The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Kirkhill]

In 2022, Canada was the source of 52% of U.S. gross total petroleum imports and 60% of gross crude oil imports.
Oil and petroleum products explained: Oil imports and exports

In 2022, total annual U.S. natural gas imports were about 3.02 Tcf (8.28 Bcf/d),
In 2022, about 99% of U.S. total annual natural gas imports were from Canada and nearly all by pipeline.
In 2022, total annual U.S. natural gas exports were 6.90 trillion cubic feet (Tcf)

There are currently more than 30 power transmission linkages between the United States and Canada. During 2014, 60 companies in Canada exported 58.4 terawatthours (TWh) of electricity into the United States, making up 1.6% of U.S. electricity retail sales and 10% of Canadian electricity generation. The largest exporters were Hydro-Québec (16.4 TWh) and the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board (8.6 TWh).

New England and New York accounted for 60% of the total electricity imported into the United States in 2014, and these imports represent 12%-16% of the region's retail sales of electricity. New England imports its electricity primarily from Quebec. New York imports electricity from the hydroelectric resources in Quebec and Ontario, often on a flexible schedule as needed. New England's power generation sources have been shifting to natural gas in recent years, but the region also has been importing more of the hydroelectricity from Canada. Minnesota and North Dakota imported 12% of their electricity from Canada in 2014.

The US has an interest in secure Canadian infrastructure.

Disrupting supply to the US by cutting lines in Canada? Would that be an act of war that would require a US response? Or is it simply an economic disruption?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fuel-shortages-southeastern-us-pipeline-1.6023362

US oil industry hit by cyberattacks: Was China involved?

MONITOR EXCLUSIVE: Breaches show how sophisticated industrial espionage is becoming. The big question: Who’s behind them?

www.csmonitor.com

 

[Good2Golf]

Your suggesting that will be their declaration of war ? Luring out an F35 to hit it with an FPV? Or do you think that we would adjust our force protection measures in a large scale conflict ?


@Kirkhill I will not engage with you, you know why.

Well we’re getting hit by them in the cyber-domain, no reason they would try and shit disturb elsewhere. They’re already (allegedly) spreading disruptive physical action into more proximal NATO states as we speak, so should we honestly believe that Russia wouldn’t look to do so in Canada in the not too distant future? A ‘Fortress North America’ belief doesn’t serve our national-level interests. If we’re not going to take modest protective measures because we’re cheap and most Canadians don’t GAF, fine, but let’s not pretend we don’t need to at least look at upping our FP capabilities a smidge because there isn’t a credible threat.

Edit to add:

I’m a lot more concerned about cyber attacks to the F-35’s IM infrastructure than a physical attack against our future F-35s.

Can/should we not look at both the cyber AND the physical threat domains?

 

[suffolkowner]

Right so see above about my comments on why an FPV drone strike is probably silliest threat to use as it assumes Russia has infiltrated agents in, got them to the arctic, gotten them to acquire drones, then acquire the exposives, assemble these drones in the AO - and after all of that extremely complex operation has been successful they’ll be foiled by a hanger door ?

The way we defend against saboteurs is the entire national security system we have, from CSIS and RCMP INSET down to our in house assets. All of that will ping security levels and we can surge force protection. Those threats are probably not going to be deterred by a hardened hanger that gets opened up from time to time.

How hard to infiltrate Alberta or Quebec vs Rankin Inlet, Inuvik, Iqaliut?

RUSOF would obviously wait until the hangar doors were opened to launch a CF-35 to intercept a Tu-95 or Tu-160 deliberately bouncing the CADIZ, and launch maybe a 5kg UCAV at them from their manned UUV, like a follow on to their 2000 ‘not an attack.’

Your suggesting that will be their declaration of war ? Luring out an F35 to hit it with an FPV? Or do you think that we would adjust our force protection measures in a large scale conflict ?


@Kirkhill I will not engage with you, you know why.

no need to declare war

 

[markppcli]

The a massive difference between engaging in the cyber and information space and a physical attack. We all know that, we all know we’re engaging with Russia in a low scale conflict. They have conducted disruptive operations in neighbouring countries yes - in the Baltic Sea where already have forces deployed and are operating. Not Ina foreign country, and this obsession with an infiltration and deployment of FPVs to me seems like a high risk low reward operation - I can’t see what they would possibly gain from it beyond knocking out a single air frame. As I said multiple times I’m not against increasing out FP measures - I just don’t see hardened hangers as the priority there.

 

[markppcli]

How hard to infiltrate Alberta or Quebec vs Rankin Inlet, Inuvik, Iqaliut?

Well given the ratio of terror plots thwarted in this country to those executed I’d say fairly hard to infiltrate, plan, secure equipment, and launch it. If Russia launched an FPV drone at a Canadian base then yes, that is a declaration of war.

 

[KevinB]

The US has an interest in secure Canadian infrastructure.

Disrupting supply to the US by cutting lines in Canada? Would that be an act of war that would require a US response? Or is it simply an economic disruption?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fuel-shortages-southeastern-us-pipeline-1.6023362

US oil industry hit by cyberattacks: Was China involved?

MONITOR EXCLUSIVE: Breaches show how sophisticated industrial espionage is becoming. The big question: Who’s behind them?

www.csmonitor.com

We can barely upkeep our current infrastructure.


@markppcli
Little green men without passports are not exactly a new thing for Russia. Given that Russia is behind the murder of at least 7 folks in the US in the last 4 years, I don’t think it would be beyond the realm of possibility to suggest that they would be willing to kill some Canadians if they thought it would be advantageous.

Our FP measures down here for some places are pretty bad - the advantage is they are 1) way better than Canada’s 2) we have a lot of stuff - so the odds of suffering a significant loss is unlikely.

Losing 30-40 planes for us would be annoying, but not even close to half a fleet.

 

[Good2Golf]

The a massive difference between engaging in the cyber and information space and a physical attack. We all know that, we all know we’re engaging with Russia in a low scale conflict. They have conducted disruptive operations in neighbouring countries yes - in the Baltic Sea where already have forces deployed and are operating. Not Ina foreign country, and this obsession with an infiltration and deployment of FPVs to me seems like a high risk low reward operation - I can’t see what they would possibly gain from it beyond knocking out a single air frame. As I said multiple times I’m not against increasing out FP measures - I just don’t see hardened hangers as the priority there.

Well NATO is concerned enough about Russian hybrid-warfare. If anything, the FPV drone attack threat will more likely come from a non-infiltrated, proxy element that will leverage Canada’s abysmal security posture around its national security infrastructure. Clearly Canadians give so little a crap about it, that Russia needn't even risk infiltrating Spetsnaz team off a Yasen-class SSGN, to disrupt and destroy…

 

[markppcli]

We can barely upkeep our current infrastructure.


@markppcli
Little green men without passports are not exactly a new thing for Russia. Given that Russia is behind the murder of at least 7 folks in the US in the last 4 years, I don’t think it would be beyond the realm of possibility to suggest that they would be willing to kill some Canadians if they thought it would be advantageous.

Our FP measures down here for some places are pretty bad - the advantage is they are 1) way better than Canada’s 2) we have a lot of stuff - so the odds of suffering a significant loss is unlikely.

Losing 30-40 planes for us would be annoying, but not even close to half a fleet.

Commuting a murder vs what’s being suggested in this thread - FPVs used to destroyer aircraft, are entirely different. That’s what I’m arguing. I’ve said we should probably improve force protection, I just don’t think that hardened hangers are item number one.

 

[suffolkowner]

Well given the ratio of terror plots thwarted in this country to those executed I’d say fairly hard to infiltrate, plan, secure equipment, and launch it. If Russia launched an FPV drone at a Canadian base then yes, that is a declaration of war.

Whats the ratio?

Its a declaration of war if they admit to it, otherwise its just a couple of crazy guys acting on their own. What are we going to do about it?

 

[markppcli]

Well NATO is concerned enough about Russian hybrid-warfare. If anything, the FPV drone attack threat will more likely come from a non-infiltrated, proxy element that will leverage Canada’s abysmal security posture around its national security infrastructure. Clearly Canadians give so little a crap about it, that Russia needn't even risk infiltrating Spetsnaz team off a Yasen-class SSGN, to disrupt and destroy…

I don’t see us as having abysmal security. We have poor physical security on bases - that I agree with. However our security apartuses have, as I said before, kept us fairly secure against a number of plots and threats.

 

[markppcli]

Whats the ratio?

Its a declaration of war if they admit to it, otherwise its just a couple of crazy guys acting on their own. What are we going to do about it?

When was the last successful terror attack on Canadian soil and how many plots have been broken up? See the two gentleman arrested last week as case after case before. That’s how we keep ourselves secure.

 

[suffolkowner]

When was the last successful terror attack on Canadian soil and how many plots have been broken up? See the two gentleman arrested last week as case after case before. That’s how we keep ourselves secure.

thats what I asked you whats the ratio?

Whats the success ratio against attempts that havent been made?

How are the various NATO ammo factories been doing?

 

[Good2Golf]

I don’t see us as having abysmal security. We have poor physical security on bases - that I agree with. However our security apartuses have, as I said before, kept us fairly secure against a number of plots and threats.

I guess we’ll see when we get more Russian hybrid action beyond cyber…

 

[Kirkhill]

We can barely upkeep our current infrastructure.


@markppcli
Little green men without passports are not exactly a new thing for Russia. Given that Russia is behind the murder of at least 7 folks in the US in the last 4 years, I don’t think it would be beyond the realm of possibility to suggest that they would be willing to kill some Canadians if they thought it would be advantageous.

Our FP measures down here for some places are pretty bad - the advantage is they are 1) way better than Canada’s 2) we have a lot of stuff - so the odds of suffering a significant loss is unlikely.
Losing 30-40 planes for us would be annoying, but not even close to half a fleet.

We are at 1.4%, a handful of ships, a bit of air cover and a battlegroup.

If we went to 2.5% we might just find enough money to cover off some of the national defence infrastrucure and security requirements.

Then we could start thinking about building a new division to work alongside the US.

 

[suffolkowner]

We are at 1.4%, a handful of ships, a bit of air cover and a battlegroup.

If we went to 2.5% we might just find enough money to cover off some of the national defence infrastrucure and security requirements.

Then we could start thinking about building a new division to work alongside the US.

or we could double the population at Carling. % GDP is such a bad metric IMO

planned

88 F35's
14 P8's
8 MRTT's
? AEW

are not insignificant investments that are likely to result in budget growth

planned

2 AOR
15 destroyer/frigates
?? SSK

For example the western NATO countries avg

13 destroyer/frigates
3 amphibious ships of various capabilities
1 carrier/light carrier
6 submarines
4 AOR
8 MPA
7 AAR
3 ISR/AEW
151 fighter jets

are we under delivering on capabilities relative to our allies? For sure we are even considering GDP/PPP

destroyer/frigates we are -1 with the intent to be +2
a big minus 4 on amphibs/carriers
submarines are -2 with an intent to ???
AOR are -2
MPA we are +6
AAR we are -5 with an intent to be +1
ISR we are -3 not counting the CE-145C but intent to purchase
fighters are a big hole obviously

 

[markppcli]

thats what I asked you whats the ratio?

And I’ll admit to not having that, but given that we’ve had more arrests than terror attacks I’d argue it’s well into the positives

Whats the success ratio against attempts that havent been made?

Huh? If they haven’t been made it’s a hypothetical and impossible to measure against.

How are the various NATO ammo factories been doing?

Don’t see the relation, has there been a major attack on a factory I’ve missed? How does that relate to armouring hangers? Which for the umpteenth time is all Ive argued about

 

[markppcli]

I guess we’ll see when we get more Russian hybrid action beyond cyber…

I’d say “if” not when. Hybrid war as it relates to Russia is designed to motivate a pro Russian ethnic group, not much of a factor in Canada and I think they may be preoccupied for the time being. But again, read my comments it’s firmly set in the armoured hanger question.