Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
radar? Assume they have lots of money (10-20 billion dollars) and
seven or so years.

Canada is actually well positioned to build the airframe. Bombardier
has very significant experience building subsonic jets and presumably
could handle supersonic jets with time and money. The science behind
this is VERY well known. Heck even Burt Rutan can do this, surely the
nation of Canada can.

Pratt Canada builds lots of gas turbines. They specialize in smaller
jets but again given time and money could likely scale up.

Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
searching.

Missiles are another problem. Web searches suggest that Canada builds
no missiles and more importantly no seaker heads. They might have to
start from scratch on this.

So, can Canada build a modern jet?

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
om...
> Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
> radar? Assume they have lots of money (10-20 billion dollars) and
> seven or so years.
>

Not while they keep electing Liberals. Buying production helicopters, or
deciding to buy production helicopters, seems to be at the outer limit of
their ability under such leadership.

--
Scott

Imagine how the war would be different if the liberals were giving aid and
comfort to America.

tscottme wrote:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
> > Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
> > radar?

> Not while they keep electing Liberals. Buying production helicopters,
> or deciding to buy production helicopters, seems to be at the outer
> limit of their ability under such leadership.

I don't see why Canadian engineers would be *incapable* of it.

The political considerations to which you allude are, of course,
relevant to whether such a project would be authorised, but my
brother-in-law would be more than a bit miffed by the suggestion that
they affect his competence as an engineer.

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message >...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > So, can Canada build a modern jet?
>
> Of course, but the intelligent way to do it is to use an
> off-the-shelf engine and missiles, and concentrate on
> the airframe and avionics. Look at Sweden. Developing
> everything from fresh would guaratuee that the
> development will be excessively costly or produce
> partial failures, leading to a repeat of the CF-105 debacle.
>
> The other thing to do is to avoid relying top much on US
> investment or support, as this could easily result in the
> programme being killed off by the USA as a potential
> competitor in the export market.

I think it would be almost impossible for Canada to build a world
class modern jet (roughly typhoon or rafale level) completely on its
own within a decade. Even a Gripen level craft would be so tough that
the risk would be unacceptable. That kind of disparate design and
specialist manufacturing capability cannot be built up in a decade to
the required competence anymore.

Please note that I do not intend to disparage Canadian scientists,
designers and engineers - the task envisioned is a major challenge to
any industrial society without recent design experiance.

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
> radar? Assume they have lots of money (10-20 billion dollars) and
> seven or so years.

We did it before - in fact it was way ahead of its time. But the
chicken-**** Conservative government that was in power at the time
caved to US pressures to scrap the Arrow.

> Canada is actually well positioned to build the airframe. Bombardier
> has very significant experience building subsonic jets and presumably
> could handle supersonic jets with time and money. The science behind
> this is VERY well known. Heck even Burt Rutan can do this, surely the
> nation of Canada can.
>
> Pratt Canada builds lots of gas turbines. They specialize in smaller
> jets but again given time and money could likely scale up.
>
> Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
> builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
> military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
> searching.

Given that our radar satellite systems make the US nervous (didn't we
have to agree to reduce resolution on RadarSat during US fly-overs?),
I think we can manage this without much trouble. McDonald-Detwiller
certainly has the talent to do this... and the folks at several other
firms which do international military contracts certainly have
additional talent that could be tapped. And the detection systems
used on the Cougar (correct designation?) certainly attest to the
ability to develop very sophisticated detection and tracking capabilities.

> Missiles are another problem. Web searches suggest that Canada builds
> no missiles and more importantly no seaker heads. They might have to
> start from scratch on this.

Common technology --- most countries purchase these from others. And
reverse engineering the missles already in inventory isn;t such a hard
thing to do. Simple web searches would give all the technology, or
one could start with the basics as published in Smithsonian Air &
Space a while back...

> So, can Canada build a modern jet?

Hell, yes.

I am curious as to why you base your assumptions on the results of
"web searches". Nor all companies are so stupid as to place
classified, sensitive, or advanced information on the web -- Canadian
companies don't tend to use the web to hype their military knowledge
as those of some other nations do.

Just because it is not on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist! As
the SETI folks are fond of saying: "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence!".

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> tscottme wrote:
> > Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> >
> > > Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
> > > radar?
>
> > Not while they keep electing Liberals. Buying production helicopters,
> > or deciding to buy production helicopters, seems to be at the outer
> > limit of their ability under such leadership.
>
> I don't see why Canadian engineers would be *incapable* of it.
>
> The political considerations to which you allude are, of course,
> relevant to whether such a project would be authorised, but my
> brother-in-law would be more than a bit miffed by the suggestion that
> they affect his competence as an engineer.

Heaven help us from miffed Canadian engineers. I re-read my reply and
didn't find the words engineering, competence, or incapable. Don't be so
defensive.

--
Scott

Imagine how the war would be different if the liberals were giving aid and
comfort to America.

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
om...
> Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
> radar? Assume they have lots of money (10-20 billion dollars) and
> seven or so years.
>
> Canada is actually well positioned to build the airframe. Bombardier
> has very significant experience building subsonic jets and presumably
> could handle supersonic jets with time and money. The science behind
> this is VERY well known. Heck even Burt Rutan can do this, surely the
> nation of Canada can.
>
> Pratt Canada builds lots of gas turbines. They specialize in smaller
> jets but again given time and money could likely scale up.
>
> Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
> builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
> military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
> searching.

If I recall correctly Litton Systems in Canada made the terrain following
radars for the cruise missle - did someone buy them out?

>
> Missiles are another problem. Web searches suggest that Canada builds
> no missiles and more importantly no seaker heads. They might have to
> start from scratch on this.

Many countries skip this part.

The big thing is building an airframe and flight controls - very different
from a jetliner.

It could be done, but we'd be starting from zero and others have a long
lead - would it make any sense - no.

James Linn

> We did it before - in fact it was way ahead of its time. But the
> chicken-**** Conservative government that was in power at the time
> caved to US pressures to scrap the Arrow.

Oh good christ, not the ****ing Arrow again. I swear, I don't think I know
of any country with as many angry, inferiority-complex afflicted people as
Canada seems to harbor. Or maybe it's just that most of them somehow end up
on this newsgroup.

"Ford Prefect" > wrote in message ...
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> > Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
> > builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
> > military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
> > searching.
>
> Given that our radar satellite systems make the US nervous (didn't we
> have to agree to reduce resolution on RadarSat during US fly-overs?),
> I think we can manage this without much trouble. McDonald-Detwiller
> certainly has the talent to do this... and the folks at several other
> firms which do international military contracts certainly have
> additional talent that could be tapped. And the detection systems
> used on the Cougar (correct designation?) certainly attest to the
> ability to develop very sophisticated detection and tracking capabilities.


I think the antenna for the radar for RADARSAT-2 was built by a Canadian
company named EMS. I think they used their Atlanta office for this though.
Even so, they must have some clue in their two Canadian offices (they have
three main engineering offices total).

It's the right type of antenna (light weight planar array)
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/earth/radarsat2/inf_over.asp
http://www.emsstg.com/

McDermitt and company only manage and sell the data.


> > Missiles are another problem. Web searches suggest that Canada builds
> > no missiles and more importantly no seaker heads. They might have to
> > start from scratch on this.
>
> Common technology --- most countries purchase these from others. And
> reverse engineering the missles already in inventory isn;t such a hard
> thing to do. Simple web searches would give all the technology, or
> one could start with the basics as published in Smithsonian Air &
> Space a while back...

Maybe. I'm sure eventually Canada could do this from first prinipals
if need be. I was hoping for an example of Canadian success in the field.


> I am curious as to why you base your assumptions on the results of
> "web searches". Nor all companies are so stupid as to place
> classified, sensitive, or advanced information on the web -- Canadian
> companies don't tend to use the web to hype their military knowledge
> as those of some other nations do.
>
> Just because it is not on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist! As
> the SETI folks are fond of saying: "Absence of evidence is not
> evidence of absence!".

That's true.

But I'm not looking for classified information. However, most companies
put up web pages and issue press releases when they win major contracts
or make sigificant technological accomplishments. It's absolutley no
secret who makes the F/A-18 radar even if some specific techniques are
classified.

Besides, I don't have a pile of industry pundits camped out in my
living room to ask.

On 27 Jun 2004 23:42:50 -0700, (Charles Talleyrand)
wrote:

> Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
> radar? Assume they have lots of money (10-20 billion dollars) and
> seven or so years.

They already build modern jets, so a fighter shouldn't be much of a
leap at all. There's more than enough talent and capability in the
country.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

(Charles Talleyrand) wrote in
om:

[snip]

> So, can Canada build a modern jet?

A military jet?

Sweden can, no reason why Canada couldn't.

From the technical standpoint, that is.

The economics and politics of the matter are another
thing entirely.

The Canadian military establishment is so chronically
underfunded and overworked ( and likely to stay that
way ) that there is no conceivable circumstance where
a Canadian built fighter/bomber aircraft will ever enter
service.
Indeed given the pressures to fund the social programs
Canadians have gotten used to, I wouldn't be at all
surprised if one fine day the Gummint o'Canada up and
sold off most of their military aircraft.
They might keep a few F-18s to provide a photo-intercept
platform for some sort of fig-leaf national sovereignty
patrols but nothing like a real air force.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

In article >, "Charles Talleyrand"
> wrote:

> "Ford Prefect" > wrote in message
...
> > Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> > > Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
> > > builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
> > > military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
> > > searching.
> >
> > Given that our radar satellite systems make the US nervous (didn't we
> > have to agree to reduce resolution on RadarSat during US fly-overs?),
> > I think we can manage this without much trouble. McDonald-Detwiller
> > certainly has the talent to do this... and the folks at several other
> > firms which do international military contracts certainly have
> > additional talent that could be tapped. And the detection systems
> > used on the Cougar (correct designation?) certainly attest to the
> > ability to develop very sophisticated detection and tracking capabilities.
>
>
> I think the antenna for the radar for RADARSAT-2 was built by a Canadian
> company named EMS. I think they used their Atlanta office for this though.
> Even so, they must have some clue in their two Canadian offices (they have
> three main engineering offices total).
>
> It's the right type of antenna (light weight planar array)
> http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/earth/radarsat2/inf_over.asp
> http://www.emsstg.com/

If you want to build a modern fighter radar, then AESA is the only way to go.

There's only 3 companies in the world with the expertise to do an AESA radar.
2 of them are in the USA, and only one of them has AESA in production.

For Canada to come up to speed with a purely domestic system
would take a minimum of 10 years.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

tscottme wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > tscottme wrote:

> > > Not while they keep electing Liberals.

> > I don't see why Canadian engineers would be *incapable* of it.
> >
> > The political considerations to which you allude are, of course,
> > relevant to whether such a project would be authorised, but my
> > brother-in-law would be more than a bit miffed by the suggestion
> > that they affect his competence as an engineer.
>
> Heaven help us from miffed Canadian engineers. I re-read my reply
> and didn't find the words engineering, competence, or incapable.
> Don't be so defensive.

You were clearly having a dig at the politicians.

That said, while you didn't explicitly malign the engineers, the nearest
you got to praising them was with that "Not while ..." bit.

Methinks we agree. :-)

In message <KZ8Ec.21440$rh.7992@okepread02>, t_mark >
writes
>> We did it before - in fact it was way ahead of its time. But the
>> chicken-**** Conservative government that was in power at the time
>> caved to US pressures to scrap the Arrow.
>
>Oh good christ, not the ****ing Arrow again. I swear, I don't think I know
>of any country with as many angry, inferiority-complex afflicted people as
>Canada seems to harbor.

Just be glad that the "CF-105 would have been great if the US hadn't
cheated!" crowd keep the "TSR.2 would have been great if the US hadn't
cheated!"crowd in the background. (Airframe was coming together, but the
nav/attack avionics were still vapourware - doesn't stop the tendency to
blame the US for everything)

It's a beautiful airframe, one still parked in a Duxford hangar between
a Vulcan and a Tornado GR.1 . Doesn't mean it would have worked in
service, however stupid the subsequent decisions were.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message ...
> (Charles Talleyrand) wrote in
> om:
>
> [snip]
>
> > So, can Canada build a modern jet?
>
> A military jet?
>
> Sweden can, no reason why Canada couldn't.

In some real sense, Sweden is only building parts of a military jet and
buying some of the hard bits from the US. It's not obvious that
Sweden could build a modern high performance hard-to-jam
radar for instance.

The parts that concern me most after extensive (almost an hour :-)
research is Canada's ability to build a suitable radar and missile system.
I believe they could build the airframe and the jet engine.

> The economics and politics of the matter are another
> thing entirely.

Yep. Of course.

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message ...
> If you want to build a modern fighter radar, then AESA is the only way to go.
>
> There's only 3 companies in the world with the expertise to do an AESA radar.
> 2 of them are in the USA, and only one of them has AESA in production.
>

I'm pretty sure the Russians and the French would disagree with you.

> For Canada to come up to speed with a purely domestic system
> would take a minimum of 10 years.

Could you offer some justification for this estimate? I'd be interested in any
reasoning you might offer.

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> In some real sense, Sweden is only building parts of a military jet and
> buying some of the hard bits from the US. It's not obvious that
> Sweden could build a modern high performance hard-to-jam
> radar for instance.

"Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne
radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems.
The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance
drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability.
Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be
considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The
AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually
and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a
fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept
and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar
operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a
consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver
modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful
degradation."

http://www.ericsson.com/microwave/press/case/000724_4.shtml

"noname" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
> > In some real sense, Sweden is only building parts of a military jet and
> > buying some of the hard bits from the US. It's not obvious that
> > Sweden could build a modern high performance hard-to-jam
> > radar for instance.
>
> "Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne
> radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems.
> The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance
> drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability.
> Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be
> considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The
> AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually
> and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a
> fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept
> and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar
> operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a
> consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver
> modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful
> degradation."
>
> http://www.ericsson.com/microwave/press/case/000724_4.shtml
>


Ericsson's radar has been developped with technologies and parts from
Raytheon.

Older, but still on the same site :
http://www.ericsson.com/microwave/press/case/aesa.shtml

ArVa

In article >, "Charles Talleyrand"
> wrote:

> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> > If you want to build a modern fighter radar, then AESA is the only way
to go.
> >
> > There's only 3 companies in the world with the expertise to do an AESA
radar.
> > 2 of them are in the USA, and only one of them has AESA in production.
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure the Russians and the French would disagree with you.

I took the French into account.
The Russians...I'm not sure that what they're building is an AESA.
I could be wrong though.

>
> > For Canada to come up to speed with a purely domestic system
> > would take a minimum of 10 years.
>
> Could you offer some justification for this estimate? I'd be interested
in any
> reasoning you might offer.

I takes very specialized knowledge and facilities to build an AESA.
It's a fair bit different than a mechanically scanned array.
Someone with no base in building fighter radars would have to bring
a lot of engineers up to speed, while simultaneously building factories,
foundries,
and test facilities. That takes time.
Other than that I really can't comment on specifics.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

in article , tscottme at
wrote on 6/28/04 4:23:

>
> Not while they keep electing Liberals. Buying production helicopters, or
> deciding to buy production helicopters, seems to be at the outer limit of
> their ability under such leadership.

Let me remind you who killed the CF105 Arrow, that Conservative twit
John Dief-the-Chief! The Liberals don't have a track record to be proud of
since the demise of the Arrow either. Developing a modern effective fighter
is not practical for a single country these days. For example the latest
European Joint Strike Fighter is a multi-nation effort. On the other hand,
do we really need one! I am ex-air force and the days of a manned fighter
to the disgust of hot shot pilots is drawing to an end. The un-manned
fighter will before long take over these tasks according to some. The
Raptor will probably be the last U.S. manned fighter. Man can't handle the
stresses placed on him in modern airframes so un-manned versions will
probably dominate in the future.

Ed Majden > wrote in message >..

<snip>

I am ex-air force and the days of a manned fighter
> to the disgust of hot shot pilots is drawing to an end. The un-manned
> fighter will before long take over these tasks according to some. The
> Raptor will probably be the last U.S. manned fighter. Man can't handle the
> stresses placed on him in modern airframes so un-manned versions will
> probably dominate in the future.


I shouldn't have to say more...Manned combat aircraft will continue
for two reasons, one political, and the other biological if you will.
Politically they need a realtime human in the loop, and moreover, war
being the great sport of nations, the raison d'etre of the fighter is
largely to give the knight a mount for the jousting. Missiles don't
really require a high-G platform and if laser weapons replace guns,
they'll be turreted.


__________________________________________________ _______________

Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would
displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make
the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy
Family, to name four good ones

t_mark wrote:
>
> > We did it before - in fact it was way ahead of its time. But the
> > chicken-**** Conservative government that was in power at the time
> > caved to US pressures to scrap the Arrow.
>
> Oh good christ, not the ****ing Arrow again.

My sentiments exactly.

> I swear, I don't think I know
> of any country with as many angry, inferiority-complex afflicted people as
> Canada seems to harbor.

Neither do I, and I live in Canada.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:58:58 +0000, Andrew Chaplin wrote:

>
>> of any country with as many angry, inferiority-complex afflicted people as
>> Canada seems to harbor.


Its not an inferiority complex.

It just evokes nostalgia. Its much like an old timer who reminisces
about the Spitfire he flew in WWII.