Previous  1  2

I would really like to see the Eurofighter happen. It's sole issue is the current lack of a naval-strike capability. Give it the ability to carry naval munitions and some thrust-vectoring engines, and it would serve most of our roles admirably.

Even with that in mind, we need 305 to 381 combat aircraft organized into 8-10 combat squadrons + 2 training squadrons to provide true self-defence capability.

   

Both Governments were stuck in trying to please everyone from the Lockheed Martin, The Pentagon, Canada's Military brass and this is the result. Had Canada had a Trump style leader who saw this project for what it was becoming before Canada became invested he or she would have pulled the plug and ordered up some Super Hornet's telling everyone when they get their shit together on the F-35 give Canada a call.

   

The reason most air forces (aside from major powers like the US, Russia and China) are going to one airframe to do everything is cost - the cost to train pilots, the cost to maintain the planes, the cost to upgrade, etc. We simply can't afford to spend the money to buy two sets of airframes, spare parts, training aircraft and everything else.

Remember, the 65 F-35s the Conservatives proposed buying were going to cost somewhere between $16-25 billion - if you double that cost, suddenly a decision needs to be made.

Do we buy new planes OR do we buy new ships?

That was ultimately why the CF-18 was chosen in the first place.

At the time, it wasn't anywhere close to the best plane available - the F-14, F-15, and F-16 were far better fighter/interceptors. However, all of them cost far more than the F-18 and the strike roles in the F-15 and F-16 evolved over time, as both were planned as fighters first and foremost.

I don't agree with it, but unfortunately, Canadians by and large are not willing to spend the dollars on the military that our nation should.

In an ideal world, Canada would spend at least 50% more than we do, but that will never happen because while many Canadians may talk big about supporting the military, they really don't care - except maybe when we deploy our troops to some godforsaken shithole on the other side of the planet.

Most of the time however, most Canadians want that money funnelled into health care, education, tax cuts and other goodies.

   

I hate to break it you, but that will never happen.

Canadians simply aren't willing to double, let alone triple/quadruple defence spending to pay for such an air force.

   

Actually, I don't think it will. The F-35A was supposed to replace both the A-10 and F-16. The A-10 is a low, slow, heavily armoured tank hunter. That role could be done by F-16 flying high and fast, or AH-64 Apache helicopter, but F-35A is way too expensive. F-16 was originally developed to be an inexpensive, light-weight, single-pilot fighter. F-35A is neither light-weight nor inexpensive; it can't do that job. F-35B is supposed to replace the AV-8B, but F-35B is so big and heavy that an assault carrier would carry fewer aircraft, and again F-35B is expensive.

However, F-35C is supposed to replace F/A-18C Hornets. F-35C takes the same area on the flight deck or hanger deck when wings are folded, and has the same empty weight. That means a SuperCarrier can carry the same number of aircraft. But F-35C can carry as many missiles or as many pounds of ordinance as a SuperHornet. There is no plan to replace SuperHornets, they have replaced S-3 Viking aircraft for mid-air refuelling, and the 'G' variant or 'Growler' has replaced EA-6B Prowler for electronic warfare. But replacing Hornets with S-35C would be a significant upgrade. True, carrying that many missiles or bombs means wing-mounting, which defeats stealth. But simply in terms of aircraft performance, an aircraft that can carry as many weapons as a SuperHornet but the ship can carry as many as the Hornet? That's an upgrade.

   

Ironic. I talked to Stéphane Dion during the campaign for the 2006 leadership. He challenged me regarding what Canada needs for defence. I wanted to repair Hornets left in storage or scavenged for parts, and purchase a few more to bring the total to 8 combat squadrons + 2 training. Upgrade all to latest levels, including FLIR and carbon fibre. I reasoned we could purchase some surplus Hornets from the US navy as they replace Hornets with F-35C. Then develop an air superiority UCAV. Don't replace Hornets, but re-purpose them as bomb trucks once the high performance air superiority aircraft becomes operational.

I also wanted to re-commission the air force station at Resolute. I wanted accommodation for 2 squadrons of CF-18 in heated hangers, and 2 more squadrons on outdoor tarmac. With simple barracks for pilots and technicians. As a station, it would have reconnaissance UAVs, arctic SAR helicopters, and CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft, but the fighter jets would not normally be based there. I wrote an article in a university student newspaper as well as posting here, and one other forum. My point was to fit the air force station with equivalent capabilities as an American SuperCarrier. But with CC-130 Hercules cargo planes instead of C-2 Greyhound, and CP-140 Aurora instead of S-3B Viking. You can't sink an island. I notice China then built an artificial island in the south China sea, fitted as a carrier. Hmmm. I was going to say "Who's going to listen to me?", but this may mean the wrong people are listening to me.

   

Nope. They're not even willing to put in 2% GDP, as per NATO requirements.

   

Previous  1  2