[kEiThZ]

Would Trudeau have bought the Leopard 2 tanks, Globemasters and Chinooks?

Hard to say we would have bought any of them outside of the context of the war in Afghanistan. Even our Army was moving away from heavy armour. Until everyone realized there's nothing that protects you from IEDs than heavy armour. Ditto for the Chinook. Best way to avoid IEDs is to move by air. But the Conservatives didn't follow through with the other half of the plan. The best way to protect those Chinooks is with Apaches escorting them. So now we put machine guns on unarmoured Griffons (which fly much slower than the Chinooks) and insist on the whole formation flying slower with everyone increasing their exposure to enemy fire. Even the Senate has argued that the RCAF should be fielding Apaches and more Chinooks to avoid more injuries to troops.

My biggest surprise was always the Liberal opposition to the Globemaster. They tried labelling them "Cadillacs" too. It was blatantly obvious that given the size of Canada and our distance from Europe and Asia that strategic airlift was necessary. And one look at the payload-range diagrams of the C-17 and the C-130J, tells you exactly why Canada needs C-17. One C-17 and take the load of two Hercs twice as far in a single lift. That's exactly what you need during war or a major natural disaster. If we ever has a major environmental catastrophe in Arctic or a major disaster in the Rockies, these aircraft will be worth their weight in gold. But of course, there's political points to be scored. And at $350 million apiece, it was easy to target the C-17s as wasteful. It was in part their intransigence, as to why we only bought 5. We should have bought at least 1-2 more in my opinion.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is where tech is going:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/aviation/laser-weapon-to-go-in-fighter-jet-in-2021

And there's only one aircraft on the market with generators large enough to pull this off.

 

[Admiral Beez]

One C-17 and take the load of two Hercs twice as far in a single lift.

When it comes time to replacing the Hercs I'd like us to consider the Airbus A400M Atlas. The Atlas has the range, payload and acquisition cost to serve alongside the Globemasters. Of course that might be in 2040, so who knows what's available then, lol.

 

[kEiThZ]

When it comes time to replacing the Hercs I'd like us to consider the Airbus A400M Atlas. The Atlas has the range, payload and acquisition cost to serve alongside the Globemasters. Of course that might be in 2040, so who knows what's available then, lol.

The first C-130J arrived in 2010. It'll be nearly 2050 till we retire them..... So I'm doubtful the Atlas will be in production then! We came close to buying the Atlas instead of the C-17. However, we knew during some audits, the project team figured out they'd be late on deliveries and risk not delivering on spec. They went with the C-17 instead and it's worked out fantastically. Too bad the guys who bought the S-92 were never given that option by the government. The EH-101 would have been fantastic.

On topic of fighters, if we aren't getting the F-35, I really hope we consider something much cheaper instead. Like the Gripen. It's basically a little more capable than a fighter-trainer at this point. But it's cheap to buy and a fraction of the cost to operate compared to a Rafale, Typhoon or F-35. Getting a cheap replacement fleet let's us invest the savings into other capabilities. Personally, I think attack helicopters might actually be more useful that fighters for most of our deployments. Of course, there'd be some implications to our defence and foreign policy if we accept a dramatic reduction in air combat capability. But it's an alternative....

 

[Admiral Beez]

On topic of fighters, if we aren't getting the F-35, I really hope we consider something much cheaper instead. Like the Gripen. It's basically a little more capable than a fighter-trainer at this point. But it's cheap to buy and a fraction of the cost to operate compared to a Rafale, Typhoon or F-35. Getting a cheap replacement fleet let's us invest the savings into other capabilities. Personally, I think attack helicopters might actually be more useful that fighters for most of our deployments. Of course, there'd be some implications to our defence and foreign policy if we accept a dramatic reduction in air combat capability. But it's an alternative....

It's not a bad plan. Buy 50 or 60 Gripens, entering service in 2020-22. Run them until 2030, and by then the F-35 unit cost will be low and the aircraft will be proven in global service.

 

[lenaitch]

I am a recent and fairly infrequent visitor to this site, drawn mostly by my interest in transportation issues, and I found this thread as an interesting aside. I have followed the 'new fighter acquisition' issue in the media and on another website (although tire of the debate on the minutiae of the various options). Some of the poster here are to be commended for their insight.

I am not a proponent of the F-35 for a number of reasons, primarily its cost. It is expensive to buy, astonishingly expensive to operation and would require significant changes to ancillary and support that I'm not sure have been properly accounted for. It runs the risk of potentially sucking the soul out of the entire defence budget. Fighter replacement is certainly not the only pressure point - the Navy is in at least equally dire straits (pun intended) and it is not even the only RCAF pressure point - just about everything outside of strategic lift is is past its best before date. OK, we're finally getting new sea-borne helicopters - it only took 40 years.

Although all multi-role fighters have inherent compromises, the F-35 seems biased to 'first-in' ground strike, which is a role we do not ascribe to (even the US says that it should have the F-22 for combat cover). If you believe the new strategic defence direction, the military's primary roles are national (territorial) defence and support (or contribute to) NATO and UN missions. I don't see the F-35 fitting those mandates. If we must, perhaps a few in a mixed fleet, down the road when the software, supply chain and maintenance bugs have been worked out. Part of me doesn't fault the air staff for wanting the 'latest and greatest' since they know that their grandkids will still be using it. I, too, am intrigued by the SAAB Gripen NG. It is early days, but seems to be an agile and fairly sophisticated light fighter. If nothing, else, it could be acquired and operated in useful numbers at a cost that won't break the bank.

More recently, a rather gut reaction is to tell any US manufacturer to go pound sand and say we should consider European options. As a bottom line, from any potential supplier, we should be striving for technology transfer so we could possibly build (at least some), maintain and improve them here. I see none of that happening with the F-35.

Everybody needs to realize that the government - this one or any other -if/when it makes a decision, will do so in its best interest, not the military's or the defence of the nation. No Canadian government has ever seen defence spending as anything other than a thorn to be salved as little as possible, and they are allowed to think that way because we the people let them; it has never been a high priority in the Canadian psyche.

 

[Admiral Beez]

More recently, a rather gut reaction is to tell any US manufacturer to go pound sand and say we should consider European options.

Canada has no fight with Lockheed-Martin, the makers of the F-35, plus the RCAF's C-130 Hercules, CP-140 Auroras, CH-124 Sea Kings and their CH-148 Cyclone replacements. On the flipside, one could argue that Airbus just paid zero dollars for Canada's Bombardier CS program by waiting for a distressed and motivated seller. Airbus is a European business looking for value and profit, not our industry's savior.

As a bottom line, from any potential supplier, we should be striving for technology transfer so we could possibly build (at least some), maintain and improve them here. I see none of that happening with the F-35.

We're not building the F-35 here, but there are plenty of jobs in the program for Canadians https://www.lockheedmartin.ca/ca/what-we-do/aerospace-defence/aircraft.html

 

[lenaitch]

Canada has no fight with Lockheed-Martin, the makers of the F-35.

My reaction is not necessarily tied to the Boeing dispute but more to the protectionist atmoshere in the US right now. The punitive duties imposed were beyond even what Boeing was asking for. More broadly, we have been prostrating ourselves to the US military-industrial complex since the 1950s.

We're not building the F-35 here, but there are plenty of jobs in the program for Canadians https://www.lockheedmartin.ca/ca/what-we-do/aerospace-defence/aircraft.html

True, but only in terms of building components. Other potential suppliers have offered full technology transfer, coding, etc. Even if we did go with the F-35, all training and major maintenance will be in the US meaning, if nothing else, aircraft waiting in queue in the States (I wonder where their priority will lay) and a loss skills capacity for the CAF.

It also speaks to a larger and seemingly peculiar Canadian problem. We keep our equipment in service until they are long past their best before date, then the massive cost for a whole-fleet replacement scares the pants off the politicians. Then we end up with a fleet or class that is all roughly the same age. It's one of the reasons why I favour a mixed fleet. It is even more ludicrous on the Naval side. We only build a class every 40 or 50 years then wonder why the shipyards no longer have the capacity. Why we don't have a keel laid down at any given time is beyond me. It spreads out the fleet's age and permits incremental modernization.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It spreads out the fleet's age and permits incremental modernization.

But the days of having mixed force of Voodoos, Starfighters and Freedom Fighters from different ages all serving at the same time are gone. At best we’ll be buying four or five dozen aircraft. You can’t buy that quantity in penny packets.

 

[kEiThZ]

As the only uniformed member in these parts, I've addressed a lot of the points raised before. People need to get past this "first strike" business. Any platform that is more survivable is a first strike aircraft. Because that's when survivability matters the most....on the first night when enemy air defences are at 100%. The reason we want a survivable platform is because we plan on operating it for 40-50 years. What is highly survivable today, we hope will be moderately survivable towards the end of its service life. There is no way around these facts. Technological change that comes with time, guarantee that our adversaries will get better. The Kosovos of tomorrow will have integrated air defences that only major regional powers would field today. So with time, a less survivable aircraft means:

1) We are willing to accept increased risk for aircrew for most of the service life of this platform; and/or,
2) We are willing to severely limit our foreign and defence policies.

The government (and Canadian society) cannot have it both ways. They cannot insist on buying a cheaper platform that is less survivable, operate it for 40 years and take part on day one of operations alongside allies like the Americans, the French, the Brits and the Germans. Not unless they are willing to risk pilots being shipped home in shopping bags (what's left of them anyway).

So either the government buys the F-35 and happily retains all its foreign policy options for the next 3-4 decades. Or it decides, that we will indeed defer to our allies on most things. And when we do participate in war, we'll do the mop up that doesn't get us much actual credit. My suggestion that we consider the Gripen is exactly that. We accept that we are rather insignificant in the world. And put our resources towards capabilities that can get us more credit.

On the dual fleet idea, that ship has long sailed. We don't have the budgets, the maintainers or the pilots to manage dual fleets. And we don't even have the pipeline anymore to train the personnel to generate those pilots or maintainers. The cuts of the last two decades have ensured that. The Super Hornet itself, with only 18 aircraft risked bringing the air force to its knees. It's why the plan was detested to so much by all of us in uniform. In essence, the air force would have to cut flying hours on every other platform (but particularly the legacy Hornet fleet) to support the Super Hornets, all to make the government look good. The government was proposing to buy 18 jets. They weren't proposing to raise the budget to cover the maintenance and personnel costs of another fleet (and despite what people say, commonality between legacy Hornets and the Rhino is not great).

The rule since the 90s has been simple: one fleet per mission. And we're sticking to that. In fact, I'd argue that we can wring out even more savings from commonality by replacing the Griffons with S-92s and cutting down that fleet even more. We're too small a military, with way too many missions to be able to afford multiple platforms for a single mission type.

 

[pman]

I wonder what exactly the mission for these fighters will be. If it’s defence of Canadian airspace and sovereignty, then the two jobs appear to be shooting down vintage Russian bombers and commercial aircraft commandeered by terrorists. Neither threat would seem to require the numerically small and stupefyingly expensive fleet an F35 purchase would entail. If the goal is to make a minuscule, token contribution to America’s many and multiplying undeclared wars through active combat sorties flown by a dozen or so (max) Canadian planes, in order to pretend that we’re actually pulling our weight as a loyal minor spear carrier for the US, then the F35 makes more sense. Though why we would choose to break the military procurement budget for a mission of so little benefit to Canada - or to western security if the history of the past twenty years is any guide - is beyond me.

 

[Admiral Beez]

- is beyond me.

Agreed.

But look beyond yourself, and think about it. We're part of NATO. We're obliged to have kit that can do the job.

 

[pman]

Agreed.

But look beyond yourself, and think about it. We're part of NATO. We're obliged to have kit that can do the job.

We’re also obliged to spend 2% of GDP on defence, but that will never happen. If we buy this particular staggeringly expensive piece of kit, we’ll have even less money to spend on other equipment to allow us to pretend we can do the job.

 

[Admiral Beez]

allow us to pretend we can do the job.

If that's your starting point and level of expectation, then no kit is required.

But as long as we have politicians and their fortunate sons that send our lads into harm's way, I'd like them to have the kit to actually do the job and come home alive.

 

[pman]

If that's your starting point and level of expectation, then no kit is required.

But as long as we have politicians and their fortunate sons that send our lads into harm's way, I'd like them to have the kit to actually do the job and come home alive.

I should have been clearer, in that I don’t like the way we consistently free ride and let our military run down. But we seem to have a bipartisan consensus that our national starting point is to spend between 1% and 1.25% of GDP on defence. To the extent that farce best describes our situation, Sir Humphry’s observation that the goal of British defence policy is to make the British people think they’re actually defended clearly applies to Canada. You may wish it were otherwise, but this is a choice Canada has been making since Trudeau senior was Prime Minister. So we’re left with a very stretched military budget that can’t really fund much in the way of capacity. Given that constraint - and let’s face it, if the Harper government ground down defence spending to 1% of GDP there’s no likelihood it will ever be enough to support an adequately armed force under either party - then blowing a huge chunk of the budget on the F35 necessarily involves starving other programs.