Canada does not need fighter jets, period - G&M

[dapaterson]

As I recall, the twin engine controversy was originally created during the last fighter procurement controversy as a way to avoid the F-16 and ensure that we'd buy the F-15.  Then the twin engine F-18 showed up at a lower price point...

 

[observor 69]

By that time anything looked good as long as it wasn't a grossly misemployed outdated CF-104, a CF-5 low-cost fighter for US allies or a wore out time expired CF-101 I was happy.

 

[Good2Golf]

:nod:

If I recall (anecdotally), the desired solution was, in priority:

1. F-15
2. F-14
3. F-16
4. (Y)F-17, which then developed into the F/A-18 when McDonnell Douglas bought the rights to Northrop's YF-17 (itself heavily influenced by the design of the F-5 Freedom Fighter that the CF operated for a time).

Once the F-15 and F-14 were deemed to be cost prohibitive, and at about the same time, the USN moved forward with YF-17>F/A-18 development, the F/A-18 became seen as the "next best thing" to the F-15 Eagle.

I recall reading a paper by then BGen (later CDS) Paul Manson written while he was PD NFA (project director of the 'New Fighter Aircraft" project) that spoke to the desire to have F-15, but that unable to procure that airframe, there was not enough confidence in the fighter force to endorse the F-16, hence the F/A-18 winning the competition.

Interesting that this round, there was Mary a whisper of F-22...perhaps the Air Force read the lessons learned from 35 years ago?

Regards
G2G

 

[Transporter]

:nod:

Interesting that this round, there was Mary a whisper of F-22...perhaps the Air Force read the lessons learned from 35 years ago?

How so?

 

[Good2Golf]

The F-22 is today's F-15, that one might have thought the aspirations of the RCAF may have looked to pursue the 'best of the best.'  Please don't take this as me opinions that we should have pursued the F-22, particularly as it is a costly system for the optimized mission set is was biased towards.

Regards,
G2G

 

[Transporter]

The F-22 is today's F-15, that one might have thought the aspirations of the RCAF may have looked to pursue the 'best of the best.'  Please don't take this as me opinions that we should have pursued the F-22, particularly as it is a costly system for the optimized mission set is was biased towards.

Regards,
G2G

F-22 was likely off the table from the get-go given US Federal Law prohibits foreign sales.

 

[Good2Golf]

Technically, the U.S. State Department pursued an exclusion from the Federal Legislation that authorizes FMS, not the other way around. This is not just a nit-picky semantical point, but significant as State would need only seek a Congressional approval of an exception to the exclusion...something a lot 'easier' to do than to amend Federal Legislation (arguably more difficult that the equivalent type of action in Canada).

Regards
G2G

 

[Transporter]

Technically, the U.S. State Department pursued an exclusion from the Federal Legislation that authorizes FMS, not the other way around. This is not just a nit-picky semantical point, but significant as State would need only seek a Congressional approval of an exception to the exclusion...something a lot 'easier' to do than to amend Federal Legislation (arguably more difficult that the equivalent type of action in Canada).

Regards
G2G

Interesting that no country currently looking at the F35 formally pursued the F22 (not to my knowledge anyway, though there were some initial expressions of interest). Cost, I'm sure, was one factor but the non-guaranteed FMS sales approval process you outline above probably didn't do much to bolster confidence that the aircraft would be FMS-eligible anytime soon. Our procurement/selection process is convoluted enough without adding this extra layer of a**-pain.
 

 

[AlexanderM]

I thought the Americans made it very clear that the F22 wasn't available to anyone.

 

[Transporter]

I thought the Americans made it very clear that the F22 wasn't available to anyone.

It was considered at one point if I recall correctly, and there was discussion within the US government of potentially developing an export variant, but that never went anywhere.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that, and I respectfully suggest that unless you are a ship driver, that you have don't have the experience to say that.  I had the opportunity to drive a HALIFAX class (as 2OOW), and I would have been adrift without my KINGSTON class experience.  Obviously the HALIFAX class has much more going on in terms of weapons, sensors, and helos, but the fundamentals of ship driving (vice fighting) are not much different on a HALIFAX class than an MCDV.  I can't speak to ORCA experience.

I have no ORCA class time, but did do a bit on the old YAGs, MCDVs, 280s and tankers.  Actually found YAGs more useful then MCDVs, as they were all ruddered ships.

For the AOPs, the icebreaking is a completely new role and takes a lot of experience.  So unless we let the CG folks pilot it, that will need a lot of simulator time before anyone actually goes into the ice, plus having some experienced CG pilots on the bridge until we have more time under our belts.

Not saying it's a full replacement, but given the lack of sea time and all the competing priorities at sea, an upgrade to our current trainers and much more varied scenarios needs a serious look.  Can't predict everything, but should be able to simulate most high risk common scenarios fairly well.  Also would be nice to inject engineering difficulties in there as well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have only a little bit of ice time at the wheel of a 1100 class, it's a case of learning where to hit and how much. Normally a team ballet between the Officer of the watch and Quartermaster. It kind of fun for the first few hours. Mind you I served on the R class which had no auto-pilot so 12hrs at the wheel in 20 minutes stints with another seaman was the norm.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have no ORCA class time, but did do a bit on the old YAGs, MCDVs, 280s and tankers.  Actually found YAGs more useful then MCDVs, as they were all ruddered ships.

For the AOPs, the icebreaking is a completely new role and takes a lot of experience.  So unless we let the CG folks pilot it, that will need a lot of simulator time before anyone actually goes into the ice, plus having some experienced CG pilots on the bridge until we have more time under our belts.

Not saying it's a full replacement, but given the lack of sea time and all the competing priorities at sea, an upgrade to our current trainers and much more varied scenarios needs a serious look.  Can't predict everything, but should be able to simulate most high risk common scenarios fairly well.  Also would be nice to inject engineering difficulties in there as well.

I think simulators have an important role in both training and in 'skill maintenance.' The highlighted bit is, however, vital, in my opinion. In Army terms, we can do all the TEWTS (Tactical Exercises Without Troops) and map exercises and research war games in the world, but nothing replaces moving units to the field, conducting training and sustaining the units there. Managing all the "competing priorities" is also a vital part of our training.

I understand that budget problems restrain sea time, flying hours and days in the field; we you need to make better, more imaginative and just plain more use of simulators, all the while being conscious of the fact that it is just a simulator, you're not at sea (or in the air, or ...).

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think simulators have an important role in both training and in 'skill maintenance.' The highlighted bit is, however, vital, in my opinion. In Army terms, we can do all the TEWTS (Tactical Exercises Without Troops) and map exercises and research war games in the world, but nothing replaces moving units to the field, conducting training and sustaining the units there. Managing all the "competing priorities" is also a vital part of our training.

I understand that budget problems restrain sea time, flying hours and days in the field; we you need to make better, more imaginative and just plain more use of simulators, all the while being conscious of the fact that it is just a simulator, you're not at sea (or in the air, or ...).

:goodpost: Fully agree;  Essentially that's what we do for damage control; you get your basic qualifications at the DC school. confirm your ship specific knowledge on board while alongside (that is maintained with daily alongside exercises), then exercise the entire DC organization at sea.  It's not cheap, but it seems reasonably effective, and makes sure you get the best bang for buck if you properly plan what you are going to do while you are actually at sea.  There are some arguements for fires that the final confirmation at the school should be done with a real diesel fire (gets a lot hotter) so it's more realistic, but the natural gas still does a decent job

That lets you focus on doing unit level training where you can exercise all the different departments together, vice having to start with basic individual skills.