Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

John Fedup said:

The timeline is right and if the anti-Boeing mood still prevails here in 2035, an Airbus MPA that works will be purchased assuming we aren’t bankrupt by then.

Click to expand...

Actually with Airbus having a large interest in Bombardier, that would tend to make them favourites. You know pork barrel politics and all that.

If the A200 (former C-Series) was the platform, Quebec could whine harder to the Feds. Doesn't really matter though as Boeing is in the doghouse and Airbus stands a good chance on a MPA offering, especially if a package deal on MRRTs is included although tanker replacement may have to happen soon than 2035.

ngatimozart said:

Canada may have another option for their P-3 Orion replacement. Airbus has announced plans to use the A320 as a MPA, the A320M3. So if Canada starts its procurement process now, it just might be in a position to order some by 2035 when it is due to enter service in Europe if Airbus succeeds in the Franco - German future maritime airborne warfare system project.

Click to expand...

About time. Airbus had a paper A320-based MPA on offer years ago, but never followed it up. That lost some possible sales.

swerve said:

About time. Airbus had a paper A320-based MPA on offer years ago, but never followed it up. That lost some possible sales.

Click to expand...

It was based on the A319 airframe. But you are dead right, they most definitely dropped the ball on that one because it would've been first cab off the rank. Odds on that the UK and possibly Norway would've bought it instead of the P-8.

Maybe even India too had an Airbus MPA been available. Canada realistically may only have the Airbus option or possibly the Saab as the P-8 will likely not be available in 2035.

Sikorsky is whining over the government's decision to sole source Leonardo for new Cormorants and upgrading the existing fleet rather than buying SAR configured S-92s. Given Sirkorsky''s less than stellar performance on the Cyclone project, it is not surprising their proposal and complaints were dismissed. With the current salesman in the Whitehouse, placing a non-US defence order is also politically safe.

Industry concerns about Cormorant modernization pushed aside – project to proceed

The CH-148 Cyclone will be at the Abbotsford, BC air show, another sign it is finally ready for prime time.

New Cyclone helicopter to be on display at Abbotsford airshow

I posted this link in the Indian Air Force thread but it is relevant here as well. The Rafale base price is quoted as 91 million Euros. Assuming this number is correct, not sure why Dassault would be bothered to bid on Canada's fighter replacement program unless they offer a massive discount. Can't see this enhancing their image in India. Perhaps Canada's 88 jet proposed purchase will result in a better deal but India is currently looking at buying an additional 110 jets for its air force and 57 jets for the navy. Surely Dassault would offer a modification to the existing 36 jet deal as an incentive on the forthcoming Indian tenders.

As for Canada, the base price difference (assuming the article is correct on Rafale and assuming a $90 million USD price for the F-35) is about $15 million in the F-35's favour. Boeing is still a contender but with the F-35's advantages, at what price is the latest version of the SH good enough to buy what is basically a 30 year old design with some decent upgrades?

Why the 36 Rafale meant for India are the most potent in the world - Republic World

John Fedup said:

I posted this link in the Indian Air Force thread but it is relevant here as well. The Rafale base price is quoted as 91 million Euros. Assuming this number is correct, not sure why Dassault would be bothered to bid on Canada's fighter replacement program unless they offer a massive discount. Can't see this enhancing their image in India. Perhaps Canada's 88 jet proposed purchase will result in a better deal but India is currently looking at buying an additional 110 jets for its air force and 57 jets for the navy. Surely Dassault would offer a modification to the existing 36 jet deal as an incentive on the forthcoming Indian tenders.

As for Canada, the base price difference (assuming the article is correct on Rafale and assuming a $90 million USD price for the F-35) is about $15 million in the F-35's favour. Boeing is still a contender but with the F-35's advantages, at what price is the latest version of the SH good enough to buy what is basically a 30 year old design with some decent upgrades?

Why the 36 Rafale meant for India are the most potent in the world - Republic World

Click to expand...

The price questions I suspect is one that really cannot be answered, because of the variables involved. For instance, what the Canadian gov't policy and/or requirements for a replacement fighter would actually be. Tying in with that, what the planned or required operational service life of the fighter replacement would be. If a RCAF fighter replacement were to have a required service life of 30+ years starting in 2020, then the design would be ~55 years old by the end of the planned service life in 2050, and the underlying design (YF-17/F-18 'Classic' Hornet) would be over 75 years old at that point.

If the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has become obsolete in the fighter and/or attack/strike roles when faced with modern air forces post-2040, then it would not really matter how good an acquisition price was, because a replacement programme would be needed in the 2030's to have at least a large portion of the SHornet fleet replaced by then.

With respect to the potential cost of aircraft like the Rafale for the RCAF, one has to take into account more than just the cost of the aircraft. Given that the RCAF has been using US-sourced combat aircraft for ~50 years, the ordnance is also US-sourced which means that the RCAF would either need to have some of their existing missile stocks integrated onto fighter aircraft like the Rafale, or purchase new missiles which are already integrated. Depending on the type and number of munitions purchased, a new weapons package could easily run several hundred million dollars, in addition to the cost of the aircraft, base modifications, and any training and support packages.

I was only referencing the base price. Absolutely other factors are at play, one of which is weapons. Can’t see a lot of enthusiasm for replacing current weapons stocks. The earliest date for new jets would be 2025-2030 if junior survives. If not, maybe 2025 and assuming a 40 year shelf life, even the F-35 will be 60 but should be more viable than current jets in 2065. In 2025 the F-35 will be well sorted and in full production. With its 5th Gen features and competitive pricing I can’t see why any other jet would be selected. Should Boeing grab a 100 jet plus order in India then Boeing could be agressive on a 88 jet order from Canada but as you say, price isn’t everything ( unless the difference is huge and you don’t care about 20 years from now, think junior).

Short article on Canada's helicopter contribution to the UN Mali mission.

Canadian helicopters are ‘flying emergency rooms’ in Mali peacekeeping mission

One type / one fleet isn’t the way to go in my opinion.

Yes we are a small population militarily but you cannot drive nails with a banana. We need a mixed fleet able to support our forces with aerial fire power in a variety of areas.

Interceptors, bombers and attack helicopters are all required but not in the hundreds of units. We have to be realistic with a balanced force.

I see the value of F35 for some missions but I also see the value in turbo props and attack helicopters as few if any peer to peer aerial missions will be flown by Canadians.

It’s been proven that there is a place for AT6 and A29 in modern warfare and peace making operations.

Hopefully we do not see this whole process taking on sea king replacement proportions.

Novascotiaboy said:

One type / one fleet isn’t the way to go in my opinion.

Yes we are a small population militarily but you cannot drive nails with a banana. We need a mixed fleet able to support our forces with aerial fire power in a variety of areas.

Interceptors, bombers and attack helicopters are all required but not in the hundreds of units. We have to be realistic with a balanced force.

I see the value of F35 for some missions but I also see the value in turbo props and attack helicopters as few if any peer to peer aerial missions will be flown by Canadians.

It’s been proven that there is a place for AT6 and A29 in modern warfare and peace making operations.

Hopefully we do not see this whole process taking on sea king replacement proportions.

Click to expand...

I agree that one type is not the way to go. For example, for Helicopters:

• LAND DOMAIN: look at the Canadian Griffon experience as the one size fits all troop/cargo/gunship helicopter. You could add a heavy lift chopper (Chinook for example) and a Gunship (Apache, Eurocopter Tiger, ... lots to choose from) and get a more rounded solution.

• SEA DOMAIN: look at the Cyclone, a boutique solution combining ASW and transport. You could have went with the SH-60R(ASW) and use the same transport as for the Land Domain.

• Drones could also be added to the mix for recon, gunship and supply roles.

However, diversity is a poor substitute for capability. The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is national survival and this needs to be affordable. The A29 and the AT6 would increase the likelihood that your numbers of fast jets would be reduced and your ability to defend Canadian airspace will be reduced. Yes, they are cheaper to buy and operate but their capability is much less and the existing Hornet fleet is quite effective at carrying out these roles. Likewise, the bomber is a nice to have for all but large airforces. The F/A-18 can carry out this role, as can the F-35. You could supplement this capability with (air/land/sea launched) cruise missiles at a fraction of the price (quite adequate unless you are planning on fighting a major war).

There is only one country with the ability to overfly Canadian ground where there is anything worth flying over and that is the USA.

In the past 30 years our combat aircraft have been deployed once in a strength of 24 aircraft to the Gulf flying mostly CAP.

36 F35 would provide one operational squadron and one training squadron and provide attrition aircraft. These would provide our expiditionary firstline deployable aircraft for NATO and UN missions.

24 F15 air superiourity fighters for NORAD commitment.

36 AH-1Z Viper marinized attack helicopters to provide support to deployed ground forces and escorts for the Chinooks.

36 AT6 or A29 depending upon whatvthe USAF eventually buys. These for COIN, escort and low intensity operations where the air space is owned.

What little $$$$ we provide to the military needs to be effective and appropriate for the task . As I said before the use of fast jets are not appropriate for all tasks.

Novascotiaboy said:

There is only one country with the ability to overfly Canadian ground where there is anything worth flying over and that is the USA.

Click to expand...

Sorry old boy, I think that the Russians could get a Bear (Tu-95 / 142) over some points out west. It's not whether the area overflown has anything of practical value; it's all about sovereignty, pure and simple. If them durned rooskies, to quote a character from Dr Strangelove, managed to overfly some part of Canada with impunity, then the perception of that nefarious act is damaging, some would say highly damaging, to Canada's international reputation, especially with it's southern neighbour. Politics is all about perceptions and I believe that pollies, use perceptions to judge and evaluate other pollies.

In the past 30 years our combat aircraft have been deployed once in a strength of 24 aircraft to the Gulf flying mostly CAP.
36 F35 would provide one operational squadron and one training squadron and provide attrition aircraft. These would provide our expiditionary firstline deployable aircraft for NATO and UN missions.

24 F15 air superiourity fighters for NORAD commitment.

36 AH-1Z Viper marinized attack helicopters to provide support to deployed ground forces and escorts for the Chinooks.

36 AT6 or A29 depending upon whatvthe USAF eventually buys. These for COIN, escort and low intensity operations where the air space is owned.

What little $$$$ we provide to the military needs to be effective and appropriate for the task . As I said before the use of fast jets are not appropriate for all tasks.

Click to expand...

It's not about what's happened in the past, although that informs force planning. It's about the credible potential threats that you face in the future. Canada is part of NATO so you face a credible Russian conflict and history has shown that any conflict with Russia is no walk over. Ask Napoleon and Hitler about their experiences, for example. And you would be facing Russia on two fronts, one in Europe and the second in the Pacific.

What if China decided to ally itself with Russia and join the war? That has possibilities because it has advantages to both nations strategically, forcing the US, NATO, FYES & allies to fight a world war on many fronts. You, and the rest of us, would have a significantly larger problem. WW2 was won by the allies because Hitler was the best allied general, the Soviets bled the Wehrmacht on the steppes of Russia, the Japanese over extended themselves, underestimated their enemies, especially the USA. The USA industrial capacity to quickly provide the weapons necessary for the allies to win the war was phenomenal. Today it is a different story and I don't believe that the US has that same capacity, unfortunately.

Russkies a danger from Europe and the Pacific? Lets also include the Arctic. How many Brigades of equipped Arctic land forces do potential invaders have and what would stop them?

For example, Russia isn't too far from Arctic Canada and the Northern Fleet has the following land units:

• 14th Army Corps
  • Corps HQ
  • 61st Naval Infantry Brigade (n. Sputnik)
  • 80th Independent (Arctic) Motor Rifle Brigade
  • 200th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (n. Pechenga, Murmansk region)
  • 536th Fleet Independent Coastal Defense Missile Artillery Brigade (Snezhnogorsk)
  • 516th Fleet Signals Unit (Severomorsk)
  • 180th Naval Engineering Battalion

How many Army companies (4 Reserve companies, I believe, plus the Rangers) does Canada task with this role?

Any incursion would be best defeated by Air/Naval missions (hint - take out their logistics) with Army mopping up the survivors ... but would need stronger land resources as well. Oh, and I wouldn't suggest the airspace would necessarily be owned (and regardless, some potential invaders have good ground based AA capabilities).

But say the invader has a couple of aircraft carriers (no, not Russia) as well. That gets interesting.

Any Russsian ground attack in the Canadian Arctic is not feasible. Even after a 500 mile advance, their forces would still be in a freezing wasteland and their supply lines would be under constant air attack. With no airbases or roads, CAS would be next to impossible without massive AAR planes which in turn would be prime targets. A Russian Arctic attack on Canada has some similar problems to what the Nazis faced with their Russian invasion, distance and even harsher conditions.

@Novascotiaboy, I get that coin aircraft may be more useful in mutt conflicts but I really don't think we should be involved at this level, i.e. let the major players who can afford it do it. I do see merit in a mixed fleet of proper long range interceptors like the F-15 for Canadian sovereignty patrols along with F-35s for our NATO obligations even though this will be a more expensive proposition.

I will repeat what I have said before, the US screwed up at least not offering the F-22 for Canada for continental defence. It would have freed up USAF F-22s for foreign deployment on the condition RCAF F-22s would move to fill the vacuum and remain in North America. Despite its higher costs, the protection of Canadian sovereignty, its longer range and better kinematic performance in general address most of the BS arguments against the F-35. A buy of even 30 jets might of helped in the USAF in expanding their number. Regardless, 30 extra F-22s in North America, do more for US security than Canada buying 65-88 F-35s IMHO. Having said this, I am somewhat concerned about a American/Japanese redo for a F-22 version 2 on the Raptor. It might be a perfect excuse for junior to delay a replacement fighter until WTF knows when?

John Fedup said:

Any Russsian ground attack in the Canadian Arctic is not feasible. Even after a 500 mile advance, their forces would still be in a freezing wasteland and their supply lines would be under constant air attack. With no airbases or roads, CAS would be next to impossible without massive AAR planes which in turn would be prime targets. A Russian Arctic attack on Canada has some similar problems to what the Nazis faced with their Russian invasion, distance and even harsher conditions.

Click to expand...

It's the same situation as attempting to invade Australias NW Coast, you don't oppose the landing, you cut the supply line and the elements will do all the work for you and there are no short term gains to be had.
In Canada they will die of starvation or freeze to death, in Australia it will be Starvation and Heat related.

John we are a nation of wannabees and our military is no different at the highest of levels. Canada needs to define what it expects of its military and what equipment is needed to support those expectations .

I personally see us as a middle to lower power not able to initiate actions but to only participate in coalition operations.

As such the mix of combat aircraft I suggested would IMHO provide the needed firepower and flexibility.

Neither China nor Russia have the logistics tail to consider a land invasion. Any aerial incursion will be met by combined assetts of the USAF and the RCAF.

People need to realize that our northern wasteland is incapable of supporting life without fuel and food. Distances are huge.

As to COIN aircraft i use the term onlybto describe operations that are not peer on peer state to state conflicts which have preoccupied allied forces for years.

I welcome any aggressor to tackle an incursion in our north. If the lack of logistics doesnt kill them the polar bears will. Like NW Oz our predators do not discriminate .Salt water crocs and polar bears as national security assetts. Almost sounds like Dr Evil is our defence minister. Freaking laser beams on sharks coukd be next .