3 ms·

The F-35 always seemed like a funny choice for a mainline fighter for Canada. Even the US has invested in many more F-15EXs. Having a Hi/Lo mix makes sense for

The F-35 always seemed like a funny choice for a mainline fighter for Canada. Even the US has invested in many more F-15EXs. Having a Hi/Lo mix makes sense for a larger force, but equipping a smaller force with only exquisite birds doesn't seem to make much sense. Then again, this is Canada - sensible decision making in military procurement just isn't something that happens here. But the economies of scale are such that at least the $$ isn't completely out of whack (for purchase at least, maintenance I'm not so sure of). I would wager that the cost of maintaining those ancient CF-18s is pretty high now too though.

jandrewrogers 5mo ago
The F-15EX is designed to be a stand-off missile truck that works in tandem with a network of forward-deployed stealth jets. This compensates for the relatively low ordnance load-out of stealth jets. A stealth jet can designate and cue a target from the front using an F-15EX as a missile launcher safely in the back since it is non-stealthy. The F-15EX isn't a particularly survivable aircraft on its own. It is a plane you'd only use if you have stealth jets and you plan to do air combat at scale. It augments the capabilities of something like an F-35 but isn't something you'd add to your fleet unless you had a lot of stealth aircraft.
- bigyabai 5mo ago
  The F-15A/C is designed to act as a missile truck, but the F-15EX was specifically designed to be a multirole strike fighter. You can operate it without putting 20 AMRAAMs on the pylon, or without an F-35 datalinked to it, and many countries do. The flexibility and heavy ordinance are the selling point at home and abroad. Canada could very well operate the F-15EX without a fleet of stealth fighters. The F-35 is not an interceptor platform in any sense of the word, in an "all out" scenario like you're suggesting it's doubtful they would be any better than the CF-18 they have today.
- switchbak 4mo ago
  That's how the USA uses it, and for that use case it makes a tremendous amount of sense. I just think it's a bit too rich for Canada's blood. Perhaps the whole-system costs do balance out in the end: surprisingly reasonable capex, capable at many roles, excellent at NATO combined roles, etc. There's a lot to like on the balance sheet. But the maintenance costs are killer, and we're talking about an exceedingly underfunded military (thanks to the politicians, our military do wonders with what they have). I mean, in any real engagement our fleet is going to be blown away by a real adversary in short order. This is about presence and deterrence, I'm just not sure how essential stealth is to accomplish those goals. It sure is a nice pay day for Lockheed and friends though.

jandrewrogers 5mo ago

The F-15EX is designed to be a stand-off missile truck that works in tandem with a network of forward-deployed stealth jets. This compensates for the relatively low ordnance load-out of stealth jets. A stealth jet can designate and cue a target from the front using an F-15EX as a missile launcher safely in the back since it is non-stealthy. The F-15EX isn't a particularly survivable aircraft on its own. It is a plane you'd only use if you have stealth jets and you plan to do air combat at scale. It augments the capabilities of something like an F-35 but isn't something you'd add to your fleet unless you had a lot of stealth aircraft.

bigyabai 5mo ago
The F-15A/C is designed to act as a missile truck, but the F-15EX was specifically designed to be a multirole strike fighter. You can operate it without putting 20 AMRAAMs on the pylon, or without an F-35 datalinked to it, and many countries do. The flexibility and heavy ordinance are the selling point at home and abroad. Canada could very well operate the F-15EX without a fleet of stealth fighters. The F-35 is not an interceptor platform in any sense of the word, in an "all out" scenario like you're suggesting it's doubtful they would be any better than the CF-18 they have today.
switchbak 4mo ago
That's how the USA uses it, and for that use case it makes a tremendous amount of sense. I just think it's a bit too rich for Canada's blood. Perhaps the whole-system costs do balance out in the end: surprisingly reasonable capex, capable at many roles, excellent at NATO combined roles, etc. There's a lot to like on the balance sheet. But the maintenance costs are killer, and we're talking about an exceedingly underfunded military (thanks to the politicians, our military do wonders with what they have). I mean, in any real engagement our fleet is going to be blown away by a real adversary in short order. This is about presence and deterrence, I'm just not sure how essential stealth is to accomplish those goals. It sure is a nice pay day for Lockheed and friends though.