Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[Novascotiaboy]

There is a septic pumping company locally that has a similar slogan on the rear of their vacuum trucks " Political promises located within".

Longrange please look at a map. What nation has the ability to send a fighter over a portion of Canada that has anything of value except the USA? Our security is our distance from any nation by two very large oceans and our vast northern wasteland.

The desire for first strike capability comes from the fighter jocks who have progressed through the system and want to do what they have been trained to do. Doesnt mean the GOTD will let them. A Gripen has very similar attributes as an F16. A very good fighter that has been the backbone of NATO and is still in demand by those who cant buy or dont want the F35.

 

[Todjaeger]

There is a septic pumping company locally that has a similar slogan on the rear of their vacuum trucks " Political promises located within".

Longrange please look at a map. What nation has the ability to send a fighter over a portion of Canada that has anything of value except the USA? Our security is our distance from any nation by two very large oceans and our vast northern wasteland.

The desire for first strike capability comes from the fighter jocks who have progressed through the system and want to do what they have been trained to do. Doesnt mean the GOTD will let them. A Gripen has very similar attributes as an F16. A very good fighter that has been the backbone of NATO and is still in demand by those who cant buy or dont want the F35.

And again, another demonstration of Canadian 'snow blindness' which equates the distances to reach a Canadian population or industrial centre with safety, security and sovereignty. Given that the RCAF replacement fighter is likely to be in service into the 2050's or even 2060's, one has to take into account likely and potential changes in operating environments. Climate change being one that immediately springs to mind, which could make those northern wastes more accessible, more valuable, and easier to operate in.

There are a range of potential scenarios which could see the next RCAF fighter being threatened and/or engaged within Canadian airspace by aerial, ground, or naval/maritime threats with these potential scenarios growing more likely as time progresses and there is even greater competitor for natural resources. With that in mind, careful consideration really needs to be given on whether a generation from now, Canada could still get the service it requires from a 'new' fighter that is already a generation old. Teen-series fighters like the F-16 have served long and proudly in NATO forces, but emerging capabilities as well as future developments will make that platform less relevant and viable in future conflicts.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The only nation positioned to be a threat to Canadian sovereignty is the USA now or in the future.

The Russians could try to land at Tuktoyuktuk and drive south but the logistics of such an incursion would be enormous and unsustainable. US assets from Alaska would decimate any attempt long before a landing could occur.

These thoughts are all fantasy. Can not happen. No nation outside of the USA could mobilize such a force now or in the future.

We need air policing ability in a non hostile environment 99% of the time. If and when we need to go and bomb the #@& out of someone we will not be alone. We do not have the supporting resources ourselves to do first strike.

 

[John Fedup]

One possible dynamic not being considered is what happens to world order if the the US starts tearing itself apart. Any kind of of serious foul-up in the 2020 election could be the tipping point for US stability. The enormous debt is also problematic for the world financial order. These considerations are more important for allies other than Canada unless US discord spreads across our border, something Canada is probably totally unprepared for because we don't think it will happen. Who knows what capabilities potential adversaries will have 20, 30, or
40 years from now, not to mention shifting geopolitical and climate change. Surprise technologies and events have a way of biting you in the a$$.

 

[ngatimozart]

The only nation positioned to be a threat to Canadian sovereignty is the USA now or in the future.

The Russians could try to land at Tuktoyuktuk and drive south but the logistics of such an incursion would be enormous and unsustainable. US assets from Alaska would decimate any attempt long before a landing could occur.

These thoughts are all fantasy. Can not happen. No nation outside of the USA could mobilize such a force now or in the future.

We need air policing ability in a non hostile environment 99% of the time. If and when we need to go and bomb the #@& out of someone we will not be alone. We do not have the supporting resources ourselves to do first strike.

Are they fantasy? They are most definitely possible - probable, maybe / maybe not, but you cannot discount the possibility. Also, you cannot discount the possibility that you will have to defend yourself alone. The US may be unable or unwilling to help. To blindly accept the proposition that the US will always assist and the proposition that apart from the US no nation can sustainably submit Canada to armed incursion are logical fallacies. The PRC have designated themselves an Arctic or near Arctic nation, on what grounds I have no idea, but they are determined to have a presence in the Arctic.

 

[OPSSG]

What Vietnam and the Philippines face (in their claimed EEZ) in the South China Sea, today, is an example of years of peace disease — a variation of can happen to Canada. When a country faces a greater power, it might be forced to stand alone — with the greater power choosing to escalate at a place, manner and time of its choosing. Let me remind you that the 1962 Sino-Indian Border Conflict, occurred concurrently with the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis (16–28 October 1962) that saw the US and the Soviet Union confronting each other, and India did not receive assistance from either of these world powers until the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved. It was the first war between India and China.

The only nation positioned to be a threat to Canadian sovereignty is the USA now or in the future....

These thoughts are all fantasy. Can not happen. No nation outside of the USA could mobilize such a force now or in the future..

The only one posting fantasy and some-what illogical posts in this thread is you.

At least 1/10 of your posts in this thread lacks logic. When we point out to you the lack of logic, you dig deeper. Not sure what is the point of engaging in a sustained conversation with you — when the communication from you is consistently one way. Please don’t kill this thread. It would be a pity, as we value participation at different levels.

 

[Todjaeger]

The only nation positioned to be a threat to Canadian sovereignty is the USA now or in the future.

The Russians could try to land at Tuktoyuktuk and drive south but the logistics of such an incursion would be enormous and unsustainable. US assets from Alaska would decimate any attempt long before a landing could occur.

These thoughts are all fantasy. Can not happen. No nation outside of the USA could mobilize such a force now or in the future.

We need air policing ability in a non hostile environment 99% of the time. If and when we need to go and bomb the #@& out of someone we will not be alone. We do not have the supporting resources ourselves to do first strike.

At this point I have to ask the following question. What do you consider a threat to Canadian sovereignty, or what would constitute such a threat? Given the quoted post, it would seem actions nations or groups take within Canadian territories, home waters, or the EEZ would not be considered a threat to Canadian sovereignty short of an invasion of mainland Canada, and/or strikes launched against a population centre. Am I correct in my understanding of what you consider an example of a threat to Canadian sovereignty?

I want to make sure that I understand this, since what I consider a threat to sovereignty is quite a bit broader, as well as unfortunately easier to accomplish.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

What Vietnam and the Philippines face (in their claimed EEZ) in the South China Sea, today, is an example of years of peace disease — a variation of can happen to Canada. When a country faces a greater power, it might be forced to stand alone — with the greater power choosing to escalate at a place, manner and time of its choosing. Let me remind you that the 1962 Sino-Indian Border Conflict, occurred concurrently with the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis (16–28 October 1962) that saw the US and the Soviet Union confronting each other, and India did not receive assistance from either of these world powers until the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved. It was the first war between India and China.

The only one posting fantasy and some-what illogical posts in this thread is you.

At least 1/10 of your posts in this thread lacks logic. When we point out to you the lack of logic, you dig deeper. Not sure what is the point of engaging in a sustained conversation with you — when the communication from you is consistently one way. Please don’t kill this thread. It would be a pity, as we value participation at different levels.

I think we are getting a bit side tracked. The discussion was about which aircraft would be best suited for Canada. And though @Novascotiaboy has a point about the difficulty of invading Canada, there is also the point that Canada cannot afford to defend itself against a determined effort of a potential invading force by itself. Our only hope is in mutual defence, be it with NATO, NORAD or any other alliance we may have.

That said, my opinion is that the plane chosen need not to be what is best suited to defend Canada's north (realistically no plane has the legs for this without forward basing), nor what is best to support our troops in XXXistan (where ever the next conflict may be). It must be the plane that best fits into the roles that our allies in any potential conflict would need us to fill. That requires interoperability.

Since all our allies are choosing the F35, that is the plane I feel will best suit our need as a good ally.

Very few of the NATO nations can stand on their own, and making selfish decisions about what kit we should get to satisfy some political agenda defeats the purpose of having alliances. We need to stand together to present a credible deterrence, that is the point. So we should get the kit that best fulfills that role.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think we are getting a bit side tracked. The discussion was about which aircraft would be best suited for Canada. And though @Novascotiaboy has a point about the difficulty of invading Canada, there is also the point that Canada cannot afford to defend itself against a determined effort of a potential invading force by itself. Our only hope is in mutual defence, be it with NATO, NORAD or any other alliance we may have.

That said, my opinion is that the plane chosen need not to be what is best suited to defend Canada's north (realistically no plane has the legs for this without forward basing), nor what is best to support our troops in XXXistan (where ever the next conflict may be). It must be the plane that best fits into the roles that our allies in any potential conflict would need us to fill. That requires interoperability.

Since all our allies are choosing the F35, that is the plane I feel will best suit our need as a good ally.

Very few of the NATO nations can stand on their own, and making selfish decisions about what kit we should get to satisfy some political agenda defeats the purpose of having alliances. We need to stand together to present a credible deterrence, that is the point. So we should get the kit that best fulfills that role.

Sorry for the rant.

An issue I have though is that Canadian sovereignty can be threatened or infringed upon without requiring a mainland invasion, and is also correspondingly both easier to accomplish and more likely to occur.

The point behind getting the most capable multi-role platform available is to provide the greatest range of potential response options both now and for a good way into the future, and also provide some degree of future-proofing. Selecting a platform which is currently fit for purpose now, but would almost certainly be operating at a disadvantage a decade or more from now depending on the scenario is IMO rather foolish.

 

[ngatimozart]

You Canadian posters appear to be fixated on the concept that distance from a threat is a defensive option. However, that begs the question what value do you place on your sovereignty? What about your citizens and assets within that area? Or are they just impersonal immaterial numbers on a spreadsheet? Does this illustrate a Canuck unwillingness to defend and fight for their own country? I remember reading of an incident of an RCN destroyer or cruiser being deployed from the ETO to the Pacific War after the German surrender in 1945. The crew on that ship whinged and threatened mutiny because they claimed that they didn't sign up to fight Japs who they claimed were no threat to Canada. So the RCN & Canadian Govt gave in and ordered the ship back to Canada with no replacement sent, and probably no disciplinary action either. Meanwhile, Australian & Kiwi sailors who'd been fighting since September 1939 were still fighting in the Pacific alongside RAAF, RNZAF, Australian & NZ Army, plus US forces. Adm Nimitz was not impressed with the RCN pulling its ship out because it meant a restructuring of forces. It also wasn't looked upon kindly by the Australian and NZ forces either, because it made their job dealing with Gen Douglas MacArthur harder, due too his arrogance and prejudice against non US forces.

Distance, in a spatial context, works well in a ground war where you have plenty of space to use; the Russians used it well against the Nazis giving up ground until they were reading to strike back. This put the Nazis on the back foot, forcing them to continuously react to Russian initiatives, and they were pushed out of Russia. In Canada's case, they have the space but nothing to take advantage of that space with. They are blind to the fact that the Russians are masters at operating and fighting in the Arctic and / or harsh winter environment. That helped them beat Napoleon and Hitler. I've always considered Russian equipment idiot proof and designed to work in harsh environments, and today I see no reason to change my mind on that. It mightn't be as fancy or reliable as western gear, but generally speaking it'll withstand a lot more mistreatment and be easier to maintain in the field. Whereas the Canucks, with all their western gear, may struggle to operate and sustain themselves in such a harsh environment, especially given their paucity of defence resources.

What the Canucks, Poms, and their Kiwi cuzzies, fail to understand is that when the brown smelly stuff hits the quickly rotating object, ramping up defence capabilities like the first part of WW2 and Lend-Lease, isn't going to happen, because the US doesn't have the industrial capacity to do that anymore, plus the weapons systems themselves are far more complex, expensive and difficult to manufacture.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Canada is the second largest sovereign nation in the world with only 37 million people. Nations who "test" our sovereignty have done so in non military ways historically via fishery resource exploitation. Military violations take place under the ice by any nation with nuclear submarines, both allied and other and the odd russisn lobg range antique.

I support a stronger military. I support a better management of our defence resources both physical and financial. We waste so much money in this country appeasing the politicians instead of having a bi-partisan union on defence matters.

Since the second world war when our forces were in the top five in the world we have fallen on our sword defence wise.

During the cold war the RCAF fielded over 600 fighter interceptors at one time, mostly CF 100 Canucks. Our physical infrastructure still reflects this with ancient bases all over the place and but a fraction of aircraft available to use them.

If Canada were serious about its own defence we would better spend what we have and could have a military on par with the likes of Australia as an example. But with our next door neighbor the populace feels safe with the status quo.

To look at Gripen from another perspective if we choose this platform we then posses an aircraft that is different and able to offer an "adversay" during training evolutions. We do the same with our diesel electric subs that the Americans do not posses. I also see the probability of SAAB supplying the lead in trainer, SAAB T/X, as a replacement for the BAE Hawks and the Tutors.

Swedish Gripens seemlessly participated in operations over Libya with NATO. The choice of the F35 by allies like Norway, Denmark and Holland are examples that we should be closely scrutinizing for costs of operation both of the aircraft and of ground facilities and infrastructure.

Interoperability has never been a concern since the introduction of the F18 as we were the only NATO country, besides the USA, to field this aircraft when our piers chose F16 predominantly. We opted to not participate in the Tornado like the remainder. And i am surprised that we have never operated a Mirage since it is French.

We need an aircraft with ability to perform air policing and armed interception of potential threats domestically. For those infrequent operations where we operate in a coalition a squadron of Candian Gripens would be welcome and would be able to fulfill niche roles allowing the stealth "bomb trucks" to do their thing.

Regardless of what we end up with the decision will be WRONG to someone for some reason. Right now we are asking our aviators to fly in aircraft that are almost 40 years old. The decision to acquire new aircraft will be frought with politics as the primary focus instead of military ability.

We must remember that the F18 was bought and deployed during the cold war. The majority of the aircraft were based in Germany until the end of flying operations in 1993 from our bases in Lahr and Baden-Solingen.

I am not sure how the current plan to acquire 88 aircraft was determined as the previous government had planned a fleet of 65 to replace the one time 138 F18s as originally bought. If 24 aircraft constitute a squadron then three squadrons plus 16 aircraft will see two squadrons in Cold Lake and one in Bagotville. According to a CBC article a flight of F18s regularly operate from CFB Trenton to provide a close response to threats to nuclear facilities in the greater Toronto area.

 

[John Fedup]

I have attached this link from defence aerospace, mainly for the editor's note whose bias against the F-35 is well known. His assessment of the three remaining contenders is notable as it is actually realistic. Saab's ability to meet the NORAD requirements would be even more difficult than it would be for Airbus. Boeing's Superhornet is a very old design (30 years although the editor claims 50 years as he likely considers most of the SH DNA comes from the original Hornet which is a stretch). He seems to now accept the F-35 as being the RCAF's next fighter. I think he's finally got it right.

UK MoD and Airbus Defence and Space Withdraw from Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The article and the author fails to state if the the Gripen is built in Canada does that place it at a disadvantage regarding NORAD compliance? Its not over until SAAB pulls the pin. We may be surprised.

 

[Long range]

As far as I know the only 4th generation fighters being purchased by countries that are part of the f35 consortium are the f15x and the f18 growler.the f15x is a high speed flying arsenal which in a air to air configuration can carry around 2 dozen bvr missiles the Americans will have 5th generation fighters flying ahead passing back targeting data to the f15x.Israel is currently deciding whether to buy more f35s or f15s they would use the f15x as a lite bomber for air to ground.the growler is the only dedicated electronic warfare fighter jet but neither of these are being bought as an airforces main fighter they are being bought in small numbers to fill a specialized role and will have to be replaced in 20 years.Fighter jets like the eurofighter,rafale,gripen,f16 or super hornet are not specialized are inferior to the f35 and have no role to play in the future.Canada decided on it's future fighter when it joined the f35 consortium and paid to help develop it why are we even having a competition

 

[Todjaeger]

The article and the author fails to state if the the Gripen is built in Canada does that place it at a disadvantage regarding NORAD compliance? Its not over until SAAB pulls the pin. We may be surprised.

Canadian-built Gripens would most likely not have any NORAD compliance advantage over non-Canadian sourced Gripens. The compliance issues would likely be caused by the kit fitted, not location of assembly. Changing the onboard kit around to ensure compliance would likely require some system integration and design work along with certification. Unless Canadian aerospace engineers have their own ability in house to do such work for fighter aircraft... then it would require work and access from Saab.

Interoperability has never been a concern since the introduction of the F18 as we were the only NATO country, besides the USA, to field this aircraft when our piers chose F16 predominantly. We opted to not participate in the Tornado like the remainder. And i am surprised that we have never operated a Mirage since it is French.

We need an aircraft with ability to perform air policing and armed interception of potential threats domestically. For those infrequent operations where we operate in a coalition a squadron of Candian Gripens would be welcome and would be able to fulfill niche roles allowing the stealth "bomb trucks" to do their thing.

Regardless of what we end up with the decision will be WRONG to someone for some reason. Right now we are asking our aviators to fly in aircraft that are almost 40 years old. The decision to acquire new aircraft will be frought with politics as the primary focus instead of military ability.

I agree that interoperability was never a concern with the CF-18, but that was due to the prime user of the base aircraft being the USN and USMC, which guaranteed interoperability with NATO forces. As a side note Spain (also an F/A-18 Hornet user) has been a member of NATO since mid-1982, nearly five months before the first CF-18's were delivered to Canada. Deliveries of the Spanish F/A-18 Hornets started just over three years after Canada started receiving CF-18 Hornets.

If one looks at what some of the requirements were for the New Fighter Aircraft Project (1977) which led to the Canadian purchase of the CF-18 Hornet, there were requirements for ground attack/CAS, fighter and day/night/all-weather interceptor. IMO the RCAF needs a new fighter capable of these roles, plus the ability to carry out recce, strike and maritime strike missions as well, all while operating in a contested battlespace.

Now look at what led to Sweden developing the JAS39 Gripen, which was a 1979 requirement for a multi-role fighter capable of covering fighter/air-to-air, attack and recon roles then being carried out by Saab 35 Draken and Saab 37 Viggen aircraft. Now yes, I recognize that the Saab offerings for the current RCAF fighter project are the latest Gripen E/F which is an updated and partially re-designed variant, along the same lines as the E/F Super Hornet is to the classic A/B or C/D Hornets, although I am not certain that the Gripen E/F had as much work done to reduce the RCS as was done with the Super Hornet. I say this because the original development plan for Gripen E was to re-manufacture some of the JAS 39C Gripen C into E. AFAIK all Gripen E are now to be new builds, but keeping the design close enough to what the C design was to permit re-use of substantial portions of already manufactured airframes would automatically impose limits on just how much improved the airframe's capabilities and/or reduced the signature/RCS could be.

The area of concern I have (and this applies to the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet as well though not quite to the same degree given that programme history) is how viable a design with late a 1970's genesis will actually be in another 20 years, then 30 and 40 year benchmarks. I suspect that such a design will no longer be able to survive in a contested air space in less than 20 years, which means the ability to engage in air policing and interception roles would be drastically reduced or even eliminated. If the Northwest passage does become open year round, then I would expect both greater interest in, and a greater presence of not just merchant shipping, but also foreign naval vessels and military aircraft, and either of these could not only infringe upon Canadian sovereignty, but also be able to potentially contest Canadian control of the air space. I could go on, and some of the potential scenarios I have already mentioned before. The basic gist though is that the status quo in Canada's North, and in fact the whole Arctic region is changing, and Canada needs to recognize that and make plans to adapt to what changes take place, or else react to the changes and likely suffer a degree of loss in terms of resources, economic opportunity, and likely control of territorial claims.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Good points Todjaeger and I did forget about Spanish F18s when I posted. I like being the devils advocate on topics that I have ability to influence.

My previous posts on DT have noted my desire for a tiered capability for the RCAF in terms of capability. Buying the high end to accomplish all tasks is a waste when you only need this ability on occassion. If we need an expiditionary strike capability to interact seamlessly with our allies then sure buy a squadron and some of F35. For domestic air policing and naval strike from RCAF bases the Gripen is more than capable. In fact it would allow pilots to have a career path allowing for advancement from the Gripen to the F35. No single tool in a tool box does all tasks well. Having variety in weapons systems is the same. Yes there is a cost but we can afford it. We just dont want to pay for it.

 

[Calculus]

The basic gist though is that the status quo in Canada's North, and in fact the whole Arctic region is changing, and Canada needs to recognize that and make plans to adapt to what changes take place, or else react to the changes and likely suffer a degree of loss in terms of resources, economic opportunity, and likely control of territorial claims.

What makes you say Canada doesn't recognize this, exactly? The GoC is rebuilding the Coast Guard, with new icebreakers and ice-capable patrol vessels, the navy is on the cusp of commissioning the first of 6 AOPVs (Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship | Fleet & Units | Royal Canadian Navy), with another two being built for the Coast Guard (After Navy, Canadian Coast Guard to get its own arctic and offshore patrol ships), the Navy has opened its Arctic Naval Facility at Nanisivic (Nanisivik Naval Facility - Wikipedia), and is in advance studies to fund another at Resolute Bay. Not to mention the long-term Canadian presence in Alert (Alert, Nunavut - Wikipedia). There are daily overflights of the region by either Coast Guard, RCAF, or Transport Canada aircraft, and there has been remote monitoring of the region via satellite for more than 30 years (Radarsat), with the latest system due to go live shortly (Frequently Asked Questions - RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM)). In addition, there are sea-floor based listening devices at the entrances to Canadian waters monitoring both surface and subsurface traffic. They continue to evolve these systems (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/cause-array-drdc-test-1.4232348). The RPAS (armed drone) project (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Project - Defence Capabilities Blueprint) for the RCAF has a requirement for an ability to overfly this region, and those drones are expected sometime in 2024-25. The Coast Guard is also pursuing a similar capability, with an expressed interest in a Global Hawk based solution (Canada and Russia are looking to deploy surveillance drones in the Arctic - Arctic Today). In addition, the Victoria class submarines will be receiving an AIP system during their mid-life refits that will allow for some capability to patrol underneath the ice caps. There are other programs as well, including increasing the size and capabilities of the Canadian Rangers, as well as enhancing the Regular Army presence in Yellowknife, with a capability to support large-scale operations. The GoC is very aware of the value of the Arctic region, and a tremendous amount of resources are being allocated to make sure this region remains sovereign Canadian territory, and that we are able to respond effectively to any incursion into those zones.

 

[John Fedup]

Concerning the RPAS, the start definition is 2019/20, the program start implementation is 2022/23 and the initial delivery is 2024/25. Reminds me of the FWSAR project. Given the history of recent aviation acquisitions by the GoC, RPAS will disappoint. AIP upgrades on subs that are approaching 30 years, total waste. I appreciate the Victoria subs haven't seem much duty but 30 years is old and if you call this a midlife upgrade it means RCN submariners will be operating these boats when they are 50 years or older, not a great recruitment feature! Our AOPVs will enforce sovereignty with 25 mm guns, hopefully they will be up gunned. More importantly, Irving must perform. Contrast Canada's recent activity with what the Russians are up to. Our efforts are a blip. Satellite surveillance is the one positive.

 

[Todjaeger]

What makes you say Canada doesn't recognize this, exactly?

The torturously slow pace of Canadian defence procurement and replacement comes to mind. Particularly given the rising capabilities of countries like the PRC, and how Russia has been regaining some lost capabilities alongside fielding new ones.

EDIT: Additional thought/comment.

The apparent indifference of the average Canadian towards gov't expenditure and procurement of defence kit would, IMO also fall into the category of not recognizing where the situation in the Arctic could be heading.

 

[Long range]

Most of Canada's efforts so far to strengthen our artic defence have been underwhelming the arctic patrol vessels are virtually unarmed and slow, a small fleet of barracuda nuclear submarines would let us patrol under the ice I doubt that will ever happen,we could get 4 new conventional subs with the 3 billion or so that we're going to spend upgrading our antique Victoria class,so in essence our Navy is limited to maybe 3 months a year operating up there,we have no fully equipped air force bases just a handful of FOLs.Norad is being negotiated again the northern warning system is most likely going to be moved from the mainland out to the arctic islands which will cost 10 billion or more according to the news we will get to see soon how serious the GOC is about our arctic security the Americans will most likely be pushing hard for BMD sensors up there as well