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

marauder2048 said:
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...

So would they just shoot down every Bear and Blackjack that came by then (given that Scorpion can't intercept either)? Or would they just give them free reign to go wherever they like? Come to think of it, they wouldn't even be able to run down a 747 if there were an inflight "incident".
 
"Scrapping F-35 fighter jets may not lead to big savings, experts say"
Steven Chase
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015 2:00AM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015 2:00AM EDT

Source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scrapping-f-35-fighter-jets-may-not-lead-to-big-savings-experts-say/article27012886/

Defence experts are skeptical that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government will reap any significant windfall from buying a warplane that is cheaper than the controversial F-35 fighter.

The Liberals promised during the election campaign to look elsewhere for a plane and plow the savings into more ships for the Royal Canadian Navy. But military experts say different aircraft might not be a bargain when the costs of buying, operating and maintaining them over 20 to 30 years are tallied up.

“I don’t think it will produce the magnitude of savings that they think will fund the shipbuilding program,” said George Petrolekas, a retired colonel with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

“I don’t think there will be a significant savings in acquisition and I suspect there probably won’t be a significant savings in operating costs either,” Mr. Petrolekas said, referring to expenses such as fuel and staffing.

The sticker price of a fighter aircraft is a small portion of the overall cost of owning and operating it over decades.

Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals, who take power in Ottawa in early November, campaigned on a promise to jettison the Lockheed Martin F-35 as an option for replacing Canada’s aging CF-18 fighters. The defeated Harper government had planned to buy 65 F-35s from the United States, which has gone dramatically over budget in developing these leading-edge planes, before putting the matter on the back burner in 2012.

The Liberals pledged to buy “an equal or greater number of lower-priced, but equally effective, replacement aircraft.” They said they do not believe Canada requires a plane with the F-35’s stealth technology, but rather one that focuses on the defence of North America.

Lockheed Martin officials declined to address Ottawa’s change in attitude when contacted this week. “Lockheed Martin has not received any formal notification from the Canadian government that their status has changed concerning the F-35 program. They are a valued partner and we will continue to support them through their decision process to replace their aging CF-18 fleet,” the company said in a statement.

The Liberal promise means Canada will have to resign its partnership in the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program.

This will affect future business for Canadian companies that won about $750-million in contracts related to the F-35 because Canada was a partner in the program. Canadian firms’ contracts will wind down and they will not be eligible to bid on further work.

A deal to buy a new warplane, whether it be the Boeing Super Hornet or a European rival, will bring industrial benefits for Canada, but as of now there are no guarantees for Canada’s aerospace industry and players that in some cases have spent a decade or 15 years preparing to bid on work related to the F-35s.

Scott McCrady, speaking on behalf of the Canadian JSF Industry Group, said things are not very comfortable now for the companies with F-35 contracts. “Ultimately, there are going to be jobs that migrate out of Canada to those countries that are buying the jets” if Ottawa exits the F-35 program, he predicted.

David Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the Liberals will have to spell out exactly where they plan to find big savings before he will have faith it can be achieved. “There’s assertions that you could save a lot of money, but we’ll actually have to see the math,” he said. “Any speculation about exactly how cheap the alternatives to the F-35 would be will actually have to be verified.”

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, however, said he believes the Liberals can save more than $1-billion on the acquisition cost alone, estimating this to be more than $30-million per plane. There would be bigger savings in maintenance and operating costs, he predicted, adding that for this to happen, the government would need to pick a fighter that lacks “many of the features of the F-35.”
 
Markets | Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:20pm EDT
"Canada Liberals to start fighter competition afresh"
OTTAWA | By Randall Palmer

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/26/canada-aircraft-fighter-idUSL1N12Q2KE20151026

Oct 26 Canada's incoming Liberal government intends to completely restart the competition for fighter jets to replace its aging CF-18s, rather than relying on the proposals already made under the outgoing Conservatives, a Liberal source said on Monday.

He said the Liberals, who declared during their successful election campaign that they would not buy Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighters, would put out a new "request for proposals," with a redesigned list of what the new planes will be required to do.

"We're going to put together the requirements we have for aircraft," said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "I don't think we trust the (Conservative) government's requirements."

The Liberals take power on Nov. 4, when the new ministers of defense and public works will be named.

Ruling out the F-35 left open the theoretical possibility of going ahead with the best of the remaining contenders on the basis of the bids already submitted, but the source made clear the new government would instead hit the reset button.

This means it could take years to make a choice. The source said he expected the decision would be made within the first term of Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau, which ends in October 2019.

A leading contender has always been considered to be Boeing Co's F/A-18E/F fighters, but they are expected to end production by 2019, possibly earlier, so Canada would need to move relatively fast if it wanted those.

Boeing and Lockheed lobbyists have often referred to the benefit of having planes used by the United States, for interoperability, but the Liberal source said different allied planes operate together without big problems.

Trudeau shook up the campaign and the aerospace industry with his Sept. 20 announcement that he would not buy F-35s . He said he expected this to yield savings, which he would apply to naval ships.

The other contenders in the Conservative government's competition were Dassault Aviation SA's Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon - jointly made by BAE Systems PLC, Finmeccanica SpA and Airbus Group.

Trudeau had also named Saab AB's Gripen as a potential contender, even though the Swedish firm had already effectively ruled itself out of the current competition. (Reporting by Randall Palmer; Editing by Ken Wills)
 
Interesting that they've "ruled out" the F-35. What if it meets their stated requirements better at a better overall price? (Or maybe they're just going to string along some other country to get the work and then cancel. :mad:)
 
Two blokes from the same institute and a bloke from the Canadian JSF Booster Club Industry Group.

The think-tankers are actually stating what is not only obvious but was also a leading argument against Harper's plan, which is that absent an open competition you have no way of knowing what any given system does for you and what it costs.
 
LowObservable said:
Two blokes from the same institute and a bloke from the Canadian JSF Booster Club Industry Group.

The think-tankers are actually stating what is not only obvious but was also a leading argument against Harper's plan, which is that absent an open competition you have no way of knowing what any given system does for you and what it costs.

So you'd agree that arbitrarily removing the F-35 from a future competition does not constitute promoting an "open" competition?
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
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...

So would they just shoot down every Bear and Blackjack that came by then (given that Scorpion can't intercept either)? Or would they just give them free reign to go wherever they like? Come to think of it, they wouldn't even be able to run down a 747 if there were an inflight "incident".

Sorry if my extremely lukewarm tone didn't come across in the above post. That said, illuminating a Bear/Blackjack with your big SAM's engagement radar would quite literally send a strong signal.
On the Scorpion front, it depends on what Textron puts together for TX.

On the F-35 front, I don't think Canadian procurement law permits the government to explicitly prohibit an entrant in good legal standing or proactively narrow the set of potential winners.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
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...

So would they just shoot down every Bear and Blackjack that came by then (given that Scorpion can't intercept either)? Or would they just give them free reign to go wherever they like? Come to think of it, they wouldn't even be able to run down a 747 if there were an inflight "incident".

Sorry if my extremely lukewarm tone didn't come across in the above post. That said, illuminating a Bear/Blackjack with your big SAM's engagement radar would quite literally send a strong signal.

Thing is even something with BOMARC's range wasn't enough for a SAM-only solution.
 
I can't see any reason for Canada to switch to an all-SAM national air defense or even a SAM + Scorpion national air defense.

The most common role of the air defense will be intercepting civilian airplanes which go off course. That can only be achieved by manned aircraft with enough speed to conduct the interception. This rules out the Scorpion, which does not appear to be a plane with the speed and altitude to intercept a jetliner. SAMs cannot do these interceptions at all.

Furthermore, a SAM based ADN puts the air defense in the unhappy role of shooting-to-kill as the first response to an unknown intruder. Not acceptable either.
 
Sharing the fighter-related content of the article, more at the source. Drones to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's aging CF-18s?


"Michael Den Tandt: Trudeau faces big defence decisions that will shape Canada’s strategic posture for decades"
by Michael Den Tandt | October 27, 2015 6:15 PM ET

Source:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-trudeau-faces-big-defence-decisions

Then there are the jets. Trudeau caused a stir in mid-campaign by pledging to scrap the star-crossed F-35 fighter purchase, invest in a cheaper fighter to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s aging CF-18s, and plow any savings into ramped-up naval procurement. The move caught the other two major parties off-guard and probably helped the Liberals win over more than a few disgruntled centrist Red Tories.

The difficulty, as always, is in the details. Though 65 F-35s are now unaffordable given the original $9-billion purchase envelope — the cost overruns and delays on this project are legendary, and the weak Canadian dollar does the rest — it’s unclear another aircraft would be a great deal cheaper. Maintenance and operating costs may be marginally lower with an aircraft that is less software-intensive than the F-35, but not to the tune of billions.

Which raises the question of whether the RCAF will get new fighters at all. The lifetime of existing CF-18s has already been extended to 2025. The Liberals appear determined to end the RCAF’s participation in the aerial campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Bearing that in mind, they may decide it makes more sense to invest in state-of-the-art drones, which can stay aloft virtually around the clock and patrol vast swathes of Arctic territory at high altitudes, than replace aging but still-serviceable manned fighters they would prefer not to use. In that event, there would savings in the billions, which could be redirected towards a navy in dire need of rapid, major investment.
 
Drones? I'll bet they think Predator drones can run down Blackjacks.
 
I like the whole belief in Drones, as it is a quick short-cut to identifying someone who no knowledge of state-of-the-art in aerospace.

Though, here the drones are being used in a purely reconnaissance mode, which fits a version of Canadian defense. "US, we discovered problem X, can you fix it for us?"
 
Triton said:
Sharing the fighter-related content of the article, more at the source. Drones to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's aging CF-18s?
Speculation by Mr Den Tandt, not supported (yet?) by LDP statements.
Quote from Den Tandt:
Though 65 F-35s are now unaffordable given the original $9-billion purchase envelope — the cost overruns and delays on this project are legendary, and the weak Canadian dollar does the rest — it’s unclear another aircraft would be a great deal cheaper.
SAAB claims Gripen's operating cost is / will be substantially lower than Typhoon, Rafale, F-18E, F-15, F-35.

Wait and see what happens.
 
sferrin said:
Drones? I'll bet they think Predator drones can run down Blackjacks.

I wonder if Den Tandt believes that a drone that can replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's CF-18s costs the same as a General Atomics MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper.
 
Triton said:
Under Canadian law, can the Trudeau government exclude Lockheed Martin from submitting the F-35 for the "open" fighter competition?

That's easily done by tweaking the specs to a point that F-35 cannot qualify a preliminary stage.
 
The only "spec" that would disqualify the F-35 yet still allow the rest is requiring a 2-man crew.

Of course that will severely reduce the range of those other aircraft but hey, the object of the spec is geared towards keeping the F-35 out and not defense.
 
Put in a two-engine requirement, knocks out F-35 (and Gripen) though.
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
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...

So would they just shoot down every Bear and Blackjack that came by then (given that Scorpion can't intercept either)? Or would they just give them free reign to go wherever they like? Come to think of it, they wouldn't even be able to run down a 747 if there were an inflight "incident".

Sorry if my extremely lukewarm tone didn't come across in the above post. That said, illuminating a Bear/Blackjack with your big SAM's engagement radar would quite literally send a strong signal.

Thing is even something with BOMARC's range wasn't enough for a SAM-only solution.
The SAM/Scorpion thing is more than a thought exercise which continues:

BOMARC wasn't ship launched. SM-6 is and the Canadians are looking for new surface combatants. This brings up the maritime aspect both for the fighter reqs and the MPAs that Canada is looking to
acquire.
 
SpudmanWP said:
The only "spec" that would disqualify the F-35 yet still allow the rest is requiring a 2-man crew.

"Must have mature flight data for external fuel tanks including emergency jettison and interaction with stores separation."
 
DrRansom said:
Put in a two-engine requirement, knocks out F-35 (and Gripen) though.

The could protest that pretty easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY&feature=youtu.be
 
DrRansom said:
I like the whole belief in Drones, as it is a quick short-cut to identifying someone who no knowledge of state-of-the-art in aerospace.

Though, here the drones are being used in a purely reconnaissance mode, which fits a version of Canadian defense. "US, we discovered problem X, can you fix it for us?"

Are you a psychic?

This was (is?) in the Green Parties platform ;D
 
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Put in a two-engine requirement, knocks out F-35 (and Gripen) though.

The could protest that pretty easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY&feature=youtu.be

Canada is a sovereign country, NAFTA or no NAFTA. They can basically do what they want, and even if LM found a court to agree with it, the Canadian government could still keep them out.
If nothing else works, they can keep LM representatives and consultants from viewing classified requirements by not giving them a security clearance, period.
 
lastdingo said:
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Put in a two-engine requirement, knocks out F-35 (and Gripen) though.

The could protest that pretty easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY&feature=youtu.be

Canada is a sovereign country, NAFTA or no NAFTA. They can basically do what they want, and even if LM found a court to agree with it, the Canadian government could still keep them out.
If nothing else works, they can keep LM representatives and consultants from viewing classified requirements by not giving them a security clearance, period.

Sure. And we could pull all that job-producing F-35 work back. Period. Should probably make Canada shoulder an equal load when it comes to the Arctic as well. Period.
 
sferrin said:
Sure. And we could pull all that job-producing F-35 work back. Period. Should probably make Canada shoulder an equal load when it comes to the Arctic as well. Period.

It seems that the Liberal Party of Canada/Justin Trudeau government would rather meet the commitments made in the National Shipbuilding and Procurement Strategy than spend the money on a CF-18 replacement for the Royal Canadian Air Force. So there would be job creation in building the promised icebreakers, supply ships, arctic and offshore patrol ships, surface combatants, and other resources required by the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy. I presume that depending on how much money is left will drive the CF-18 procurement decision.
 
sferrin said:
Sure. And we could pull all that job-producing F-35 work back. Period. Should probably make Canada shoulder an equal load when it comes to the Arctic as well. Period.

Wikipedia says
"As a result of the Government of Canada's investment in the JSF project, 144 contracts were awarded to Canadian companies, universities, and government facilities. Financially, the contracts are valued at US$490 million for the period 2002 to 2012, with an expected value of US$1.1 billion from current contracts in the period between 2013 and 2023, and a total potential estimated value of Canada's involvement in the JSF project from US$4.8 billion to US$6.8 billion.[6] By 2013 the potential benefits to Canadian firms had risen to $9.9 billion."

So ten billion USD. That's at most 40% of the purchase - normally under domestic procurement 40-60% does not only go to domestic companies, but returns as taxes to the treasury!

The Canadians are MUCH better off economically if they negotiate a deal with SAAB with offset purchases, and spend about half the money on Canadian shipbuilding or simply training.
 
There was a large amount of outrage initially because the decision was made without competition and prior to asking the armed forces to produce a requirement. This later lead to the publication of a set of requirements and talk about an open competition.

I find the whole question of requirements quite interesting:

- The F-35A isn't a bad choice if the airforce is intended to act as auxiliaries to larger NATO deployments.

- It is poorly suited to operating in the Canadian Arctic due to the lack of arrester hook (the F-35C would be a better choice in this case), less than exceptional range, and dubious cold weather capabilities, and lack of a twin engined layout (something Canadians tend to be very ideological about). Super-cruise would be very useful in such an environment as well. The Arctic interceptor requirement would really be best filled by an aircraft with specifications matching the Mig-31 (aircraft designed around defending a larger northern area).

- The F-35B could be easily dispersed and would allow a quick counter-attack capability (especially if nuclear capable) in the case of a war with the United States (or Canada being attacked during a hypothetical American civil war). It could also do the tasks of the F-35A pretty well. Note: I'm not endorsing such a purchase or civil war by speculating about it - just doing what militaries always do - contingency planning.
 
I doubt the Canadians would really be willing to pay the costs associated with operating a true interceptor along the lines of the MiG-31.
 
Well that's peanuts really ---- considering the present Canadian Government (Liberals) has just splashed out C$4.5 Billion on a pipeline ----
 
Avimimus said:
There was a large amount of outrage initially because the decision was made without competition and prior to asking the armed forces to produce a requirement. This later lead to the publication of a set of requirements and talk about an open competition.

I find the whole question of requirements quite interesting:

- The F-35A isn't a bad choice if the airforce is intended to act as auxiliaries to larger NATO deployments.

- It is poorly suited to operating in the Canadian Arctic due to the lack of arrester hook (the F-35C would be a better choice in this case), less than exceptional range,

How does Canada manage with Hornets? (And Canada's best option would be late model Eagles.)
 
sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
There was a large amount of outrage initially because the decision was made without competition and prior to asking the armed forces to produce a requirement. This later lead to the publication of a set of requirements and talk about an open competition.

I find the whole question of requirements quite interesting:

- The F-35A isn't a bad choice if the airforce is intended to act as auxiliaries to larger NATO deployments.

- It is poorly suited to operating in the Canadian Arctic due to the lack of arrester hook (the F-35C would be a better choice in this case), less than exceptional range,

How does Canada manage with Hornets? (And Canada's best option would be late model Eagles.)

Well, as mentioned, the F/A-18/CF-188/CF-18 has arrestor gear which allows it to be operated from iced over runways in the north (especially rotations to Goose Bay and to NORAD RFOLs) - hence why the F-35C would be a better pick. The twin engined layout also reduced the need to have search and rescue on standby if there is an engine failure (which makes it safer to operate from bases which have limited infrastructure).

I agree that the F-15 would be a better choice (or possibly a Typhoon with saddle tanks) except that it might need modification for carrier operations. The TFX/F-111 or F-14 might also be a suitable platforms if they weren't so dated.
 
Avimimus said:
Well, as mentioned, the F/A-18/CF-188/CF-18 has arrestor gear which allows it to be operated from iced over runways in the north (especially rotations to Goose Bay and to NORAD RFOLs) - hence why the F-35C would be a better pick. The twin engined layout also reduced the need to have search and rescue on standby if there is an engine failure (which makes it safer to operate from bases which have limited infrastructure).

I notice you studiously avoided the range question I highlighted. The twin engine requirement is a red herring.

Avimimus said:
I agree that the F-15 would be a better choice (or possibly a Typhoon with saddle tanks) except that it might need modification for carrier operations. The TFX/F-111 or F-14 might also be a suitable platforms if they weren't so dated.

I'm fairly certain CF-18s aren't trapping like on a carrier. (Arresting systems are not the same, and every US fighter has the ability to catch the cable of these other systems. Photos below look more like the system the USAF uses.)
 

Attachments

  • cf-18-hornet-engaging-cable-the-pilot-of-this-cf-18-hornet-skillfully-M7THC0.jpg
    cf-18-hornet-engaging-cable-the-pilot-of-this-cf-18-hornet-skillfully-M7THC0.jpg
    184.7 KB · Views: 321
  • cable-passes-test-hooks-CF-18.jpg
    cable-passes-test-hooks-CF-18.jpg
    29.5 KB · Views: 306
  • cf-18-hornet-at-fol-oct-2007-inuvik-northwest-territories-firefighting-M7THAR.jpg
    cf-18-hornet-at-fol-oct-2007-inuvik-northwest-territories-firefighting-M7THAR.jpg
    117.4 KB · Views: 314
  • F-16_field_arrestment.jpg
    F-16_field_arrestment.jpg
    395.9 KB · Views: 304
  • 120225-f-rz955-041.jpg
    120225-f-rz955-041.jpg
    184.2 KB · Views: 23
  • F-35A_AA-1%20arrest%20PDF%20BrakingNews_summer10.jpg
    F-35A_AA-1%20arrest%20PDF%20BrakingNews_summer10.jpg
    235.9 KB · Views: 34
Avimimus said:
- The F-35A isn't a bad choice if the airforce is intended to act as auxiliaries to larger NATO deployments.

- It is poorly suited to operating in the Canadian Arctic due to the lack of arrester hook (the F-35C would be a better choice in this case), less than exceptional range, and dubious cold weather capabilities, and lack of a twin engined layout (something Canadians tend to be very ideological about). Super-cruise would be very useful in such an environment as well. The Arctic interceptor requirement would really be best filled by an aircraft with specifications matching the Mig-31 (aircraft designed around defending a larger northern area).

- The F-35B could be easily dispersed and would allow a quick counter-attack capability (especially if nuclear capable) in the case of a war with the United States (or Canada being attacked during a hypothetical American civil war). Iut could also do the tasks of the F-35A pretty well. Note: I'm not endorsing such a purchase or civil war by speculating about it - just doing what militaries always do - contingency planning.

Civil war? War with US? Is there a concern about this with our brothers up there?
 
sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
Well, as mentioned, the F/A-18/CF-188/CF-18 has arrestor gear which allows it to be operated from iced over runways in the north (especially rotations to Goose Bay and to NORAD RFOLs) - hence why the F-35C would be a better pick. The twin engined layout also reduced the need to have search and rescue on standby if there is an engine failure (which makes it safer to operate from bases which have limited infrastructure).

I notice you studiously avoided the range question I highlighted. The twin engine requirement is a red herring.

Sorry, I could have been clearer: We compensate by deploying the aircraft in forward areas. However, there has been something of a lobby for increased range in order to reduce the need for forward bases (something not possible with the CF-188/CF-18). Like with any military there is a tendency to seek expanded capability with new acquisitions, some people pushed the range angle, others saw the merit of the F-35's improvements in almost all other areas.

IMHO, the question shouldn't be about range, but rather it should really be how effectively it can be winterised and operated from low-grade facilities (e.g. damage to skin, EOTS). Obviously the initial limitation to storage in temperatures of +5 degrees Celsius has been overcome - but there is always the question of how much the life-span of the aircraft will be affected.

As for the twin-engined requirement - I'm not sure it is a red-herring. I know that the USN doesn't require it. However, they usually have SAR capacity on the carriers themselves. Canadians may also have an irrationally folk obsession with twin-engined capability because our last two single engined fighters (F-86 and CF-104) had such high accident rates.

That said, it is worth noting that Russia has repeatedly insisted on twin engined designs (since the Mig-23 at least), and rejected many promising proposals because they lack the twin-engined redundancy. So it might just be a tendency of any country that operates over vast swaths of the Arctic.

sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
I agree that the F-15 would be a better choice (or possibly a Typhoon with saddle tanks) except that it might need modification for carrier operations. The TFX/F-111 or F-14 might also be a suitable platforms if they weren't so dated.

I'm fairly certain CF-18s aren't trapping like on a carrier. (Arresting systems are not the same, and every US fighter has the ability to catch the cable of these other systems. Photos below look more like the system the USAF uses.)

I've read that the strengthened landing gear on the CF-18 was considered desirable - so I still think the F-35C would likely be a better fit.
 
sferrin said:
I imagine, in the case of an extremely unlikely civil war in the US, Canada would be faced with an ocean of Democrats running over the border they'd have to deal with. ;)

The mid-west is pretty hard to defend though (especially if the enemy has air or armour superiority). But I agree... it'd mainly be east-coasters... so terrifying.

Adventurer104 said:
Civil war? War with US? Is there a concern about this with our brothers up there?

Not particularly. I know of some people who think that some type of internal armed conflict might happen in the next few decades or even a return to 'manifest destiny'. But they may just be misunderstanding how American politics works.

Historically it has been a bit of a concern. In the 19th century (long after the war of 1812) in the 1840s Polk era there was talk of annexation, and later there were numerous Fenian incursions from the United States. In the 1930s (War Plan Red) the possibility of an American invasion of Canada (in response to conflict with the British elsewhere in the world) including chemical bombing of cities was seen as a possibility, and even as late as the 1960s (e.g. during the Doctor's Strike and the FLQ crisis) there was fear that internal discord or election of left-leaning governments could lead to invasion.

However, it is the one plausible situation where we would face a land invasion. So, in terms of contingency planning and theoretically possible requirements it is an interesting example.
 
I would suggest staying on topic and away from crazy at best tangential politically loaded “what if...” scenarios
 
Avimimus said:
I've read that the strengthened landing gear on the CF-18 was considered desirable - so I still think the F-35C would likely be a better fit.

Increased cost, complexity, and fuel requirements, with no additional range, all so you can have sturdier landing gear than you need? Doesn't make sense to me.
 
kaiserd said:
I would suggest staying on topic and away from crazy at best tangential politically loaded “what if...” scenarios

Probably a very good idea! I just felt like discussing requirements which would favour the F-35.

I just find the subject of Canadian requirements, and alternative possible requirements, fascinating. For instance, I can see a situation where the HAL Tejas could be a suitable fit.

sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
I've read that the strengthened landing gear on the CF-18 was considered desirable - so I still think the F-35C would likely be a better fit.

Increased cost, complexity, and fuel requirements, with no additional range, all so you can have sturdier landing gear than you need? Doesn't make sense to me.

Are you arguing against the F-35? :D

Lower wing loading and a steeper descent is worth it if it shortens the landing roll... have you ever come north and tried driving on our ice?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom