SupersonicMax said:
HB: how do you assume our mission set is unopposed CAS exclusively? Have you read SSE and how it relates to what we, the fighter force, need to be ready to face?
Never assumed any such thing. I have read SSE and it's beyond vague which is why I don't place a whole lot of value in it as a capstone document.
the Canadian Armed Forces requires a fighter fleet that is capable, upgradeable, resilient and interoperable with our allies and partners
- capable of what?
- upgradeable to what?
- resilient against what?
Interoperable is the only piece that's pretty self-explanatory but there is no evidence that European aircraft suffer from any real interoperability issues beyond bureaucratic inertia.
The big concern for me isn't whether we have a Fighter Force or not as we clearly need one. It's how do we procure a new fighter force while also being able to afford all the other capabilities we need to replace/generate?
- Replace the CF-18 fleet with 88 advanced fighter aircraft to improve Canadian Armed Forces air control and air attack capability.
- Acquire space capabilities meant to improve situational awareness and targeting, including: replacement of the current RADARSAT system to improve the identification and tracking of threats and improve situational awareness of routine traffic in and through Canadian territory; sensors capable of identifying and tracking debris in space that threatens Canadian and allied space-based systems (surveillance of space); and, space-based systems that will enhance and improve tactical narrow- and wide-band communications globally, including throughout Canada’s Arctic region.
- Acquire new Tactical Integrated Command, Control, and Communications, radio cryptography, and other necessary communications systems.
- Recapitalize next generation strategic air-to-air tanker-transport capability (CC-150 Polaris replacement).
- Replace utility transport aircraft (CC-138 Twin Otter replacement).
- Acquire next generation multi-mission aircraft (CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft replacement).
- Invest in medium altitude remotely piloted systems.
- Modernize short-range air-to-air missiles (fighter aircraft armament).
- Upgrade air navigation, management, and control systems.
- Acquire aircrew training systems.
- Recapitalize or life-extend existing capabilities in advance of the arrival of next generation platforms.
- Sustain domestic search and rescue capability, to include life extension of existing systems, acquisition of new platforms, and greater integration with internal and external partners.
- Operationalize the newly acquired Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue aircraft fleet.
Lots of other pieces in that list from SSE that the CAF needs to invest in but the big piece is the integration of all those pieces of equipment and the effects they are able to deliver in the Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW) Concept which is a great little capability that the RCAF has that needs to not only be maintained but enhanced. When we deploy Canadian Air Assets somewhere, they need to be able to show up and not rely on someone else for everything from AAR, ISR, Targeting, etc. That includes investments in capabilities we don't presently have like Armed RPAs.
I personally think focusing primarily on the fighter force at the expense of everything else is a fools errand, which is why SSE is such a weak document from an Air Power perspective. The Army has the Brigade, The Navy the Task Group. The Air Force has the AEW but they don't talk about it at all, only that they need those new fighters!
Fighter Aircraft are nothing without all the other enablers that support it. That includes everything from Logistics, C2, ISR, EW, AAR, etc. It's the sum of all those parts that when combined, give a military an actual combat capability. It's like trying to play a game of chess only focusing on moving the Queen. The Queen can do a lot of damage but is usually pretty useless without shaping actions and mutual support provided by the Rooks, Knights, Bishops and Pawns all of whom serve different but equally important roles.
Good2Golf said:
So you don’t believe that FFCP was properly and fully budgeted completely into DND’s Investment Plan accrual profile, then, and if not reduced in scope, will endanger other programs?
Regards
G2G
You can add FFCP along with every other procurement program to the list of overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to cost(s). It's the nature of our schizophrenic Defence Policy.
The Fighter Force will have their Ferraris and then the next hot combat theatre we show up in where Canadians are getting shot at and killed, we won't have the right coloured uniforms, any helicopters, a proper NSE with adequate logistic support for our operating area, tanks, etc, etc...
Oh, those Ferraris won't be able to support the troops in contact either, wouldn't want to scratch the them.
Czech_pivo said:
I find this to be interesting - granted it might have been taken out of context - In November 2012, Lieutenant Colonel Lars Helmrich of the Swedish Air Force testified to the Riksdag regarding the Gripen E. He stated that the current version of the Gripen would be outdated in air-to-air combat by 2020.[170] With 60 Gripens having been judged to be the minimum required to defend Swedish Airspace, the Swedish Air Force wants to have 60–80 Gripens upgraded to the E/F standard by 2020.[171]
That's the Gripen C he is talking about. Which is why Sweden is upgrading to the Gripen E.
op:
