Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Does Canada really need stealth in their generally defensive posture ?

You might want to check where CF-18s have been operating the last 35 years...

(this is probably the worse stereotype of the RCAF BTW, Marsavian.)

Canada has never fired a shot in anger over the great white north, but Korea, Europe the Middle east and Africa are very different stories...

Yes, expense will be a factor. Capability will be a factor. And poltics as always, will be a factor. But does anyone here really believe the Canadian evaluation is going to be logical, after witnessing how Canada runs its acquisition programs so far?

The money would wave them off it. Its really that simple. Its not only the cash up front, F-15s cost more to operate, and if its a twin seater (which seems to be the case with these late model F-15s) it brings in personnel and further cost issues. (the guy in the backseat doesn't work for "free rides")

Honestly, if the USAF or RCAF would want the F-15X. Then hold a competition and let the chips fall as they lay....

NOTE --- I am not defending the F-15X descision --

But I don't think that it is a question of which aircraft is better (F-18 vs F-35 vs F-15X). At least that is what the Air Force has been saying. The Air Force is explaining itself in terms of it's F-15 unit needs. The F-15Cs are going to die bit by bit before they have a replacement at the Unit level. So you can't send a worn out F-15C to the boneyard and replace it with an F-35A one for one because F-35s don't fit in an F-15C unit. Even if the F-35A is better at many or maybe even most of the F-15C missions.

The F-35 has always been sold as a replacement for F-16/FA-8/A-10. Which is a pretty big drawer of shoes to fill.

So you can't send a worn out F-15C to the boneyard and replace it with an F-35A one for one because F-35s don't fit in an F-15C unit. Even if the F-35A is better at many or maybe even most of the F-15C missions.

Why??

According to your logic squadrons like for example the 27th Fighter Squadron would never been able to convert to the F-22 (like it did in 2005) because both aircraft (F-15C and F-22) are very different aircraft.

If that F-15X or whatever F-15 variant ever goes ahead then this will only be done for one and following reason:
- To keep Boeing manufacturing fighter aircraft for the USAF, period!

The F-35 has always been sold as a replacement for F-16/FA-8/A-10. Which is a pretty big drawer of shoes to fill.

And last time I checked the RCAF operated the F/A-18 (which is called CF-18 in Canada).

I hope that no other reader gets offended here with what I'm going to say but saying that the F-15X (or whatever F-15 variant) has any chance to win a contract in Canada to replace the F/A-18 is simple preposterous!

Canada buying the F-15 for the RCAF makes exactly the same sense as buying B-52's for example for the RCAF as well.

The future Canadian fighter aircraft will be the F-35, period. And the only reason why the F-35 purchase was delayed - and the objective of this "competition" is indeed only to delay the inevitable which is the F-35 purchase - is well known and was already "debated to death" in this same threat (politics of Justin Trudeau).
What Justin Trudeau said about not buying the F-35 was only regarding not buying it in this first term of his, which is ending up riddled with several scandals, Canadian people are also getting tired of him (of his "personality") and by judging by the latest polls - even the ones considered more "pro-Liberal" - it's very likely that this Justin Trudeau's first term will also be his last.

Moreover, the Canadian government already invested more than $500 million and as a result the Canadian industry already received more than $1 Billion - There's no other fighter program that can give the same level of returns as the F-35, period! (and I'm not even talking about capabilities here)

Honestly, if the USAF or RCAF would want the F-15X. Then hold a competition and let the chips fall as they lay....

NOTE --- I am not defending the F-15X descision --

But I don't think that it is a question of which aircraft is better (F-18 vs F-35 vs F-15X). At least that is what the Air Force has been saying. The Air Force is explaining itself in terms of it's F-15 unit needs. The F-15Cs are going to die bit by bit before they have a replacement at the Unit level. So you can't send a worn out F-15C to the boneyard and replace it with an F-35A one for one because F-35s don't fit in an F-15C unit. Even if the F-35A is better at many or maybe even most of the F-15C missions.

The F-35 has always been sold as a replacement for F-16/FA-8/A-10. Which is a pretty big drawer of shoes to fill.

It's not the air force requesting the F-15X, it's not even SecAF. There was nothing in the budget proposal for F-15X it was added later by the SECDEF

It's not the air force requesting the F-15X, it's not even SecAF. There was nothing in the budget proposal for F-15X it was added later by the SECDEF

Now, why would the acting SecDef, a former Boeing executive, want to acquire an aircraft from Boeing, that the USAF is not asking for?

It's not the air force requesting the F-15X, it's not even SecAF. There was nothing in the budget proposal for F-15X it was added later by the SECDEF

Now, why would the acting SecDef, a former Boeing executive, want to acquire an aircraft from Boeing, that the USAF is not asking for?

Because until recently resigned ACTUAL US SecDef wanted it? Therefore Acting SecDef just following the lead? Dunno.

It's not the air force requesting the F-15X, it's not even SecAF. There was nothing in the budget proposal for F-15X it was added later by the SECDEF

Now, why would the acting SecDef, a former Boeing executive, want to acquire an aircraft from Boeing, that the USAF is not asking for?

He is an Acting Secretary of Defense and will need a job soon.........

Canada doesn't need stealth, given its primarily defensive posture. If called to fulfill their NATO commitments, they'll just do what a lot of other countries do - let "someone else" (cough, America) fight first. They'll go in second, which once the US takes out the IADS, they'll be just fine zipping around in Eagles.

They'll love the fact it has 2 engines, has good range and carries a lot of well, everything.

Yes, expense will be a factor. Capability will be a factor. And poltics as always, will be a factor. But does anyone here really believe the Canadian evaluation is going to be logical, after witnessing how Canada runs its acquisition programs so far?

Canada doesn't need stealth..........

It's not the air force requesting the F-15X, it's not even SecAF. There was nothing in the budget proposal for F-15X it was added later by the SECDEF

Hell, they can't even come up with a remotely good case for the F-15X either........

Canada doesn't need stealth, given its primarily defensive posture. If called to fulfill their NATO commitments, they'll just do what a lot of other countries do - let "someone else" (cough, America) fight first. They'll go in second, which once the US takes out the IADS, they'll be just fine zipping around in Eagles.

.....

Canada doesn't need stealth..........

As others already mentioned, the RCAF fired all its shots in anger after WWII (and even during WWII) abroad as part of an allied coalition and even against a technically well equipped enemies which was the case of Operation Allied Force in 1999. By the way the Canadian participation in Operation Allied Force in 1999 was sanctioned by a Liberal government. BTW, the Canadian participation on the JSF (which as we all know led to the F-35) was also sanctioned by the same Liberal government.
As such it's obvious that Canada needs a future stealth aircraft and IMO I believe that everyone making these decisions knows it.
The "F-35 and Canada doesn't need Stealth" was only a petty political weapon used (by JT&theLiberals) to win the previous elections against the Conservatives which were in the government at the time and like a renown Canadian Singer sings in one of her also renown songs -> "Those days are gone..."

They'll love the fact it has 2 engines, has good range and carries a lot of well, everything.

- F-86 Sabre (known as CL-13 in Canada)
- F-104 Starfighter (known in Canada as CF-104)

These 2 main and historical post-WWII jet fighter aircraft were "only" single engine.

Moreover Canada's post-WWII main training jet aircraft, the CL-41 Tutor and the BAe Hawk are also single engine.

OK, but the F-86 and Starfighter were a LONG time ago. And how many Starfighters did they lose in accidents, something on the order of 50%?!? Since then, they seem to have changed their thinking considerably.

As far as the liberal gov't sanctioning combat use/investment in the F-35 program. Maybe. But they're also the same liberal gov't that snubbed the F-35. Their past behavior/decision making is no barometer of what they'll do in the future. In fact, Canada's behavior is (at times) absolutely bizarre. Which is why I think the F-15X buy is at least plausible.

People here have outlined very logical reasons why the F-15X wouldn't be the best choice. Problem is, Canada has proven anything but logical. Buying 2nd hand retro 80's Hornets sounds like a punch line, not the best fighter for Canada..

Which is why I think the F-15X buy is at least plausible.

Smokin' that stuff again?

OK, but the F-86 and Starfighter were a LONG time ago. And how many Starfighters did they lose in accidents, something on the order of 50%?!? Since then, they seem to have changed their thinking considerably.

F-18 wasn't chosen because it has 2 engines. Thats an "interesting footnote" that has been blown out of all proportion. It was never the primary reason for the F-18 selection, it was an "afterthought" to create a better case for the low IQ types. Mention "safety" and people go into a hypnotic trance.


AND GOOD GOD DID IT WORK

As far as the liberal gov't sanctioning combat use/investment in the F-35 program. Maybe. But they're also the same liberal gov't that snubbed the F-35. Their past behavior/decision making is no barometer of what they'll do in the future. In fact, Canada's behavior is (at times) absolutely bizarre. Which is why I think the F-15X buy is at least plausible.

People here have outlined very logical reasons why the F-15X wouldn't be the best choice. Problem is, Canada has proven anything but logical. Buying 2nd hand retro 80's Hornets sounds like a punch line, not the best fighter for Canada..

Im telling you. The sticker shock makes it a non starter. If they balk at the F-35 price, and even the Super Hornet price, then the F-15 is even less plausible as it costs more money. in every conceivable way. from the start up costs, to the buy, to the CPFH, to the personnel, everything about F-15s costs more which is why things like F-16s and F-18s exist.

My point is, no matter how dumb the liberals are, they are too cheap to do anything that foolish. We saw the interim super hornet bust.

OK, but the F-86 and Starfighter were a LONG time ago. And how many Starfighters did they lose in accidents, something on the order of 50%?!? Since then, they seem to have changed their thinking considerably.

As far as the liberal gov't sanctioning combat use/investment in the F-35 program. Maybe. But they're also the same liberal gov't that snubbed the F-35. Their past behavior/decision making is no barometer of what they'll do in the future. In fact, Canada's behavior is (at times) absolutely bizarre. Which is why I think the F-15X buy is at least plausible.

People here have outlined very logical reasons why the F-15X wouldn't be the best choice. Problem is, Canada has proven anything but logical. Buying 2nd hand retro 80's Hornets sounds like a punch line, not the best fighter for Canada..

Again procurement =/= military strategy. The same day you say this, the government announces an additional 850 troops will be contributed to Iraq and Ukraine missions.

Procurement has a domestic industrial component that deforms choices and decisions, as well as the requirement to navigate the peculiarities among a less defence literate populace.