3 ms·

A vision of the CAF would require a well defined goal for the CAF. There are only two, really - defending the Canadian Arctic for which we don't need a new figh

A vision of the CAF would require a well defined goal for the CAF. There are only two, really - defending the Canadian Arctic for which we don't need a new fighter and which opposes us to Russia (and US that contests our claims), or being a token for the US to gain legitimacy on its adventures. There's really nothing else. A rejection of the F-35 is a rejection of the second vision and it's not anti-americanism, it's a lack of pro-americanism. Hilariously enough the airplane that's best suited to the first mission would have to be able to sink Russian icebreakers from a long range at great speed, and would probably be the Tu-22M and it's assorted supersonic cruise missiles. Sadly no nation will sell you weapons that can only be used against itself. Outside of these two missions all we need is a jet to do basic airspace defence, interceptions, and that can carry some kind of antiship missile. Basically any jet will do the job, there's not much point buying the F-35 for that with all that entails.

MattGaiser 5y ago
This is really the problem. What is the purpose of the CAF? We don't have anything close to an agreed upon one besides coastal defense.
josephcsible 5y ago
> (and US that contests our claims) There is zero chance that a land dispute between the US and Canada will ever have anything to do with which fighter jets either side has available.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Agreed, but that just makes a fancy jet even less of a need.
- darwingr 5y ago
  It's not a land dispute. The USA has been making the claim that as an arctic nation it has an at will right to use the Northwest Passage through Canada's most northern shore and the archipelago. This shipping route is MUCH cheaper in fuel compared to using the Panama Canal, which is not obvious on a map because the world is round. Now let's say the canal has a million dollar toll, well Canada sure wouldn't mind having our own toll since keeping that channel clear isn't free. But that just ignores the whole natsec/sovereignty issue of are we just ok with having people pass in and out as they please and how will international courts treat it if we allow that but later wish to change our minds. The issue comes down to whether the passage is qualified as territorial waters or just exclusive economic zones and how the islands are connected to the mainland may determine that. Regardless, the US is pushing it because it's a useful way to get concessions on other issues. Like him or hate him, understanding and using that aspect of negotiation is one thing Trump was always very good at and in this case Mike Pompeo was the one putting it forward and lobbying other countries to see it their way. Purchasing the F35s has been discussed here since at least 2007 when Russia was flying bombers into Canadian northern territories. Something is needed to respond assert sovereignty over the area. A potential issue in theory of purchasing the F35s is a strategic one of maintaining those water rights if in the moment Russia starts moving in suddenly the planes don't work or need parts and the US suddenly has a great point leverage.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    It's not quite that. The US isn't claiming that they should have access to the Northwest Passage as an arctic nation, but rather that there should be international right of passage through the Northwest Territory, ie, between Canadian landmasses. There is militarily 0 need to use an F-35 to intercept Russian bombers. Actually the F-35 is pretty bad at interceptions. The F-35 has a pitiful 1100km combat radius, and cannot supercruise. The Gripen is a bit better and may be able to supercruise meaning that it's effective interception range is significantly better, and most importantly can usefully utilise drop-tanks. Even the CF-18 is a better interceptor than the F-35. The F-35 is not the right choice to deter Russia in the arctic. It's the right choice if you're planning an invasion or need to do strike missions past enemy air defences, or if you're going to be doing air-to-air combat far from home.
MegaDeKay 5y ago
Your last point is probably true for domestic missions. However, Canada has also deployed the CF-18s in missions abroad, most recently (?) against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cf-18-hornets-1.1003648 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cf-18-hornets-1.1003648
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The CF-18s were also deployed in Yougoslavia and Serbia IIRC. For the very basic and extremely infrequent strike missions that they are used for, the CF-18s and the F-18s we got from Australia will realistically be enough.
  - nickff 5y ago
    The problem with the Australian ones is that they're old and worn out, so they're very expensive and unreliable to operate. Those planes are approaching their fatigue limits, and they're not going to become more reliable.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Yes that's true, but the F35 is not exactly cheap to maintain either at 42 000$ per flight hour and the air-frames themselves are basically free and can be cannibalized.
      - nickff 5y ago
        I completely agree, but if Canada is unwilling to spend the money to buy and maintain a capable and reliable fighter, it may be better-off without any. The F-18A/B is just an antiquated platform, parts are getting hard to come by, and the main wing spars will need to be replaced.
        throwawaymanbot 5y ago
        The electronics suite on the F-18 A/B is not antiquated. Particularly on the Growler variant.

MattGaiser 5y ago

This is really the problem. What is the purpose of the CAF? We don't have anything close to an agreed upon one besides coastal defense.

josephcsible 5y ago

> (and US that contests our claims) There is zero chance that a land dispute between the US and Canada will ever have anything to do with which fighter jets either side has available.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Agreed, but that just makes a fancy jet even less of a need.
darwingr 5y ago
It's not a land dispute. The USA has been making the claim that as an arctic nation it has an at will right to use the Northwest Passage through Canada's most northern shore and the archipelago. This shipping route is MUCH cheaper in fuel compared to using the Panama Canal, which is not obvious on a map because the world is round. Now let's say the canal has a million dollar toll, well Canada sure wouldn't mind having our own toll since keeping that channel clear isn't free. But that just ignores the whole natsec/sovereignty issue of are we just ok with having people pass in and out as they please and how will international courts treat it if we allow that but later wish to change our minds. The issue comes down to whether the passage is qualified as territorial waters or just exclusive economic zones and how the islands are connected to the mainland may determine that. Regardless, the US is pushing it because it's a useful way to get concessions on other issues. Like him or hate him, understanding and using that aspect of negotiation is one thing Trump was always very good at and in this case Mike Pompeo was the one putting it forward and lobbying other countries to see it their way. Purchasing the F35s has been discussed here since at least 2007 when Russia was flying bombers into Canadian northern territories. Something is needed to respond assert sovereignty over the area. A potential issue in theory of purchasing the F35s is a strategic one of maintaining those water rights if in the moment Russia starts moving in suddenly the planes don't work or need parts and the US suddenly has a great point leverage.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  It's not quite that. The US isn't claiming that they should have access to the Northwest Passage as an arctic nation, but rather that there should be international right of passage through the Northwest Territory, ie, between Canadian landmasses. There is militarily 0 need to use an F-35 to intercept Russian bombers. Actually the F-35 is pretty bad at interceptions. The F-35 has a pitiful 1100km combat radius, and cannot supercruise. The Gripen is a bit better and may be able to supercruise meaning that it's effective interception range is significantly better, and most importantly can usefully utilise drop-tanks. Even the CF-18 is a better interceptor than the F-35. The F-35 is not the right choice to deter Russia in the arctic. It's the right choice if you're planning an invasion or need to do strike missions past enemy air defences, or if you're going to be doing air-to-air combat far from home.

MegaDeKay 5y ago

Your last point is probably true for domestic missions. However, Canada has also deployed the CF-18s in missions abroad, most recently (?) against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cf-18-hornets-1.1003648 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cf-18-hornets-1.1003648

sudosysgen 5y ago
The CF-18s were also deployed in Yougoslavia and Serbia IIRC. For the very basic and extremely infrequent strike missions that they are used for, the CF-18s and the F-18s we got from Australia will realistically be enough.
- nickff 5y ago
  The problem with the Australian ones is that they're old and worn out, so they're very expensive and unreliable to operate. Those planes are approaching their fatigue limits, and they're not going to become more reliable.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Yes that's true, but the F35 is not exactly cheap to maintain either at 42 000$ per flight hour and the air-frames themselves are basically free and can be cannibalized.
    - nickff 5y ago
      I completely agree, but if Canada is unwilling to spend the money to buy and maintain a capable and reliable fighter, it may be better-off without any. The F-18A/B is just an antiquated platform, parts are getting hard to come by, and the main wing spars will need to be replaced.
      - throwawaymanbot 5y ago
        The electronics suite on the F-18 A/B is not antiquated. Particularly on the Growler variant.