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

[Derek 2.0]

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.

[Smallc]

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.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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 ?

[Smallc]

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.

[Smallc]

I did.....40 aircraft

Is less than the 36 that you said we need.

[Derek 2.0]

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?

[Smallc]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, at least you are moving in the right direction....24 ==> 40.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

[Smallc]

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.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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 !

[Smallc]

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.

[Smallc]

Maybe some people think that NORAD missions are optional !

Everything is optional.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

[Derek 2.0]

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.......

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe some people think that NORAD missions are optional !

So it seems........longstanding International treaties be damned

[Derek 2.0]

Everything is optional.

Not if we intend to uphold our NORAD treaty with the Americans.

[Smallc]

Not if we intend to uphold our NORAD treaty with the Americans.

Like I said, everything is optional.

[Smallc]

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.