Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[StingrayOZ]

Agree, China is the main threat, not Russia albeit this would not be the case in a major nuclear exchange.

Eh..

Russia's big ace is nuclear weapons and the threat of them. If they use them, they don't have that ace any more. Russia's delivery systems are not effective against peers, and gets weaker every day. IMO the latest threat Russia is that it will collapse into a dozen states and criminal syndicates and warlords. Post Putin, who knows what Russia will be doing, but as in the War in Ukraine, its not impossible for some one to attempt a thunderrun into Moscow.

As for drones, they are a threat but what can they really threaten at present? The majority of Canadian infrastructure and population is within 100 miles of the US border with a major portion of this along the Windsor Quebec City corridor. All of this is below the region where the buffer zone is. I doubt US anti-missile defence assets will be held back to 100 miles north of the border . Same applies to the West coast.

US planning is a bit all over the place at the moment. In a world where US think tanks have the US losing half its air force and half its navy in an exchange in the first year of conflict, Guam wiped off the map, buffer zones I'm not sure are what they used to be. Ultimately, a border is a border. If you are talking about at what point does the US go into full combat mode against China, I'm not sure a electronic attack, drone strike, crashing a civilian airliner, strike on targets in Canada counts for that. Particularly if its unintentional or ambiguous, which is the type of conflict the Chinese are genuine masters at.

Also you have the US doing what ever its doing, in that airspace, particularly if its unpatrolled. Particularly if its in an existential conventional armed fight against a peer power.

Take the Chinese spy balloon, will Canada attack the US if the US shoots down the spy balloon in Canadian airspace over a Canadian city? Hyperbolic drama, but we should be aware of the frayed edges of conflict and grey zone type operations, not just a land invasion by zombie soviet Russia like some game of thrown whitewaker season 5 GoT episode.. Which again is hyperbolic and unrealistic.

Given the distances involved, attacking with land based long range missiles or drones seems unlikely at present. Naval strikes seem more feasible, especially via submarines.

Drones can fly a thousand plus miles, particularly with favourable weather conditions and air currents. Much of the drones being used in Ukraine and middle east, rely on parts from China. I don't think it should be underestimated what a conflict with China would look like. They can build so many drones as to blot out the sun. We aren't talking quad copters your kid flies. But large transnational fliers perhaps up to a ton or larger.

Take something like a Bayraktar, can fly 4000km easily. Turkey has built 600 of them. China has something similar called Wingloon (I, II and III) and CH5. Ch5 has like a 10,000km range.

There are more than 100 Chinese military drone manufacturers. Not 100 drones, 100 drone manufacturers.

How China became the world’s leading exporter of combat drones

Cheap, ‘good enough’ Chinese armed drones dominating world market amid US export controls, analysts say.

www.aljazeera.com

A north Pole mostly ice free will open the north pole to Chinese Fishing vessels, coast guard and navy. Canada can't stop them from just taking all the fish in the North Sea.

P-8s and CSCs hopefully will address this somewhat.

They can't take out a thousand drone per deployments. You will need E7 flying around them to have situational awareness, within Canadian air space and EEZ.

A bigger threat is the thousands of Chinese immigrants out of the 1-2 million that have not been properly vetted by junior’s government.

Sounds almost borderline inappropriate, particularly if taken out of context. IMO most Chinese migrants are lovely genuine people, trying to get space away from the issues in China.

However, China certainly targets their diaspora. As well as local people. You have a very large, very rich, very powerful state, very familiar with soviet style control/influence. So things like Chinese Police stations in western Countries, hijacked cultural groups, Chinese funded institutes, Chinese funded businesses and technologies are definitely a thing. CCP has shown they can infiltrate Western countries and turn previously very loyal and people with no other connection to China, via various methods. Propaganda and soft power influence as well.

Or China, can just out right buy companies, resources, ports, media, etc. China isn't a bunch of poor Russian soviets and turnip farmers from the 1960s. They have near endless money. In fact they may have so much as to break global capitalism as a concept, which is another threat, which maybe even the Chinese themselves cannot stop.

But this is beyond the scope of this thread dealing with the Air Force. We should keep to the very real topic of air force.

But there are totally here and now threats from China and other state actors that Canada should consider. Throwing a F-35 into that battlespace with no situational awareness changes nothing. Systems of systems and all that jazz.

Drones aren't the total solution either, Australia has drones, we have Triton. The US has lots of drones. Uk has drones. Korea has drones. Turkey has drones. That isn't the same as a E7.

 

[Delta204]

In a world of global chaos, that is a huge front with some already hostile neighbours. Unmonitored airspace will make it unsafe for commercial air travel and infrastructure up north.

The drones are already arriving. They are already here..
View attachment 51297

Canada is literally sitting in a polar air current that allows very easy delivery from both Russia and China, both state and non-state actors. Small drones, balloons, large drones, are already arriving.

It is extremely low energy pathways for them.
When the ice melts, northern Canada will look like the Malacca straits. And larger states will muscle in to control it. Their interests, and Canada's interests will probably not be directly compatible.

Canada isn't the main game, but they will literally roll over it. If the US and China go to war, Canadian airspace will be thick with munitions both friendly and hostile. They will be taking everything out. Blue on blue engagements could wipe out Canada's entire military capability in the crossfire.

Forget Russia. Canadian/NATO obsession with Russia is so misplaced. They are a minor threat becoming less every day. Russia isn't going to try to out muscle the US in a flat out confrontation. China has stated that is their open goal. To the Chinese, Canada is an easy target. Try could strike at it and be reasonably confident that the US wouldn't budge. You guys are literally the buffer state. You are Poland.

China doesn't want to invade, they want to run the place. They can do that from China.

I understand the point you are making but not sure I agree it. Nothing the RCAF does meaningfully changes the equation on defending North American airspace from the perspective of the USAF. Canada is a buffer state in the same way that North Dakota and Montana are buffer states to the US Midwest... the USAF will defend North American airspace how they best see fit, with or without the RCAF (we obviously hope with, hence why both countries have spent considerable time and resources over many decades to integrate our air forces even though the Canadian contribution is not much more than a token effort). Even the most isolationist Republican would not tolerate Chinese penetration of Canadian airspace. US and North American defense is synonymous; and I would argue there is no comparable in Europe or elsewhere of this geostrategic circumstance. Canada ultimately is a US protectorate in all but name; a very different geopolitical situation than that of Poland.

So back to the E7's. If the RCAF does acquire them (which I hope they do) it would bring an added capability to our air force that could be used in many different applications as discussed in the last number of posts; but it would not be to plug any existing holes in Canadian air defense that would be vulnerable to Chinese attack in a hot war scenario. It would certainly help; but would not tip the scales one way or the other.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I understand the point you are making but not sure I agree it. Nothing the RCAF does meaningfully changes the equation on defending North American airspace from the perspective of the USAF. Canada is a buffer state in the same way that North Dakota and Montana are buffer states to the US Midwest... the USAF will defend North American airspace how they best see fit, with or without the RCAF (we obviously hope with, hence why both countries have spent considerable time and resources over many decades to integrate our air forces even though the Canadian contribution is not much more than a token effort).

I don't see it that way, its ok for us to have different opinions particularly on objective matters like this.

A lot is being written about "Unrestrained Competition between the US and China". The fact is no one really knows what that looks like because it has never happened before, where two countries compete for global supremacy in every facet in every way.

I don't hold a lot of stock in old cold war and NATO planning and simulations. It is not that. China isn't going to tank rush the fulda gap for example. China isn't the new name you just paste over the term soviet union in planning and text books. People often assume the new threat is going to act very much like the old threat. Some people still see Russia as the threat, the same threat that the soviet union posed. People forget, Russia is also shit scared of China. They are allies of convenience. They have fought wars before. But no one has ever, ever seen such a quick build up as China has in the last few decades. China contests the US more than any other nation that has ever existed. It is literally like 10 soviet unions. The US enjoyed massive superiority over the soviets in economics, production, manufacturing, agriculture etc. China matches the US or is superior to the US in those areas. No one was ever worried that the Soviets would be making all the American military equipment. Today, there is a genuine worry that the US can't perhaps make and sustain its military (or economy) without Chinese manufacturing and materials. They need to be vigilant to stop it from occurring.

Even the most isolationist Republican would not tolerate Chinese penetration of Canadian airspace.

What is a republican? Do they exist and is the term Republican or democrat even useful any more? You think Republicans are going to protect Canada, her territory, her interests? Do republicans protect Americans? Do Democrats? I meet plenty of Americans in influential positions, who are members of either party, who aren't sure and have genuine concerns. Do Canadians commonly have such faith in the American political system?

US and North American defense is synonymous; and I would argue there is no comparable in Europe or elsewhere of this geostrategic circumstance. Canada ultimately is a US protectorate in all but name; a very different geopolitical situation than that of Poland

Very interesting view of your southern neighbor. Very unique in this timeframe. Do you see the US as enduring, unmatched and engaged? Curious. Are you aware that US airspace and boarders are already frequently violated by competitive nation states. That the US may be engaged in an existential struggle both externally, with China, and internally, with itself? Do you believe that the US and Canada see the world in exactly the same way, with exactly the same priorities, and the US will spare no expense in time, money, resources, man power, to address Canada's concerns, while engaged in these struggles for its own survival? That will challenge it like it has never been challenged. Do you think that the US will be decisive and clear in all matters internally and externally?

Do you assume that being located physically right next to the next big target is going to be the safest place to be? But also being a largely undefended, unmonitored, and unengaged north front, that is outside of the US's territory? Do you think Canadian defence policy and current rate of spending is popular within the US itself and is above being used for domestic political gain within the US?

I suspect I know the answers, but I suspect also that we are unlikely to agree.

As an Australian, I am very far away. I have a very different view of the world. Wack a doo, we are on different planets in different universes. We are very worried about the future, but know we are very far away from where it is likely to kick off, but understand that supporting our US friends in their time of need is very important, because if they lose, we all lose. We aren't fearing invasion, or even really strikes on our territory or degradation of our sovereign borders. That really isn't what our military build up is about.

Its about a very dysfunctional world with global order breaking down. Which is a nice way to say things are looking very bleak and nightmarish in the future and the big guy is going to be preoccupied with other things and cannot be counted to fix everyone's problems, perhaps not even their own.

Competition Versus Exclusion in U.S.–China Relations: A Choice Between Stability and Conflict

Washington’s debate on China loses the crucial distinction between “competition” — a kind of connection with the potential to be carried on in healthy ways — and “exclusion,” an attempt to sever connection that necessarily leads to conflict if the domain is significant.

quincyinst.org

Perspectives on a Changing World Order

The world seems destined to grow more competitive, congested, and contested, but the logic of major power cooperation remains inescapable. Efforts to shape a new international order that is stable, inclusive, and beneficial to all must be collaborative.

www.cfr.org

Vancouver is a lot closer to Beijing than Sydney is. I don't see ~600 million people in buffer states between Vancouver and China. Not a lot of coalition to engage with in protection. We are also very physically far away from the US, which has its benefits. We aren't really near anything else, so that gives us a very different view of space and distance. Melbourne is closer to Antarctica than it is to Darwin.

So back to the E7's. If the RCAF does acquire them (which I hope they do) it would bring an added capability to our air force that could be used in many different applications as discussed in the last number of posts; but it would not be to plug any existing holes in Canadian air defense that would be vulnerable to Chinese attack in a hot war scenario. It would certainly help; but would not tip the scales one way or the other.

I don't really see how Canada will be able to conduct land sea or naval operations within its own borders or within its EEZ or outside it without it going forward. Even worse, Canadian forces won't ever have the experience or expertise of the awareness of capabilities working along side it either. Which will limit capabilities and warp future acquisitions.

Sort of like how not operating a sub makes developing antisubmarine warfare capability within your own navy very difficult. Maybe Canada will develop a new unique set of doctrine and capabilities and achieve useful capabilities some other way.

But like I said, I am an alien from a different planet. I don't understand the strange Canadian ways and thinking. Curious to see what develops.

 

[swerve]

...At the lower end IWI’s P600 I think is way too small. ...

Aircraft MTOW is less than half that of a Global 6000/6500. It's a bit less than the SAAB 2000 or EMB-145.

 

[swerve]

In a world of global chaos, that is a huge front with some already hostile neighbours. Unmonitored airspace will make it unsafe for commercial air travel and infrastructure up north.

The drones are already arriving. They are already here..
View attachment 51297

Canada is literally sitting in a polar air current that allows very easy delivery from both Russia and China, both state and non-state actors. Small drones, balloons, large drones, are already arriving.

It is extremely low energy pathways for them.
When the ice melts, northern Canada will look like the Malacca straits. And larger states will muscle in to control it. Their interests, and Canada's interests will probably not be directly compatible.

Canada isn't the main game, but they will literally roll over it. If the US and China go to war, Canadian airspace will be thick with munitions both friendly and hostile. They will be taking everything out. Blue on blue engagements could wipe out Canada's entire military capability in the crossfire.

Forget Russia. Canadian/NATO obsession with Russia is so misplaced. They are a minor threat becoming less every day. Russia isn't going to try to out muscle the US in a flat out confrontation. China has stated that is their open goal. To the Chinese, Canada is an easy target. Try could strike at it and be reasonably confident that the US wouldn't budge. You guys are literally the buffer state. You are Poland.

China doesn't want to invade, they want to run the place. They can do that from China.

Canada is covered by NATO. The NATO treaty area includes the territories of NATO members in North America, & that means all of Canada & all the continental USA. That's why European NATO members offered help to the USA on 11 Sep 2001.

If Canada was attacked by China & the USA did nothing, it would mean the USA was effectively withdrawing from NATO.

I don't really see how Canada will be able to conduct land sea or naval operations within its own borders or within its EEZ or outside it without it going forward. Even worse, Canadian forces won't ever have the experience or expertise of the awareness of capabilities working along side it either. Which will limit capabilities and warp future acquisitions.

Canada is a member of the NATO AWACS consortium, & Canadian crews operate NATO E-3s. Currently, one NATO member operates E-7, another is introducing it, & both the USA & the NATO consortium have selected it. There are NATO exercises, & it's likely that Canada will participate in some alongside E-7s, as well as RCAF personnel crewing NATO E-7s. Obviously, this will give Canada experience & awareness of the E-7.

They may also have experience of working alongside the G550 CAEW, & Erieye in various configurations & versions. Both are operated by long-standing NATO members, & Erieye is newly in service with Poland & has long been in service with new NATO member Sweden.

 

[Todjaeger]

If Canada was attacked by China & the USA did nothing, it would mean the USA was effectively withdrawing from NATO.

I think it would more realistically mean that something, something very bad, was going on within the US and either keeping the US occupied and/or unable to effectively respond.

In many respects elements of the US-Canadian relationship I might describe as being akin to the Australian-Kiwi relationship, but I suspect that the trade, travel and commerce links are even better defined and stronger. I forget the exact percentage, but a very large portion of the Canadian population live within 100 miles of the US-Canada border and there are businesses and industries on both sides of the border that are dependent on partners across the border to function.

As a result, I have sometimes heard Canada jokingly referred to as the 51st state. With that in mind, I would expect most in the US to react rather badly to an outside actor engaging in hostilities within or directed at Canada.

Granted, there are likely a few Americans who in previous times would likely have been force to stick to the fringes who probably would attempt to do not, espousing an America First!-type attitude, but for as loud as they might currently seem, I rather doubt they would get their way without something else already underway in the US.

 

[Redlands18]

Canada is covered by NATO. The NATO treaty area includes the territories of NATO members in North America, & that means all of Canada & all the continental USA. That's why European NATO members offered help to the USA on 11 Sep 2001.

If Canada was attacked by China & the USA did nothing, it would mean the USA was effectively withdrawing from NATO.


Canada is a member of the NATO AWACS consortium, & Canadian crews operate NATO E-3s. Currently, one NATO member operates E-7, another is introducing it, & both the USA & the NATO consortium have selected it. There are NATO exercises, & it's likely that Canada will participate in some alongside E-7s, as well as RCAF personnel crewing NATO E-7s. Obviously, this will give Canada experience & awareness of the E-7.

They may also have experience of working alongside the G550 CAEW & Erieye. Both are operated by long-standing NATO members, & Erieye is newly in service with Poland & has long been in service with new NATO member Sweden.

The E-7 is also operated by two of NATOs Pacific Partners, one of which just completed a six-month deployment to Germany.

 

[Delta204]

I don't see it that way, its ok for us to have different opinions particularly on objective matters like this.

A lot is being written about "Unrestrained Competition between the US and China". The fact is no one really knows what that looks like because it has never happened before, where two countries compete for global supremacy in every facet in every way.

I don't hold a lot of stock in old cold war and NATO planning and simulations. It is not that. China isn't going to tank rush the fulda gap for example. China isn't the new name you just paste over the term soviet union in planning and text books. People often assume the new threat is going to act very much like the old threat. Some people still see Russia as the threat, the same threat that the soviet union posed. People forget, Russia is also shit scared of China. They are allies of convenience. They have fought wars before. But no one has ever, ever seen such a quick build up as China has in the last few decades. China contests the US more than any other nation that has ever existed. It is literally like 10 soviet unions. The US enjoyed massive superiority over the soviets in economics, production, manufacturing, agriculture etc. China matches the US or is superior to the US in those areas. No one was ever worried that the Soviets would be making all the American military equipment. Today, there is a genuine worry that the US can't perhaps make and sustain its military (or economy) without Chinese manufacturing and materials. They need to be vigilant to stop it from occurring.


What is a republican? Do they exist and is the term Republican or democrat even useful any more? You think Republicans are going to protect Canada, her territory, her interests? Do republicans protect Americans? Do Democrats? I meet plenty of Americans in influential positions, who are members of either party, who aren't sure and have genuine concerns. Do Canadians commonly have such faith in the American political system?


Very interesting view of your southern neighbor. Very unique in this timeframe. Do you see the US as enduring, unmatched and engaged? Curious. Are you aware that US airspace and boarders are already frequently violated by competitive nation states. That the US may be engaged in an existential struggle both externally, with China, and internally, with itself? Do you believe that the US and Canada see the world in exactly the same way, with exactly the same priorities, and the US will spare no expense in time, money, resources, man power, to address Canada's concerns, while engaged in these struggles for its own survival? That will challenge it like it has never been challenged. Do you think that the US will be decisive and clear in all matters internally and externally?

Do you assume that being located physically right next to the next big target is going to be the safest place to be? But also being a largely undefended, unmonitored, and unengaged north front, that is outside of the US's territory? Do you think Canadian defence policy and current rate of spending is popular within the US itself and is above being used for domestic political gain within the US?

I suspect I know the answers, but I suspect also that we are unlikely to agree.

As an Australian, I am very far away. I have a very different view of the world. Wack a doo, we are on different planets in different universes. We are very worried about the future, but know we are very far away from where it is likely to kick off, but understand that supporting our US friends in their time of need is very important, because if they lose, we all lose. We aren't fearing invasion, or even really strikes on our territory or degradation of our sovereign borders. That really isn't what our military build up is about.

Its about a very dysfunctional world with global order breaking down. Which is a nice way to say things are looking very bleak and nightmarish in the future and the big guy is going to be preoccupied with other things and cannot be counted to fix everyone's problems, perhaps not even their own.

Competition Versus Exclusion in U.S.–China Relations: A Choice Between Stability and Conflict

Washington’s debate on China loses the crucial distinction between “competition” — a kind of connection with the potential to be carried on in healthy ways — and “exclusion,” an attempt to sever connection that necessarily leads to conflict if the domain is significant.

quincyinst.org

Perspectives on a Changing World Order

The world seems destined to grow more competitive, congested, and contested, but the logic of major power cooperation remains inescapable. Efforts to shape a new international order that is stable, inclusive, and beneficial to all must be collaborative.

www.cfr.org

Vancouver is a lot closer to Beijing than Sydney is. I don't see ~600 million people in buffer states between Vancouver and China. Not a lot of coalition to engage with in protection. We are also very physically far away from the US, which has its benefits. We aren't really near anything else, so that gives us a very different view of space and distance. Melbourne is closer to Antarctica than it is to Darwin.



I don't really see how Canada will be able to conduct land sea or naval operations within its own borders or within its EEZ or outside it without it going forward. Even worse, Canadian forces won't ever have the experience or expertise of the awareness of capabilities working along side it either. Which will limit capabilities and warp future acquisitions.

Sort of like how not operating a sub makes developing antisubmarine warfare capability within your own navy very difficult. Maybe Canada will develop a new unique set of doctrine and capabilities and achieve useful capabilities some other way.

But like I said, I am an alien from a different planet. I don't understand the strange Canadian ways and thinking. Curious to see what develops.

I do appreciate your "outside the box thinking" on these topics and also agree that it would be unwise to assume the traditional cold war era alliances will prevail against this new threat which is why I didn't want to dwell too much on the history of that. But the US/Canada strategic relationship pre-dates the cold war; it began in the early days of WWII when strategic thinkers in both countries realized that our fates were tied. This strategic relationship is much more important yet than NATO and it really has no comparison. The US Military has I believe 11 Unified Commands worldwide but they do not have a separate command for the continental US and then another for North America - it is the same unified command.

That's not to say it's always easy for Canada; or that we have the same outlook on international (or domestic) politics. That's hardly been the case, perhaps it is more remarkable that this relationship has maintained despite these disagreements. You could say that the strongest part of this alliance has been how we have found an effective way to set aside our differences and continue our cooperation. Will this continue? who knows, but what choice do we really have? Canada is massive geographically as the attached image of central + western Europe overlayed with northern Canada shows. We would need to spend 10+% of our GDP on defense to have a large enough military capability to have anything close to defend our borders effectively (alone).

 

[swerve]

That image doesn't show anywhere near all of Europe. I've visited seven wholly or partly European countries which aren't shown, & even without without counting European Russia two of them are in the ten biggest in Europe (counting only the European parts) & four of the top ten (nos 1, 4, 6 & 7) aren't shown.

If you don't chop off huge chunks, Europe is marginally bigger than all of Canada, & even without any of Russia (& the places I've been in Russia were definitely in Europe) it's a lot bigger than northern Canada.

Your comparison is wrong.7

 

[Delta204]

That image doesn't show anywhere near all of Europe. I've visited seven wholly or partly European countries which aren't shown, & even without without counting European Russia two of them are in the ten biggest in Europe (counting only the European parts) & four of the top ten (nos 1, 4, 6 & 7) aren't shown.

If you don't chop off huge chunks, Europe is marginally bigger than all of Canada, & even without any of Russia (& the places I've been in Russia were definitely in Europe) it's a lot bigger than northern Canada.

Your comparison is wrong.7

You are correct, this should be captioned as a overlay of central + western Europe with northern Canada - my apologies.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Again, I am a space alien (friendly, but confused), who doesn't understand Canadian world views and planning. We are here in a discussion forum, not actually making policy decisions. I just want to understand.

If Canada was attacked by China & the USA did nothing, it would mean the USA was effectively withdrawing from NATO.

Perhaps in this scenario the US is already at defacto state of war with China already. I am not sure NATO protects Canada in a situation where the US has already lost half its forces and is itself under threat. Or the US doesn't just withdraw from NATO, it withdraws from International geopolitics altogether and instead has its focus on perhaps internal conflict within the US. It could certainly just withdraw from NATO, it could do that very reasonably saying its been nearly 80 years since the war, Europe has rebuilt, it is not facing an existential threat anymore, and the US is facing much greater threats than NATO ever experienced in Europe.

It is quite possible that the US prioritizes Hawaii or Guam over any of its NATO commitments. And in a Sino American conflict, it is absolutely certain that the US would need to pivot all of its forward basing, assets, people out of Europe, and into the Pacific. Im not aware of any US Think tanks putting out research that in the event of a large scale sino-American conflict the US would move more assets into NATO nations, Canada or in Europe.

I know NATO has historically been the backbone of defence planning in NATO countries. I'm not sure that is relevant any more. NATO's big card was, any attack on nations in Europe would bring the US into the conflict. Its way, way less of a threat to China, to say if you attack the US, Canada and Belgium, Italy will enact NATO article 5. Im not sure China looses any sleep over it. Most of NATO has no expeditionary capability. Its likely in a US-China conflict, Russia will be keeping NATO allies very busy. Russia has demonstrated no fear of fighting pointless conflicts, and infact may actually need them to exist as a contigious nation state.

A former and perhaps future US president openly talks about withdrawing from NATO, and blaming NATO countries, including Canada in underspending. Perhaps hollow words at the moment. Perhaps very less hollow if the US struggling in a conflict against China.

Is that seen as a genuine possibility within Canada? Or are Canadians absolutely resolute that the US will always save them, even if the US is deep in its own existential fight both internally and externally, kinetically and ideologically?

Canada is massive geographically, our northern territories alone are larger than Europe as the attached image shows. We would need to spend 10+% of our GDP on defense to have a large enough military capability to have anything close to defend our borders effectively (alone).

Europe is a tiny place and Europeans have a very Euro-centric view of the world. I believe this also clouds and warps many NATO focused nations views, planning and acquisitions.

I come from Australia. Which, even just its mainland, isn't insignificant. It also has 50% less people than Canada. Overlaid Mainland Australia looks a little something like this on top of Canada.

Compare Countries With This Simple Tool

Drag and drop countries around the map to compare their relative size. Is Greenland really as big as all of Africa? You may be surprised at what you find! A great tool for educators.

www.thetruesize.com

Australia is also wider than the Moon and bigger than Pluto.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/507535806982926336

Which is why going forward Air Force and Naval assets that are capable on long range, long endurance are so absolutely essential. The E7 works well with assets like the P8, large ships like the LHD and AOR, to patrol around our backyard. Its a big back yard.

https://www.defenceinnovationpartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Briefing-Documents-Activator-Fund-Workshop-RUS-Brief-20-June-23.pdf

Over such ranges, a single F-18C or a F-35 is nothing.

Australia has spent very big dollars on a OTHR system called JORN. Which is very useful and tied into the US national missile defence shield, as it can monitor launches in North Asia. But the E7 is still very much required for tactical data on threats.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-JORN-radar-sites-Battlespace-Surveillance-Centre-BSC-and-radar-coverage_fig1_360356043

I am just a bit unclear how if Canada doesn't see E7 acquisition as a priority they intend to get tactical data over their own territory, airspace and EEZ. Also presumably to assist allied military assets in their search and rescue territories and responsibilities. Particularly because there are very much likely to have a lot of damaged US friendlies struggling in that region combined with a lot of potentially hostile things.

Does that factor in Canadian planning and acquisitions given the future threats, everyone is facing?

To me it seems as if Canada doesn't see China, or the US-China competition as a threat, at all. Despite China and the US very much seeing it as perhaps an inevitable conflict, having a literal arms race, and Europe already engaged in a high end peer conflict with a nation applying for NATO membership, that borders several NATO nations, with a nation that has openly communicated it is coming for the rest and openly threatens NATO itself.

In that environment I am surprised of Canadian AEW would consider cheaper but far less capable options, which probably have simular operational costs. But I am a space alien, from far away.

Canada is a member of the NATO AWACS consortium, & Canadian crews operate NATO E-3s. Currently, one NATO member operates E-7, another is introducing it, & both the USA & the NATO consortium have selected it. There are NATO exercises, & it's likely that Canada will participate in some alongside E-7s, as well as RCAF personnel crewing NATO E-7s. Obviously, this will give Canada experience & awareness of the E-7.

They may also have experience of working alongside the G550 CAEW, & Erieye in various configurations & versions. Both are operated by long-standing NATO members, & Erieye is newly in service with Poland & has long been in service with new NATO member Sweden.

Does the Canadian Air Force regularly deploy to Europe? Is there a standing deployment there?

Australia operates a Joint air base in Malaysia, called Butterworth, and typically deploys a squadron of fighters plus other aircraft including P8s, E7, and routinely operates with Malaysian and Singapore (Singapore routinely operates within Australia, and has the G550 AEW). Does Canada have a similar base(s) in Europe or the US?

 

[John Fedup]

I agree a China US conflict would require almost all US military assets and NATO sans US is on its own. Canada would likely still be under the US defence umbrella out of necessity. Certainly the RCAF appreciates what the E-7 could do, junior and his minions don’t care and most here have no clue the world is likely going to $hit in the event of a US China war. There is also a possibility of a US civil war which would have enormous negative consequences for Canada. This would a huge opportunity for China as well and Asia Pacific would suffer for it.

 

[Sender]

No need to over-egg the pudding. 17 seats vs over 100? Yes - but in drastically different configurations. A Global 6000 with 17 passenger seats is in a luxury bizjet configuration, with massively more room per seat. The SAAB 340, which I've flown on, has 34 passenger seats - & it's tiny compared to a Global 6000/6500, a much bigger relative difference than between Global 6000 & a 737. And "short observation flights"? Before you put the radar on the roof, it has twice the range of the 737 & flies higher & faster. Of course, that'll be affected by the radar, & I expect more than the radar affects the 737's performance, but "short observation flights" is just silly. SAAB is marketing it on range & endurance. I'm sure customers aren't stupid enough to be fooled by complete nonsense, so there must be some truth in that.

I see no reason to doubt that the E-7, with almost twice the take-off weight (not "3+ times larger") & power, has performance advantages over the Globaleye/Erieye ER, but I'd like to see a realistic comparison without exaggeration.

Me too. I'd like to see some evidence of this overwhelming superiority. Publicly available information suggests the GlobalEye is faster, flies higher and further, and has a GaN based AESA radar with an instrumented range of over 300nms, versus the published 200+ for the Wedgetail. It's also much newer (the basic Wedgetail design is from 1999). Technology marches on.

Not saying the E-7 isn't an awesome platform, but to claim it is vastly superior without evidence to support that statement is not in the spirit of this forum. Also, the RCAF is acquiring these to augment the northern warning system (NORTH WARNING SYSTEM - Nasittuq Corporation) until the NORAD modernization project is complete (NORAD modernization project timelines - Canada.ca) In this scenario timely delivery will trump support considerations. (The GlobalEye is fully interoperable with NATO, so that is not a valid argument against the GlobalEye).

GlobalEye AEW&C | Saab

GlobalEye is a multi-domain Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) solution. With its mix of modern active and passive sensors, it provides long-range detection and identification of objects in air, at sea and over land.

www.saab.com

SAAB GlobalEye: 5 Facts About AEW&C Platform That Uses A Bombardier Global 6000

A unique aircraft providing multi-domain surveillance.

simpleflying.com

Saab inducts first Global 6000 for Swedish GlobalEye programme

Saab has inducted the first of two Global 6000 airframes for conversion to the GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) configuration for the Swedish Air...

www.janes.com

Wayback Machine

 

[Todjaeger]

Me too. I'd like to see some evidence of this overwhelming superiority. Publicly available information suggests the GlobalEye is faster, flies higher and further, and has a GaN based AESA radar with an instrumented range of over 300nms, versus the published 200+ for the Wedgetail. It's also much newer (the basic Wedgetail design is from 1999). Technology marches on.

Not saying the E-7 isn't an awesome platform, but to claim it is vastly superior without evidence to support that statement is not in the spirit of this forum. Also, the RCAF is acquiring these to augment the northern warning system (NORTH WARNING SYSTEM - Nasittuq Corporation) until the NORAD modernization project is complete (NORAD modernization project timelines - Canada.ca) In this scenario timely delivery will trump support considerations. (The GlobalEye is fully interoperable with NATO, so that is not a valid argument against the GlobalEye).

GlobalEye AEW&C | Saab

GlobalEye is a multi-domain Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) solution. With its mix of modern active and passive sensors, it provides long-range detection and identification of objects in air, at sea and over land.

www.saab.com

SAAB GlobalEye: 5 Facts About AEW&C Platform That Uses A Bombardier Global 6000

A unique aircraft providing multi-domain surveillance.

simpleflying.com

Saab inducts first Global 6000 for Swedish GlobalEye programme

Saab has inducted the first of two Global 6000 airframes for conversion to the GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) configuration for the Swedish Air...

www.janes.com

Wayback Machine

A few things which I suspect are getting mixed up, which further muddles the waters for a capability which by its very nature has little available in the public domain.

The first is what GlobalEye is, which is a variant of the Bombardier Global 6000 aircraft modified by Saab to operate as an AEW aircraft and IIRC there are three different potential AEW configurations. Now I do believe that the base Global 6000 can fly faster, at a higher altitude and over a longer distance than the B737-700/800 which is what the E-7 Wedgetail is based off of. What we do not really know is what the aerodynamic or kinematic impact having the aircraft's radars which I have seen described as a 'canoe-faring' and 'top hat' respectively has on the aircraft performance. TBH I suspect that performance itself is not particularly important, since I have seen Saab info claiming an 11+ hr mission endurance and I recall older conversations mentioning a 15 to 18 hour mission endurance for the E-7.

What is a bit less clear is that whilst the GlobalEye platform is new, with the first flight taking place in 2018, it is less clear how new the Erieye radar design fitted aboard the GlobalEye platform. The Erieye radar was developed under a Swedish contract with Ericcson dating back to the mid-1980's, and versions of the radar have been fitted to a number of different aircraft like the Saab 340, Saab 2000, Embraer R-99/EMB-145 and now Global 6000/GlobalEye. AFAIK the first Erieye radar set entered service with the Swedish AF in 1996, fitted to twin prop Saab 340 airliner and known as the S-100 Argus. I would be quite surprised if there had not been improvements upon the radar array's capabilities over the years but I would not at this point consider it a 'new' radar design.

Now also in 1996, Australia issued a RFP for AIR 5077 which was Project Wedgetail and is what led to the development of the E-7A Wedgetail, with Australia signing a contract for AEW with Boeing in 1999, whilst Northrop Grumman developed what became the MESA radar. Unfortunately I have not been able to come across anything which definitely points to when the design which became the MESA dates from, so the only real definite date available for that would be that it obviously would have to predate the 2012 in-service date of the E-7 Wedgetail. I personally suspect that Northrop would not have really started developing the MESA until after it was awarded a contract either by Australia or Boeing, which likely would have come after the 1999 contract between Boeing & Australia was signed. This in turn suggests that the MESA design would be newer than at least the early Erieye radars, but the latest Erieye radars might be more modern/advanced, if the radar was redesigned at some point after the MESA design process started.

In short, whilst the Wedgetail contract was signed in 1999, the design came later (and after much work, the project had been one Of Concern at one point). There is one inescapable area known from publicly available sources where the E-7 Wedgetail's MESA is 'better' than the Erieye and that has to do with coverage arcs, with the different arrays able to provide a full 360 degree coverage whilst the Erieye itself can only provide 300 degree coverage, with 150 degree coverage arcs to port and starboard. I believe some of the potential GlobablEye variant options add some additional radar arrays which might plug some of these coverage gaps, but it is also possible the additional radar arrays are more intended for surface/sea search and not usage for AEW purposes.

One final thought which also just occurred to me, is that whilst Erieye/GlobalEye might be NATO compatible, more/additional kit might be required for any RCAF birds to make them NORAD compliant. I seem to recall that being one of the issues with Saab offering Gripen E's as a replacement for the aging RCAF F/A-18 Hornets.

 

[Sender]

A few things which I suspect are getting mixed up, which further muddles the waters for a capability which by its very nature has little available in the public domain.

The first is what GlobalEye is, which is a variant of the Bombardier Global 6000 aircraft modified by Saab to operate as an AEW aircraft and IIRC there are three different potential AEW configurations. Now I do believe that the base Global 6000 can fly faster, at a higher altitude and over a longer distance than the B737-700/800 which is what the E-7 Wedgetail is based off of. What we do not really know is what the aerodynamic or kinematic impact having the aircraft's radars which I have seen described as a 'canoe-faring' and 'top hat' respectively has on the aircraft performance. TBH I suspect that performance itself is not particularly important, since I have seen Saab info claiming an 11+ hr mission endurance and I recall older conversations mentioning a 15 to 18 hour mission endurance for the E-7.

What is a bit less clear is that whilst the GlobalEye platform is new, with the first flight taking place in 2018, it is less clear how new the Erieye radar design fitted aboard the GlobalEye platform. The Erieye radar was developed under a Swedish contract with Ericcson dating back to the mid-1980's, and versions of the radar have been fitted to a number of different aircraft like the Saab 340, Saab 2000, Embraer R-99/EMB-145 and now Global 6000/GlobalEye. AFAIK the first Erieye radar set entered service with the Swedish AF in 1996, fitted to twin prop Saab 340 airliner and known as the S-100 Argus. I would be quite surprised if there had not been improvements upon the radar array's capabilities over the years but I would not at this point consider it a 'new' radar design.

Now also in 1996, Australia issued a RFP for AIR 5077 which was Project Wedgetail and is what led to the development of the E-7A Wedgetail, with Australia signing a contract for AEW with Boeing in 1999, whilst Northrop Grumman developed what became the MESA radar. Unfortunately I have not been able to come across anything which definitely points to when the design which became the MESA dates from, so the only real definite date available for that would be that it obviously would have to predate the 2012 in-service date of the E-7 Wedgetail. I personally suspect that Northrop would not have really started developing the MESA until after it was awarded a contract either by Australia or Boeing, which likely would have come after the 1999 contract between Boeing & Australia was signed. This in turn suggests that the MESA design would be newer than at least the early Erieye radars, but the latest Erieye radars might be more modern/advanced, if the radar was redesigned at some point after the MESA design process started.

In short, whilst the Wedgetail contract was signed in 1999, the design came later (and after much work, the project had been one Of Concern at one point). There is one inescapable area known from publicly available sources where the E-7 Wedgetail's MESA is 'better' than the Erieye and that has to do with coverage arcs, with the different arrays able to provide a full 360 degree coverage whilst the Erieye itself can only provide 300 degree coverage, with 150 degree coverage arcs to port and starboard. I believe some of the potential GlobablEye variant options add some additional radar arrays which might plug some of these coverage gaps, but it is also possible the additional radar arrays are more intended for surface/sea search and not usage for AEW purposes.

One final thought which also just occurred to me, is that whilst Erieye/GlobalEye might be NATO compatible, more/additional kit might be required for any RCAF birds to make them NORAD compliant. I seem to recall that being one of the issues with Saab offering Gripen E's as a replacement for the aging RCAF F/A-18 Hornets.

Excellent points. My comments are based on the fact the newest versions of the Globaleye are built on the Global 6500 (versus the 6000), and the Erieye ER (Saab inducts first Global 6000 for Swedish GlobalEye programme.)

I just don't think there is publicly available information that would lead to definitive statements about the superiority of one over the other. That link indicates the Erieye ER radar has a range in excess of 650 Kms (400 miles), that can be further extended by focusing the energy. That's not an insignificant capability.

I think, from the Canadian perspective, given the limited mandate of protecting Canada's approaches (non-expeditionary), the formula will be "is it good enough", versus "is it the best". From what I've seen, at least publicly, the Globaleye would seem to be more than adequate. The fact it is cheaper and uses domestic technology will be, IMHO, a difficult hurdle for the E-7 to overcome.

What will be interesting is to see how much the USAF E-7 changes the performance over the current Wedgetail. However, they seem to be running into developmental and cost issues. (Tricky E-7 adaptations complicate U.S. Air Force, Boeing negotiations)

 

[John Fedup]

@Todjaeger ….interesting point about NORAD compliance, possibly compliance isn’t as big an obstacle for AEW as it is for fighters. As @Sender mentions, how much better for how much more together with Canadian content will dictate the choice. Will be interesting to see the final outcome and the reasons for the eventual choice. Just hope eventual isn’t a multiple of decades.

 

[OldTex]

Another AEW system that could be considered would have to be the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye (especially the E-2D version). The naval AEW system might be more readily available than the E-7. It might also be more easily accepted into NORAD use than the Erieye/Erieye-ER based Globaleye. It is whether the constraints imposed by adopting a carrier based system would be acceptable to the Canadian Govt and the RCAF.

 

[John Fedup]

The E-2 would struggle with Canadian content compared to GlobalEye and Boeing. As for the RCAF, turboprop versus jet may be an issue. I don’t know much about it really. Unless NORAD compliance and E-7 price/delivery become serious issues the E-2 probably isn’t in the race.

 

[Todjaeger]

The E-2 would struggle with Canadian content compared to GlobalEye and Boeing. As for the RCAF, turboprop versus jet may be an issue. I don’t know much about it really. Unless NORAD compliance and E-7 price/delivery become serious issues the E-2 probably isn’t in the race.

Programme costs could also be an issue, with the Globaleye likely costing somewhere in the neighbourhood of USD$350 mil. per aircraft. I have tried to figure out likely pricing for new E-7 Wedgetails, but honestly given the pricing for the RAF and USAF with whatever changes they required or desired, it has become really hard to tell what is what. Not sure if the services have added ridiculous requirement changes from the designs already in service with Australia, Turkey and S. Korea, or if Boeing is trying to pad the invoice. Honestly I suspect it is at least a bit of both.

 

[Redlands18]

Another AEW system that could be considered would have to be the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye (especially the E-2D version). The naval AEW system might be more readily available than the E-7. It might also be more easily accepted into NORAD use than the Erieye/Erieye-ER based Globaleye. It is whether the constraints imposed by adopting a carrier based system would be acceptable to the Canadian Govt and the RCAF.

One of the contenders for Project Wedgetail was the E-2 system fitted to the C-130J, but I suspect Canada like Australia would find the aircraft speed, range and endurance too limiting. The E-2D has an 8 hour endurance when operating from land, but could not cover anything like the same area as the jets and take longer to get into position.

Raytheon E-Systems A310 AEW - Military Aircraft (fas.org)
The 3rd contender was Raytheon/Elta/Airbus with PHALCON Electronically Scanned Phased Array Radar fitted to A310s. Like the EC-130 contender it would have been mounted in a dome above the fuselage.