Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
This is personal opinion @John Fedup, but I doubt if Canada chose not to go for F35 they would loose participation. Canada and the US are attached at the Preverbal hip both geographically and industrially. Canada without an order has spent over 540 million dollars on F35 without buying any to this point with Lockheed Martin promising a return over the life Of the program in the Billions.


Turkey was of course forced out due to a number of issues that needless to say seem impossible to happen between the US and Canada.
As a matter of opinion I think F35 is the best bet, however I am not Canadian. Each of these Jets has great selling points for my neighbors to the North.
F35 gives state of the art in all aspects,
F/A18 Block 3 Rinos are durable no slouch machines. That bring multirole to new levels. It can even tanker siblings.
JAS 35 along with its great tech brings it’s unique ability to operate in the worst of cold weather from short strips.
I can see this cutting a few ways. If Canada does opt to go with a fighter other than the F-35, the F-35 programme could decide to "refund" the $540 mil. has contributed and the farm out the component workshare which had originally been intended for Canada. I see this as being a real possibility if one of the claimed factors behind not choosing the F-35 is workshare and/or offsets, since the F-35 programme has already set what those can be, and there is no room to change that if Canada were to set different requirements as part of their replacement fighter programme.

Another potential issue, if Canada was mad enough to think that a domestic Gripen build was a good idea, was that either Canada would need to pull aerospace component workers from F-35 component work to make components for domestically built Gripens, or setup entire new facilities and a workforce for Gripen while keeping existing workers producing F-35 components.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just a couple of quick questions for the Canadian contingent, how often do the four Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) Inuvik, Yellowknife, Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet get used by the RCAF? Also, should the proposed FOL at Kuujjuaq been built at the sametime? Cheers
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Just saying. Canada isn't going to fight China and Russia in the event of war between them and America beyond possibly lip service. Canadians are peaceful and not will engage in foreign wars. This is the reason Gripen is sufficient for Canadian air force and the most likely plane Canadian air force will buy to replace the aging CF-18 frames. As for counter terror operations in the future, even if Canada rejoins the war on terror even though such a chance is extremely small, armed drones are far more suited to that type of mission than manned combat jets. The sortie costs are far lower for armed drones than they are for manned combat jets. Case in point. Syria and Libya where armed drones, not manned combat jets, rule supreme.

This article explains my point very well.

Having bothered to read through the link, I can see why Preceptor had issues with the piece when he had requested proof to support assertions that Canada would not fight China or Russia. Aside from a pricing inaccuracy which leapt out at me and also immediately indicated the political opinion writer did not know their arse from their elbow in terms of military procurement programmes, there was nothing which supported the assertions made. Rather, the writer was arguing that Canada should redirect at least some of the defence budget towards eco/green spending, and also reexamine Canada's membership in NATO and presumably NORAD as well, with the author apparently having a preference for Canada becoming a Non-aligned nation. My take on this is that the author is either ignoring or perhaps ignorant of both past security issues involving Canada, and the increasing instability and competition for resources occurring currently, as well as likely changes to international trade routes and areas of accessible natural resources if climate change continues.

Again, for the general forum membership, citing an article where someone outlines their opinions on what they want or think should happen, is nowhere near proof that the actual outcome or impact will even remotely resemble what was mentioned in the opinion piece. This is something important for posters to remember, if or when they make an assertion about what will happen.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Having bothered to read through the link, I can see why Preceptor had issues with the piece when he had requested proof to support assertions that Canada would not fight China or Russia. Aside from a pricing inaccuracy which leapt out at me and also immediately indicated the political opinion writer did not know their arse from their elbow in terms of military procurement programmes, there was nothing which supported the assertions made. Rather, the writer was arguing that Canada should redirect at least some of the defence budget towards eco/green spending, and also reexamine Canada's membership in NATO and presumably NORAD as well, with the author apparently having a preference for Canada becoming a Non-aligned nation. My take on this is that the author is either ignoring or perhaps ignorant of both past security issues involving Canada, and the increasing instability and competition for resources occurring currently, as well as likely changes to international trade routes and areas of accessible natural resources if climate change continues.

Again, for the general forum membership, citing an article where someone outlines their opinions on what they want or think should happen, is nowhere near proof that the actual outcome or impact will even remotely resemble what was mentioned in the opinion piece. This is something important for posters to remember, if or when they make an assertion about what will happen.
That is one of the reasons why that particular poster's time on here was somewhat short. Preceptor swung the ban hammer on that one after the Moderators had their discussion and made their decision about said poster's future on here. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. In this case the poster in question was given guidance by members, DEFPROs, and a couple of the Moderators. However such guidance was brushed aside and the poster continued on their path of ignorance and ultimate introduction to the ban hammer. The Moderators would like to thank to the forum members and DEFPROs who took the time to offer guidance to HeimDefan.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Just a couple of quick questions for the Canadian contingent, how often do the four Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) Inuvik, Yellowknife, Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet get used by the RCAF? Also, should the proposed FOL at Kuujjuaq been built at the sametime? Cheers
All of them are available to support NORAD operations and have runways that allow CF-18 use. Yellowknife has a transport role also. Actual use, other than planned exercises, probably minimal but don’t really know. When CF-18 interception occurs, the press announcements usually mention CF-18s operating out of Cold Lake, AB. No idea about Kuujjuaq but the location doesn’t seem to offer any advantage.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
All of them are available to support NORAD operations and have runways that allow CF-18 use. Yellowknife has a transport role also. Actual use, other than planned exercises, probably minimal but don’t really know. When CF-18 interception occurs, the press announcements usually mention CF-18s operating out of Cold Lake, AB. No idea about Kuujjuaq but the location doesn’t seem to offer any advantage.
Thanks for the info John, apparently Kuujjuaq was to become a FOL aswell but was cancelled due to budgetary concerns. Cheers Hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993--H.R. 5006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, Second Session
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The RCAF is now receiving C-295s, 16 were ordered and delivery is to be completed in 2022. A very long completion to the FWSAR program, as per Canadian military procurement.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
The RCAF is now receiving C-295s, 16 were ordered and delivery is to be completed in 2022. A very long completion to the FWSAR program, as per Canadian military procurement.

Very bright yellow, even had to put my sunglasses on looking at the picture :cool:
 
Top