New Mars Forums

I took a look at some macroeconomics indicators to see how America as a whole fared during 2025:

I looked at the EU's economic figures and projections for 2025 as well, and while not as good as Canada, they're still growing, too.

We're clearly capable of mining our own bauxite, because we've done so in the past:

22,000 * 0.14RMB/USD = $3,080 USD

Aluminum prices are now nearly equalized, no matter where you shop for it, which incentives domestic production.

Edit:
All you have to do is check spot prices and futures in America, Canada, Europe, and China:

When our leftists are finished with their lies, lectures, and tantrums, we really should have a chat about the future.  You cannot BS your way through your entire life.  At some point, reality is what it is.  If this upsets you, that doesn't mean everyone and everything else is somehow wrong, it means your ideation is not reality-based.

RobertDyck,

President Trump is gone in 3 years, so the only real "factor" he represents is one that exists entirely inside your head.  America and Canada will still be here when he's out of office, as will all hostile foreign nations, so unless you think every American and Canadian leader from this point forward are going to engage in the same sort of pointless pissing contest, please come back to reality.  Leftists say mean things about President Trump, who responds by saying mean things about them.  It's free entertainment for people who aren't offended by everything.

Foreign national drug cartel gang members are not uniformed military combatants, nor are they civilians.  If they shoot at US Navy helicopters attempting to board their boats to seize the drugs or if they fail to stop when signaled to do so, then they will be shot in return.  We are not under any legal obligation to treat terrorists and drug smugglers as if they're fellow uniformed sailors or civilian merchant mariners, because they're obviously international organized criminal syndicates that extort, bribe, rape, rob, and murder people for sport.  If they quit behaving like criminals, we'd quit treating them that way.  Since they're not going to stop acting like criminals, we're not going to stop being the ones who prevent them from preying on other people.

We've seen leftists attempt to run over ICE Agents using cars, then whine and cry like petulant toddlers about ICE "shooting unarmed civilians" when they respond in kind to criminals who just tried to murder people who weren't even talking to them.  When you try to run over cops with your car, the cops will shoot you, whether you have a gun or not, whether you said anything to them about your reasoning or nothing at all.  That is how real world law enforcement works.

Similarly, if you want to fire off your AK-47 at US Navy helicopters signaling for you to stop, or simply refuse to stop because you don't want to go to prison for drug smuggling, then they will mow you down with their missiles and machine guns, whether you happen to fall into the water during that process, or not.  That is how we stop the activities of the drug cartels, not by allowing them to distribute their poison with impunity to kids and people suffering from mental illness.  People like you can complain incessantly about it or learn to accept that is how picking a fight with a wildly superior adversary tends to go.  Regardless, we know who these people are and what they're doing to us, and now we're finally refusing to look the other way because it's so out-of-hand.

President Obama allowed the CIA to launch Hellfire missiles into a cafe filled with people in a country we were not a war with, to kill one American who was suspected of being a terrorist- not any kind of immediate threat according to them, merely a suspected terrorist.  In point of fact, he droned more people than President Bush ever did by a significant margin.  President Biden's administration did the same thing.  You and people like you did not utter one little peep about them doing that.  Since you didn't care about it when a Democrat was doing it, you don't actually care about it when President Trump is doing it, either.

None of the arguments you've brought up seem to be centered around the viability of Fighter A vs Fighter B within the context of some realistic national defense scenario.  All your pointless "whataboutism" which has nothing to do with fighter jets is proving that you're not making an honest attempt to engage with the substance of this issue.

Try to put President Trump out of your mind long enough to maintain a coherent rationalization of national defense choices.  This is not a decision to make impulsively or because you don't like politician A, B, or C.  As of late, American politicians are here today and gone tomorrow.  The political pendulum ultimately swings towards the center.

1. Is the Gripen similarly capable to the F-35 for what Canada intends to use it for?

Canada's government evaluators have already said that it's not.  It's fairly obvious why it's not.  Perhaps what your government intends to use tactical fighters for, as it relates to projecting or merely defending the national sovereign power of Canada, is not what the average Canadian thinks they should use it for.  This is a more nuanced difference of opinion.  F-35s are stealthy offensive air superiority / strike / electronic warfare weapons at the forefront of tactical fighter design.  In this context, "stealthy" means substantial reduction of radar and infrared signatures useful for guiding interceptor missiles to shoot down fighter jets.  Shooting down a stealthy combat jet is not impossible, but the rate at which they'll be lost to enemy air defense systems is dramatically reduced when compared to non-stealthy jets.

The combination of F-35 capabilities largely replaces the capabilities provided by the F-14D, F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18E, and EF-18G.  It's not a neat and precise direct duplication of capabilities.  If you have F-35s, then you really don't need the capabilities provided by those other platforms, because their sensors and computers are nowhere near as capable.  F-35 was never designed as a F-15C / F-22A role replacement, but the weapons do the killing, not the aircraft itself.  By that metric, it's still a 9g capable jet that accelerates and recovers energy faster than Super Hornets, points the nose better than Vipers do during high-AoA maneuvering, and carries a large enough percentage of the Strike Eagle's ordnance load with equivalent internal fuel.

Most of what the Strike Eagle carries externally is fuel, rather than weapons.  Put another way, the F-35A with max internal fuel plus gun ammo plus 200lb pilot can still take off with a max ordnance load and remain below MTOW.  I'm not aware of a Gen 4 fighter with equivalent combat radius while carrying max ordnance.  Rafale is one of the best, but taking their 2,000km subsonic cruise range estimate in clean configuration, it still falls slightly short of the F-35A carrying 4X AIM-120 and 2X Mk84.  The Su-35 is the only fighter with greater usable combat radius, but with full internal fuel it's external stores capacity is reduced by half, so it can only carry 8,771lbs with max fuel and remain at MTOW.  For air intercept, not a problem.  For long range strike, it's carrying 4X 1,000kg bombs.  Put a pair of 600 gallon tanks under the wings of the F-35 and it will carry that same payload to at least the same distance.  Is it becoming apparent how much more usable the F-35 is as a tactical fighter?  All the rest of them tradeoff substantial range or ordnance load.  If they carry enough fuel to match or exceed F-35's range / combat radius, then their ordnance load reduces by a lot.  If they opt to carry a max ordnance load, then their range falls far short of the F-35 from lack of internal fuel and because carrying everything externally means drag increases quite a bit.  CFTs add substantial weight before you fill them.  When both range and carrying capacity is desired, designing a jet to carry more internal fuel from the outset is the correct solution.

Any fighter equipped with one F404 or F414 engine has less than half the dry thrust of the F-135.  There is no possible way for it to provide the same well-rounded mix of speed, maneuverability, range, and ordnance carrying capacity.  Something must be sacrificed.  Gripen didn't want to sacrifice speed or maneuverability or carrying capacity, so it sacrifices range on internal fuel.  Gripen can carry a lot more fuel externally, but then it's no longer a Mach 2 capable fighter, no longer similarly maneuverable to an aerodynamically clean stealth fighter, and ordnance gets swapped for drop tanks.  Viper / Gripen / Fulcrum can out-turn the F-35A when the Viper / Gripen / Fulcrum is in an airshow configuration, which also makes it useless for combat.  The same applies to the MiG-29 and Su-35.  They all look great on paper until you realize that combat is not a board game.

Look at the size of the tail surfaces on the F-35s, then compare them with the size of the wings on the Gripen.  The only downside is that it takes a huge amount of thrust to drag something that large through the air at high subsonic speed.  The upshot is that with full fuel and weapons, when attached to the F-35's lifting body airframe, its ability to sustain a turn at altitude without losing speed and then altitude is much greater.  The same thing that makes Gen 4 Russian and European fighters so aerodynamically efficient is the same thing that limits them after you load them up with fuel / weapons and take them to altitude.  At lower altitudes, say 15,000ft or less, they'll perform a lot better against the F-35, but nobody flies expensive tactical fighters at low level these days because nobody can afford to lose them to ground fire.  At 20,000ft, effective ground fire from MANPADS and AAA is very fleeting, and nonexistent at 30,000ft.  The Indians learned all about their Flanker's "ability to turn at altitude" against F-22 and F-35 lifting bodies at Red Flag.  They don't have much.  Their fighters are literally falling out of the sky at 30,000ft, even in full afterburner.  Razor thin wings are efficient in high speed straight-and-level flight, but not "high lift".  Take away significant forward airspeed in thin air and you take away the lift as well.  One hard maneuver and they're losing altitude fast, because the drag from broadsiding "big wings" at 600mph slows them down so fast.  Splitting lift between body and wings is what allows the F-22 and F-35 to maneuver as well as they do at high altitudes.  At lower altitudes, the traditional "big thin wings" air superiority fighter aerodynamics works better due to air density and relative speed necessary to maintain lift, but the lifting body doesn't work substantially worse, it simply won't be as fast for any given amount of thrust at any altitude.  All real air combat involving maneuvering takes place between 300 and 600mph.  At only 300mph, neither the Fulcrum nor the Flanker are still "flying" at 30,000ft, they're stalling, which is why they lose altitude so fast that F-22 and F-35 pilots at Red Flag had to employ air brakes to avoid over-shoot in a turn-and-burn dogfight.

Flankers and Tomcats do generate some body lift.  All Gen 5 fighters (F-22, F-35, F-47, Su-57, Su-75, J-20, J-35, X-2, KF-21, AMCA, TF-X) are deliberately designed as lifting bodies from the word "go".  Either all aerodynamicists don't understand what they're after, or Gen 5 is synonymous with "still turns really well at high altitudes where dogfights start, even though it's slower at all altitudes".  Gen 4 loses altitude following hard maneuvers at higher altitudes.  Why else do you think Gen 3 dogfights almost inevitably ended up "on the deck" if the fight continued for any length of time?  Small wings, high wing loadings from heavy airframes built for Mach 2 speed and acceleration loading, lower thrust relative to weight, plus heavier avionics and weapons on top of that, all conspired to help drag and gravity do what they do.

Use case really does matter quite a lot.  If Canada never intends to fly their fighter jets against an adversary equipped with stealth fighters or integrated air defense systems, then I don't think you need F-35s, even if Lockheed-Martin and the US government are in fact pressuring Canada to purchase the fighters that they previously agreed to purchase.

I understand that you want the capability to shoot down bombers if they attempt an incursion into Canadian air space or attack Canada.  That is a completely understandable desire.  I would want the same thing for my country.  The fact of the matter is that missiles, not the fighter itself, is what performs the shoot-down.  Long range air intercept missiles are faster than any fighter jet, period.  AIM-260 flies at Mach 5 and range against a bomber is in excess of 150 miles.  AIM-174B flies at Mach 3.5 and range is about 250 miles.  You don't have to get that close to launch.  If either of those missiles were launched at a high altitude bomber or long range missile coming in at Mach 2+, then it's attacking an ideal target- a large radar return associated with an airframe not capable of significant maneuvering relative to any air intercept missile.  If the fighter that launched it was cruising along at "only" 550mph and 30,000 to 40,000ft, then that is also ideal.

If Russian bombers did attack Canadian military assets or population centers, even if the attack used conventional rather than nuclear weapons, do Canadians want the capability to retaliate by bombing Russian air bases?

If so, then having F-35s is no longer optional.  Gripens are not likely to survive a strike on a major air base, nor any other target defended by integrated air defense systems, such as a destroyer or frigate.

2. Is the Gripen more or less sustainable if Canada attempts to deploy and operate it the way Sweden does?

The Swedes have their own unique approach to distributed lethality.  I admire what they've done, but no other air force operates the way they do, so there must be significant tradeoffs involved.  Perhaps Canada can operate combat jets the way the Swedes do, and perhaps that's even ideal for Canada, but you'd better test that theory before signing contracts.

3. Are there any actual considerations or concerns, not related to political beliefs or cost, which you think the F-35 doesn't address for Canada?

We've already covered why the F-35 costs more to own and operate.  It does more.  In the world of fighter jets, you typically get what you pay for.  Fat Amy, as we call her, is an exceptionally capable fighter jet.  She has to be larger than her contemporaries to provide those capabilities, but all characteristics useful for real world air combat and tactical strike have been rolled into a single design so an entire strike package and purpose built air superiority fighter don't require at least 4 distinct airframes (air superiority, strike, electronic warfare, airborne tanker).  When the Block 4 and Block 5 technology refreshes are completely rolled out, no other operational multi-role fighter, to include the F-22, will be in the same class as the F-35.

If you're at all concerned about what the Russians and Chinese may attempt to use against Canada to usurp Canadian sovereignty, in terms of air power, then the F-35 is the most potent counter to their designs on Canada, currently on-offer from the Western World.

If I wasn't completely confident that the F-35 could perform as advertised, then I would simply say-so.  I won't "go along to get along" with anyone or anything.  If I see anything that makes me question whether or not something actually does what it purports to do, then I will point it out loudly and proudly.

Most recently, Israeli F-35s destroyed Russian-made Iranian S-300 and S-400 integrated air defense systems in preparation for American B-2 strikes against Iranian Uranium enrichment facilities, as well as various lower tier air defense systems, protecting Iran.  They completely dismantled Iran's air defense networks and lost no planes in the retaliatory strike from any causes.  Whether or not Iran was even aware of their presence is unknown, but presuming they were, nothing effective was done to stop Israel's F-35s.  This latest strike mirrors results achieved by earlier strikes and recon missions against Russian forces in Syria.

As more and more evidence of suitability to purpose accumulates, beyond mere exercises against American and European integrated air defense system operators who are actively searching for those F-35s to conduct simulated "shoot-downs", it's becoming increasingly apparent that the F-35 does exactly what it was designed to do.  All existing S-300, S-400, or derivative air defense radars and interceptor missiles, are inadequate as air defense measures against any nation equipped with F-35 stealth strike fighters.

Whether or not the Russians and Chinese have somewhat more capable systems than their export models, it's unlikely that essential core functionality is missing, because purchasing them would serve no purpose.  The Indians are now considering western alternatives as well, because so little of what has been claimed by Russia and China is apparent from real world performance in combat.

Do I think Canada should purchase F-35s if they only want to shoot down incoming bombers and missiles?

In a word...  No.

If that is the only role Canada wants to use tactical fighters for, then truck loads of money could be saved by purchasing more capable air defense systems.  The combination of Patriot and THAAD provides more credible real-world air defense capability against bombers and missiles, dollar-for-dollar, than any kind of fighter jet.  Radars and missile batteries are less costly to maintain.

If you don't like the pure air defense missile battery solution, then Shield AI's stealthy X-Bat supersonic VTOL drone is probably also a better anti-bomber solution than Gripen since it does not require trained pilots or runways.

If you want to develop home-grown light fighters or micro fighters, those would probably best fill the air defense role for Canada.

RobertDyck,

The US isn't sending our military to invade Canada, so this entire line of argumentation is spurious in nature.

The mainstream media has always been such a reliable source of misinformation.  It's good for terrorizing people who are already ignorant and angry or afraid, but not much else.  Did you truly learn nothing from COVID?

If you buy a Swedish fighter jet using an American engine and American avionics, and the same American aircraft weapon systems like the AIM-120, how exactly does that help Canada become independent of US military parts sources?

If there was to be an invasion of Canada, President Trump would cut off F135 engine repair parts, but not F414 engine parts?

Perhaps more importantly, even if there were ways around the engine and avionics parts problem, do you think we'd keep selling AIM-120s to Canada so they could be fired back at American pilots?

Do you understand how absurd all of that sounds?

What happens if Canada withholds parts since some F-35 parts are only made in Canada?

As you circle through your list of irrational arguments, your logic loop keeps closing around you, ever-tighter, like a python.

Has this actually changed?

If not, then you know President Trump is neither serious about invading Canada, nor is there any actual plan to invade Canada.  He's saying the things he's saying to get a rise out of your government's leadership after they've already done the same thing to him, repeatedly.  The fact that your ego and their egos are so fragile that they cannot tolerate the exact same jabs directed back at them says more about them and you than it does about him.  Please tell your leaders to come down off of their high horses before they fall off and look more pathetic than they already do, which, at this point, is already pretty sad.

RobertDyck,

Those values are based upon an entire series of assumptions about how the fighters are used and how many are used.

One of your home-grown "leakers" recently published a classified infographic attached to the findings of the F-35A and Gripen-E evaluation report.  The Gripen scored significantly worse in all categories, by Canada's own government.  The category where it scored the worst, relative to the F-35, was entitled, "Mission Performance".  The people your own government paid to evaluate it didn't think too highly of it.

Do you see how closely CPFH for the F/A-18E matches the Gripen-E, despite being a twin-engine jet flown from carriers?

Total CPFH for a twin-engine heavy fighter that gets the piss beat out of it by launching from and landing on aircraft carriers is only $3.6K more than the Gripen.

Saab is attempting to sell Gripens using 2017 F-35A O&M costs to anyone who will indulge them.  Don't take my word for it, though, read the reports.  We make them publicly available.  Our costs are true O&M costs per fiscal year across the entire fleet.  We provide total expenditures by category, hours flown, and number of jets in inventory.  F-35A averages 4.4-4.8 maintenance man-hours per flight hour.  These are NOT notional costing figures, they're what the American tax payers are on the hook for.

10MMH/FH for a non-stealthy Gripen with less advanced everything
vs
4.8MMH/FH for the F-35A, the most sophisticated fully operational fighter jet in the world

All Weights in Pounds, Ranges in Statute Miles (5,280ft per Statute Mile)
Engine(s); Empty; MTOW; Internal Fuel; External Fuel; Max Stores
Gripen E: 1X F414; 17,637; 36,376; 7,496; 7,798; 15,900
F-16C - 1X F110; 18,900; 42,300; 7,000; 12,240; 17,000
Rafale M - 2X M88-4E; 23,400; 54,013; 10,362-18,658 w/CFTs; 14,771; 20,900
Typhoon - 2X EJ200; 24,251; 51,809; 9,900; 5,386; 19,800
KF-21 - 2X F414; 26,015; 56,400; 13,227; UNKNOWN; 17,000
F-35A - 1X F135; 29,300; 65,918; 18,250; 8,160; 18,000
F/A-18E - 2X F414; 32,081; 66,000; 14,700; 13,056; 17,750
F-15EX - 2X F110; 35,500-40,000 (2X CFTs); 81,000; 13,550-23,750 w/CFTs; 12,240; 29,500
F-22A - 2X F119; 43,340; 83,500; 18,000; 16,320; 20,000

Max Fuel and Ferry Range
F-16C: 19,240; 2,620
Gripen E: 15,294; 2,500
F-15EX: 35,990; 2,400
Typhoon: 15,286; 2,350
Rafale M: 29,716; 2,300
F/A-18E: 27,756; 2,070
F-22A: 34,320; 2,000
KF-21: 13,227 *1; 1,800
F-35A: 26,410; 1,700 *2

Notes:
*1: KF-21 external fuel capacity is unknown, though external stores capacity suggests it can carry at least 2X 600 gallon external tanks.

*2: F-35A is plumbed to carry 2X 600 gallon non-stealthy external tanks on underwing pylons, so ferry range listed is on internal fuel alone.  AFAIK, you can't "dump" 600 gallon tanks.  If you decide to carry them, then they're staying on the wings, period.  This adds about 45% to total fuel capacity.  If we guess at the increase in ferry range as being 30% greater, meaning the drag penalty eats up 15%, then 2,210 miles seems quite reasonable.  If only 10% of the external fuel carried is consumed by the additional drag, then 2,295 miles.  Regardless, "rule-of-thumb" says that's where your ferry range falls.

Conclusions:
The European fighter jets are remarkably fuel-efficient designs with long legs.  However, ALL fighter jets love the fuel.  Russian and Chinese fighter jets don't burn any less.  Whenever you say, "Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full", you're no longer going supersonic and your previously nimble fighter jet has all the maneuverability of a fuel truck, which is what you turned it into.

Despite claims to the contrary about European / Russian / Chinese fighters, American jets are the ones which are built like tanks.  Even Russian defense analysts have commented on how "over-built" American jets are, relative to Fulcrums and Flankers.  US Navy jets in particular are noted for their durability.  I can't speak intelligently on any other nation's jet design philosophy, but there is a notable difference in empty weight between comparable designs.

Airframe Design Service Life, Equivalent Flight Hours
MiG-21 / MiG-29 / Su-27: 2,000 to 3,500
Su-35: 6,000 (aspirational, according to the Russians)
Typhoon: 6,000
Rafale: 5,000, extension to between 7,000 and 9,000
F/A-18E: 6,000, extension to 12,000
Gripen E: 8,000
F-22A and F-35A: 8,000 (accelerated fatigue testing has shown no structural failures at 24,000)
F-16C: 8,000 (Block 40-52) 12,000 (Block 70/72)
F-15EX: 20,000 (highest deliberate airframe design service life for a tactical fighter that I'm aware of)

If Canada wants a non-stealthy twin-engine, two-seat, long-range, high-speed (Mach 2.9 max dash speed), high-capability tactical fighter with a full state-of-the-art sensor and electronics package, then the F-15EX Strike Eagle II best fits that description.  It carries more fuel than any other tactical fighter except the Chengdu J-20.  I would absolutely L-O-V-E to hand over our entire inventory of F-22As to Canada, but the Royal Canadian Air Force would bankrupt themselves trying to maintain those jets.  Fewer F-22s means more money for F-35s and F-47s.

Here's what I wish more people knew or understood about real world tactical fighter operations:

1. Situational awareness through sensor fusion and concise "dumbing-down" of information to only what you need to know RIGHT NOW, not having to manage the jet itself while you're trying to attack or evade something, seamless communications and networking, combined with raw sensor + compute + data sharing capabilities means more than any amount of stealth or raw speed / climb rate / maneuvering performance.  If the 1950s F-5 airframe was upgraded with all of that, minus the stealth, then it would still be a terrifyingly capable opponent, every bit as serious and lethal as a heart attack.  The fact that it couldn't out-climb the F-22 or fly as fast as the F-15 is almost entirely irrelevant to anything.  In 2025, you are fighting semi-automated and automated air defense systems much more than you're fighting actual human beings.  Enemy fighters are mostly a non-issue because there are so few of them, they're mostly sent out to attack targets vs defend them, everyone is so spread-out, and typical fights take place over seconds to minutes at most.

2. Big jets cost big money.  If your military can't eat the cost, then don't put that much metal in the air.  I'm dead serious, because that is literally the extent of the issue.  All jets are expensive.  Combat jets are really expensive.  The entire Free World needs more cost-effective fighters that don't mandate spending so much money on the basics, so that real combat training can be conducted by flying with greater frequency.  There's no point to buying them if you cannot afford to use them with regularity.  They're not lawn ornaments.  Nations with smaller military budgets can still afford to stuff the latest and greatest electronic gadgets into airframes that don't put them in a financial bind.  If you put the F-35's radar in the nose of the F-5 after removing the guns.

3. The idea that you can train differently from how you fight is pure nonsense.  You CANNOT economize on total cost of ownership by not flying the fighter regularly.  From both a mission readiness standpoint and equipment service life standpoint, once you start flying a combat jet, or any aircraft for that matter, the absolute worst thing you could possibly do is to quit flying it regularly.  Jet aircraft not undergoing an overhaul, that haven't flown more than a handful of hours during the last calendar year, may as well be destined for the Bone Yard.  The entire reason Navy combat jets didn't literally fall apart is that the maintainers are constantly taking them apart, replacing whatever little bits and pieces have failed, and then putting them back together so they can be flown again so that the entire cycle can repeat itself.  That process is normal and necessary.  Yes, it's a pain.  Yes, it appears to the untrained eye that the jet is "always broke".  Yes, it costs real money.  However, that is a vital part of the operational art.  They get good at doing it because they do it every single day.

If you fly any modern combat jet less than 200 hours per year, the odds are better than average that your aircrews are only proficient enough to not kill themselves flying the jet from Point A to Point B.  The first 150 to 200 hours is entirely devoted to maintenance of basic airmanship skills and represents the cost of entry into the world of combat jets.  At 250 hours, you can conduct training for a single mission type.  You need 300 to 350 flight hours per aircrew per year to maintain any kind of proficiency across multiple missions.  Let's say your Air Force has decided that your squadron will train for air intercept and tactical strike.  If you're not flying at least 300 hours per year to train for both of those missions, then I cannot take you seriously if you tell me your aircrews are mission ready, because any kind of realistic exercise will quickly demonstrate that they're not.

There is no software simulator that can teach you how to fuel and rearm the jet quickly, nor trace a faulty electrical cable.  You have to actually practice that to get good at it.  How might one accomplish that, you ask?  Fly the jet.  Practice the mission.  Figure out what works and what doesn't.  Practice fixing the jet by flying it until you break something.  If your ordies need half a day to read through a manual to assemble and hang a JDAM because nobody in your squadron has done it during the past month, that's a pretty serious problem if you intend to fly strike missions.  If your pilot hasn't briefed ingress and egress routes and "what-if'd" through alternative waypoints and secondary targets, then they're not proficient, either.  I don't care if they have a vague idea of what's involved.  I want them to be intimately familiar with every aspect of mission planning.  When we did this stuff before real combat missions over Afghanistan and Iraq, it took a half day of work for one officer who was doing it at least once per week, if not more often.

I'll write more about what I think a realistic modern day "light fighter" (twin engine, two-seat) and "micro fighter" (single engine/seat) involves for Canada, but broad strokes:

1. CFRP airframe fabricated using "Carbon Forging" vs extended duration vacuum bagging and autoclaving.
2. Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B engine, which delivers almost triple the fuel economy of the J85 turbojets that powered the F-5E, $1-2M per engine.  This is a non-afterburning turbofan engine, built in Canada, and primarily used in Biz Jets.  America has already used this engine to power the General Atomics MQ-20 Avenger combat drone.
3. Raytheon PhantomStrike AESA radar, around $1-2M and 119lbs.  This radar has already been used in the Kratos XQ-58 and Boeing MQ-28.  This lower cost and weight system still provides the ability to launch AIM-9X, AIM-120, presumably Raytheon's new Peregrine missile, JDAMs, JSOWs, and other common munitions like Hellfire.  It's a full-capability miniaturized Super Hornet radar.
4. High subsonic speeds for reduced operating cost and takeoff / landing / stall speeds to permit operation from austere facilities.
5. Strict adherence to a no-frills design, which includes foregoing stealth.  No unnecessary gadgetry or novelties will be included in these light fighter and micro fighter designs.  The temptation to load-up the jet with everything but the kitchen sink will be ever-present and someone will try to rationalize and sell their gadget idea.  To prevent the design team from creating miniature versions of the F-22 and F-35, both design and scope discipline are mandatory.

The more you reduce the scope of requirements, the faster you arrive at a workable and affordable solution.  Canada wants an afforable interceptor, but neither F-35 nor Gripen-E are truly affordable fighters which Canada could purchase in sufficient quantity.  They already have 16 stealth strike fighters for eliminating heavily defended ground targets.

Here's another interesting tidbit about jet aircraft and best maneuvering speeds:

All supersonic capable aircraft such as the F-8, F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, F-35, Rafale, Typhoon, Fulcrum, Flanker, Gripen, et al share a common characteristic related to best maneuvering speeds.  Every single one of them exhibit best maneuverability characteristics at speeds remarkably similar to the top speeds achieved by WWII era "super-prop" propeller-driven aircraft, which tends to be somewhat below the max cruising speeds of large jet airliners.  There is not a single example of a turbojet or turbofan powered fighter that makes tighter turns at supersonic speeds.  As long as a human is in the cockpit, there never will be.

Every purpose-built fighter turns / re-points its nose exceptionally well at 350 to 550mph.  Some are capable of "super-maneuverability" at Cessna 172 speeds, which means they can turn as tightly as a Cessna 172 at Cessna 172 cruise speeds by using afterburner to prevent them from literally falling out of the sky.  When those same fighter jets maneuver at supersonic speeds, despite the fact that they change their position in 3D space much faster, the time it takes to execute a 90 degree turn greatly resembles turn rates associated with WWII era tactical bombers.  B-25s had decent maneuverability for what they were, but I would never want to attempt to avoid a missile shot while flying one.  That's what you're transforming a fighter jet into when you fly it faster than the speed of sound- a much faster B-25 with only modestly worse turn rate (degrees or radians per second) and radius (feet or meters).

Roll rates stay about the same or slightly increase at modestly supersonic speeds, so more speed helps there, at least a little.  Best climb speed for all of them is deeply subsonic when combat loaded, even if a F-15 or Flanker with all combat equipment removed, no weapons, and only 10% fuel can "go supersonic" in a vertical climb.  A jumbo jet airliner likewise turns into a real "hot rod" with all the passenger seats and other cabin equipment removed, and only 10% fuel remaining.  The one minor problem is that it's useless as an airliner.

Turn Radius = Velocity^2 / Acceleration
Mach 1 = 1,125.33ft/s
g0 = 32.2ft/s

Divide the turn radius by 2 to get a sense of how far a hard evasive maneuver places the targeted aircraft from the incoming missile's warhead.

AIM-9X is reputed to be able to pull up to 80g maneuvers and its seeker has a 110 deg/s tracking rate, so let's see how that translates to missile turn radius at Mach 2 (average speed over its fairly brief flight duration):

AIM-9X Mach 2 Turn Radius:
(1,125.33ft/s * 2)^2 / (80 * 32.2)
5,065,470.4356 / 2,576 = 1,966ft

All missiles bleed speed like mad when not under power, but as they slow down a bit, they also make tighter turns.  This would be worth remembering.

F-22 Mach 1.5 Supercrise Turn Radius:
(1,687.995)^2 / (9 * 32.2)
2,849,327.120025 / 289.8 = 9,832ft
10,560ft = 2 miles

Turn capabilities for longer / heavier radar guided missiles are typically in the 40-70g range, which makes them somewhat easier to out-maneuver, but this isn't looking very promising for our "I feel the need for speed" F-22 pilot.

Same F-22 cruising at Mach 0.5, same 9g turn capability:
(562.665)^2 / (9 * 32.2)
316,591.902225 / 289.8 = 1,092ft

At least now we have a real shot at evading a highly maneuverable heat-seeker.  Timing is everything, as-always, but at least we're not setting ourselves up for failure from the word "go".

max speed at which a 9g capable super-prop has a reasonable turn radius and rate: (400mph * 5,280) / 3,600 = 586.66ft/s
max speed at which a 9g capable combat jet has a reasonable turn radius and rate: (550mph * 5280) / 3,600 = 806.66ft/s

Regardless, you're 1 to 1.5 football fields away from away from the missile warhead's blast radius with correct timing of evasive maneuvers.  Pretty much all of them are designed to pass within 0.25 football fields in order to reliably destroy a maneuvering target using a continuous rod warhead, irrespective of warhead orientation to the target.

For those who don't know what a "continuous rod" warhead is, imagine a thick steel wire rope being explosively driven radially outward from the point of detonation, slicing through everything in its path, because that's how it works.  It's not like a conventional blast-fragmentation iron bomb, nor does it create a jet of molten metal like a High-Explosive Anti-Tank warhead.  The reason is fairly simple.  Blast-frag is exponentially less lethal with increasing distance from the point of detonation because all fragments being projected outwards are flying through an ever-increasing volume of airspace.  That means most fragments are hitting nothing at all unless it detonates very close to the target.  HEAT has to be pointed directly at the target, and a combat jet is not armored like a tank, so there's not much point to that.  You may still get hit with some small random bits of steel missile casing with any of these warhead types, but so long as ye olde continuous rod passes within lethal distance, then before the continuous rod breaks into individual rod segments, creating "gaps" in the "death lasso" during radial outward expansion, a "large fragment hit" on target is effectively assured.

Blast-frag could potentially do greater damage with a greater number of projectiles if you could assure that the missile passes very close to the target and its warhead has the correct orientation with respect to the target, but that's much harder to do.  A guaranteed hit when the missile passes within fusing distance is better than potentially getting a few more fragments or no hit at all with other warhead types.  Imagine a blast-frag detonation 0.25 football fields directly astern of the target.  Even though the missile technically passed within lethal distance to trigger its warhead, the target may not get hit at all because it's displacing so rapidly that almost no fragments are directly aimed at the target.  If the same missile passed directly under the belly of the target, then yes, blast-frag might spray the target with quite a bit more metal than a continuous rod.  Throwing a 0.5" thick / 12-20" long steel bar through the target at hypersonic velocity generally ensures something catastrophic happens to engines or fuel or airframe.

Any pilot who likes being counted amongst the living wants to be as far away as he can get, but 1 vs 1.5 football fields for super-prop vs jet is not a game-changing difference most of the time.  The super-prop is fast enough that a hard maneuver will remain well inside the missile's turn radius and it still displaces fast enough that a near-miss is unlikely to be immediately fatal.

The implications for surival are crystal clear, though.  At Mach 1.5 there's no hope of turning inside an 80g capable missile in a 9g capable combat jet.  At Mach 0.5, especially with perfectly-timed computer-controlled evasive maneuvers, you have a better than average chance of living to fly and fight another day.

A skilled F-16 pilot with situational awareness and visual advance warning of incoming missiles demonstrated how this works in real combat a half dozen times on a single mission which took place during Gulf War I.  The Iraqi's had his jet locked-up and fired off at least six SAMs.  He survived not because of his supersonic speed capability, nor the missile's lack of speed, given that he was well within its engagement envelope, but because of his ability to turn inside the missiles fired at his subsonic jet, which wasn't moving any faster than a WWII era super-prop plane except at the start of his ordeal when he was cruising around like an airliner.

RobertDyck,

THAAD has been operational since 2008.  Strapping a 2X more powerful rocket motor to a weapon already designed to accelerate to hypersonic speeds doesn't make it a completely new weapon with completely unknown characteristics.  What I'm suggesting is that Canada take a proven weapon system, like THAAD or Patriot, let LM develop the improved motor unless you have the R&D and manufacturing capacity to do that yourselves, and then add a home-grown kill vehicle to Canada's version of the weapon.  That's what you guys already do with every American weapon system you purchase, so why should this one be any different?

I find this idea of the F-35 being tracked by an enemy bomber from 100+ miles away, to be quite fanciful.  If considerably more powerful ground stations cannot do that with any degree of reliability, no, just... no.  When the F-35 is equipped with AIM-260s or AIM-174Bs, those bombers absolutely are within range.  AIM-174B can hit bomber-sized targets from 250 miles.

So, your counter-proposal was to acquire considerably more expensive and maintenance-intensive jets like the F-22, on the sole basis of it being able to "supercruise"?

Do you not see how absurd that is?

If bombers really can see the F-35 on their radar screens, is the Gripen going to be less visible to the bomber?

You think Alaska isn't cold, or that when we conducted flight ops below the Antarctic Circle aboard carriers, that somehow doesn't count as cold weather?

Do you realize that we leave the jets on the flight deck at night, with fuel in the tanks, and then use them the next morning?

Cold-soaked, or heat-soaked, is the only kind of "jet operating" we do in the Navy.  The only thing we remove is ice, because ice will screw up any aircraft ever made, period.  We don't show any deference to "fancier" stealth aircraft brought aboard.  If it's on our flight deck, then it's a combat asset, or we send it home because it's useless to us.

The Gripen's airframe is made from the exact same kinds of materials as the F-35, and uses an American Super Hornet engine.  The F-35 in particular uses its fuel as a heat sink, so it can definitely heat up the airframe if necessary.  Making the jet in Sweden vs Texas doesn't imbue its airframe materials with special properties.  America operates combat jets in every climatic conditions imaginable, from Death Valley heat, to jungle insect FOD and humidity, to ice-spray encrusted aircraft carrier flight decks rolling and bobbing around off the coast of Antarctica.

RobertDyck,

Any kind of bomber Russia and China actually operate are about as maneuverable at high altitude as a beached whale.  As GW already pointed out, they can just barely fly at all up there, and while they do move a bit faster because the air is so much thinner, they'd literally fall out of the sky if they didn't.  For a strategic bomber cruising above 40,000ft, anything much beyond high subsonic level flight and lazy turns is wishful thinking.  That means they're easy pickings for air defense missiles launched towards them on ballistic trajectories.  Missiles will always out-accelerate manned aircraft on simple physics alone.  How the incoming bombers and missiles are destroyed is unimportant.  A job well done, efficiently and at minimal cost to Canadian tax payers, should be the desired end result.

THAAD-ER could be ready in a few years instead of a decade, which is approximately how long Canada has been dragging its feet on modern fighter jet acquisition:

If you are sincere in your desire to defend Canadian airspace, and acknowledge the significant budgetary constraints applied to the Canadian military, then you ought to propose a solution that stands a chance of actually being ready and available when called upon to defend Canadian airspace.  A few squadrons of fighters, even if they were Mach 4 capable, are simply not enough to defend a block of airspace as vast as the approaches to Canada.  Radars and missiles can bring down enemy bombers and missiles a lot more cost-effectively than 2-5 squadrons of fighter jets.  We throw more money than any other nation at fighter jets, but weren't able to purchase enough F-22s to merely replace the F-15.  If America simply "gifted" all our F-22s to Canada, your military would run out of operational funding trying to maintain them as airworthy assets, as opposed to fully mission capable assets.  We quit buying them because their radar and avionics tech is now ancient by modern standards.

Canada's entire annual defense budget is around $12B USD, so maybe 1.5% of what the US spends on defense.  Canada can still do quite a lot with the money it does spend, but only when it's very shrewd about where those defense dollars are spent, which means foregoing flash for substance.  Air defense is mandatory in modern warfare, but how that's achieved is a choice which carries significant cost implications.  If missiles weren't very effective, then they wouldn't be employed by the thousands by every modern military.  Whether or not Canada buys American weapons, European weapons, or chooses to develop their own weapons is irrelevant to having something effective available, and in sufficient quantity, when that doomsday scenario you keep throwing out there is no longer a theoretical problem to solve.

Logistics wins wars, not who has the faster fighter.  WWII German military hardware and training was judged as superior to most allied hardware, even amongst the allies, but for all their technical superiority, whether real and demonstrated in battle or merely theoretical, it never amounted to a hill of dog crap in the face of superior allied logistics.

Ask yourself how many bombers and missiles Russia or China might throw at Canada to wreck your economy.  Next, ask yourself if Canada would have enough weapons (fighters / missiles / radars / spare parts / trained operators / usable air bases / etc) ready to use, from advantageous positions, to intercept all or most incoming weapons, if only Canada did "X" vs "Y" with their defense dollars.  When the answer is "not enough", something's wrong with the chosen solution, however personally appealing.

tahanson43206,

If you have to carry the fuel and oxidizer with you, as you would on any planet except Earth, then pure Carbon doesn't require extra Oxygen atoms to combine with the Hydrogen atoms.

Kilograms of Pure Oxygen for Complete Combustion of 1kg of fuel:

Pure Carbon (32.8MJ/kg; 1kg powdered graphite = 1.05-1.15L; 28.52MJ/L): 2.67kg (2.34L); 3.49L ttl vol, 9.40MJ/L incl O2
Gasoline (44-46MJkg; 1kg = 1.2-1.4L; 32.86MJ/L): 2.3-2.7kg (2.37L); 3.77L ttl vol, 12.20MJ/L incl O2
Kerosene (43-46MJ/kg; 1kg = 1.25L; 36.8MJ/L): 2.93kg (2.57L); 3.82L ttl vol, 12.04MJ/L incl O2
Diesel (42-46MJ/kg; 1kg = 1.16-1.2L; 38.33MJ/L): 3.4kg (2.98L); 4.18L ttl vol, 11.00MJ/L incl O2
Methane (50-55.5MJ/kg; 1kg LCH4 = 2.36L; 23.52MJ/L): 4kg (3.51L); 5.87L ttl vol, 9.45MJ/L incl O2
Hydrogen (120-142MJ/kg; 1kg LH2 = 14.1L; 1L  = 10.07MJ/L): 8kg (7.01L); 21.11L ttl vol, 6.73MJ/L incl O2

LOX is 1,141kg/m^3 or 1.141kg/L

What can we conclude from that?

1. LH2 is a pretty pedestrian fuel when you need to store the cryogenic oxidizer, too.

2. There's not much difference between pure Carbon powder and Methane, except that making Methane is a lot more difficult and requires a lot more energy and technology than bubbling collected CO2 through a column of liquid Gallium eutectic.  You need equipment to collect both H2O and CO2, a Sabatier reactor, a reverse fuel cell, and a really good electrical power source.

3. You do get 17% to 30% more energy per total volume by combusting diesel / kerosene / gasoline, in comparison to Carbon powder, but if you thought making Methane was energy intensive, you're going to need to add a lot more energy-intensive equipment to your chemistry set, and of course, you only get that additional energy by combusting it using additional O2 mass, which means you need to make more O2 from some combination of H2O and CO2.  It's a pretty safe bet that all those additional chemical reaction steps will cannibalize whatever gains a dense liquid hydrocarbon fuel provides.

4. The relative complexity of obtaining LCO2 feedstock, on Earth or Mars, is pretty low.  It's everywhere in the atmosphere and in the oceans here on Earth.  Mars helps us out a bit by having a nearly-pure CO2 atmosphere, but at absurdly low density.  Speaking of absurdly low density, LH2 looks great, best of all fuels, except when you must consider the mass of the storage equipment, and then it doesn't look so hot.

5. Of all the fuels listed, and any other liquid hydrocarbon fuels that weren't, if you throw a kilogram of Carbon on the ground, here on Earth or on Mars, that same kilogram of pure Carbon fuel will still be there the next day.  We can't make the same claim about any of those other fuels.  Carbon doesn't require special storage of any kind.  If storing a cryogenic oxidizer is a pain we'd rather not deal with, then why compound the problem with fuels which also have special storage requirements?

tahanson43206,

Calliban has posted research aimed at producing Carbon Monoxide from CO2.

I have posted research aimed at producing elemental Carbon from CO2.

Since elemental Carbon and Carbon Monoxide are two different substances, what's our basis for comparison here?