[Bruce_the_vii]

lol, that's true. well there's the Bomb and Nato. start there.

[2Cdo]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

lol, that's true. well there's the Bomb and Nato. start there.

Well that certainly clears things up. You let all those arm chair generals have it and I'm sure they're cowering in the corner after the intellectual thrashing you gave them.

[Gunnair]

"EyeBrock" wrote:

$1:

On those procurements, there weren’t really any viable alternatives except Russian crap.

Well, not completely true. There were some less capable European alternatives for the Chinook - namely Eurocopter's Cougar, but I see your point. With the Cyclone, however, I disagree. There are a number of maritime helicopters trypes out there - everything from the Cyclone, EH101 (yeah I know) Seahawk, and a number of European varients. The Cyclone seemed a bit of an odd choice - it being an essentially civilian chopper being made to milspec (that and its gotten some negative attention because of recent accidents)

$1:

The F35 really doesn't have serious competition in it's mission areas but a partisan argument can be made for the F18E's, Typhoon and a few other non-runners.

I don't see arguments being made fo the F18E as partisan, I see them being pragmatic. It's been noted before that some airframes are used for decades being rebuilt over and over (Chinook, Herc) The F18E is a solid performer that can do the job we want... but that is also the rub. What do we want them for? Look at the employment history of our current fleet of F18s? Here we are engaged in Afghanistan and no ground support role for our fighters (which were last tasked with that in Kosovo) How do we wish to employ our fighters and is it worth buying a Cadillac to drive to work when we could buy a solid sedan and have enough money left over to buy a light pickup?

$1:

The counter arguments (and lets not start yet another thread on those!) don’t stand up to close scrutiny in my view, which is why a competition in the full glare of a hostile media whipped into a frenzy by Iggy is a good idea and a reasonable way out of this for Stevey boy.

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think one can make a good argument with respect for what do we need and what will their job be and what is their role in the foreseeable future? I've said before that I'd love to see our airforce adopt ground attack helicopters which I think of anything, is the most puzzling airframe that we have not invested in. Griffons just don't cut it, and the army has discovered that transport by Chinook through danger zones requires a good helicopter escort.

$1:

I’m sure the F35 will come out on top and I bet the Tories know that too. What have they got to lose besides votes if they don’t?

Call Iggy’s bluff, hold a competition.

I agree - hold the competition. The problem of course, is that these procurements can be personality driven - a group of high rankers focusing on fighters when another group might say - Hold on, we could have used ground support helicopters and more Maritime Aircraft over the last decade.

We see the same thing with ships, and I would imagine the army sees the ame thing. Remember the whole amphib assault carrier deal? That was personality driven, not reality driven.

[EyeBrock]

Good points Fish-head.!

On choppers, I've just done too many deployments where they were always sick on the ground. It takes a lot more techies to keep an Apache flying than a Tornado or Harrier. Mind you, in the UK it is Army techies who fix broken Apaches and Lynx's so it might be a pongo thing. Just kidding.....maybe...

On our current F18's. They have been notable by their absence in the Afghan theatre.
In Bosnia they were less than useful and in Gulf War One they barely made in impact.

Along with looking seriously at a replacement for the CF18 we should look at making the dollars we throw at Air Command relate to a real air-support role with our ground forces.

Try going to war with the Army, Air Command. It’s what real Air Forces do.

I agree the Griffon was a bizarre purchase. It's another waste of space in Afghanistan as it's hot/high performance is dismal. It can barely hold a decent fuel and ammo payload in it's ersatz 'gun-ship' role.

Whatever you think about fighters, if we are serious about protecting our sovereign airspace from current and future threats, the F35 is a better bet than the F18E.

The Super Hornet is today’s answer to today’s threats. The F35 builds in longevity and poses a unknown threat to hostile nations. Maybe a mix of the two is the way to go as you don’t need the cutting edge for ground attack in a environment with air-superiority.

In 15 years we may have real threats to our Arctic and those threats in the air won't be the current generation of Russian aircraft. Who knows where the other threats will come from.

We need an aircraft that can meet the threats for the next 30 years. I don't believe that aircraft is the F18E.
We need to be able to intercept tomorrow’s threat, otherwise we’ll just be relying on the Yanks for the next 30. As Bart mentioned, can we really rely on them when Obama is cutting their military back?

Defence of Canada should supersede a requirement to support out-of-theatre ops like Afghanistan.


Oh, on the partisan 'F18' thing. I don't see any Libs banging the drum for the F35. They are making the F18 over the F35 very partisan. That's why we should have a review of this, to stop the silly politics.

[Canadian_Mind]

Who says the F-35 can protect us from threats 30 years down the road, though? Sure it's stealthy, but it isn't the stealthiest. Granted we can't buy the stealthiest, and we really don't know much about the Pak-Fa. All we really know is that it is at least as maneuverable as an Su-27, with stealth capability. Depending on the level of stealth, the F-35 could be right hooped.

Rather, why don't we go with the less glamorous option: Build a new line of state-of-the-art radar stations along our northern coastline, with the capability to detect conventionally stealthed fighters (the tech is out there). Then get what would be a fairly cheap aircraft that can carry the missiles to their targets once detected. Effectively the system we have now, just with the latest tech and new airframes.

With the development of a longer-range missile than the current long range missile in our arsenal (AIM-120?), that could be guided by the ground-based radar onto target, it would put our aircraft well out of range of current Russian anti-air missiles (that can be effective against fighters anyways), making stealth a completely nullified point.

Then we can go with a reliable, proven airframe that we know can function in the north, aswell as provide air-ground capability when needed. Aircraft like the F-15E or F-18E.

What it really amounts to is that the context in which the aircraft will be used over the next 25-30 years needs to be defined before we can purchase them.

[EyeBrock]

The whole thing needs to be revisited. When was the last DnD White Paper on defence? A long time ago.

It's time for a full-scale review that incorporates lessons learned from 9 years in Afghanistan and a renewed look at the defence of Canada in view of the retreating ice-packs in our north.

[Canadian_Mind]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The whole thing needs to be revisited. When was the last DnD White Paper on defence? A long time ago.

It's time for a full-scale review that incorporates lessons learned from 9 years in Afghanistan and a renewed look at the defence of Canada in view of the retreating ice-packs in our north.

Agreed, and repped.

The Afghan mission shouldn't have done to the army what it did. We were in no way prepared for this kind of extended conflict, despite the rather small scale of it.

As for the northern sovereignty issues, a white paper should be published specifically for that prior to a military paper. This would outline how to enforce our northern sovereignty with every means available (increased traffic & infrastructure, resource extraction strategies, resident population increases, coast guard and military capability increases, etc), and how all thesemeans can correlate and work together to provide the most efficient and effective strategy possible. From their the military and coast guard can draw up a plan based around the outline of whats required in the north.

Examples include increasing sizes of airports in Yellowknife or Iqualuit, and converting them to military bases for which a full fighter squadron can be based out of, vice Cold Lake, or Bagotville. Increase the size and capacity of the Ports in Churchill, make one in Iqualuit and Resolute, and have permanently stationed Coast Guard and military vessels at all three. Develop the offshore oil in the north, but make a requirement that the processing facilities must also be north of 60, giving the territories more national clout and industrial capacity.

List can go on.

[Bruce_the_vii]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

lol, that's true. well there's the Bomb and Nato. start there.

Well that certainly clears things up. You let all those arm chair generals have it and I'm sure they're cowering in the corner after the intellectual thrashing you gave them.

I looked up the IMF tables and the NATO countries represent 55% of the world's GDP of $57.8 trillion. That's a $31.7 trillion behemouth, biggest the world has ever seen, quite capable. (IMF, 2009, USD) There are nuts that will consider attacking or defying and in recent times there has been Sadam Huisen (twice), Osama Bin Laden and his associates the Taliban.

[EyeBrock]

And....?

[Bruce_the_vii]

Well, who's going to have the airforce to attack Nato there son.

[EyeBrock]

I don't think anybody on the 10th September 2001 thought lunatics would fly airliners into buildings full of people, dad.

[Bruce_the_vii]

You didn't think that would happen? The rest of the world did, that's why there's still a Nato. There's not much in major conflicts with non-nuclear powers possible though.

I don't mind reading other people political views, it's sort of interesting and a hobby of mine, but this talk about niffty air battles with nuclear powers is not interesting.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Well, who's going to have the airforce to attack Nato there son.

Unfortunatly, you're looking at today. A lot can change in 20 years as the ppl of Europe found out between 1918 and 1938.

Your comment smacks of the same attitude as those that built the berm around New Orleans. "What are the chances of a category 5 hurricane hitting Loisiana?" was the reasoning for not making the berm higher.

And this also goes well beyond possible future conflicts with nuclear powers.
Considering the proliferation of SAMs and other AAMs, if Canada is called upon to fulfill its NATO obligations someplace, I'd like our pilots to have kites that can't be easily painted by one of these systems.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Nato is there for those reasons. It is going to remain well equiped. There will be wars amongst the tin pot dictators for sure. And guerrila wars have proved devasting. Actual major air engagements are extremely unlikely so you may want to put your money elsewhere. I see your point about the SAMs though. I don't have much information about these actually.

[Gunnair]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Well, who's going to have the airforce to attack Nato there son.

Unfortunatly, you're looking at today. A lot can change in 20 years as the ppl of Europe found out between 1918 and 1938.

Your comment smacks of the same attitude as those that built the berm around New Orleans. "What are the chances of a category 5 hurricane hitting Loisiana?" was the reasoning for not making the berm higher.

And this also goes well beyond possible future conflicts with nuclear powers.
Considering the proliferation of SAMs and other AAMs, if Canada is called upon to fulfill its NATO obligations someplace, I'd like our pilots to have kites that can't be easily painted by one of these systems.

Well, I guess I'm looking at it as what would better accomplish the creation of a viable and tacically useful force. Yes, we need tactical fighters to protect ourselves, however, let's look at that:

1) There are very very few countries that can or will pose a threat in the foreseeable future, and only Russia would be close enough to provide a direct threat.

2) If Russia suddenly became public enemy number one again, our small force of F35s, helpful as it is, would be a drop compared to what the US and NATO deploys.

3) If the whole Russian Bear coming over the pole looks unlikely, certainly more A-stan style deployments, be it in Africa, Central Asia or wherever seem to be the mission flavour of the coming decade or two. If that is the case, and there seem to be lots of indications that it is, then strong arguments can be made for an investment in ground support - be that through A-10 or more likely Apaches or whatever airframe is chosen. ) Frankly, I think ground support is the way to go in the coming decade or more - that and improved air mobility and maritime surveillance.

4) Frankly, even though I'm a military fellow, I'm not sure some of the decisions being made (see Chinook and Cyclone) are the best - we want Cadillacs (when we may not even need them) and I certainly don't trust it to the government either as they want a Yaris (which would likely be useless). Something in between where we could look at procurement pragmattically makes far more sense to me.