Forget the F-35 - should Canada re-develop the Avro Arrow

[Viking]

If protecting our sovereignty is so important, wouldn't it make sense to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons?  After all, our two greatest threats are nuclear powers.

what? Denmark is a nuclear power? Hansø er Dansk!

The Danes aren't a risk to try and conquer all of Northern Canada.  Scandinavians are notorious cowards.

The Russians and Americans are another story.

you think russia is a threat?

[Jacob]

you think russia is a threat?

Well, according to Romney they're the US' #1 geopolitical threat and since we're on Team USA, that makes them a threat to us as well.

[Neil]

If protecting our sovereignty is so important, wouldn't it make sense to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons?  After all, our two greatest threats are nuclear powers.

what? Denmark is a nuclear power? Hansø er Dansk!

The Danes aren't a risk to try and conquer all of Northern Canada.  Scandinavians are notorious cowards.

The Russians and Americans are another story.

you think russia is a threat?

You never know what sor of nonsense those fuckers will try around the Pole.

[Berkut]

I think what Beeb does not realize is that the ability of aircraft like the F-35 to operate in a high threat environment isn't really linear - it isn't twice as effective as the alternative, or half as vulnerable.

The reason that nations other than the US cannot engage a country even as shitty as Libya is that while they may have first line aircraft, they do not have the integrated air combat capability to go into a multi-threat environment and shut it down.

Beebs might say "Hey, we have CF-18s, those are pretty much as good as US first line aircraft, so we should be able to do the same things they can do, even if at a smaller scale, right?"

But that isn't so - the reason Canada cannot take on Libya in that first set of strikes is that Canada likely lacks the set of tools to suppress multiple and multi-dimensional threats. So their CF-18s can go in and bomb stuff as well as any US plane...but only once the SEAD mission has been successfully completed. Because they don't have the jammers, radar killers, AWACS, and all that OTHER shit that is needed.

So something like the F-35 is more than just a better fighter bomber. Stealth means more than that - it means the ability to go in and hit stuff WITHOUT needing the billions of additional dollars worth of *other* aircraft and assets necessary to penetrate even crappy air defense networks.

That is why I would think something like the F_35 is even more valuable to a country like Canada than it is to the US.

[dps]

If protecting our sovereignty is so important, wouldn't it make sense to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons?  After all, our two greatest threats are nuclear powers.

what? Denmark is a nuclear power? Hansø er Dansk!

The Danes aren't a risk to try and conquer all of Northern Canada.  Scandinavians are notorious cowards.

The Russians and Americans are another story.

you think russia is a threat?

You never know what sor of nonsense those fuckers will try around the Pole.

But should the Canadian government really be all that concerned about what the Ruskies do around Marti?

[viper37]

Just curious:  what thread did you think you were in when writing this response?  'Cause you sure aren't saying anything that seems relevant to this thread.

duh?

If we keep the CF-18 without replacing it, because that is the issue being discussed by the left, that we don't need planes for a "warmongering country", they will require more&more maintenance.

Of course, they say "oh, but we don't need a Cadillac, we can have cheaper airplanes that will do just as well."   This is exactly the same thinking the Liberals had in the early 1990s (1993).  And it endup costings us billions of $ more than the original plan.  And we had to redesign our frigates/helicopter carriers twice in 12 years to accomodate the new models, wich prove inefficient and ill adapted to our needs.  And we still don't have our helicopters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-124_Sea_King

So, this is very relevant to this thread when someone says we don't need the F-35.  It is not about the Arrow, but it is still relevant to the procurement of newer and better planes.

Despite the costs, I believe the F-35 is the best of the new airplanes we can get due to stealth technology and its longer range of operations without refueling.  If I'm correct, we can cross the Atlantic without refueling, so that's a big plus in costs reduction.

[Grey Fox]

It pisses me off that there's no left pro-military camp.

[Barrister]

I think what Beeb does not realize is that the ability of aircraft like the F-35 to operate in a high threat environment isn't really linear - it isn't twice as effective as the alternative, or half as vulnerable.

The reason that nations other than the US cannot engage a country even as shitty as Libya is that while they may have first line aircraft, they do not have the integrated air combat capability to go into a multi-threat environment and shut it down.

Beebs might say "Hey, we have CF-18s, those are pretty much as good as US first line aircraft, so we should be able to do the same things they can do, even if at a smaller scale, right?"

But that isn't so - the reason Canada cannot take on Libya in that first set of strikes is that Canada likely lacks the set of tools to suppress multiple and multi-dimensional threats. So their CF-18s can go in and bomb stuff as well as any US plane...but only once the SEAD mission has been successfully completed. Because they don't have the jammers, radar killers, AWACS, and all that OTHER shit that is needed.

So something like the F-35 is more than just a better fighter bomber. Stealth means more than that - it means the ability to go in and hit stuff WITHOUT needing the billions of additional dollars worth of *other* aircraft and assets necessary to penetrate even crappy air defense networks.

That is why I would think something like the F_35 is even more valuable to a country like Canada than it is to the US.

I'm not discussing just keeping our 30 year old current fleet of CF-18s (which are F-18A/Bs which have been upgraded over the years to F-18 C/Ds), but purchasing the current F-18E/F, which is a whole new airframe (though based on the earlier models).   It would have modern and up to date electronics, weaponry and engines.

It's more stealthy than our current planes, but no it doe not qualify as a 'stealth' aircraft.  So it does lose that on the F-35.  I think it might be less manouverable, though still a match for any other aircraft in the skies.

And it is important to try and make some kind of assessment about how much "better" the F-35 is compared to the Super Hornet, because the costs are dramatically different.  According to wiki (I know, I know, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time researching this) the Super Hornet has a per-unit cost of $67 million, while the estimates for the F-35 are $195 to $236 million (depending on model).  Thats three to four times the cost.  You don't want to have a situation where we have the finest aircraft going, but too few of them to actually make any difference.

[Barrister]

It pisses me off that there's no left pro-military camp.

It's because the left is dumb.

Join the right.  You know you want to.  You work, support your family and your military - you're 90% there.  Join with Stephen Harper and together we shall have Peace, Order and Good Government. 

[Grey Fox]

It pisses me off that there's no left pro-military camp.

It's because the left is dumb.

Join the right.  You know you want to.  You work, support your family and your military - you're 90% there.  Join with Stephen Harper and together we shall have Peace, Order and Good Government. 

That's impossible. Especially not the "let's give Oil cies money while we cut CBC funding" Harper government. Encouraging big private enterprises :

[Barrister]

Oh yes - mustn't encourage big private enterprises.  When was the last time they ever did anything for us? :shakeshead:

[derspiess]

It pisses me off that there's no left pro-military camp.

We can send you Ide.

[Grey Fox]

It pisses me off that there's no left pro-military camp.

We can send you Ide.

Overhere he's far right.

[grumbler]

duh?

If we keep the CF-18 without replacing it, because that is the issue being discussed by the left, that we don't need planes for a "warmongering country", they will require more&more maintenance.

Duh?  Who is talking about keeping the current-generation CF-18s?

Of course, they say "oh, but we don't need a Cadillac, we can have cheaper airplanes that will do just as well."   This is exactly the same thinking the Liberals had in the early 1990s (1993).  And it endup costings us billions of $ more than the original plan.  And we had to redesign our frigates/helicopter carriers twice in 12 years to accomodate the new models, wich prove inefficient and ill adapted to our needs.  And we still don't have our helicopters.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-124_Sea_King

Not sure what the argument is, here.  The 1993 decision was to not buy any new helicopters at all, not to buy cheaper helicopters.  I don't understand the comment about redesigning helicopter carriers twice.  Canada doesn't have any helicopter carriers.  The ships that will operate the CH-148 are the same as the ones that operated the CH-124. 

So, this is very relevant to this thread when someone says we don't need the F-35.  It is not about the Arrow, but it is still relevant to the procurement of newer and better planes.

I don't see any relevance whatever.  It may have some relevance if the false portion of your argument were true, perhaps, but the question of what follow-on strike fighter the Canadian air force should buy isn't much related to the decision on when and how to replace the Sea King.

Despite the costs, I believe the F-35 is the best of the new airplanes we can get due to stealth technology and its longer range of operations without refueling.  If I'm correct, we can cross the Atlantic without refueling, so that's a big plus in costs reduction.

I don't think that there is any doubt that the F-35 is the best plane under consideration.  The question is whether it is the most cost-effective, which is a completely different question.

[viper37]

If we change airplanes right now, whatever r&d costs we sunk in the F-35 program, we lose it. If we buy a plane built elsewhere in the world, aside security risks of buying a Russian or Chinese aircraft, we have to consider the jobs we lose by not going forward.

Now, the costs for the F-35 seems to be rising a tad.  But maybe there's something to do about it.