Canada only needs a stealth aircraft if it’s doing stealth-dependent ops – deep strike or ISR or (if indeed an F-35 can do this) hunting mobiles and relocs in heavily defended airspace. That would only be as a frontline member of a US-led coalition against a high-tech adversary, and the idea is that such coalition will already have tons of F-35As.

I couldn’t agree more.

And against a high tech peer level adversary, 65 F-35s or 79 F/A-18s will be insufficient.

Peer level combat ops burn aircraft out. Not only are you losing aircraft lost or damaged in combat but you’re also suffering higher accident rates due to higher, more stressful tempos and airframes are being worn out quicker especially if you throw in intensive dogfighting or constantly carrying large loads.

Most of these will be recoverable in medium to long term. But in the short term you need airframe and pilot numbers to maintain operational sorties.

EDIT: Either way Canada (and most European F-35 purchases) offer combat capability only for low intensity conflict or against a low tech non-peer opponent.

The airframe numbers are far too low for meaningful contribution to a high intensity conventional conflict against peer level opponent.

It’s why Asian and Middle Eastern countries maintain large fleets including larger numbers of 3rd generation fighters.

A few more Super Hornets vs F-35 is hardly a bargain. So, in 1944 would you want 79 Wildcats or 65 Hellcats????

Depends on what I’m using them for.

If I need to be able to fight a conventional war against a peer ala 1944 or even 1973, I take F35. And then not just a measly 65. Instead I’d be ordering hundreds of them.

If I need to be do air policing over a large territory, intercept the odd errant Russian turboprop bomber and occassionally drop bombs on defenceless third world types whilst maintaining fleet numbers sufficient to maintain operational requirements and get reasonable fleet life, then I go for F/A-18E/F.

4th generation is fine for small countries without overly hostile neighbours, without a need or ability to project power and especially project power independently.

However if you want your country to be a major player in global affairs or you have bad relations with irritable neighbours with deep pockets, then 5th generation is required, along with tankers, AWACS, strategic airlifters, cruise missiles, ISR, hardened C4 etc etc.

Most NATO countries don’t need F-35s. Most Asian ones do.

RE: AV-8B/B+.

As stated it’s daft.

I’m surprised they haven’t gone a redesignated all the aircraft since like they did in 1962.

What’s really wierd is that transports and trainers are running both the pre-1962 sequence and the post-1962 one.

E.g. Post -1962 – C-17, C-20, C-21, C-27, C-37, KC-46
Pre-1962 – C-143, C-144 (Coast Guard), C-145 C-146 Special Ops aircraft)

Trainers:

pre-62 resurrected: T-51, T-52, T-53
post-62: T-1 (navy T-33), T-2
alternate: T-1, T-3, T-6 (which skipped T-4, T-5)

Seems the Tri-Service Designation system is slowly being flushed down the toilet in favour of lame marketing gimmicks.

They lost 1 F-111.

Diversions happen even in modern times – mechanical failure, weather etc. Bombs miss still as well – atmospheric conditions, malfunctions, bad coordinates, even operator lack of proficiency in laser designators (e.g. in early stages of Afghan conflict).

The Turks find their upgraded F-4s just fine for bombing Kurdish rebels. French used Atlantiques as bombers over Mali just fine.

Oh and French Jaguars successfully bombed a Libyan Air Base during Chad conflict for no losses.

Israeli F-15 and F-16s have been flying over Syria with impunity.

Only fixed wing loss in Iraq in 2003 (other than friendly fire) was an A-10 to a Roland and the Iraqi AD network was belive it or not, in better state than Libyas – they had attempted to rebuild including new fibre optic communications.

And then we have the usage of helicopter gunships and light strikers around the world with not many combat losses.

————–

The threat matrix in expeditionary conflict is low these days. The “bad guys” lack super power support (so no advanced MANPADS, AD or fighters), have often fragmented into badly armed militias as opposed to well trained and organised state forces and often lack money due to internal corruption and lack of economies of scale.

Even many state armies have gone this way – Libya is a great example.

The only time you need super advanced equipment is if you’re still thinking about state level conflict with peers.

For anything else cheaper or older gear is sufficient. Add LGB ability and current levels counter measures and you’re generally doing fine.

Aereo; any news on above speculation F/A-18s could be retired by 2020?

I think the big German problem is not economic, it’s a lack of interest in military affairs.

Damn, I think JSR hacked Thobbes’s account.

Nah. I’m serious though. Against countries/forces with no functional air defence, upgraded 3rd generation is more than acceptable. In many cases even A-1 Skyraiders/A-26 Invader level aircraft with LGB capability would be sufficient – indeed look at usage of Atlantiques as bombers in Mali or large numbers of PC-7/EMB-312/-314 s used as light strikers across the globe.

Libya’s AD was completely useless garbage in 1986 when Yanks bombed them the first time. By 2011 it was largely non-operational and completely obsolete.

Basically these kind of ops are almost zero risk to aircrews – the biggest risk is mechanical failure.