Jump to content

Stretching the Thin Blue Line:


Recommended Posts

I just come across this article about our F-18's ...as they came up in a conversation earlier, it makes a good read and may give us another look at our forces state.

CF-18

Cf-!8

A good airplane but getting tired - even with the updates.

We used to run two courses per year of around 12-16 guys - now it is difficult to get 8 through in a year.

Serviceability issues and tasking orders and the military is short of pilots big time.

Interesting read.

Cheers

Borg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just come across this article about our F-18's ...as they came up in a conversation earlier, it makes a good read and may give us another look at our forces state.

Since F-35 project has been delayed, it seems that Canada has less choice except wait. The price of F-35 is another problem, include the spending of purchase and further maintenance, that means the government has to increase its defence budget, or most likely, reduce the amount of purchase. :unsure:

Edited by xul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats for the post army guy it vindicates me in past thread, where I had posted that the cf-18 was gettin gold and tired and need of being replaced and supoorted the conservatives when they put money into the JTF program.

I would call out the three who contradicted me but they know who they are and have yet to post under your thread.

We need to replace this airframe before it becomes the next sea king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since F-35 project has been delayed, it seems that Canada has less choice except wait. The price of F-35 is another problem, include the spending of purchase and further maintenance, that means the government has to increase its defence budget, or most likely, reduce the amount of purchase.

The F-35 is about to go into mass production, production of the F-22 has been halted and the F-35 has been pushed forward, According to Janes this will mean pricing should drop accordly....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USA has been retiring their f-18 squadrons en masse over the last decade as far as I can recall. That kind of gives us a picture of their modern day effectiveness.

Partially true...The US Navy and Marine Corps have implemented a plan to reduce operational F/A-18 squadrons from almost 70 to less than 60 and reduce squadron sizes by two to four aircraft each. There will also be a transition to a tactical squadron mix of JSFs and F/A-18 E/F, which is far from obsolete or ineffective given real world performance and known threats.

Canada's CF-18 force structure has often been shortchanged by decisions and funding when it comes to forward deployment and mission capabilities (e.g. Gulf War I, Kosovo, Afghanistan). Playing this game cannot be done on the cheap......or shouldn't be played at all.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, given our relationship with the US whether we need an air suoeriority fighter at all.

What I do believe is we need a warplane that can deliver close tactical support on the ground in all weather. I really don't worry so much about anything else that the RCAF might need to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...What I do believe is we need a warplane that can deliver close tactical support on the ground in all weather. I really don't worry so much about anything else that the RCAF might need to accomplish.

It would be politically unacceptable for American aircraft to completely fulfill the interceptor and CAP mission (NORAD).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, given our relationship with the US whether we need an air suoeriority fighter at all.

What I do believe is we need a warplane that can deliver close tactical support on the ground in all weather. I really don't worry so much about anything else that the RCAF might need to accomplish.

Firstly, for better or worse, ever since amalgamation the RCAF no longer exists. However, I would be the first to cheer its and the RCN's return as independent service complete with their own traditions, ranks and uniforms.

Secondly, no nation in their right mind will completely and utterly trust their neighbours or allies. If history has taught us one thing, it's that nations change and that today's friend and ally can easily become tomorrows enemy and foe. It is foolish to ignore the possibility that some day in the near future the US and its Government may look upon Canada's resources and decide that they want them for themselves and make a grab for them. To turn over the defense of our airspace to the USAF would just be the first step in surrendering our entire national sovereignty to the bloody Yanks and in the long run would be suicidal.

Canada's air defense is beyond a joke and has been for decades. We have what, sixty old and tired ready use CF-18's of which only thirty are combat capable at any given time? Thirty old and tired fighters to patrol and defend an airspace that measure just under 10 Million square kilometres? Give me an f'ing break.

Even tiny Singapore's Air Force is stronger then ours, with some seventy F-16 C/D's, backed up by some forty upgraded F-5 S/T Tiger II's with tactical support from four E-2C Hawkeyes AWAC's and four KC-135 Stratotankers. In the ground attack role, Singapore fields a fleet of A4SU Super Skyhawk which are to be replaced shortly by even more F-16's. And this is a nation with less then 8,000 square kilometres to defend and a population of just over four and a half million people.

We need a multi-layered air defense system, made up of a number of different types aircraft, including UAV's, dedicated fighters and interceptors, ground attack, maritime defense, transport, and refueling aircraft, long with proper anti-aircraft artillery and missiles.

And don't get me started about our poor bloody navy and army.

Edited by Sabre Rider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-35 is about to go into mass production, production of the F-22 has been halted and the F-35 has been pushed forward, According to Janes this will mean pricing should drop accordly....

about the cost raise, Flight delay may raise cost of F-35 fighter

The cost of each F-35 has already nearly doubled to about $70 million from early projections of $35 million, he said.

Exactly it has never happened that the price of a fighter jet went down since it had been mass produced. The manufacturers can always make excuses, such as the inflation of material, the raise of workers's wages, update technology under the requirement of the air force and fixing up the malfunctions they designed in the planes, to raise the cost. Just like those cheeky bankers, you have invested in them so much with both money and time, that you can't allow them down then you have to pay them further more.

about the numbers of Canadian purchase, Canada to buy fewer F-35 fighters than thought

Canadian government said on Monday it would buy 65 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a figure lower than the 80 planes that had widely circulated in the media.

"One of the reasons there will be fewer of the new fighters is we anticipate the new fighters will have significantly greater capacity than existing fighters," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a news conference.

I bet that what was really across in "economist" Harper's mind is, "One of the reasons there will be that the fewer fighters will cost greater budget than existing fighters...."

Edited by xul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to have a military - have a fine one..in every way - Most equat defense with war..this is no longer the case in this brave new world...it's about show - and inferiour swords and shields poorly decorated should not be an option...... It's show - great armour and beautiful banners...........the way of the future is beautiful effective weaponry that will never have to be used...but if it is - the sword should be intimidating and very sharp...of the best folded metal....so these things fly hugh? Impressive....Oleg Bach reporting from 1066...over and out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, given our relationship with the US whether we need an air suoeriority fighter at all.

I think this is why....1984: Indian prime minister was shot dead by her bodyguards

No exact motive is known but it is believed the pair were Sikh extremists acting in retaliation for the storming of the Sikh holy shrine of the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June.

I kinda admire her courage for I read in some Chinese newspapers then said the intelligence had warned her such things would happen but she still decided to trust them for Indian unity. Being a politician, she could gamble her life for her country. But being a country, it would be better to trust in someone more trustworthy than trust its fate in another country's generosity or mercy.

Edited by xul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partially true...The US Navy and Marine Corps have implemented a plan to reduce operational F/A-18 squadrons from almost 70 to less than 60 and reduce squadron sizes by two to four aircraft each. There will also be a transition to a tactical squadron mix of JSFs and F/A-18 E/F, which is far from obsolete or ineffective given real world performance and known threats.

but the F/A-18 E/F is almost a completely different plane than the f-18. They share the same name and look similar, but they're totally different airframes powered by totally different engines and have vastly different capabilities.

Even so you are right. They're still using the F-18's and they're not useless but they're certainly showing they're age and it's a pretty big stretch to be counting on them as a primary fighter until 2017. At this point it's hardly worth replacing them until the F-35 comes out but it leaves us with a 40 year old fighter as our sole and primary air asset.

In hindsight it probably won't matter but it would be nice if we weren't perpetually leaving ourselves with our pants down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada's air defense is beyond a joke and has been for decades. We have what, sixty old and tired ready use CF-18's of which only thirty are combat capable at any given time? Thirty old and tired fighters to patrol and defend an airspace that measure just under 10 Million square kilometres? Give me an f'ing break.

We need a multi-layered air defense system, made up of a number of different types aircraft, including UAV's, dedicated fighters and interceptors, ground attack, maritime defense, transport, and refueling aircraft, long with proper anti-aircraft artillery and missiles.

status of?

The (UAV) program still needs government approval and could cost as much as $750 million.

given the Canadian Forces relatively recent foray into UAV... is there a 'coordinated' strategic plan for UAV purchase/deployment - LFC versus AIRCOM?

Even tiny Singapore's Air Force is stronger then ours, with some seventy F-16 C/D's, backed up by some forty upgraded F-5 S/T Tiger II's with tactical support from four E-2C Hawkeyes AWAC's and four KC-135 Stratotankers. In the ground attack role, Singapore fields a fleet of A4SU Super Skyhawk which are to be replaced shortly by even more F-16's. And this is a nation with less then 8,000 square kilometres to defend and a population of just over four and a half million people.

the size/scope of the Singapore military is a bit of an anomaly... and out of balance even accepting to Singapore's long standing concerns over Malaysia and Indonesia - but, I guess, the Israeli military advisers laid the "appropriate" foundations after Britain's sudden departure and hand-off of it's sprawling military infrastructure to the Singapore government..... notwithstanding the long-standing relationships that allow U.S. access/use of Singapore naval/air force bases. But, hey - at least there isn't a 'formal' U.S. military base within Singapore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada's air defense is beyond a joke and has been for decades. We have what, sixty old and tired ready use CF-18's of which only thirty are combat capable at any given time? Thirty old and tired fighters to patrol and defend an airspace that measure just under 10 Million square kilometres? Give me an f'ing break.

There's an old and true saying. "The most expensive military is the one that proves only second best."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... They're still using the F-18's and they're not useless but they're certainly showing they're age and it's a pretty big stretch to be counting on them as a primary fighter until 2017. At this point it's hardly worth replacing them until the F-35 comes out but it leaves us with a 40 year old fighter as our sole and primary air asset.

F/A-18 C/D's are viable as strike aircraft for at least that long. I was working on a subsystem for the A-12 Avenger when the program was canceled for gross cost overruns and mismanagement. This meant that very old A-6's would get even older, and that F-14 pilots would also be insulted with strike missions. Canada doesn't have this kind of multi-airframe flexibility.

In hindsight it probably won't matter but it would be nice if we weren't perpetually leaving ourselves with our pants down.

Mission profiles should drive force mixes, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F/A-18 C/D's are viable as strike aircraft for at least that long. I was working on a subsystem for the A-12 Avenger when the program was canceled for gross cost overruns and mismanagement. This meant that very old A-6's would get even older, and that F-14 pilots would also be insulted with strike missions. Canada doesn't have this kind of multi-airframe flexibility.

Smaller economies and militaries than ours can and are operating more than one type of aircraft. The biggest concern is how many F-18's we can even field at the best of times in the first place. They're getting so old Canada can barely keep 40 of them combat ready in the first place and if we ever need to send them abroad the situation looks even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smaller economies and militaries than ours can and are operating more than one type of aircraft. The biggest concern is how many F-18's we can even field at the best of times in the first place. They're getting so old Canada can barely keep 40 of them combat ready in the first place and if we ever need to send them abroad the situation looks even worse.

OK...I think that is a perfect reason to stop the bleeding at basic domestic air defense....and build on that. Smallc rightly champions the block upgrades being completed at this time. The F-35 low rate production timeline is going to get stretched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And despite the different types of "magic" available in the "35" and the fact is is a new aircraft - the big factor is the geographical flying area.

Despite improvements in engine reliability - it only has one engine. A big bug bear to me. One engine would have meant an arctic swim - well outside of rescue range.

Sorry folks - the magic is great but if it cannot bring you home it is a worthless piece.

Two engines please.

As a friend on the Saratoga said many years ago - "I do not care how he flies, or if he hits the target 10 outr of ten - can he get back on the boat at night"

Borg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't anyone think we should consider probable mission requirements prior to procuring force composition assets?

I would suspect - no - I know that has been taken into account - then the best compromise would be decided upon.

There will be a battery of fine young men and women sitting down to sort out the SOR in NDHQ - statement of requirements - including as much previous experience and futuristic brainstorming as is possible to draw upon.

Then the Treasury Board will decide if they are allowed to buy what is reqauired, or will force them to accept a cheaper solution.

A process that is onerous and politically driven most of the time - much to the chagrin of the vast majority of very, very responsible and hard working folks at NDHQ.

Borg

Edited by Borg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that our best interests as a nation would best be served by taking the defense of our shores seriously. Until something drastic happens I think we should keep our military in this nation instead of sending them anywhere to do anything.

Well, you need to take that one up with the feds - the libs got us into Afghan and of course we follow the corrupt UN like nice little lap dogs.

Your beliefs are fine but we do have obligations that are necessary to fill - if we do not then we are out of the game.

Do we tell NATO to stuff it?

Do we tell the world that we are staying home?

We could I admit - but there are more than a few people out there in the big old world that truly do rely upon us.

And yes, we do a lot of good - but the biggest problem is there are a great many in Canada who tend to forget that - or start yelling crap from their arm chairs when something goes wrong.

In the end - as good soldier we do nothing more or less than our bosses tell us to do - and you folks elect them.

Hmmmm ..... I wonder when Taliban Jack is going to go across the pond and wish his fellow Canadians a good day? :lol:

Anyway - there are times I agreee with you - and I have been across the pond to one of the smaller shows for the past year - home in July via a commercial airline ticket to Toronto and then a rapid escape from that hell hole a small piece of heaven.

Off to the big show next March or April if all goes according to plan - or staying here if no replacement can be found for me. (Think on this last sentence a bit)

Borg

Edited by Borg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...