F-35, Hawks, AWACS, T50, CK1, E3A. Help my poor brain

Surely human-guidance systems still have some advantages over missiles.

For the sake of argument here, let me propose that we extend the gaming metaphor. (not that this is my only reason for picking this example)

In the multiplayer environment there is one group that tends to not be as good, cheat like mad, pack up like wolves and are ubiquitous and over run the game tanking entire servers over and over? Willing and capable of throwing more sheer man-hours at it than any other group? The Chinese.

What happens when the dogfighting is the opposition thowing chaff in the air, and that chaff is is just sheer numbers with people guidance systems? Either in plane or as ground based operators.

Tank the entire theater with sheer mindless willingness to throw more at it.

Doesn't matter than you make a better product - we make a hundred lower quality ones that people are willing to buy and use like tissue paper.

Why care about latency, when you throw so much into the system that latency becomes endemic to the system? Try to improve their latency, but also bring the latency being experienced by everyone else up with volume.

Chaff: a cloud of small metallic scraps intended to confuse or attract missile threats using radar guidance

Flare: high intensity heat generators intended to confuse or attract missile threats using Infra-red guidance (Infra-red = heat)

Collectively termed "countermeasures", this category of defense also includes electronic (radiofrequency) jamming.

Originally posted by Aeons
How well do billion dollar hybrids do against a swarm of much lower tech one-trick ponies? Wouldn't that be the main question in an airfight between manufacturing based developing countries and first world countries whose manufacturing base is in those countries?

This is a very good question, one that is often debated throughout military aviation circles. The topic is far reaching and requires a lot of background knowledge. In the interest of not writing a novel, I will post a few notable examples from post 1940 and concentrate primarily on the effectiveness of quality versus quantity using tactical fighter type designs.

This post is not meant to be all inclusive so anyone wishing to expound on a particular issue should speak up.

There are a myriad of ancillary considerations such as quality of pilot training, tactics employed, logistical support, mission availability such as how easy is a particular system to support in the field and how many units are operational due to maintenance issues at any given time.

Air combat history generally supports the quality over quantity argument up to a point although in the global aerospace industries quest for multirole aircraft there have been a few notable hugely expensive development programs that have resulted in very mediocre aircraft ( General Dynamics F-111, Panavia Tornado, MiG-23) and a few outright failures (I'll leave that one alone )

While First World war aviation is fascinating, the topic is a complex and esoteric subject which can be comfortably bypassed at the moment to try and keep the topic coherent for those with only a passing interest in the question.

In the second world war, the technologically superior German Luftwaffe enjoyed great success against the numerically superior Soviet VVS for some time until Soviet aerospace developed competitive designs and the vastly larger Soviet industrial base overwhelmed the German manufacturing capability.

The Western front saw closer technological parity between the allies in the early years (British RAF,eventually joined by the American flying corps known then as the USAAF) and Luftwaffe, forcing a harder fight in some ways from the outset. In the end the deciding factor, just as it was in the east, was sheer force of numbers that even the most advanced technology could not offset.

The U.S. had a similar experience in the Pacific theater air battles fighting against the IJA and IJN with the caveat that US tactics evolved quickly which helped to negate the Japanese superiority in aircraft design and pilot experience early on until the U.S. industrial juggernaut was able to produce both vastly greater amounts of superior aircraft designs and high quality, well trained crews.

In the end, Japan was unable to compete in a protracted war of attrition, specifically they were unable to train aircrews that were comparable in training to their U.S. counterparts to match the rate of combat losses(a situation the Luftwaffe suffered as well from mid 1944 on.) In the end both Germany and Japan resorted to sending scared teenage boys with almost no flight instruction to meet their fate at the hands of their American counterparts who generally had over 250 hours logged in the cockpit before they were allowed in theater, much less combat.

In both examples, the technologically superior belligerent would have been victorious had they been able to achieve their goals within a short time. Within the context of the total warfare of the 1940's, protracted conflict favored industrial capacity which translated into a numerical advantage for both the U.S. and U.S.S.R., becoming the primary decisive factor.

Korea saw roughly equal technologies in the form of the U.S. F-86 and the Soviet designed Mig-15 compete in similar numbers with a decided advantage belonging to the U.S. primarily due to the pilot experience and tactics carried over from the second world war (although their were notable exceptions with suspected Soviet airmen piloting the Migs. Nicknamed "Honchos' ", There is evidence to support the claim that the combat experienced Soviet pilots claimed a small kill ratio in favor of the Migs".)

The U.S. experience in Vietnam was a bit more complex. U.S. fighter design and crew training in the 50's and early 60's had evolved around a nuclear doctrine where technically complex (expensive) fighter aircraft were seen as defensive interceptors that would be tasked with defeating large,slow nuclear bombers with guided missiles well beyond visual range or delivering tactical nuclear weapons via supersonic dash across eastern europe.

Fighter design was "higher, farther, faster" and the Mano-a-mano "knife-fight in a phone booth type dogfights" were considered to be obsolete.

In stark contrast the North Vietnamese air forces (VPAF) were operating sub-sonic Mig-17 aircraft bordering on obsolescence. Through a combination of tactics and careful use of their resources, they were able to compete successfully with the vastly numerically and technologically superior USAF/USN/USMC (some sources indicate the VPAF enjoyed a superior kill ratio during the initial years).

U.S. tactics evolved and were adapted with the USAF Weapons School In a proto Red Flag program and more famously with the creation of the Navy Fighter Weapons School aka TOPGUN which shifted the tactical advantage back to the U.S. effort. The VPAF were supplied with small numbers of then state of the art supersonic Soviet designed Mig-21's but aside from occasional successes by individual pilots, the VPAF was never again able to enjoy their success' of the earlier war.

It is worth noting that in the final days of the U.S. involvement in hostilities, the maximum effort of the Linebacker II air campaign decimated the VPAF. I have a personal friend who flew in those missions who says that by the 5th day of the U.S. "pulling of the gloves", a Cessna could have safely overflown downtown Hanoi without fear of protest by either Migs or SAM's (surface to air missiles).

In both the 1967 Six Day War (The Israel IAF combating the Egyptian EAF, Jordanian RJAF and Syrian SAAF) and the 1973 Yom Kippur war (IAF versus the Egyptian EAF and Syrian SAAF), the numerically inferior and arguably technologically superior IAF decimated the arabic forces through superior pilot training and tactics.

The Falklands War saw the numerically inferior Royal Navy outnumbered roughly 5to1 operating multirole jump jets from a Naval platform 8000 miles from home against an opponent flying high performance ground based aircraft 300 miles from their own facilities, replacement parts etc.

Flying a multi purpose subsonic aircraft (BAE Sea Harrier) whose particular attributes were a tremendous handicap to dedicated air combat, the airmen of the RN soundly defeated a numerically superior Argentine Air Force (FAA) flying supersonic aircraft designed primarily for air combat (Mirage III, IAI Dagger) without a single air to air loss. While the RN was technologically superior to the FAA as a whole, on paper the Sea Harrier as an air to air platform falls well short when compared to either the Mirage III or Dagger and was roughly equivalent in performance to the then aging Argentinean A-4 Skyhawks.

In the end, superior training and tactics aided by the recent technological acquisition of the AIM-9L all aspect heat seeking missile won the day against superior numbers and raw performance in the Falklands.

In the 1982 Lebanon war, on June 9 roughly equal numbers of IAF and Syrian SAAF aircraft fought the largest air battle of the latter 20th century resulting in over 80 Israeli kills of Syrian aircraft without a single IAF air to air loss. The reasons for the one sided victory were due to a combination of techologicaly superior 4th generation F-15 and F-16 aircraft facing older (but still capable) 3rd generation Mig-21's and Mig-23's, superior command and control/situational awareness via IAF AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) and the superior training and tactics of the IAF.

At the onset of the Iran/Iraq war Iranian air forces (The IRIAF) held both a numerical and technological advantage over their Iraqi counterparts (the IQAF). It is worth noting that the Iranian Revolution and subsequent hostile relations with the west were very recent developments with the majority of the IRIAF members at the onset having been trained by western personal to NATO standards while enjoying the most sophisticated technology exported by the U.S. to any ally ( The IRIAF are the only foreign recipient of the F-14 Tomcat and its once indomitable AIM-54 Phoenix missile).

While Iran enjoyed somewhat of an advantage early in the conflict they were never able to achieve functional air superiority. By the second year of the conflict, the Soviet Union had seen an opportunity to test their hardware against western systems and were deeply involved with the IQAF, providing both equipment and the technicians to maintain it. Although on paper the IRIAF should have enjoyed theatre wide prolonged air dominance, the increased Soviet support of the initially inferior IQAF combined with the discontinuance of western supply/support and subsequent deterioration of the IRIAF resulted in a roughly matched battle of attrition with neither side gaining a substantial advantage.

The 1st Gulf War was a testament to the potential of superior technology to completely neutralize an enemy air force. At the onset, the allied coalition enjoyed a numerical advantage with varied states of sophistication (some superior,some inferior) over the IQAF. As a force the IQAF was a formidable entity with over 500 first line 3rd and 4th generation aircraft of primarily Soviet design and manufacture.

The IQAF was further bolstered by a layered,integrated air defense network that was considered to be one of the most advanced and modern of its kind in the world, exponentially more capable and deadly than the famed NVAF defenses surrounding Hanoi which was considered by many at the time to be the most efficient and lethal air defense system in the world.

The overwhelming total air superiority advantage gained by the allied coalition was somewhat the product of superior technology, with the newly developed stealth and large supplies of precision munitions available playing a roll. The deciding factor in the overwhelming dominance enjoyed by the allied coalition came down to tactics,planning and training followed by cohesive command and control and logistical support.

The initial allied targeting emphasis was aimed solely at air defense, communication and command and control. The allied coalition enjoyed unprecedented situational awareness seamlessly integrated with command/control onboard the AWACS platforms. The combination was so effective that after the first 24 hours the Iraqi aircraft were committed to blind and piecemeal, many being detected by AWACS and shot down by F-15's before they had retracted their landing gear or cleared their airfield, the IQAF pilots never even aware of the threat.

The few air to air combat sorties of late 90's Balkans NATO peacekeeping operations took place primarily between small, numerically similar flights of aircraft roughly equivalent in technology (generation 4 F-15's,F-16's,Mig-29's) piloted by crews with similiar levels training with the NATO force enjoying an arguable advantage in crew experience as some of the U.S. pilots had seen some live combat during the first Gulf War.

Of note during this time was the loss of an F-117 (stealth aircraft) to a Yugoslav built Soviet surface to air missile design targeted by a very clever Serbian Colonel named Zoltán Dani.

I'll end it there as neither the 2001 U.S. campaign in Afghanistan or the 2003 Gulf War Redux bare witness to any noteworthy air to air events that would be pertinent to the original question.

A final mention of where the F-22 Raptor fits. The F-22 is the most capable (and expensive) air superiority fighter ever produced and most probobly nearly the last of the crewed combat aircraft. Its combination of stealth, dynamic performance and avionics is unmatched by any current system and unlikley to be for some time. Although it will take a shooting war to prove its meddle, the potential lethality of the F-22 is well demonstrated.

Currently, the McDonald Douglass (cough..Boeing ) F-15 Eagle is the worlds premier Air Superiority platform. A hugely expensive aircraft during design and initial production in the 1970's, it was built specifically to dominate the airspace around it and nothing else ("Not a pound for air to ground" was its design mantra). After 30 years in frontline service the F-15C has amassed a combat record of over 100 aerial victories without a single loss to another aircraft making it the most successful fighter design in aviation history.

In ACM exercises against the F-15C, the F-22's fly 1vs.10, 2 vs.15 etc. as typical odds and they never lose.

(I am passing comment on the F-35 for the moment as it is no where near congressional approval much less active deployment)

I hope this helps

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Thank you for your comprehensive post! I agree with you on all points mentioned.

I think, however, that we are at the tipping point of a new paradigm.

Vietnam is difficult to assess and is a poor database for current and future analysis, as the Phantom was a missile only platform by design, but it lacked proper look down shoot down technology which the North Vietnamese (or Soviet) pilots used to their advantage. It largely negated the concept of the Phantom with one exception: the cardinal rule of speed and climb advantage always allowed the Phantom pilots to pick and choose when to engage amd when to bug out, which harkens back to WWI and the success of the S.E.5.

These days, the missile technology is so advanced that the mandate calls for Beyond Visual Range engagement, which has lewd to a race for Low Observeable and electronic supremacy. This leads us to all the current chatter over the phasing out of manned aircraft.

The problem, however, is that it will be cheaper to develop sufficient full spectrum jamming and electronic defenses than full system UAV aircraft. Countries like China and Russia can focus on disrupting the communications network of a NATO UAV fleet, relegating us to internal guidance and preset missions only.

Just as reliance on the ENIGMA code machine led to the defeat of Nazi Germany, reliance on broad-spectrum burst transmission communication is theoretically defeatable. There is always a potential to be placed in the same situation as Vietnam, and we would be wise to maintain human Situational Awareness and visual range capability at all times.

Remember, thirty years ago we thought the year 2000 would look like an episode of the Jetsons. If Lockmart and BAE tried to sell us a stealthy, unmanned Brooklyn Bridge, I would be very cautious.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Thank you. This does indeed help very much. I'll have to go look up each of the designations, but now I have somewhere to start.

The F-35 may not be approved by congress in the US, but other NATO and other "allies" are picking it up. Without picking up the support air/naval craft. This seems to suggest that some of the NATO countries are picking to specialize in fighter/bombers.

Support systems seem to be being developed more by the big-brothers in the group (US/UK/Germany).

Is the preference for the fighter/bomber platform to increase interest and draw pilots for training, as suggested about F-117?

The media here keep spelling out the F-35 as a problem and showing that other countries not backing this purchase as it being a problem. I see that other countries are putting off their purchases to give preference to Canada and Japan for initial purchases.

I have fear that the ndp/liberal coalition will sink yet another purchase and by 2020 Canada will still be flying 50 year old planes. The one point I've never been onside with with Liberals is the party's hate-on for military spending. Apparently we are supposed to send people into "peacekeeping" and conflict armed with red maple leaf badges and a good reputation. I supposed to believe this is a moral position to take.

Is what I am seeing in your post that the consistent choke point is training?

Thank you! I really appreciate you helping me flesh out my mental maps.

reply to post by Aeons


The CF-35 purchase for Canada is part of the American plan. We require new generation interceptor craft, but these are tactical fighters/attackers.

CF-35s for the Canadian Forces is designed to complement our new role as international bringers of liberation. They are for attacking ground targets while also denying air supremacy to enemy fighters.

In terms of Canadian sovereignty, which happens to be the excuse that Harper has used for the purchase of this specific jet, the Americans will fill this role by providing their interceptors to patrol our northern airspace from the Russian threat. Also under the American-lead NORAD lies the Canadian Forces, under the American NORCOM command.

Rational critics know that the F-35 won't stand up to our northern conditions. However, they play the ignorance card by saying that they don't understand why we are buying F-35s. One of the federal NDP leadership hopefuls (Paul Dewar) who lectured my class in the past weeks stated this; I didn't hesitate to correct him.

Well then Harper's team has picked a good hill to run over.

You can't take anything that the Liberals or NDP say about anything military because they hate every purchase, and appear to be willing to continue to have the military continue on with equipment as old as God and sell this as some moral choice.

reply to post by Aeons

Salutations Aeons,

I had hoped to contribute a complete reply to ATS member NightShift's post in total before responding however, as I have not yet sourced my response in full and had alluded to your inquiry within the same post. If its alright with everyone, will cut and paste the opening here. I was already hoping to segway from the current topic into the F-35 without running your thread too far off topic, at least as far as the Helmet-mounted display system, sensor suite (specifically the distributed aperture system) and data link in regard to your previous question.

Thank you for clarifying your specific interest, it narrows the possible field of information required immensely.

Here is my opening reply to NightShift sans the techno mumble regarding the various Vietnam era F-4B/C/E AN/APQ-50 - AN/AWG-10 etc. radars....

Regarding your inquiry...

reply to post by NightShift

 

Thank you for the kind words NightShift, although I am guessing by the content of your post that we both know that "comprehensive" is a bit generous.

I enjoy the subject matter and ATS poster Aeons strikes me as one of the more sincere and interesting board members. She is asking some really good questions for someone that seems to be a newcomer to the many faceted world of aerospace and well deserving of a serious response.

I would like to address a couple of the points you touched on and expound a bit although I don't wish to carry the thread off topic. My thought is a further dialogue regarding the subject of missile and airborne radar technology may be helpful by providing both historical context as well as a stronger technical foundation before returning to Aeons previous question regarding the potential game changing technologies that the Helmet-mounted display system will afford the pilot of the near future.

Obviously I had a bit of an idea where your curiosity was leading, however, after your last post I understand much more clearly where you are going with your specific line of inquiry.

The F-35 project is a highly political topic throughout the internet. There are some very good arguments both for and against the program and a whole lot more garbage written by frustrated fanboy types that read as genuine studies to the unfamiliar.(Air Power Australia and Aviation Week blogger Bill Sweetman are two that immediately come to mind)

If you are sincerely interested in exploring the Canadian purchase of the CF-35, I don't mind helping you explore the topic with minimal influence of my own opinions. Your posts suggest you are a person who takes your roll and responsibility to participate in the decision process seriously and try to be as educated on the issues as possible.

There are very polarized opinions on the F-35 program between folks who have the education and insight to form honestly informed opinions.

The Joint Strike Fighter( F-35) is in direct competition for contracts worth trillions of dollars (over the lifetime of the system) with a half dozen other very capable systems designed to fill the same roll. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to understand their is a very elaborate and savvy P.R. campaign being waged by all concerned parties geared towards swaying the average persons opinion (with little depth of knowledge in the field), to force the hand of their political representatives at the polls.

To further muddle the situation there is also the typical internet denizens whose entire knowledge base is built on information from video games, movies and pedestrian message boards who learn a few buzzwords and argue nonsense until you leave the topic or they are gagged by a moderator (although ATS is full of its share, there are more than a couple of very well educated members that also seem to enjoy the circus)

If it helps you prioritize your b.s. filter, these are my qualifications that form my perspective on the subject although I am confident that facts speak for themselves.

I am by no means an expert on the F35 program or anywhere near the most thoroughly versed aerospace contributor on this forum (not by a long shot, my interest of research is 1930-1950 military aviation, specifically Luftwaffe aircraft and operations) but I can help you cut through the garbage. I have formal but incomplete education in aeronautics, hold a private pilot certificate with just enough time logged to be lax and dangerous although I haven't been current for a good bit, I cant pass the medical and it is an expensive hobby to maintain with the money best used elsewhere)

I have volunteered a fair amount of time for the Seattle Museum of Flight restoration center (where the aircraft are restored and maintained, not as a tour guide at the Museum facility at Boeing Field where they are displayed as well as some lesser time donated to the Stormbirds ME-262 project and have had a hand in the rough disassembly of a ME-109F which had been recently recovered from a Latvian swamp ( one of three in existence that I know of). I am also a member of the White 1 foundation, have a respectable reference library for an amateur and try to stay active among the small aviation community where I live now (I'm a sucker for anything that helps to get some time in the air)

As chance would have it, I do have a reasonably detailed understanding of both the aircraft and the program dating back 10 years or so to the X-35 entry in the JSF competition. I have a friend who was an engineer on the Lockheed Martin team who frequently flew up to Seattle on business and would let me buy him breakfast and pick his brain. Nothing good mind you, all public domain stuff but good old fashioned aerospace contractor dirt all the same.

Depending on your level of interest I'll answer what I can, introduce you towards a couple of much more serious aviation forums or link you to a few gigabytes worth of solid F-35 information to sort through at your own leisure detailing everything from the current fiasco over the USMC suddenly balking at F-35B procurement to realistic force projections for People's Liberation Army Air Force over the next twenty years.

Your concerns regarding the expense and necessity of RCAF involvement in the JSF program are well justified from both a contemporary and historical perspective.

Although I still pine for what should have been in the long since cancelled pinnacle of Canadian Aerospace design genius, the mighty Avro Canada Arrow and mourn the subsequent destruction of the production jigs and heretical destruction of both prototypes. The ugly truth is that the Arrow program is one of the best known examples of the herculean fiscal waste made possible only within half realized military aerospace programs.

In fairness to the Arrow, the program had been infiltrated by Soviet intelligence and was sacrificed in an attempt to keep the then cutting edge manufacturing process necessarily to mill the parts and materials required for the temperatures of high mach flight ( specifically the fabrication of titanium )

The BAC TSR-2 and North American XB-70 Valkyrie programs were comparable examples to the Arrow.

Although a small number were produced, The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit became a similar financial disaster.

The original program envisioned a fleet of 130 aircraft at a projected lifetime cost of $240,000,000 per aircraft. As cost overruns compounded, the Soviet Union collapsed resulting in the cancellation of all but twenty resulting In a lifetime cost of between $1.5 and $2 billion dollars per aircraft for a weapons system whose mission ceased in 1991 along with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.

The Boeing B-29 Stratofortress deserves inclusion here as well. Although ultimately a successful design spawning a myriad of both military and civilian aircraft based on the Superfort as well as serving as the catalyst to
literally thousands of new technologies,materials and techniques, the first four years were highlighted by constant failure.

Few people realize that the design and construction of the B-29 fleet was as expensive and complex as the Manhattan Project and it was not until well after the war that the B-29 fleet matured into a reliable system.

Had it not been for the initial fear that Great Britain would fall necessitating a Strategic platform with the range to bomb europe from North America followed by a similar need for a long range Strategic Platform capable of carrying a 10,000 lb payload 3000 miles, the B-29 would have never been produced.

The RCAF nearly had this.....

(shamelessly gratuitous post of Avro CF-105 Arrow)

Instead the RCAF were forced to buy this...

McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo

along with a bunch of these....

CIM-10 Bomarc surface-to-air missile

( Warning, Camp humor mixed with superficial fact in roughly equal proportions to follow. Adjust B.S. meter to full gain)


Fortunately, the good citizens of Canada immediately understood that the western hemisphere's northernmost bastion of cool, birthplace of Molson Ale, Rush, the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica and William Shatner was in mortal danger of a terminally uncool Air Force.

In a moment of national solidarity, the people of Canada brought an aircraft into the fold that was to become the very definition of verve in the context of aeronautic nirvana. An aircraft of such seductive temptation, the U.S.A.F. was forced to decline purchase of the Zipper (slang term for F-104 Starfighter) after the pre production test crews created a major incident sneaking early model 104's out of the Nellis AFB west gate to cruise Las Vegas blvd.

The Nellis deputy base commander, an RAF exchange officer by the name of Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake was forced to take severe action following multiple LVPD complaints of g-suited fighter jocks drag racing for pink slips and taunting drivers of exotics with loud clucking noises.

In the end I seem to recall their was some civilian property damaged, I believe the Coca Cola corp was the chief plaintiff but it has been some time now and the details are fuzzy.

The bird at the center of the commotion...

Canadair CF-104 Starfighter

Jane's Aircraft reports delivery of the Italian Aeritalia F-104S were personally taken by Sergio Leone who was rumored as cooly puffing on a Marsh Wheeling Virginians stogie while leaned casually against a Ferrari Red 166 MM Barchetta flashing an autographed photo of Neil Peart and sipping two fingers of Lord Calvert.

Interestingly, the next procurement brought not only a major shake to the RCAF (or was is it RCMP? all these acronyms are confusing ) was another truly selfless act on behalf of the Canadian people. Realizing that small acts of selflessness can effect many, the nice folks at the RCAF decided the remaining CF-104's needed to be shared with the world, even if it meant their own pilots would have to make the adjustment to the F/A equivalent of the Plymouth Voyager....the CF-18!


McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet, lts not your parents minivan

Realizing the vast majority of the common folk across our great continent lived too far from the last operational RCAF CF-104 bases to make a day trip out of hanging off the fence at the end of the Tarmac in hope of catching one of these magnificent machines in flight and also realizing that while everybody likes a plane on a pole, some planforms lend themselves to static display more readily than others.

(Camp humor done, strictly facts again from this point on. Please stow b.s. meter in safe position)

The Zipper should never suffer the indignity of slowly rusting with a pole stuffed up its backside. Fortunately, it would seem that quite a few people agree...

Behold! Starfighters Inc..!!


They started out a few years ago buying 4ex RCAF CF-104's and 2 CF-104D's (the two seat variant) from the Royal Norwegian Air Force (who had originally purchased the aircraft from the RCAF as part of the transition to phase in the CF-18)

The original 4 Starfighters Inc. Zippers played to the airshow circuit for a couple of years, billed as the worlds only supersonic aerial demonstration team. More recently they have taken a hiatus from the airshow circuit to focus on atmospheric research (chemtrailers, here's your chance to get that aerosol sample! ), photography, acm aggressor profiles etc.

They have recently acquired another 5 Fiat built F-104S' previously in service with the Italian Air Force, bringing the fleet up to 9 aircraft.

What could possibly be better news you may ask?

Starfighters Inc. offer Civilian suborbital flight training!

Our incredible training adventure takes place at NASA’s John F Kennedy Space Center, near Orlando, Florida. You’ll go behind the guarded gates of one of America’s most prestigious government facilities, entering areas only accessible by those with badges indicating they’ve received the mandatory security clearance. Once you’ve completed the pre-flight portion of your training, you’ll travel the short distance to the Kennedy’s Shuttle Landing Facility, strap into the rear cockpit of a legendary Starfighter and take off from the very same runway used by today’s astronauts. Thanks to a historic Space Act Agreement Starfighters signed with NASA in 2009, you can be part of this very special program and help write commercial space flight history.

The downside?...

Pricing starts at $30,000 US for a single flight training program. Add a second flight for $23,000 more.

In regards to the CF-35? It is a good looking bird in RCAF livery...




Regardless of where you stand on the issue, you must admit this is a great looking graphic!

I'll stop there, thank you for indulging my fanciful and factually loose overview of first line RCAF platforms, 1960-2012

All kidding aside, I will be sure to get some solid information (read minimal spin) posted for you shortly but first I need to finish writing a coherent addition to the points broached previously by NightShift.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


We have no room for single engine, tactical fighter-bombers in the conventional Canadian strategy of sovereign defense and peacekeeping. The CF-35 is the symbol for our new "defense" strategy, one that is actually offensive.

We require dual-engine air superiority fighters to protect our airspace from all threats, especially those of Russian and American nature. Simply handing off our key aerospace defense needs to American hands is an act of high treason.

It should be imperative to arm ourselves with serious warbirds for the sake of our own sovereignty. The Cold War is over and now we have the Americans by the balls with their severe dependency on our energy/fuel exports to them. No longer must we be forced to purchase American fighters, which would quickly fall prey to the very force that built them in any combat situation.

Our only logical step appears to be the European option. Eurofighters would do us well. As sexy as the Russian flankers are, they too are the products of our geopolitical rivals.

Even better yet, we should cut joint US-Canadian military industrial pacts and rebuild our aerospace defense industry to its former glory. We could outbuild anything that is fielded, and then even field it better with Canadian know-how.

How is that for political emotions drawn up by the CF-35?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Good points in both posts Dimitri, I cant disagree with your expressed desire to cultivate an indigenous aircraft tailored specifically to the foreseeable needs of Canada's unique defense requirements.

We both know that until the Arrow debacle gutted Avro, Canada had enjoyed a rich aviation heritage with a reputation of markedly superior manufacturing quality to British counterpart designs.

I agree with you that unless the RCAF is planning on exercising increased global power projection, the F-35 is the wrong aircraft for your needs.

While my own worldview is obviously biased by an Americentric perspective, I enjoy Vancouver whenever possible and have traveled throughout much of BC on various errands. I have given a good bit of thought to the unease that having the entity of the U.S. military a stones throw across the border would bring to any nation, regardless of allegiance or special relationships.

On the other side of the coin, I cannot foresee any situation arising at anytime in the future that could lead to any level of hostilities between our countries. If I remember correctly you are in the Pacific Northwest as well, you know how closely intermingled our cultures and economies are.

I live in backwoods Eastern Oregon which might as well be western Idaho culturally, I imagine you know exactly what I am getting at there.Aside from the occasional Canadian joke, which are roughly as often as Californian or Texan jokes, I don't know a single person that would be any inclined to raise arms against Canada under any circumstance. I am just as deeply convinced that if you were to face a foreign threat we would be unwavering in our solidarity to help defend Canada as readily as we would defend any of our own territories.

I need to cut this short and get ready to go about my day, I'll try and get back to this thread later today and expound a bit more.

I would say that I agree that superficially, the Euro Typhoon looks like the right system at the right price. I would question the neccesity to replace your CF-18's at this juncture.

I am also curious to see the data on which you are basing your comment....

Rational critics know that the F-35 won't stand up to our northern conditions.

?

EDIT: To clarify, my preceding comment where I posted....

To further muddle the situation there is also the typical internet denizens whose entire knowledge base is built on information from video games, movies and pedestrian message boards who learn a few buzzwords and argue nonsense until you leave the topic or they are gagged by a moderator.

had nothing to do with your suggestion from the preceding page that Aeons considers exploring a strategy game like winSPMBT, If she's interested strategy games are a legitimate learning tool.

I am referring to the COD/ACECOMBAT console crowd that believe a short paragraph written in an instruction book for a console game that approximates a weapon system in name and vague graphical similarity somehow gives insight into the real thing.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I say this as someone who reluctantly checked the Liberal box in the last federal election.

We don't have any of that now. Frankly, outside our participation in NATO we would never have any of those things. Properly being outfit for participation in NATO is the smart money.

The whole program has been left to slowly rot, and needs such an amount of updating that the previous administrations since the 1960s have left us in a place where we literally cannot make the decisions you want. Fifty years of hate on leaves us in a position where we cannot upgrade, enhance, take care of our international responsibilities, and have a decent homeland defense system.

They gave away those options in the 1960s, and have spent fifty years making sure it rotted. That poorly designed second hand boat set sail when my children's grandparents were in high school.

The money to support such ventures would need to come out our most profitable industries such as petroleum, which the same crowd also hates. You can't make the intersection work to not want to spend money on the military, backload budgets and never actually put the full money in that was promised, purchase crap constantly when forced to actually make a purchase, and do it with resource based money from an industry that you are undermining and hate. Nothing about this set of priorities makes sense.

The idea that the military hating Liberals and NDP are ever going to better support those goals is clearly depicted in all their previous budgets, and purchases. The idea is laughable.

Originally posted by Aeons
The money to support such ventures would need to come out our most profitable industries such as petroleum, which the same crowd also hates.

And that is my point to both you and Drunkenparrot.

We are a country that sells surplus resources, especially oil, for profit. The US is an energy-deficient country that is forced to constantly secure foreign oil assets or its military (the very backbone of the US) will collapse.

Under NAFTA rules, we have been selling Americans oil for the same price that we sell ourselves. We are not allowed, under NAFTA, to make this into a profitable venture. In fact, our tarsands oil, while not of the best quality, is being sold abroad at wholesale prices when we could be making so much more from it if it was properly regulated.

Considering American dependence on our energy resources, we hold the cards in this relationship. If our leaders cared about our sovereignty over virtual annexation, then we would be receiving much more for our exports than basically just throwing them at any takers for the change in their pockets. This profit that we should have, from re-nationalizing our resources, would be used for restructuring our defense industry.

However, doing such a thing as this proves to be a threat to the US. Indeed, other countries who nationalize their resources are considered a threat by the neo-liberalists, because ultimately that means that corporations are cut off from exploiting others. If we nationalized our oil production, then it would be a real test to see how "friendly" the Americans are to our interests. If they are indeed our secure ally, then they should embrace it and start coughing up more money. However, they will more than likely portray us as a hostile threat, or simply engage in subterfuge (like how Washington's tool Mulroney turned Trudeau's Canada upside down and instituted NAFTA after it was rejected by referendum).

I realize that I am getting off topic here, but I'm just stating what it is going to take for us to kickstart our indiginous military industry. Right now, we are basically giving the US the resources that it needs in return for its military protection over our territory. We should be asserting our own sovereignty with our own military, paid for by the money that we make from trade with the US.

And Drunkenparrot, there would be American hostility towards Canada if we did re-nationalize our own industry. Washington, and it seems that even Ottawa, would never accept the prospect of an assertive Canada, instead of a subserviant Canada.

As for the CF-35 in northern conditions? There's many factors that work against it.
First is range- we need fast interceptors to patrol our expansive north.
Second is overtechnology- too many sensors combined with more integrated automatic control in exceptional environments mean more room for mechanical failure (all you need is one external sensor to miscalculate the weather to crash the whole plane).
Third is environment- this plane, being as hi-tech as it is, requires significant maintenace per flight-time hours (F-22 requires 34 maintenance hours per one flight hour), and will require even more downtime within an environment that works against it.

The maintenance time factor alone is enough to avoid these stealth fighters when we are trying to arm a relatively small military force (per geographic area) that requires its fighters to be operational as much as they possibly can.

Originally posted by Cosmic911

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by defcon5

 

With one caveat...the F-117. It is no where near a fighter in terms of military missions, but yeah the designations you posted are correct.

More than one caveat....the U2 was designated "Utility" to conceal its true recon mission and objectives. In regards to the F-117, the designers utlized the "F" designation to draw fighter pilots into the Night Hawk program. They knew fighter pilots would never be interested in flying an aircraft with a "B" or bomber designation.

Indeed on the U designation; the U2 served many functions and my father was fortunate enough to watch that bad boy be launched from an aircraft carrier....quite a feet honestly.

As far as the F-117s, based on personal experience and knowledge, the pilots knew they were flying a bomber that acted like a fighter. They were jocks (in the military sense) and never had the same mentality of the bomber crews that would stop by from time to time.

Truly the Air Force ensured they would get "Fighter" pilots to fill the roll of the new bomber; the F-117.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Truly the Air Force ensured they would get "Fighter" pilots to fill the roll of the new bomber; the F-117.

A documentary that I once watched had the lead designer of the F-117. He said that the main reason why it was classified as a fighter was to prioritize maintenance and care for the aircraft (apparently bombers come after fighters in logistics/maintenance view). It could have been an inside joke, but it makes sense. The nighthawks didn't even have guns on them.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Truly the Air Force ensured they would get "Fighter" pilots to fill the roll of the new bomber; the F-117.

A documentary that I once watched had the lead designer of the F-117. He said that the main reason why it was classified as a fighter was to prioritize maintenance and care for the aircraft (apparently bombers come after fighters in logistics/maintenance view). It could have been an inside joke, but it makes sense. The nighthawks didn't even have guns on them.

Correct. It was a long standing joke at Holloman (where the F-117s were stationed along with I) about the designation. But relative size of the craft and with the very fact you pointed out that it retained no armament other than ordinance, made it an oddity. It wasn't a Fighter/Bomber like say the F-4(I actually would classify the F-4 as an attack craft and give it a designation of A), F-16 or F15; or the newest F-22/35. All of which can and do fill multiple roles, given current doctrine amongst military aircraft.

The F designation to the F-117 was something that was natural given its design, its airframe and overall look. Its capabilities as far as aeronautics was similar to that of a fighter, handling was similar, controls were similar, cockpit design was similar....thus it was natural to designate it as such. Though its role was far from a fighter as we have both recognized.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Aeons
The money to support such ventures would need to come out our most profitable industries such as petroleum, which the same crowd also hates.

And that is my point to both you and Drunkenparrot.

We are a country that sells surplus resources, especially oil, for profit. The US is an energy-deficient country that is forced to constantly secure foreign oil assets or its military (the very backbone of the US) will collapse.

Reality however is that if we stopped providing key resources to the US in this manner, they'd topple our government with little hesitation. Water, petroleum, cobalt.... So worry on this topic makes no sense.

This option doesn't exist, acting as if it does is a waste of time and money.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Aeons
The money to support such ventures would need to come out our most profitable industries such as petroleum, which the same crowd also hates.

And that is my point to both you and Drunkenparrot.

We are a country that sells surplus resources, especially oil, for profit. The US is an energy-deficient country that is forced to constantly secure foreign oil assets or its military (the very backbone of the US) will collapse.

Reality however is that if we stopped providing key resources to the US in this manner, they'd topple our government with little hesitation. Water, petroleum, cobalt.... So worry on this topic makes no sense.

This option doesn't exist, acting as if it does is a waste of time and money.

but it does exist. The US is not all that powerful as people like to think. They have very accute weaknesses that lay within their logistics. If they did not have the resources to maintain their civil projects and military, then their country would implode from the inside out.

If the US keeps picking fights around the world, it will keep stretching its supply lines and exhausting its resources to the point where it will be more dependant on us than ever for its survival. Why should we keep allowing them to screw us up the ass when they lay beaten on the curb? That is when we should take the high road and they can sacrifice what they have for us, for a change.

I don't know about you, but I don't wish to spend my entire life in some subserviant country to the USA. The US is going to fall big time within the coming decades and it will not drag my homeland down with it into the sh*tabyss.

Dimitri, I know we are straying somewhat offtopic however as control of essential resources is one of the prime reasons that militaries exist and wars are fought I would like to address some of your comments.

I would ask that after this exchange that we refocus somewhat on Aeons questions focusing on aerospace technology and allow her and anyone reading along to determine the geo-political implications for themselves.

If you wish we can start a separate "American Imperialist Swine Invade Canada" thread, but I don't see that going over very well (not to mention the last time it happened, Washington D.C. was sacked and the Whitehouse burnt down in retaliation )

The web is full of contradictory data and statistics are easily cherry picked however I am trying to reconcile your assertions with hard figures and am seeing very little data to substantiate the bulk of your argument as anything more than a loose interpretation of the facts.

A general summary drawn on a combination of government and MSM offerings sourced from efforts to better educate myself on the subject (I must confess, my knowledge of Canadian/U.S. energy trade policy is far from encyclopedic )

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

We are a country that sells surplus resources, especially oil, for profit. The US is an energy-deficient country that is forced to constantly secure foreign oil assets or its military (the very backbone of the US) will collapse...

...Considering American dependence on our energy resources, we hold the cards in this relationship.

The U.S. currently produces 70% of its total energy needs domestically. Petroleum accounts for 37% of our total energy needs, of which less than half is imported. Of the oil imported, Canada is the largest contributor accounting for 18%.

Using these numbers to do the math, Canadian oil accounts for 9% of our total petroleum needs which is a modest 3% of our total energy requirements.

US Dept. of Energy, "U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector
Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

Natural Gas accounts for roughly 24% of the current U.S. energy requirements of which 17% is imported. Canada provides the lions share , accounting for roughly 88% of the total amount imported or roughly 3.5% of total U.S. energy requirements.

Electricity generated from Nuclear fission accounts for 8% of Primary Energy Consumption. Canada supplies approximately one-third of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power plants representing another 3.5% of total U.S. energy requirements

Canada–U.S. energy relations/Nuclear Energy

Canadian petroleum,natural gas and uranium imports combined provide approximately 10% of total U.S. energy consumption.
Canadian imports are a regionally convenient supplement to total U.S. energy needs, nothing more, nothing less.

The U.S. maintains an emergency strategic reserve of 726.5 million barrels, sufficient to maintain our current daily consumption for 30 days.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve - Quick Facts and Frequently Asked Questions

Proven oil reserves in the United States are 21 billion barrels(not including the Strategic reserve)

Estimated undiscovered U.S. crude reserves are estimated at 134 Billion barrels.

The U.S. also enjoys the good fortune of sitting on the worlds largest Oil Shale reserves estimated to be worth 2.175 trillion barrels.

Geology and Resources of Some World Oil-Shale Deposits

"Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf, 2006

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

....or simply engage in subterfuge (like how Washington's tool Mulroney turned Trudeau's Canada upside down and instituted NAFTA after it was rejected by referendum)

Would it surprise you to hear many inside the U.S. feel that NAFTA has granted unfair advantages to Canadian trade interests citing while handicapping american labor? This same demographic also profess belief that the passage of NAFTA was a result of Ottawa funded stooge lobbyists. Perceived favoritism of Canadian timber imports rather than energy is the topic here but the sentiments are identical and the facts seem to support the accusation..

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Under NAFTA rules, we have been selling Americans oil for the same price that we sell ourselves. We are not allowed, under NAFTA, to make this into a profitable venture. In fact, our tarsands oil, while not of the best quality, is being sold abroad at wholesale prices when we could be making so much more from it if it was properly regulated.

Canadian producers are free to sell their product to anyone they see fit, where did you get the idea that NAFTA is responsible for preventing Canadian wholesalers from getting top dollar for their product?

Article 605 of NAFTA has been interpreted by some to mean that Canada is required to sell a certain percentage of its energy output to the United States, even in the face of a severe domestic shortage. Moreover, they argue that NAFTA prevents this percentage from falling over time.
Neither of these statements is true. Canadian producers are free to sell as much oil as they wish to whomever they wish, including, for example, overseas customers. As a result, the share of total output exported to the United States can rise or fall according to the normal forces of supply and demand.
The only condition that NAFTA imposes on Canadian energy products is that all buyers in North America must have equal rights to buy those products.

Canadian Oil Exports To The U.S. Under NAFTA

Furthermore, regardless of U.S. involvement, Canada does not yet have the production clout to dictate price to the global oil market....

Canada is a participant in the global oil market in which buyers and sellers trade volumes, mostly on the basis of short-term contracts. It is this interaction that sets the world price of oil. Crude oil can be transported relatively easily by tanker, pipeline and truck to most major locations in the world. If prices rise in Asia, for example, sellers will divert crude oil from North America to the Asian market. As this happens, the supply available in North America would fall and prices would tend to rise. Although Canada is the sixth largest producer in the world, it produces only about four percent of total daily production, so it does not influence the world price of oil. Therefore, Canada is a price taker, rather than a price setter.

Crude Oil and Petroleum Products - How Canadian Markets Work

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

If our leaders cared about our sovereignty over virtual annexation, then we would be receiving much more for our exports than basically just throwing them at any takers for the change in their pockets...

Although the technology is far from perfected, Canada's oil sands production is in its infancy and is already proving that the development of the Athabasca bitumen deposits is economically feasible and is already attracting global investment. The mega corporations are recording consistent profits which can only increase as the technology matures and massive investments of capitol begins to yield physical infrastructure.

For example (First random hit on Google search)...

(Reuters) - Cenovus Energy Inc, Canada's No. 2 independent oil producer, said its quarterly profit more than tripled, helped by an expansion of development area at its Christina Lake operations in northern Alberta and higher oil prices.
The company, known for its Canadian oil sands production and U.S. refining joint ventures with ConocoPhillips , also said it was considering recent interest shown by international parties to jointly develop its Alberta oil sands assets.
The company kept its 2012 capital spending forecast of $3.1 billion to $3.4 billion, but said it may consider reducing investment in natural gas projects if prices for the fuel did not recover.
Fourth-quarter profit rose to C$266 million ($265.80 million), or 35 Canadian cents a share, from C$78 million, or 10 Canadian cents a share, a year ago. Excluding unusual items, the company earned 44 Canadian cents a share.
Cash flow, a glimpse into the company's ability to fund operations, rose about 32 percent to C$851 million, or C$1.12 a share, from C$645 million, or 85 Canadian cents a share.
Production rose about 11 percent to average 144,273 barrels a day

Cenovus profit soars; JV plan attracts foreign cos

Our wholesale prices are linked for good reason and have proven to be mutually beneficial. One of the more memorable failures brought about by Canada's last try at nationalizing petroleum, aptly named the National Energy Program....

the controversial National Energy Program (NEP) had three objectives: energy self-sufficiency; redistributing wealth from a non-sustainable resource to benefit the country as a whole; and increased ownership of the oil industry by Canadians. As implemented, the NEP gave the Federal government control over petroleum prices, imposing a price ceiling and export duties...



...The National Energy Program had a number of other flaws. It was based on a world price steadily increasing to $100 per barrel. The world oil price declined to as little as $10 per barrel in the years following. Since the federal government based its spending on the larger figure, the result was that it spend a great deal of money on subsidies that could not be recovered in taxes on production. Furthermore, due to proximity to the U.S. market companies had opportunities to make money by playing differentials in prices. For instance, refiners in Eastern Canada would import oil subsidized down to half the world price, refine it into products, and export the products to the U.S. at full world price. Airlines flying between Europe and the U.S. via the polar route would take off with as little fuel as possible, and stop briefly in Canada to fill up before continuing on to their destination. Trucking companies operating between locations in the Northern U.S. would detour their trucks through Canada to refuel. None of these transactions was illegal, or even unusual considering the integrated nature of the economies, but all had the effect of transferring billions of Canadian tax dollars to the balance sheets of (mostly foreign owned) companies

National Energy Program (1980-1985)

Canadian wholesale gasoline prices are very closely linked to U.S. prices due to the open nature of trade between the two countries, as stipulated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Because refined gasoline is a commodity, it is traded between Canada and the United States. Canadian refiners therefore must keep their wholesale prices competitive with the cost to import from U.S. refiners.
If, for example, wholesale prices were significantly lower in Canada than in the U.S., American retailers would very quickly begin to import fuel from Canada (potentially causing supply issues for Canadians). Similarly, if wholesale prices were significantly lower in the U.S., then Canadian retailers would start to import fuel from the U.S., hurting Canadian refiners.

Understanding Wholesale Prices

Continued below

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

...This profit that we should have, from re-nationalizing our resources, would be used for restructuring our defense industry.

However, doing such a thing as this proves to be a threat to the US. Indeed, other countries who nationalize their resources are considered a threat by the neo-liberalists, because ultimately that means that corporations are cut off from exploiting others. If we nationalized our oil production, then it would be a real test to see how "friendly" the Americans are to our interests. If they are indeed our secure ally, then they should embrace it and start coughing up more money.

Every last cent of new found "profit" would be needed to replace the myriad of forgotten ancillary details needed to make bitumen extraction viable.

Years of guaranteed profitability forfeited by dismissing private investment then nationalizing oil production further exacerbated by alienating your closest trade ally...

The preexisting refinement and transportation infrastructure and resulting production capacity of the U.S. dwarfs its Canadian counterpart with a growing number of mid western and gulf coast refineries adopting the specialized facilities needed for processing crude bitumen in expectation of refinement processing prior to intercontinental export. Canadian refinement capacity is nearly maxed, while the U.S. has slowed production in recent years leaving a significant excess production capacity idle.
.
If I understand correctly, because the U.S. is bound by the same conventions under NAFTA regarding export pricing, NAFTA guarantees that Canada can take advantage of existing facilities in the U.S. at the same cost as American producers. In other words the treaty provision creates a legal position that will allow bitumen producers to profit from end product revenue without having to undergo the traditional formality of building expensive pipelines and refineries before making a single dollar of profit.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

This profit that we should have, from re-nationalizing our resources, would be used for restructuring our defense industry.

However, doing such a thing as this proves to be a threat to the US. Indeed, other countries who nationalize their resources are considered a threat by the neo-liberalists, because ultimately that means that corporations are cut off from exploiting others. If we nationalized our oil production, then it would be a real test to see how "friendly" the Americans are to our interests. If they are indeed our secure ally, then they should embrace it and start coughing up more money...

...I'm just stating what it is going to take for us to kickstart our indiginous military industry.

You might be kick starting an army of mopeds but that's about all for the foreseeable future....

If Canada were to try (again) nationalize its energy production, without foreign investment all of the profit will have to be reinvested, in its entirety, for years into the foreseeable future. Every available dollar will be needed to fund the massive logistical expansion required to make the extraction process feasibly profitable.

In my opinion, foregoing foreign investment is not a serious option and is counterintuitive to your own long term economic best interest.

The players in your government tasked with the stewardship of this critical juncture of one of the most important economic opportunities in your nations history freely admit there is still has a long way to go in developing the full potential of Alberta's Bituminous sand deposits and have made no secret that large investments of foreign capitol are needed.

Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said he’s assuring Chinese officials that the nation is welcome to expand investments in Canada’s oil industry.
Canada doesn’t have sufficient capital to fully develop its oil reserves, Oliver said in an interview, adding the key factor in government approval will be whether investments are being made for “commercial” purposes.
“As their investments get larger, they are watching to see whether we continue to be welcoming. We’ve told them we are welcoming,” said Oliver, who is accompanying Prime Minister Stephen Harper on a four-day visit to China. “Our oil sands are the largest energy project in the entire world. We simply don’t have enough capital in Canada.”

China Welcome to Boost Investment in Canadian Oil Industry, Oliver Says

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

We should be asserting our own sovereignty with our own military, paid for by the money that we make from trade with the US.

Personally I am in total agreement and fully support both your expressed sentiment and unspoken implications as regional neighbors and strategic allies. I believe the majority of the America citizenry shares a similar viewpoint regarding your military sovereignty.

The U.S. is currently your largest trading partner and strongest ally. The small military your national budget affords is already paid for primarily by extremely favorable U.S. trade further enhanced by discounted hardware incentives is provided by U.S. military contractors.

There is a good opportunity for both Canada and the U.S. to take advantage of a mutually beneficial opportunity. If agreeable terms can be agreed on, that is fantastic. However NAFTA rules aside, the majority of North American refinement capacity, including the majority of the bituminous refinement capability as well as nearly the entire distribution infrastructure are U.S. facilities.

I believe it has been clearly shown that U.S. involvement in the Athabasca oil sands is a regional convenience without any economic consequence either way.

What will most benefit Canadian interests?

The U.S will pay a fair price commensurate with value and treaty conditions. As a consequence of the U.S. and Canada maintaining the status quo.....

Import shipments of the low grade tar-like bituminous sands are delivered to one of a few appropriate facilities designed to process heavy oil, The refined product resulting synthetic is finished into any one of a dozen prime dollar petroleum products, as part of the cycle of production/delivery U.S. owned infrastructure transports various refined petroleum product, (roughly equaling 1/3rd of the equivalent volume of the original bitumen import) through the U.S. designed, built and operated petroleum pipeline infrastructure back to Canada for domestic consumption at the same wholesale price paid by the U.S. brokers in cooperation with all trade agreements..

In the event that the U.S. and Canada fail to negotiate acceptable terms, Canada should feel free and unencumbered from any previous obligation.

China is a willing recipient, China's sales are guaranteed. The only obstacle to foreign export oil sand bliss is the lack of infrastructure.

To export meaningful quantities of oil to China would require construction of the necessary refinement capacity and support facilities in Alberta, Construction of a deep water port terminal/tank farm on the Pacific coast and a 1000 mile oil pipeline across the Canadian Rockies to connect them.

Not an insurmountable task but certainly one of the centuries more ambitious engineering challenges.

Once open for business, an entire hemisphere is suddenly accessible with the price spread needed to guarantee continued production. becomes a potential customer of your product. The key to profitability on this type of production is massive volume, a Pacific Shipping Terminal goes quite some distance for hedging ones bets.

The devil is always in the details>....

Canada has a fairly limited refining capacity and its pipeline system is not nationwide. Canada actually imports some oil and refined products because its pipeline system does not reach all provinces and it is often easier to pipe some oil and refined products from the U.S. (EIA, Country Analysis 2009). In 2009 there were 19 operating refineries with a capacity of 2.1 million b/d (NEB, Canadian Energy Overview 2009).

Some Canadian producers would prefer to upgrade the raw bitumen into synthetic light crude and take advantage of the resultant higher value. However, given the convergence of heavy light valuations, the incentive to upgrade larger volumes of Canadian oil sand output remains low. Upgraders, like complex refineries, are very capital intensive; without a substantial light heavy value spread there is little economic incentive to build such facilities. While there is a push by the government of Alberta to increase upgrader capacity

25, most Canadian oil sand producers will realize higher wellhead values by selling non-upgraded bitumen into the U.S. market.

U.S. Oil Production, Consumption, and Imports If U.S. refiners are denied access to Canadian oil sands production, Canadian bitumen blends will likely flow to alternative markets, displacing crude supplies which would eventually make their way to U.S. import centers. Total Canadian production and total U.S. imports will likely remain the same with or without U.S. imports of oil sands from Canada...




....Given the long term U.S. requirement to maintain a high level of crude oil imports from the world market, any lost sales of Canadian oil sands to the U.S. will be replaced by imports from alternative suppliers....

...While a transportation system to export Canadian oil sands to other regions of the world has not been established, there has also not been a need to aggressively pursue alternative markets given the large U.S. market and relatively low cost transportation opportunity. Considering the oil sands enormous value to Canada, both in revenue and employment, denial of access to the U.S. market would result in an aggressive program to ship the resource to alternative markets...

....Chinese involvement in the oil sands suggests a potential alternative market for the oil sands should the U.S. choose to decline or halt additional imports.




In April 2010 China’s largest refiner, Sinopec, became a stakeholder in Syncrude Canada Ltd. by purchasing ConocoPhillips’ 9.03 percent share for $4.65 billion. PetroChina agreed to buy a 60 percent stake in two oil sands properties (not yet developed, but with the potential to produce up to 50,000 b/d) from Athabasca Oil Sands Corp in the fall of 2009. In May of 2005 Sinopec purchased a 40 percent stake in Total SA’s undeveloped Northern Lights project for $105 million and the company purchased an additional 10 percent in April of 2009. CNOOC Ltd purchased 16.7 percent of MEG Energy Ltd, a privately held company working on oil sands developments in northern Alberta with prospects of 210,000 bpd, in April 2005...


...Recent reports suggest lackluster enthusiasm from British Colombia municipal governments for such a pipeline as it would cross through their territories. They are widely opposed to an overland pipeline and well as tanker traffic along the coast.

But if supplies to the U.S. hit a bottleneck, one can expected renewed interest in a Pacific export route.

The Value of the Canadian Oil Sands (….to the United States)

Continued below

As you alluded in your last post, economically feasible recovery and refinement of the Albertan Athabasca oil sands has required a multinational effort and foreign investment in the billions of dollars. The largest producer, and largest stakeholder is coincidentally the American owned ConocoPhillips with Japan,France, the UK and more recently China investing significant stakes. Unless you are advocating reneging on dozens of production contracts and mineral rights the resulting profits will not be an exclusively Canadian windfall anytime into the foreseeable future.

Alberta Oil Sands Industry/ Quarterly Spring 2011

Other than disingenuously soliciting billions in foreign investment to develop the resource then expropriating the resultant investment industry à la Hugo Chavez, developing the production infrastructure without foreign investment might be possible but expecting to build the foundation of the industry and piggyback an increase in military spending seems to be an unrealistic expectation

Such a decision might see the need for that restructured military mentioned arise bit earlier than anticipated.

Rephrased and put in context, the fledgling Canadian oilsands industry is currently a nice economic boost with a lot of promise however full scale production of the Athabasca oil sands deposit is still billions of dollars and years of development in the future.

It is also worth noting that only 10% of the Athabasca deposits are economically feasible to recover with current extraction technologies at current global oil prices. Initial production estimates have proven to be overly optimistic as the price of crude has remained lower than anticipated.

Athabasca oil sands

My understanding is that the extraction technology is in refinement and still at least decade away from the kind of industry wide efficiency needed to generate the hyperprofits needed finance the development, production and maintenance of an indigenous world class dedicated air superiority platform.

Remember,$60 Billion to develop and manufacture 180 F-22's,

$37 Billion to develop and manufacture 72 RAF Eurofighter Typhoon's within already established infrastructures.

Air Force F-22 Fighter Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Multibillion Pound Eurofighter Typhoon

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

there would be American hostility towards Canada if we did re-nationalize our own industry. Washington, and it seems that even Ottawa, would never accept the prospect of an assertive Canada, instead of a subservient Canada.

Both of our governments contain elements who espouse diverse philosophies ranging from policies of isolationalistic imperium to global interventionist entanglement and a multitude of intertwined political, philosophical and economic policies in between.

Furthermore, both of our respective governments along with every other government in the world can be justly accused of manipulating various facets of their respective foreign policy in the better interest of their representative nations with other nations interests being a secondary consideration. It is the job of our appointed officials to maneuver to international relations to leverage any possible advantage of in the best interests of their own citizenry.

Canadian subsidization and manipulation of timber pricing has been a point of contention with the U.S. for some time now, why would the U.S. react any differently to the nationalization of Canadian petroleum and withdrawal from the NAFTA agreement to wholesale commodity intertrade? The last Canadian attempt at nationalization was a resounding failure that is partially responsible for the current price linking. Aside from crippling the development of the Athabasca oil sands deposits without foreign investment, the U.S./Canadian petroleum infrastructure is intertwined in such complexity that U.S. midwest petroleum facilities (realistically irreplaceable logistically due to Canadian geography.) process' and transport a large percentage of central and western Canada's domestic consumption. The U.S. response would be to reply in kind, charging market rates on like commodities and related services in return.

NAFTA has consistently favored Canadian interestsCanada–United States softwood lumber dispute and has withstood tremendous pressure from both the U.S. Federal government and private timber industry. To the great consternation of literally millions of American families dependent on lumber producing regions who believe the Canadian timber industry is practicing unfair price discrimination... .

...the U.S. industry for the first time brought an anti-dumping claim arguing Canadian lumber companies were also engaged in unfair price discrimination. On April 25, 2002, the United States Department of Commerce announced it had determined subsidy and anti-dumping rates, with a final subsidy rate of 18.79% and an average dumping rate of 8.43%, to give a combined CVD/AD rate of 27.22%. Specific companies were charged higher or lower dumping rates, including Abitibi-Consolidated (12.44%), Weyerhaeuser (12.39%), Tembec (10.21%), Slocan (7.71%), Canfor (5.96%) and West Fraser (2.18%)....

...On August 26, 2005, Canadian federal cabinet ministers remained defiant and unwavered in response to remarks by U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins comments to stop the "emotional tirades" in the softwood lumber dispute. Canadian International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said Washington should not confuse emotion with commitment and determination by Canadians to ensure the NAFTA is respected. Prime Minister Paul Martin used strong rhetoric that the dispute was undermining NAFTA and hinted that Canada can explore trade alternatives such as China. "Friends live up to their agreements", Martin said in calling on the United States to respect a ruling under the North American Free Trade Agreement on Canadian exports of softwood lumber...

...In March 2006, a NAFTA panel ruled in Canada's favor, finding that the subsidy to the Canadian lumber industry was de minimis, i.e., a subsidy of less than one percent. Under U.S. trade remedy law, countervailing duty tariffs are not imposed for de minimis subsidies....

In April 2006, The United States and Canada announced that they had reached a tentative settlement to end the current dispute. Under the preliminary terms, the United States would lift duties provided lumber prices continue to stay above a certain range. Below the specified range, a mixed export tax/quota regime would be implemented on imports of Canadian lumber. As a part of the deal, more than $5 billion in duty deposits collected would be returned...

Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute

Natural Gas Imports and Exports

Do you believe that turnabout is fair play? Would you care to guess what percentage of the Canadian GDP Canada's energy imports to the U.S. represent? Are you sure about who is holding all the cards? I'll go out on a limb here and take a guess that you don't play much poker, four aces beats a pair every-time.

Both Canada and the U.S. benefit mutually from our trade relations,with Canada actually enjoying a measurable surplus in the bargain. I see no substantial trend to justify the proposition that Canadian commodities are being traded for U.S. dollars at anything less than fair regional market value.

I would be remiss not to point out the obvious implication that the Canadian Oil Sand industry stands to profit immensely from the kinds of political instabilities that threaten the global oil supply driving speculation of higher prices. Inversely, Oil Sand production becomes untenable if crude prices decline past a certain point.

"Oil sands & western Canadian conventional production, December 2008 interim update"

In a nutshell, I strongly disagree with your assertion of the contemporary North American geo-political framework being dominated by a thinly veiled passive aggressive U.S.

I respect that you are sincere opinions are expression of your beliefs, you. Occasional trade disagreements aside, your description of the U.S. as a hostile economy and threat to your sovereignty is undeserving and will hopefully soften in the future.

Ironically, China is becoming a substantial player in Canadian trade and are becoming heavily invested in the Canada's energy commodities without any of the protections afforded by NAFTA. China have fueled their explosive growth of the last twenty years by gaming their state regulated economy and financial systems, do not recognize the western concept of predatory business practices being immoral and are quietly investing billions of U.S. dollars into the Canadian oil market. Within the decade Chinese interest will control a significant percentage of Canada's oil production to do with as they see fit (be it profiting from the sales of Chinese owned Canadian resources to Canadian consumers, Chinese export control of Canadian resources to supply domestic Chinese consumption or the sale Chinese owned Canadian resources to the international markets regardless of domestic Canadian shortages.

In conclusion, would anyone care to share what we have learned today?

At the beginning of the post somebody was holding all the cards? Who was it and why were they holding them?

Special thanks to Dimitri Dzengalshlevi for the crash course on the Canada-U.S. energy trade relationship