:wacko:
QuoteWill legendary Avro Arrow make Lazarus-like return?
STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Sep. 09 2012, 7:02 PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Sep. 09 2012, 7:05 PM EDT
The federal government is being urged to reach back in history for a made-in-Canada solution to its fighter jet woes by resurrecting the legendary but aborted Avro Arrow interceptor to serve as this country's next war plane.
It may seem a far-fetched idea but backers – including retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie – insist that a revised version of the 1950s jet, with an upgraded engine, would outperform Ottawa's preferred choice on several important counts.
The revive-the-Avro campaign is the latest bizarre twist in a military purchase that's gone awry on the Harper government's watch.
The Conservatives, embarrassed by the rising costs of the U.S.-designed F-35 Lightning jets that the Royal Canadian Air Force sorely wants to purchase, are currently rethinking options for a next generation fighter.
Mr. MacKenzie and a group of design, engineering and logistics experts are pressing Ottawa to consider the long-discarded CF-105 plane.
The Diefenbaker government famously cancelled the Avro Arrow project in 1959, ending work on a Canadian aerospace marvel that supporters called the most advanced aircraft of its time.
Many in the Canadian aviation community never forgave Ottawa for scrapping the sleek, white plane, particularly after the government went on to buy U.S.-made Voodoo jets instead.
Proponents of reviving the Arrow are shopping a proposal around Ottawa that promises 120 planes for $9-billion, a number that just happens to be the government's original cost estimate for the increasingly expensive F-35 jets.
Each new CF-105, they say, would cost $73-million to produce – a homegrown solution that would also create a domestic supersonic jet manufacturing capacity.
It's hard to imagine a 53-year-old plane could outperform Lockheed Martin's costly new F-35 fighter-bomber, but those behind a new CF-105 say their jet would pack a 21st-century punch.
Mr. MacKenzie said the proposal he's put before the Harper government is for a made-in-Canada plane that could fly twice as fast as the F-35 and up to 20,000 feet higher. It would feature an updated Mark III engine and its range would be two to three times that of the F-35.
The former soldier, an unpaid supporter of the project, has run the pitch by Defence Minister Peter MacKay, senior defence officials as well as the Prime Minister's Office and Julian Fantino when he was associate defence minister in charge of procurement.
Mr. MacKenzie said he's met resistance in Ottawa, where officials insist they want the stealth capabilities that the F-35 can provide. Supporters of bringing back the CF-105, however, say the updated Arrow's capabilities would make up for this because it could fly so much higher and faster.
One senior government source who's reviewed the Avro backers' pitch expressed deep skepticism about their business plan.
"[It] didn't make a lot of sense to me," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Marc Bourdeau, a former Canadian public servant spearheading the CF-105 proposal, rejects the notion this is a pipe dream.
"This is not an exercise in nostalgia. This is an exercise in defence and industrial policy for Canada."
Mr. MacKenzie said the new CF-105 would look like its predecessor but comparisons would end there.
"We are talking about a basic design that was tested and proven .... It will be recognizable in shape but it won't be recognizable beyond that, given new technology and materials."
Mr. MacKenzie, who is disappointed by the F-35, and in particular its capacity to intercept threats, said backers are taking their proposal to Canadians to see if there's public pressure that can be brought to bear on the Harper government.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/will-legendary-avro-arrow-make-lazarus-like-return/article4530724/
Well, I've been saying for years we should redevelop older aircraft and use them for second-line duties.
This bit seems wrong, though:
QuoteMr. MacKenzie said he's met resistance in Ottawa, where officials insist they want the stealth capabilities that the F-35 can provide. Supporters of bringing back the CF-105, however, say the updated Arrow's capabilities would make up for this because it could fly so much higher and faster.
Well, if that's what you're looking for, fuck the Avro Arrow and buy some MiG-25/31s, by these metrics the greatest aircraft design of all time.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2012, 11:27:44 AM
Well, I've been saying for years we should redevelop older aircraft and use them for second-line duties.
This bit seems wrong, though:
QuoteMr. MacKenzie said he's met resistance in Ottawa, where officials insist they want the stealth capabilities that the F-35 can provide. Supporters of bringing back the CF-105, however, say the updated Arrow's capabilities would make up for this because it could fly so much higher and faster.
Well, if that's what you're looking for, fuck the Avro Arrow and buy some MiG-25/31s, by these metrics the greatest aircraft design of all time.
The whole thing is wrong. Remember this was an aircraft that was never put into production, being stopped part way through its development, over 50 years ago. Since we're no longer trying to develop planes to shoot down russian bombers and ICBMs there's really no need for a really fast, really high airplane.
Quote"This is not an exercise in nostalgia. This is an exercise in defence and industrial policy for Canada."
Good. With Canada's defense budget, they can build 3 or 4.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 11:35:05 AM
Since we're no longer trying to develop planes to shoot down russian bombers and ICBMs there's really no need for a really fast, really high airplane.
Far better to have supersonic and not need it than needing supersonic and not having it.
Bring back the Hustler, dammit.
Paper airplanes perform better on paper than real planes perform in the real world? Say it ain't so!
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 11:42:01 AM
Paper airplanes perform better on paper than real planes perform in the real world? Say it ain't so!
Aren't both paper airplanes at this point?
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 11:43:26 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 11:42:01 AM
Paper airplanes perform better on paper than real planes perform in the real world? Say it ain't so!
Aren't both paper airplanes at this point?
No. The F-35 exists (just in training units in the US so far), while the Revised Avro Arrow doesn't even have a full design.
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 11:51:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 11:43:26 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 11:42:01 AM
Paper airplanes perform better on paper than real planes perform in the real world? Say it ain't so!
Aren't both paper airplanes at this point?
No. The F-35 exists (just in training units in the US so far), while the Revised Avro Arrow doesn't even have a full design.
Fair enough.
God damn it, fucking Pro-military conservative government.
Buy ships, ffs, Ships!
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2012, 12:29:36 PM
God damn it, fucking Pro-military conservative government.
Buy ships, ffs, Ships!
The CF-18s are 30 years old. They are one of the most effective ways we have of participating in international military campaigns - it was our planes who participated in Desert storm, who helped bomb Kosovo, who most recently participated in the Libyan no fly zone.
WE definitely need no planes. Whether it's just newer CF-18s, F-35s, some French plane, or the fucking Avro Arrow Redux, we need new planes.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 12:32:39 PMWE definitely need no planes. Whether it's just newer CF-18s, F-35s, some French plane, or the fucking Avro Arrow Redux, we need new planes.
Which one is it? No planes or new planes?
We need nuclear powered icebreakers that can go in the artic in the winter to affirm the canadian sovereignity there.
We might need new planes but I say we need ships more. I seem to be alone in that camp, once again.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2012, 12:35:58 PM
We need nuclear powered icebreakers that can go in the artic in the winter to affirm the canadian sovereignity there.
We might need new planes but I say we need ships more. I seem to be alone in that camp, once again.
Arctic ships are #2 on my list.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 12:32:39 PM
The CF-18s are 30 years old. They are one of the most effective ways we have of participating in international military campaigns - it was our planes who participated in Desert storm, who helped bomb Kosovo, who most recently participated in the Libyan no fly zone.
WE definitely need no planes. Whether it's just newer CF-18s, F-35s, some French plane, or the fucking Avro Arrow Redux, we need new planes.
Sounds like an order's up for some CF-18 SuperHornets! :yeah:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 12:49:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 12:32:39 PM
The CF-18s are 30 years old. They are one of the most effective ways we have of participating in international military campaigns - it was our planes who participated in Desert storm, who helped bomb Kosovo, who most recently participated in the Libyan no fly zone.
WE definitely need no planes. Whether it's just newer CF-18s, F-35s, some French plane, or the fucking Avro Arrow Redux, we need new planes.
Sounds like an order's up for some CF-18 SuperHornets! :yeah:
It's a perfectly valid option. Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 12:53:51 PM
It's a perfectly valid option. Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will.
It's an interesting question, when you are talking small force sizes: how much extra is it worth to get high survivability?
For most combat missions during its lifetime, a CF-18 will be as good as an F-35. For some, though, it will be suicidal with a CF-18, while for another portion it will just be dangerous.
Does Canada want to spend that much extra to get a plane that can go on 10-20% more combat missions? Especially when those might well amount to a few dozen sorties in the next 30 years?
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 12:53:51 PM
It's a perfectly valid option. Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will.
It's an interesting question, when you are talking small force sizes: how much extra is it worth to get high survivability?
For most combat missions during its lifetime, a CF-18 will be as good as an F-35. For some, though, it will be suicidal with a CF-18, while for another portion it will just be dangerous.
Does Canada want to spend that much extra to get a plane that can go on 10-20% more combat missions? Especially when those might well amount to a few dozen sorties in the next 30 years?
What's the scenario where Canada faces an adversary that would be suicidal to go up against in modern Super Hornets (since technically the designation CF-18 refers to the F-18A and F-18B models we purchased), yet merely dangerous for an F-35?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2012, 12:29:36 PM
God damn it, fucking Pro-military conservative government.
Buy ships, ffs, Ships!
Didn't they put in an order earlier this year?
BY the way I'm not actually advocating we pull out of the F-35s, not yet at least. There's too much I don't know. But since the government has said they will review their aircraft purchase, and the Super Hornet was mentioned as an alternative, it's worthwhile to discuss the option.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 12:53:51 PM
It's a perfectly valid option. Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will.
It's an interesting question, when you are talking small force sizes: how much extra is it worth to get high survivability?
For most combat missions during its lifetime, a CF-18 will be as good as an F-35. For some, though, it will be suicidal with a CF-18, while for another portion it will just be dangerous.
Does Canada want to spend that much extra to get a plane that can go on 10-20% more combat missions? Especially when those might well amount to a few dozen sorties in the next 30 years?
What's the scenario where Canada faces an adversary that would be suicidal to go up against in modern Super Hornets (since technically the designation CF-18 refers to the F-18A and F-18B models we purchased), yet merely dangerous for an F-35?
Any attempt to penetrate a modern or semi-modern integrated air defense system.
I don't know if "suicidal" is the right word.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
What's the scenario where Canada faces an adversary that would be suicidal to go up against in modern Super Hornets (since technically the designation CF-18 refers to the F-18A and F-18B models we purchased), yet merely dangerous for an F-35?
Going up against a modern air defense system in strike mode. A Superhornet isn't stealth in strike mode, since it carries its ordnance externally.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2012, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 12:53:51 PM
It's a perfectly valid option. Sure costs a hell of a lot less than F-35 will.
It's an interesting question, when you are talking small force sizes: how much extra is it worth to get high survivability?
For most combat missions during its lifetime, a CF-18 will be as good as an F-35. For some, though, it will be suicidal with a CF-18, while for another portion it will just be dangerous.
Does Canada want to spend that much extra to get a plane that can go on 10-20% more combat missions? Especially when those might well amount to a few dozen sorties in the next 30 years?
What's the scenario where Canada faces an adversary that would be suicidal to go up against in modern Super Hornets (since technically the designation CF-18 refers to the F-18A and F-18B models we purchased), yet merely dangerous for an F-35?
Any attempt to penetrate a modern or semi-modern integrated air defense system.
I don't know if "suicidal" is the right word.
But that's kind of my point. What is the scenario that has Canada face an adversary with a modern integrated air defense system? Short of re-fighting 1812, or an extremely unlikely resumption of the Cold War, I can't really see it. Maybe if we got into some kind of shooting war with China, but even then I doubt their capabilities.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 04:10:00 PM
But that's kind of my point. What is the scenario that has Canada face an adversary with a modern integrated air defense system? Short of re-fighting 1812, or an extremely unlikely resumption of the Cold War, I can't really see it. Maybe if we got into some kind of shooting war with China, but even then I doubt their capabilities.
I am not sure that your inability to imagine a situation in the next 30 years when a Canadian air force unit would face a modern (of that time) air defense is an argument.
No doubt someone will be along in a while to suggest the TSR-2 would be a better alternative to the UK aquiring the F35, be it the A,B or C model. :bowler:
Not having any modern planes is an excellent excuse for not participating in foreign adventures.
Yeah we really want to join, if only we have some planes :sleep:
Ships are more important than planes.
I don't get what the point would be. With "modern" engines and shit, this thing wouldn't be all that cheap when compared to things like the F-16 or CF-18, would it? This has probably already been brought up.
Have they never considered the F-16? What kind of tankers does Canada have? Do they have drogues only, or do they have boom setups too (I'm assuming the CF-18 uses the drogues like the F-18)?
It's the modern electronics that are gonna jack the price up through the roof I think.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 11, 2012, 12:41:43 AM
Ships are more important than planes.
We have ships. Nobody else needs ships. What they need are planes. Planes bomb stuff, planes enforce no-fly zones, planes transport troops, planes participate in coalition warfare.
Fucking man up and buy some SuperHornets, Canada. It's cheaper, and there's no issue of armaments or spare parts on multinational missions.
Avro Arrow. :rolleyes: Nigga, please. Wanna build something important? Intercontinental air transports and aircraft refueling platforms. There's a market for that.
They should upgrade the Sopwith Camel, that is a war-tried platform that is Canadian tested.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2012, 12:35:58 PM
We need nuclear powered icebreakers that can go in the artic in the winter to affirm the canadian sovereignity there.
We might need new planes but I say we need ships more. I seem to be alone in that camp, once again.
Maybe you don't remember the Sea Kings fiasco. Helicopters falling out of the skies, killing our soldiers, and requiring 40hrs of maintenance per hour of flight? do you think it's gonna cost less than a new plane? I know it won't, and I have history to back me up.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:50:55 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2012, 12:35:58 PM
We need nuclear powered icebreakers that can go in the artic in the winter to affirm the canadian sovereignity there.
We might need new planes but I say we need ships more. I seem to be alone in that camp, once again.
Maybe you don't remember the Sea Kings fiasco. Helicopters falling out of the skies, killing our soldiers, and requiring 40hrs of maintenance per hour of flight? do you think it's gonna cost less than a new plane? I know it won't, and I have history to back me up.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 06:31:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 04:10:00 PM
But that's kind of my point. What is the scenario that has Canada face an adversary with a modern integrated air defense system? Short of re-fighting 1812, or an extremely unlikely resumption of the Cold War, I can't really see it. Maybe if we got into some kind of shooting war with China, but even then I doubt their capabilities.
I am not sure that your inability to imagine a situation in the next 30 years when a Canadian air force unit would face a modern (of that time) air defense is an argument.
I deliberated phrased it as a question. I can't forsee Canada going up against a modern air defense system. But perhaps I am mistaken, which is why I leave the floor open to others (with admittedly more experience in the area than I) to correct me.
It surely is prudent to design our armed forces around the kinds of threats our Armed Forces are likely to face, rather than remote possibilities. It is for that reason we have de-emphasized tanks, because we are unlikely to face pitched tank battles. But on the other hand armoured personnel carriers are emphasized, given the kind of threats faced in places like Afghanistan.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 01:07:56 PM
I deliberated phrased it as a question. I can't forsee Canada going up against a modern air defense system. But perhaps I am mistaken, which is why I leave the floor open to others (with admittedly more experience in the area than I) to correct me.
I doubt that anyone can tell you whether Canada will go up against a modern air defense (say, that of China or Iran) in the next 30 years. That's why I deliberately phrased the comment to which you were responding as a question.
QuoteIt surely is prudent to design our armed forces around the kinds of threats our Armed Forces are likely to face, rather than remote possibilities. It is for that reason we have de-emphasized tanks, because we are unlikely to face pitched tank battles. But on the other hand armoured personnel carriers are emphasized, given the kind of threats faced in places like Afghanistan.
It is surely prudent to balance possibilities versus consequences. If a low-order-of-probability event has a very high chance of proving an existential threat, you probably want to design your armed forces to defeat it, even if it is not a likely event.
The likeliest event that the Canadian military will face is a year of peacetime operations. That's not what you want to design your armed forces around, though.
@ BB
Before 9/11 who would have thought the Canadian military would be engaged in multi-year front line fighting in Afganistan? Who would have thought that Canadian fighters would be involved in sorties over Lybia?
The world of the cold war was a lot more simple ironically. These days it seems prudent to prepare for the unexpected.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 04:10:00 PM
But that's kind of my point. What is the scenario that has Canada face an adversary with a modern integrated air defense system? Short of re-fighting 1812, or an extremely unlikely resumption of the Cold War, I can't really see it. Maybe if we got into some kind of shooting war with China, but even then I doubt their capabilities.
Even in Libya, the coalition partners
relied on US assets to do the initial destruction of Libyan air defences. I'll be blunt: the RAF itself has admitted it could not do the initial sorties that are required to allow subsequent interdiction missions back in 2011.
So you're not talking about a theoretical conflict with a first-rate power; you're going to benefit from the F-35's capabilities going up against the Libyas and Serbias of the world. This is not a far-fetched notion.
Bottom line, BB, I think is that we need to be able to credibly back the Americans up in whatever (mis)adventures they get embroiled in. Maybe that's a World War with China, maybe it's policing actions in some country we never thought about, maybe it's a multi-lateral boots on the ground shooting war... who knows? But most likely we'll want to be able to pitch in effectively (or make a point by not contributing even though we could).
Personally, I think fancy planes is a good way to do that, since they fly so high and they look impressive.
While maybe you can argue that other kit is higher priority, I don't think "we won't be involved in a war against anyone who can really do anything in the next 30 years" is a good argument for any particular purchase.
Canadian military priorities are (IMO and in no particular order):
1) Ability to assert sovereignty.
2) Ability to contribute to multilateral actions through the UN.
3) Ability to back the US up.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 05:57:53 PM
Bottom line, BB, I think is that we need to be able to credibly back the Americans up in whatever (mis)adventures they get embroiled in. Maybe that's a World War with China, maybe it's policing actions in some country we never thought about, maybe it's a multi-lateral boots on the ground shooting war... who knows? But most likely we'll want to be able to pitch in effectively (or make a point by not contributing even though we could).
Personally, I think fancy planes is a good way to do that, since they fly so high and they look impressive.
While maybe you can argue that other kit is higher priority, I don't think "we won't be involved in a war against anyone who can really do anything in the next 30 years" is a good argument for any particular purchase.
Canadian military priorities are (IMO and in no particular order):
1) Ability to assert sovereignty.
2) Ability to contribute to multilateral actions through the UN.
3) Ability to back the US up.
Except I would reverse 2 and 3. The UN isnt going to be doing anything with Russia vetoing anything the Americans think is a good idea.
I didn't even know that Avro still existed.
Quote from: dps on September 11, 2012, 06:42:00 PM
I didn't even know that Avro still existed.
The point is that it didn't. It was aborted in the first trimester by the CIA. :tinfoil:
Maybe, to save money, Canada should abandon the very idea of having warplanes like the RNZAF, c'mon it's not like the USAF isn't gonna have to defend you if you get attacked regardless.
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
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!
Quote from: dps on September 11, 2012, 06:42:00 PM
I didn't even know that Avro still existed.
Yeah, most likely; but like I said - not in order of priority :)
Quote from: Viking on September 11, 2012, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 07:00:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 11, 2012, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
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?
Quote from: Viking on September 11, 2012, 07:04:20 PMyou 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.
Quote from: Viking on September 11, 2012, 07:04:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 07:00:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 11, 2012, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 08:30:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 11, 2012, 07:04:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 07:00:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 11, 2012, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
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?
;)
Quote from: grumbler on September 11, 2012, 01:02:29 PM
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.
It pisses me off that there's no left pro-military camp.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2012, 10:24:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 12, 2012, 10:44:59 AM
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. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2012, 10:59:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 12, 2012, 10:44:59 AM
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. :cool:
That's impossible. Especially not the "let's give Oil cies money while we cut CBC funding" Harper government. Encouraging big private enterprises :x:
Oh yes - mustn't encourage big private enterprises. When was the last time they ever did anything for us? :shakeshead:
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 12, 2012, 10:44:59 AM
It pisses me off that there's no left pro-military camp.
We can send you Ide.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 10:36:22 AM
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?
QuoteOf 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.
QuoteSo, 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.
QuoteDespite 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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2012, 10:57:52 AM
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.
I think that the F-35 costing twice as much per plane of a flyaway basis is probably the better yardstick. The $236 million isn't flyaway cost, and the $195 flyaway cost is for early/small production run aircraft, which Canada won't be in on.
I don't know how maintenance cost/year/plane is going to shake out between the two birds, but the F-35 is almost certainly going to cost more, because of the cost to maintain its stealth coating.
So, cost-effectiveness is a real issue.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
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.
Nobody is talking about buying russian or chinese aircraft. If we were going to get crazy we might buy French or Swedish jets, but thats about it (I think the Eurofighter isn't suitable because it lacks ground attack capabilities, but that could be wrong).
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
If we change airplanes right now, whatever r&d costs we sunk in the F-35 program, we lose it.
Canada cannot recover sunk costs no matter what the decision, so should ignore sunk costs in making the decision.
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2012, 12:59:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
If we change airplanes right now, whatever r&d costs we sunk in the F-35 program, we lose it.
Canada cannot recover sunk costs no matter what the decision, so should ignore sunk costs in making the decision.
Yeah, Canada should just bite the bullet and buy the latest expansion of WiF.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2012, 12:59:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
If we change airplanes right now, whatever r&d costs we sunk in the F-35 program, we lose it.
Canada cannot recover sunk costs no matter what the decision, so should ignore sunk costs in making the decision.
Yeah, Canada should just bite the bullet and buy the latest expansion of WiF.
Khaki in Flames :nerd: :licklips:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F10447%2F84591994712F4A7297E97F362CC73221.jpg&hash=cc6c594bc83a5177212717236b5f8bbcbd6b9596)
all those black on blue CW Ships will now be legible.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2012, 12:59:20 PM
Nobody is talking about buying russian or chinese aircraft.
you'd be surprised... Muclair seems to have more than a few brain cells active, but I can't say the same for his supporters.
Quote
If we were going to get crazy we might buy French or Swedish jets, but thats about it (I think the Eurofighter isn't suitable because it lacks ground attack capabilities, but that could be wrong).
Imho, the Rafale wouldn't be suitable for Canada's need, but I might be wrong.
Canada should just get some good rifles and decent bayonets and be done with it; it's what they do best.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 05:23:11 PM
Canada should just get some good rifles and decent bayonets and be done with it; it's what they do best.
And sniper rifles. Princess Pat snipers. :wub:
To the left of Neil.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 02:28:25 PM
Khaki in Flames :nerd: :licklips:
all those black on blue CW Ships will now be legible.
Should've done that years ago.
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/
:yeah:
Boats, Boats! Ships! Destroyer! Icebreakers! Nuclear Power!
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 01:33:07 PM
:yeah:
Boats, Boats! Ships! Destroyer! Icebreakers! Nuclear Power!
They're still going to be buying planes. :rolleyes:
Of course, but they will be cheaper. What are the alternatives? Mirages?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 01:48:21 PM
Of course, but they will be cheaper. What are the alternatives? Mirages?
Alternatives:
F-22 - though it isn't actually available for sale outside of the US, but maybe we can get them to make an exception. Plus it isn't currently being manufactured.
F-18 Super Hornet - the modern version of the existing plane. Nice and affordable, but not stealthy.
Eurofighter - I think the problem is lack of ground attack capability
SAAB Grippen - again not stealthy
Dassault Rafale - not sure about
What's the point? A single dreadnought battleship would be far more useful for the purposes that Canada wants these planes for.
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 01:56:36 PM
Alternatives:
F-22 - though it isn't actually available for sale outside of the US, but maybe we can get them to make an exception. Plus it isn't currently being manufactured.
F-18 Super Hornet - the modern version of the existing plane. Nice and affordable, but not stealthy.
Eurofighter - I think the problem is lack of ground attack capability
SAAB Grippen - again not stealthy
Dassault Rafale - not sure about
Really, though; does Canada need stealth? That's our gig.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2012, 02:33:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 01:56:36 PM
Alternatives:
F-22 - though it isn't actually available for sale outside of the US, but maybe we can get them to make an exception. Plus it isn't currently being manufactured.
F-18 Super Hornet - the modern version of the existing plane. Nice and affordable, but not stealthy.
Eurofighter - I think the problem is lack of ground attack capability
SAAB Grippen - again not stealthy
Dassault Rafale - not sure about
Really, though; does Canada need stealth? That's our gig.
And aren't you guys always whining about how other nations can't hold their own weight?
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 02:35:04 PM
And aren't you guys always whining about how other nations can't hold their own weight?
Troops on the ground to absorb IEDs are one thing, flying Canuckistanis are another.
You want to help out? Buy some Hercules and Starlifters and help out with the air train. Leave the real shit for the pros.
We don't need Stealth planes, we're never going to be in an operation without the US Navy having bombed the opposition air defenses to smitherines.
Exactly. Short of jumping back in time to West Germany, Canadian air assets would not be used in the first echelon of any major conflict with a power that would require stealth technology.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2012, 02:38:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 02:35:04 PM
And aren't you guys always whining about how other nations can't hold their own weight?
Troops on the ground to absorb IEDs are one thing, flying Canuckistanis are another.
You want to help out? Buy some Hercules and Starlifters and help out with the air train. Leave the real shit for the pros.
Get with the times, Money. We have had Hercs for decades.
And while in the early aughts we had a dearth of heavy lifting capability, we have subsequently purchased some C-17 Globemasters (which are, you know, the successor to the Starlifter).
You can just go back in this very thread for why stealth would be important. Even going to war against second or third rate powers means going up against anti-aircraft radar and missiles.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 02:44:47 PM
We don't need Stealth planes, we're never going to be in an operation without the US Navy having bombed the opposition air defenses to smitherines.
When the Great War of Albertan Independence starts you will wish you had them.
You might have the wrong impression on who's side Quebec will take. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2012, 02:55:10 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 02:44:47 PM
We don't need Stealth planes, we're never going to be in an operation without the US Navy having bombed the opposition air defenses to smitherines.
When the Great War of Albertan Independence starts you will wish you had them.
Why do we need independence? We now rules this country, both economically and politically. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 02:54:18 PM
Get with the times, Money. We have had Hercs for decades.
And while in the early aughts we had a dearth of heavy lifting capability, we have subsequently purchased some C-17 Globemasters (which are, you know, the successor to the Starlifter).
Buy more, then.
QuoteYou can just go back in this very thread for why stealth would be important. Even going to war against second or third rate powers means going up against anti-aircraft radar and missiles.
I can appreciate your patriotism, BB, but you're wading into "technology searching for a mission" waters with this argument.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
Why do we need independence? We now rules this country, both economically and politically. :cool:
To keep all your oil from leeching commies in British Columbia and Ontario of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2012, 03:02:22 PM
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!'
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2012, 03:02:22 PM
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.
They're just as well off getting CF StuporHornets. At least there's supply chain and armament compatibility there.
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 05:24:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2012, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 05:24:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2012, 11:40:19 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2012, 04:59:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 01:31:15 PM
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? :huh: