Derek 2.0

A replacement of older lightweight rifles and carbines.

Mike Byers did nothing of the sort.......he proved, using USAF data that more single engine aircraft have had class A engine events then twin engine aircraft.......Now of course, he failed to mention how many single F-16s are operated by the Americans versus twin-engine F-15s........ And of course, once the F-15 and F-16 were equipped with a new engine design, these rates changed again, and has allowed the F-16 to achieve the best safety record within the United States Military…….

Differing times and differing requirements……when we purchased the Hornets, the F-15A/C’s ability as a low level strike fighter was sparse and the price tag too great to meet our requirements (in terms of tails) in both Canada and Germany……As to today, it’s still has it’s origins in the 1960s and of course the proposed “Silent Eagle” will cost more (if developed) then the most expensive of the F-35 variants.

I largely agree with that predicted outcome...

Like most nations militaries, single role aircraft started to become a luxury item that most couldn’t afford…….If Canada had of purchased the then extremely expensive F-15 in lieu of the Hornet, we still would have had to purchase a second type to fulfill our commitments in both Germany and Norway.

Why do you say that? Amongst all methods of homicide within the United States, rifles (including AR-15s) make up less then 5% of murder weapons used……One would think if that was their exclusive intent, far more people would use AR-15s in the commission of a crime then is current. By far most firearms related injuries and homicides in the United States have been committed with rimfire firearms.

Chrétien and Martin entered the program prior to the competition between both Boeing and Lockheed…. So who do you think is better suited then the RCAF to define technical requirements for the RCAF?

Based on the concepts of the 6th generation fighters that are public, what the Russians and Chinese are building and the initial development of the next generation of American bombers, yes, I fully do expect to still see manned fighters in that timeframe in concert with next generation UCAVs as a supplement…….the technology to replace manned/remotely manned fighters in total will likely not be seen within many of our lifetimes….

The last one would be the Sabre, and before that the P-51.

You’re confused on definitions…..multi-role is what we have with the Hornet and what others have with the F-16, the three variants of the F-35 are all multi-role aircraft……makes sense? An air superiority aircraft, like the F-22 and the prior F-15 are namely single role (air-to-air)…..The F-35, like the F-16 and F/A-18 will do air-to-air, interdiction, close air support and electronic warfare……very few nations have operated single role aircraft for decades.

Of course and what will this policy piece state? Clearly the Forces are a reflection of the Government of Canada and it’s views on foreign policy and where Canada see’s itself on the World’s stage……This has been largely consistent since Pearson……..And with that, you do get a “everything for every military branch”, or better put, a multirole modern military force. I don’t understand what you mean by “real requirements” for a modern fighter force…..are you suggesting our current ones are not real?

I’m not sure I understand…..clearly the F-35 will continue in the roles currently carried out by our Hornets, well also adding new capabilities to the three elements of our armed forces.

So you’re comparing the RCAF to a 16 year old? Who do you think is better suited to define technical requirements for our military? And as already pointed out, our participation in the program began with Chrétien.

Do you think the RCAF is not capable of defining the requirements? If so, why and who do you think is better suited?

A multipurpose fighter, like the aircraft that it will namely replace, the F-16 and F/A-18......A true air superiority fighter is not multirole and is intended as a pure air-to-air asset…...

The Danes "competition" mimics ours in nearly every way, with the Rafale replaced by the Gripen NG.

Not off script, but not fully quoted both in word and context. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140202/NEWS04/302020005/Air-Combat-Command-s-challenge-Buy-new-modernize-older-aircraft%3Cbr/%3E Of course this is in view with the current and past make-up of the USAF, which relied on a similar complementary relationship between the F-15 and F-16.

As we've had the Dutch conversation prior, I fully expect the Danes to follow suite.....I see no indications as to why they wouldn't, Especially based on their longstanding bilateral military cooperation with the Norwegians……Just as I expect the Belgians to follow the Dutch.

That’s true in some regards, but the RCAF has always set it’s sights on mission effectiveness over politics……Be it the F-4/F-105/A-4, to a desire for C-141s back in the 60s and 70s, the EH-101 and now the F-35.

No, my “prediction” of further warnings and/or an actual downgrade is based off of Moody’s prior warnings….said warnings, at this point, do not appear to be of concern with the Ontario Liberal government, nor their supporters. As to Hudak…..I dunno…..I think his personal appeal that is akin with garbage bag water played into that…..and of course third party advertising I’m sure didn’t hurt.

Your point of view doesn’t appear simpatico with the actions of the JSF partner nations, be it the elected governments and/or the military end users…..They of course are in various stages of transition to the F-35. One could surmise that if they actually shared your point of view, that they would be looking elsewhere….this of course isn’t so.

Wait until sometime this summer, well Ontarionians are at their cottages, for Moody’s to downgrade or threaten to downgrade, Ontario’s credit rating…..Once this takes place I fully expect Wynne to either modify her budget or raise taxes…… we shall see.

It some respects, but it’s more so the realities associated with transitioning form current legacy aircraft to a new aircraft…..i.e. ~5-10 pilots from a given nation will become type qualified, then return to their respected nations to stand-up a conversion squadron with their initial purchased aircraft, that will then start transitioning the remainder of their force to the new aircraft…….The same is also true with enlisted aircraft maintainers…..As is the case with the Royal Navy presently that has up to 1/3rd of some trades on exchange with the Americans and to a lesser extent the French, so as to ease the transition to the F-35B and Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. This is not a unique method only associated with the F-35, but common practice amongst many modern militaries with a working relationship with the United States (and other major defence hardware producing nations)

Well that is what some members are doing (Britain, Australia, Turkey, the Dutch) with a small initial purchase of a handful of aircraft that are contributed to the multinational pool of aircraft in the United States. These aircraft are being used to train the initial conversion instructors of said nations militaries........

tranche = portion.......in context, we would purchase our 65 aircraft in several batches or tranche.....ie 15 aircraft buy + 30 aircraft buy + 20 aircraft buy +10-15 aircraft option....