE]

'Cause I said so! :

On a more serious note:

1) Who said it was acceptable for the Brits and French to make those reductions? (obviously as hardware cost increases limitations come into play, but 6 Destroyers from the RN? It's a tragedy!:shudder )

2) Not to mention, the Canadian reductions to 65 JSF would mean only 3 (possibly 4) squadrons........ critical mass?

3) I really hope that Canada gets another 4 new AWDs sometime soon......

Brett.

Just because you say so doesn't mean anyone else has to agree. Is there a white paper that agrees with you? Am I missing something here, is the price of petroleum $60 a barrel? Or is it more like $140 a barrel? The price of petroleum has doubled in the past two years, with no sign the price won't be doubled next year..... As we pay for more for energy, something has to give in the budget, for most it will be defense. Like it or not.

 

[battlensign]

Just because you say so doesn't mean anyone else has to agree. Is there a white paper that agrees with you? Am I missing something here, is the price of petroleum $60 a barrel? Or is it more like $140 a barrel? The price of petroleum has doubled in the past two years, with no sign the price won't be doubled next year..... As we pay for more for energy, something has to give in the budget, for most it will be defense. Like it or not.

Um....Yes, actually...........

It's called the SDR of '98 (in the British example).

Brett.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Most of the world's navies are seeing cuts. Most of the world's air forces are seeing cuts. Not many are building up their fleets of ships or aircraft. Not even the United States of America.....

Well if the U.S. isn't then what about the F-22/F-35 and the new 2018 bomber or the new tanker? Or what about the Virginia class submarine, new aircraft carriers or the DDG-1000? The U.S. is building all of those things so they are building up its arsenal maybe not for a one for one basis with the air force but they are increasing or at least trying to increase the size of their navy to 313 ships. 2386 F-15s, F-16s and A-10s will be replaced by 183(probably more) F-22s and 1763 F-35s over the next 20 years. The air force may have a reduction but the new 5th generation fighters will be far deadlier than current generation fighters. 65 F-35s might be enough to replace 80 or so CF-18s.

 

[swerve]

Well if the U.S. isn't then what about the F-22/F-35 and the new 2018 bomber or the new tanker? Or what about the Virginia class submarine, new aircraft carriers or the DDG-1000? The U.S. is building all of those things so they are building up its arsenal maybe not for a one for one basis with the air force but they are increasing or at least trying to increase the size of their navy to 313 ships. 2386 F-15s, F-16s and A-10s will be replaced by 183(probably more) F-22s and 1763 F-35s over the next 20 years. The air force may have a reduction but the new 5th generation fighters will be far deadlier than current generation fighters. 65 F-35s might be enough to replace 80 or so CF-18s.

The USAF has about 600 tankers, which are so old that they're running out of possible life extensions. Buying 179 new tankers is not building up its forces. It's not even replacing their old aircraft, despite the greater capacity of the new tankers. Same for the F-22 & F-35. Both are being bought in much smaller numbers than the aircraft they are replacing. Aircraft carriers aren't being replaced one for one. Etc. And they are trying to increase the size of the navy by replacing some frigates with larger numbers of much smaller LCS, which (even if it happens, & the growth in the LCS price casts doubt on it) isn't much of a build-up.

 

[AegisFC]

Well if the U.S. isn't then what about the F-22/F-35 and the new 2018 bomber or the new tanker? Or what about the Virginia class submarine, new aircraft carriers or the DDG-1000? The U.S. is building all of those things so they are building up its arsenal maybe not for a one for one basis with the air force but they are increasing or at least trying to increase the size of their navy to 313 ships. 2386 F-15s, F-16s and A-10s will be replaced by 183(probably more) F-22s and 1763 F-35s over the next 20 years. The air force may have a reduction but the new 5th generation fighters will be far deadlier than current generation fighters. 65 F-35s might be enough to replace 80 or so CF-18s.

Not to go too far off topic, but the USN is decreasing in size, we've cut 2 carriers without replacements decommissioned all the Spruance class with only replacing a handful of them, we've neutered our FFG's and our submarine tenders are going away.

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall, the CG-47s were bought to replace the Leahys, Belknaps, California, and Virginia classes of surface ships. 27 were built, replacing 26 ships. 57 DDG-51s have been bought to orginally replace 23 Adams and 10 Coontz class destroyers, the program has been continued to replace 31 Spruance class and 4 Kidd class destroyers. Thats 57 new ships replacing 68 older destroyers. And yes, a number of new DDGX have been or will also be bought. The only numbers of cruisers and destroyers that have been cut recently reflect the cut of aircraft carrier battle groups, from 12 to 11, or is it 10 now. Added Arleigh Burkes have replaced almost all of the Spruance class with a huge improvement of area defense missiles instead of self defense missiles, from destroyers rated at DDs to DDGs.


The US Navy is not hurting so much at the cruiser/destroyer level, its hurting at the frigate and attack submarine levels. Hopefully the LCS will be bought in numbers to replace the OHPerrys. I don't see a large attack submarine program since the Cold War as the Soviets huge submarine fleet has been significantly reduced. Never-the-less new Virginia class submarines have been bought.

And I repeat, our current economic growth is not keeping up with the price of petroleum, so something has to give. I wouldn't expect health care or education to pay for oil price increases. If the Democrats win this fall's election, I would expect to see national health care finally becoming a reality along with college education price relief. If you read the tea leaves as I do, there is going to be more defense cuts in the future.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think the Navy has 11 aircraft carriers.

The Navy will buy 2-7 DDG-1000 class destroyers to serve with the cruisers and destroyers.

For frigates they will be replace by more modern and effective LCS with around 60 to be built.

According to the pentagon the Navy needs at least 48 attack submarines plus 14 ballistic missile submarines. I don't know how many of each kind of sub but I do know they will have 30 Virginia class subs and 3 sea wolf and 4 Ohio SSGNs plus 14 Ohio SSBNs.

 

[AegisFC]

Lets keep this on the topic of the Canadian F-35s.

 

[jtl310]

Please correct me if i am wrong here, my knowledge on Fighter aircraft is limited.

Isnt the F-35 developed for the US primarily as a Strike-fighter/multirole aircraft,
while the F-22 is the main fighter plane/air superiority plane with multirole capabilities.

So my question is should canada look to have a mixed airforce? with an order of 65 F-35, should it look for another 25-30 fighter plane to be used for interception/ air superiority aircraft? Or is the F-35 so good that the only plane to tackle it in an air 2 air combat would be the F-22?

And if the F-35 can beat all/ majority of <5th gen aircraft, should the air force look to acquire proper CAS/Bomber aircraft? For example CAS in Afghanistan, an A-10 or F-16 would be extremely helpful to ground forces.

So can the F-35 really do everything? CAS/A2A/A2G ....or is it a plane that can excel at everything? or does it not do very good at any one thing?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Please correct me if i am wrong here, my knowledge on Fighter aircraft is limited.

Isnt the F-35 developed for the US primarily as a Strike-fighter/multirole aircraft,
while the F-22 is the main fighter plane/air superiority plane with multirole capabilities.

So my question is should canada look to have a mixed airforce? with an order of 65 F-35, should it look for another 25-30 fighter plane to be used for interception/ air superiority aircraft? Or is the F-35 so good that the only plane to tackle it in an air 2 air combat would be the F-22?

And if the F-35 can beat all/ majority of <5th gen aircraft, should the air force look to acquire proper CAS/Bomber aircraft? For example CAS in Afghanistan, an A-10 or F-16 would be extremely helpful to ground forces.

So can the F-35 really do everything? CAS/A2A/A2G ....or is it a plane that can excel at everything? or does it not do very good at any one thing?

Yes the F-35 can do everything.:nutkick

The USAF wanted the F-35 to size up to the F-22 in capability but be cheaper and be built in larger numbers and thats what they got. Although the F-35 was designed manly as a strike fighter(such as the F-15E) and the F-22 was designed manly as a air to air fighter you can see how the F-22 and F-35 have overlapping capabilities. The F-22 can also do air to ground combat well the F-35 can do air to air combat. The F-35 will be more than a match against any enemy it faces.

And that is why today you will never see any fighter designed to do only one job. All fighters these days have an emphasis on muti-role missions meaning they do both clearing the skies and the ground pounder roles.