AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
In some ways they already do - they don't sell the F-22 to anyone (including allies). But to say it out loud is just so gauche - then again, who are we talking about?
AoD
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter BMO
- Start date
In some ways they already do - they don't sell the F-22 to anyone (including allies). But to say it out loud is just so gauche - then again, who are we talking about?
AoD
kEiThZ
Superstar
More than just the F-22. We have a dispute over the F-35 right now. They aren't sharing the new GaN based AN/APG-85 radar. Not even with Five Eyes. And that's raising hackles not just in Ottawa. The -81 is a fine radar. But switching from GaAs to GaN has notable gains.
EBT
Active Member
This should be reason alone for any NATO country to never want to purchase another American Fighter Jet or weapons system again. It's one thing if the American's don't want to sell their F-22 but to market this jet to NATO countries and then deny access to upgrades is no way to do business. This would be like Tesla not allowing non-American customers to have access to software upgrades.
From what I have been able to learn this new radar enhances the jets stand-off capabilities by allowing longer range detection of enemy aircraft. Not allowing NATO members to have access to this better radar that lessens a pilot's vulnerability is not the action of a true ally.
kEiThZ
Superstar
There's no other jet on offer that comes close to the capabilities, even without the new radar.
And while this is all a fun forum topic for you, I know thirtysomething fighter pilots strapping into an obsolete fighter absolutely pissed at the politics of all this. If there are more delays, it's likely we won't have many fighter pilots left. The guys and gals serving now know that their jet can't go up against anything close to near peer. And they know their country has refused to invest in the very kit that their lives depend on for a decade and a half.
At this point, this is no choice. We're taking delivery of the F-35s. The only question is how many. And whether we buy a second combat fleet and what it will be. And that will require substantial increases in defence spending, which I'm guessing people like you didn't even think about 3 months ago. So let's talk about what you're willing to pay to reduce the dependence on the US. Cause it's not even just the fighters. Wait till you find out how much of our kit (or subsystems) are American sourced.
Not Just F-35, Canada's $77-Billion River-Class Destroyers Also Hinge on the U.S. | Defense Express
The River-class missile-carrying destroyers with the Aegis system are expected to become Canada's principal warships, but they rely heavily on American-made components
en.defence-ua.com
lenaitch
Senior Member
Up until a few months ago, there was a widely held feeling amongst military members and military observers, analysts, etc. that there should be a high degree of integration with US suppliers, not only because of our close interoperability with the US but to ensure a secure supply chain. Getting involved with European partners seemed more risky and there were concerns with a trans-Atlantic supply chain. There was a belief that, if Euro and US kit was comparable, we should lean towards the US.
That thinking has shifted. It clearly isn't possible to completely divorce ourselves from the industrial powerhouse on our doorstep, in either military or civilian matters, but a higher level of diversification is now seen as a good thing.
That thinking has shifted. It clearly isn't possible to completely divorce ourselves from the industrial powerhouse on our doorstep, in either military or civilian matters, but a higher level of diversification is now seen as a good thing.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Should be noted. I was one of those always skeptical about deeper US integration. For example, it's unfortunate to me that the navy ditched the British CAMM. We could have made that a tri service air defence missile.
en.m.wikipedia.org
I have always thought some of the preference for US kit was service dependent and laziness. So much of the Army's kit is European sourced. It's the air force and navy (particularly sensors and weapons) tthat are very US dependent. And that's largely both familiarity and value. There's really nothing like the value that Americans offer in those areas. Consider the F-35. Then consider all the alternatives. There is literally no better value when you consider the capability/$ ratio and it's not even close. All the Euro aircraft cost a lot more for somewhat less capability (Rafale, Typhoon) or they cost less for substantially less capability (Gripen).
Now, I think if we look at the future and where the US is going, I'm not sure that holds up. That value comes from having a large user base. If the user base shrinks, costs go up. It's entirely possible that the value points between the Koreans, Europeans and Americans will converge more in the future as the US loses customers. Diversification will be costly. But not as much as some pro-American alarmists think.
Going back to the CAMM example this is an area I'd like to see politicians actually impose on policy on DND. Force diversification away from the US where possible and commonality across services. For example, instead of CAMM, the army and navy can use the French Aster:
en.m.wikipedia.org
And I personally think the French are the best option here, to really reduce ITAR susceptibility. The joint Anglo-Italian stuff can be better, but they are more willing to use American sourced components.
CAMM (missile family) - Wikipedia
I have always thought some of the preference for US kit was service dependent and laziness. So much of the Army's kit is European sourced. It's the air force and navy (particularly sensors and weapons) tthat are very US dependent. And that's largely both familiarity and value. There's really nothing like the value that Americans offer in those areas. Consider the F-35. Then consider all the alternatives. There is literally no better value when you consider the capability/$ ratio and it's not even close. All the Euro aircraft cost a lot more for somewhat less capability (Rafale, Typhoon) or they cost less for substantially less capability (Gripen).
Now, I think if we look at the future and where the US is going, I'm not sure that holds up. That value comes from having a large user base. If the user base shrinks, costs go up. It's entirely possible that the value points between the Koreans, Europeans and Americans will converge more in the future as the US loses customers. Diversification will be costly. But not as much as some pro-American alarmists think.
Going back to the CAMM example this is an area I'd like to see politicians actually impose on policy on DND. Force diversification away from the US where possible and commonality across services. For example, instead of CAMM, the army and navy can use the French Aster:
Aster (missile family) - Wikipedia
And I personally think the French are the best option here, to really reduce ITAR susceptibility. The joint Anglo-Italian stuff can be better, but they are more willing to use American sourced components.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Looking into the 2050s. My vote is for Canada to take a pass.
The BAe Tempest looks nice, and without the baggage.
And we're already buying their kit.
The BAe Tempest looks nice, and without the baggage.
And we're already buying their kit.
kEiThZ
Superstar
1) Developmental aircraft always have risk. Just like buying an F-35 in 2011 with the first lots would have been bad, buying the first Tempests would have risk.
2) The first Tempest isn't due to enter service till 2035. And the first ones would must definitely not go to Canada. They would go to Japan which has hard deadline based on the threat of Chinese modernization.
3) Our Hornets won't last long past 2030. They'll be pushing a half century old at that point. The gap between the Hornet retirement and potential Tempest EIS is too long.
4) Not at all clear that Tempest is ITAR free. Important for us going forward.
5) Expensive. It's on track to be US$200M per aircraft. This is more than competing French led FCAS at US$150M.
6) Not clear if Canadian industrial participation is welcome. Japan, Italy and UK are all big industrial aerospace players with big pieces of the F-35 program. Italy and the UK have big pieces of the Eurofighter consortium. A big motivation for GCAP/Tempest is for all participants to maintain their industrial edge in making combat aircraft. Would they let us in? Unclear.
All of the above said, I think it would be prudent to talk to GCAP and FCAS now to see which consortium meets our needs and give us a better deal for the 2040s. One of the reasons we're in this mess, is because, like everything else in Canada, nobody wants to look a decade or two ahead.
EBT
Active Member
France steps up: Rafale jets offered to Canada, Portugal: LINK
This is a good short-term option for Canada. I read that the Rafale was previously rejected because of its lack of interoperability with American fighter jets. Until recently (about 5 months ago) interoperability was considered for obvious reasons to be of paramount importance for NORAD. In this new unreal world that we suddenly find ourselves thrust into interoperability with fighter jets from a country that has all but declared Canada an enemy is no longer a consideration in fact Canada needs to exit NORAD a defense pact that has always primarily benefited the defense of the United States. I don't think wiping Canada off the map has ever been a big priority for the Russians or before them the Soviets.
For 66 years Canada has contributed immensely to the air defense of the United States acting as a ~2500-mile buffer between the United States and the perceived greatest threat to the United States Russia and the former Soviet Union. Currently 40% of funding for NORAD comes Canada despite the fact that the United States is the primary beneficiary of NORAD and is 10X the size of Canada. For this Canada receives no recognition or gratitude from the current occupant of the White House who says "we pay to defend Canada". Name one country that has done more for the defense of the United States than Canada? I can't think of any. Just by our geographic location Canada is by default America's greatest ally. How would the American's feel about the perceived threat from Russia being moved 2500 miles south from the Canadian arctic to the Canadian/American border? How would the American's feel if they lost all early warning detection from radar stations in Canada's north? What would be the implications for Russia's first-strike capabilities if that happened? A war is being fought in Ukraine over similar geographic considerations.
Long term I think Canada should look to partner with a friendly nation to develop and build a sixth-generation stealth fighter containing the least number of American components as possible. Preferably ZERO American content if it is determined that we need such a manned aircraft in the future which I am not convinced of. Unmanned automatous AI powered hypersonic drones will make manned fighter jets obsolete someday soon.
With regards to the new Canadian Destroyer program referenced above in this thread Canada needs to go back to the drawing board. We need to build a destroyer with European "kit" not American. This is non-negotiable although in the age of "Carrier-killer" hypersonic missiles from Russia, China and even Iran and Yemen are surface naval vessels obsolete? Should we instead be putting our money into submarines?
Mark Carney said in a speech the other day that 90 cents of every Canadian defense procurement dollar goes to the United States. This has to stop IMMEDIATELY! We don't need the United States. What we cannot make ourselves we can buy from friendly nations, and I would go even further and say I would prefer Canada buy military equipment from the Russians or Chinese than from the Americans. Canada could sure use a bunch of Russian S-400/500 air defense systems right now!
Thinking long term, I believe that France is probably Canada's best bet as defense partner. The Brits are too much in the American camp (perhaps that will change after April 2nd). Perhaps France can sell us some nuclear-powered submarines that the Australians stupidly cancelled that we could equip with nuclear missiles since without nukes no country is safe from American aggression. The United States has suddenly turned into a predator nation in search of weak nations to bully and finally acquire. Canadians need to wake up to this new regrettable reality.
This is a good short-term option for Canada. I read that the Rafale was previously rejected because of its lack of interoperability with American fighter jets. Until recently (about 5 months ago) interoperability was considered for obvious reasons to be of paramount importance for NORAD. In this new unreal world that we suddenly find ourselves thrust into interoperability with fighter jets from a country that has all but declared Canada an enemy is no longer a consideration in fact Canada needs to exit NORAD a defense pact that has always primarily benefited the defense of the United States. I don't think wiping Canada off the map has ever been a big priority for the Russians or before them the Soviets.
For 66 years Canada has contributed immensely to the air defense of the United States acting as a ~2500-mile buffer between the United States and the perceived greatest threat to the United States Russia and the former Soviet Union. Currently 40% of funding for NORAD comes Canada despite the fact that the United States is the primary beneficiary of NORAD and is 10X the size of Canada. For this Canada receives no recognition or gratitude from the current occupant of the White House who says "we pay to defend Canada". Name one country that has done more for the defense of the United States than Canada? I can't think of any. Just by our geographic location Canada is by default America's greatest ally. How would the American's feel about the perceived threat from Russia being moved 2500 miles south from the Canadian arctic to the Canadian/American border? How would the American's feel if they lost all early warning detection from radar stations in Canada's north? What would be the implications for Russia's first-strike capabilities if that happened? A war is being fought in Ukraine over similar geographic considerations.
Long term I think Canada should look to partner with a friendly nation to develop and build a sixth-generation stealth fighter containing the least number of American components as possible. Preferably ZERO American content if it is determined that we need such a manned aircraft in the future which I am not convinced of. Unmanned automatous AI powered hypersonic drones will make manned fighter jets obsolete someday soon.
With regards to the new Canadian Destroyer program referenced above in this thread Canada needs to go back to the drawing board. We need to build a destroyer with European "kit" not American. This is non-negotiable although in the age of "Carrier-killer" hypersonic missiles from Russia, China and even Iran and Yemen are surface naval vessels obsolete? Should we instead be putting our money into submarines?
Mark Carney said in a speech the other day that 90 cents of every Canadian defense procurement dollar goes to the United States. This has to stop IMMEDIATELY! We don't need the United States. What we cannot make ourselves we can buy from friendly nations, and I would go even further and say I would prefer Canada buy military equipment from the Russians or Chinese than from the Americans. Canada could sure use a bunch of Russian S-400/500 air defense systems right now!
Thinking long term, I believe that France is probably Canada's best bet as defense partner. The Brits are too much in the American camp (perhaps that will change after April 2nd). Perhaps France can sell us some nuclear-powered submarines that the Australians stupidly cancelled that we could equip with nuclear missiles since without nukes no country is safe from American aggression. The United States has suddenly turned into a predator nation in search of weak nations to bully and finally acquire. Canadians need to wake up to this new regrettable reality.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Delulu as the kids say.
The intent is fine. The plan is terrible.
Suggestions to buy from the Russians (the very country driving division across democracies and influencing Trump) is nuts.
The intent is fine. The plan is terrible.
Suggestions to buy from the Russians (the very country driving division across democracies and influencing Trump) is nuts.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
No. I’m suggesting the Tempest rather than the F-47 as the successor to the RCAF’s F-35s, likely in the 2050s.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The Americans never sold the F-22. Congress went out of their way to prohibit exports. This is what partly motivated the F-35, a fifth Gen they could share with allies and cheaper. What makes you think the F-47 would be available to Canada?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Because the White House just announced that dumbed down versions of the F-47 would be available to allies. The Brits won’t want it if they have their Tempest, the Japanese their Mitsubishi F-X, and the EU their FCAS. Plus there’s the multinational GCAP. Who is Boeing going to sell these bricked F-47s to? IDK, but if they’re made available for export, Canada would be a potential customer.
PL1
Senior Member
Just waiting for someone to suggest reviving the Avro Arrow program....
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I get the sentiment - but that was what, more than half a century ago. Why would *anyone* revive a plane that practically belongs to the museum and is primitive (and I don't mean it pejoratively - but relative to the reality of today) in every way? Besides, I don't think we have the continuity required for this kind of a task.
AoD