BEST FIGHTER FOR CANADA

I hear they have cookies... Now that we know where the major political parties stand on the CF-18 replacement, there remains a question as to how much this will effect the election. While the F-35 issue dominated the headlines for a day or so, it seems to have been eclipsed by the controversy surrounding the niqab .  This shows how fickle the news media and the general public can be . Myself, I feel strongly enough about Canadian military procurement to factor it into my vote.  It is not the be-all, end-all however.  Other issues, such as health care , senate reform , and marijuana legalization  concern me just as much. As usual, I will be voting for the party that most replicates my own views.  I have never shown particular loyalty to a party in the past, and I still remain (mostly) undecided about this current election. How important is military procurement in your view?  Will it be a primary factor in your vote?  A consideration?  O...

The Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessel. It looks like an overwhelming 51% of you think that none of the Canadian political parties have a plan to fix the Department of National Defence's procurement shenanigans.  Oh well, so much for that. Speaking of procurement shenanigans, Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced that Irving Shipyards in Halifax will soon cut steel on the Harry DeWolf  (although did so using an American-owned bridge located in Ontario ).  The Harry DeWolf  marks a major milestone in the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy , a project that has already been criticized for being too expensive and too unwieldy to provide Canada's navy with the ships it needs in a timely manner. Allow me to add two of my own criticisms: 1.  Naming one of the ships after John G. Diefenbaker .  The Prime Minister responsible for devaluing the Canadian dollar  and building the infamous " Diefenbunker " to house Canada's...

'Ugh..." A whopping 79% of you believe that Canada would be much better off with a "good enough" fighter provided in greater numbers than a flagship model.  Since Canada would not be expected to do the heavy lifting in any armed conflict, this would seem to make the most sense.  (In other words, let the other nations blow their wallets on fancy toys!) Seeing as how we now in the midst of an (extended) election campaign, it is now time to ask the obvious question:  Which political party is best for Canada's military? I have asked the question before (just not in poll form).  Since that time, none of the major political parties have gone into much detail on how they would fix the DND's current procurement woes. While all the parties have released generalized statements that they will support Canada's military as well as our veterans , they are so far silent on what they will do to replace aging equipment in a timely and affordable fashion. Why ...

VS. ( Sorry about the haphazard updates lately.  Summer is here, the weather is too nice, and great outdoors beckons. ) My last Question of the Week (or so) looked at the potential for using a bomber platform as an air-superiority asset.  A resounding 64% of you think I might need mental health counseling for even asking the question Fair enough. This week (or so)'s question revolves around the need to balance numbers with capability. In most cases with fighter aircraft, you get what you pay for.  Top-notch fighters like the F-22 earn their "air-superiority" classification thanks to their speed, agility, and powerful sensor suite.  The ability to out-run, out-maneuver, and out-shoot an opponent does not come cheap, however.  The F-22 was an incredibly expensive aircraft to develop and build, and it has more than triple the cost-per-flight-hour (CPFH) of the F-16C . Needless to say, during the post-Cold War era of declining defense budgets,...

Next Generation Bomber concept art. Sorry I missed posting last week. Looks like a whopping 47% of you believe that the Su-35 should be the designated "bad guy" when considering future threats.  Fair enough.  It's fast, agile, and nasty. For this week, I wanted to slightly revisit the question " Is the dogfight dead ".  While the majority of you disagree with that statement, it would seem that those pushing for the F-35 have hitched their horse to the BVR combat wagon. Undoubtedly, BVR combat has become the norm, rather than the exception.  Better sensors and better missiles have lead to the point where if a pilot finds themselves in a fur-ball, than something has probably gone wrong.  Better to take out the enemy unseen, from a distance, without the need to burn excess fuel.  This is the case for the F-35. If there is validity to this argument; that fighter aircraft no longer need to maneuver, then why not push the concept further? Fighte...

Su-35 No discussion about Canada's next fighter would be complete without asking the simple question:  What could they be up against? During the Cold War, the answer was easy:  Whatever the Soviets were flying. These days, the answer is a lot more complicated.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has become less of a threat.  Recent events in the Ukraine have brought some of those Cold War tensions back, however. Russian fighters are quite well known among aviation enthusiasts.  Cold War era Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrums have been updated to keep with the times.  Sukhoi's latest, the Su-35 , may look like its 80's vintage predecessor, but the addition of thrust vectoring, fly-by-wire, RCS improvements, and a PESA radar make it a thoroughly modern fighter. Then, of course, there is also the impressive PAK FA on the horizon. Chengdu J-10B Russia is not the only possibly adversary, however.  China's predominance has bro...

Welcome to QUESTION OF THE WEEK!  During the summer, I hope to post a (hopefully) weekly series asking a simple question with a difficult answer! Last weeks revelation that the F-35 fared poorly against a F-16  in a simulated dogfight seems to have left aviation experts (and the not-so experts) debating as to whether or not the test was even relevant, given the fact that the F-35 in question was not fitted with some of its more advanced features that would typically give it the advantage. “It [the F-35 in question] is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.” This excuse for the F-35's poor performance only highlights what many see as one of the JSF's glaring problems.  It is a "one-trick-pony".  Without its much publicized stealth and sensor technology, the aircraft cannot match fighter designs that are decades old and...