Canada Future fighter capability project (ex-Next Generation Fighter Capability)

[Avimimus]

Considering that it was the Federal Liberals that originally signed Canada up for the F-35, I find this a bit like back-pedaling. Incidentally, they also signed Canada up for the CH-148 Cyclone, something else which hasn't appeared on the radar screen yet ----

No, they made a small investment in the program (on the understanding that it would help open the way for Canadian parts manufacturers to make a bid). It isn't clear that there was ever an intention to buy the aircraft, and there was never any commitment (not that back-pedaling is implausible).

The F-35 was never really geared towards Canadian needs, and no formal set of requirements was produced until after the Conservative Government made the decision to pick it as the replacement.

 

[Orionblamblam]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

 

[Michel Van]

So Mr Trudeau Junior has committed to pulling Canada out of the F-35 program. What happens next?


I believe Canada will switch to either Super Hornets or Gripen-E, don't see Rafale or Typhoon having a chance. Gripen-E aligns best with the stated priority on defensive capabilities.

The Typhoon got again production problems, the germans got new Typhoon with manufacture fauws

The Canadian air force want twin engine jets so in case of engine emergency, the pilot can return to base with remaining engine.
that rule out the Grippen-E, either they buy new Super Hornets or Rafale
that prime minister Justin Trudeau is from french speaking part of Canada, this could be of influence on option Rafale...

While other demand that Canada R&D and build it OWN Jetfighter, even rebuild the Arrow !

 

[marauder2048]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Which rules out all aircraft in the world except for the MiG-31. I'm sure the Russians will be pleased.

 

[Steve Pace]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

A good "offense is always a good defense" - GO Super Hornets! - SP

 

[Orionblamblam]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Yeah, because an interceptor can't be used to wipe out an enemies air force in preparation for a fleet of bombers.

 

[lastdingo]

Actually, yes. There were and are aircraft which are fine as interceptors, yet pretty pointless for offensive CAP.

MiG-31 and a long list of Soviet Cold War era interceptors are good examples.

For the 2020's and 2030's, the Canadians could still use fighters as interceptors that received a sensor and missile upgrade, but would stand no chance in Central European air combat. Essentially, one could still use F-4 Phantom II with such upgrades as interceptors over Canada, they would have hardly any disadvantage compared to the F-35 in the interceptor role.


Furthermore,
"I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense."
Look at what the Swiss did with the F-18; they turned a multi-role F/A-18 into a dedicated fighter by ditching the compatibility with bombs mostly. They use lighter pylons, barely strong enough for a MRAAM, for example.
A RWR can furthermore be limited in bandwidth for an interceptor, if not ditched altogether. Same with decoys.
Meanwhile, a fine interceptor should have a light 20 mm gun (something like M621) with tracers for warning shots in air policing. A true air superiority or strike fighter doesn't quite need a gun, or should have an actually potent one if any.

 

[Dragon029]

In regards to using an F-4; what happens when you intercept an aircraft that's willing to fight? How would an F-4 stand up against a Su-30? I would hazard a "not very well". At least an F-35 has the ability to work it's stealth and sensors; the guy that goes to knock on the window of the Sukhoi might be in trouble if his DAS and AMRAAMs or AIM-9Xs don't do the job, but everyone else sitting back and observing will hold a strong upper hand.

 

[kaiserd]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

That appears to be one of the roots of this issue.
The previous Canadian government wanted a fighter suited to an expeditionary role (survive opponents air defences, attack ground targets etc.).
It appears that the new Canadian government may (at least publically) want a single-role air defence fighter/ interceptor.
On the assumption that the latter won't have to deal with enemy fighters or air defences its requirements would appear to be considerably less demanding than an expeditionary fighter. An example in practise would be Austria's Eurofighters lacking significant pieces of kit like AMRAAMs and ECM systems.
However that's the rub; if Canada was really to go down this route they'd be left with a very inflexible fighter force that could be not well suited to an expeditionary role that may emerge/ become necessary.
It comes down to Canda's view of its role in world and the price it's willing to pay to realise it.

On the assumption that the new Canadian government really isn't looking to make that stark a choice and really just wants a cheaper alternative the Gripen F would make a lot of sense (the single engine didn't do for the F35). The other Euro canards are not that much cheaper than the F35 so may not actually realise that much cost savings.
The Super Hornet is a strange case as unless ordered very shortly may be out of production or low production rates may push up prices. Also clearly the lowest performance airframe of the alternatives but would offer commonality advantages transferring over from classic Hornets. Ultimately hard to justify unless Canada could obtain a very low cost deal and cost is effectively the only major criteria.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Which rules out all aircraft in the world except for the MiG-31. I'm sure the Russians will be pleased.

You are being facetious. A force of Gripen-Es equipped with modern avionics and armed with AMRAAM and Meteors should be able to fulfil the air defence role for Canada perfectly adequately. It can even have bombs and missiles if you really want. It just won't be as good at bombing inside defended airspace. Realistically, they share borders with Russia and the USA, there's not much chance of a war with either being winnable for Canada and even if Putin really has lost it he's not likely to try invading Canada.

 

[Michel Van]

Here Former Canadian F-18 Pilot working in NATO
and his comment on what Canada Air-force needs

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUf_hhxngK4



and here about Arrow fraction

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S74zf0YZX20

 

[LowObservable]

It's a little over the top to argue that a manufacturing problem disqualifies Typhoon, I think. And pace M2048, it was to a considerable degree optimized for air defense. A reference threat was a bomber raid covered by improved Flankers.


A 2020-model Typhoon with Meteor, AESA, IRST and fusion stands up to the F-22 as an air defender and is a good deal more versatile.

 

[lastdingo]

In regards to using an F-4; what happens when you intercept an aircraft that's willing to fight? How would an F-4 stand up against a Su-30?

It depends on the extent of the F-4 upgrade. There were amazing versions, including Mach 2.4 super cruise at 78k ft (when clean)

, and you can integrate a big enough modern radar.

Even ordinary German F-4F with APG-65 and AIM-120 would have been a non-trivial obstacle to Su-3x intruders that cannot dance around a lot or use much afterburner because of fuel concerns. MRAAMs can easily be survived if you turn away from them in time (similar to WW2 torpedo salvoes), but they're much more of a headache if you absolutely need to press forward.



It's difficult to see how a flight of Su-34 (for example) could make the round trip to meaningful (inhabited) parts of Canada without a lot of aerial refuelling. The effort would be acceptable for a nuclear strike, but Russia can simply send SLBMs or ICBMs instead, so this scenario is irrelevant (this already led to the cutting of strategic air defence for CONUS long ago in the Cold War).
Another scenario would be a diversionary attack (forcing NATO to keep fighters far, far away from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region with a high signature strike akin of the Doolittle raid). In this case successful intercept or not wouldn't matter much; the diversionary effect would almost certainly happen anyway.*

I suppose the Canadians could keep their air defence ambitions limited to their core region Montreal-Quebec (leaving Vancouver's defence to Washington ANG) and focus on maintaining and developing multi-role modern air war competence. This could be done with 20-40 Gripens with various mission pods (radar recce, photo/IR recce, ground attack IIR, radar jammer). A navy with an actual focus on escorting convoys across the Atlantic (plus keeping Saint Lawrence River safe) and an army with a heavy division equivalent (with a proven one month deployment time to Warsaw) would be more than enough to pay back what marginally little security Canada receives from NATO.**

*: The British kept an inordinate quantity of fighters ready as interceptors in summer '42-summer '44 instead of using the resources offensively because of a few symbolic fighter-bomber attacks of SKG 10 with Fw 190Gs. This is how politicians and even air force HQs react to diversions.
**: I suppose since 1990 NATO does protect Canada rather against the U.S. than against all other countries of the world combined (in the long term).

 

[Avimimus]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Or in Canada's case - choose a fighter to fly around intercepting jet liners and Tupolev 95s rather than a multipurpose fighter for use in the expeditionary wars of our allies. An aircraft like the F-35 is really only needed against advanced long range air-defences. Once our allies take those out (or in a permissive air environment without them to begin with) 4th generation designs are fine for supporting peace keeping and/or COIN.

The F-35 requires enough support from other platforms (despite the fact that it is one of the most well balanced multi-role designs ever made) that we'd end up needing to work with allies anyway. We just would be in the first wave (days 1-3). Most of a non-nuclear war happens after day 4 anyway.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=263089;topic=25854.15;last_msg=263136

Which rules out all aircraft in the world except for the MiG-31. I'm sure the Russians will be pleased.

Very true. The only aircraft that really match Canadian ideals are the Mig-31 and the Sukhoi interceptors (Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, T-50). Everything else is a compromise. If we have to go with a single engine medium fighter we're already so far away from what we want we may as well by the LCA!

 

[Avimimus]

However that's the rub; if Canada was really to go down this route they'd be left with a very inflexible fighter force that could be not well suited to an expeditionary role that may emerge/ become necessary.
It comes down to Canda's view of its role in world and the price it's willing to pay to realise it.

Of course, if save enough money we might be able to pay for a UCAS of some sort sooner.

 

[sferrin]

... prioritize defensive capabilities over offensive.

Unless Canada has developed some sort of deflector shield technology, I'm not sure how one separates offense from defense.

Well, its quite simple - choose a fighter optimised to shoot down other aircraft rather than sneak into other people's airspace undetected and drop bombs on them.

Which rules out all aircraft in the world except for the MiG-31. I'm sure the Russians will be pleased.

You are being facetious. A force of Gripen-Es equipped with modern avionics and armed with AMRAAM and Meteors should be able to fulfil the air defence role for Canada perfectly adequately. It can even have bombs and missiles if you really want. It just won't be as good at bombing inside defended airspace. Realistically, they share borders with Russia and the USA, there's not much chance of a war with either being winnable for Canada and even if Putin really has lost it he's not likely to try invading Canada.

If only Canada only ever had to worry about air defense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/06/11/canadian-cf-18-jets-hit-islamic-state-target-in-syria.html

If they ever have to fulfill their NATO commitments overseas I hope they get front row seats right next to the F-35s when going after well defended targets. Not to be an ass but I don't ever want to see them sitting things out because it's too dangerous, and they were too cheap to buy survivable aircraft. If they get tasked with taking down an S-400 site, so be it. Risking the lives of your pilots for cheap political points is beyond loathsome IMO.

 

[Avimimus]

If only Canada only ever had to worry about air defense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/06/11/canadian-cf-18-jets-hit-islamic-state-target-in-syria.html

If they ever have to fulfill their NATO commitments overseas I hope they get front row seats right next to the F-35s when going after well defended targets. Not to be an ass but I don't ever want to see them sitting things out because it's too dangerous, and they were too cheap to buy survivable aircraft. If they get tasked with taking down an S-400 site, so be it. Risking the lives of your pilots for cheap political points is beyond loathsome IMO.

Right - Isolationism may also be playing into this.

It is also worth noting that, while Canada might not want to lose pilots to engine failures in peace time, Canadian culture may be more tolerant of losing pilots in open warfare than other countries.

I suppose the Canadians could keep their air defence ambitions limited to their core region Montreal-Quebec (leaving Vancouver's defence to Washington ANG) and focus on maintaining and developing multi-role modern air war competence. This could be done with 20-40 Gripens with various mission pods (radar recce, photo/IR recce, ground attack IIR, radar jammer). A navy with an actual focus on escorting convoys across the Atlantic (plus keeping Saint Lawrence River safe) and an army with a heavy division equivalent (with a proven one month deployment time to Warsaw) would be more than enough to pay back what marginally little security Canada receives from NATO.**

*: The British kept an inordinate quantity of fighters ready as interceptors in summer '42-summer '44 instead of using the resources offensively because of a few symbolic fighter-bomber attacks of SKG 10 with Fw 190Gs. This is how politicians and even air force HQs react to diversions.
**: I suppose since 1990 NATO does protect Canada rather against the U.S. than against all other countries of the world combined (in the long term).

Canada is insecure about its ability to project Sovereignty over the Arctic Sea and the high north. This doesn't just apply to Russians - we perceive pressure from Europe and the United States. So we feel it is important to have a presence in all parts of Canadian coastal airspace. Hence the requirement for a long ranged interceptor (especially given that there will be few enough that we'll only have a couple of airbases and possibly a few forward airstrips). The ability for it to operate off of small airstrips in a high arctic environment requires strong all weather tolerances and a carrier capable design (e.g. an arrestor hook).

The twin engine requirement is for safety. Our search and rescue capability is much worse than the USN. To make matters worse, paying for the JSF meant cancelling all the long term maintenance budget for our search and rescue aircraft. The abhorrence of single engine designs is reinforced by Canada's abysmal safety record with the F-86 and the CF-104 'widowmaker', so tradition plays into it as well.

So give us two engines, long range, an arrestor hook (and maybe a good radar) and it'll meet the requirements. After that we don't really care (except some would save money).

 

[sferrin]

It is also worth noting that, while Canada might not want to lose pilots to engine failures in peace time, Canadian culture may be more tolerant of losing pilots in open warfare than other countries.

Not sure what engine failure has to do with anything. Certainly the new suit hasn't cited that as his reason for cancelling the F-35 order.

 

[TomS]

If only Canada only ever had to worry about air defense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/06/11/canadian-cf-18-jets-hit-islamic-state-target-in-syria.html

If they ever have to fulfill their NATO commitments overseas I hope they get front row seats right next to the F-35s when going after well defended targets. Not to be an ass but I don't ever want to see them sitting things out because it's too dangerous, and they were too cheap to buy survivable aircraft. If they get tasked with taking down an S-400 site, so be it. Risking the lives of your pilots for cheap political points is beyond loathsome IMO.

You posted that link as though Canada has a legal obligation to take part in those strikes. The new Canadian government appears to think otherwise. They're going to stop participating in Coalition air strikes in Iraq and Syria:


http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/syria-iraq-isis-fight/


As for NATO missions, it's not like there aren't going to be lots of non-stealthy or only semi-stealthy aircraft in other NATO air forces for the foreseeable future. There will be lots of F-16s, Typhoons, Rafales, etc. in other inventories and quite a few countries that are only going to have a few (if any) stealth platforms to use.

 

[sferrin]

Your text is tiny. And I wasn't posting the link as if I thought they were legally obligated. I was posting it as an example of the fact that Canadian aircraft don't perform JUST air defense. Also, were NATO to be involved in a war Canada WOULD be obligated to fight.

 

[TomS]

Thanks, font fixed.


My point is that Canadian participation in these operations is a choice, and the whole point of Trudeau's position is that they will chose not to engage in them.


In terms of a NATO war, sure, they'd have to participate (in theory -- in practice, they can't actually be compelled to send forces). But not having the F-35 won't make them uniquely useless -- there will be lots of other non-F-35 air assets at play in such a conflict and there will be plenty of roles for them to play.

 

[Avimimus]

You posted that link as though Canada has a legal obligation to take part in those strikes. The new Canadian government appears to think otherwise.

NATO is a defensive treaty. We're obligated if a treaty partner is directly attacked. We aren't obligated to act is auxiliary forces or engage in overseas adventures unless it is clear that they are required for the immediate defense of a treaty member.
This is why we deployed to Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Arguably the Iraq campaign would have been easier on Canada and gained a higher opinion from the United States (at least in terms of public opinion). But, we weren't obligated and many Canadians felt that the invasion of Iraq abrogated international law. So the Liberals chose the hard route.

As for NATO missions, it's not like there aren't going to be lots of non-stealthy or only semi-stealthy aircraft in other NATO air forces for the foreseeable future. There will be lots of F-16s, Typhoons, Rafales, etc. in other inventories and quite a few countries that are only going to have a few (if any) stealth platforms to use.

Right. There are many ways to contribute. Despite being a small country we produced what was numerically the fourth largest navy by the end of WWII. However, it was mainly a merchant marine with an extensive fleet of destroyers, corvettes and escort carriers to protect it. Definitely an essential role to play. However, the battleships and fleet carriers were left to the United States and Great Britain.

 

[sferrin]

Right. There are many ways to contribute. Despite being a small country we produced what was numerically the fourth largest navy by the end of WWII. However, it was mainly a merchant marine with an extensive fleet of destroyers, corvettes and escort carriers to protect it. Definitely an essential role to play. However, the battleships and fleet carriers were left to the United States and Great Britain.

True. It just seems a bit. . .well, there are a few words for it but I'm not going to say them, "not cool" to force other countries to go into danger's way while you (not you "you") sit nice and safe because you were too cheap to be bothered.

 

[lastdingo]

Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

 

[sferrin]

Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

Well that's good to know. We don't need to buy any fighters after all. :

 

[Triton]

Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

Really?

 

[Avimimus]

It is also worth noting that, while Canada might not want to lose pilots to engine failures in peace time, Canadian culture may be more tolerant of losing pilots in open warfare than other countries.

Not sure what engine failure has to do with anything. Certainly the new suit hasn't cited that as his reason for cancelling the F-35 order.

It is a major recurring them among opponents of the F-35 in Canada. The Prime Minister, frankly, doesn't know enough about military aviation to be able to give a clear reason. That isn't to say his advisors, and groups within the armed forces don't have more coherent reasons.

Right. There are many ways to contribute. Despite being a small country we produced what was numerically the fourth largest navy by the end of WWII. However, it was mainly a merchant marine with an extensive fleet of destroyers, corvettes and escort carriers to protect it. Definitely an essential role to play. However, the battleships and fleet carriers were left to the United States and Great Britain.

True. It just seems a bit. . .well, there are a few words for it but I'm not going to say them, "not cool" to force other countries to go into danger's way while you (not you "you") sit nice and safe because you were too cheap to be bothered.

The casualty rate of the Canadian Merchant Navy (>13%) were almost ten times that of the United States Navy (~1.5%).

So, yes, in response to your comment ...I could have a few words for you that I'm not going to say here.

You may also notice earlier my suggestion that Canadians might be more loss tolerant than some of our allies (i.e. we might still use a 4th generation platform in combat - even if it faces risks).

 

[sferrin]

The casualty rate of the Canadian Merchant Navy (>13%) were almost ten times that of the United States Navy (~1.5%).

WWII naval casualties have nothing to do with future potential casualties in an air war.

 

[LowObservable]

Unless you're still thinking about Guadalcanal, that is...

 

[Void]

This is why we deployed to Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Arguably the Iraq campaign would have been easier on Canada and gained a higher opinion from the United States (at least in terms of public opinion). But, we weren't obligated and many Canadians felt that the invasion of Iraq abrogated international law. So the Liberals chose the hard route.

Since when is following public opinion hard?

The Liberals had choice to bite the bullet and support our closest allies or bow to the same old knee jerk anti-americanism. True to form they chose the latter.

 

[Sundog]

The Liberals had choice to bite the bullet and support our closest allies or bow to the same old knee jerk anti-americanism. True to form they chose the latter.

It wasn't about Anti-Americanism. It was about Law. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S.

 

[marauder2048]

Unless you're still thinking about Guadalcanal, that is...

Better to think about Guadalcanal than Singapore and Dieppe..

 

[Triton]

Maybe Canada will join South Korea and Indonesia in KF-X?

 

[Arjen]

With the current fleet aging as it is, Canada might just be in too much of a hurry.

 

[lastdingo]

Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

Well that's good to know. We don't need to buy any fighters after all. :

Of course not. It's a silly idea that Canada needs to buy fighters. This is a choice, an option, not a necessity.
To be in an alliance has two principal benefits:
(a) Ability to defend at all.
(b) Allied military power added means less national power needed, not the least because potential threats are turned allies.
In the case of Canada - it's a small enough share of the overall alliance that even disbanding two of three armed services and bolstering the third as compensation wouldn't affect teh deterrence or defence of the alliance noticeably.

It's a choice of small and medium defensive alliance members to maintain a balanced military with three armed services, not a necessity.
Look at Iceland; they're a North Atlantic Treaty member, but they have no military or even only a paramilitary police at all, they serve merely as a base!


Regarding future high end peer air war; we haven't seen such a thing since the 50's, so nothing is for certain. Air power was out of proportion relative to concealment-deprived ground forces in '67, '73, '91 and '03 and proved hugely influential, but it was a sideshow when it had a rather ordinary numerical relation to ground forces in '08 (where at least some of the ground combat wasn't on concealment-deprived terrains).
Try to remember the 80's, and our expectations for conventional air power influence on a war. Ever since, air power had gained in profile because the beating up and bullying of smaller powers was mostly done with air power. The impressions it left were out of proportion relative to the actual balance between air and ground forces in NATO.
There's also the potential of small flying drones and RC aircraft; even ten thousand F-22's could not assure all-altitudes air superiority any more because they're irrelevant to the small drone air war; you cannot deny battlefield aerial reconnaissance or ground attack with fighters or battlefield air defences any more (that's why I wrote "classic" in the quote).


Canada pretended that the classic air war paradigm was self-evident when it once favoured the expensive F-35 program.

Maybe Canada will join South Korea and Indonesia in KF-X?

K-X appears to be in trouble and it's single engine. The J-31 might end up being the best match technically.

 

[sferrin]

Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

Well that's good to know. We don't need to buy any fighters after all. :

Of course not. It's a silly idea that Canada needs to buy fighters. This is a choice, an option, not a necessity.

It is if you want to defend your airspace. Kind of like saying, "well you don't NEED to buy food".

 

[kaiserd]

Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

Well that's good to know. We don't need to buy any fighters after all. :

Of course not. It's a silly idea that Canada needs to buy fighters. This is a choice, an option, not a necessity.
To be in an alliance has two principal benefits:
(a) Ability to defend at all.
(b) Allied military power added means less national power needed, not the least because potential threats are turned allies.
In the case of Canada - it's a small enough share of the overall alliance that even disbanding two of three armed services and bolstering the third as compensation wouldn't affect teh deterrence or defence of the alliance noticeably.

It's a choice of small and medium defensive alliance members to maintain a balanced military with three armed services, not a necessity.
Look at Iceland; they're a North Atlantic Treaty member, but they have no military or even only a paramilitary police at all, they serve merely as a base!


Regarding future high end peer air war; we haven't seen such a thing since the 50's, so nothing is for certain. Air power was out of proportion relative to concealment-deprived ground forces in '67, '73, '91 and '03 and proved hugely influential, but it was a sideshow when it had a rather ordinary numerical relation to ground forces in '08 (where at least some of the ground combat wasn't on concealment-deprived terrains).
Try to remember the 80's, and our expectations for conventional air power influence on a war. Ever since, air power had gained in profile because the beating up and bullying of smaller powers was mostly done with air power. The impressions it left were out of proportion relative to the actual balance between air and ground forces in NATO.
There's also the potential of small flying drones and RC aircraft; even ten thousand F-22's could not assure all-altitudes air superiority any more because they're irrelevant to the small drone air war; you cannot deny battlefield aerial reconnaissance or ground attack with fighters or battlefield air defences any more (that's why I wrote "classic" in the quote).


Canada pretended that the classic air war paradigm was self-evident when it once favoured the expensive F-35 program.

Maybe Canada will join South Korea and Indonesia in KF-X?

K-X appears to be in trouble and it's single engine. The J-31 might end up being the best match technically.

Wow last dingo.... even the average person on this website like this would be really struggling to understand that you are referring to the 2008 Russian-Georgia War with your references to " '08 ".
Not sure the Russian air force learned that much from that conflict apart from how badly it needed updating (including with UAVs) and to avoid using Tu22Ms for low level visual recon. Doubt NATO learned too much either apart from how far the Russians had fallen behind.

You really come from a completely different perspective than most of us, which appears to be very Eastern European/ Russia-centric.

As for the rest of your comments;
- In a peer-to-peer war of course the air war would be critical - indeed if a side relised they had effectively "lost" the air war they well may sue for terms given the damage the other side could now inflict (or of course there are alternatives such as nuclear exchange etc.). Air power is not a universal panacea for guerrilla warfare but it now has the ability to devastate main-stream military forces (armored ground forces, naval fleets etc.).
- The is of course a necessary balance between the various military forces (air, ground, naval) of a country. However you are quite wrong re: air power becoming too dominant. Given that NATO/ western countries (I do dislike such generic terms) don't have the appetite to sustain losses in anything but the most extreme scenarios they will fight in a different way to, say, the Putin regime that has inherited Russian regimes traditional indifference to human losses and which is so ready and apt at hiding such losses from their own people (as seen with their treatment of the families of their dead "volunteers" in Ukraine).
- The point of military alliances is not that everyone but one or two countries cheap out (both in men and material). The only people who want that to happen is the alliances adversaries, such as Putin's Russia.
I am not saying buying a cheaper alternative to the F35 is necessarily cheapening out; however if you end up with something completely unsuitable for a wider role than Canadian-based air defense then yes you are.
- The counties in the world that are most advance are in developing and fielding drones are the countries that are developing and/or buying the F35 (US, Israel, UK etc) or are developing contemporary aircraft (China etc). A country you appear to be suggesting is more moving towards what you are suggesting (Russia) barely has 2 UAVs to scratch together apart from a few bought from Israel and is decades away from remotely fielding anything like what you are describing. Small UAVs are a challenge but also an opportunity far more likely to be fully exploited by the world leaders in this field, not by struggling to be third-rate countries in this field like Russia.
- J-31 best match for Canadian requirements? This is moving towards blatant trolling. Do you know what the new Canadian requirements will be? Do you have any basis to know what the J-31's specifications, performance and price will actually be? (For example J-31 prototypes still flying around with smokey MIG-29 engines that are more primitive than Canada's old classic Hornets F404s). Presumably the answer to both is no you don't. What do you think the odds of Canada or any NATO country actually buying a Chinese fighter aircraft are? Presumably the answer is zero.

 

[marauder2048]

Actually, if there's a real attack on NATO the risk to the few hundred or few thousand aviators would be negligible. It wouldn't be some bombing bombing of huts and pickups, but a European style inter-state war against powers that dared to attack the two of the three mightiest alliances mankind has ever created (NATO and EU).

Besides, classic air power isn't guaranteed to play much of a role in it at all.

Well that's good to know. We don't need to buy any fighters after all. :

Of course not. It's a silly idea that Canada needs to buy fighters. This is a choice, an option, not a necessity.

It is if you want to defend your airspace. Kind of like saying, "well you don't NEED to buy food".

I suppose you could argue for a solely SAM based approach to air defense (I'm thinking Aegis Ashore + SM-6) and leave air policing to something like the Textron Scorpion. Wouldn't be ideal for Canada's expansive geography...

 

[Void]

It wasn't about Anti-Americanism. It was about Law. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S.

Only Africans and other assorted poor people with funny accents get in trouble for violating "international law". :

It was ENTIRELY about sticking it to the US in general and Bush in particular.