[commanderkai]

Although I can certainly understand the desire for attack helicopters (and Eyebrock's idea for A-10s) and no doubt I wouldn't mind the Canadian Forces with a few AH-64 Apaches or Eurocopter Tigers, what is the issue(s) with the F-35?

[Bruce_the_vii]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Although I can certainly understand the desire for attack helicopters (and Eyebrock's idea for A-10s) and no doubt I wouldn't mind the Canadian Forces with a few AH-64 Apaches or Eurocopter Tigers, what is the issue(s) with the F-35?

I think it's the nine billion dollars. It's a lot.

[EyeBrock]

I would not be surprised if the Yanks are developing a 21st century version of the A-10.

If we want to capitalise on the leaps and bounds the CF has made as an expeditionary force, we should look at air support.

If you look at 'risk factors', defence of Canada is pretty low on the ladder. We could defend our airspace with 20 aircraft on QRA. It's unlikely that we will be looking at fleets of bombers flying over the Arctic to zap us. If that does happen, our 20 F35's will be rapidly reinforced by our Yank chums under NORAD.

So, if we look at needing 20 mission ready aircraft, we buy 30. It's called insurance.

The rest of the cash should go into COIN capabilities. Attack choppers and well armed/armoured strike aircraft are what the CF really needs.

The CF18's have done zero air support for our infantry in the only real war we have been in since Korea.
Putting all our cash into a 21st century version of the CF18's would just be repeating the flawed defence policy of the past 30 years.

Canada would benefit from forming an Army Air Corps. Attack choppers and real air support plugged into the army way of thinking. Oooo rah.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I would not be surprised if the Yanks are developing a 21st century version of the A-10.

I drool at the thought.

[saturn_656]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

If you look at 'risk factors', defence of Canada is pretty low on the ladder. We could defend our airspace with 20 aircraft on QRA. It's unlikely that we will be looking at fleets of bombers flying over the Arctic to zap us. If that does happen, our 20 F35's will be rapidly reinforced by our Yank chums under NORAD.

And would we ever be SOL if they decided not to come to the party.

I tend to believe that over reliance on the United States, especially for defence, is not a desirable thing.

[EyeBrock]

You should look at it more from a NORAD point of view. Canada is the first line of defence for the US northern flank. The Yanks have forces allocated to that flank whether we have 20 fighters or 2000.

We have a finite amount of money for defence. Lets use it where we get the best bang-for-buck.

Having a great air-defence system isn't as high a priority as being able to give our own troops in the field air support.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I think that USA needs some better ideas on how to win the peace. They are armed to the teeth but have no idea about follow up. In Iraq its cost them, untold sums.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Wiki is just lazy and second rate research. It's ok for the odd internet debate but it lacks academic accountability, hence it's lack of credibility in the universities.

Brittanica is way better, but it is just an encyclopedia. I wouldn't use either as a source in any paper I'd write.

Not any better at all really...

$1:

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/ ... 5/12/69844

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I would not be surprised if the Yanks are developing a 21st century version of the A-10.

If we want to capitalise on the leaps and bounds the CF has made as an expeditionary force, we should look at air support.

If you look at 'risk factors', defence of Canada is pretty low on the ladder. We could defend our airspace with 20 aircraft on QRA. It's unlikely that we will be looking at fleets of bombers flying over the Arctic to zap us. If that does happen, our 20 F35's will be rapidly reinforced by our Yank chums under NORAD.

So, if we look at needing 20 mission ready aircraft, we buy 30. It's called insurance.

The rest of the cash should go into COIN capabilities. Attack choppers and well armed/armoured strike aircraft are what the CF really needs.

The CF18's have done zero air support for our infantry in the only real war we have been in since Korea.
Putting all our cash into a 21st century version of the CF18's would just be repeating the flawed defence policy of the past 30 years.

Canada would benefit from forming an Army Air Corps. Attack choppers and real air support plugged into the army way of thinking. Oooo rah.

But we already attack helos!

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Can ... tan-05183/



Seriously thought, I’ve said on CKA several times we should be buying helo hgunships (Apaches or Tigers). Those would be far more useful in a conflict like Afghanistan than the CF-18s.

And if not helos, then some of these;

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Har ... ers-05409/

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Wiki is just lazy and second rate research. It's ok for the odd internet debate but it lacks academic accountability, hence it's lack of credibility in the universities.

Brittanica is way better, but it is just an encyclopedia. I wouldn't use either as a source in any paper I'd write.

Not any better at all really...

$1:

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/ ... 5/12/69844

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

The difference between Wiki and Brittania is Brittania has academic accountability. Don't underestimate that. The global Warming people did and look what happened to them.

[sniper1shot]

Well, having read this topic....I do have a few observations:
-I had heard that the Cdn gov't had put money into the development of this new jet, which only goes to say that we then order this one;

-Our military is not large enough to have that many units (atk helo, ground support AC, trpt etc etc), heck, we just got the Chinooks back....;

-PPL complained when we bought the LAV as being too expensive etc. It was arguably the BEST armoured Fighting Vehicle on the market when we bought it...so why not buy the BEST aircraft that will suit multiple roles that is on the market right now?;

-65 aircraft is a fair number as at any given time some will be down for refitting, training etc.....and dare to say we lose any to crashes etc then we aren't struggling to find replacements.

Just my 2-bits.

[EyeBrock]

Sniper, fair comments, but do we in Canada need the 'best' combat aircraft available?

The CF18 hasn't shot a single enemy aircraft down in it's 25 years. We have our army on the biggest combat mission since Korea and Air Command's CF18's are safe in Canada.

Do we need F35's to do the same?

I think it's time for dedicated air-support for our army.

It's revolutionary and very novel but the RCAF managed to support the Canadians during D-Day and beyond.

60 years plus later what remains of our 'Air Force' are parked on the ramp at CFB Bagotville while our infantry relies on the Yanks, Brits or the Dutch to protect them in Afghanistan.

Piss poor I say.

[OldChum]

Agreed it is time for this nation to ramp up as the world will demand it of us soon enough the Artic and it's oil to defend our borders .