The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[jmt18325]

Except for those pesky airstrike missions on IMPACT and Kosovo...

We're too small for a mixed fleet, we need multirole fighters to do a little bit or everything.

My personal view is that our major focus should be the defence of Canada, and that we should spend far more money on the Air Force (and navy).  If that means paying for a mixed fleet so be it.  65 F-35s (or Super Hornets if we have to) and 35 F-15s would be a pretty well rounded fleet.

Too bad that's just a fantasy.

 

[PuckChaser]

My personal view is that our major focus should be the defence of Canada, and that we should spend far more money on the Air Force (and navy).

Much like cyber security, when you allow a threat to get onto your system (or borders in this case), its already too late. You cannot have a strong military/foreign policy by bottling up and staying within your EEZ.

 

[Jarnhamar]

My personal view is that our major focus should be the defence of Canada, and that we should spend far more money on the Air Force (and navy). 

This doesn't reflect the current threats Canada and Canadians face today.  The defence of Canada is accomplished  by engaging radical extremists in their backyards not repelling Russian bombers. 

 

[CBH99]

I understand your logic JMT, and the old me would have agreed.

From a 'birds eye view' focusing on purely military threats, engaging threats away from Canadian soil is ideal.  Much like the video game Command & Conquer, blowing up the enemy ships & bad guys as far away from your own territory is always the most ideal.

Unfortunately we live in this murky world, where the threats being faced by people in the West aren't really military in nature anymore.  While the Russians may fly flights in their far north & occassionally 'venture a wee bit far', and while they may hold drills on their western borders with Europe -- the people in the West aren't at immediate risk of a purely military confrontation.

The real threat is now far gloomier, harder to detect, individuals & groups that operate in the shadows.

Good intelligence, strong law enforcement, strong border security, and killing them before they try to get here is the name of the game these days.

Multi-role fighters capable of performing those roles reasonably well, is ideal for us, given our manpower, budget, and geopolitical climate.

:2c:


(That isn't to ignore possible military threats.  But as much as our extremely biased media industry tries to keep itself alive on half-truths and fearmongering, the large peer states don't want a fight any more than we do.)

 

[Journeyman]

Then, once you get your head wrapped around the complexities of the purely security- and defence-driven side of the equation (good luck with that), then there are the equally complex political and economic issues, each with their own factors at play:

- local employment, such as construction, maintenance, knock-on employment opportunities linked to defence communities;
- participating in others' procurement through specific parts/technologies;
- assisting others' security through knowledge, experience, and expertise (published or otherwise);
- standing and potential alliance commitments;
- 'quid pro quo' for otherwise unrelated diplomatic/trade initiatives, which come linked to providing security support;
- debt servicing, depending on aircraft source and negotiations;
- etcetera, etcetera,.......

Less than  :2c:  since it's just off the top of my head.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

This doesn't reflect the current threats Canada and Canadians face today.  The defence of Canada is accomplished  by engaging radical extremists in their backyards not repelling Russian bombers.

Not sure I'd agree.

Our domestic terrorist threats appear to be just that: "domestic".

Re: Protecting Canadians - I think the key issue is if Canada is going to maintain its NATO commitments and continue to try to support fledgling nations like Ukraine.  As long as we are, we owe our military personnel the best weapons systems we can afford to ensure that any conflict with Russia maximizes their casualties and minimizes our own.

 

[jmt18325]

Much like cyber security, when you allow a threat to get onto your system (or borders in this case), its already too late. You cannot have a strong military/foreign policy by bottling up and staying within your EEZ.

Nor would I advocate doing only that - it's simply what I see as being our primary focus.  I could of course, be completely wrong, which is very possible.

 

[NavyShooter]

What you see as our primary focus.  AHA, here we have the cusp of the matter.

What is the actual RCAF focus....and what is the government's direction? 

You're worried about you, we're worried about the institution.

See the difference?

NS

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not sure I'd agree.

Our domestic terrorist threats appear to be just that: "domestic".

Re: Protecting Canadians - I think the key issue is if Canada is going to maintain its NATO commitments and continue to try to support fledgling nations like Ukraine.  As long as we are, we owe our military personnel the best weapons systems we can afford to ensure that any conflict with Russia maximizes their casualties and minimizes our own.

More importantly, we want to make sure that we maximize 'deterrence'.

If the bad guys have better stuff (and leadership) than us, they will have fewer qualms about stepping in and doing what they want without fear of retaliation. Other nations tend to think more in terms of 'acceptable losses' than we do.

You know, like that Obama 'too little, too late' thing http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-obama-finally-finds-his-courage-pills-now-that-its-too-late-to-matter

 

[MarkOttawa]

RCAF fighter "capability gap"?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/mark-collins-what-stinking-rcaf-fighter-capability-gap-for-norad-and-nato/

Well, with 24 CF-18s recently in California...official tweet:
https://twitter.com/CanadaNATO/status/816215529169879040

Canada at NATO Verified account
‏@CanadaNATO

#Forces2016 #ExPumaStrike16B @CanadianForces @RCAF_ARC @USMarines @CanCGLA @CanadianAlly @USNATO @usembassyottawa

And from NORAD:

Exercise PUMA STRIKE: Royal Canadian Air Force conducts training aboard Miramar

Marine Corps Airstation Miramar, Calif. -- Service members with the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) began Exercise PUMA STRIKE with 24 CF-18 Hornets aboard Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California, Oct. 31.

Pilots, air crew, technicians and support personnel from 3 Wing, Bagotville; 4 Wing, Canadian Force Base Cold Lake; 17 Wing, Winnipeg; and 414 Electronic Warfare Squadron from Ottawa, Ontario, deployed to MCAS Miramar to conduct this warm weather training exercise...
http://www.norad.mil/Newsroom/Article/1002309/exercise-puma-strike-royal-canadian-air-force-conducts-training-aboard-miramar/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SupersonicMax]

These exercises are critical for Force Generation.  Puma Strike is, I believe, an OTU driven exercise meaning is mostly benifits OTU students rather than the fighting units although the line units sometimes piggy back on the exercise as well.  With 24 deployed, I'd say that's the case. 

IIRC, you can generate 2-3 times as much on a deployed exercise than at home, especially in the wintery months.

 

[MarkOttawa]

SupersonicMax: Was engaging in a bit of snark  .

Mark
Ottaa

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I didn't realize that the RCAF still had an EW sqn. Learn something new every day.

 

[PuckChaser]

I didn't realize that the RCAF still had an EW sqn. Learn something new every day.

Info machine says they fly Alpha Jets, as well as whatever likely classified EW support required.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/3-wing/414-squadron.page

 

[SupersonicMax]

414 is a Squadron of EWOs that fly in the backseat of Alphajets owned and operated by Discovery Air Defense Services (Top Aces).  They do not provide any combat roles but rather are more like a support Squadron, providing a target that may or may not have a jamming pod that may or may not emmit.  They are essentially Red Air to the Hornets.  They also provide targets for ships and FAC training for the Army. 

 

[YZT580]

Israel has 40 f16's gently used, well-tested and available right now if we really need a filler.

 

[Spencer100]

I would not say "gently used" but combat tested! 

 

[Quirky]

These exercises are critical for Force Generation.  Puma Strike is, I believe, an OTU driven exercise meaning is mostly benifits OTU students rather than the fighting units although the line units sometimes piggy back on the exercise as well.  With 24 deployed, I'd say that's the case. 

IIRC, you can generate 2-3 times as much on a deployed exercise than at home, especially in the wintery months.

All the more reason to shut down the sh*t bucket that is cold lake and move the jets back to the island where the temperature is more moderate in the winter.

 

[Kirkhill]

All the more reason to shut down the sh*t bucket that is cold lake and move the jets back to the island where the temperature is more moderate in the winter.

Pretty much sums up why the only people that invested in "our" north has been the USAF.

 

[dimsum]

All the more reason to shut down the sh*t bucket that is cold lake and move the jets back to the island where the temperature is more moderate in the winter.

While I'd agree generally, neither Comox nor Pat Bay would be able to support all of that.  It's not like there's tons of room to build, since they're pretty much penned in with development now.