Fighter jet for Canada??
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
When the fighter's primary job will be patrolling Canadian airspace, the F-35 is really useless. Even a Russian Su-35 aircraft is overkill.
Much air-space defense involves going somewhere and "showing the flag." This makes you an easy target. You don't want your super-secret ultra-expensive stealth aircraft to fly up to a Russian radar aircraft at close range - it would tell the Russian's exactly how to detect the aircraft. Instead, the best option is to send an inexpensive fighter to say "go away" and "show the flag". If the inexpensive jet gets shot down, then you send the expensive stealth aircraft with "shoot-on-sight" orders.
The first problem with the F-35 is that even if you purchase the F-35, and believe it is good, then you still need to purchase an inexpensive fighter jet to replace the CF-18.
The second problem with the F-35, is much of Canada's interdiction duties require slow moving planes. If something is happening in the arctic, or off the pacific coast, then it is necessary to send a fast aircraft out to find out what is going on, and then make them wait until backup arrives. The CF-18's have had problems in this role. If you fly to slowly, you can evade them. (The CF-18 has a minimum airspeed, and the F-35 has worse low-speed aerodynamics than the CF-18.)
Most importantly, the F-18's were picked because they have two engines. If one engine failed in the middle nowhere, and most of Canada is untamed wilderness, then the second engine can get you back home. The F-35 is a single-engine aircraft (like the F-16). A two engine plane is much more survivable in Canada than a single engine plane.
Bottom line: Even if you like the F-35, we still need a different fighter. The F-35 fighter is not the right aircraft for most day-to-day tasks. The US understands this. Both the US Navy and the US Airforce plan to keep the older F-18 and F-16 fighters around for non-stealth applications.
Much air-space defense involves going somewhere and "showing the flag." This makes you an easy target. You don't want your super-secret ultra-expensive stealth aircraft to fly up to a Russian radar aircraft at close range - it would tell the Russian's exactly how to detect the aircraft. Instead, the best option is to send an inexpensive fighter to say "go away" and "show the flag". If the inexpensive jet gets shot down, then you send the expensive stealth aircraft with "shoot-on-sight" orders.
The first problem with the F-35 is that even if you purchase the F-35, and believe it is good, then you still need to purchase an inexpensive fighter jet to replace the CF-18.
The second problem with the F-35, is much of Canada's interdiction duties require slow moving planes. If something is happening in the arctic, or off the pacific coast, then it is necessary to send a fast aircraft out to find out what is going on, and then make them wait until backup arrives. The CF-18's have had problems in this role. If you fly to slowly, you can evade them. (The CF-18 has a minimum airspeed, and the F-35 has worse low-speed aerodynamics than the CF-18.)
Most importantly, the F-18's were picked because they have two engines. If one engine failed in the middle nowhere, and most of Canada is untamed wilderness, then the second engine can get you back home. The F-35 is a single-engine aircraft (like the F-16). A two engine plane is much more survivable in Canada than a single engine plane.
Bottom line: Even if you like the F-35, we still need a different fighter. The F-35 fighter is not the right aircraft for most day-to-day tasks. The US understands this. Both the US Navy and the US Airforce plan to keep the older F-18 and F-16 fighters around for non-stealth applications.
All arguments for a fleet of Bombardier business jets.When the fighter's primary job will be patrolling Canadian airspace, the F-35 is really useless. Even a Russian Su-35 aircraft is overkill.
Much air-space defense involves going somewhere and "showing the flag." This makes you an easy target. You don't want your super-secret ultra-expensive stealth aircraft to fly up to a Russian radar aircraft at close range - it would tell the Russian's exactly how to detect the aircraft. Instead, the best option is to send an inexpensive fighter to say "go away" and "show the flag". If the inexpensive jet gets shot down, then you send the expensive stealth aircraft with "shoot-on-sight" orders.
The first problem with the F-35 is that even if you purchase the F-35, and believe it is good, then you still need to purchase an inexpensive fighter jet to replace the CF-18.
The second problem with the F-35, is much of Canada's interdiction duties require slow moving planes. If something is happening in the arctic, or off the pacific coast, then it is necessary to send a fast aircraft out to find out what is going on, and then make them wait until backup arrives. The CF-18's have had problems in this role. If you fly to slowly, you can evade them. (The CF-18 has a minimum airspeed, and the F-35 has worse low-speed aerodynamics than the CF-18.)
Most importantly, the F-18's were picked because they have two engines. If one engine failed in the middle nowhere, and most of Canada is untamed wilderness, then the second engine can get you back home. The F-35 is a single-engine aircraft (like the F-16). A two engine plane is much more survivable in Canada than a single engine plane.
Bottom line: Even if you like the F-35, we still need a different fighter. The F-35 fighter is not the right aircraft for most day-to-day tasks. The US understands this. Both the US Navy and the US Airforce plan to keep the older F-18 and F-16 fighters around for non-stealth applications.
Canada needs the Super Hornet
What we really need is an all-weather, two engine, interceptor/ground support aircraft. What we do not need is stealth capability. Basically we really need the Super Hornet. It is a proven aircraft (the F35 is not), it's operating costs are known (the F35's are not), and the cost of training for both maintenance personnel and pilots will be minimalized by the similarities between the current CF-18 and the Super Hornet.
What we really need is an all-weather, two engine, interceptor/ground support aircraft. What we do not need is stealth capability. Basically we really need the Super Hornet. It is a proven aircraft (the F35 is not), it's operating costs are known (the F35's are not), and the cost of training for both maintenance personnel and pilots will be minimalized by the similarities between the current CF-18 and the Super Hornet.
When the fighter's primary job will be patrolling Canadian airspace, the F-35 is really useless. Even a Russian Su-35 aircraft is overkill.
Much air-space defense involves going somewhere and "showing the flag." This makes you an easy target. You don't want your super-secret ultra-expensive stealth aircraft to fly up to a Russian radar aircraft at close range - it would tell the Russian's exactly how to detect the aircraft. Instead, the best option is to send an inexpensive fighter to say "go away" and "show the flag". If the inexpensive jet gets shot down, then you send the expensive stealth aircraft with "shoot-on-sight" orders.
The first problem with the F-35 is that even if you purchase the F-35, and believe it is good, then you still need to purchase an inexpensive fighter jet to replace the CF-18.
The second problem with the F-35, is much of Canada's interdiction duties require slow moving planes. If something is happening in the arctic, or off the pacific coast, then it is necessary to send a fast aircraft out to find out what is going on, and then make them wait until backup arrives. The CF-18's have had problems in this role. If you fly to slowly, you can evade them. (The CF-18 has a minimum airspeed, and the F-35 has worse low-speed aerodynamics than the CF-18.)
Most importantly, the F-18's were picked because they have two engines. If one engine failed in the middle nowhere, and most of Canada is untamed wilderness, then the second engine can get you back home. The F-35 is a single-engine aircraft (like the F-16). A two engine plane is much more survivable in Canada than a single engine plane.
Bottom line: Even if you like the F-35, we still need a different fighter. The F-35 fighter is not the right aircraft for most day-to-day tasks. The US understands this. Both the US Navy and the US Airforce plan to keep the older F-18 and F-16 fighters around for non-stealth applications.
Using squadrons of fighter aircraft to "show the flag" in the arctic has about as much point as using a fleet of submarines.
The way to "show the flag" is to establish flag-flying permanent or semi-permanent outposts. At least one on each island. Could be military, but not necessarily. Become a world leader in all-purpose, go-anywhere, large vehicles, that can travel over frozen land / ice / water, for regular contact.
What do we do if the Russians (or the Danes, Norwegians, Americans) establish flag-flying outposts on a piece of land we regard as Canada, but nobody's been there for years? Fly over them with a squadron of fighters?
Ok, guys, start looking this stuff up.
1st. long range requirement
2nd inter-operability
3rd strike interdiction missions
With the current crop of available fighters ( the su series is fantastic, but will never happen) they all have problems. So here they are...
F-15- long range, excellent inter-operability, perfect strike interdiction platform, no stealth for first strike capability (unless silent eagle ordered from boeing) This is the one for Canada at the moment. Long in tooth, but considering the last 15 years of combat missions undertaken, not an issue.
F-18 ( any model) Same as above, but short on legs, no stealth
F-35 stealth, no range, one engine, too much $
Euro fighter- same as F-18
F-16 same as F-18, longer legs.
Rafele same as Euro fighter
Not much else out there.
Answer...
Order 40 new silent eagles from boeing, and 30 A-10 warthogs for close in ground support of the troops on peace keeping missions. Attack choppers to fill the gapes.
p.s. I don't want to get into a chopper debate.
1st. long range requirement
2nd inter-operability
3rd strike interdiction missions
With the current crop of available fighters ( the su series is fantastic, but will never happen) they all have problems. So here they are...
F-15- long range, excellent inter-operability, perfect strike interdiction platform, no stealth for first strike capability (unless silent eagle ordered from boeing) This is the one for Canada at the moment. Long in tooth, but considering the last 15 years of combat missions undertaken, not an issue.
F-18 ( any model) Same as above, but short on legs, no stealth
F-35 stealth, no range, one engine, too much $
Euro fighter- same as F-18
F-16 same as F-18, longer legs.
Rafele same as Euro fighter
Not much else out there.
Answer...
Order 40 new silent eagles from boeing, and 30 A-10 warthogs for close in ground support of the troops on peace keeping missions. Attack choppers to fill the gapes.
p.s. I don't want to get into a chopper debate.
Not that I have a dog in this fight (sorry for the pun), but I had assumed Canada was buying a fighter so it could get some of the F35 work in Canada and have latest generation compatibility with the US. I don't actually see Canada actually shooting anything down or deterring anyone... certainly all the nations named in #27 could outgun Canada regardless of purchase.
OTB
OTB
Why settle for F35 work, when Canada could have all the work for a fleet of Bombardier wide body business jets. They are also much more comfortable on the long patrol flights, and more fuel efficient.Not that I have a dog in this fight (sorry for the pun), but I had assumed Canada was buying a fighter so it could get some of the F35 work in Canada and have latest generation compatibility with the US. I don't actually see Canada actually shooting anything down or deterring anyone... certainly all the nations named in #27 could outgun Canada regardless of purchase.
OTB
Why have anything?Why settle for F35 work, when Canada could have all the work for a fleet of Bombardier wide body business jets. They are also much more comfortable on the long patrol flights, and more fuel efficient.
There is something to be said for this.What we really need is an all-weather, two engine, interceptor/ground support aircraft. What we do not need is stealth capability. Basically we really need the Super Hornet. It is a proven aircraft (the F35 is not), it's operating costs are known (the F35's are not), and the cost of training for both maintenance personnel and pilots will be minimalized by the similarities between the current CF-18 and the Super Hornet.
Let's face it: Canada's requirements for a fighter are very different than the US's. It might make sense to simply buy American fighters as they are phased out of service with the US, with a large enough order to insure that there are enough parts to last for a long while.
There are dangers. This next generation of US fighters are supposed to last for 50 years. If Canada goes this route, the Canadian military will be flying Super Hornets until 2063, when retiring F-35s start becoming available. The military picture can change a lot in 50 years. Canada going cheap with the Super Hornet may result in a very expensive, very life-costly crash program to field a front line fighter in the event of a real war. Old also equals expensive maintenance. A Super Hornet may cost $X/yr to maintain now, but as parts become less available those costs will rise. Refitting electronics, restarting production lines for specific parts, etc., will eat into some of that expected savings.
But given Canada's strategic needs, it could well be a viable option.
