Sorry for the late reply Baz... been busy and thinking about how to reply.
Baz said:
And that statement sums up what should be the core of the discussion about the F-35, and supporting bits, like tankers.
I think perhaps a bit of focus is needed on the Polaris. It wasn't like Canada went out and purchased a brand new tanker aircraft specific to this role. Basically the RCAF saw that the Luftwaffe had developed a modification for their A310 fleet for tanking, and took advantage of the existing upgrade. I can't find a reference to the actual cost, but it would have been much, much less than a regular purchase.
Moreover its quite possible that we won't seen an ELE until after 2030 anyway... so this discussion is kinda moot. As someone noted above, the CC-150s have fewer flight cycles than their civil equivalents. However a key limiting factor was with their avionics, which required modernization to meet basic flight standards. This was done in 2013.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newscanadian-dnd-contracts-esterline-for-cc-150-polaris-avionics-upgrade
Where the ELE is at this stage is not clear, though I’ve heard that its expected to go past 2030 now. Anyways, we can do without tankers, but it reduces flexibility. The RCAF had planned to do so after the CC-137 was withdrawn, but found an alternative at a reasonable price. I suspect we would try to repeat such purchase in the future.
Baz said:
I thought the core of the Government's defence strategy was "Canada First?"
Jets and tankers are a political statement by Canada for expeditionary ops, backed op by General Officers that want to see it happen. They are not a refection of our Allies real needs. Disclaimer: this is shaped by the work I did at SHAPE after Libya.
Sure, I certainly agree with that view and it has been the case for a very long time... at least since the end of the cold war, if not earlier. And lets not ignore the clear domestic political role: expeditionary aerial interventions are the most popular forms of military intervention for a Canadian government. With the exception of a period during the Kosovo war, a majority of the Canadian public has generally supported the various operations. Other forms have seen serious public discontent (Afghanistan), or complete ignorance (Naval operations in the Indian ocean).
As an aside, perhaps the recent resurgence of Russia may alter what allies perceive their needs are? From my outside perspective, I look at how the discussions on NATO's tactical nuclear arsenal has developed over the past 15 years. Three years ago it seemed as if the dual key arrangements were going to fade into obscurity as no nation felt there was a need and were worried about the domestic implications. Now there is quite a bit of renewed discussion and renewed calls for its rehabilitation, even in Germany. In many ways the weapons have little, or no military value in the current strategic environment. However Allied nations want the political reassurance of the arsenal. Perhaps we should look at our military contributions at the same light. Unless we spend tens of billions of dollars, we're never really going to make a decisive contribution to our allies security.
Baz said:
So, a thought bubble: keep the 18s, lower the flight hours, and get more new tankers, based at the fighter bases, for domestic ops. Get TLAMs and AHs for expeditionary.
Mmmmm, I think that would be a very costly and imperfect approach to our security. Tankers are expensive: I believe the KC-46 runs around 200 million a copy, with the 330 closer to 300m. Our CF-18s will require a significant overhaul, while their operational costs will only increase as the aircraft ages. The CF-18 isn’t ideal for this type of mission compared to some of the other options; its range is its biggest deficiency.
Moreover there would be questions from our biggest ally about our actual commitment to continental defence. Lets say we select F-35: the RCAF basically has near seamless interoperability with the USAF in the north: that will have some effect at the operational and strategic level. Certainly it will put less stress on US tanking assets.
We have no launch platforms for TLAMs, so you'd need to buy a new ship or retrofit existing ones (big cost). Moreover TLAMs are a ruinously expensive strategy: I can point you to this RAND study which discusses the cost relationship over time:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR778.html
Even helicopters like the AH-64 are not inexpensive, nor do they provide as flexible a response as the fast fighter fleet. I can’t really think of many examples where such a force was deployed independently. The best I could come up with was the Franco-British efforts in Libya…. however they operated from an off-shore platform and weren’t there SF elements on the ground? The only other case I can think of is the Kosovo deployment of AH-64, which were not actually employed for a variety of reasons. I can’t think of any others, but its certainly not as flexible. Then again helicopters bring a different set of capabilities to the fore, which should be judged on its own merits. Perhaps such an acquisition would foster a more joint perspective for the CAF.
All in all, I think this would significantly hinder our ability to carry out the objectives set out in Canada First. As your thought experiment indicates, trying to replicate what a modern fighter can do with a basket of capabilities is a costly and difficult to achieve.
