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

[MilEME09]

Retired air chiefs urge Liberals to ditch ‘costly and unnecessary’ plan to buy Super Hornet jets

OTTAWA — Former chief of the defence staff Paul Manson and 12 other retired senior air force commanders have written to the prime minister asking the government to abandon the $5-7 billion interim purchase of Super Hornet fighter jets.

Gen. Manson, who held Canada’s top military role between 1986 and 1989, said the government’s plan to buy an interim fleet to replace the current CF-18 fighters is “ill-advised, costly and unnecessary.”

“I’m 82 years old and I may not see the outcome of all this but I want the facts put before the public,” he said in an interview.

“The main point right now is that the government seems determined to go ahead with a plan that those of us with countless decades of experience running the air force think would take decades to correct. It makes no sense.”

Manson and the 12 former air force lieutenant-generals say they have serious misgivings about the government’s claim that a “capability gap” exists, justifying the need for an interim fleet of 18 Super Hornets.
“Your government’s newly created policy calling for the Royal Canadian Air Force to meet its NATO and NORAD treaty commitments concurrently does not reflect a real and sudden change in the strategic situation. In our experience, it has been decades since Canada had sufficient aircraft to meet all our commitments simultaneously. Over the years, the air force, by judiciously balancing strategic risks and available resources, has managed its operational contributions reasonably well,” the letter states.

Rather than increasing fighter availability, the air force commanders claim the interim fleet would tax resources, because it would require training for pilots and technicians, plus new flight simulators, logistics support and maintenance operations.

Even that would not be enough, the authors say. “It would be necessary to recruit, train and qualify several hundred new technicians and dozens of pilots. Recent experience suggests the RCAF would face difficulty in achieving this … We forsee that bringing in an interim flight would create serious practical problems of this kind.”

If the government is intent on an interim purchase, the letter says, it should examine the prospect of buying so-called legacy Hornets, which are similar to the existing CF-18 and are increasingly becoming available as such partner nations as Australia and the United States replace their Hornet fleets with the F-35 fighter.

“The acquisition cost would be a fraction of a Super Hornet buy,” the air commanders say, pointing out that all the training, logistics and infrastructure needs are already in place.
The letter also urges the government to proceed to the open and fair competition for a permanent replacement for the CF-18s promised by the Liberals during the past election.

During the campaign, Justin Trudeau said the Liberals would not buy the F-35, a statement Manson called “outrageous.”

He said he remains a strong proponent of the F-35, even if that is not the focus of the letter sent to the Trudeau government. He is a former chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada, manufacturer of the F-35, but said he left the company 20 years ago and today has no commercial interest in Lockheed.

Manson admitted that with the Liberals having just backed down on their electoral reform proposal, the prospect of a reversal on the interim purchase is slim.

“There is not an awful lot of hope they’ll do the right thing,” he said.

But, he added that if the interim purchase is being made by the Liberals to ingratiate the government with the incoming Trump administration, it is a superficial solution.

“The point needs to be made that it may add to the one per cent of GDP (spent on defence) but if it doesn’t improve operational effectiveness, it won’t fool our NATO allies,” he said.

According to Jordan Owens, spokesman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, the government has no intention of reversing its decision on the interim purchase.

“The Royal Canadian Air Force faces a significant challenge because it does not have the number of fighter aircraft available to meet Canada’s NORAD and NATO obligations if called to do so simultaneously,” Owens said.

“Our government believes that we owe it to our women and men in uniform to provide them with the equipment needed to do their jobs. By acquiring an interim fighter fleet and proceeding to an open and transparent competition to procure the full replacement fleet, we will be providing the Royal Canadian Air Force with the resources necessary to meet this challenge.

“We have full confidence in their ability to do so.”

National Post

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/retired-air-chiefs-urge-liberals-to-ditch-costly-and-unnecessary-plan-to-buy-super-hornet-jets

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from Laurie Hawn's FB page ...

Open Letter to the Prime Minister

From Former Air Force Commanders

Dear Prime Minister,
As former commanders of Canada’s air force, we respectfully but urgently ask that your government not proceed with the plan to purchase a fleet of Super Hornet aircraft as an interim measure pending the eventual replacement of our venerable CF-18 fighters. It is our firm belief that the interim strategy is ill-advised, costly and unnecessary. Most important, it would significantly impair the Royal Canadian Air Force for years to come and ultimately damage the nation’s defence posture. The situation is complex, but our call for dropping the Super Hornet buy is based on some compelling facts, which we offer for your consideration.

First, we have serious misgivings about the use of a “capability gap” as the basis for your interim plan. Your government’s newly created policy calling for the Royal Canadian Air Force to meet its NATO and NORAD treaty obligations concurrently does not reflect a real and sudden change in the strategic situation. In our experience, it has been decades since Canada had sufficient fighter aircraft to meet all our commitments simultaneously. Over the years the air force, by judiciously balancing strategic risks and available resources, has managed its operational contributions reasonably well. We certainly welcome any initiative that promises to close the longstanding capability gap, but purchasing eighteen Super Hornet aircraft would in fact exacerbate the gap in the near to mid-term by imposing a heavy burden on the RCAF’s existing resources without producing a meaningful increase in fighter availability.

Although the Super Hornet does have some commonality with our current CF-18s, it is a different airplane, requiring its own training system for pilots and technicians, as well as new flight simulators, logistic support and maintenance organizations specific to the Super Hornet. The air force would have to draw personnel from the existing CF-18 fighter fleet (usually its most experienced people) to help bring into service a new and more complex fleet of fighter aircraft. But that would not be enough. It would be necessary to recruit, train and qualify several hundred new technicians and dozens of pilots. Recent experience indicates that the RCAF would face difficulty in achieving this; it can take four to five years from recruitment to produce fully trained, operationally ready pilots and specialists for advanced fighter aircraft. We foresee that bringing in an interim fleet would create serious practical problems of this kind.

Quite apart from such technical issues, we are aware that buying, operating and supporting an interim fleet of Super Hornets would be an expensive proposition, with cost estimates ranging from $5-$7 billion. We therefore ask that your government seek a better way of keeping the RCAF operationally effective until its fleet of CF-18s is replaced with a modern fighter.

To this end, we respectfully recommend that three important initiatives be undertaken.

First, the RCAF should be given the necessary resources to conduct an aggressive recruiting and training process to eliminate existing personnel shortfalls and to provide for the interim period leading to CF-18 replacement.

Second, if your government feels compelled to acquire additional fighters for the interim, it should seriously examine the prospect of purchasing so-called legacy Hornets (i.e. basically the same as our current CF-18s) that are increasingly becoming available as Canada’s partner nations replace their older Hornet fleets with the F-35. For example, both the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force will have surplus F-18s that are very close in configuration to our own. These would require very little modification to make them essentially identical to the CF-18, having the same operational effectiveness and excellent safety record as today’s fleet. The capability exists in the Canadian aerospace industry to do the necessary modifications. The acquisition cost would be a fraction of a Super Hornet buy. Of critical importance, all the training, logistics and infrastructure needed to support the additional CF18s are already in place, and the larger CF-18 fleet would fill the operational capability gap in the interim. All of this would be achieved without the cost, delay and disruption of burdening the RCAF with a second fleet of fighters.

Finally, and emphatically, we urge the government to proceed without further delay to implement the open and fair competition that you promised for replacement of our CF-18s. Completing this within the next few years is entirely feasible, and it would allow for a faster, more effective and much less costly transition to full operational service by the CF-18’s eventual replacement.

We offer these recommendations based on our collective experience of many years of serving Canada’s air force, with the sole purpose of bringing to your attention some important realities regarding the future of the RCAF and the nation’s defence. We look to you for wisdom in resolving the matters that we have placed before you.

Sincerely,
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Larry Ashley
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Yvan Blondin
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Lloyd Campbell
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Bill Carr,
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) André Deschamps
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Dave Huddleston
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Dave Kinsman
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Steve Lucas
General (Ret’d) Paul Manson
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Don McNaughton
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Ken Pennie
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Fred Sutherland
Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Angus Watt

 

[Journeyman]

This from Laurie Hawn's FB page ...

Speaking truth to power, even with all those high-ranking signatures, can't make the emperor hear that he has no clothes, if he refuses to listen.

....and  the current RCAF Commander fired him as 401 Sqn's HCol, on behalf of the emperor. 

 

[dapaterson]

Keep in mind, the signatories are those responsible for the failed training system for pilots,  a point they neglect to mention.

In addition,  used Hornets would not be immediately usable, as they would not have the same configuration as our legacy fleet; we would either have to upgrade them all to current CF18 standard, or operate the split fleet these gents seem so opposed to.

Politics is the art of the possible; methinks the RCAF would be better served by a small fleet of more modern aircraft than none. Punting the problem of the F35, as governments of all stripes seem to do, means replacements will not arrive in Bagotville or Cold Lake for a decade or more.  The legacy Hornet fleet faces numerous avionics issues that the Super Hornet does not.

TL;DR Better 18 more modern aircraft than zero most modern aircraft.

 

[PuckChaser]

TL;DR Better 18 more modern aircraft than zero most modern aircraft.

Unless the cost of that 18 modern aircraft comes out of the budget for the real replacement, leaving us shorthanded in 20 years again. Indications thus far are that the government plans on purchasing the SH out of funds earmarked for the CF-188 replacement plan, which either cooks the books for us to buy the SH later down the road, or means we buy less real replacements later on.

Anyways, those SH jets are sure going to look great at airshows and RIMPAC instead of bombing ISIL and doing real work.

 

[dapaterson]

Unless the cost of that 18 modern aircraft comes out of the budget for the real replacement, leaving us shorthanded in 20 years again. Indications thus far are that the government plans on purchasing the SH out of funds earmarked for the CF-188 replacement plan, which either cooks the books for us to buy the SH later down the road, or means we buy less real replacements later on.

Anyways, those SH jets are sure going to look great at airshows and RIMPAC instead of bombing ISIL and doing real work.

Glad you'll be happy with clapped out Hornets, no Super Hornets, and no F35, since no government is willing to touch that live wire.  Again, art of the possible: which is better: zero F35s or 18 Super Hornets?  If your answer is "Never the Super Hornet", then the CF18s will need a mid-life refit around 2025 to keep them flying to Canada's bicentennial.

(Or maybe we can convince President Trump to re-open the F22 line...)

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep in mind, the signatories are those responsible for the failed training system for pilots,  a point they neglect to mention.

In addition,  used Hornets would not be immediately usable, as they would not have the same configuration as our legacy fleet; we would either have to upgrade them all to current CF18 standard, or operate the split fleet these gents seem so opposed to.

Politics is the art of the possible; methinks the RCAF would be better served by a small fleet of more modern aircraft than none. Punting the problem of the F35, as governments of all stripes seem to do, means replacements will not arrive in Bagotville or Cold Lake for a decade or more.  The legacy Hornet fleet faces numerous avionics issues that the Super Hornet does not.

TL;DR Better 18 more modern aircraft than zero most modern aircraft.

I won't disagree with the rest of your comment but the highlighted bit suggested this to me:

Under pressure from the
terms of the Manley Report, DND
arranged to buy CH-47Ds already
in Afghanistan from the US Army.
In August 2008, the Government of
Canada announced the purchase
of six Chinook CH-47D helicopters
from the US Army under a Foreign
Military Sales Agreement with the
Government of the United States.
These Chinooks, redesignated by the
CF as CH-147D, were bought to meet
the immediate need for medium-toheavy-lift
helicopters as directed by
the March 2008 Parliamentary motion
to extend the Afghan mission to 2011.
The transfer of the helicopters, which
were already located in Afghanistan,
was completed on 30 December
2008. On 8 January 2009, a CH-147D
Chinook made its debut flight as
a Canadian aircraft at Kandahar
Airfield, where they are based.

http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1550&context=cmh

So, capability gap identified in 2008 (Manley Report), gap filled for 292 MCAD in the same year by purchase from the US Army as an FMS and was flying in the RCAF by January 2009.

To my pea-sized brain this seems like the least cost, least risk, least harm solution for the RCAF.

FMS of existing USN/USMC F18s (Cs or Es) - piggy back on their training and maintenance infrastructure - and preserve as much of the available (unincreased presumably) budget as possible for the "replacement" when/if it eventuates.

 

[dapaterson]

You assume that USN/USMC have excess capacity, and that any SH solution would not leverage US training and facilities.  Not sure either is supported by any open source info.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed on the assumption - and the absence of personal knowledge due to lack of access to anything but open source info.

On the other hand I believe that with cash anything is possible.

Canada buys some slightly used F18s, either As, Cs or Es. The US gets to replace them with new Es partly funded with Canadian dollars.

Canada takes the 18s and if As brings them into Canadian compliance and adds them to the hangars in Cold Lake and Bagotville.

If Cs or Es Canada parks 6 at Patuxent for conversion training and 12 in Poland or Romania or Lithuania or some other place in the neighbourhood. 

Money for flying the beasts comes out of operations (just as it did when flying the CH-47Ds in Afghanistan) and that budget comes out of Foreign Aid, not National Defence.

Pilot and Maintainer supply is still a problem but managed by managing existing pipelines rather than having to establish new ones. 

Even if we only had 60 pilots for 95 aircraft - and you only had 70% availability on the aircraft - sorties could still be mounted.

 

[Loachman]

Even if we only had 60 pilots for 95 aircraft - and you only had 70% availability on the aircraft - sorties could still be mounted.

Some of those sixty are going to be on leave, on course, or sick, so there is still no capability increase without a trained personnel increase, and the cost is still too high.

Drop the nonsense, run another (unnecessary) evaluation, with the same basic data used in similar evaluations in this and many other countries, and, inevitably, reach the same conclusion - and then buy F35.

First, though, the government has to open its mind, accept facts, and become honest.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some of those sixty are going to be on leave, on course, or sick, so there is still no capability increase without a trained personnel increase, and the cost is still too high.

Drop the nonsense, run another (unnecessary) evaluation, with the same basic data used in similar evaluations in this and many other countries, and, inevitably, reach the same conclusion - and then buy F35.

First, though, the government has to open its mind, accept facts, and become honest.

 

[Loachman]

Yes, I know - no breath is being held.

 

[a_majoor]

President Trump is shaking the box and setting conditions for more favourable (to the taxpayer) negotiations WRT defense items in general, and sending a clear warning to Lock-Mart to smarten up. Super-Duper Hornets are still Gen 4.5 aircraft and are not designed to fight the way 5th gen fighters are. The one potential use they do have is as bomb, missile and gun trucks for flight leaders going ahead with F-35's to identify and mark targets (the USMC demonstrated a F-35 identifying a target then cueing, firing and guiding a missile from a warship to the target).

In the longer run, this means anyone in a coalition without F-35 capabilities will be regulated to shooting at targets that the USAF or Marines are designating, which also means ideas like National Caveats, independent operations or leading missions becomes a quaint relic of the past. Or we simply don't go, and see how much influence that buys. Not every cost is monetary.

 

[George Wallace]

"Laurie Hawn was asked recently about F-35 capability to carry external stores. This photo shows all the stores that F-35 is designed to carry; certainly not all cleared, yet, but it is an impressive array. External fuel tanks can also be carried. These external stores would only be carried in a permissive environment."

 

[MarkOttawa]

Stealth? Not. Compare and contrast with Super Hornet as suitable for NORAD air defence mission, the only one critical for an RCAF fighter.  Super sensor fusion over the high north off our coasts vs Russian bombers and their cruise missiles a determining factor pro F-35?  Honest questions.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

To paraphrase a famous Canadian:  "Stealth if necessary, but not necessarily stealth" 

 

[Underway]

Super Hornet article from Vanguard magazine.

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/02/23/super-hornet-to-play-key-role-in-2ist-century-net-centric-warfare/.

Super Hornet to play key role in 2ist Century Net-Centric warfare

Nestor Arellano  Feb 23 2017

Inside the pilot briefing room, the whine of fighter jet engines revving up on the tarmac penetrated the closed door and glass windows. The din of aircraft mechanics working a several F/A-18s (Super Hornets are called Rhinos here to distinguish them from the legacy F-18 Hornets) in various stages of repair in the hangar below punctuated every other sentence that Capt. Christopher Boyle uttered. “Net-centric warfare is the reality…that’s how we will be fighting,” says Boyle, commander of the United States Navy’s Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic Fleet (SFWL) at the Naval Air Station Oceana, in Virginia. “Integrated, onboard systems will enable me to see whatever the other planes on my squadron are seeing…I can shoot anything they see and vice-versa. The capability is a force multiplier.”

The ability of aircraft to rapidly transmit and receive data will become key elements of survivability – almost as important as speed and lethal weaponry – in the air combat of the very near future.  Sensors, enhanced situation awareness, rapid target assessment and distributed weapon assignment are the thing in the air combat of the information age, according to the seasoned Navy pilots who has amassed more than 3,000 flights hours.  Boyle was speaking to a group of journalists that were part of a recent Boeing media tour.

Naval Air Station Oceana is the U.S. Navy’s largest type wing with 18 squadrons flying more than 300 aircraft composed of six different variants of the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. It is also home to the east coast F/A-18 Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) which trains pilots and Weapon Systems Officers (WSOs) in the Hornet and Super Hornet before they are assigned to operational fleet squadrons. The fleet squadrons deploy as part of Carrier Air Wings (CVWs) on aircraft carriers on both the east and west coasts. The facility has more fighter planes than some countries do in their entire air force.

Boyle was referring to a military doctrine which traces its origins back in the late 1990s.The concept promotes the use of information and communication technologies to improve situation analysis, speed up target assessment, connect commanders and troops to effectively flatten the hierarchy and dramatically hasten decision making and action. It is gradually being used in various services.  For instance, during Desert Storm in 1990, it took up to two days for target planners to obtain a photo of a target, confirm coordinates, plan a mission and deliver that plan to a bomber crew. Today, real-time imaging of targets allows photos and coordinates to be transmitted instantly to aircraft that are already in flight.

The scenario, which requires a lot of integration between systems of disparate aircraft, vehicles and command centres is one where the Super Hornet can thrive, says Boyle confidently.
“You’ll need F/A-18s integrating with other planes and then integrating with ships and the battle network,” he says. “We’ll be flying the Rhinos well into 2040, it still has a lot of development capability in it…it’s the mission system that matters.”

Super Hornet mission systems has room for growth
The Block II Super Hornet in production today was a brand new aircraft introduced in 2007, says Dan Gillian, vice-president of Boeing Military Aircraft’s F/A-18 and EA-18 programs.
“Advanced capability like the APG-79 AESA radar, Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared system, bigger mission computers and integrated sensors really take the Super Hornet to the next step beyond the F-18s you fly today,” he says. “It has true next-gen capabilities.”

The aircraft was built to through “evolutionary and modular approach,” which make easy to plug in mission-specific equipment or new technology, he explains.  Currently, Super Hornets are equipped with the APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar, Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared system, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, Multifunctional Information Distribution System, advanced high-capacity computer system, and new cockpit which provides the pilot with “intuitive situational awareness and capability.” The plane has a reconfigurable digital flight control system which can detect damage to or full loss of a flight control and still allow safe recovery, according to Boeing.

The Super Hornet has 11 weapons stations which give it extraordinary payload flexibility by carrying more than 400 configurations of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance.
A typical loadout for a self-escort strike mission starts with an advanced infrared targeting pod, one AIM-120 AMRAAM, two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, a 20mm cannon and an external fuel tank. This leaves six under-wing weapon stations available to carry a variety of weapons and other stores.  Gillian also pointed out that the Super Hornet is ideal for missions over Canada’s Arctic territory because it has the ability to fly more than 100 nautical miles farther than the legacy CF-18s and can extend that distance farther with its buddy fueling capabilities. The Super Hornet is also considered to be the most cost-effective aircraft in the U.S. tactical aviation fleet, costing less per flight hour to operate than any other tactical aircraft in U.S. forces inventory, including single-engine aircraft such as the F-16.

“We’re far more advanced that we’re given credit for,” says Ricardo Traven, a former Royal Canadian Air Force fighter pilot who is now chief Boeing test pilot for the F/A-18. “It is a fighter that is very adaptable, flexible, and it meets Canada’s mission requirements.” While the legacy C-18 Hornet and the F/A-18 Super Hornet are “two different aircraft,” Traven said pilots like him who have flown a CF-18 will find it easy to transition to the Super Hornet.  “The control, hydraulics, and philosophy behind it are all the same and very easy to pick-up,” another pilot said.

Canada is looking to is looking to replace its fleet of aging Boeing CF-18 fighter jets which were purchased from 1982 to 1988. Apart from the Super Hornet, the contenders include the Dassault Rafale, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lighting II, the Saab JAS 39 Gripen, and the Eurofighter Typhoon. However, it’s the 5th-generation fighter F-35 that considered a top rival of the Super Hornet for the Canadian contract.

“The 5th gen (platform) was super innovative 10 years ago and on paper, we’re far more advanced now,” according to Traven. He also downplayed the stealth capability of the F-35 as a “passive” form of defense which could be leaf frogged and rendered ineffective by advances in radar technology. “No one knows what will happen by 2025 to 2035, things evolve so quickly. But the Super Hornet has space to grow,” says Traven.

Canada’s interim Super Hornet purchase
Recently, the Trudeau government had initiated talks with Washington on the purchase of 18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure to relieve the pressure on the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of aging CF-18 jets which were purchased from 1982 to 1988. Accidents and retirements have reduced the original fleet of 138 1980s-era fighters to 77, and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan had been very vocal about the military’s need for newer fighter aircraft. According to Gillian, Boeing is working on how the production of the jets for Canada can be scheduled since the company has existing orders from the U.S. Navy as well. He is confident that Boeing, which turns out two Super Hornets a month, can meet its customers’ demands.
When the interim Super Hornet purchased was announced last fall, Sajjan promised that an “open and transparent competition” to replace the RCAF’s entire FF-18 fleet will take place. That competition will be launched sometime before the end of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s term of office.

Sajjan said the government expects a permanent fleet delivered as quickly as possible. Some estimates put that somewhere between 2029 and 2032.

Boeing’s ITB performance
Boeing also touts its record industrial and technological benefits (ITB) to Canada.  “For every dollar we spend in Canada directly, there is another dollar that comes in as economic impact through the supply chain,” according to Roberto Valla, Boeing’s vice-president of global sales for is Canadian operations. He said Boeing has completed $6.7 billion of its ITB commitments to Canada ahead of schedule.  The company has a supply chain of more than 560 companies in Canada.  Boeing is also on track to invest over $10 million in Canadian research and development and another $10 million in university and industry research facilities.

The Advanced Super Hornet
The interim purchase presents an excellent opportunity for Boeing to show the Canadian armed forces just how well the Super Hornet performs.  However, another recent development south of the border could also be a boon for the aerospace company’s concept for an enhanced Super Hornet.  United States Defence Secretary James Mattis recently ordered a review of the country’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The review will compare the F-35C’s capabilities with that of the F/A 18 E/F as well as assess the viability of Boeing’s Advanced Super Hornet program.

The idea of an Advanced Super Hornet was rolled out in 2013. Essentially, the proposed aircraft will feature new capabilities and upgrades such a centerline, fuel tank mounted infrared search and track (IRST21) sensor, conformal fuel tanks, integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) Block iV, active electronic scanned array (AESA) radar, and a next-generation jammer.

The review ordered by Mattis could boost Boeing’s push for its Super Hornet and provide the company a chance to prove the Advanced Super Hornet concept.

 

[GR66]

Stealth? Not. Compare and contrast with Super Hornet as suitable for NORAD air defence mission, the only one critical for an RCAF fighter.  Super sensor fusion over the high north off our coasts vs Russian bombers and their cruise missiles a determining factor pro F-35?  Honest questions.

Mark
Ottawa

I'd argue that if a war with Russia gets to the point where Russian bombers are launching cruise missiles over the high north it will not really matter what type of fighter we have.  They have cruise missiles with enough range that they do not have to enter our airspace and if a wave of cruise missiles comes over the pole then the US response will be nuclear since there is no way to tell what kind of warheads the Russian missiles are carrying and the US will not take the chance of absorbing a Russian nuclear first strike.

That to me at least suggests that the only role that really matters for the RCAF is not NORAD defence but rather overseas deployment to prevent a localized conflict from turning into a general nuclear exchange between Russian and the West.  For those types of conflicts stealth and sensor fusion would definitely be a major asset and the F-35 the fighter of choice over the Super Hornet or any other 4th Generation fighter. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

GR66: The number of fighters we can now deploy abroad can only have a symbolic and political effect, plus doing something useful in wars against those who can't fight back.

As for NORAD, which is the only crucial role esp. in the eyes of the US, consider limited/limited and detectable in advance Russian cruise missile strikes (no "wavc" that may be nuclear:

NORAD and Russian Cruise Nukes: “de-escalation”?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GR66]

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of symbolic and political military deployments.  The whole concept of NATO's collective defence is the understanding by Russia that an attack on ONE member is an attack on all.  Having even an handful of Canadian fighters (or ships, or troops) in the line of fire and potentially suffering casualties along with the targeted ally lets the Russians know that the consequences of an attack are potentially far greater than the local effects.

As for the article you posted, the commentary about the Russian policy document reads much more into it than what is actually stated.  The commentary talks about exercises where missiles were targeted in various places around the globe (including the continental United States) but nowhere in the posted document does it talk about nuclear attacks against the US as a "de-escalation" policy.  It simply states that Russia reserves the right to use all weapons...up to and including nuclear weapons...in response to a conventional attack "in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation". 

I don't see Russia initiating a nuclear war with NATO over limited political objectives like Ukraine or the Baltic States.  They may have political and economic objectives in those areas but I seriously doubt they would INITIATE nuclear war and all that it risks to their very existence over those objectives. 

The stated policy sounds much more defensive in nature to me, so unless you foresee NATO launching an offensive against Russia I don't expect to see Russian nuclear cruise missiles heading over the pole.