F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Smallc]

Given that the physical number of fighters in inventory has decrease, yes, I expect that they've decreased. There are not even 36 aircraft available right now. There are currently 7 CF-18s in Iraq. It was widely reported in the media that on any 1 day, 34 CF-18s are serviceable (and only with a few hours notice - only ever 8 ready for launch). That means that right now, with a few hours notice, we have less than 30 available. Earlier, when we also had 4 CF-18s in the Balkans, there would have been between 20 - 25.

I mean, technically, under what I'm talking about, there would be 40 assigned to our NORAD role, as we would have no other role. Technically, right now, there are 70 assigned to our NORAD role.

[Derek 2.0]

Sure...for one alert rotation....you can't run an an air force that way for days, weeks, months, and years.

It's not like a Ford F-150 in your driveway.

Exactly, and we don't.........The RAF, Post Cold War, required 4-5 full time interceptor squadrons (Phantoms/Tornados) of 12-14 aircraft to provide 24/7 coverage over the British Isles.....an area smaller than British Columbia.

[Smallc]

Exactly, and we don't.........The RAF, Post Cold War, required 4-5 full time interceptor squadrons (Phantoms/Tornados) of 12-14 aircraft to provide 24/7 coverage over the British Isles.....an area smaller than British Columbia.

Which has as much to do with Canada as what Zimbabwe requires. Just FYI, we don't have 70 aircraft dedicated to air defence, let alone a number you're talking about scaled up to Canada.

[Derek 2.0]

Given that the physical number of fighters in inventory has decrease, yes, I expect that they've decreased. There are not even 36 aircraft available right now. There are currently 7 CF-18s in Iraq. It was widely reported in the media that on any 1 day, 34 CF-18s are serviceable (and only with a few hours notice - only ever 8 ready for launch). That means that right now, with a few hours notice, we have less than 30 available. Earlier, when we also had 4 CF-18s in the Balkans, there would have been between 20 - 25.

Source? I've never heard, even during the IMP, of availability dipping below 65-70% for the Hornets.........you're simply making things up and very poorly to justify your piss poor assertion of our NORAD requirements.

I mean, technically, under what I'm talking about, there would be 40 assigned to our NORAD role, as we would have no other role. Technically, right now, there are 70 assigned to our NORAD role.

No, we have Hornets assigned to conversion training, operations with NATO and in the Middle East and then depot level maintenance..........you can't BS your point of keeping our current NORAD requirements with 24 operational aircraft.......we couldn't have kept them in the 90s, before 9/11 and a resurgent Russia, with said total, let alone now......

[Derek 2.0]

Which has as much to do with Canada as what Zimbabwe requires. Just FYI, we don't have 70 aircraft dedicated to air defence, let alone a number you're talking about scaled up to Canada.

I never said we did.

[DogOnPorch]

Which has as much to do with Canada as what Zimbabwe requires. Just FYI, we don't have 70 aircraft dedicated to air defence, let alone a number you're talking about scaled up to Canada.

What is interesting is the number of missed intercepts by European air forces vs Russian strategic bombers. That's not good seeing the results in a BIG war.

[Smallc]

Source? I've never heard, even during the IMP, of availability dipping below 65-70% for the Hornets.........you're simply making things up and very poorly to justify your piss poor assertion of our NORAD requirements.

Ummm, a 70% availability rate is 34. We only have 48 combat operational aircraft. You're the one making things up.

No, we have Hornets assigned to conversion training, operations with NATO and in the Middle East and then depot level maintenance..........you can't BS your point of keeping our current NORAD requirements with 24 operational aircraft.......we couldn't have kept them in the 90s, before 9/11 and a resurgent Russia, with said total, let alone now......

I'm telling you, based on recent trends with countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK...even the US, that we will end up with fewer fighters than now. From hundreds, to 138, to 77, to 65 post 2020, to ~40 - 50 post 2025. I'm also telling you that the US won't give a damn. We'll still have the same 4 alert pairs that we do now, filling that role.

[Smallc]

What is interesting is the number of missed intercepts by European air forces vs Russian strategic bombers. That's not good seeing the results in a BIG war.

You're playing war games. I'm dealing in reality. Based on our spending levels under any government, we're not getting 65 fighter jets (It was 80, remember?). We never were.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Smallc

[DogOnPorch]

You're playing war games. I'm dealing in reality. Based on our spending levels under any government, we're not getting 65 fighter jets.

Just saying. There have been cases of Russian bombers doing simulated attack runs on various European air defences and the European air defence was either unable to respond or simply didn't respond.

[Derek 2.0]

Ummm, a 70% availability rate is 34. We only have 48 combat operational aircraft. You're the one making things up.

How many Hornets are in our inventory?

I'm telling you, based on recent trends with countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK...even the US, that we will end up with fewer fighters than now. From hundreds, to 138, to 77, to 65 post 2020, to ~40 - 50 post 2025. I'm also telling you that the US won't give a damn. We'll still have the same 4 alert pairs that we do now, filling that role.

But Zimbabwe!!!!!! We have clearly defined treaty requirements with the United States, that per said treaty, would require their consent to reduce our commitment to NORAD.

[DogOnPorch]

How many Hornets are in our inventory?

But Zimbabwe!!!!!! We have clearly defined treaty requirements with the United States, that per said treaty, would require their consent to reduce our commitment to NORAD.

I find it rather telling that folks are willing to put-up with certain levels of thermonuclear armed bombers testing air defences. Perhaps letting Russian subs sit in Knight Inlet will be next.

[bush_cheney2004]

Apples and oranges being mixed here.....NORAD changed/redefined its post Cold War mission to one with less emphasis on air defense and more on air sovereignty. This does not mean that the total number of available aircraft can be reduced down to that single role.

[Smallc]

Just saying. There have been cases of Russian bombers doing simulated attack runs on various European air defences and the European air defence was either unable to respond or simply didn't respond.

I agree with you. I'm a proponent of spending our promised 2% of GDP. That isn't happening under any party. I expect the Liberals to keep their promise and build ships. I also expect them to buy less than 65 replacements for the hornets.

[Derek 2.0]

I find it rather telling that folks are willing to put-up with certain levels of thermonuclear armed bombers testing air defences. Perhaps letting Russian subs sit in Knight Inlet will be next.

I find it more telling that said member can't support his claim......actually no, I don't, as if said member was actually purvey to our current operational levels relating to NORAD, he couldn't share them out of threat of Federal Prison time

[Smallc]

Apples and oranges being mixed here.....NORAD changed/redefined its post Cold War mission to one with less emphasis on air defense and more on air sovereignty. This does not mean that the total number of available aircraft can be reduced down to that single role.

Why not? If we're doing what we're supposed to do, no one is going to care.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not? If we're doing what we're supposed to do, no one is going to care.

Because the missions types were actually expanded, not reduced. Your DND might care when it doesn't have enough aircraft to support those missions for the next 40 years.

[Derek 2.0]

Apples and oranges being mixed here.....NORAD changed/redefined its post Cold War mission to one with less emphasis on air defense and more on air sovereignty. This does not mean that the total number of available aircraft can be reduced down to that single role.

Exactly, and said changes came about during the early 80s with the reorganization of distinct NORAD regions, both Canadian and American from the previous joint sectors. You subtract from the Canadian region now, you create a weak link, a link that would be unacceptable to the United States.....funny enough, you Americans take defense of the Homeland seriously

[Derek 2.0]

Because the missions types were actually expanded, not reduced. Your DND might care when it doesn't have enough aircraft to support those missions for the next 40 years.

40 years? 40 aircraft wouldn't be enough to support our current needs now.

[Derek 2.0]

Why not? If we're doing what we're supposed to do, no one is going to care.

We wouldn't be able to do, what we agreed to do, in a treaty signed by both our nations.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would Canada's own estimated life expectancy (ELE) studies for 2020, 2025, and 2030 assume that a baseline of 65 aircraft would be required for mission requirements if it could be done with only 24 ?

[Smallc]

We wouldn't be able to do, what we agreed to do, in a treaty signed by both our nations.

If that's the case, with current foreign obligations, we can't do it now. According to many media reports, we do not have 36 fighters on a normal day. We currently have 7 in another country.

[DogOnPorch]

I find it more telling that said member can't support his claim......actually no, I don't, as if said member was actually purvey to our current operational levels relating to NORAD, he couldn't share them out of threat of Federal Prison time

Exactly, and said changes came about during the early 80s with the reorganization of distinct NORAD regions, both Canadian and American from the previous joint sectors. You subtract from the Canadian region now, you create a weak link, a link that would be unacceptable to the United States.....funny enough, you Americans take defense of the Homeland seriously

While our roles have changed somewhat, Russia seems keen on revisiting the 1960s. One Google Earth tour of a place like Ukrainka (one of many) can revel more Tu-95s (alone) than Canada has aircraft total. Rather sobering. They certainly take it seriously. Damn the boomer subs...which are not terribly reliable judging by the Bulava's launch history.

[Smallc]

Why would Canada's own estimated life expectancy (ELE) studies for 2020, 2025, and 2030 assume that a baseline of 65 aircraft would be required for mission requirements if it could be done with only 24 ?

First of all, I said 40, not 24.

Second of all, that was including expeditionary operations. If we decide not to do those anymore, that's a large chunk of aircraft (about 21 given the current 7 deployed aircraft) that we don't need anymore.

[Derek 2.0]

If that's the case, with current foreign obligations, we can't do it now. According to many media reports, we do not have 36 fighters on a normal day. We currently have 7 in another country.

Source?

[Smallc]

Because the missions types were actually expanded, not reduced. Your DND might care when it doesn't have enough aircraft to support those missions for the next 40 years.

No one has yet presented any evidence that 40 aircraft would not fulfill our NORAD obligations.