Todjaeger
The author has taken the opinion that is "Canadian". We will never act on our own in a hostile way towards another nation. Ever. Never going to happen.
Like New Zealand, distance from an aggresive neighbour is such that they cant get to us except with ballistic missle or sea launched cruise missles thus his reference to BMD protection.
Our lack of tankers precludes an enmass deployment of fighters regardless of what we buy. Ours is a token air force with niche capability to slot into coalition operations and that includes NORAD. If the generals want the latest and greatest to play with the deep pockets of the US and the Uk and appease LM and our commitments to the F35 program then doen the road a squadron or two can be acquired for those missions.
Imho the author has come to a conclusion that is realistic politically, operationally and financially.
It allows Junior an out on the F35, buys votes from the aerospace sector and doesnt drain the treasury.
A purchase of 28 F35 to outfit an operational squadron, training and attrition aircraft plus a buy of 60 or so Gripen for home use would suffice for what we do as a military. If you are joining the RCAF and think you are going to be first in on the next run at Bagdad or Kabul you have rocks for brains. Throttle jockeys here may get to do CAP, or act as bombers in uncontested space but peer on peer isnt the Canadian way.
As the author noted we ran three types during the 1970s. The need for aircraft based in Europe may come back and thats where the F35 would be beneficial along with our allies who have chosen it over there like the Starfighter was.
The authors concept of a SAAB family of aircraft isnt out to lunch .The production line for the P8 will be closed by the time we decide to retire the Aurora. Using domestic production such as the Bombardier Global series makes sense politically as well and as stated I wont be surprised if an A200, C series, version of an MPA doesnt get some momentum.
Remember everyone discussing the Canadian military the defence of Canada or its citizens is not the governments first priority ...... Its jobs.
Please re-read what I posted, but more carefully. More specifically the comments about the RCAF defending Canada, or taking defensive actions as part of NATO and/or NORAD.
Also look at a globe again and see what countries are closest to Canada proper. For instance, the personnel stationed at CFS Alert, as well as the permanent inhabitants of Alert might be surprised to discover per your statement, that they can only be attacked via ballistic missiles or sea-launched cruise missiles, despite being ~1,500 km away from the closest Russian airbase. It should also be noted that Russia has fielded a number of air-launched cruise missiles with ranges in excess of 1,500 km. Additionally, that distance is roughly within the combat radius of Su-35 fighter aircraft...
With the potential for a seasonal Northwest passage opening due to Arctic ice pack melting, as well as an increased potential for conflict with Russia over competing sea and undersea resource claims, then it would be reasonable to assume that Russia would seek the ability to neutralize Canadian assets which would be used to either bolster or defend Canadian claims. In fact, prior to the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and conflict in the Ukraine, Russia been be working on rebuilding it capabilities to project power in the Arctic.
Now I do not think most people would believe in the possibility of an actual invasion due to both the distances involved, as well as how hostile the terrain can be to operate in, that does not preclude Russia forces from harassing Canadian shipping, fishing, or resource exploitation assets, or Canadian forces tasked with protecting the former and/or enforcing Canadian claims.
Part of what needs to happen with procuring new/replacement kit, is honestly evaluating not just what the current threats are, but coming up assessments for what the future threats will be, and then weighing whether or not the capabilities of the kit being contemplated for procurement could meet those threats.
At some point Russia will likely have something like a 5th gen fighter operational in some numbers though that might not be until the late 2020's or even later. A pair of RCAF Gripen or Tornado fighters would most likely be in quite some trouble if they were used to escort a Canadian ISR or MPA aircraft over northern Canada and such Russian fighters decided to 'visit' such troublesome aircraft, especially if the Russian aircraft were being vectored from an A-50 AEW aircraft, or whatever Russia fielded at the time.
Also, so far what I have mentioned has only involved Canada and Canadian territorial and northern EEZ claims. There is the absolute potential for more distant events or incidents to occur which impact Canadian interests and therefore require a response. Having read through the paper, IMO very little attention was paid to the current threat environment, never mind what future threats might be. Also, while the paper was a submission as part of obtaining a Masters degree in Public Policy, I got the sense that the author had very little understanding of how modern air battles function, or the importance of obtaining information while denying it to one's enemies. Why else would they bring up supercruising and including that as a capability which defines whether a fighter is 5th gen or not (it does not btw, at least not by USAF definitions of fighter aircraft generations) or bring up thrust vectoring nozzles and maneuverability as important features, more so than LO.
Given some of the examples of Canadian defence procurement, with the Sea King replacement debacle coming to mind in particular, I could see Canada making a procurement decision which is not in the best interests of Canada in terms of costs, capabilities, service needs, or threats. With that in mind, I do feel that when people bring up potential procurement ideas, then flaws in those ideas really should be pointed out in an effort to reduce the likelihood of a selection which is not in the best interests of Canada being made.
