Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 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. We don't have 21 aircraft tasked for expeditionary/NATO operations........we haven't had anywhere near said total since the 90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 The CF-18 has a decent availability of about 70%. Crunch the numbers: 48 x .7 = 33.6, or, rounded up to the nearest fighter, 34. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-we-dont-have-enough-fighter-jets-to-whip-out He got that number from widely reported leaked documents from a couple of years ago (I remember quite literally everything I read). The same document detailed the air defence plans for Canada. The media was horrified that Winnipeg, Quebec, and Halifax were to have no air defence in full scale war were to break out in the homeland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 No one has yet presented any evidence that 40 aircraft would not fulfill our NORAD obligations. I did.....40 aircraft wouldn't have fulfilled our requirements when the Russian bomber force was grounded and prior to 9/11........it is you that isn't providing sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 No one has yet presented any evidence that 40 aircraft would not fulfill our NORAD obligations. Even if 40 was the right number, do you expect attrition to be zero for the next 40 years ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 We don't have 21 aircraft tasked for expeditionary/NATO operations........we haven't had anywhere near said total since the 90s. If you want to have 1 aircraft available 99% of the time you need 3. If you want to have 7, you need somewhere in the range of 21. That's why you need 24 to operate 8 ready aircraft on a constant basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 I did.....40 aircraft Is less than the 36 that you said we need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 The CF-18 has a decent availability of about 70%. Crunch the numbers: 48 x .7 = 33.6, or, rounded up to the nearest fighter, 34. How many aircraft in our current inventory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Even if 40 was the right number, do you expect attrition to be zero for the next 40 years ? Of course not. That said, 40 into 24 leaves us better than the current planned (on paper) 65 into 48. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Well, at least you are moving in the right direction....24 ==> 40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 If you want to have 1 aircraft available 99% of the time you need 3. If you want to have 7, you need somewhere in the range of 21. That's why you need 24 to operate 8 ready aircraft on a constant basis. No, if you want to keep one aircraft in the air, short term, you need 3 additional aircraft.......if you want to keep an operational squadron of (~12) aircraft.....operational.....you need three times the number of aircraft again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Is less than the 36 that you said we need. No, I said 36 aircraft per the 1996 NORAD agreement, were required to be tasked to NORAD operations..........one would still need additional aircraft for conversion training, attrition and maintenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 No, if you want to keep one aircraft in the air, short term, you need 3 additional aircraft.......if you want to keep an operational squadron of (~12) aircraft.....operational.....you need three times the number of aircraft again. That sounds about right....100% alert coverage is very demanding like that. Multiply by number of alert sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Of course not. That said, 40 into 24 leaves us better than the current planned (on paper) 65 into 48. No it doesn't......48 operational aircraft meet our requirements (40/24 doesn't), the remaining aircraft, combined with international training for the F-35 in the States, represent training, maintenance.......even then, as confirmed numerous times over the years in the F-35 thread, 65 aircraft provides little to no attrition reserve, as such (and confirmed and cited) additional aircraft would need to be purchased to replace operational losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Well, at least you are moving in the right direction....24 ==> 40. I never said that we needed 24 aircraft. I said 40 through the entire thread, with 24 in combat squadrons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 That sounds about right....100% alert coverage is very demanding like that. Multiply by number of alert sites. Exactly, said member is asserting our aircraft deployed in Iraq/Syria are operating 24/7 (which they're not), as opposed to the longstanding NORAD mission that is 24/7/365. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 I never said that we needed 24 aircraft. I said 40 through the entire thread, with 24 in combat squadrons. OK...but your own government has set the minimum higher than that, plus there are other unbounded risks that depend on U.S. Navy program decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Exactly, said member is asserting our aircraft deployed in Iraq/Syria are operating 24/7 (which they're not), as opposed to the longstanding NORAD mission that is 24/7/365. Maybe some people think that NORAD missions are optional ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 OK...but your own government has set the minimum higher than that Of course, because they're planning for expeditionary operations. I predict that as a justification for ending that, we'll see a smaller order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Maybe some people think that NORAD missions are optional ! Everything is optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) Of course, because they're planning for expeditionary operations. I predict that as a justification for ending that, we'll see a smaller order. Not going to happen for the long term. Trudeau won't be around that long. Edited December 23, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Of course, because they're planning for expeditionary operations. I predict that as a justification for ending that, we'll see a smaller order. No, as deployed personal (to the Middle East) are not in need of operational training to maintain currency in Canada......since they're using said skills operationally....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Maybe some people think that NORAD missions are optional ! So it seems........longstanding International treaties be damned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Everything is optional. Not if we intend to uphold our NORAD treaty with the Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Not if we intend to uphold our NORAD treaty with the Americans. Like I said, everything is optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Not going to happen for the long term. Trudeau won't be around that long. If he's the one to order the plane (whichever one it may be), that's what matters. I suspect, someone else will have to order more later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.