News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

And I'm guessing Official Ottawa is quite okay with that.

1) They have no choice.

2) Their actions over the last few years show they just don't care.

3) Most Canadian voters are just as apathetic.

Let's be honest here. For all the rhetoric and reflexive anti-Americanism we spout in Canada (even some examples in this thread), as a country we're just fine with them protecting us. The interesting bit will be what happens with successive American administrations that decide an effective dependency and resource colony shouldn't be given favourable treatment on issues like trade or technology sharing. We saw inklings of this with Trump, and quite a few of these policies maintained with Biden, with just a messaging change. And as AUKUS grows, I expect it'll get worse over time. And there will be lots of bewilderment as to why the Americans are being so "mean" to Canada.
 
Yep. That includes the full bill for infrastructure and supply chain up front that need to be in place before the first F-35 arrives. The flying supercomputer has some very strict security requirements, along with infrastructure ageing, means news hangars, new storage and maintenance facilities, etc.
 
16 units doesn't seem like a lot, even for a country as unambitious as Canada. Australia bought 72. Netherlands has purchased 52.
 
16 units doesn't seem like a lot, even for a country as unambitious as Canada. Australia bought 72. Netherlands has purchased 52.

16 of 88 ultimately. This is basically the first squadron. It gets the training program going. As more pilots and maintainers are trained and infrastructure is finished off, more aircraft will get delivered and new squadrons stood up.

Maybe it's just me but 88 planes for a nation the size of Canada doesn't seem like much.

It's about 1:1 replacement with our current Hornet fleet. And the fleet size is based on our defence policy which requires contributing 4 jets to NORAD alert 24/7 and a deployable set (what we call a "six pack") of about half a squadron to any NATO response immediately.

A rough guide is to take the total number of front line aircraft assigned to line squadrons and multiply by 1.6 to cover training requirements, maintenance pipeline, engineering flight test aircraft, etc. So a purchase of 88 aircraft, roughly yields 55 operational aircraft or 5 squadrons of 11 aircraft. Given the tasks assigned by the assigned by the defence policy, this means any given squadron will spend 20% of their time on high readiness to meet the above commitments. That's a fair bit.

Should we have more? That depends on whether you believe Canada should be more active in the world or maintain a higher bench strength. I would argue this number is fine for what we're committed to. If we want to look at a carrier on each coast, then a small fleet of 30-50 F-35Bs (the vertical takeoff model) can be added. This is basically what the British and Italians are doing. This would bring Canada closer to the 138 CF18s originally purchased in the 80s. But that number is not strictly needed given that Canada has fewer commitments than the 80s today.
 
16 of 88 ultimately. This is basically the first squadron. It gets the training program going. As more pilots and maintainers are trained and infrastructure is finished off, more aircraft will get delivered and new squadrons stood up.



It's about 1:1 replacement with our current Hornet fleet. And the fleet size is based on our defence policy which requires contributing 4 jets to NORAD alert 24/7 and a deployable set (what we call a "six pack") of about half a squadron to any NATO response immediately.

A rough guide is to take the total number of front line aircraft assigned to line squadrons and multiply by 1.6 to cover training requirements, maintenance pipeline, engineering flight test aircraft, etc. So a purchase of 88 aircraft, roughly yields 55 operational aircraft or 5 squadrons of 11 aircraft. Given the tasks assigned by the assigned by the defence policy, this means any given squadron will spend 20% of their time on high readiness to meet the above commitments. That's a fair bit.

Should we have more? That depends on whether you believe Canada should be more active in the world or maintain a higher bench strength. I would argue this number is fine for what we're committed to. If we want to look at a carrier on each coast, then a small fleet of 30-50 F-35Bs (the vertical takeoff model) can be added. This is basically what the British and Italians are doing. This would bring Canada closer to the 138 CF18s originally purchased in the 80s. But that number is not strictly needed given that Canada has fewer commitments than the 80s today.
It is my recollection that proficiency training (perhaps wrong term) would take place in the US, so these aircraft may not see Canadian soil. I can't recall if we are getting our own simulators (there is no 2-seat version).
 
It is my recollection that proficiency training (perhaps wrong term) would take place in the US, so these aircraft may not see Canadian soil. I can't recall if we are getting our own simulators (there is no 2-seat version).

Type conversion (learning a new aircraft) may take place in the US. Not proficiency training (which is just the regular training that pilots do to maintain their skills). I'm not certain that type conversion will be permanently done in the US either. Paying the Americans is expensive and subject to space availability. The only reason to do it is to free up aircraft for a sixth operational squadron. Not sure that is necessary. And we're buying enough aircraft to run our own type courses.

We'll definitely be getting our own simulators. Flight hours are expensive. Simulators are cheap to run. And low risk for currency checks. Think of a pilot coming back from vacation, a course or a desk posting. We don't want to send them to the US for refresher. Do a few sim checks and then back in the aircraft.
 
16 of 88 ultimately. This is basically the first squadron. It gets the training program going. As more pilots and maintainers are trained and infrastructure is finished off, more aircraft will get delivered and new squadrons stood up.



It's about 1:1 replacement with our current Hornet fleet. And the fleet size is based on our defence policy which requires contributing 4 jets to NORAD alert 24/7 and a deployable set (what we call a "six pack") of about half a squadron to any NATO response immediately.

A rough guide is to take the total number of front line aircraft assigned to line squadrons and multiply by 1.6 to cover training requirements, maintenance pipeline, engineering flight test aircraft, etc. So a purchase of 88 aircraft, roughly yields 55 operational aircraft or 5 squadrons of 11 aircraft. Given the tasks assigned by the assigned by the defence policy, this means any given squadron will spend 20% of their time on high readiness to meet the above commitments. That's a fair bit.

Should we have more? That depends on whether you believe Canada should be more active in the world or maintain a higher bench strength. I would argue this number is fine for what we're committed to. If we want to look at a carrier on each coast, then a small fleet of 30-50 F-35Bs (the vertical takeoff model) can be added. This is basically what the British and Italians are doing. This would bring Canada closer to the 138 CF18s originally purchased in the 80s. But that number is not strictly needed given that Canada has fewer commitments than the 80s today.
Does Canada needs carriers on our own coasts? Aren't they more useful for power projection, which is not really the business we're in...?
 

Back
Top