[Nuggie77]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I didn't see your post on the F18's.

I think it borders on a national disgrace that Air Command seems unable and/or unwilling to deploy the F18's to Khandahar.

The C17's could easily hack a squadron move. We have the Airbus tankers. Why haven't we got our own F18's providing air support for our infantry?

I spent 10 years of my life deploying with RAF strike/fighter aircraft all around the globe. It baffles me why the F18's are not flying out of KAF.

Because they couldn't get the bloody pilots to live in those types of conditions!!! Could you imagine those primadonnas having to live in tents without air-conditioning????

[BartSimpson]

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I didn't see your post on the F18's.

I think it borders on a national disgrace that Air Command seems unable and/or unwilling to deploy the F18's to Khandahar.

The C17's could easily hack a squadron move. We have the Airbus tankers. Why haven't we got our own F18's providing air support for our infantry?

I spent 10 years of my life deploying with RAF strike/fighter aircraft all around the globe. It baffles me why the F18's are not flying out of KAF.

Because they couldn't get the bloody pilots to live in those types of conditions!!! Could you imagine those primadonnas having to live in tents without air-conditioning????

The US F-18 drivers all live aboard carriers out in the Gulf and they sleep in warm beds every night. Too bad Canada doesn't have a carrier or at least carrier-capable F-18s that could land on a US carrier.

[uwish]

well, there are airforce pilots on station in Khandahar, they are part of the airwing that is there. The Griffins are on station and do provide a limited capability in close air support. I believe there are 8 choppers and crews there now.

From my understanding, Canada asked NATO if there was an additional requirement for close air support and we were told no. Hence, no Canuck fighters.

[uwish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I didn't see your post on the F18's.

I think it borders on a national disgrace that Air Command seems unable and/or unwilling to deploy the F18's to Khandahar.

The C17's could easily hack a squadron move. We have the Airbus tankers. Why haven't we got our own F18's providing air support for our infantry?

I spent 10 years of my life deploying with RAF strike/fighter aircraft all around the globe. It baffles me why the F18's are not flying out of KAF.

Because they couldn't get the bloody pilots to live in those types of conditions!!! Could you imagine those primadonnas having to live in tents without air-conditioning????

The US F-18 drivers all live aboard carriers out in the Gulf and they sleep in warm beds every night. Too bad Canada doesn't have a carrier or at least carrier-capable F-18s that could land on a US carrier.

All the current fleet of Canadian hornet are fully capable of carrier operations. But there are not that many Canadian pilots who are carrier qualified.

[saturn_656]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The US F-18 drivers all live aboard carriers out in the Gulf and they sleep in warm beds every night. Too bad Canada doesn't have a carrier or at least carrier-capable F-18s that could land on a US carrier.

Best bet for Canada, in my humble opinion, would be to do what the Aussies are doing.

We've been looking at an acquiring amphibious landing capability for a few years now, rather than rolling this capability in with an AOR we should buy one or two Spanish Strategic Projection Vessels. These ships are magnitudes more effective as an amphib than the JSS would have been, plus they have a full length flight deck with a ski jump.

Perfect for operating a squadron of STOVL F-35.

[Regina]

The F-15's are going to be around for many years to come with the US........why not us too? It's a premium fighter and twin engine.

[EyeBrock]

uwish uwish:

well, there are airforce pilots on station in Khandahar, they are part of the airwing that is there. The Griffins are on station and do provide a limited capability in close air support. I believe there are 8 choppers and crews there now.

From my understanding, Canada asked NATO if there was an additional requirement for close air support and we were told no. Hence, no Canuck fighters.

I dunno uwish.
I don't see the British Army going anywhere without the RAF giving air support.

The Yanks definitely don't trust NATO (as in not the Brits or Yanks) to give air cover, I think Canadians should be able to count on Air Command to protect our boys with our own CF18's that have a lot of non-combat hours on them.

Not wanting to revisit painful memories but we had a very good reason to get Air Command CF18's out to KAF. It was called Major Harry Schmidt, USAFRES.

[bootlegga]

Regina Regina:

What happened to the "need" to have a twin engine fighter?

Probably has something to do with the $160 million we've already invested in the F-35.

[Regina]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Regina Regina:

What happened to the "need" to have a twin engine fighter?

Probably has something to do with the $160 million we've already invested in the F-35.

There's a memo I missed!!

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I think 65 fighters is an embarrasment. Sounds like we are in a race to have the smallest air force in the world.

It could be worse, we could have the same size air force as New Zealand - about sixty planes total, with no fighters or strike planes, just transports, helos and a few maritime patrol planes.

[QBall]

COIN, eh? I don't think my brain can fit any more acronyms . I don't know, I just think we need to examine who we are as a nation, what combat is in today's world, what roles our military plays in today's world and build on those realities, not on what we wish we were. The last real "air war" that one can speak of would be the first Gulf War against the Iraqi air force and that was pretty pathetic by anyone's standards (completely one sided) and that was almost 20 years ago! Would the nation's that have a viable air force that we consider a threat (i.e. Russia, China, India) ever invade North America? Well, Russia's best opportunity was back in the Soviet days when their numbers were greater and surveillance technology wasn't what it is today. China would never attack the biggest consumer of it's goods. India just doesn't have a reason. However our ground forces in combat right now, and even if the Taliban all surrender tomorrow there are plenty of other places our troops are needed where the enemy do not have an air force. But, I don't think the Chief of the Air Staff reads this forum so I guess we'll have to just watch and shake our heads.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I think 65 fighters is an embarrasment. Sounds like we are in a race to have the smallest air force in the world.

It could be worse, we could have the same size air force as New Zealand - about sixty planes total, with no fighters or strike planes, just transports, helos and a few maritime patrol planes.

Looking at where NZ is now they might as well disband their air force.

Give the UH-1, C-130, B-757 to the Army, and the P-3's and Seasprites to the Navy.

[uwish]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

uwish uwish:

well, there are airforce pilots on station in Khandahar, they are part of the airwing that is there. The Griffins are on station and do provide a limited capability in close air support. I believe there are 8 choppers and crews there now.

From my understanding, Canada asked NATO if there was an additional requirement for close air support and we were told no. Hence, no Canuck fighters.

I dunno uwish.
I don't see the British Army going anywhere without the RAF giving air support.

The Yanks definitely don't trust NATO (as in not the Brits or Yanks) to give air cover, I think Canadians should be able to count on Air Command to protect our boys with our own CF18's that have a lot of non-combat hours on them.

Not wanting to revisit painful memories but we had a very good reason to get Air Command CF18's out to KAF. It was called Major Harry Schmidt, USAFRES.

oh I know, trust me I am well aware however, this is the excuse the government is using when they were asked why no serious airpower was deployed.

[EyeBrock]

I keep close contact with my old mates still serving. Many of them are in or have been in Afghanistan.

All the real NATO armies fighting in Afghanistan, (the Yanks, Brits, Canadians, Dutch and the non-NATO Aussies) have really honed themselves into tip-notch combat units. Inter-operability is now functioning at a level that ensures cohesive efficiency.

The teeth nations of NATO are at their fighting peak. Experienced, well equipped with kit that reflects 9 years of combat.

I see that the British Army and the Royal Air Force are working more closely and collaboratively than at any time since D-Day. An Army Lance Corporal is now pretty confident that when he comes under Taliban fire, a nearby RAF Harrier or Tornado can drop 500kgs of HE fun on the bad guys position with excellent accuracy.

This is where Air Command has really missed out.

The lessons learned by the RAF in close air-support for the British Army have made an amazing impact on the operational effectiveness of both Services.

We in Canada missed the boat on this one. We have an Army that is now at it’s operational peak. Our boys haven’t been this effective since Korea.

And all this time Air Command CF18’s have ensured that the St Lawrence Seaway remains free, in safe, nice CFB Baggotville, Quebec.

It truly is a shame.

[BeaverFever]

The Super Hornet is a proven aircraft and will be sold in much larger numbers worldwide than the F35 not only due to cost but technology sharing concerns. This would suggest that the Super Hornet would be sustainable in terms of support and parts well into the future. Plus, the Super Hornet is a proven aircraft while almost EVERY new big-ticket defence product ends up with implentation setbacks, massive cost overruns, reduced performance capability, increased maintenance schedules, operating restrictions, etc. once its handed over.

If the JSF had vectored thrust or supercruise it might be 'worlds better' but its stealth technology will probably be obscolete soon after delivery and it only carries 4 missiles. The F35 may not be so hot in Air-to-Air compared to potential threats anwoay, from those enemy aircraft already out there and those that will come soon. Even though many think A-A is basically a dead requirement since we destroy enemy aircraft on the ground, its seems to me that single-airframe combat fleets like Canada's should keep a versatile fleet, or at least maximize its spending efficiency.

JSF just seems like a lot more money than Super Hornet/Typhoon for only a little extra benefit (if any).