Comments on: Canada Lowers Number Of Planned Fighters

By: jim303

jim303 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:29:39 +0000

Well I guess it is no surprise after reading the simplistic and inane remarks writing by ‘Canadian Portal’ that the link leads to a site full of nonsense such as a page called ‘silly USA’. I guess if we all hold hands and sing ‘kumbaya’ all will be well in the world. yes I don’t think anyone would be against better education of health care, but to abdicate our responsibilities of defence? And just whom do you think will fill that void? Me thinks the skunky smoke wafting from under your door may explain your thought processes. Grow up, welcome to the real world.
We do actually live in a real world here, with all the pitfalls it entails. We should try to look after ourselves for once.

By: Canadian Portal

Canadian Portal — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:38:16 +0000

I would like to see them reduce this number further and put the reat of the money they save into health care or education. It would be much better spent!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 May 2008 04:42:17 +0000

IIRC, the F-35B will also have smaller weapons bays than the A and B versions.

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Fri, 23 May 2008 04:39:20 +0000

Mike,
I agree with you– I too have a sinking feeling that the CF-18 isn’t going to be replaced by a new manned fighter. If it’s replaced by a UCAV, it’s probably going to be Son of Bomarc in the end — another cost-cutting but ill-considered CF initiative like the plastic magazines for C7 rifles (disposable items for combat, used for regular use because they were cheaper than metal…)

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:35:48 +0000

pfcem,
Maybe you can say that the F-35B is a niche aircraft.I did read that the F-35B could be a V/STOL,but not while it’s armed.I hope we’ll see the F-35 in some form or fashion,hopefully all three variants.But,knowing how cheap congress seems to be,it may come down to a certain model over the other two.The F-22 does not need to be STOVL/VSTOL to work.I personally feel that the F-35B can provide close air support for the Army just as well as for the Marines.
The Israelis are expecting Scud-C missiles to be fired into Israel from Syria & God knows what missiles from Iran & maybe even Egypt in addition to the Katyusha & Qassam rockets from Hezbollah & Hamas in event of war.The Israelis want something that they can get off of the ground if their Airfields are hit.Also,Hamas is planning to create internal difficulties for the reservists to report to their stations & weapons.It would be safe to assume they’ll try to sabotage Israeli airfields also.Maybe if Israel hasn’t done so already,they should build underground airfields like something out of the “Thunderbirds” movie(“Thunderbirds are go!”) or “X-men” movie.Just a thought.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:15:46 +0000

Roy Smith,
“Within range” is not the same as under significant threat. These rockets are inhearantly inaccurate, they have a hard enough time hitting something the size of a city block AT RELATIVELY CLOSE RANGE — longer range compounds the inaccuracy.
I think you can look at how everyone who operates Harriers operates them as a guide only the F-35B will be even MORE restrictive (as apposed to your wet dream of operating F-35Bs alongside AH-64s). In fact the only real difference between operating F-35As & F-35Bs is the length of runway required — ALL other basing & support requirements are (for the most part — the F-35B actually requires more) THE SAME. Israel could adopt the Sweden model of disperse basing & get ALMOST the same effect reguardless of whether it operates F-35As or F-35Bs (the only significant difference being the length of runway).
The point is that you are looking at Israel CONSIDERING SOME of its F-35 order being F-35B as some magical sign that the F-35B is the be-all-that-end-all & that somehow the F-35A & F-35C are comparatively useless. In reality it is the opposite & unless you are restricted to conditions where you CAN NOT operate CTOL aircraft (such as a small deck V/STOL carrier or amphibious assault ship), the performance advantage (even between F-35 versions) of CTOL aircraft more often than not trumps any theoretical V/STOL advantage.
In terms of diversity, flexibility & versatility neither the F-35B nor the F-35C meet USAF requirements — just like the F-35A & F-35B don’t meet USN requirements and the F-35A & F-35C don’t meet USMC requirements. It really is unfortunate that Congress has gotten so cheap that the US could not afford for the USAF, the USN & the USMC to develope & procure their own aircraft rather than being forced to compromise ALL THREE in order to develope & procure three versions of the same basic aircraft.
If V/STOL was really what you seem to think it is than it would have replaced MOST/ALL CTOL aircraft by now.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:43:24 +0000

pfcem,
Actually,with the increased range of rockets that Hamas,Hezbollah,& Syria has coupled with the rumored surrender of the West Bank to the Palestinians for their new country & the Golan Heights to Syria pretty much puts all of their air bases within range of air strikes.they want the F-35B so that they can have a dependable air strike capability & the ability to take off from places other than airfields.I think we’ll learn what the F-35B can & cannot do according to how the Israelis use them.Taking out the Israelis’ air fields will neutralize their F-15I & F-16I fleets & it will certainly take out their capabilities of launching their F-35As.Granted,if the Air Force was pressured to buy F-35Bs,then they’d have to be stationed close to metalled roads to operate in areas that ground forces are located.But even with that limitation they could still operate closer to the front than the F-35A could.In terms of diversity,flexibility,& versatility,the F-35A is still the weakest of the 3 models of Joint Strike Fighter.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 22 May 2008 10:41:45 +0000

George: That was the air force’s view, anyway. Kosovo was basically an exercise in justifying it, and we were just flying Canadian aircraft within US strike packages even if we did get to lead them occasionally. That’s what the army, who’s driving the bus now with a little input from the navy, is trying to get away from– they want interoperable-but-independent capability, not ‘me too!‘
I don’t kno whow keen CF would be on doing its own air support in RC(S) even if the CF18s were up to it, because this way they can blame someone else for collateral damage.
We’re obligated to provide aircraft for defense under NORAD… doesn’t say whether those have to be manned or not.
I’m not saying the reasoning is entirely good, just that I’m pretty sure the CF18 is going to be the last Canadian manned fighter.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 22 May 2008 04:55:03 +0000

Roy Smith,
You are living in some kind of dream world. You have basically said that the F-35B can & would operate like an AH-64 Apache. Reality check, the F-35B is designed as a STOVL aircraft, not VTOL. It weighs 29,695 lbs EMPTY (normal take-off with full internal fuel being >46,000 lbs). With 2 1000 lb JDAM & 2 AMRAAM, the F-35B could only take-off vertically with about a half a load of fuel. While the STOVL F-36B requires less than 500 ft of “runway” it DOES still require SOME “runway” & I guarantee that the F-35B will NOT operate from an “unprepared” surface.
Keep in mind that Israel has indicated a desire for SOME of its F-35s to POSSIBLY be F-35B, it DOES NOT want its entire F-35 fleet to be F-35B and it reasoning for considering SOME F-35B is SPECIFICALLY tied to some of its bases being SO close to the enemy (not a problem the USAF has).

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:41:55 +0000

Huh — I thought the lesson from Gulf War I was that Canada needed a serious upgrade to its combat aircraft capability to stay relevant. That led to CF-18 upgrades for PGMs, and that in turn made Canada an important player in the Kosovo conflict in 1999. Canada is also a signatory to NORAD, so we’re obligated to provide aircraft for continental air defense. 9/11 was an effective reiteration of the need for that mission, even if the Russians aren’t a serious threat since the Cold War.
The problem with the fighter force now is that it’s so old that it’s difficult to operate with other international forces. Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been relying on French air support instead of the CF-18s for this reason.