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

[Neil]

I can appreciate your patriotism, BB, but you're wading into "technology searching for a mission" waters with this argument.

Exactly.  That's why the dreadnought is the best use of funds.  We just need something impressive that we can point to and say 'we helped!'

[Berkut]

There is no compelling need for Canadian air assets to possess stealth technology.  Outside of little shitty countries going at each other, the dogfighting days are over, and any defenses in a theater that Canadian air assets would operate in--by the time they got there, if the government didn't pussy out in participation to begin with--would be substantially degraded by witnessing the firepower of the fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle stations of the United States Navy and Chair Force.

Totally disagree with this.

The point of Stealth is not to allow Canada to get involved in the SEAD mission, the point of stealth is that it allows those with it to forgo the SEAD mission altogether.

Once the US is fully equipped with stealthy aircraft, they won't need to go do a heavy SEAD phase prior to running ground suppression/destruction missions.

Therefore, if in fact Canada wants to be able to contribute going forward, say in the next 10 years plus, they are going to need stealthy aircraft so they can fly along with the US aircraft (also stealthy) while we ignore enemy air defense.

That is the entire point of stealth - assuming it works, it means that a F-35 does not need an entire "package" of support craft to execute its mission, in the manner an F-16 does now. Right now, if you want to hit a target with an F-16, you have to probably have 3-5 other aircraft along to suppress air defense,s shoot down enemy fighters, etc., etc. SO effectively that means that there is typically a two-phased approach to air operations. You spend the first phase running SEAD to degrade capabilities, then once you've knocked enemy SEAD down to 10% effectiveness, you start blowing up tanks or bridges or whatever it is you really want to bomb.

Stealth, assuming it works, means you don't do much of that. You don't spend two weeks degrading EAD assets, you just avoid and ignore them.

So yeah, if in fact Canada wants to be involved in the ability to engage in air power projection along with their allies the US in the next 50 years, they need to be getting stealthy aircraft. If they do not, they should probably just consider some other way of contributing.

[CountDeMoney]

They're just as well off getting CF StuporHornets.  At least there's supply chain and armament compatibility there.

[Barrister]

So yeah, if in fact Canada wants to be involved in the ability to engage in air power projection along with their allies the US in the next 50 years, they need to be getting stealthy aircraft. If they do not, they should probably just consider some other way of contributing.

Agree and disagree.

Stealth would be wonderfully useful.  You don't want to wait for your allies to destroy all the air defences before you can deploy your own aircraft.

However, non-stealthy fighters are more useful than no fighters at all.  It's a simple matter of being able to assert sovereignty.  We need the ability to intercept air traffic that might fly over this country.

[Berkut]

So yeah, if in fact Canada wants to be involved in the ability to engage in air power projection along with their allies the US in the next 50 years, they need to be getting stealthy aircraft. If they do not, they should probably just consider some other way of contributing.

Agree and disagree.

Stealth would be wonderfully useful.  You don't want to wait for your allies to destroy all the air defences before you can deploy your own aircraft.

However, non-stealthy fighters are more useful than no fighters at all.  It's a simple matter of being able to assert sovereignty.  We need the ability to intercept air traffic that might fly over this country.

Right, but that is why I said "if Canada wants the ability to engage in air power *projection*..."

If they want to just defend Canadian airspace, they don't need stealth aircraft. Although stealth aircraft would obviously be rather good at that.

I don't understand why the US would not be willing to sell F-22s to Canada, if they are willing to pay for them.

[Ed Anger]

Hell IIRC, We wouldn't sell the f-22 to Israel, which had expressed an interest. So I don't see the beaver pushers getting them if they want 'em.

[Fate]

So yeah, if in fact Canada wants to be involved in the ability to engage in air power projection along with their allies the US in the next 50 years, they need to be getting stealthy aircraft. If they do not, they should probably just consider some other way of contributing.

Agree and disagree.

Stealth would be wonderfully useful.  You don't want to wait for your allies to destroy all the air defences before you can deploy your own aircraft.

However, non-stealthy fighters are more useful than no fighters at all.  It's a simple matter of being able to assert sovereignty.  We need the ability to intercept air traffic that might fly over this country.

Right, but that is why I said "if Canada wants the ability to engage in air power *projection*..."

If they want to just defend Canadian airspace, they don't need stealth aircraft. Although stealth aircraft would obviously be rather good at that.

I don't understand why the US would not be willing to sell F-22s to Canada, if they are willing to pay for them.

For the same reason we wouldn't sell F-22s to the Israelis - they'd be disassembled by Chinese agents in the employ of her majesty's government.

[Neil]

I don't understand why the US would not be willing to sell F-22s to Canada, if they are willing to pay for them.

Because not only can the US not be entirely certain that the Canadian government isn't riddled with spies from China, but all the opposition parties in Canada are extremely hostile to the US and US interests.

[Razgovory]

They're just as well off getting CF StuporHornets.  At least there's supply chain and armament compatibility there.

Hell, they could probably just use old Skyraiders.  It's not like we are expecting dog fights anytime soon.

[Agelastus]

So apparently the Conservatives are going to scrap the F-35 purchase any day now.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/06/michael-den-tandt-conservatives-pull-the-ejector-seat-on-f-35-purchase/

So, $30 billion over 30 years is worse than $25.1 billion over 20 years, or, at least, that's what the article seems to imply; what am I not understanding here?