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

[PuckChaser]

Things keep getting better. Canada should have it's own defense industry

You can't build a defense industry when you get replacements every 30 years. To think that we'd actually come out ahead with a Saab or Dassault offer of technology transfer is laughable. We'd buy 90 jets for double the price of foreign production and then immediately shut the lines down and lay off all the workers. The new defense "policy" didn't say we were going to buy jets every X years to keep the fleet going, we're going to do what we always do, 1 off purchase every 3 years, and hope nothing breaks.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we want to send a message, then pursue French/European jets. Send a team to learn to fly and fix the Rafale and talk about having some here for evaluation as an interim fighter.

 

[MarkOttawa]

FSTO:

Liberal Party of Canada (since Louis St Laurent term as PM) has never had the best interests of Canada in mind when it comes to its National and International Defence of Canada

Not so under Mike Pearson--in mid-sixties Canadian services had some 120,000 personnel from population one-third today's.  Pearson accepted dual-key nukes from US for CF-100 and BOMARCs for NORAD, and for CF-104 and Army Honest John short-range missiles in Europe for NATO.

Rot set win with PET who halved NATO presence in West Germany.

Edit: Brain-cramp oops! Thanks to Ostrozac below for correction:

The CF-100 Canuck was conventionally armed with machine guns and rockets, albeit an interesting aircraft in its own right. It was the CF-101 Voodoo that brought the joys of nuclear weapons to RCAF fighter squadrons throughout Canada (as you stated, a program overseen by Mike Pearson).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FSTO]

FSTO:

Not so under Mike Pearson--in mid-sixties Canadian services had some 120,000 personnel from population one-third today's.  Pearson accepted dual-key nukes from US for CF-100 and BOMARCs for NORAD, and for CF-104 and Army Honest John short-range missiles in Europe for NATO.

Rot set win with PET who halved NATO presence in West Germany.

Mark
Ottawa

Pearson will always be tainted (to me) for his acquiescence of Paul Hellyer's destructive unification policy.

 

[Ostrozac]

Pearson accepted dual-key nukes from US for CF-100

The CF-100 Canuck was conventionally armed with machine guns and rockets, albeit an interesting aircraft in its own right. It was the CF-101 Voodoo that brought the joys of nuclear weapons to RCAF fighter squadrons throughout Canada (as you stated, a program overseen by Mike Pearson).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wonder if we had kept the Arrow, would those nukes have fit the weapons bay?

 

[Ostrozac]

I wonder if we had kept the Arrow, would those nukes have fit the weapons bay?

Yes. The CF-105 Arrow could carry a mixed load of conventional AIM-4 Falcon and nuclear AIR-2 Genie (the same nuclear rocket we used on the CF-101 Voodoo).

http://www.avroland.ca/al-cf105-interceptor-rex.html

 

[Loachman]

Things keep getting better. Canada should have it's own defense industry

It has.

We do not build everything that we operate, however - nor do our southern cousins. Perhaps the Russians and Chinese do, but they are exceptions.

We export(ed) to and rebuild LAVs for the US Army and Marine Corps, and C7s and C8s to other NATO countries, and already build parts for F35 - and those contracts will likely bring in more income over the lifetime of the aircraft than setting up production facilities for any of the other (lower-performing) contenders. If Bombardier's C-Series aircraft sell well, there will not likely be a lot of spare floor space or sufficiently-skilled workers. We built a whole factory to produce LSVWs, and mothballed it once production had ceased.

Arrow failed because of its cost and lack of export sales. Arrow II would do just as well.

 

[Altair]

You can't build a defense industry when you get replacements every 30 years. To think that we'd actually come out ahead with a Saab or Dassault offer of technology transfer is laughable. We'd buy 90 jets for double the price of foreign production and then immediately shut the lines down and lay off all the workers. The new defense "policy" didn't say we were going to buy jets every X years to keep the fleet going, we're going to do what we always do, 1 off purchase every 3 years, and hope nothing breaks.

you are right.

Would be better for Canadian aerospace to partner with the Europeans.

Maybe a Saab/bombardier fighter aircraft for example.

No way does a Canadian fighter program survive on its own.

 

[MilEME09]

Arrow failed because of its cost and lack of export sales. Arrow II would do just as well.

The French wanted the engine for the Mirage, the british were considering it, and even remote circles of the US military were consider the engine for it's own aircraft, I hardly call that a lack of sales for an aircraft that didnt go to mass production.

 

[Loachman]

Would be better for Canadian aerospace to partner with the Europeans.

Why?

We are already a partner in the F35 programme, which will produce far more aircraft.

 

[Rifleman62]

Ask an Expert:

Does the US Government have to approve the resale of Australian F-18's to Canada? All US arms sales must be approved, technology transfers etc. When the Australia purchased the Hornets was there a clause for eventual disposal?

If the US has to approve the proposed purchase, the US may refuse for a variety of reasons one of which is they want Cdn interoperability wrt NORAD, want more US jobs, etc.

 

[PuckChaser]

Ask an Expert:

Does the US Government have to approve the resale of Australian F-18's to Canada? All US arms sales must be approved, technology transfers etc. When the Australia purchased the Hornets was there a clause for eventual disposal?

If the US has to approve the proposed purchase, the US may refuse for a variety of reasons one of which is they want Cdn interoperability wrt NORAD, want more US jobs, etc.

That's a great question, they likely would have to approve an ITAR transfer. We can't even bring US-built radios back to US repair facilities without a MOU from the State Department.

 

[MarkOttawa]

USAF F-106, mainstay of its and ANG NORAD role until 1980s, first flew at end of 1956, well before Arrow:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=158

Arrow first flew on March 25, 1958; meanwhile next-generation F4H Phantom II flew just over two months later:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=680
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_1.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

past=/=present.

:boring:

Chretien at least got on with major peacekeeping missions.  Tic toc.

 

[MilEME09]

:boring:

Chretien at least got on with major peacekeeping missions.  Tic toc.

Some, not all

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's a great question, they likely would have to approve an ITAR transfer. We can't even bring US-built radios back to US repair facilities without a MOU from the State Department.

ITAR is the best thing the US ever did for the Chinese defense industry, restrict sales , but the Chinese still get most of the tech and reverse engineer it and then sell it to those buyers who don't want the ITAR headache. ITAR alone is a good enough reason to consider other aircraft at least for the Interim aircraft.

 

[Good2Golf]

Some, not all

If by "some" you mean Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, then sure..."some."

 

[MilEME09]

ITAR is the best thing the US ever did for the Chinese defense industry, restrict sales , but the Chinese still get most of the tech and reverse engineer it and then sell it to those buyers who don't want the ITAR headache. ITAR alone is a good enough reason to consider other aircraft at least for the Interim aircraft.

Just imagine I much faster our supply system would be without ITAR and other bureaucracy thrown in by the states.

G2G: Yes and if those missions had issues, look at Bosnia, Medac was brushed under the rug for years.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If by "some" you mean Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, then sure..."some."

To be clear, G2G, lets take them one by one:

(1) Haiti: Which one are you talking about? There has been a UN mission or another in there since forever  :moose: In any event, most are police missions and none of them is "peacekeeping" but rather support to civil authorities missions. The first one, UNMIH, started before Chretien was elected, saw Mulroney agree to participate. UNSMIH, UNTMIH and MIPONUH occurred under Chretien, but they were just a continuation of the original mission. In any event the sole interest of Canadian politicians in those missions were three seats in eastern Montreal ridings with large Haitina population.

(2) Bosnia: UNPROFOR started a year before Chretien's election: Again it is a Mulroney mandate.

(3) Kosovo: UNMIK started in 1999, so under Chretien, but it was originally a civilian support mission and only turned into more and a military one in 2008 with Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Afghanistan: The only UN mission involving Afghanistan is UNGOMAP from 1988 to 1990, so not Chretien. KFOR is a NATO mission even if it has been instituted at the behest of the UN, and we must remember that Chretien agreed to field troops in KFOR against the advice of the Ottawa brass, for the sole purpose of being in a position to refuse to participate in the US operation to find weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ.