Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Peter F]

so neither us nor the USofA use inflight refuelling for fighters?

 

[Peter F]

The point  of Russian fighters being based in the russian north is not to attack us but to defend against roving USN fleets interfering with their up and coming alternative to the Panama canal: the North East Passage.  

[?Impact]

57 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

The point, despite the Tucano costing a fraction of that of an F-35 to purchase, the annual sustainment costs of both aircraft will still be nearly equal

Some costs will be similar, but others are way out of whack. There is a significant cost saving per operating hour of the Tucano over the F-35.

 

...and not I am not claiming they can support the same role

[Derek 2.0]

9 minutes ago, Peter F said:

so neither us nor the USofA use inflight refuelling for fighters?

 

Of course they do, why?

 

7 minutes ago, Peter F said:

The point  of Russian fighters being based in the russian north is not to attack us but to defend against roving USN fleets interfering with their up and coming alternative to the Panama canal: the North East Passage.  

 

Defend against "roving USN fleets"........in the Arctic.....

 

 

When they're not defending against "roving USN fleets in the Arctic", the Russians, like the West, can make use of the mutlirole nature of their aircraft and escort their strategic bomber force, as they did in Syria...... 

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Some costs will be similar, but others are way out of whack. There is a significant cost saving per operating hour of the Tucano over the F-35.

 

In terms of hourly fuel usage......sure (and is why I said nearly equal)......in terms of cost effectiveness? Not a chance. For example, bombing a bridge in country with a 70s era Soviet air defense grid......2 F-35s would be able to accomplish such a mission with ease, versus dozens upon dozens (if not hundreds) of Tucanos being required, with crippling losses of both men an material.

Hence, no, there isn't any cost savings, as Tucano can't do what a single F-35 can......not even close......looking at hourly fuel usage is a false economy.   

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

How many small diameter bombs can one buy, dropped from an F-35, with the price of a dozen Tucanos? The point, despite the Tucano costing a fraction of that of an F-35 to purchase, the annual sustainment costs of both aircraft will still be nearly equal.......airbases will still cost the same, pilots and technicians wages will be parity etc etc etc........both aircraft can drop bombs on poor terrorists, but only one of the types can drop bombs on a nation state with a semi-modern integrated air defense network, perform counter air against modern Chinese and Russian aircraft and chase down supersonic bombers armed with nukes on the approaches to North America.

It has nothing to do with that.........turboprop CAS aircraft are a solution looking for a problem in the majority of modern air forces. Its not about can or can't do, but why do?

 

We're most certainly the can't do nation, Derek. At less than 1% spending re: NATO and you're worried about the costs of a single squadron (because that's what it would amount to). Sort of illustrates it.

I'm very pro-F-35...buy lots....get a deal.

 

[DogOnPorch]

22 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

In terms of hourly fuel usage......sure (and is why I said nearly equal)......in terms of cost effectiveness? Not a chance. For example, bombing a bridge in country with a 70s era Soviet air defense grid......2 F-35s would be able to accomplish such a mission with ease, versus dozens upon dozens (if not hundreds) of Tucanos being required, with crippling losses of both men an material.

Hence, no, there isn't any cost savings, as Tucano can't do what a single F-35 can......not even close......looking at hourly fuel usage is a false economy.   

 

My vision as an armchair general type is perhaps a half dozen Tucanos per regiment as dedicated organic support...similar to USMC aviation. Helicopters too...lots of helicopters for Canadian troops. No Canadian should have to hump-it into battle or beg for a lift.

[DogOnPorch]

A few candid shots of the F-35s at Red Flag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpn1lI6eBJ4

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

We're most certainly the can't do nation, Derek. At less than 1% spending re: NATO and you're worried about the costs of a single squadron (because that's what it would amount to). Sort of illustrates it.

I'm very pro-F-35...buy lots....get a deal.

 

 

I'm not the slightest bit worried over a cost of a "single squadron" of Tucanos, as it will never happen........The RCAF is well versed in the drawbacks of "budget aircraft".

 

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

My vision as an armchair general type is perhaps a half dozen Tucanos per regiment as dedicated organic support...similar to USMC aviation.

 

Well its not similar to USMC aviation.......their cornerstone for the provision of organic support is a platform that is more than capable of waxing terrorists......or a nation armed with the latest in Chinese and Russian air defenses. Two F-35s can carry a similar payload to your squadron of Tucanos, farther and faster.....and can track launch points of a mortar round....tucano not so much.

 

If your Tucano can't provide effective support against an enemy, you're defeating the intent of making it organic.....and would be far better off adding another battery of M777s or an MLRS for organic content.

 

13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Helicopters too...lots of helicopters for Canadian troops. No Canadian should have to hump-it into battle or beg for a lift.

 

Sure, but your helicopter force escorted by Tucanos is next to useless pitted against a force with 70s era Soviet air defense systems.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

I'm not the slightest bit worried over a cost of a "single squadron" of Tucanos, as it will never happen........The RCAF is well versed in the drawbacks of "budget aircraft".

 

 

Well its not similar to USMC aviation.......their cornerstone for the provision of organic support is a platform that is more than capable of waxing terrorists......or a nation armed with the latest in Chinese and Russian air defenses. Two F-35s can carry a similar payload to your squadron of Tucanos, farther and faster.....and can track launch points of a mortar round....tucano not so much.

 

If your Tucano can't provide effective support against an enemy, you're defeating the intent of making it organic.....and would be far better off adding another battery of M777s or an MLRS for organic content.

 

 

Sure, but your helicopter force escorted by Tucanos is next to useless pitted against a force with 70s era Soviet air defense systems.

 

Can't do.

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Can't do.

 

No, won't do, because its ineffective and a waste of resources.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Derek 2.0 said:

 

No, won't do, because its ineffective and a waste of resources.

 

Agreed...Canada NEVER gets into bush wars vs terrorists.

[Derek 2.0]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Agreed...Canada NEVER gets into bush wars vs terrorists.

 

Quite the opposite, but then a force tailored for counter-insurgency won't be able to meet our other requirements.........As I said, an F-35 and Tucano can both do COIN (The F-35 will do it far, far better), but a Tucano can't do NORAD and NATO..........ergo, a dollar spent on Tucano is a dollar that is wasted on our operational requirements for NORAD and NATO.

 

The Forces already lived through the ( forced political) purchase of the Freedom Fighter and its severe limitations all the way back in the late 1960s and 1970s.....and you want an even less capable platform in the Tucano?  

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

In terms of hourly fuel usage......sure (and is why I said nearly equal)......in terms of cost effectiveness? Not a chance. For example, bombing a bridge in country with a 70s era Soviet air defense grid......2 F-35s would be able to accomplish such a mission with ease, versus dozens upon dozens (if not hundreds) of Tucanos being required, with crippling losses of both men an material.

Yes, you need the right equipment for the mission. A bombing mission for a fixed structure like a bridge would be far, far cheaper with unmanned technology and no loss of men or additional material.

[DogOnPorch]

We're just shootin' sheet, Derek.

My whole argument is that Canada is the can't do nation and you're showing how that's true.

Organic = part of and Dedicated means just 4 U.

A small fleet of Tucanos dished-out to each regiment for THEIR use is what I'm talking about. Not trying to make NATO commitments or intercept Tu-95s over the high Arctic.

Heavens forbid Canada ever treat the military like a career for its citizens...rather than a pesky liability.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, you need the right equipment for the mission. A bombing mission for a fixed structure like a bridge would be far, far cheaper with unmanned technology and no loss of men or additional material.

 

Indeed. Canada should be bleeding edge in this field.

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, you need the right equipment for the mission. A bombing mission for a fixed structure like a bridge would be far, far cheaper with unmanned technology and no loss of men or additional material.

 

There is nothing cheap about unmanned technology, nor is it presently (or in the near future) going to be able to match manned aircraft in terms of capability......this is no more evident then the realization that despite decades of use (of unmanned technology), the first widespread platform to be adopted by the USN will an ISR platform and a tanker....support platforms for manned aircraft.

 

7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Organic = part of and Dedicated means just 4 U.

A small fleet of Tucanos dished-out to each regiment for THEIR use is what I'm talking about. Not trying to make NATO commitments or intercept Tu-95s over the high Arctic.

 

I know what it means, and I'm telling you, no regimental commander (it would be a Brigade level asset but I digress) would want a turboprop CAS platform that would be hard pressed to operate in an environment with lowly MANPADS and heavy machine guns, and get to pay for such a force throughout its lifespan on the chance we'll always fight in a permissive environment .....the hundreds of millions wasted on such a force would be far better spent on additional artillery and smart munitions.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

..I know what it means, and I'm telling you, no regimental commander (it would be a Brigade level asset but I digress) would want a turboprop CAS platform that would be hard pressed to operate in an environment with lowly MANPADS and heavy machine guns, and get to pay for such a force throughout its lifespan on the chance we'll always fight in a permissive environment .....the hundreds of millions wasted on such a force would be far better spent on additional artillery and smart munitions.

 

Still, the premise has merit for politically challenged, low budget military organizations like Canada's DND.

Canada may have to adopt third world nation strategies for such things.  Doing nothing is far worse.

[DogOnPorch]

Tucanos are already deployed in these treacherous areas you speak of...like Afghanistan. The choice of the USA if I recall.

I was unaware helicopters were obsolete. No longer able to operate due to evil AAA efforts.

I'm all for spending MORE on our military. I'm an Army brat like you. So deflecting to what we should be spending our non-existent resources on just makes me say: buy those, too.

 

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Still, the premise has merit for politically challenged, low budget military organizations like Canada's DND.

 

That's just it, it doesn't though, its a false economy........if we were a Banana Republic concerned with a domestic insurgency, no NATO and NORAD, perhaps.......but we're not.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

That's just it, it doesn't though, its a false economy........if we were a Banana Republic concerned with a domestic insurgency, no NATO and NORAD, perhaps.......but we're not.

 

Not yet, but an eventuality given current trajectories.   Canada will become a cold Mexico.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not yet, but an eventuality given current trajectories.   Canada will become a cold Mexico.

 

Except Mexico can kick Canada's azz.

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Tucanos are already deployed in these treacherous areas you speak of...like Afghanistan. The choice of the USA if I recall.

 

Does the Taliban operate an integrated air defense grid? 

 

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I was unaware helicopters were obsolete. No longer able to operate due to evil AAA efforts.

Getting there.........Apaches and Sea Cobras were slaughtered in parts of Iraq well they still had MANPADS.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada is losing the ability to independently support expeditionary forces/missions of any kind.....land, sea, and air.

This is what will bring things to a standstill faster than anything else....logistics.

Missions will stall in planning before they ever start, regardless of new strike fighters.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Does the Taliban operate an integrated air defense grid? 

 

Getting there.........Apaches and Sea Cobras were slaughtered in parts of Iraq well they still had MANPADS.

Integrated air defense grid...lol This isn't against the Red Chinese.

A Jihadi with a Strela should be properly vaporized by the Tucanos or A-10s before any helicopter goes for the LZ.

For the price we're paying to play footsies at the UN with the enemy, we could have hit the mall and bought all of this stuff.