[Canadian_Mind]

My Objectives:

I still want 77 A-10s by 2018, 192 Eurofighters by 2020, and 115 indigenously designed air-interceptor/naval-strike aircraft by 2025.

I'd organised the A-10s into two 24 unit combat squadrons, a 12 unit training squadron, plus spares. I'd organised the Euro-fighters into five 24 unit combat squadrons, a single 30 unit training squadron/two 15 unit training squadrons. I'd organised the interceptor/strike aircraft into three 24 unit combat squadrons, one 18 unit training squadron, plus spares.

Rational for the A-10s is my firm belief as a former grunt that there is no better plane out there at killing other grunts. If we include Apache's in the same combat wing it's pretty well having my cake and eating it too.

Rational for the Euro-fighters is that it would primarily be an air-superiority platform with the capacity to hit ground and naval targets as well.

Rational for indigenous interceptor/strike fighter plays into the Arrow fantasy a bit, but with what I feel is sound reasoning. Effectively design a long range, fast, stealthy aircraft that is intended to shoot down enemy bombers, sink enemy ships, bomb enemy ports/air bases, and assist the Euro-fighter in the air-superiority role against enemy stealth aircraft.

On each coast would be a Coastal Defence Wing, with one Eurofighter Squadron and one Interceptor/Strike Squadron each (3 of each in total). In Cold Lake and Bagotville would be the Ground Support Wings, each with the A-10 wings and remaining Eurofighter Wings.



Concept of Ops for the Coastal Defence Wings:

On the air side of things, interceptor/strike aircraft would provide the first layer of defence against incoming aircraft. Rather than attacking bombers & transports themselves, they would push deeper and attack any escort fighters and supporting air tankers. They would also act as very long range sensors to allow an adequate response to the various incoming bombers. With the supporting aircraft being taken care of and bomber/transport vectors identified, the Eurofighters Can take their time carrying significant AA payloads and destroy the enemy air groups with near-impunity.

Their strikes against naval assets would likely be performed in conjunction with submarine strikes, whereby the strike aircraft are supporting the subs by destroying enemy surface and airborne anti-sub assets, while the submarines are attacking enemy anti-air assets (Air defence ships and carriers). I suppose I should mention that I think we need 12-18 U-212s... Once the primary anti-air assets have been disabled/destroyed the stealthy strike aircraft can be pulled back in favour of continued naval strikes by the Euro-fighters. In amongst this the Aurora replacement would be hunting subs safely behind the air defence screen provided first by the interdiction/strike aircraft, and then the Euro-fighters. The objective of all of this is for the subs and stealthy aircraft to knock out the most dangerous naval ships and aircraft in a covert fashion, followed up by the euro-fighters and surface naval fleet mopping up the remaining enemy assets in an overt fashion.

Another neat thing a large, long range, stealthy aircraft should be able to do is attack the bases from which the enemy is attacking our coasts from. Once the initial attack is dispatched as described above, the strike fighters can be outfitted with drop tanks and bombs. With no short or mid range air defence to speak of, tankers can be utilised to give the aircraft enough range to get close to the target, drop the tanks to decrease observability, strike the facilities, and return to base. They would be long missions, but worthwhile if the destruction of enemy naval and air bases means that our defence-oriented assets could be directed elsewhere. Generally rendering an aggressor unable to attack also ends wars in either a draw or victory for the defender, which I think everyone would agree would be a plus.

I get that 48 aircraft on each coastline seems like a lot. But the unfortunate thing is that there will be a significant amount of attrition, especially when we could have 50 ships approaching each coast. In the initial stages of the war, we will lose planes and pilots before our facilities can be spooled up to produce enough to keep up with attrition. While there are spares, they wont last long. So if 12 each aircraft type per coastline is adequate, that's what we want to be left with AFTER the battle has finished, not before it has begun.



Concept of Ops for Ground Support Wings:

2 Ground Support Wings as envisioned would provide adequate air support for 2 full sized corps. I get the army isn't that big, but I do believe we need to make our standing army larger. In a time of war an army can be grown faster than an air wing, so better the air wing already be there.

The A-10s would provide fast air and Apaches would provide slow air against enemy combat units. Eurofighters would provide air cover, both defending friendly ground attack aircraft from enemy air superiority fighters, and attacking enemy ground attack aircraft. As the Eurofighter is a multirole fighter, it can effectively attack infrastructure and hard targets alongside the other aircraft when it isn't providing the air superiority role



Non-Specific roles:

While not Coastal Defence specific, by designing a high & fast flying low-observable aircraft could be advantageous against other stealth aircraft. While no match in a dogfight, the combination of low observability and high altitude/high speed will put them in a position where they can identify enemy aircraft and evade their attacks. This would level the playing field for the Euro-fighters significantly and allow them to engage the enemy stealth aircraft with a much better kill ratio than what would be achieved otherwise.

In a land combat situation, the strike aircraft could also take out ground based enemy radar and IRST systems, allowing the Euro-fighters and A-10s to attack other targets with relative impunity. Impunity means less attrition and more targets can be attacked. This means more of our guys live and more of the enemy dies. It's a harsh way to look at it, but again it's about winning the war. You don't go to war to lose.



On the F-35:

The F-35 may be able to perform most of the roles as described above. But it can't do all of them well. 65 also isn't nearly enough to fill all the roles at once, which is what would be demanded in case of actual warfare.



General thoughts:

What bothers me when people talk about the military is they talk about one specific piece as if it is the be all and end all. It isn't. The military is a system and every aspect affects the other. It's real easy to get a multi-role fighter because it is "cheap." But that doesn't make it an effective part of the war fighting system. If you do go to war, an ineffective system will cost you much more in the long run than maintaining an effective system, both in terms of dollars and especially in terms of lives. I get it costs a lot, but if you aren't going to prepare yourself to win, you might as well not prepare at all.

I understand that what I suggest seems like a lot, but it is well within our means to afford and support such a force, which when you combine the army, navy, and air force (including reserves) would be somewhere in the 200 000 - 250 000 range. I only touched on what I feel the Navy and Army should have and I will get to that another time. Basically double what we have now. Compared to the primary threats to us, this is still a very small number. However, it is what we would need to effectively defend ourselves against either Russia or China, as it would be impossible for them to project their full force at once. This would be the ultimate deterrent to their aggression, whether we stay in NATO or not.

Yes we are a part of NATO, so that likely makes my suggestions appear even more overkill. However, if Russia/China puts 20 000 troops on the west coast, there would be no real NATO response for us as Europe would be erupting into full blown war with 50 times as many Russian troops pouring into Poland, Romania, and the Baltics. So NATO or no NATO, we need to be prepared to go it alone on the home front.

[Jabberwalker]

xerxes xerxes:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

They keep saying that the Americans don't export the Super Hornet but since we share the air defence of our homelands through NORAD, surely an exception can be made.

This is purely conspiratorial on my part, but it seems almost as though there's some behind the scenes arm-twisting, like there was with the whole Avro Arrow fiasco.

It would explain why the was only the lack of competing bids.

It is more like criminal behaviour to spend tens of billions with one entity while simultaneously publically suppressing any talk at all about the possibility of competing bidding or just plain due diligence.

Someone is on the take, for sure.

[BRAH]

There was major issues in the development of the V22 Osprey and it seems to have worked so what's preventing the F-35 from doing the same? If there's an issue fix it, make it better.

[Canadian_Mind]

IIRC correctly the issues with the Osprey were purely computer-control related. You can't fix high wing loading and low power-weight ratio when you want to maintain stealth and a single engine airframe; all while trying to offer the diverse range of capabilities the F-35 is supposed to offer.

[Thanos]

BRAH BRAH:

There was major issues in the development of the V22 Osprey and it seems to have worked so what's preventing the F-35 from doing the same? If there's an issue fix it, make it better.

I figure that in about ten years once all the bugs are worked out the F-35 will end up as a terrific aircraft. People forget things that the F-38 Lighting when it was deployed to Europe was kind of a disaster, and that it got chewed up pretty badly by the Luftwaffe. Change the engines out and add more guns though and the same plane that failed over Europe turned into the terror of Japanese airpower in the southwest Pacific. Same too in a way with the F-4 Phantom, which nearly turned into a white elephant over Vietnam simply because they deleted a auto-cannon from it and relied on the first generation of really unreliable Sidewinder missiles. Now it's correctly regarded as a legendary plane but back then, until they figured out the correct weapons package for it, it could have been a dud.

The thing is though that the first generation of the F-35 is gonna suck, and chew up more money than it's worth. If it were up to me I'd back off the deal entirely, but something else for the interim, and not get back into business for the F-35 until about 2025 or 2030. Right now it's just too problematic to spend this kind of money on.

[CountLothian]

The first clue was Harper's people pretended they did not know the cost and used a low ball fun figure in an election campaign.

Then the fact the thing could not call home in Arctic cold.

It's actually a great idea for an aircraft and a few generations later with a name like F44 and we will be drooling for some.

[martin14]

Thanos Thanos:

The thing is though that the first generation of the F-35 is gonna suck, and chew up more money than it's worth. If it were up to me I'd back off the deal entirely, but something else for the interim, and not get back into business for the F-35 until about 2025 or 2030. Right now it's just too problematic to spend this kind of money on.

Most NATO members have F-35s on order, everyone gets to share the pain.

Have to like CMs post, it's a good list.

[Thanos]

Good list but we'd never be able to afford it. Or, more likely, we'd never be collectively willing enough to pay for something that in-depth. As long as the US is the king of the planet and is going to protect us by default every Canadian political party is going to half-ass it on national defense.

[CountLothian]

Thanos Thanos:

Good list but we'd never be able to afford it. Or, more likely, we'd never be collectively willing enough to pay for something that in-depth. As long as the US is the king of the planet and is going to protect us by default every Canadian political party is going to half-ass it on national defense.

We have certain NATO obligations.

If we don't protect our North , and leave it to others we will go the way of Tibet.

In the sense that no western war mongering nation protects a passive one with their military.

[Canadian_Mind]

Thanos Thanos:

Good list but we'd never be able to afford it. Or, more likely, we'd never be collectively willing enough to pay for something that in-depth. As long as the US is the king of the planet and is going to protect us by default every Canadian political party is going to half-ass it on national defense.

As far as I'm concerned it's easily affordable. Collective will is certainly lacking. A significant part of it is what you cited, the US security umbrella. However, if a party had the will to do it they could negotiate a scheme with the US where their protection of us isn't so overt. Would be a much better alternative to what I believe will eventually happen where they simply stroll in one day because they are tired of us freeloading.

However, I feel the other part of the reason there is a lack of collective will is because people believe no one else would go for it, when many seem to like the plan as I've explained it above. Could say the same thing about Canada in general. There are many things we should be able to accomplish that we can't simply because we incorrectly think no one else will go for it.

I think that problem is a lack of communication. No one is willing to converse anymore. The people with the ideas aren't willing to take the time to explain their ideas, and the people that need the ideas explained to them aren't willing to listen.

[Thanos]

As I've indicated in places like the East vs. West threads, or what Linda McQuaig wants to do to Alberta, I genuinely believe that there's a severe lack of collective goodwill in the Canadian character. Canadians certainly aren't as good or gregarious as we want to think that we are. In fact there's a streak of genuine malice towards each other in far too many Canadians that doesn't seem to exist in other nations. In a country where entire regions celebrate other regions being economically destroyed good luck on getting a genuinely respectful conversation going on something as mundane as national defense.

[Canadian_Mind]

Thanos Thanos:

As I've indicated in places like the East vs. West threads, or what Linda McQuaig wants to do to Alberta, I genuinely believe that there's a severe lack of collective goodwill in the Canadian character. Canadians certainly aren't as good or gregarious as we want to think that we are. In fact there's a streak of genuine malice towards each other in far too many Canadians that doesn't seem to exist in other nations. In a country where entire regions celebrate other regions being economically destroyed good luck on getting a genuinely respectful conversation going on something as mundane as national defense.

I'm no separatist, but I've pondered the idea of the west breaking off from the East. I don't think either side would fare well without the other and would eventually force us to appreciate one another.

Another radical idea I had was to drop the idea of provincialism entirely and break the country down into much smaller administrative districts akin to the counties/regional districts you find in many provinces. The goal of this would be to create such a diverse range of places within Canada that it would be impossible to lay the blame for any specific situation on any specific sub region.


The old provincial responsibilities would be divested between the federal government and the municipal area governments. Minimum social welfare standards would be established federally and it is up to each district to administrate their area to meet those standards. There would be a transfer payment system similar to what we have now whereby districts that are very well off end up supporting those that aren't. Each administrative district would get one parliamentary seat.

[BartSimpson]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

My Objectives:

I still want...115 indigenously designed air-interceptor/naval-strike aircraft by 2025.

Those 115 fighters will be ridiculously expensive when the R&D costs are factored into the per-unit cost of each fighter especially if no one else in the world wants to buy a Canadian fighter from a country that hasn't produced a decent fighter for what? Sixty years?

[Canadian_Mind]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

My Objectives:

I still want...115 indigenously designed air-interceptor/naval-strike aircraft by 2025.

Those 115 fighters will be ridiculously expensive when the R&D costs are factored into the per-unit cost of each fighter especially if no one else in the world wants to buy a Canadian fighter from a country that hasn't produced a decent fighter for what? Sixty years?

I understand that. But unlike other contemporary aircraft, a relatively small amount of the tech required to design and build such an aircraft would be modern or revolutionary. One such aspect would be engines capable of mach 2+ supercruise, and a sustained mach 3+ sprint. Another would be incorporating modern stealth tech for the frontal and bottom aspects with the airframe tech required for high speed flight. Otherwise, all the avionics and weapons could be borrowed/modified from the Eurofighter to allow for easy integration and parts commonality.

I'd peg development costs to be slightly less then that of the Rafale, assuming Irvine Shipbuilding doesn't get their hands on it.

[herbie]

CountLothian CountLothian:

Thanos Thanos:

Good list but we'd never be able to afford it. Or, more likely, we'd never be collectively willing enough to pay for something that in-depth. As long as the US is the king of the planet and is going to protect us by default every Canadian political party is going to half-ass it on national defense.

We have certain NATO obligations.

If we don't protect our North , and leave it to others we will go the way of Tibet.

In the sense that no western war mongering nation protects a passive one with their military.

For someone who loathes Harper you sure buy into his 'someone's gonna steal our Arctic' bullshit, don't you?