Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
FYI, there are no permanent inhabitants in Alert.
Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions
- Thread starter John Fedup
- Start date
It’s a great shame that politics has led to this cluster but what do you expect from a PM and Foreign Minister who believe that “virtue signalling” (witness the asylum given to the Saudi teenager without any due process) to his millennial base is of greater importance that national security.
I would be very interested to hear from our RAAF members on the number of RCAF pilots seeking transfer, I would expect there would be a few and not only to the RAAF bur other air forces as well.
I know this feeling, I left the RAN because I saw no future when the Oz government failed to replace HMAS Melbourne CVS 2, I feared the demise of ASW and Ain’t that the truth only to be revitalised decades later
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Mea culpa, I read too quickly and saw that it has been permanently inhabited since ~1950 and did not realize that while a population had been there since then, the people who constituted that population
Interesting links. They still do not alter the fact that the Typhoon is a 4th or 4.5 gen aircraft, while two other fighters which had development programmes with either a similar start time (F-35) or were already underway (F-22) that have delivered 5th gen fighters. With that in mind, the link which stated "The world's most advanced fighter jet" is making a rather hyperbolic statement.
Now Canada might decide to go with domestic assembly of Typhoon and/or Gripen fighters, but after they are assembled, pretty much any industrial work involving assembly of those fighters is going to be over. I cannot foresee Canada dumping money into local production of Typhoon or Gripen parts for an entirely domestic production capability, as that would add years to the time required to start fielding new fighters, and dramatically spike the cost without actually delivering any real benefit to Canada. That is because, once again, after the required 88 or whatever number of fighters is settled upon as required by the RCAF, the production line will shut down and the workers with the skills required to construct the fighter and it's parts will start to lose their skills due to lack of use.
One of the other important considerations is how long Canada would be able to safely field either the Typhoon or Gripen before the fighter ceased to be survivable in modern front line battlespace? I am figuring that in about 15 years time, in the early 2030's, the battlespace conditions for an air battle with a peer or near-peer hostile nation would be such that 4th and/or 4.5 gen fighters would have an unacceptably low survival rate and/or mission success rate when operating in a front line as opposed to a supporting capacity.
What that would likely mean, should Canada opt to equip the RCAF with either Typhoon or Gripen, is that starting around 2035 or so the RCAF fighter force could find itself no longer adequate to the task of defending Canadian airspace from incursions by armed aircraft. In a similar vein, RCAF fighters would be inadequate to meeting NORAD obligations, and could find themselves only useful to meet NATO obligations after air surpremacy has already been achieved by other air forces.
That in turn would mean that, should a hypothetical future conflict between NATO and Russia either in Europe, the Mideast, or Arctic/North America, the RCAF fighter force would be of limited utility post ~2035. A similar situation would likely occur should there be a conflict of some sort in the SCS, ECS, Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan with the PRC and S.Korean, Japanese and Canadian/Western interests on opposing sides.
If my assessment is even close to accurate, and factoring in the amount of time it would take before the RCAF could reach IOC with a replacement fighter if the contract was signed today... It does seem like people are choosing to believe that Canada can adequately defend itself tomorrow using the technology of yesterday and today.
As a side note, the Sea King replacement debacle was really a sign of something being rotten in Ottawa, and something the electorate should have really called the politicians on. The fact that they did not IMO increased the chances for current & future Canadian political leaders make decisions which benefit them and their political/financial power base at the expense of Canada as a whole.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,004
I question "greater chance". This might be the case in Quebec amongst Liberal diehards and Bombardier appeasers. Regardless, the local manufacture, i.e. local assembly for the most part, for 88 jets is not much of a deal compared to having a piece of the action on 3,500-4,000 jets IMO. The Typhoon consortium won't see many more Euro orders or additional ME orders and I have no doubt work will be done in Europe for those. Thus the dynamic hasn't really changed from a industrial offset point of view. As for political dynamic, I guess we disagree.
Yes, both the Typhoon and SH can handle current tasking but not so much 10-15 years from now. Again, dogfighting ability is a function of kinematic performance but how relevant is this against state-of-the-art missiles?
The key word is "planned". Maybe this will happen, maybe not. The latest block upgrade for the SH is happening so I consider it a safer bet than Typhoon's upgrade potential. Needless to say, a large program like the F-35 will definitely see a robust upgrade program over the next 20-30 years.
Sadly, that argument is still around. Good thing the Typhoon is so expensive otherwise the single engine Saab team would have had to fold their tent months ago.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,005
Your comment above hits the nail on the head. It is our pathetic electorate that allows sorry sacks of excrement like junior to lead this country down the road to ruin. Maybe that is junior's brilliant strategy, leave nothing to defend.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,006
DND mouthpieces recently argued that geographic location, family issues and being streamlined into administrative desk jobs are some of the reasons pilots are leaving the RCAF. Apparently no pilots complained about flying obsolete 35 year old jets...totally believable, right
Likely some RCN submariners are looking at OZ as well!
And it begins: Eurofighter Typhoon to bid to replace Canadian CF-18 fleet
Seriously John, I know you like to argue every point, but the Liberals' base is Quebec. It would be dangerously naive to think this offer by Airbus has not increased their chances, regardless of the potential impact to the Canadian work flow from the F35 program. That's why I put some credence to the rumours there may be a mixed fleet solution. It would allow the Liberals to satisfy their base AND continue to participate in the F35 program. Politically, an F35/Typhoon buy is magic, and strategically it's not a bad outcome either. Again, I'm not saying this will happen, but it certainly can't be discounted out of hand as a possible outcome.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
Actually, as far as the Sea King fiasco is concerned I think Junior took a page straight out of Chretien's Playbook for Winning Elections in Canada and duplicated it with the F-35 - with the predictable results.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,010
Maybe the solution is Quebec separation and Quebec can go with Typhoons and the rest of Canada can have F-35s. No more junior is a bonus in this scenario.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
Not that it excuses their ineptitude towards defense procurement, this was a win for the PM. Right now in Canada, anything they can do to pi$$ on Saudi Arabia's cornflakes is a good thing. F... that country!
I just wish he would man up and cancel the arms contract...send the arms to our boys (and girls) instead, I am sure they could use them.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,012
I am surprised Flight Global didn’t update their article about Dassault’s exit from the bid competition.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,013
100% agree on the first part, as for the second, neutral. Let them kill each other.
Last edited:
I don't disagree, but in the grand scheme of things the Saudis have not harmed Canada nearly as badly as our "friends" south of the border. Our steel and aluminum is still subject to high tariffs, which have cost our economy billions. So far, the Saudis haven't really followed through on any of their threats.
The cynic in me does not believe for a second that the Liberals took the high road letting that girl into Canada. They did it to piss off the Saudis and hopefully have them cancel the LAV contract, something which they have been too cowardly to do on their own for fear of pissing off the electorate in and around London Ontario.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
CFS Alert may be within 1500 km of the Russians but a signals intelligence base is 4000 km from civilization in the south. Just for information to all the majority of the Canadian population is within 200 miles of the US / Canada border. Edmonton and Newfoundland being the exceptions.
As a result of this the Gripen for homeguard makes sense as it is cheaper on all points to own and operate. F35 for overseas work only if the government changes.
It’s a similar situation to a commuter having an hour drive from home to the office. A Mercedes or an Audi would be nice but the Corolla wins every time for the typical worker.
As to comments about a deterioration of Canada / USA relations now or anytime in the future is just plain incredulous. We are so intertwined on all levels that it’s like saying OZ has its eyes set on NZ.
A bevy centric military is possible but also unlikely due to the politics.
As a result of this the Gripen for homeguard makes sense as it is cheaper on all points to own and operate. F35 for overseas work only if the government changes.
It’s a similar situation to a commuter having an hour drive from home to the office. A Mercedes or an Audi would be nice but the Corolla wins every time for the typical worker.
As to comments about a deterioration of Canada / USA relations now or anytime in the future is just plain incredulous. We are so intertwined on all levels that it’s like saying OZ has its eyes set on NZ.
A bevy centric military is possible but also unlikely due to the politics.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
On page 50 (previous page) of this thread there was talk about RAAF & Shornets, here is a recent article quoting retired AVM Brown about such matters that will interest some to be posted on the RAAF thread probably - so anyhoo.
Crafting a Fifth Generation Combat Force: The Perspective of Air Marshal (Retired) Geoff Brown 24 Nov 2018 Robbin Laird
Crafting a Fifth Generation Combat Force: The Perspective of Air Marshal (Retired) Geoff Brown 24 Nov 2018 Robbin Laird
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
This gets into one of those fallacies like which has plagued New Zealand for a generation. People focus on the fact that 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles/160 km (not the majority which would be just 51% or more) of the US border, and virtually all (99% IIRC) live within 200 miles/320 km of the US border.
For those interested about the Canadian population and how much is close to the US, look at this link, please note the map with the red line.
A generally recurring theme is that unless/until a population centre is threatened, or within range of a threat, air threats to Canada and Canadian interests do not exist, even over Canadian soil, home waters, and EEZ claims. I subscribe to a substantially different position.
By some of the comments people have made, it does sound like people think a Canadian SIGINT base which could potentially support Canadian deployments in the far north/Arctic, and/or monitor Russian deployments in the same area, is not worth protecting. That or people do not see any scenario where it (and other facilities or assets operating in the far north or Arctic) would be a threat or threatened by anyone. That IMO is a rather interesting contrast to the amount of mineral wealth which seems to be found in the Canadian Shield, and it would not be at all surprising if significant natural resources could also potentially be found undersea within Canada's northern EEZ claim areas. One also must remember that Russia had an expedition to 'plant a flag' underwater at the location of the North Pole and has been pressing to expand the EEZ areas claimed along Russia's Arctic coastline, which the flag expedition was a part of.
Given the remoteness of many areas in the far north, it would be entirely possible for Russia or the Chinese for that matter, to establish a facility for resource extraction and exploitation either on Canadian soil, or within the northern EEZ. Bases like CFS Alert could potentially detect such a facility, or efforts to establish such a facility, as well as potentially being able to host or support forces which could engage in detection of or response to such efforts. Given how difficult it could be to root out an established facility (unless NATO got involved), especially if it was defended with advanced systems, then the idea of relying upon a 'home guard' type 2nd line fighter is unpalatable to me.
From my POV, the commuter example is a rather apples to oranges comparison since the capability differences between a Toyota, Audi or Mercedes automobile are not as significant as the capability differences between a 4th/4.5 gen fighter and a 5th gen fighter. A closer comparison using automobiles would probably look more like comparing a new Audi or BMW with crumple zones and comprehensive passenger restraint systems including multiple airbags, with a factory new Mercedes from before 1952 when crumple zones first started to appear in automobiles, and without seat belts or airbags. Combat aircraft features like LO are not 'luxury features" like on a car, rather they are features to both increase the likelihood of a successful mission as well as increase the likelihood of surviving a mission (successful or not) by limiting the ability and opportunity for hostiles to act or react.
JSM would be the ideal maritime strike weapon for the F-35 (A). But there are other options.
Operating a F-35 and typhoon fleet isn't completely crazy, silly and expensive perhaps, but not crazy. The UK, Italy and probably Germany are all basically intending to do that. Using the Eurofighter as the Canadian fighter deployed to europe would make a lot of sense and could tap into existing logistics, operations etc.
The F-35 would then be focused on US lead missions.
The RAN and the RAAF will actively recruit Canadian personnel, you can bet on it. The ADF has done well out of the diaspora of defence people coming out of Canada (and the UK and South Africa). You'll get paid more, more opportunity for promotion and deployment, your family will move to a country with a high human development index than the UK/Canada and its not even comparable to South Africa, but arguably better than where some south Africans ended up (UK or the Netherlands mostly). You will fly, operate and work on more varied and advanced equipment.
Its not just about fighters either (Hornet, SuperHornet, F-35A), Australia has more hawks, more trainers, you will get more flight hours. There C27/C130/C17/E7/P8/KC-30 options as well.
If Canada was serious about holding capability, why not buy another 20 Hawk trainers while you sort it out. At least pilots could fly something. Canada's Hawk trainers are ancient, not as ancient as the CT-114s, but 2000 vintage.
They were looking at replacing them in 2012.
Canada may launch programme to replace CT-155 Hawk trainer fleet
Now they are doing a CBR sort of thing on them? Which looks to be questionable and costs as much as a new hawk, and only extends life ~30%? And doesn't do a systems update?
Royal Canadian Air Force performing Hawk trainer fatigue-life improvement programme | Jane's 360
This is great. Maybe we can sell Canada our knackered Hawks too?
We have a bunch (60!) of older PC-9 trainers, most would be 1990's-2000 vintage. Would be great match for Canada going into 2020.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
I guess I could have expanded on the AM Brown quote. The RAAF do not want a mixed fleet with Shornets however they will accept the Growler (with NGJ) [& it is classed as a 'support' aircraft - not a fighter] because it has proven useful with all the other ADF assets. The countries operating the Typhoon have had them already - now the F-35 comes to add to their mixed fleet. The RAAF did not have a 'mixed' fighter fleet nor do they intend to have one because? Cost. There are two support systems needed: training, spares etc. Having one fleet saves on costs and what a ONE fighter FLEET to have eh.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,020
IMO the resources contained in the shield and Canada’s EEZ are not all that important. Between First Nations and environentlists opposition along with government incompetence, development of these resources isn’t happening.