Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[segnosaur]

14 hours ago, Smallc said:

Re: Defense review impacting NATO/NORAD...

How do I know?  We're not rewriting international treaties that we've signed on to.  Nothing will change as per our obligations to NORAD or NATO.

No its won't "rewrite" treaties.. (Well, technically the review could recommend withdrawl from either one of those, but that wouldn't happen.)

But the treaties aren't specific enough to dictate just how many and what type of planes we deploy and in what locations. Our allies were satisfied enough with the previous government's use of risk assessment in splitting planes between NATO and NORAD,. The Defense review would have been the time to look at that particular plan and decide "Do we want to continue allocating our planes in that way or increase our fleet to cover cases that are possible but unlikely".

No "Rewriting" of treaties was necessary.

 

[GostHacked]

On 11/24/2016 at 1:34 PM, Argus said:

What did Harper do other than continue the policy of the Liberals to contribute to the F-35 project with an eye to eventually buying them?

Then why complain when the Liberals are simply continuing that?? If it was such a crap deal, why did Harper not cancel the deal?

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Rue said:

Will poor countries want to buy our old F18's? I don't know. I doubt it when they can get a Gripen for not much more cost and no headaches.

Indeed, and the Grippens have a much better track record and will continue to have a better track record for the next decade compared to the F-35.

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

No its won't "rewrite" treaties.. (Well, technically the review could recommend withdrawl from either one of those, but that wouldn't happen.)

But the treaties aren't specific enough to dictate just how many and what type of planes we deploy and in what locations. Our allies were satisfied enough with the previous government's use of risk assessment in splitting planes between NATO and NORAD,. The Defense review would have been the time to look at that particular plan and decide "Do we want to continue allocating our planes in that way or increase our fleet to cover cases that are possible but unlikely".

No "Rewriting" of treaties was necessary.

 

Actually the NORAD agreement specifies that 36 aircraft be available for the Canadian region. We have a promise to NATO that we can provide 6 CF-18s.  The second one is not written in stone, I'll grant you that.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Smallc

[PIK]

They have not even started to get ready to negotiate, and have no idea when. We are not getting any new jets for many yrs. Helicopters all over again. 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Then why complain when the Liberals are simply continuing that?? If it was such a crap deal, why did Harper not cancel the deal?

They are not doing that. They are postponing a decision until after the next election by buying more F-18s, and after the next election they will find an excuse to buy still more F-18s rather than buy the F-35, which is a better and more modern aircraft the air force wants.

BTW, I complained about Harper's defense policies, too.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Indeed, and the Grippens have a much better track record and will continue to have a better track record for the next decade compared to the F-35.

That's nice. But we won't be getting a new aircraft for the next decade, and how will the Grippens do in 2056? Whatever aircraft we buy will still be flying for us then.

[Rue]

2056? I would be 100 in 2056. Fat chance I will be around. I will be lucky to get to 65 after reading you people on this forum.

I would think by 2056 the aliens will have eaten everyone or we will have blown up the planet but on a more optimistic note

hopefully by then we will have figured out how to propel craft without fossil fuel.

[Derek 2.0]

7 hours ago, Smallc said:

Actually the NORAD agreement specifies that 36 aircraft be available for the Canadian region. We have a promise to NATO that we can provide 6 CF-18s.

 

A promise? Our NORAD commitment is also our NATO commitment, and of the 36 aircraft, we can (and do) utilize them for training, exercises with the Americans and our European NATO partners.....including our Hornets deployed to Eastern Europe. This shortage is nothing but a manufactured crisis for political reasons.......and nobody is buying it, and the Trudeau Liberals are only digging themselves deeper................they best hope none of the gagged start leaking additional info.....leaks never happen at a good time either.

 

--------------------

 

In F-35 related news, for some reason, the Japanese decided their first F-35 was "ready enough" to take official delivery of and begin training their future pilots......

 

 

 

[GostHacked]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

That's nice. But we won't be getting a new aircraft for the next decade, and how will the Grippens do in 2056? Whatever aircraft we buy will still be flying for us then.

What makes you think we'll be flying the F-35 in 2056?

[segnosaur]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

That's nice. But we won't be getting a new aircraft for the next decade, and how will the Grippens do in 2056? Whatever aircraft we buy will still be flying for us then.

What makes you think we'll be flying the F-35 in 2056?

It may be true that there are no guarantees. Maybe there will be some giant technical or social change tomorrow that will make all fighter jets obsolete.

But,  by the time they are retired, Canada will have flown the CF18 fleet for roughly 4 decades. Other countries with similar military considerations have likewise maintained jet fleets for 3-4 decades. Heck, part of the reason the Liberals and NDP attacked the Conservatives with the "contempt of parliament" charge was because the Conservatives weren't giving F35 purchase costs for 40 years.

You also have the fact that our federal government (regardless of whether they are headed by a conservative or liberal PM) is usually hesitant to spend money on the military. So even when technology has changed enough so that our hardware is obsolete, the government will continue using the equipment past its "best before" date.

So, while there are no guarantees, past history suggests that whatever planes we purchase will be in use for least in 3 decades, if not 4 decades.

I know many people here are thinking "replace our CF18s with Drones", but the technology is not yet at the point where that is feasible, and likely won't be for many years to come.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

I know many people here are thinking "replace our CF18s with Drones", but the technology is not yet at the point where that is feasible, and likely won't be for many years to come.

It is not about the plane, it is about the missions. What percentage of missions could be replaced by various drones? Certainly ordinance delivery and recognizance are areas where drones are superior to manned fighters. We might need a fleet of fighter aircraft for some time into the future, but that could be a vastly reduced force. 

[DogOnPorch]

42 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It is not about the plane, it is about the missions. What percentage of missions could be replaced by various drones? Certainly ordinance delivery and recognizance are areas where drones are superior to manned fighters. We might need a fleet of fighter aircraft for some time into the future, but that could be a vastly reduced force. 

I have yet to see a drone with a B-52's carrying capacity. Which is why they're still popular with the troops...so to speak.

Same with mid-air refueling...yet to be automated...not that it couldn't be with future efforts...but it isn't at the moment. And I doubt it's a make-work program.

[segnosaur]

43 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It is not about the plane, it is about the missions. What percentage of missions could be replaced by various drones? Certainly ordinance delivery and recognizance are areas where drones are superior to manned fighters. We might need a fleet of fighter aircraft for some time into the future, but that could be a vastly reduced force. 

Not as many as you might think. There are issues like situational awareness (drone pilots don't have the ability to view their environment to the same degree as regular pilots) and capacity (current drones don't have the ability to carry as many weapons as manned fighters.)

Here's something you might want to think about... the U.S. military has huge R&D expenditures. They're working on everything from Robotics to biofuels With all the advanced tech that they have, why exactly do you think that they aren't already flying fleets of unmanned drones?

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I have yet to see a drone with a B-52's carrying capacity. Which is why they're still popular with the troops...so to speak.

Same with mid-air refueling...yet to be automated...not that it couldn't be with future efforts...but it isn't at the moment. And I doubt it's a make-work program.

Mid-air refuelling of a drone already done, and the navy is looking at mid-air tanker drone as their first standard carrier based drone. Also mid-air drone to drone refuelling has already been tested with smaller UAVs. 

Carrying capacity is simply an issue of need. Today it is all about precision, not capacity. You can easily get more by having multiple drones, the real question is about bigger is what you want to deliver. Remember that most large aircraft today are capable of performing all the functions of flight automatically, it is a matter of regulation, communication, and acceptance. Communication is the only technical challenge, and it is already solved for smaller UAVs. 

[bush_cheney2004]

The United States deploys manned aircraft and UAV/UCAV "drones" around the world, and has the logistics/communications infrastructure to do so...Canada doesn't.

[?Impact]

32 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Not as many as you might think. There are issues like situational awareness (drone pilots don't have the ability to view their environment to the same degree as regular pilots) and capacity (current drones don't have the ability to carry as many weapons as manned fighters.)

Here's something you might want to think about... the U.S. military has huge R&D expenditures. They're working on everything from Robotics to biofuels With all the advanced tech that they have, why exactly do you think that they aren't already flying fleets of unmanned drones?

The situational awareness you talk about is really only applicable to fighter aircraft, and even there the F35 changes that dramatically with automation anyway. Capacity I addressed above, it is an issue of need not function.

Yes the US has huge expenditures and look at multiple systems. They already are flying huge fleets of unmanned drones, in the order of 10,000 UAVs currently. Most are small and used for surveillance, but there are still many that are capable of delivering ordinance as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Yes the US has huge expenditures and look at multiple systems. They already are flying huge fleets of unmanned drones, in the order of 10,000 UAVs currently. Most are small and used for surveillance, but there are still many that are capable of delivering ordinance as well.

 

The U.S. also has more than 10,000 manned aircraft.    Comparisons to Canada's military is just as silly as basing a CF-18 purchase or replacement based on what the U.S. Navy does or will do in the future.   

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The U.S. also has more than 10,000 manned aircraft. 

While I don't think it is quite 10,000, they certainly have several thousand. The largest fleet of a single aircraft are the Army's Blackhawk helicopters. The Airforce has around 450 airborne gas stations alone. 

[bush_cheney2004]

21 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

While I don't think it is quite 10,000, they certainly have several thousand. The largest fleet of a single aircraft are the Army's Blackhawk helicopters. The Airforce has around 450 airborne gas stations alone. 

 

Guess again....the count for manned U.S. military aircraft was above 13,000 last time I checked.    But please continue to make silly comparisons between the U.S. and Canada when it comes to manned aircraft or "drones".

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

While I don't think it is quite 10,000, they certainly have several thousand. The largest fleet of a single aircraft are the Army's Blackhawk helicopters. The Airforce has around 450 airborne gas stations alone. 

Blackhawk Helicopters? Don't think so. The US has over 1000 active F-16s, for example. 

[?Impact]

27 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Blackhawk Helicopters? Don't think so. The US has over 1000 active F-16s, for example. 

957 (Airforce) + 26 (Navy) F16s for a total of 982

1565 (Army) UH-60 Balckhawks

[Bonam]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

957 (Airforce) + 26 (Navy) F16s for a total of 982

1565 (Army) UH-60 Balckhawks

Oh, got it. Thought your reference of 450 was to the number of Blackhawk, my mistake. 

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Guess again....the count for manned U.S. military aircraft was above 13,000 last time I checked.    But please continue to make silly comparisons between the U.S. and Canada when it comes to manned aircraft or "drones".

You`re right, once you add up all the smaller numbers it comes to 12,334 and an additional 210 in the Coast Guard. I`m using the wikipedia source, assuming they have kept that page up to date. You need to be careful however they include UAVs in their list as well. I didn`t bother to compare fixed wing to helicopters, that would be interesting but need more work to calculate.

• Airforce: 5207
• Army: 3735
• Marines: 1227
• Navy: 2165
• Coast Guard: 210

15 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Oh, got it. Thought your reference of 450 was to the number of Blackhawk, my mistake. 

Yes, I can see where my wording might have been confusing. By airborne gas stations, I was referencing refueling tankers.

I know the navy wants to get tanker drones for carrier operation because the Hercules tanker is not designed or safe for that environment. They did some trials years ago and were able to do landings and takeoffs, but decided it was too dangerous. They need an aircraft with a grab hook for landing and catapult compatible for takeoff. I wonder if they will look at a similar drone to replace the C-2 Greyhound when only cargo is involved.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

You`re right, once you add up all the smaller numbers it comes to 12,334 and an additional 210 in the Coast Guard. I`m using the wikipedia source, assuming they have kept that page up to date. You need to be careful however they include UAVs in their list as well. I didn`t bother to compare fixed wing to helicopters, that would be interesting but need more work to calculate.

 

All of which is irrelevant to Canada's continuing zombie procurement of replacement for CF-18s.

Is this banter just filler while the world anxiously waits for Canada to make a decision for another 20 years ?