The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Crimea_River
Marshal
Not necessarily. The contract will be negotiated over the next several months and could very well stipulate that some Algoma steel be used.
- Thread starter
- #184
Admiral Beez
Major
Do we know if Poland is happy with their Korean tanks? I wasn't keen on Canada being the West's very first trial balloon of Korean submarine tech. The KF-21 fighter looks promising, and may well come to dominate the non-F-35 business for western-aligned 5th (4.5?) gen fighters. If there's any submarine out of Asia I'd want for Canada it would be Japan's Sōryū-class. Australia may wish they'd taken Japan up on that offer.
- Thread starter
- #185
Admiral Beez
Major
Given last week's declaration of a trade war, I think our PM Carney may be leaning towards dropping the F-35 entirely. We can negotiate a penalty for not taking the initial eighteen or whatever units, but they can be readily sold to the next customer in line anyway. Canada's relationship with the US is broken, and will remain so until past Jan 2029, likely into the early 2030s. It makes no sense thus to buy US kit.
Of the three you mention, the Gripen is the reasonable and most available option. The KAI KF-21 looks promising for the future, but the Koreans are likely annoyed with us over the submarine rejection. My guess is that before Christmas, we exit the F-35 contract and order Gripens, along with doubling down on GCAP.
Canada needs hundreds of, domestically built, high performance, low cost, multirole fighter aircraft; not a few dozen costly imports. The whole rational and purpose of our air force and air defense systems must be based upon the availability of numerous reserves of trained personnel and hundreds of reserve aircraft.
Such as?
I challenge you to find any aircraft that will satisfy that desire. I also question where the hundreds of pilots will come from, unless of course you are talking uninhabited/autonomous designs.
F-20 Tigershark; Canada built hundreds of CF-5s and we can still build hundreds of CF-20s.
The hundreds of aircrew come from training programs but that also requires lots of service aircraft and lots of reserve aircraft to handle the inevitable attrition.
So a design that is approx 40+yrs old, never really got into production (remember only 3 built in total), has probably no design drawings etc still in existence, is grossly outdated in terms of core technologies and would still be subject to any US restrictions? Right....
Many Air Forces, and I assume the RCAF is one of them, are already struggling with air crew. Just wishing them up won't make it happen.
It is one thing to update an existing platform but another to try to put one into production that hasn't been in real production ever. It also seems ridiculous to pick one from over 4 decades ago. Just as it was ridiculous when some were pushing for a new version of the AVRO Arrow a few years back instead oof the F-35. Going with an in production type will be far more cost effective. If one really wants to go for a totally homegrown design, it would be far more practical to go with something that is looking to the future, namely something such as an uninhabited type. Warning though: if one is looking for something to be competitive, it is going to be costly. Getting the air crew out of the platform and adopting a CONOPS almost akin to "break glass in case of war" will help on the sustainment costs but there is no way to avoid the fact that modern, capable combat aircraft are expensive.
Howard Gibson
Staff Sergeant
What Canada needs to do is patrol our borders. We are a very large, lightly populated country. We need something fast, with a long range and lots of radar. For home defence purposes, stealth is not important. This means a large, twin engined aircraft very much like the old Avro Arrow. Australia has a similar problem, so maybe they want to participate in the program.
We also have a NATO commitment. This is a good job for one of the European jets.
You don't defend a large country by standing patrols using manned fighters. That's just impractical. Even the AVRO Arrow wasn't planned to be used this way. You use sensors etc to detect and then go from there. This has long been the case for Canada and others (including Australia). Hence why Canada's purchase of Australia's Jindalee over-the-horizon radar technology to enable the Arctic Over-the-Horizon-Radar (A-OTHR)/Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar (P-OTHR) is important.
Errr...a lot of European NATO is using platforms such as F-35, F-16, Eurofighter Typhoon...so do you want to reconsider that as a point for Gripen?
Is this the future?
canadiandefencereview.com
And before the "sovereign" long-range unmanned systems appear, can the above-mentioned sensors be carried by foreign platforms such as Eurodrone, Herone TP, and Acinci?
Canada Launches Defence Drone Initiative to Accelerate UAS
Canada launches the Defence Drone Initiative to fast-track Canadian uncrewed systems from concept to production for the CAF and Coast Guard.
canadiandefencereview.com
And before the "sovereign" long-range unmanned systems appear, can the above-mentioned sensors be carried by foreign platforms such as Eurodrone, Herone TP, and Acinci?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
Rafale or Typhoon are more potent, albeit more expensive than Gripen.
A mix may be optimal.
In any case, Trump has broken trust with many allies, especially Canada. Hopefully, sometime before my children die of old age, his successors will restore US honor
A mix may be optimal.
In any case, Trump has broken trust with many allies, especially Canada. Hopefully, sometime before my children die of old age, his successors will restore US honor
- Thread starter
- #197
Admiral Beez
Major
The Gripen E has a longer air intercept, Meteor-armed endurance than the Rafale or Typhoon. Though it is very close. And unlike the others, the Gripen is being readily offered to Canada.
Indeed, as is our obligation under NORAD. We don't need to give the White House any justification to enter our air space.
I'm not pleased that the F-35's Lockheed-Martin is the primary systems contractor to the RCN's new River class destroyers. Smarter people than me will need to tell us that was a smart move.
CAE signs subcontract with Lockheed Martin Canada to begin implementation phase for River-class destroyer program - Canadian Defence Review
CAE signed a subcontract with Lockheed Martin Canada to begin the implementation phase for the River-class destroyer program (formerly the Canadian Surface Combatant), marking a significant milestone in the development of next-generation naval capabilities for the Royal Canadian Navy.
canadiandefencereview.com
Last edited:
Are you referring to aerial endurance (i.e. time in the air)? If so, a little thing called aerial refuelling kind of makes that a moot point. It is also a meaningless point unless both aircraft are operating at the same range under similar conditions.
If you are specifically talking about the MBDA Meteor, than the Rafale and Typhoon both also carry the Meteor:
True, they aren't being offered...and perhaps one should ask why that is. Perhaps it is because neither of their producers believe Canada is a viable sale option. Saab on the other hand a pushing big time because they know a win here would be a big one for them. They are also trying to play the political game rather than rely on actual capabilities.
This is not to say that the Gripen E/F is a bad aircraft. It is a good one and I actually like it. However, to try to compare it to the F-35 in terms of capability or industrial benefits (yes, these are important to governments) is not realistic.
"domestically built, high performance, low cost, multirole..."
You can have three of the above but getting all four is going to be tough.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
