• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

F-35 for Canada

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,968
Reaction score
172
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-typhoon-to-bid-to-replace-canadian-cf-18-455004/
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
274
Reaction score
17
I read a news article a couple of days ago that indicated that Canada and the UK are in "trade" talks as the Brexit mess continues. I wonder if this has come about because of that ---
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,647
Reaction score
30
Website
beyondthesprues.com
kitnut617 said:
I wonder if this has come about because of that ---
Not really. Typhoon would always be pitched at this requirement even if Brexit didn't exist.
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
274
Reaction score
17
It would be nice if it was the F-35, but my guess is the Super Hornet ---

But who knows, we have an election in a couple of months time ---
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,647
Reaction score
30
Website
beyondthesprues.com
It would be nice if it was the F-35, but my guess is the Super Hornet ---

But who knows, we have an election in a couple of months time ---
I think the election gives the Canadian govt an easy 'get out of jail' to reverse the last election campaign promise to not purchase the F-35. If they win the next election they can put this position behind them and thus still purchase the F-35 without getting blamed for breaking a campaign promise. I believe they will purchase the F-35 since it will give their industry the best outcome in the long term. It also gives the best alignment with the majority of their key allies including especially their closest in the USA.
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
274
Reaction score
17
I agree with you Greg, but you know we're talking about this particular PM we have the pleasure of at the moment ---
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
12
The next election will likely end in a minority government. The Liberals could probably backtrack on their campaign promise after the next election, and anyone could ensure that Lockheed wins the competition (now that we actually have one).

Most of the public has probably forgotten about Boeing pushing the C-series into Airbus's control (even if aviation enthusiasts haven't), on the other hand much of the public doesn't have the twin-engine emphasis that the older generation of Canadian aviation buffs have (we're talking about a requirement based on experience with the F-86 and F-104 - something that requires a long memory)! So I'm not sure that Boeing or Lockheed have an obvious advantage at this point.

The Eurofighter and Gripen might have a boost in popular support due to a desire to strengthen ties with Europe and the current uncertainties regarding American support for NATO, along with other points of policy tension etc.

P.S. Despite my criticism of the F-35 compared to other procurement priorities it isn't a terrible option. That said, I'd prefer a winterised F-35B... as odd as that may sound. A Eurocanard might be a better choice... perhaps a twin engined SAAB (FS2020 was offered in a twin engined version, and I wonder how much more it would cost if stealth wasn't prioritised and most of the systems were taken from the NG?)... but I'm drifting off-topic here.
 

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
120
Reaction score
6
A number of 2-seat Gripens (20 examples?) could serve as an interim type as Hornets get pulled due to attrition, until the adoption of a dual-engined FS2020, of which they should play into being a direct partner and their own production line. Not sure how long the C-Series production line is going to last in Canada, but they need to give their industrial base the relevant work. The 2-seat Gripens then could be repurposed as trainers for FS2020. It's also not entirely open whether it's going to be single or dual engine, of which dual engine would play into the size imperative for large fuel carriage and with it long range operations. A straight up single engined "stealthified Gripen" is not what Canada needs.

They could also endeavor to be a partner in Japan's ATD-X program. Either way, they need a long range, supercruise 5th gen fighter, ideally with two engines to deal with their vast frontier. Canada could develop a more multi-role oriented version of the fighter built in Canada for Canada while the Japanese version stays strictly air superiority. I think at this point, Canada would get less say in the overall design and converting it to multi-role will require more work, and there could be potential issues that can't be worked around. For all we know, the ATD-X could have minimal external weapons carriage and that could create potential structural issues if Canada wanted to carry more/larger weapons that don't fit inside the weapons bay.

Then there is KFX, Tempest, TAI TFX, FCAS...........oh yeah and the F-35.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
901
Reaction score
9
It seems like Canada's idea of participation in NATO is like that 4th in golf that always shows up but never has balls or money for lunch. They'll usually show up to play but you're always paying their way while they argue that without them you wouldn't have a foursome.

While I believe it is the best choice, I'd be surprised if the Canadian government chooses F-35. I think "a deal" will be made for Gripen or Typhoon. Both countries are eager for production. Other choices are F-15 and F-18. F-18 would be the worst choice for NATO. No other NATO air force will be flying F-18's in 2030. IMHO new F-15's will be full of tech and likely as expensive as F-35.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
607
Reaction score
26
It seems like Canada's idea of participation in NATO is like that 4th in golf that always shows up but never has balls or money for lunch. They'll usually show up to play but you're always paying their way while they argue that without them you wouldn't have a foursome.

While I believe it is the best choice, I'd be surprised if the Canadian government chooses F-35. I think "a deal" will be made for Gripen or Typhoon. Both countries are eager for production. Other choices are F-15 and F-18. F-18 would be the worst choice for NATO. No other NATO air force will be flying F-18's in 2030. IMHO new F-15's will be full of tech and likely as expensive as F-35.
I’m no massive fan of the Super Hornet but doesn’t the US Navy count as a “NATO Air Force”?
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
901
Reaction score
9
I’m no massive fan of the Super Hornet but doesn’t the US Navy count as a “NATO Air Force”?
Perhaps, in theory. Maybe not in practice.

US F-18's are a naval asset. In a major NATO engagement, near-peer ~2030-2035, wouldn't you expect US F-18's to be with their carrier air wings or augmenting others? I wouldn't expect much forward ground support for a couple of Canadian F-18's. Streamlining logistics was to be one of the advantages of the "joint strike fighter."
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,909
Reaction score
12
It seems like Canada's idea of participation in NATO is like that 4th in golf that always shows up but never has balls or money for lunch. They'll usually show up to play but you're always paying their way while they argue that without them you wouldn't have a foursome.
Getting a bit off-topic here. But, from all of the accounts I've heard, our ground forces tend to be better equipped and have a larger professional element. We also deployed guided weapons extensively at a fairly early date and it is the U.S. which got us to agree to not operate our own nuclear submarines... we have been a bit inconsistent with funding our own domestic projects though (i.e. The days are long gone of domestic jet-fighter production, hydrofoil escort ships, vtol technology, or even guided rockets on LAAVs). We're pretty effective for a country 1/10th the size of the U.S. in population.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
607
Reaction score
26
Probably best to stick to topic rather drifting off into or reacting to individuals personal views of and metaphors for..... Canada?
Sorry lads but that’s ridiculously off topic.....
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
901
Reaction score
9
It seems like Canada's idea of participation in NATO is like that 4th in golf that always shows up but never has balls or money for lunch. They'll usually show up to play but you're always paying their way while they argue that without them you wouldn't have a foursome.
Getting a bit off-topic here. But, from all of the accounts I've heard, our ground forces tend to be better equipped and have a larger professional element. We also deployed guided weapons extensively at a fairly early date and it is the U.S. which got us to agree to not operate our own nuclear submarines... we have been a bit inconsistent with funding our own domestic projects though (i.e. The days are long gone of domestic jet-fighter production, hydrofoil escort ships, vtol technology, or even guided rockets on LAAVs). We're pretty effective for a country 1/10th the size of the U.S. in population.

It's not off topic at all. The topic is F-35 for Canada. Canada signed on to the Joint Strike Fighter program. Canadian industry reaped the economic rewards of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Then, the Canadian people voted on selecting "one of the many, lower-priced (fighter) options that better match Canada's defence needs."

BTW..."a bit inconsistent" is not true. Canada has been very consistent in not adequately funding her military commensurate with her economic strength as per the agreed upon metric with NATO.

I disagree that Canada is effective for a country 1/10th the size of the US. Canada has not met its commitment to NORAD or NATO for fighter availability with it's F-18's. Why? They don't have enough fighters, pilots, or maintainers. Why? Because they won't fund them. Is Canada spending too much on defense? No, NATO countries agreed on 2% of GDP. Is that a disproportionate amount of Canadian treasure? No, Canada has a per capita GDP of ~$50k, 15th in the world. Does that sound effective?

Some stats...

Of 28 countries in NATO Canada is; 9th by population, 6th by GDP, 15th by % of GDP spent on military

What that means is that Canada may show up for policing actions with enough kit but they are not ready for war. In fact, at this point Canada may not be able to defend her own territory, let alone contribute to a major military engagement with a near peer. Canada's military cant fight at her weight because the people won't feed her. This is why Canada doesn't have the F-35.

But there's more. Canada proposed to buy Super Hornets to fill the gap. That would have exacerbated the problem because the RCAF still would have not met the NORAD and NATO operational requirement and made the personnel shortage worse. Yet Canada is now going to purchase equally obsolete F-18's from Australia "without a plan to deal with its biggest obstacles to meeting the new operational requirement: a shortage of pilots and the declining combat capability of its aircraft" according to the Auditor General.

Does that sound effective?
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
558
Reaction score
52
It seems like Canada's idea of participation in NATO is like that 4th in golf that always shows up but never has balls or money for lunch.
I disagree that Canada is effective for a country 1/10th the size of the US.
Keep your nationalistic insults for supremacist boards where they'll be welcome. On SPF, since you obviously did not get it yet,
Political, religious and nationalistic posts are discouraged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,370
Reaction score
587
We should try to stick to relevant facts about the Canadian new fighter requirement.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
901
Reaction score
9
We should try to stick to relevant facts about the Canadian new fighter requirement.
From Strong, secure, engaged : Canada's defence policy.

"In order to counter today’s evolving threat environment and remain highly interoperable with its allies and key operational partners, Canada will procure a fighter capability of 88 jets to replace the aging CF-18 fleet.

Military threats across a range of systems such as advanced fighters and anti-access area denial (A2AD) surface-to-air missile systems, in addition to evolving cyber threats, are making the environment within which the Canadian Armed Forces operates more lethal and complex. As such, the Canadian Armed Forces requires a fighter fleet that is capable, upgradeable, resilient and interoperable with our allies and partners to ensure Canada continues to meet its NORAD and NATO commitments in the future. The fighter aircraft fleet is a critical Canadian Armed Forces capability necessary to enforce Canada’s sovereignty, enable continental security, and contribute to international peace and stability.

In addition to the quality of the fighter capability required, the Royal Canadian Air Force requires sufficient numbers of fighter aircraft to ensure control of Canada’s vast airspace, while maintaining an ability to simultaneously contribute to international operations, conduct pilot training, and to allow for maintenance and repair. The fleet size of 88 fighter aircraft will provide the necessary number of aircraft to fulfill Canada’s commitments, including maintenance and readiness training."


Is "highly interoperable" defined somewhere? Is that in the RFP?

From what study does the quantity 88 originate?
 
Top