Forum: Air Power

As I'm sure you're all aware, we're nearing the completion of a federal election campaign here in Canada.

One of the hot topics has been Canada's decision to purchase the F-35 Lightning II as the replacement for our current fleet of CF-18 Hornets, which are entering their 4th decade of service.

What I propose in the linked article below is that another option, one consisting of multiple fast air platforms, should be considered.

I'm hoping to engage in some discussion about the piece, and would love to hear any feedback you may have about it.

The Canadian Air Force Multiple Fast Air Platform Option

F-16.net Sponsor

Ok, it's been read a few hundred times...lol

Would love it if some folks would give some feedback to me, no matter how harsh.

I think you bring up some very good points. I will say that I think the RCAF will end up needing some more robust tanking assets, be they KC-46, KC-135R, are A330MRTT (as you somewhat referenced early on)

With regards to the fighters, I do think that the F-35 acquisition for Canada makes good sense if Canada sees itself intervening in situations where a stealth capability is mandated by a sophisticated IADS. I think the case for the F-35 gets weakened by the fact that Canada will likely never be doing this alone, in my opinion. The catalog of capabilities that are brought to the table by NATO include many means of suppressing and destroying an IADS, and I don't think the member nations should look at procurement without paying better attention to how they see themselves operating independent of the NATO alliance. Granted I am not Canadian, or Dutch, Italian, Danish, etc, but I think that the likelihood of an armed conflict involving just one of the aforementioned nations and an adversary is somewhat low. If that is the case, does every partner nation need to invest in a stealthy strike capability? Perhaps not. However the F-35 doesn't only bring its LO advantages to the A2G arena, so lets consider that separately.

Whether F-22, PAK-FA, J-20, or otherwise, 5th gen aircraft are here to stay. Like it or not, it will become an adapt or die situation for air forces worldwide. Many will argue this point I'm sure, but simply put, there will be no viable alternative to 5th gen capabilities in the A2A arena. While it may be fun to moot ideas about the F/A-18HX MK3 or the F-16P MK4, 4th gen is not really a substitute for 5th gen, if you wish to maintain a truly viable air arm. Like it or not, the Rafale or Typhoon will never be the rivals of the F-22, F-35, or PAK-FA in a BVR engagement. I don't care if you give them a Meteor missile with a range of 350NM, it is totally meaningless when you can't even detect the target, and he can kill you at his leisure. IF Canada wants to remain a real player in any future conflict involving A2A combat with a peer or near peer, there is no western substitute to the F-35, in my opinion.

4th gen aircraft can be made more useful in an A2G scenario through the use of stealthy, stand off, munitions (think JASSM) however the same cannot be said of the A2A arena. While a pairing such as F-22/F-35 would be ideal in the future, it simply cannot be. That being said, for the best multi-role option going forward, I do believe that Canada should stick to the F-35.

Well, I've gone and done it, so let the flaming of me begin, whether by Euro-Canard fans, or F-35 haters.

HV

Ya know, if Canada can't afford a suitable number of F-35s, I'd strongly recommend the acquisition of several dozen F-16s. These could supplement the F-35s in air defense and in permissive environments. Training could be provided by the USAF at Luke AFB, saving the RCAF quite a bit.

If Canada couldn't afford the full buy of F-35s, I think the acquisition of several dozen F/A-18E/F's in a similar manner to the Australian procurement would no doubt make more sense. Introducing the Super Bug would be far easier from a training and maintenance standpoint due to the already existing infrastructure to support the Legacy Hornet. Presumably a suitable number could then be converted into Growlers if the RCAF can later up its F-35 buy. Training could be provided by the USN at Lemoore or Oceana, still saving the RCAF quite a bit after you factor in all the excess expenditures for developing the suitable support base for a few dozen F-16s.

HV

WE CANNOT AFFORD TWO FIGHTER PROGRAMS. How many times will this have to be said?

pushoksti wrote:

WE CANNOT AFFORD TWO FIGHTER PROGRAMS. How many times will this have to be said?

Dude, chill pill.

I realise, as I said in the article, that this was a pipe dream from the get go.

I'm simply wondering if the opportunity for multiple fast air platforms was available, what would be the airframe which would work best with it?

In the article I cited the Super Hornet, but a year later, I'm actually at the point where I'd propose the SE as well.

Once again, this is just dialogue and I realise it won't happen.

hotrampphotography wrote:

I'm simply wondering if the opportunity for multiple fast air platforms was available, what would be the airframe which would work best with it?

With our tiny budget there is really no point in speculating. There simply wouldn't be enough of either platform that would make any impact. You'd have what, 30 for air cover and another 30 for ground attack. We are barely getting by with the 77 CF-18's we have left now. IF we were allowed to pick up something to compliment the F35 for NORAD roles, it would probably be the F-16. It's cheap, can carry the latest A/A weaponry and is compatible with USAF tankers for northern ops.

HaveVoid wrote:

If Canada couldn't afford the full buy of F-35s, I think the acquisition of several dozen F/A-18E/F's in a similar manner to the Australian procurement would no doubt make more sense. Introducing the Super Bug would be far easier from a training and maintenance standpoint due to the already existing infrastructure to support the Legacy Hornet. Presumably a suitable number could then be converted into Growlers if the RCAF can later up its F-35 buy. Training could be provided by the USN at Lemoore or Oceana, still saving the RCAF quite a bit after you factor in all the excess expenditures for developing the suitable support base for a few dozen F-16s.

HV

If the Canucks were really looking for a bargain, they could use the USAF maintenance structure, in a similar manner to the MN/WI ANG. As for the SE, the cost of that airframe would probably be far more than tolerable for a secondary platform. If the CF-35 procurement was terminated, then Boeing should keep the Eagle line open for hopefully 60-80 Seagles/SEs/whatever you want to call them Cool

Additionally, having a third airframe type for NORAD would be a major reassurance. If one airframe (JSF/SE/Raptor) has a major fault, another could pick up the slack. If, for example, the F-35As had a major malfunction (not impossible with single-source powerplants), then the Raptors and Eagles could, with a short-term increase in readiness, cover NORAD's needs until the Lightnings were back online. I vaguely remember the CF-188s taking care of US air defense during some grounding incident a few years back, so it's not as unlikely as one might think.

pushoksti wrote:

WE CANNOT AFFORD TWO FIGHTER PROGRAMS. How many times will this have to be said?

The capital certainly exists, it's just the willingness of the current Government to make the cuts in other areas that are necessary to maintain a formidable military. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick XYZ government programs or an F-35 supplement. I know my choice, the question is if Parliament can make the call. (This could either take the form of more CF-35s, or a second platform, be it Vipers, SEs, or SHornets).