NORAD in 2012 – Ever Evolving, Forever Relevant

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jul 2012, 21:59

NORAD in 2012 – Ever Evolving, Forever Relevant
by Lieutenant-General Tom Lawson with Captain Michael Sawler

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no3/page5-eng.asp

PDF version (0.8Mb): http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/n ... age517.pdf

"Lieutenant-General Thomas J. Lawson, CMM, CD, MSc, is a very experienced fighter pilot who has commanded at all levels and has held a variety of senior staff positions, including Assistant Chief of the Air Staff from 2009 to 2011. He is currently the Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defence Command.

Captain Michael Sawler, MSc, is the Business Relationship Manager for the NORAD J3 (Operations) in Colorado Springs, Colorado....

...Fighter aircraft must possess a wide variety of capabilities, including extensive range, endurance, speed, survivability, the ability to perform air-to-air refueling, advanced reconnaissance capabilities, and interoperability with other military assets. While our current fighter aircraft, the CF-18 Hornet, is capable of performing its tasks at this time, it is reaching the end of its effective operational lifespan. It needs to be replaced. Analysis of these capability requirements for a new fighter has “… made it clear that only a 5th generation fighter could satisfy our needs in the increasingly complex future security environment. We need a capability that helps us carry out our core missions of defending the sovereignty of Canadian and North American airspace through NORAD, providing Canada with an effective and modern capability for international operations, and effectively conducting joint operations with our Allies though NATO or a coalition....

A very long illustrated article indeed about the history of NORAD. Obviously best to read the whole thing if interested.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post28 Jul 2012, 07:54

That is a good historical perspective. I had heard abit about each of these elements (dew line, etc) but I didn't know the construction sequence and evolution of the interlinked systems.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2954
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post28 Jul 2012, 20:01

Until there is a negotiated 'World-truce', a more sustainable coordination and cooperation between multi-polar world powers and a final end to potential future cold-wars... then, for good or bad, NORAD will arguably remain a necessary capability and function.

With that said, it's unfortunately clear in my opinion at least, that the likes of "Captain Michael Sawler, MSc, Business Relationship Manager" is communicating divergent and contradictory statements about what RCAF needs and requires as her CF-18 recapitalization strategy.

He clearly states that; "the CF-18 Hornet is capable of performing its tasks at this time... [but] is reaching the end of its effective operational lifespan... [and] it needs to be replaced." True, the official talk for at least the last 10 years has been that the CF-18 needs to be replaced, ASAP.

Unfortunately however, as much as it would be nice, the 'stay the course plan' will simply not be able to 'replace CF-18' soon, under a previously required time frame or affordably, as was originally estimated and expected.

Now, enter the Business Relationship Manager's follow-on comments that a 5th gen aircraft must be the platform which RCAF operates in the future and the conflict and contradiction starts to come into play, vis-a-vis RCAF's time-frame-dictated requirements to replace the CF-18 on schedule.

Clearly, and logically, something has to give... as the originally expected time-frame to replace CF-18 will simply not be sustainable nor doable.

That is reality and has nothing to do with respect to whether one is pro-F-35, or F-35 sceptic.

So the question by top leadership (and arguably not from business relationship leadership) should now become something like: "how do we best get from 'A' to 'Z' in the most cost-effective, most reliable and most realistic path"!

Well, conservatively speaking, that will probably require some fairly strategic-minded and rather bold decision-making in the very near future, in order to best evaluate likely alternative Plan B interim solutions for RCAF reaching her final foreseen 5th gen recapitalization destination.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post28 Jul 2012, 21:57

geogen wrote:Until there is a negotiated 'World-truce', a more sustainable coordination and cooperation between multi-polar world powers and a final end to potential future cold-wars... then, for good or bad, NORAD will arguably remain a necessary capability and function.

With that said, it's unfortunately clear in my opinion at least, that the likes of "Captain Michael Sawler, MSc, Business Relationship Manager" is communicating divergent and contradictory statements about what RCAF needs and requires as her CF-18 recapitalization strategy.

He clearly states that; "the CF-18 Hornet is capable of performing its tasks at this time... [but] is reaching the end of its effective operational lifespan... [and] it needs to be replaced." True, the official talk for at least the last 10 years has been that the CF-18 needs to be replaced, ASAP.

Unfortunately however, as much as it would be nice, the 'stay the course plan' will simply not be able to 'replace CF-18' soon, under a previously required time frame or affordably, as was originally estimated and expected.

Now, enter the Business Relationship Manager's follow-on comments that a 5th gen aircraft must be the platform which RCAF operates in the future and the conflict and contradiction starts to come into play, vis-a-vis RCAF's time-frame-dictated requirements to replace the CF-18 on schedule.

Clearly, and logically, something has to give... as the originally expected time-frame to replace CF-18 will simply not be sustainable nor doable.

That is reality and has nothing to do with respect to whether one is pro-F-35, or F-35 sceptic.

So the question by top leadership (and arguably not from business relationship leadership) should now become something like: "how do we best get from 'A' to 'Z' in the most cost-effective, most reliable and most realistic path"!

Well, conservatively speaking, that will probably require some fairly strategic-minded and rather bold decision-making in the very near future, in order to best evaluate likely alternative Plan B interim solutions for RCAF reaching her final foreseen 5th gen recapitalization destination.


In reality, there is no gap with the stated delivery schedule (even pushing the bulk of the deliveries into 2021.) The actual requirements to meet Canada's current NORAD commitments (in terms of actual operational aircraft) are significantly less than you would expect. They can coax some of the airframes to 2022 if need be, but by 2020 they should have enough F-35s to meet their NORAD needs.

Now there will be a gap in Canada's ability to deploy aircraft for foreign conflicts, but that's a different issue.

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest