OzairThat is not plenty. F18 is not a reference in terms of range. Oh i forgot: no supercruise capability (for long range interceptions)
Yes actually that is plenty of bases. Can you name another country that has an air force of similar size to Australia and Canada that has more bases?
As for range, why would Australia and Canada not use the F-18 as a reference given that is what they operate now?
I am not going to bother discussing supercruise again on this forum except to point out the irony of discussing supercruise and long range interceptions in the same sentence.
No. First in is a NATO label meaning “alone”. 3 nations : UK, France and USA.
If you’re talking air war then there are plenty as Sintra stated.
OzairSorry, i have to disagree on Canada and Australia cases F-35 is too short legged, not enough bases…
The F-35 has essentially twice the range of the classic Hornet which it will replace in both countries (Canada obviously not certain). Both countries also have plenty of bases. In Australia’s case they have three bare bases across the north of the country in addition to the permanent bases. Canada has a number of arctic bases it uses for short periods of the year but I’d expect the number to increase as warming opens up more of the region.
And for international role incoalition, will they day one “first in” operate? (btw how any NATO members have this capability?)
Australia is 100% first day. They train with and are embedded with US forces. Canada hasn’t spent the money to have their classic Hornets as capable as the US and Australians and may not be first day strikers in a near peer scenario.
OzairWell, it was you who claimed the questions raised at the Australian Defence Department were pointless and that the F-35 needed no justification.. that certainly sounds like someone who has much to hide.. well, at least to me.. 🙂
????
Why did you not quote the entire second part of my post which explains clearly why I felt those were wasted sessions and what constitutes valid questioning…
Ozair?
is 50 fighters going to give canada a say ?
Compared to ceding your defence to another nation, yes. It buys you a seat at the table at the very least.
OzairI skimmed over that report but I think you need something that the Canadian public can identify as a real potential threat such as China invading Canada to get tar sands for oil and why fear of the US (or low oil prices) would not stop them from doing that.
The Canadian Department of Defence is employed to raise, train and sustain the best capability they can while executing government policy as directed. The nation should trust them to make correct decisions, if they disagree with those decisions then they have the opportunity to voice their concerns in voting for a party who campaign to change the platform. Educating a whole nation on the threat, when they don’t really care about the threat, as evidenced already by the low interest shown in the military and global issues compared to the internal social issues of the nation, is probably a waste of time and resources.
Ozair.. there is nothing a typical F-35 worshipper is more afraid of than questions.. and that is why I hope there will be even much more of them.. 🙂
I assume you put me into the F-35 worshipper crowd but I am certainly not afraid of questions, nor is the program and nor are the respective governments. It is after all the most scrutinized program in US DoD history!
A level of questioning is valid, welcome and healthy and there should be review and scrutiny/assessment on program progress. If it weren’t for the breach and scrutiny of 2010 then the program would be nowhere near the healthy state it is today. A majority of what we see is not that… and the examples I provided are clearly opposite. Individuals who had little knowledge and understanding of the program, platform, its capabilities and history exhausted hours of time. This developed not from these agitators reading the reports or assessing the progress of the program objectively, but from sensationalism propagated by those who seek to profit from the exchange.
OzairBy the time the US has to start bombing Canada with nukes the entire northern hemisphere will have already been poisoned with the radioactive fall out from a nuclear war and nobody is going to live long enough for it to matter.
Which is why I called it a highly unlikely scenario. The issue is not having a say in the defence and farming off the defense of your nation to another whose interests may be different or conflict is asking for trouble.
Ozairhow do you convince the Canadian public they also have a need in relation to Canada’s security?
The above threat assessment I linked provides the justification on capability of future threats.
OzairWell, you’ve said that the opinion of the general public is unimportant, anyway, so why care, then?
The Australian experience is a good example. There is a number of prominent figures, such as former MP Dennis Jenson, who swallowed the Air Power Australia bait on F-35 hook, line and sinker. These individuals have cost the Australian Defence Department and the Australian Government significant time and money (senate estimates time wasted on pointless questions, further senate inquiry into JSF acquisition, general time absorbed by the Australian DoD answering ministerial questions etc) by having to continue to justify the acquisition of the F-35 in areas that clearly do not require further justification.
Accurate factual reporting and not click bait sensationalism would alleviate much of this unjustified hysteria…
OzairWhat I don’t understand in relation to Canada is why they need anything more than a fourth generation fighter for policing it’s airspace in combination with some long range stealth UCAVs.
Canada has commitments to meet with NORAD and NATO. The irony of their fighter jet procurement is that Trudeau, despite campaigning during the election that Canada will pull out of the Middle East has used an expansion of their commitments (essentially supporting both NATO and NORAD at the same time) as justification for the interim SH buy.
The other side is that Canada has clear assessments on the capability and threat that future air platforms will pose to Canadian Forces as per this, http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/threat-capability-assessment-en.page
If we look to the future threat based on what the above link assesses then F-35 is the best airframe to meet those challenges, not just from a capability perspective but from a supportable perspective into the future.
It’s not as if Canada were to be invaded the US would not feel compelled to throw the invades straight out if not destroy them. New Zealand has this same attitude in relation to Australia & did away with it’s entire air force. If there was a need or a drastic price reduction it would be a lot easier to sell the F-35.
Most governments do not prefer to contract out their defence needs to other nations. In the case of Canada what you’re essentially suggesting is that Canada place their future in the hands of the US. How would that look in the incredibly unlikely scenario that Canada is invaded and the US decides that nuking on Canadian soil is the best option and because the Canadians don’t have a military they don’t get a say… The US would likely favour options that provide the most protection to the US and have less consideration for Canadian interests.
OzairYes, they are obviously buying those quite late and in modest numbers.. See the corresponding deal for Kh-31A/P, Kh-59ME and AIM-120 AMRAAM.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.sg/2015/12/indonesia-approves-purchase-of-kh-31.html
USD 6 million doesn’t buy many AIM-120s, especially when you include a couple of CATMs in the mix… Wonder if they will even keep the live missiles in country.
EDIT: Just found the DSCA agreement and it is for USD95 million expected, not the USD 6 million from the article. The whole package still isn’t for a lot of missiles though, just 36 in total.
OzairWellll.. at least Kh-31s and RVV-AEs are definitely there..
The context of his statement was that Indonesia went without any weapons other than the internal gun and some A2G dumb bombs for quite a number of years with their flanker fleet. Was a topic of conversation on a number of sites given how much they spent on the aircraft and then didn’t equip them with any A2A weapons.
OzairGiven the extraordinarily bad PR of this aircraft, I have severe doubts that anyone is in favor of the acquisition.. those people do not read either JPO or DOT&E reports, they simply read newspapers.. and there is hardly anything positive about the F-35 there.. substantiated or not (I am not saying there is nothing good about the F-35)..
Which is the genesis of my original statement that started this whole offshoot, that the F-35 needs factual reporting not good PR. The JPO, GAO, DOT&E reports are what they are and I have no problem with them (as long as the proper context is understood) but media articles that contain 10% fact and 90% sensationalism should be assessed for what they are.
OzairThey are already grasping with the introduction of the SH as it seems: recently it surfaced that they might be somewhat short of pilots. So hurrying the 35 in might not be something clever.
This always ebbs and flows. There are periods in the last 15 years when the RAAF has had more pilots than it knows what to do with and times when it has had more serviceable jets than pilots.
Either way, the classics are not going past 2023.
Ozairisnt it easier to just admit you are talking out of your **** ?
Did you not read, I am happy to concede the point that my number was off. But it doesn’t alter the fact that the F-35 is not a political issue in Canada, nor was it even in the top ten of election issues in 2015.
Sign In
