John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,101
Both are much more expensive. Quebec would welcome the Rafale though.
Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions
- Thread starter John Fedup
- Start date
Is the effort to save money or gain independance from the US or build actual capability.
Always kind of confused how Canada sees the world. There is a peer war in Europe where 100,000+ have died and states are fighting for their existential existence and global stockpiles of 155mm artillery and barrels are depleted and pretty much the entire Soviet stockpile is gone. There is a war in the Middle East which has depleted a significant portion of the entire US strike stockpile. The now almost inevitable high pressure potential biggest global conflict ever with the American-Sino conflict. But also erratic leadership from the US with semi genuine concerns about them invading Denmark and Canada, or becoming totally insular, or perhaps imploding into their own civil issues.
And the move is to spend a little less, and get something a bit further into the future? Maybe with a bit more workshare?
Even historically peaceful, low spend states like New Zealand, Japan, Germany, etc are not just increasing budgets, they are trying to buy and build as much as they possibly can in the time left. Non aligned states are literally buying as much hardware that comes onto the market as they possibly can. People are talking about shipyards and factories going 24/7/365 in a full war like mobilisation.
The future conflicts aren't some magically far away in time potential. They are here and now. They have already started. If Canada is thinking about another aircraft, it should probably to assist delivery schedules.
Honestly, maybe Canada should acquire more Hornet airframes to keep their numbers up at least in mass until more deliveries arrive, and training and conversion can happen. US is disposing of their last Hornets, these could be acquired.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,103
It is the result of being totally pissed off with Trump. No money would be saved. Independence and actual build capability came into focus with the the questionable delivery capacity as a result of the Iran and Ukrainian wars. Neither have any quick solutions.
Junior and the idiots that supported him for ten years defines the confusion. Whether Carney can sort this remains to be seen
All these issues seem to be on the government's radar...finally!! Again, we are stilling waiting for action.
The spend a little less plan and order later is now DOA. Workshare, still desired and that is not unreasonable.
USN and USMC Hornets....why would we waste money on them, pretty much worn out? We need to decide NOW on new fast jets and in the meantime spend lots of coin on drones and anti-drone defence in conjunction with new army kit to deter our biggest threat.
Well they would likely be cheap/give aways. Its dumb, but it is also dumb to be in the situation Canada is with its airforce.
What would Canada likely do if they were told with 100% confidence that China and the US are going to have a high intensity conflict in 2028 and the USAF may loose up to half its air force. That everyone, China, US, and everyone else, is currently acting like this going to happen. The end result of this may include Russia being a client state of China and China basing long range J20, drones and bombers in northern Russia (either under Chinese or Russian command). The US side, no longer a functioning democratic state. Both sides focus on building up huge numbers of full autonomous drones who do not respect airspaces. Global productivity drops as both sides launch huge constant cyber and physical attacks.
What capabilities apart from limited F-35 deliveries is Canada able to bring operational by late 2028? Because if you don't have it by early 2028, it doesn't exist and will may never exist. You still have to make plans for the future, but know major conflict is coming, and that any plans made for deliveries post 2028 have extremely high risk.
The idea that Canada can start to transition its defence arms race to start in 2028 is 10+ years too late.
Four geopolitical scenarios being war gamed by top boards
Global regulators are forcing boards to better prepare for big geopolitical shocks in new rules that are expected to hit our shores later this year.
Germany, known for its slow acquisitions, is moving very fast on its drone production program with deployable capability to be deployed by 2029, on a platform it hasn't even selected yet, that itself isn't FOC. Germany herself, operates 141 Eurofighters, 80 Tornados and F-35s (ordered with similar delivery dates to Canada). Germany sits in the middle of Europe.
Even then, the drones are designed to operate with Combat aircraft.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,105
Agree
If a high intensity war between the US and China breaks out in 2028, it will go nuclear and what Canada could do is meaningless.
Extremely Unlikely. This isn't a 1960's cold war stand off. But its interesting you say that, maybe that feeds into Canada's position. That if the US is defeated/stalemated then from the Canadian point of view, there is no point in trying. Canada needs to ask more questions of itself, including what if the US is defeated, or if the US abandons them.
China has a different policy with nuclear weapons, they aren't are major part of why it is a threat. The truly game changing thing from before, is China doesn't need nuclear weapons to win against America. China makes more ships, more planes, more missiles, more technology than the US. China's economy is as big as the US. The US China relationship is very, very different from the US-Soviet Russia one.
China doesn't really want to wipe the US off the map, they would make excellent consumers for Chinese goods, it wants the US wealth, and it wants to get it by simply beating the Americans at their own capitalistic game and make them secondary to them. The US isn't some ideological devil that can't exist, it is what they intend to replicate and turn themselves into. America needs to remain materially intact enough to prove that China is better. At least in my opinion, analysing and reducing complex nation states and their aims is difficult and not my forte.
But if Canada thinks the US is erratic and chaotic now, then looking into a future where China wins a conventional war, but with heavy losses on both sides, one that China quickly rebuilds and the US can't. China takes Taiwan, pushes Japan back, pushes the US Navy to Hawaii, neutralises Guam, controls global shipping. US becomes 2nd largest economy in all metrics. I would think the US would have its own internal crisis when that happens, it will become very chaotic and nationalistic, and may want to pick fights it can win.
Or US China competition just becomes extremely high stake as the two nations cold war try to out innovate each other in a brutal way, that involve various minor hot wars. Testing each others barriers and borders and defences.
One of the key things will be Canada in that situation.
China circumnavigated Australia in a rather limp attempt at perhaps intimidation (but still with a very capable cruiser, disrupting air travel, probing defences). I could easily see China deploying a more substantial force to push freedom of navigation through northern Canada, flying through Canadian airspace etc.
In that case US fighters could be shooting down Chinese drones over Canadian cities/urban areas on a regular basis.
In that case having an operational fleet of 100-200 older F-18 would be more useful, than a dozen F-35s. Canada would need to be able to fly continuous air patrol missions more like other countries like Japan, Korea etc. The Canadian air force would have to have much more mass. More squadrons based remotely etc. Many countries have large fleets of older planes like F-5/old block F-16, etc for just this mission. Taking on aircraft of a type already in operation with the air force would be much quicker and doable than trying to get deliveries of a new aircraft to bring in 50+< 3-4 years.
Canada could conscript/incentive former F-18 pilots/maintainers into service. Draw ex-US service men and women over. Protecting Canada may make more sense to them than being conscripted into a high intensity attrition war with China over Taiwan.
The F-18's I am talking about are now currently used as home guard units for the US. The aircraft would then perform a similar mission for Canada, not be deployed to Europe or Asia, but fighting over Canadian territory has Canada experiences a Ukraine style air threat.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,107
I agree that China probably does not need nukes to win against the US. Their industrial capacity will be sufficient even after the US expends their all their strike weapons. The US could resort to them if they were losing badly enough.
The above could work if there is no serious shooting war. A war would diminish American wealth but more importantly, American consumers won't buy Chinese goods after having their a$$es kicked.
All the above is possible except for the US becoming the 2nd largest economy. Losing a war and the likely civil strife that follows doesn't sound like a 2nd place finish to me.
The US won the the first cold war because of industrial capacity, wealth, and technology along with some help from allies. The US position today wrt those parameters aren't as overwhelming. Not sure when China's demographic problem kicks in but not likely before the US bankrupts itself.
I don't know the range of any naval Chinese drone that could be fired from our Northern waters but the distances to Canadian cities is immense and even more to American ones. PLAN assets up there would have to deal with land based defences, USN SSNs (maybe our new subs if stuff happens in the next decade), and $hit weather. Again, timing is important. Canada has MQ-9B and P-8s on order to further complicate any PLAN activity in the Arctic.
Probably should end it here and move further comment to the Canada defence thread.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,108
Based on this article, Trump should be pleased with a reduced RCAF buy. Forty jets out of the export pipeline would help out the USAF spares problems. If we commit to 88 jets it should include more parts manufacturing in Canada. Seems we will need more spare parts!
GAO: Just Over One in Four F-35As Fully Mission Capable
GAO: Just Over One in Four F-35As Fully Mission Capable
Terran
Well-Known Member
That’s a bit of spin there John. As the article points out these rates fluctuate and the Navy and Marine fleets were doing better this than they had 5 years ago. There are a number of known issues here on why they slumped. Issues that are likely to be resolved by the time of a full CF35 delivery. Additionally this doesn’t resolve any of the issues that we have pointed out for the proposed Grippen.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,110
The readiness goal for 2030 is 65%. Currently 16 jets on order and long-term items for an addition (14?) have funding so if the additional 14 or whatever are fully committed to this year, would these all arrive by 2029-30? If the readiness goal isn't reached in 2030 or worsens then what? LM's resolutions to problem issues isn't exactly stellar. I can imagine the increased political pressure against increasing the fleet past 40 jets in 2030 if readiness goals to continue to disappoint. Of course if the world goes to $hit in 2027-28 as some predict, none of this with matter.
Terran
Well-Known Member
F35 is still going through info structure build out and this article is on the American F35 not a Canadian buy.
Farther F35 infrastructure exists to build up as opposed to Grippen which is only theoretical.
That political pressure to curtail a Canadian buy of more F35 because of American readiness is more likely to result in the Royal Canadian Air Force reverting to crop dusters than any sort of fast fixed wing.
Farther F35 infrastructure exists to build up as opposed to Grippen which is only theoretical.
That political pressure to curtail a Canadian buy of more F35 because of American readiness is more likely to result in the Royal Canadian Air Force reverting to crop dusters than any sort of fast fixed wing.
Announced at the G7 conference.
RCAF to purchase MB346 Lead In Fighter Trainers.
breakingdefense.com
RCAF to purchase MB346 Lead In Fighter Trainers.
Canada opens negotiations on M-346 trainer aircraft - Breaking Defense
The news comes as Canada continued to debate whether to finalize a large procurement of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or add in a procurement of Saab-made Gripen jets
breakingdefense.com
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,114
Interesting piece of news but as it comes from the brother of Ontario's ex Premier (aka McLiar), probably not very relevant.
In Japan, Canadian defense minister expresses interest in GCAP sixth-gen fighter project - Breaking Defense
In Japan, Canadian defense minister expresses interest in GCAP sixth-gen fighter project - Breaking Defense
You have mentioned this previously in Canadian threads, a scenario where America abandons the defense of Canadian territory during a high-intensity conflict with China and Russia. I still maintain that the US will militarily defend Canadian territory the same it would defend Washington State or Idaho or Minnesota etc. The honest reality is that for military purposes, Canada is a protectorate of the United States. Especially with the current US administration, we wouldn't probably even have a say how the US would deploy it's military resources in our territory during such a conflict.
Even during an internal crisis or civil conflict in the US which you allude to, Canada would likely have to pick a side and our fate would be intertwined (unlikely the British Empire will keep US civil war 2.0 south of the 49th parallel).
So John's point I believe is correct, there is no realistic non-nuclear scenario where the US abandons the defense of Canada.
The current government has now painted themselves into a bit of corner IMO. They have drummed up enough nationalistic / anti-US sentiment that procuring non-US military arms is good domestic politics. But they also know they have to be careful how far they go or the US will just go it alone and not even involve Canada in it's military planning - see Golden Dome as an example.
Possibly another way of seeing it is whether the US sees Canada as a partner or a buffer zone. The USAs first priority, as with any nation, is to defend their own interests. It is always better to fight wars on other people’s territory. The US will do whatever it needs to do to defend itself and if that involves rolling troops and weapons onto Canadian territory then that is what will happen regardless of whether they gain Canada’s permission first.
When it comes to aircraft such as the F-35 it is is still the best option for Canada. GCAP is still way off in the future. It is possibly still an option if Canada reduces its F-35 buy and somehow drags another decade of life out of the Hornet.
It doesn't say it in the Article, I read they wanted to go in on an observer basis, Given Canada's procurement of the F-35 since first agreeing in 2002, You would have to be brave to take then into the programme any further
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,118
Any war in our neighbourhood involving China or Russia will be likely be via missiles (probably mostly ballistic). WTF would the US roll troops and weapons to in Canada and what would be the advantage over the lower 48 states? Russia has no ability to invade over the pole or through Alaska. China has better options via its navy and massive industrial capacity and naval launched drones and missiles would be their first strike options.
Canada is already committed to 16 F-35s and long term items for another (14?) are on order. Questionable which is further off, block 4 and ECU upgrades or GCAP.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,119
For the likely number required, no program involvement is needed. It would be a straight purchase if deemed suitable.... I assume.
Maybe. Depends on definition.
If the US has to choose though, between Guam and Northern Canada? Which priority will it give? Where is it going to put resources? Where are those resources operating out of. What is the threat each is facing, why are they facing the threat? Which is going to be delt with first, which is most urgent?
Guam is under a different threat from Minnesota. Guam has a strategic position, is a major military base and overseas territory. Is the US realistically going to divert resources from Guam, fail to protect its air and naval bases, its ships, and planes, 220,000 Americans, to protect Canada's North west passage?
I think the problem, the disconnect, is that Canada and the Canadian point of view doesn't really have a vignette that is realistic or applied to its current situation. I don't think there has been a lot of thought about situations where such things may arise.
Perhaps they just are too unrealistic.
Another consideration is the cost. Sure the Americans come, but at what cost. Because they won't be on Canada's terms.
Another is which America, and what sort of Americans? Recent events in the US have showed, you may get a presence, but it may not even be conventional military, it could be a Federally controlled paramilitary group. ICE in Vancouver, to protect military equipment and bases.
Even Americans would probably advise you that it isn't a good thing. In great power politics, you want some leverage, even with friends. But particular with large powerful belligerent friends, fighting and existential conflict both externally and internally.
So Canada as a target of early neutralisation? You guys have oil right? Venezuela 2.0
Maybe its just how my kin see the world, but I do not see a world where Canada needs a weaker, less capable, more dependant military. I do not see how Canada can look at current events and think, there are no concerns, that existing thinking and strategies will be successful.
I think the US suspending Permanent Joint Board on Defense, is a clear signal of that.
Future moves could include disbanding it and taking required sites off Canada.
I think this scenario is dated. That may no longer be true within 10 years. Drone and robots are coming. If China lands 1 million robots and drones in the North west, and they start moving south, simply to create problems closer to home for the US, what do you think the US reaction will be? Bearing in mind that the whole reason they are attacking is so to cause the US to redeploy its forces to fight them, resources it has limited amounts of. I don't think 1960's scenarios of just ballistic ICBM carrying nukes is the only scenarios in play any more.
What if China forces the Northwest passage issue. They do exactly what the US is doing around Taiwan/China, but they do it in the northwest. They sail ~30 submarines, a couple of carrier groups through the northwest passage in summer, a particularly hot summer in 2030. They do it because they claim its international waters. They move their fishing fleet into the area. They are backed by J20s and bombers operating overhead.
China is not the same actor as soviet Russia. In some ways it less straight up combative. The Chinese tend not to be as reckless as the Russians. But they are far better equipped, far larger force, way greater technological capabilities. They aren't really interested in destroying the west, as they are in controlling it and running it. The Chinese never really subscribed heavily into MAD escalations.
The Chinese don't have to threaten nuclear weapons. They have conventional capabilities that can rival the US. Something the soviets never really had, certainly not in a expeditionary way.