AVCANADA

...You are forgetting again that the government is not an endless resource of money...

Two points:

Detection and engagement range is also decreased by going low and fast. How much training do we do for that these days? Is it also not true that everything we've done since GW 1 is from med/high altitude with laser guided munitions?

The military's primary role is sovereign defence over delving into "enemy" territory. For Canada that mean arctic sovereignty, and indeed with the opening of the Northwest passage and the resources it makes available that is unquestionably this government's priority. How many telephone poles do you expect to be coming your direction up there? Plus how do you feel about that single engine out over the Beaufort given Canada's pathetic SAR capability?

Yah, and Japan is so similar to Canada, geographically, militarily, and politically, that the aeroplane they choose *must* be the best choice for us, too

Here's an Australian take:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

And, with direct reference to Canada:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html

F22 is not a multirole platform.

Unless of course they're shopping for a new fighter fleet - in which case, cost is not an issue.

I find it interesting that nobody has answered a question that I posed earlier. What is a likely scenario that would have Canada participating in an air military operation where a gen 4.5 fighter like the F18E would not be good enough ? Personally I can't think of any scenarios that are even remotely credible.

5th gen jets cost only a small fraction more to acquire .

UK GR1s took 9 losses total during the war, 8 of which were during low level ops., 2 to pilot error, multiple to AAA and IR SAMS, mostly in target areas.

Yes, going BACK to low level is the way to go Rockie...... (feel the sarcasm?)

Tactics evolve as a threat evolves. Low level has its own risks as you know full well even in peace time, and moving it up to medium level during GW1 was a good idea since surface to air weapons were less of a threat at that point than the ground itself. As threats become more sophisticated and prolific (meaning the US can't eliminate it first) then getting down low all of a sudden becomes pretty attractive again. Greatly reduced search and engagement envelopes help keep you alive wherever they're derived from, and there's nothing like a hill between you and the telephone pole when they do get one off...right? Tactical doctrines are also sometimes driven by things other than the obvious. In this case I suggest the lack of low level training has as much to do with the paltry training hours you guys get nowadays as anything else.

Sarcasm noted. Bear in mind my first statement about tactics evolving as the threat does though, and remember that they said pretty much exactly the same thing about the gun you're carrying in the nose. Or do you think you don't need that anymore either?

Why take the risk of flying low level, max out your crews (can't really effectively look out after yourself A/A low level can you)

SAM were less of a threat? I suggest you take a look at this video:

It's used all the time in CAS. It is and will always be your most accurate weapon.

I guess I'm just surprised that a multi-role fighter pilot would buy into the line that low level has no place anymore. You also haven't answered my question about tooling around over the Beaufort with one engine. Your thoughts?

Why is there so much resistance?

No worries, the MND has given his personal assurance that the guys and gals flying way up North do not have to worry about engine failures

You're more likely to get killed driving into work than you are "tooling around" on a F135 powered JSF up north. The F-16 guys who operate up north (Norway) don't seem to have an issue with it. New recruits who want to be fighter pilots don't seem to have an issue with it either.

I guess I'm just surprised that a multi-role fighter pilot would buy into the line that low level has no place anymore.

You also haven't answered my question about tooling around over the Beaufort with one engine. Your thoughts?

Also the gun is a short range weapon and last time I checked you had to be down in the weeds to perform the CAS role. You also have to pop up to acquire and engage a target that you haven't had the luxury of preplanning, which kind of contradicts what you've been saying so far.

It is a zombie thread... it just won't die.

Take that from a guy who has been on the receiving end of the telephone pole...

The extra costs of the current Hornet fleet extension should be applied to the F 35 total program costs, but of course nobody wants to do that because it makes the already bad numbers for the Canadian F35 buy look worse.

AuxBatOn, is it just me or the DAS is too rarely mentionned when speaking about the F35 capabilities?

I'd love to hear more about that system.

There's a quick summary of what DAS will be for people who had no idea what is was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ

No. The extra costs of the current Hornet fleet extension should be applied to the extra costs of the current Hornet fleet extension. To do what you suggest would just confuse the accounting of the F35 further, and why would you want to do that?