Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK as We all Know the F-35 JSF II is well over the orginal delivery dates has alot of issues and flaws and current production models will not even have link 16 to able communicate to other friendly forces.
Now Canada is flying 25-30 year old F-18's that just all have been updated to meet all NORAD and NATO standards and they did pretty good during the NATO Libya Mission
But they only have 5-6 years to go before they are beyond their service life
So here is article on how we should rebuild our Air Force to take on all possible future NORAD and NATO missions and Read it and tell me what you think or if you have idea on how to imptove it while staying in a budget of 11 Billion to purchase the planes with another $14-$15 for lifetime service and future upgrade costs.
There's been a lot of debate here in Canada lately about what the future of Canada's Air Force will be like once the CF-18 Hornet has reached the end of its flying career. On the current hotseat is the CF designated CF-35 Lightning II, which was announced as the replacement for Canada's fleet of CF-18's by the end of the decade.
There is no doubt that the CF-35, with its stealth capabilities and its Distributed Aperture System, is the tool which will best meet the criteria established by the Canadian Forces Directorate of Air Requirements
Keeping that in mind, let's try some outside the box thinking. How about we actually spend more money on fast air, and even throw in an extra cargo and aerial refuelling platform?? Of course, this is but a pipe dream - but let's break the rules and see what could come about with this large investment into our Air Force.
Let's talk about the CF-35 working in conjunction with what some have described to be its best competition - the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the E/A-18G Growler, its younger brother which is replacing the venerable EA-6B Prowler in the Airborne Electronic Attack role.
Then let's add to that - how about throwing in an extra CC-177 Globemaster III along with an extra aircraft which could be used as an aerial refueller. Let's say we pick up a used KC-10 Extender from our southern neighbours to fill that role.
My goodness, the author has been dreaming again. Well yes, I have...and to be honest, I kind of like the direction this is taking - so work with me here.
First let us take a look at fleet numbers. The proposed CF-35 purchase is set for 65 aircraft, however, some have argued that just isn't enough aircraft to satisfactorally meet all of Canada's obligations which range from NORAD patrols to NATO missions and then even training on top of that.
With that argument in mind, how about we look at an increase in the number of aircraft purchased - but instead of buying more CF-35's, let's purchase another platform - the Super Hornet.
If, and it's a big if, the Parliamentary Budget Office here in Canada is right and the CF-35 will cost $150 million per plane, let's reduce the number that we purchase - say to about 50 planes instead of the proposed 65. That would mean an acquisition cost of roughly $7.5 Billion.
Here's where the Super Hornet comes in. With a fly away cost of $55 Million, we could purchase a fleet of 50 aircraft for $2.75 Billion. In addition to the Super Hornets, we could purchase five EA-18G Growlers which have a fly away cost of $67 Million a piece for a total of $335 Million.
The total cost of the newly expanded, 105 aircraft fleet - $10.585 Billion. Now, of course, add on the cost of the tanker and an additional CC-177 and the total comes to about $11 Billion for the entire proposed fleet.
Great! We now have this outstanding fleet of airplanes - but what to do with them all....
As we've seen in recent global events, the world is changing very rapidly. As a result of these changes, the United Nations has found itself either seriously considering or actually implementing No Fly Zone's (NFZ) over countries which have taken to violence against their own citizens. A prime example of this is the current situation in Libya, where CF-18's are tasked to engage any forces related to the governing body.
Over the last couple of weeks, we've also seen that sometimes global super powers are reducing the amount of foreign operations they agree to participate in. The United States is a clear representation of this illustration, and whether you agree with their position or not, it is in fact a reality that the world has to come to grips with.
With that being said, there is no doubt in my mind that the United States will always be present to enforce any UN sanctioned NFZ throughout the world. There is one irrevocable truth which will never be contested - that the United States has the arsenal, the fleet, and the manpower to always provide first strike capabilities throughout the globe. With Tomahawk cruise missiles and the B-2 Stealth bomber, they hold massive capabilities which no other country could even attempt to duplicate with the same amount of success.
So where does Canada fit in with all of this? The answer is simple - aid in the first strike if necessary, and to conduct follow on missions once a super power has resolved to remove itself from the conflict. In my mind, this is how it would all work out:
A UN sanctioned NFZ is created.
Canada deploys a package of 10 CF-35's with tanker provisions met by the newly acquired KC-10 Extender and enough ground support personnel to look after the deployment onboard a pair of CC-177 Globemasters.
The United States launches the first strikes of the campaign with Tomahawks and B-2's, during which time the CF-35's are tasked with striking secondary targets during the opening phases of the Operation.
After all the primary targets are neutralized, the United States announces that they are going to scale back their forces to play more of a supporting role, stepping in only when requested.
Once that announcement is made, Canada steps up to the plate and deploys 10 CF-18F Super Hornets along with 3 CF-18G Growlers to cover some of the void left by the removal of US assets. The deployment of the Hornets and Growlers is supported by the two CC-150 Polaris refuelling assets in the inventory.
With 10 CF-35's along with 13 Hornets and Growlers deployed for a total of 23 aircraft, the remaining 82 planes would remain at home ensuring that Canada's airspace remains patrolled effectively. The extra aircraft of both types would also ensure that, should any incident befall one of the fleets and result in a type being grounded, there would still be enough aircraft available to ensure continued coverage and training within our airspace.
What would this potentially do for Canada's reputation on the world stage as a member of NATO, the UN, and as a partner in NORAD? If anything, it would increase our presence on the global stage as a force to be reckoned with when it comes to the ability to react not only to humanitarian requests but also to missions which require a more pointy end of the spear approach.
So there you have it...my pipe dream for fast air in Canada's Air Force. Of course, we still have to buy new fixed wing search and rescue aircraft, eventually replace our Griffons, our Aurora's, and of course increase our UAV capabilities to ensure a seamless transition once they are purchased to support - yes, support and not replace - our future procurements.
After all it usually fits in nicely with all the other pipe dreams we're being offered as wants, but sadly, it leaves our needs falling by the wayside. We NEED a replacement for our CF-18's, and there's no time like the present to procure that replacement so as to ensure that seamless transition which is required.
And while my pipe dream will cost even more than the proposed fleet of 65 CF-35's, it is what I believe to be necessary in order to ensure that Canada remains on the leading edge of the spear for many decades to come, regardless of who might be voted in up in Ottawa.
GTO, Canada is a great and reliable ally. As an American, I would love to see Canada strengthen and improve its Air Force. That's about all I have to say on the matter.
It covers all possible mission and would increase Canada role in NATO and take some of the pressure off the US to carry all the burden and costs of these Modren NATO Missions.
Do you think that with the limited budget inplace and the planes that were picked are the best for the Roles they would be used for... or .... Should there be some F-15E Strike Eagles or if produced the F-15SE instead just F/A-18E/F Super Hornets?
GTO, Canada is a great and reliable ally. As an American, I would love to see Canada strengthen and improve its Air Force. That's about all I have to say on the matter.
Yeah we are at a crossroad since if we want to order Block II and block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornet we need to order it now or we could be in trouble if the F-35 is not ready by 2018 when our current fleet is going to be retired.
IMHO Canada needs F-35 boondogles as much as a return of the Ice Age. Canada need to free its domestic economy from the Military Excess that are destroying the USA.
GTOlover has been playing too many war games. He needs to go and play with real guns in a real war.
IMHO Canada needs F-35 boondogles as much as a return of the Ice Age. Canada need to free its domestic economy from the Military Excess that are destroying the USA.
GTOlover has been playing too many war games. He needs to go and play with real guns in a real war.
I disagree, Greg. I think that NATO nations need strong militaries. We need strong friends. The world is a nasty place. You can't let China have all of the war toys.
IMHO Canada needs F-35 boondogles as much as a return of the Ice Age. Canada need to free its domestic economy from the Military Excess that are destroying the USA.
GTOlover has been playing too many war games. He needs to go and play with real guns in a real war.
No it has nothing to do with that but more to do with meeting our commitments to our allies in NORAD and NATO and being able to help the the US Defend North American Air Space as we head into a time where alot of non-westren countries are building up their military and with place like Syria abnd Iran using more modren weapons like the S-300 and S-400 it mean that we would be unable to send our airforce there to help until the SAMs were destroyed so we would not be able to contribute very much Air Power as other NATO allies like France and the UK could in these smaller conflicts
I disagree, Greg. I think that NATO nations need strong militaries. We need strong friends. The world is a nasty place. You can't let China have all of the war toys.
Ok...fair enough.
But truthfully, i don't think Canada is actually going to DO anything. If i thought they would, i'd be more convinced. I can see them participating, but i can't see them actually taking the lead on anything more than some benign peacekeeping mission.
That said, i feel weird opining on what the Canadians do with their own money or how they should build their defense.
But truthfully, i don't think Canada is actually going to DO anything. If i thought they would, i'd be more convinced. I can see them participating, but i can't see them actually taking the lead on anything more than some benign peacekeeping mission.
That said, i feel weird opining on what the Canadians do with their own money or how they should build their defense.
I'm with you on that. Personally though, I would like to see the US unable to act unilaterally. People ask what would happen to the US if we quit spending obscene amounts of money on "defense". Well, there are a lot of different possible outcomes that could come from that, but my favorite one is this -- all western democracies who share a common identity and interests work together more collaboratively to check the actions of nations that do not share our interests.
If NATO and not the US was the one to decide our global policy for the past ten years, we would have gone to Afghanistan (as we should have) but stayed the eff out of Iraq (as we should have).
I'm with you on that. Personally though, I would like to see the US unable to act unilaterally. People ask what would happen to the US if we quit spending obscene amounts of money on "defense". Well, there are a lot of different possible outcomes that could come from that, but my favorite one is this -- all western democracies who share a common identity and interests work together more collaboratively to check the actions of nations that do not share our interests.
If NATO and not the US was the one to decide our global policy for the past ten years, we would have gone to Afghanistan (as we should have) but stayed the eff out of Iraq (as we should have).
Depending on where we might want to apply some pressure, we can't always act unilaterally right now. In fact, i think it's the only reason we haven't touched Iran as of yet. We simply can't do it alone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
