Canada to create Military Bases Abroad

[Smallc]

The Typhoon does boast some positive aspects but its still has not lived up to all the brochures. Like the Rafale still requiring Super Etendards to designate ground targets, the Typhoon still requires another aircraft, such as the Tornado over Libya.

That's supposed to be changing though, is it not? The reason for not buying some Super Hornets was actually a sound one. Two fleets cost more than one for logistics and maintenance. It was thought to be better to keep a single fleet. We now have good Hornets, and they'll be up to the job for the rest of the decade.

[Guest Derek L]

That's supposed to be changing though, is it not? The reason for not buying some Super Hornets was actually a sound one. Two fleets cost more than one for logistics and maintenance. It was thought to be better to keep a single fleet. We now have good Hornets, and they'll be up to the job for the rest of the decade.

Yes, the current issues with the Typhoon are suppose to be addressed with the Tranche 3 version…..even then, the consortium partners are bickering over development cost, aircraft numbers and weapons integration…….alot of the (European) weapons the Typhoon already has integrated (Meteor/Brimstone/Storm Shadow) are not currently in Canadian service or are planned to be…….You here some screaming about the recent purchase cost of smart bombs, that would be nothing compared with some of the European weapons…

Having a split fleet and the associated cost with regards to a Hornet/Super Hornet is abit of strawman….They both share the same weapons, most of the operational conversion training could still be done in the legacy Hornet for the Rhino and a certain amount of a finical offset in direct maintance costs would be achieved with an earlier retirement of some older Hornets.

What we have now is ~1985 Ford F-150, with a ~1995 F-150 interior and a 2005 F-150 sound system, which we’ll operate in till the early 2020s…..

[Smallc]

What we have now is ~1985 Ford F-150, with a ~1995 F-150 interior and a 2005 F-150 sound system, which we’ll operate in till the early 2020s…..

Military vehicles aren't like trucks, so that isn't really a good comparison. The USMC still flies the C model, and that's what our planes are supposed to be equivalent to now. Some structural components were even replaced.

And the logistics arguments aren't at all straw man arguments. That's not a military expert talking, but someone who knows a bit about logistics.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Military vehicles aren't like trucks, so that isn't really a good comparison. The USMC still flies the C model, and that's what our planes are supposed to be equivalent to now. Some structural components were even replaced.

And the logistics arguments aren't at all straw man arguments. That's not a military expert talking, but someone who knows a bit about logistics.

The Marines and Navy still fly the C, and the Marines and Navy are in desperate need of replacing them and are cannibalizing parts from AMARC.....also, their "C"s are new builds, produced in the 90s, not early 80s

The comparison of a truck is apt, carrier landings, like driving logging roads increases metal fatigue substantially....

Also of note, our aircraft have a higher average of flight hours on the airframes then most USAF/USN/USMC aircraft.

[Smallc]

Also of note, our aircraft have a higher average of flight hours on the airframes then most USAF/USN/USMC aircraft.

And we're really good at maintaining old aircraft. They'll be fine until they're due for retirement, and they're due for retirement in 2020.

[Guest Derek L]

And we're really good at maintaining old aircraft. They'll be fine until they're due for retirement, and they're due for retirement in 2020.

We've retired ~1/4 of the fleet for a reason..........Sure we're good at it, but as some one with a background in logistics, I'm sure you can appreciate throwing good money after bad….I’ll guarantee that not all current Hornets in service will be retired in 2020 (some will go earlier) and those still in service will require an extreme number of maintance hours per flight hours.

[Smallc]

I’ll guarantee that not all current Hornets in service will be retired in 2020 (some will go earlier) and those still in service will require an extreme number of maintance hours per flight hours.

That's right, as, after all, we only need 48 for actual combat squadrons. We'll farm out maintenance to the US if we have to in some cases, and we'll introduce some F-35s as quickly as possible.

[Guest Derek L]

That's right, as, after all, we only need 48 for actual combat squadrons. We'll farm out maintenance to the US if we have to in some cases, and we'll introduce some F-35s as quickly as possible.

The US can’t reduce metal fatigue in the airframes……It’s like that old storey about your grandfathers axe…..been in the family for decades……Have only had to replace the head twice and the handle 4 times in the last sixty years…….

The two gun squadrons only come close to the ~48 number with ~75+ total airframes…..what will happen is the gun squadrons will be gradually reduced in numbers from 20+ to around 12-15……It will be dicey meeting all of our current commitments in the later part of this decade and it’s very likely Libya is the last Hurrah for our Hornets………

The bottom line, we should have replaced at least some of them earlier.

[Smallc]

It will be dicey meeting all of our current commitments in the later part of this decade and it’s very likely Libya is the last Hurrah for our Hornets………

People say that about everything all of the time, and yet we always overcome the problem. We'll be just fine. We could have even doubled our commitment to Libya if needed. Somehow, we're going to keep combat squadrons of 24 each with only 65 F-35s, after all.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

People say that about everything all of the time, and yet we always overcome the problem. We'll be just fine. We could have even doubled our commitment to Libya if needed. Somehow, we're going to keep combat squadrons of 24 each with only 65 F-35s, after all.

Actually, we couldn’t double our commitment to Libya…..A gun squadron might “own” 20+ Hornets, but of those 3-4 will be in deep maintence, another 3-4 will be in squadron maintance, you’ll need to task 4-6 for squadron level training, and that leaves you with ~12 x 2 to meet NORAD commitments across Canada……..the aircraft in Libya are there on a shoe-string and are not really sustainable (without affecting training/maintence/NORAD) for more than a year.

We contract out most FastAir training for the army & navy to private firms or employ American forces……Most of the units over in Afghanistan did training in the south western US prior to going for acclimatization and workups with air support.

The ~65 number won’t be sustainable for the long term.

[Smallc]

Actually, we couldn’t double our commitment to Libya

We actually had 6 F-18s on standby to do just that. The defence minister stated as much. There are 7 there, and they were ready to send 6 more. The 65 number will be sustainable over the long term, as long as we replace losses.

MacKay said another six fighter planes are on standby to deploy if needed, though he didn’t think that would be happening soon.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/957514--canadian-fighter-jets-fly-first-mission-in-libyan-no-fly-zone

[scribblet]

IMO the concept is to have logistics options on standby rather than have to reinvent them every time an emergency arises. Logistics in this scheme would include aircraft servicing and refueling arrangements, some supplies and a small crew of custodians, as I understand the proposals.

It makes sense trying to have facilities in place for moving quickly in the event that the Canadian military needs to deploy quickly in a war or natural disaster. We got stung when United Arab Emirates revoked landing rights there and now it looks like they're trying to establish a new permanent presence in strategic locations so we can deploy without first negotiating landing rights or having to use facilities belonging to other countries.

This will build on Canada's increasing economic and military strength and should not cost a great deal.

I wonder why the said we have no such facilities now, and why tey overlooked the NATO base at Geilenkirchen (GK.

[Guest Derek L]

We actually had 6 F-18s on standby to do just that. The defence minister stated as much. There are 7 there, and they were ready to send 6 more. The 65 number will be sustainable over the long term, as long as we replace losses.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/957514--canadian-fighter-jets-fly-first-mission-in-libyan-no-fly-zone

Sure, but any additional numbers would come, as I said, at the expense of training and NORAD commitments....Any further deployment would require the USAF and/or ANG units pulling up the slack.....i.e. defending Canadian sovereignty.

If our current numbers are sufficient, why do we contract out to companies like Top Aces for domestic needs?

[Smallc]

Any further deployment would require the USAF and/or ANG units pulling up the slack.....i.e. defending Canadian sovereignty.

Defending Canadian sovereignty doesn't exactly require a huge number of jets. There is still a pool of 36 to choose from with 12 gone, and assuming that those have the same 70% availability as they normally do, that leaves about 25 jets. The training jets are also still available.

[Guest Derek L]

We actually had 6 F-18s on standby to do just that. The defence minister stated as much. There are 7 there, and they were ready to send 6 more. The 65 number will be sustainable over the long term, as long as we replace losses.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/957514--canadian-fighter-jets-fly-first-mission-in-libyan-no-fly-zone

Sure, but any additional numbers would come, as I said, at the expense of training and NORAD commitments....Any further deployment would require the USAF and/or ANG units pulling up the slack.....i.e. defending Canadian sovereignty.

If our current numbers are sufficient, why do we contract out to companies like Top Aces for domestic needs?

Our air force tries to achieve a ~70% operational availability rate (which is the norm for first world air forces) for aircraft……….~ 50 aircraft in the gun squadrons – 30% = 35……minus 7 for Libya….leaves ~28 aircraft or 14 per squadron for training and NORAD….if the folks in Cool Pool forward deploy 4-6 Hornets to Comox & and the North, then the folks from the Bag deploy 4-6 aircraft to the East Coast and somewhere in Ontario……the numbers add up quick and will ~12 aircraft divided by two squadrons, or three flights for training……It’s a numbers game…..

The CF-35 will have a higher sortie rate (initially) then the Hornet, but with age this will drop……as I’ve said, 65 won’t be enough for 30+ years of service.

[Guest Derek L]

Defending Canadian sovereignty doesn't exactly require a huge number of jets. There is still a pool of 36 to choose from with 12 gone, and assuming that those have the same 70% availability as they normally do, that leaves about 25 jets. The training jets are also still available.

Too keep a flight of two in the air, you need 6-8 on the ground.........You mention the operational conversion squadron, as I've said, stretching our limits will effect training.....You're proving my point......

[Smallc]

I'm not really arguing against your point. I simply don't agree that we won't be able to meet our obligations.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not really arguing against your point. I simply don't agree that we won't be able to meet our obligations.

Fair enough, and as I'm saying we're only getting by on the hard work of the aircraft maintainers and we're in this position because we allowed the legacy fleet to carry on past it's best before date.....Doing this will eventually effect are domestic and international commitments and eventually put aircrews safety in question........It's been done with the Labs, Hercs and Sea Kings and will eventually start with the Hornet fleet....An airframe can only take so much punishment before it starts to fall apart, as was evident with alot the USAF's older F-15 fleet a few years ago.....indecently, their F-15s are on average only a few years older then our F-18s, but our Hornets on average have higher hours.

If we hope to achieve different results with a future fleet of smaller numbers we’ll only be repeating the same mistake.

[maple_leafs182]

This will build on Canada's increasing economic and military strength and should not cost a great deal.

I think it will.

I guess we can expect more wars in the future...so much for working towards world peace.

[Tilter]

As much as I support beefing up our military domestically, I always wonder with taxes being cut willy nilly, how will we pay for all of this increased spending? Mr. Harper appears to cut taxes like a conservative and spend like a drunken liberal.

That''s why they are running Canada & you're not.