10 Billion for military equipment

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The American aerospace industry was already established.....in fact....the Americans helped Avro with:

1) Langley AFB wind tunnel testing

2) Interim PW engine

3) B-47 test bed for Iroquois engine development

4) Missile and fire control

Canada was trying to bite off more than it could chew, not because of the technical design, but because it lacked much of the mundane, unsexy things that make or break projects. Unlike the Americans, Canada couldn't afford to fail, so it cut its losses. Thanks Dief indeed!

I hope you mean in spirit, not the actual airframe. Time has moved on....the Arrow is where it belongs...in museums.

Actually we solved your fire control problems. The airframe is indeed a dinosaur, and yes I really do mean in spirit. TAM has a very nice mockup for those that want to see an Arrow, but sadly the bird is dated and not worth rebuilding. An Arrow II would simply be picking up where we left off. Once again we need to build something to defend our norther frontier and coastlines. I would suggest something both land and sea capable. We need aircraft carriers, yes plural, as well as land based aircraft. Given sufficient aircraft speed and range we could in fact save money with carrier operations. The entire effort will costs hundreds of billions.

[bush_cheney2004]

Re: Chamberlin...as mentioned...brilliant. He was more than just the Apollo program. I doubt things would have proceeded as fast as they did without him. But, I agree re: the way Apollo/Saturn was designed. It had to be tested at the sub-system level rather than full-up due to time and cost constraints. You couldn't just lob-off another Saturn V to see if the modifications you made to the fuel pumps were a success.

Right....Chamberlain was brilliant...and not just for the Americans. His work (and the work of others) transcended borders and nationalism. The systems engineering and failure mode analysis (FMEA / FMECA) drove design, redundancies, reliability models, etc. In this respect Apollo 13 was also a success.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually we solved your fire control problems.

Because you had to....the exact same thing happened during NATO's bombing of Serbia (Kosovo). A Canadian technician figured out how to use obsolete bomb kit codes because the alternative was way too expensive for their Aviano credit card. The Americans would have just scrapped the whole lot without a second thought.

[DogOnPorch]

Right....Chamberlain was brilliant...and not just for the Americans. His work (and the work of others) transcended borders and nationalism. The systems engineering and failure mode analysis (FMEA / FMECA) drove design, redundancies, reliability models, etc. In this respect Apollo 13 was also a success.

Apollo 13 proved the design if you ask me. That NASA is dusting off those Apollo blueprints for the Orion is the icing on the cake.

Re: Canada's carriers. We had a biggish one after the war...sold it to Argentina I think....as soon as the hull was paid-off. During WW2 we had several CVEs and CVLs. I agree we could use a Ford class CVN or two for our Navy...but price tag is a tad hefty.

[DogOnPorch]

I would suggest something both land and sea capable.

Like the F-18? Sorry couldn't help it...lol.

[bush_cheney2004]

Re: Canada's carriers. We had a biggish one after the war...sold it to Argentina I think....as soon as the hull was paid-off. During WW2 we had several CVEs and CVLs. I agree we could use a Ford class CVN or two for our Navy...but price tag is a tad hefty.

Can't say I agree with that....CVN's are for forward power projection. Not sure how such a bird farm would figure in Canadian mission profiles or policy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like the F-18? Sorry couldn't help it...lol.

Well, at least it is not a rotary winged aircraft....those seem to really spin Canada around.

[M.Dancer]

Can't say I agree with that....CVN's are for forward power projection. Not sure how such a bird farm would figure in Canadian mission profiles or policy.

The HMCS bonaventure wasn't a force projection carrier but light carrier used primarily as a platform for anti submarine warfare. Like the Arrow, it became a victim of modernization and was easily and economically replaced by ship borne helicopters.

[DogOnPorch]

Can't say I agree with that....CVN's are for forward power projection. Not sure how such a bird farm would figure in Canadian mission profiles or policy.

Well the USN's ultra-modern Ford class ships would be nice...but I am a realist @ heart. Older Kittyhawk class ships would probably work out well enough.

As you alluded...what's Canada's mission re: the World's conflicts over the next 50 years? Would it involve mass air support or could the Americans handle that end of the task?

What Canada REALLY needs is a boffo long-range recon-bomber that can fly to Alert from the 49th parallel...frighten the Russians a bit and then fly back...like the Argus only from this century.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, at least it is not a rotary winged aircraft....those seem to really spin Canada around.

Maybe Canada SHOULD take a close look at the H-21...they'd look pretty darn funny painted Air-Sea Yellow. The Taliban might laugh themselves to death.

[Wilber]

A travesty of justice in my mind and something that has since held us back and contributed to the demise of our own armed forced. If you really want to put 10 billion to good use, blow the dust off the Arrow plans and update it to modern standards. Build the damned thing all over again.

And what would we do with a 50 year old updated design that was intended for use against a threat that had already become redundant other than against other 50 year old updated designs like the B52. In reality we didn't need Arrow or Bomarc. Unfortunately we gambled our marbles on something that turned out to have little use. Like Concorde, another design tour de force but look what that cost the British and French taxpayer.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Wilber

[Remiel]

Fords would be a waste of our money. A single ship, no matter how powerful, cannot do everything we need $9 Billion+ US to do.

Looking at the stuff on aircraft carriers at Wikipedia, this interesting little tidbit stuck out... :

Military experts such as John Keegan have noted that in any future naval conflict between reasonably evenly matched powers, all surface ships—including aircraft carriers—would be at extreme and disproportionate risk, mainly due to the advanced capabilities of satellite reconnaissance and anti-ship missiles. Contrary to the thrust of most current naval spending, Keegan therefore postulates that eventually most navies will move to submarines as their main fighting ships, including in roles where submarines play only a minor or no role at the moment.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Remiel

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look people, we lack sufficient air bases, and building those isn't cheap either. A few carrier groups would provide the means to project force as well as acting as a coastal defense platform. Once again the enhancement of our military will not be cheap, it never was a cheap exercise and it never will be.

A carrier can take up to 90 aircraft at a time. Of these aircraft you will have helicopters, transport aircraft, air tankers, airborne radar all this in addition to fighting aircraft. Of course there are numerous other ships in every battle group and the costs of building entire carriers groups is staggering. On the other hand, that translates into thousands of jobs, if done in an in house manner.

[Smallc]

Look people, we lack sufficient air bases.

We have at least one in every province (for the most part).

[M.Dancer]

Look people, we lack sufficient air bases, and building those isn't cheap either. A few carrier groups would provide the means to project force as well as acting as a coastal defense platform. Once again the enhancement of our military will not be cheap, it never was a cheap exercise and it never will be.

A carrier can take up to 90 aircraft at a time. Of these aircraft you will have helicopters, transport aircraft, air tankers, airborne radar all this in addition to fighting aircraft. Of course there are numerous other ships in every battle group and the costs of building entire carriers groups is staggering. On the other hand, that translates into thousands of jobs, if done in an in house manner.

Very, very few nations have those kind of carriers...I think the number is 1.

The UK and their jump ship carriers are quite small compared to the 90 aircraft variety and only carry a couple of handful of fixed and rotary craft. The French carrier carries 40 aircraft, most of them old....The russian carriers have limited range (not being A powered) and carry around 48 craft...The Italian iarcraft carrier is kitted similar to the UK except that the ship is equipped with a glass bottom.

[bush_cheney2004]

Very, very few nations have those kind of carriers...I think the number is 1.

Agreed....if your aircraft carrier is not sold as a toy model at Wal-Mart, forgeddaboutit!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We have at least one in every province (for the most part).

There are ZERO bases in the north. Where do we need defense again?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Agreed....if your aircraft carrier is not sold as a toy model at Wal-Mart, forgeddaboutit!

It would be much wiser to consider the quality of the asset don't you think? The Americans make the best carriers in the world, they would be a good base model from which to build on. Given that we are already about 475 million into the JSF project, it would make sense to consider building them on license here.

[Smallc]

There are ZERO bases in the north. Where do we need defense again?

Well, there's one in Labrador, and Cold Lake is a long way up there...and we often station fighters in Yellowknife and Iqaluit, but you're right, there isn't a really a permanent presence in the far north.

[bush_cheney2004]

It would be much wiser to consider the quality of the asset don't you think? The Americans make the best carriers in the world, they would be a good base model from which to build on. Given that we are already about 475 million into the JSF project, it would make sense to consider building them on license here.

You don't need an American supercarrier for Lightning II's (F-35B)....the UK will gladly license their STOVL Queen Elizabeth class.....hell, they invented them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, there's one in Labrador, and Cold Lake is a long way up there...and we often station fighters in Yellowknife and Iqaluit, but you're right, there isn't a really a permanent presence in the far north.

That's because it isn't Canada!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You don't need an American supercarrier for Lightning II's (F-35B)....the UK will gladly license their STOVL Queen Elizabeth class.....hell, they invented them.

I never considered the F35B, I was thinking of the A and C models. In Canada range is relevant, mind you there is not a significant difference from the A and C to the B models. With that in mind, perhaps this model would suffice. The QE class is a little slow and not nuclear powered, I see that as an issue. I really think we should be building a nuclear navy.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never considered the F35B, I was thinking of the A and C models. In Canada range is relevant, mind you there is not a significant difference from the A and C to the B models. With that in mind, perhaps this model would suffice. The QE class is a little slow and not nuclear powered, I see that as an issue. I really think we should be building a nuclear navy.

Does Canada have experience with nuclear propulsion systems? At sea? Start with an icebreaker....like the Ruskies.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, there's one in Labrador, and Cold Lake is a long way up there...and we often station fighters in Yellowknife and Iqaluit, but you're right, there isn't a really a permanent presence in the far north.

Dude, its 3200 kms from Cold Lake to Alert. By the way the closest major Canadian city to Alert is Edmonton. Not exactly strike range in my view, at least not in terms of being able to defend Alert. The rubble would have frozen solid by the time you could there from Cold Lake.

[Smallc]

I think we should just stick with destroyers and frigates....cruisers at most.