Canadian Fighter Competition

[Dawes]

I know that aircraft engines today are quite reliable, but for patrolling Canada's vast northern regions wouldn't the Super Hornet's twin engine arrangement provide an extra measure of safety?

[R011]

Less than one might think. Two engines are twice as likely to fail as one and losing one engine over the far north only means you have a bit more time to eject.

[Josh]

 

And yes, a squadron or two of MIG-31M's would do quite nicely for Canada on the Artic front. Of all the interceptors or jets ever built, it's the one that actually did what the Arrow was trying to do. I'd be all for a warning shot across Washington's bow in the form of a purchase there. American dumbfuckery gets tiresome to Canadians, and the closing of the border has taught Canadians that we don't have to kiss American ass just because we're in the attic. I like Trump as a President, but the only thing Trump actually respects is both barrels. Figuratively speaking of course.

 

 

Buying a Russian interceptor to escort Russian bombers seems like a nonstarter, to put it mildly.

[R011]

The border isnt closed to trade. That's continued more or less unabated. American tariffs are being met by Canadian ones as is appropriate. By the time the fighter decision is made, trade relations might well be much better. Choosing Gripen now would be premature, at least, and probably cut us out of some sweet US defence contracts and industrial offsets.

 

As has been mentioned, the Russians won't sell us aircraft to intercept Russian planes and their aftermarket service leaves much to be desired anyway. Leaving Norad is just fucking stupid.

[glenn239]

The border isnt closed to trade. That's continued more or less unabated. American tariffs are being met by Canadian ones as is appropriate.

 

The act of random US tariffs on Canada during a pandemic is unacceptable and the response of symmetrical countervailing duties hurts Canada far more than the US due to our small economy. Canada should more seriously consider inflicting political consequences for Trump's behaviour. For example Meng should be released to China tomorrow and Washington informed that the extradition treaty in which she was being held is suspended due to the tariffs. Solve a problem with a problem - if the Americans bitch, tell them if the shove their illegal tarriffs up their asses, the extradition treaty can be reinstated tomorrow. Meanwhile, Meng is gone home and that boat anchor is solved, and China will know in the future to avoid Canadian air ports for anyone there with US warrants.

 

You'd like the two Michaels to come home, right?

 

 

By the time the fighter decision is made, trade relations might well be much better. Choosing Gripen now would be premature, at least, and probably cut us out of some sweet US defence contracts and industrial offsets.

 

 

The US currently seems on a path to a serious internal crisis and we are facing ‘drive by shooting’ style economic punishment for this and perhaps a future POTUS as a consequence. US favouritism worked well for Canada during the Cold War because the Americans weren’t a basket case domestically. So what you’re saying sounds fine to me if Dorthy clicks her heels and Toto is suddenly back in Kansas. But do you think that the US is returning to it's glory days of the 1980's? I don’t. I think they're in for decades of civil disorder and we will be played as a punching bag by both sides until we get more 'prickly'.

 

 

As has been mentioned, the Russians won't sell us aircraft to intercept Russian planes and their aftermarket service leaves much to be desired anyway.

 

 

Turkey would be quite surprised to discover that the Russians will not sell Turkey S-400’s for the nonsense reasons that you list. Perhaps you should go to Ankara and explain to them that the air defense system they just received isn't real? :^)

 

Canadian conditions in the Artic require a large interceptor with long range, cold weather operation, and a big honking radar. The F-35 for Canada is a mismatch to requirement because it’s sacrificed everything to be all-aspects stealthy, and we don’t need all-aspects stealthy in the Artic for air defense. Of the American planes, the F-15X looks like a better fit for Canadian requirements than the F-35. F-35 for Canada is the type of plane we go overseas with to putter in some war that probably has little to do with our national interests.

 

Leaving Norad is just fucking stupid.

 

 

Norad? Remind me. That's that thing that'll be an expanding cloud of radioactive spawl about one hour into a war where Russia and the US really get into it? Canada's vital interests need that, do they?

 

Anyways, feel free to ditch the panties and try on some daddy pants. Trump wants hardball, and reviewing NORAD is fucking hardball. I didn’t say, “leave” NORAD. If Trump drops illegal bullshit tariffs on us then what Trump is actually asking for from any Canadian that has a set is for all forms of cooperation - including NORAD - to be reviewed and utilized for relation. If/whenTrump withdraws his bullshit bullying then all forms of cooperation resume.

 

In terms of other national air defense models, Sweden. If Trump wants, we could become more like Sweden.

Edited August 8, 2020 by glenn239

[seahawk]

Less than one might think. Two engines are twice as likely to fail as one and losing one engine over the far north only means you have a bit more time to eject.

But maybe still long enough to get a lot further south.

[Dawes]

Apparently it can fly for an indeterminate amount of time on one engine:

 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/28/f-18-crashed-florida-was-flying-1-engine-document-says.html

[JWB]

USA in 1968 was worse than the USA now.

[JW Collins]

At the height of the Cold War the Canadians weren't willing to pay the price tag to buy and operate the F-15. I very much doubt they'd be willing to pay for the F-15EX today. Even crazier is the idea they could afford to operate the larger and heavier MiG-31, which would have to be "westernized" to NATO standards. Do the Russians even build any new ones or just upgrade the old?

 

The F-35 isn't an ideal interceptor but neither was the F/A-18. The Eurocanards are an option but is the insult to Trump really worth losing out on industry partnership with the United States?

 

As much as Canadian aviation lovers mourn the loss of the CF-105 Arrow the idea of bringing that 60 year old design back from the dead is a non-starter for a long list of reasons.

 

If the condition of USN and USMC classic F/A-18s is anything to go by they won't last long enough for Tempest to become a reality, if it does. Even the ex-RAAF ones they bought are said to have a lot of wear and tear.

[Dawes]

Carrier operations can't be exactly easy on an airframe.

[Colin]

All US aircraft other than the F35 are subject to a 30% FMS surcharge

[R011]

I wouldn't be astonished if Tempest ends up being available by the time this project is ready to make a decision, airworthyness of the current fleet not withstanding. Most likely it will drag on just a few years longer before we make a choice.

[Josh]

Of the F-18E Blk3 and f35...which has the lower flight hour cost? The F35 is about the same price and brings a new level of EW/ISR and RCS reduction...that the CAF probably doesnt need. Id go for lowest cost of ownership. Both types will be in service for decades with the US so there will be ample parts support either way from a huge fleet of machines.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Josh

[Yama]

Super Hornet has almost same (just a few % difference) CPFH as Legacy Hornet. However that applies to Blocks 1 & 2, Block III has more elaborate equipment set so it might be tad more expensive.

F-35A by contrast is at the moment, much much more expensive to operate. It is projected that lifetime costs will drop to something bit below F-15, but still considerable more than F-16/18.

[Josh]

For what the RCAF does it seems to me the F-18 blk3 would be the better fit.

[CaptLuke]

For what the RCAF does it seems to me the F-18 blk3 would be the better fit.

 

It depends on what the Canadians want their air force to do. If you think "whole force", it seems like there would be a lot of merit to rolling some AEW assets into the plan and Saab already has Globaleye based on the Bombardier 6000/6500. If that takes a lot of the long range patrol duties then the Gripen starts to look like a better option and opens up the possibility of a package deal.

 

Plus Globaleye opens the door for using the same Bombardier platform for maritime patrol to replace the Aurora (don't know how much life is left in those); IAI has already proposed a maritime patrol variant of the Bombardier 5000 series. An ELINT or ISR version would be a short hop from there.

 

True, any given plane would be less capable than an F-35 or a P-8 or some larger, more expensive, AEW platform, but it would give a lot of airspace and sea patrol/control capability for the dollar, be affordable to operate, and have a big domestic production component.