Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[dre]

True! This year. What about twenty years from now? Thirty? Forty? The new fighter will still be in operation then. We're not merely buying a plane to satisfy our needs now, but in the future.

That's an excellent point because we don't even know if the F-35 will satisfy the needs of the future. We don't even know if military aircraft will have pilots in 40 years.

I would ditch the one size fits all idea, and buy 20 armed Reapers at a cost of 16 million per plane.That platform would be perfect for routine patrols and surveillance over our own territory (which is 95% of what our air-force does), and can be operated at a fraction of the cost per hour of flight time. They are also useful for the new kind of asymmetric conflicts we are likely to see in the future. They don't have stealth but who cares... If you lose one its just 15-20 million and nobody dies.

Its quite possible and even likely that in 40 years nobody will fly airplanes or drive cars for that matter.

Canada's top soldier says the Canadian Forces need new drones. And Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, wants those drones to be armed.

"We do need UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles)", Vance told a Senate committee Monday. "And I am of the view that we need armed UAVs."

Vance told senators that such drones would improve the military's ability to patrol and monitor Canadian territory as well as help in search and rescue efforts. The drones would also assist in operations overseas.

"If we are in operations against a force like ISIS, the surveillance piece is important but we also want to contribute to the strike," Vance said.

In 2008, the New York Air National Guard 174th Attack Wing began the transition from F-16 piloted fighters to MQ-9 Reapers, becoming the first fighter squadron conversion to an all–unmanned combat air vehicle(UCAV) attack squadron.^[8] In March 2011, the U.S. Air Force was training more pilots for advanced unmanned aerial vehicles than for any other single weapons system.^[9] The Reaper is also used by the United States Navy, the CIA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, NASA, and others.

[rotary]

When is the proper competition scheduled to happen ?

That remains to be seen but so far a new program has been initiated to define our actual requirements. Perhaps that should have been done a long time ago eh.

[dre]

That remains to be seen but so far a new program has been initiated to define our actual requirements. Perhaps that should have been done a long time ago eh.

Yeah... when you're still collecting business requirements at this stage its obvious that the people involved need some basic project management training. This should have been done properly before a single platform was ever mentioned.

Like I said... drop a couple hundred million on drones right away. At least that will ensure SOME operational continuity if this government continues to botch the procurement process like the last one did. These planes could handle almost all of our territorial surveillance needs for a tiny fraction of the cost (both purchasing and operations) and most of our external needs as well.

Edited March 24, 2016 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

That remains to be seen but so far a new program has been initiated to define our actual requirements. Perhaps that should have been done a long time ago eh.

No, that is not the Canadian way, whether the platforms be ships, submarines, helicopters, or new "jets". Always best to wait and stall as long as possible so that decisions can be overcome by events that Canada does not control, easing the domestic political pain.

[rotary]

Yeah... when you're still collecting business requirements at this stage its obvious that the people involved need some basic project management training. This should have been done properly before a single platform was ever mentioned.

Like I said... drop a couple hundred million on drones right away. At least that will ensure SOME operational continuity if this government continues to botch the procurement process like the last one did. These planes could handle almost all of our territorial surveillance needs for a tiny fraction of the cost (both purchasing and operations) and most of our external needs as well.

Might be an idea. As you say we don't know for sure if we will even need pilot's seats in our a/c for all that long. Diefenbaker did get kind of sucked into the idea back in the Arrow days, but a lot of technology has been developed since then.

[rotary]

No, that is not the Canadian way, whether the platforms be ships, submarines, helicopters, or new "jets". Always best to wait and stall as long as possible so that decisions can be overcome by events that Canada does not control, easing the domestic political pain.

I suspect defining requirements before committing to major purchases is simply a sensible way, and can't be claimed by any particular nation.

[bush_cheney2004]

I suspect defining requirements before committing to major purchases is simply a sensible way, and can't be claimed by any particular nation.

And I suspect that needing to "define requirements" (yet again) is just part of the same procurement stalling game, to give the illusion of procurement process. Canada already had a Next Generation Fighter Secretariat.....so what has changed besides the ruling political party ?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/next-gen-fighter.page

[rotary]

And I suspect that needing to "define requirements" (yet again) is just part of the same procurement stalling game, to give the illusion of procurement process. Canada already had a Next Generation Fighter Secretariat.....so what has changed besides the ruling political party ?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/next-gen-fighter.page

Public Services and Procurement Canada has opened a new office to determine our requirements. I suspect first strike and stealth will not top the list.

[bush_cheney2004]

Public Services and Procurement Canada has opened a new office to determine our requirements. I suspect first strike and stealth will not top the list.

So the entire procurement process starts over again from basic requirements....for political reasons ?

If "first strike" is out, then so is NATO.

[segnosaur]

That's an excellent point because we don't even know if the F-35 will satisfy the needs of the future. We don't even know if military aircraft will have pilots in 40 years.

You're right... we don't know what "future needs" we will have. But we are much better buying something as modern as possible now, rather than something which is fairly old by aviation standards (like the F18), since there is a better chance that, even if it doesn't satisfy our needs "in 40 years", it will likely do so longer than the older planes.

I would ditch the one size fits all idea, and buy 20 armed Reapers...

Eventually there is a chance that unmanned drones will supplant manned fighters. But, that time is not yet now.

The main problem with drones is the issue of situational awareness... Due to limitations in technology, drone pilots are limited in their abilities to "see" around them, which limits their abilities in combat, or in performing patrol duties.

There are also other issues:

- Some may be concerned about a system where a failed communication link can put a mission at risk

- One mission that we may require any military planes for will be the interception of other planes (e.g. jet liners that are off course.) The maximum speed of a Reaper drone is 482 km/h. The maximum speed of a 767 is 913 km/h. This would mean that we could never use the Reaper to run basic air patrols over our own territory. Even jet-powered drones like the Avenger wouldn't be able to keep up.

Until the technology advances further, I don't expect Drones to replace fighter jets for at least a few decades, long after our current fleet of CF18s have worn out.

[rotary]

So the entire procurement process starts over again from basic requirements....for political reasons ?

If "first strike" is out, then so is NATO.

I think spending huge sums of taxpayers money is usually considered "political". Especially if you waste it on things we don't need.

[dre]

You're right... we don't know what "future needs" we will have. But we are much better buying something as modern as possible now, rather than something which is fairly old by aviation standards (like the F18), since there is a better chance that, even if it doesn't satisfy our needs "in 40 years", it will likely do so longer than the older planes.

Eventually there is a chance that unmanned drones will supplant manned fighters. But, that time is not yet now.

The main problem with drones is the issue of situational awareness... Due to limitations in technology, drone pilots are limited in their abilities to "see" around them, which limits their abilities in combat, or in performing patrol duties.

There are also other issues:

- Some may be concerned about a system where a failed communication link can put a mission at risk

- One mission that we may require any military planes for will be the interception of other planes (e.g. jet liners that are off course.) The maximum speed of a Reaper drone is 482 km/h. The maximum speed of a 767 is 913 km/h. This would mean that we could never use the Reaper to run basic air patrols over our own territory. Even jet-powered drones like the Avenger wouldn't be able to keep up.

Until the technology advances further, I don't expect Drones to replace fighter jets for at least a few decades, long after our current fleet of CF18s have worn out.

I think we know what the direction will be in the future. Even today the US is training people to operate drones than any other weapons system.

As for speed that't not too big of a concern. These are recon missions not combat missions, and they will only encounter craft that have enough range to reach our airspace. So far this has almost exclusively been Russian bombers like the TU-95. And if we ever DO have to fire on another craft it will be the speed of the missiles that matter, not the speed of a drone.

Anyways, your claim that drones could "never be used for patrols" is contrary to what our military says...

Vance told senators that such drones would improve the military's ability to patrol and monitor Canadian territory as well as help in search and rescue efforts.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think spending huge sums of taxpayers money is usually considered "political". Especially if you waste it on things we don't need.

The CBC costs more per year, especially with the budget bump. Was there a new study for state broadcasting requirements and solutions ?

[rotary]

The CBC costs more per year, especially with the budget bump. Was there a new study for state broadcasting requirements and solutions ?

Actually under the CPC, the CBC budget was regularly cut, possibly due to the fact Harper didn't like, and was afraid of the press. Hopefully now that will improve and we can look forward to some new programming, especially on my favorite, radio.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually under the CPC, the CBC budget was regularly cut, possibly due to the fact Harper didn't like, and was afraid of the press. Hopefully now that will improve and we can look forward to some new programming, especially on my favorite, radio.

Yes, already discussed here years ago. The question was one of consistency if protecting the public's money is such a high priority vis-a-vis replacement fighter "jets".

[Argus]

That's an excellent point because we don't even know if the F-35 will satisfy the needs of the future. We don't even know if military aircraft will have pilots in 40 years.

I would ditch the one size fits all idea, and buy 20 armed Reapers at a cost of 16 million per plane.That platform would be perfect for routine patrols and surveillance over our own territory (which is 95% of what our air-force does), and can be operated at a fraction of the cost per hour of flight time. They are also useful for the new kind of asymmetric conflicts we are likely to see in the future. They don't have stealth but who cares... If you lose one its just 15-20 million and nobody dies.

Of course, that leaves us with no air patrols or ability to control who flies here or over our territory. Unless, of course, we give control of our air to the Americans or some other foreign power to do it for us.

[rotary]

Of course, that leaves us with no air patrols or ability to control who flies here or over our territory. Unless, of course, we give control of our air to the Americans or some other foreign power to do it for us.

The point being you don't need so called first strike capability, and what appears to be a rather questionable stealth mode to patrol your own territory. A Super Hornet will do that just fine, and will be a bit of a comfort to pilots knowing they have two engines especially when you are out over the frozen tundra many miles from any suitable airport.

[bush_cheney2004]

The point being you don't need so called first strike capability, and what appears to be a rather questionable stealth mode to patrol your own territory. A Super Hornet will do that just fine...

F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets are "strike fighters" by design and definition....always have been.

[rotary]

F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets are "strike fighters" by design and definition....always have been.

Yep, and we already know how to fly 'em and fix 'em, so just bring on a few new shiny ones.

[segnosaur]

I think we know what the direction will be in the future. Even today the US is training people to operate drones than any other weapons system.

Irrelevant.

The U.S. may be training people to pilot drones, but at this point they are not completely replacing fighter jets.

Drones are useful, but they can't do what traditional fighter jets can.

As for speed that't not too big of a concern.

Actually, yes it is a big concern.

These are recon missions not combat missions, and they will only encounter craft that have enough range to reach our airspace. So far this has almost exclusively been Russian bombers like the TU-95. And if we ever DO have to fire on another craft it will be the speed of the missiles that matter, not the speed of a drone.

Planes may be required to track other planes in domestic airspace. This was necessary when (for example) Payne Stewart's private jet lost contact, and it was necessary for the U.S. military to intercept and escort the plane for a significant length of time. (i.e. its not just a case of flying to the target and shooting missiles.) If a similar incident occurred today, currently available drones would be ineffective in tracking the target because they wouldn't be able to keep up with it.

And even if we do intercept a Russian bomber, we aren't just going to fire on it and fly away... it will be escorted out of our airspace. And those TU95s can fly faster than a Reaper.

Anyways, your claim that drones could "never be used for patrols" is contrary to what our military says...

I never said they could "never be used for patrols". I said that their capabilities to run patrols and engage in combat is limited.

Notice my mention of combat? Rather an important point there. And notice I used the word limited?

There are good points to drones... primarily their long loiter times. At the current time, their use in combat is restricted to targeted strikes. (Again, mostly due to the whole situational awareness thing.) And while they may be valuable for certain types of surveilance, they are not yet capable of replacing the functionality of traditional fighter jets.

[dre]

Irrelevant.

The U.S. may be training people to pilot drones, but at this point they are not completely replacing fighter jets.

Drones are useful, but they can't do what traditional fighter jets can.

Actually, yes it is a big concern.

Planes may be required to track other planes in domestic airspace. This was necessary when (for example) Payne Stewart's private jet lost contact, and it was necessary for the U.S. military to intercept and escort the plane for a significant length of time. (i.e. its not just a case of flying to the target and shooting missiles.) If a similar incident occurred today, currently available drones would be ineffective in tracking the target because they wouldn't be able to keep up with it.

And even if we do intercept a Russian bomber, we aren't just going to fire on it and fly away... it will be escorted out of our airspace. And those TU95s can fly faster than a Reaper.

I never said they could "never be used for patrols". I said that their capabilities to run patrols and engage in combat is limited.

Notice my mention of combat? Rather an important point there. And notice I used the word limited?

There are good points to drones... primarily their long loiter times. At the current time, their use in combat is restricted to targeted strikes. (Again, mostly due to the whole situational awareness thing.) And while they may be valuable for certain types of surveilance, they are not yet capable of replacing the functionality of traditional fighter jets.

I never said they could "never be used for patrols". I said that their capabilities to run patrols and engage in combat is limited.

Well yes you DID say that. I wouldn't claim you did if you didn't. Here's your quote.

This would mean that we could never use the Reaper to run basic air patrols over our own territory.

But that doesnt matter... I know what you mean now, so lets just move beyond that, and Ill concede that you are right. Drones have some limitations that traditional fighters dont. But modern fighters also have some limitations that drones dont. The sheer cost of buying, maintaining, and operating them means you can have very many, and the ones you DO have can only be in the air a small percentage of the time.

The U.S. may be training people to pilot drones, but at this point they are not completely replacing fighter jets.

I never said we should completely phase out fighter jets all at once. What I said was that we could provide a certain amount of operational continuity with a much smaller spend right away. A few hundred million for twenty or thirty. Then augment that with a smaller fighter purchase than whats been proposed... a few billion dollars worth.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep, and we already know how to fly 'em and fix 'em, so just bring on a few new shiny ones.

So what happened to the new government defining requirements, holding competitions, then selection the "best choice" ?

[Argus]

The point being you don't need so called first strike capability, and what appears to be a rather questionable stealth mode to patrol your own territory. A Super Hornet will do that just fine, and will be a bit of a comfort to pilots knowing they have two engines especially when you are out over the frozen tundra many miles from any suitable airport.

Why are you fixated on this 'first strike' drivel? The purpose of stealth is to make it much harder for the other guy's systems to lock you up and fire a missile on you, and for the missile to track in and blow your ass away. It doesn't matter if that is on attack or defense.

[Argus]

Yep, and we already know how to fly 'em and fix 'em, so just bring on a few new shiny ones.

Which will be obsolete within ten years.

[Argus]

The U.S. may be training people to pilot drones, but at this point they are not completely replacing fighter jets.

Or even partially.