Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YukonPete

Canada to buy used Australian hornets

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, ubersu said:

The JTF2 deployment that got a citation was a relief operation in Haiti - which is precisely what I wrote with regard to non-combat operations. Most Canadian operations have been supporting operations for domestic political reasons.How does that affect Canada's need for advanced fighter aircraft?

DJ

Sorry ubersu wrong again, it was in Afghanistan. please see here. http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=joint-task-force-two-members-receive-u-s-presidential-unit-citation/hnocfnjz

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Chock said:

...the F-35B, which is clearly always going to be a bit limited in capability courtesy of its STOVL functionality....

The B stands for a well known word which rhymes with the name of an edible fish, the pollock....

15 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

... and just shoot them all down.

A bit harsh. Not all Americans subscribe to the friendly fire school of warfare... mind you some kind of IFF would help in that regard.

13 hours ago, pete_auau said:

maybe  but  first  you have  to  get  radar  lock  on the f35   and  see  where   he  is  first  not  that easy  to  do

Forget radar - IRST is getting pretty good these days (Infra Red Search & Track). The Typhoon, Sukhoi Su-27 and its many variants and the Mig -29 all have this capability.


Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post

Must've surprised the F-35 participating nations when Canada cancelled the purchase - airframe unit cost would have jumped somewhat. Also surprised would have been the Canadian aerospace industry which has something like $800 million worth of subcontract work on that project, possibly under threat! 

Ah the politics... but for a change a real down-to-earth solution: rather than go back to the Australian voters for even more money to buy the jet, someone figured out that flogging off a few old Hornets would make up the shortfall!

Just brilliant, and a win-win for both countries, really.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

 

A bit harsh. Not all Americans subscribe to the friendly fire school of warfare... mind you some kind of IFF would help in that regard.

It was a comment. Americans are very good at those. Andy Rooney was one of my favourites. 

But if you would like me to clarify, it makes for a very confusing scenario in a NORAD/NATO theatre of war, not sure what the NATO designation would be, Flanker-Canuck?

  • Upvote 1

Matthew Kane

 

Share this post


Link to post

IFF equipment on most aircraft is read by AWACs and GC centres and that data is sent to friendlies, so it's not normally a problem to have aircraft types from the Russian Federation working with more typical Western combat aircraft.

The use of Russian aircraft types in NATO is certainly not without numerous precedents; following the reunification of Germany, the Luftwaffe operated a very large number of MiG 29s, which whilst initially a curiosity which got used for dissimilar combat training against F-16 etc, were eventually just normal types operated in the Luftwaffe. They weren't the only ones to use MiGs either. Don't forget that there are many countries in NATO which used to be part of the Soviet Bloc, and so the incorporation of Russian hardware in combined operations is nothing new, they've been doing that kind of thing for decades. Poland still operates the MiG-29 as part of NATO's fleet, as does Hungary which has some on reserve, Slovakia operates MiG-29s under NATO too, Romania used to as well, but theirs are now retired, and there are a few others in NATO fleets or reserve stocks.

In fact, even the United States operates MiG-29s (they bought 21 of them from Moldova), they are used courtesy of contractor Air USA for adversary training, so it's not as if NATO pilots are unfamiliar with Russian types and would accidentally shoot one down through mis-identification as there are many NATO pilots who fly those things on a daily basis.

  • Upvote 1

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post

Politics as ever would be more important than anything... Poland has found some difficulty keeping its MiGs airborne since sanctions were applied to Russia. The Russians responded by stopping support to the aircraft.

On the topic of IFF etc, the F-35 operates in a different universe:

  

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Chock said:

IFF equipment on most aircraft is read by AWACs and GC centres and that data is sent to friendlies, so it's not normally a problem to have aircraft types from the Russian Federation working with more typical Western combat aircraft.

The use of Russian aircraft types in NATO is certainly not without numerous precedents; following the reunification of Germany, the Luftwaffe operated a very large number of MiG 29s, which whilst initially a curiosity which got used for dissimilar combat training against F-16 etc, were eventually just normal types operated in the Luftwaffe. They weren't the only ones to use MiGs either. Don't forget that there are many countries in NATO which used to be part of the Soviet Bloc, and so the incorporation of Russian hardware in combined operations is nothing new, they've been doing that kind of thing for decades. Poland still operates the MiG-29 as part of NATO's fleet, as does Hungary which has some on reserve, Slovakia operates MiG-29s under NATO too, Romania used to as well, but theirs are now retired, and there are a few others in NATO fleets or reserve stocks.

In fact, even the United States operates MiG-29s (they bought 21 of them from Moldova), they are used courtesy of contractor Air USA for adversary training, so it's not as if NATO pilots are unfamiliar with Russian types and would accidentally shoot one down through mis-identification as there are many NATO pilots who fly those things on a daily basis.

Reason why I like the idea of using Sukhoi SU-35 Aircraft for the RCAF is both nations share the same type of geography and environment. Canada and Russia are both very far north, hot in the summer, cold in the winter and Russia has built the best aircraft for this environment. The problem is Russia knows that aircraft better then anyone, and currently uses them against Canada to test their response over the arctic with the CF-18 Fleets. Supplying Canada with replacement aircraft to respond to Russian interceptor and bomber flights would totally be in Russia's favour, any vulnerabilities in the Stealth Technology Russia would know because it is their air frame, and would totally take advantage of that. Canada using it's own avionics package would not work either as Russian espionage would totally figure that out too, they are very good at that. This is on all fronts a very bad move for Canada other then they are great jets that would perform well in the northern environment, but when it comes to protecting Northern Sovereignty it is a bad idea for Canada to use Russian Jets.

The other option is SAAB JAS 39 Gripen from Sweden, would be a great short term solution for Canada and Canada could have got behind the Flygsystem 2020 as well for the future. Sweden's environment is similar to Canada's and they design jets accordingly, and use them against Russian interceptors/bombers as well. 

The sale of those F-18's from Australia will likely get blocked by the US Government anyways and they are so badly corroded that even if Canada got them for a good price, they would be costly to make airworthy. Australia is a drier nation compared to Canada so since those jets are already in bad shape, Canada's environment will be even harsher on them. 

I watch this saga with interest and think Boeing isn't playing fair, it is probably inevitable they will lose in court appeals as they don't make a passenger jet that matches the C-Series, and in that expensive process of trying to block a passenger jet, they lost a great military customer along the way. Boeing had trouble with Canada in the past with the purchase of the Dehaviland Dash-8 factory to entice Air Canada that was then Government Owned to buy Boeing's and Air Canada (Canadian Government) went with Airbus instead, therefore Boeing sold off that plant to Bombardier due to this loss, as far as I can tell this is round 2 for Boeing and I don't see Boeing getting their way in the long run. Delta Airlines will have a say along the way as well as this does effect their business. 

 


Matthew Kane

 

Share this post


Link to post

And the plot thickens...Bombardier just announced it has just sold a majority stake of the C-Series to Airbus and a second assembly line will open up in Mobile, Alabama to sell the C-Series in the US Market

http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/newsList/details.binc-20171016-airbus-and-bombardier-announce-c-series-partnershi.bombardiercom.html


Matthew Kane

 

Share this post


Link to post

I think everyone who has a stake in the C Series is going to be a winner with this deal. Nice end-run guys!


13900K@5.8GHz - ROG Strix Z790-E - 2X16Gb G.Skill Trident DDR5 6400 CL32 - MSI RTX 4090 Suprim X - WD SN850X 2 TB M.2 - XPG S70 Blade 2 TB M.2 - MSI A1000G PCIE5 1000 W 80+ Gold PSU - Liam Li 011 Dynamic Razer case - 58" Panasonic TC-58AX800U 4K - Pico 4 VR  HMD - WinWing HOTAS Orion2 MAX - ProFlight Pedals - TrackIR 5 - W11 Pro (Passmark:12574, CPU:63110-Single:4785, GPU:50688)

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Reason why I like the idea of using Sukhoi SU-35 Aircraft for the RCAF is both nations share the same type of geography and environment. Canada and Russia are both very far north, hot in the summer, cold in the winter and Russia has built the best aircraft for this environment. The problem is Russia knows that aircraft better then anyone, and currently uses them against Canada to test their response over the arctic with the CF-18 Fleets. Supplying Canada with replacement aircraft to respond to Russian interceptor and bomber flights would totally be in Russia's favour, any vulnerabilities in the Stealth Technology Russia would know because it is their air frame, and would totally take advantage of that. Canada using it's own avionics package would not work either as Russian espionage would totally figure that out too, they are very good at that. This is on all fronts a very bad move for Canada other then they are great jets that would perform well in the northern environment, but when it comes to protecting Northern Sovereignty it is a bad idea for Canada to use Russian Jets.

Well, this presupposes that Russia has an intention of going to war with Canada, or any other NATO country for that matter, which is somewhat unlikely, particularly when we look at history and examine the nation's desire, or rather lack of it, for combat on a worldwide basis. Yes the Russians do probing missions, but we do that too you know, does this mean we are planning to attack them? Nope, it doesn't.

Ever since the Soviet Union commenced whizzing TU-95s over the Bearing Straits and the North Sea, which was from about 1956 onwards, in order to test radar response times and scrambling times for interceptors against those bombers, it has been done with the express intention of seeing if their military stuff was up to snuff. Now you might suppose this indicates an intention for war, but it doesn't, nor did it even at the height of the Cold War, it indicates the desire to be ready for a war should that happen, and not with anyone in particular, it simply makes sense to test ones equipment's abilities against the capabilities of the most able opposition one can find. The Russians know what it is like to be caught napping, the Luftwaffe did that to them in 1941 and it took them four years to recover from it and get the Germans on the retreat, losing literally one sixth of its entire population in the process.

So you have to remember that whilst the Russians would not want to be unprepared for war, if anyone actually doesn't want a major war, it is them. De Re Militari states this best with the well known adage: Si vis pacem, para bellum, aka: If you want peace, prepare for war, and this is what their military is about. It has to be capable, but being capable does not mean they want to use that capability.

Yes there are Arctic territorial disputes between Canada and Russia, largely because of the Lomonosov Ridge extending out from the Russian continental land mass into that region, but these claims are now in the hands of the UN, which is mediating over them. As ever, it's about oil and mineral deposits, but the form of the Lomonosov Ridge, which is it would seem, not separated from the Russian land mass by any fault lines, does kind of support their claim at least from a geological standpoint depending on whether you think that should include a sub-surface continental shelf beyond 200 miles, but if you do then such claims are not without some justification. Needless to say, Canada would prefer that not to be the case, which is what all that political bickering and underwater flag planting malarkey is about.

As noted, the Soviets know what it means perhaps better than any nation to be in combat; they lost an estimated 26.6 million people in WW2 (aka the great Patriotic War in Russian parlance), which is considerably more than half the total deaths of all Allied combatant nations in WW2. We can safely assume they would not want to repeat this. One only has to look at the Cuban Missile Crisis (known as the Caribbean Missile Crisis in Russia) to know this is the case. During that event, the Russians placed some nuclear tipped rockets and some nuclear capable bombers on Cuba. But this was not the aggressive opening move it is often portrayed to be, it was partly as a response to a request from a client state following an attempt at invasion by the United States - Operation Zapata (the Bay of Pigs Invasion) - which led to Fidel Castro fearing another attack. But it was more directly a response to nuclear missiles having been placed in Turkey and Italy prior to the crisis, which were intended to facilitate a first strike against the Soviet Union, since their range was considerably reduced by placing them there. Several years before this, the United States was flying reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union too, and they weren't going there to photograph historical places of interest, they were locating targets for those missiles based in Turkey and Italy. This is why Francis Gary Powers U2 aeroplane was shot down (one of which was also shot down over Cuba) and why the US were prompted to develop the SR-71, so they would have a more capable aircraft for such spy missions. No such Soviet flights passed over US territories, so you have to ask yourself, if they probed its edges, but they never overflew them, as the US did frequently, who was the aggressor?

It was Khrushchev which calmed the situation down and agreed to remove the missiles and aircraft from Cuba (although what isn't generally known is that some missiles actually remained there for a while since the US didn't know about those ones, however, the Soviets did not trust the Cubans with them and later removed them anyway because of that lack of trust). Khrushchev removed the missiles at the expense of his political career too, because the agreement by the Americans to remove their missiles from Turkey and Italy if the Soviets removed their stuff from Cuba was kept secret from the Soviet people, and so the withdrawal of those Cuban missiles was seen as a defeat for Khrushchev and he lost his leadership role because of that. He was prepared to do that because he did not want a war and thought it likely since he was aware that Kennedy was something of a naïve cowboy when it came to politics on the world stage.

That said, the more bellicose US leaders also saw the Cuban Missile Crisis as a defeat and were not happy with Kennedy's handling of it, but the more savvy among them were rather more concerned about how his posturing had taken things dangerously close to an actual shooting war, with nuclear weaponry. In light of that, and depending on how much you like conspiracy theories, it is entirely possible, one might even say likely, this was behind Kennedy being assassinated, most probably by the CIA since they figured he did not know 'how to play the game' and had taken things beyond the normally well-recognised, but limited and never too overt, posturing which was the norm for the Cold War (i.e. like most countries with a secret service, the CIA prefer to do things on the sly via proxies, as they did in Operation Zapata, but always within the rules of the game which all the players understand). It is no surprise to learn then, that it was right after the missile crisis the telephone hotline between Moscow and Washington was set up, which is another clue to what was behind that assassination if you like speculating on stuff such as this, since the very existence of that hotline indicates a desire (from both parties) to be able to put the brakes on if things get out of hand. It's a game, a dangerous one admittedly, but a game nonetheless, and anyone with their finger on that button who does not know how to play that game by the rules all the players understand, is going to be removed by those who do know how to play it right up to the ragged edge, but never beyond there.

In relation to who was being aggressive, it is also worth noting that the Soviet submarine B-59, which was in the Caribbean at the time of the crisis, was depth-charged by the US destroyer USS Beale in order to provoke an attack (and that would have been with a nuclear-tipped torpedo, since B-59 carried those). The Soviet XO on board B-59 - Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov - argued against such an attack and subsequently managed to convince his Captain and the Political Officer on board B-59 to disarm the torpedo (which the Captain had in fact ordered to be armed and prepared for launch). So again you have the Americans provoking something and the Soviets calming it down, and this was really very dangerous foreplay by the US, it could easily have led to the escalation of nuclear weapon use and it was not the only such incident of that nature either. Next thing you know, the President who advocated such dangerous games is driving through Dealey Plaza in an open topped limo next to a grassy knoll and the Cold War goes back to its normal status quo as a proxy war fought entirely with conventional weapons in South East Asia. The current US President might do well to note this, what with all that North Korea business and good old bonkers Kim (who also doesn't appear to know how the game is played) getting his nuclear trouser snake out, lest he too end up being scheduled for a visit to Texas in an open topped limo lol.

It's worth noting here too in regard to bombers and their probing missions and combat readiness, that US Deputy Commander in Chief, USAF General David Arthur Burchinal is on record as saying that whilst during the crisis, USAF's Strategic Air Command had 80 percent of its Bomber fleet on Defcon 3 and at readiness to launch, the Soviet bomber fleets on the other hand were actually stood down at the time!

In General Burchinal's words: 'The Russians were thoroughly stood down, and we knew it. They didn't make any move. They did not increase their alert; they did not increase any flights, or their air defense posture. They didn't do a thing, they froze in place. We were never further from nuclear war than at the time of Cuba, never further.'

We got told for years that the Warsaw Pact was just itching to go to war with us, since Generals like their toys and so it suits them to create a desire for them, and there is much money to be made in warfare. When you get told that, you start to believe it, but if you look at all the sources of information on the matter, and make up your own mind, you find the truth is rather different from what your Government, or any other Government for that matter, would like you to believe.

This does not mean that warplanes would not be used of course, but they are far more likely to be used in conflicts not in a country's own back yard, and certainly on a scale which can be limited. So there really is no reason not to buy the ones which are the most effective in terms of cost and industrial development capabilities and job creation, and for the Canadians, I'd strongly suggest that would be the Su-57, after all, if the Canadians and the Russians were to foster a business relationship whereby they were partners, surely that would provide even less reason for them to start shooting at one another, would it not?

After all, anyone with any sense would hope that all warplanes never get to shoot their guns and missiles at anything, because that would mean they've really done their job properly. War? What is it good for? Well not absolutely nothing, because it's good for business, but just so long as it is only a threat and not a reality.

  • Upvote 2

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Chock said:

...after all, if the Canadians and the Russians were to foster a business relationship whereby they were partners, surely that would provide even less reason for them to start shooting at one another, would it not?

Some food for thought, summed up in two words:

Antonov and
Ukraine

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Chock said:

After all, anyone with any sense would hope that all warplanes never get to shoot their guns and missiles at anything, because that would mean they've really done their job properly. War? What is it good for? Well not absolutely nothing, because it's good for business, but just so long as it is only a threat and not a reality.

No I don't believe Russia wants to go to war or will ever start one other then what we have seen in Crimea and Syria by protecting their own interests. The current situation of Sanctions have worked out very well for Russia. The best job creation program you can ever give a nation is Sanctions. It worked in the past with Rhodesia, which during that time of sanctions they were so wealthy the Rhodesian Dollar was trading higher then the British Pound. We are currently seeing this same effect happening in Russia. USA is talking a lot about Job Creation but very little is happening, because jobs are shareholder driven, and governments can do very little to influence companies to move jobs back to the USA....Unless you are sanctioned, then you are forced to make goods back at home.

Here is the Parmesan Cheese scenario. Russia is sanctioned and can no longer get cheese from Italy, which increases their demand for cheese, so they kick-start local production and produce their own, and over time they get better at it by creating a line of cheese that is not only just as good as the Italians can make, but they can also do it more competitively and on a larger scale due to the shear size of Russia's agriculture to support this industry. Which is why people in Russia are saying they would like sanctions to last about 10 years, that gives them enough time to build new industries and get better at it so when sanctions are lifted they can start trading products from all this new industry in the global market. 

Every time the west says they are going to punish Russia with a new round of sanctions they welcome it, and this is followed by the west asking for job creation at home, but what is happening is the west is currently creating the largest job creation program on the planet in Russia with sanctions......Ironic isn't it? The other area sanctions are flawed is Russia still has more then enough trade partners and foreign investments that they don't need the west to build a new emerging economy, if anyone has vacationed around the Adriatic Sea will tell you how much Russian Money is going into real estate in this area, Russians have lots of money to spend.

For Canada to get into a trade relationship with Russia this will take time. Canada is one of the Western Nations on the side of Sanctions, but in time they will lift those, and when they do Russia will be open for business wanting Free Trade deals to sell what they are able to produce. Canada would benefit from this somewhat but the other issue is both nations are so similar in natural resources and agriculture they don't really have a lot of what each other needs, each of them are better off trading with the nations that need the things they are able to supply or produce. But what will likely happen is when Russian Sanctions are lifted and they rebuild trade they will flood the global market with the natural resources that Canada has as well and that will effect Canada's Trade

  • Upvote 1

Matthew Kane

 

Share this post


Link to post

With Airbus now having a piece of Bombardier you can bet the Canadian gov’t will be looking into sourcing  a fighter there and guess who’ll get the work & economic spinoffs.....Bombardier in Quebec.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...