Which ‘serious supersonic threats’ to Canada is the F-35 incapable of intercepting?

The problem isn’t a lack of F-35 capabilities, the problem is that Canada doesn’t know what it wants. AFAIK Canada only has two fighter bases, and given the fact that the country is arguably the largest in the world, this means Canada is not serious about intercepting adversary aircraft. Canada also hasn’t had over 100 fighters in a long time, so it doesn’t have a significant deployable force. So what does Canada want?

Realistically, as long as the US is a stable ally (which is currently in dispute), what does Canada need from its military? It's highly unlikely to be attacked based on distance to potential foes and proximity to the US. An attack from the US would be hard to defend on a military basis --- the difference in forces is overwhelming. Canada would need to heavily rely on alliances to defend against attack from the US, but logistics would be difficult; better to push on diplomacy and/or convincing US armed forces to refuse orders to attack their neighbor.

The Canadian armed forces participate in international missions in cooperation with other forces, and in domestic matters. You don't really need fighter aircraft for domestic missions; and for international missions you need whatever will work in coalitions. With a stable US pushing the F-35, the F-35 is a reasonable candidate for coalition work. Without a stable US, the F-35 is a poor candidate; presuming Canada would continue to be allied with NATO ex-US, whatever that group decides is the future is going to be a better choice.

Why should Canada do coalition missions? They have nothing to do with Canada. Coalition missions are euphemism for beating up a weaker country. As far as I can remember, the F-35 in Canada was always argued by those who want to play John Wayne in foreign lands.

If Canada can't defend against the US, then they should just accept they'll be swallowed by it or start making babies and populating the prairies. In the meantime, if Canada wants to contribute to defense of its allies, it should focus on creating a credible air counter to the Arctic.

> Why should Canada do coalition missions?

Canada does coalition missions because Canada relies on allies for defense. We traipsed along on British misadventures for a century or so because we relied on them for defense and wanted to keep the British happy, and then we traipsed along on American misadventures for the last century because we relied on them for defense and wanted to keep them happy.

Every country on the planet is trying to catch up to the US - this isn’t Canada-specific. Canada’s only real differentiation is that they’re completely isolated, whereas at least Mexico has potential support from the southern direction.

The f-35 lacks the range and speed, coupled with the lack of airbases in Canada means that it is not very effective. Canada needs something like a Su-35, a big twin engine with a large range, but those aren't for sale, obviously.

It's not the F-35's fault it's not suitable for Canada. It was never intended for tundra. It's Canada's fault that for the last 20 years there's been no juicy tender for a long range fighter to entice the europeans or the yanks to come up with a suitable modification of one of their twin fighter jets.

An F-35 doesn't need to be faster than an SU-35 when it has triple the radar lock on distance and missiles the SU can't outrun. The thing has a radar cross-section of a US 25¢ coin and can see beyond the horizon on radar, the Russian planes would be dead before they could react to it. It's such a comically overpowered plane that talking about it makes one sound like a kid at a playground making up rules for his action figure in a make believe fight.

I think you oversell the F35 stealth. It really depend on the angle and speed of the plane, and the age of the radar (fwih the radar signature of a us coin was true in 2014, but optics and radars have improved too, especially recently, and especially thank to the Ukraine drone war feedback). The future seems to be fighter + cheaper drones with similar radar signature rather than full stealth. Which might be easier to do with the small f35 signature for sure.

But every military is aware that the plan to go full fox-3 (+ stealth) might die in the next decade, and we might be back to FOX-2 / dogfighting. Is it likely? Not really, but drone and AI change the battlefield to much to be sure of anything.

I think you're giving the F-35 a lot of unjustified credit. For one, Russian air doctrine has long fielded interchangeable radar/IR homing seekers specifically to target American stealth platforms. If your F-35 is afterburning so it can match an Su-35's supercruise speed, they can get smacked by an R-77 from BVR by a Russian jet just as easily as an AIM-120 could crush the Sukhoi. Radar stealth is not a panacea in the EOTS era, and the F-35's side/rear aspect stealth is not enough to make it invisible at every angle.

Furthermore, as much as I love a slick single-engine fighter, the F-35 is still fundamentally designed to operate in contested airspace. Canada, if they operated the jet for the next 50 years, would likely never have to use it for it's intended joint strike purpose. Unless you habitually molest the borders of other nations, the F-35 is not a purchase that makes a whole lot of sense to taxpayers. If the F-35 was truly "comically overpowered" then Congress wouldn't be asking to restart the F-22 production line, now would they?

> For one, Russian air doctrine has long fielded interchangeable radar/IR homing seekers specifically to target American stealth platforms. […]

Is that a demonstrated capability, or a claimed one? Because if there's one thing the war in Ukraine has shown, it's that Russia seriously overpromised on the performance of its high-tech hardware.

Congress wants to keep the A-10 Warthog flying even though the Air Force desperately wants to be rid of it because it's a good jobs program, there are considerations outside of battlefield prowess that go into their thinking. Not to completely dismiss their opinions because they probably have more information than we do, but their world is not warfare.

Even giving the Russians every capability that they claim to have, it is questionable if they can even keep producing much of the high end of their technology with the sanctions leveled against them. Without Western components they are unable to manufacture a decent range of their good stuff.

The Su-35 has a combat range of 1600 kilometers, and the two Canadian fighter bases are about 2750km apart, which means they can barely fight in the area directly between the bases! The Su-35 would not be an effective interceptor when so far from the threats either (as the response times would be terrible). If Canada wants to defend itself from aerial threats, it just needs more bases and more planes.

If a notional Canuck Su-35 couldn't do it, probably nothing could.

The Su-35 has one of the highest fuel fractions of any military aircraft at about 38% of max take-off weight. That's 9% higher than an F-22 and equates to 11,500kg of fuel.

Just conceptualise 11.5 tonnes of fuel - basically an American yellow school bus being hauled into the air by a fighter than can do Mach 2 and pull 9g.

To be fair though the F-35A has a remarkably high fuel capacity too, about 8,000kg. All that chunkiness has an advantage.

Some quick math…

Jet fuel is about 7 pounds a gallon. So we’re talking about something like 4000 gallons. A bus is something 40 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet, which is like 20000 gallons. So it’s about a fifth of a school bus.

Still a lot, though!

I think dingaling meant "an American yellow school bus in mass", not in volume. 11,500 kg sounds about right for a bus that size.

The US required that Canada buy the F-35 to be able to fit the communications equipment needed for NORAD.

I think the Eurofighter would have been a better fit for Canada. It is already built on multiple production lines, no problem adding another one in Canada for their aircraft.

Germany almost got the Eurofighter Typhoon, but it was not certified to carry nuclear weapons, and lacks SEAD mission capability for the next ~10 years.

There is nothing that can replace the Tornado in the German arsenal at the moment.

Germany has purchased many Typhoons.

You are right, they did. Let me rephrase it: The F-35 purchase is about having a multi role platform in the next 10 years to have nuclear and SEAD mission capability.

A Canadian supersonic interceptor you say?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow

Now let's talk program and unit cost and combat range.

The Arrow was a brilliant plane for its time and purpose. But its cancellation was not wrong (if perhaps immature) - if there are no Tu-92 to shoot down, there's no need for the Arrow.

It's like the CANDU that solved a problem (Canadian inability to enrich U and make welds for PWR) using a solution at hand (world's largest capacity to make heavy water) but that is now largely obsolete (the CANDU's have been increasing their enrichment is an attempt to gain market share).

EDIT: I know that Tu-92, like B-52s still fly as part of the triad. But when the Arrow was designed there was no triad, or even diad. But what does the Arrow do to Tu-92s that an (modern, not the '50s crap) AA missile can't do better?

What alternatives exist, for your model, that can intercept serious supersonic threats and maintain a strategic advantage in VFR escorts that the F-35 cannot?

An F-104 would do the job, with modern avionics and engineering. If you want to guarantee bomber intercept capability, you have to be ready to tackle the nightmare scenario planes in the formation. The F-35 could intercept a Tu-95M with ease, but so could a F-16 or a F-117 armed with Sidewinders. You have to be capable of intercepting the real threats like the Tu-160 or Flanker strike formations, neither of which the F-35 can do much about.

An F-104 with modern avionics and engineering is an undefined, non-existent airplane.

Historically, there are few aircraft that fit that niche. (Mig-25, Mig-31, F-104 as you said etc). It would be cool to have a modern interceptor like that (F-15Ex with the pods, CFTs, and pylons removed??), but there's no existing solution that fits what you seek.

Canada doesn't maintain a military for self defence. If it did we would have pursued nuclear weapon ambitions in the 1940s and focused overwhelming on terrestrial missile systems and attack submarines. Even the interception routine of playing the games with Russian bombers at the edge of airspace is just meaningless theatre -- not only would those bombers long have deployed cruise missiles in a real conflict, the vast majority of devastation would have come from ICBMs launched by ground and sea.

In reality our peacetime military has been a welfare project to assist the US in whatever (mis)adventures it gets in around the globe. Our choice of jets, guns, vehicles, and so on is predicated on "when the US drags us into some conflict or other, what equipment integrates with whatever their goals are". So when we signed up for the F-35, that was purchasing criteria.

The world is quite obviously changing. If Canada were seriously interested in true self defence against all realistic foes, it would be nuclear weapons and nuclear powered submarines...like the sort the US blocked us from being able to buy from the UK back in the 80s.

Canada should really consider creating its own nuclear deterrent. Or becoming the 51st state to get one. I think those are the two options. Trump has told the truth about dismantling his own government, its best to believe him on Canada and assume he intends to do the same to yours.

Right. So Canada needs a nuclear deterrent in order to _not_ become the 51st state.

Pretty sure France would lend Canada some nukes when needed.

1985: Worrying about nuclear proliferation, trying to stop terrorists from designing nukes, drafting security arrangements to disarm nuclear nations

2025: Promoting nuclear proliferation, trying brinkmanship diplomacy with Iran, drafting security arrangements to privatize space-based interceptors

Metal Gear Solid 4 was right, war really has changed!

There’s at least a 3rd option, closer collaboration with the UK and an extension of the UK’s nuclear deterrent to Canada.

I’ve heard a lot of talk of CANZUK again recently and it makes a lot of sense to me.

Doesn’t the UK’s nuclear program rely on America to service it?

I believe the UK uses the same Trident SLBMs as the US, but with their own warheads. I'm not sure if the US maintains the missiles.

I'm not sure, but it is possible we do minor servicing on the missiles. e.g. swap out components for spares.

However the missiles are regularly rotated back in to the common pool in the USA for servicing. The schedule is such that the USA could disable our deterrent within a couple of years if they so desired.

So we have the nukes, but no independent way to deliver them.

Canada doesn't need a US-made missile like the UK, they could drive a regular truck into the heart of any US city

The US would tear itself apart if it attacked Canada any time in the next 50 years minimum. They are in an essentially M.A.D. situation with the US even without nukes because American citizens like Canadians and view them as brothers on top of Canada having tons of European ties and military treaties. Wasting money on nuclear weapons isn't going to put them in any better position than they are already in. The only effective strategy if the US started shit would be to bunker down and go full insurgency against occupation, throw out a bit of good pr/propaganda, and wait for internal US strife to collapse the nation as the US is left completely isolated from the entire world with enemies on all sides and within.