US Airforce is down sizing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well I reckon that's better than losing them prosecuting illegal wars.

Not better if you need them for the "legal wars", NORAD, or training.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not better if you need them for the "legal wars", NORAD, or training.

Wars kill people, so when you do it illegally it's kind of like murder. I'd rather leave the planes parked. Better for the conscience if not the machines.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wars kill people, so when you do it illegally it's kind of like murder. I'd rather leave the planes parked. Better for the conscience if not the machines.

Then why does Canada kill people in illegal wars using tactical aircraft ? Conscience must have been asleep, eh ?

[On Guard for Thee]

Then why does Canada kill people in illegal wars using tactical aircraft ? Conscience must have been asleep, eh ?

We said NO to Iraq if you recall.

[venson]

Then why does Canada kill people in illegal wars using tactical aircraft ? Conscience must have been asleep, eh ?

Most killing done by Canadian tactical aircraft happened protecting Canadian troops in Afghanistan, a legal war carried out in support of Canada's primary friend who suffered 3,000 innocent people murdered in 2001.

[waldo]

Clearly....like Lockheed and Boeing are teaming up to develop the next generation of bomber and their main rival will be Northrop Grumman.....Or the coming 6th generation of fighters to replace the Super Hornet, Strike Eagle and Raptor etc....

again, unsurprisingly, you completely miss (purposely?) the point! He mentions that 'next gen' bomber... and the target 2025 delivery (emphasis on target). The "coming 6th gen"... of course, you buy into the buzzword bingo gen designations - you actually believe the F-35 is so-called "5th gen"... of course you do! The point? Again, the gap... the gap that has, "two secure, dedicated fixed-wing military production lines (and only one prime contractor). Since you live and breathe LockMart/F-35 you see/interpret no problem with this... of course you do!

.

I fully understand what he’s saying…….His line of thinking would see the United States today and in the near term, procuring not only the F-35 and F-22, but also the YF-23 and X-32, in combination with legacy aircraft, all in small numbers being built by various manufacturers………That is not viable today, just as it wasn’t in the early 90s.

And though one of his ideals is the protection of many manufacturers, such largess is what lead to the current climate or:

no - you don't understand what the article author is saying... or the point I've highlighted several times, a few posts back and several times previously in assorted F-35 related threads. Again, all 'eggs are in one basket' for the U.S.; since Canada appears resolved to always "buy American", that's our basket, as well. But again, you actually believe the LockMart propaganda... you clearly have no concerns as to what reliance on a single prime contractor (and a clearly flawed/failed F-35 plane means). Change the procurement philosophy focused on lowest unit cost... spread those higher unit costs over an extended period and voila... more viable program/product choices instead of a failed/flawed believe that joint fighter programs actually save costs... and don't compromise design/performance, notwithstanding failed predictions of commonality between variants within the joint program. And yes, see the latest Rand report I've been flogging in that regard.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

We said NO to Iraq if you recall.

Off topic, and besides, you didn't even know that Canada bombed Iraq in 1991, claiming to have been there. ZERO credibility.

[bush_cheney2004]

Most killing done by Canadian tactical aircraft happened protecting Canadian troops in Afghanistan, a legal war carried out in support of Canada's primary friend who suffered 3,000 innocent people murdered in 2001.

Negatory...Canada's CF-18s never made that hop. It was a War Too Far.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Again, all 'eggs are in one basket' for the U.S.; since Canada appears resolved to always "buy American", that's our basket, as well. But again, you actually believe the LockMart propaganda... you clearly have no concerns as to what reliance on a single prime contractor (and a clearly flawed/failed F-35 plane means).

So the Americans should have multiple platforms in production by multiple contractors because Canada wants a more diverse cross border shopping experience?

[Guest Derek L]

again, unsurprisingly, you completely miss (purposely?) the point! He mentions that 'next gen' bomber... and the target 2025 delivery (emphasis on target). The "coming 6th gen"... of course, you buy into the buzzword bingo gen designations - you actually believe the F-35 is so-called "5th gen"... of course you do! The point? Again, the gap... the gap that has, "two secure, dedicated fixed-wing military production lines (and only one prime contractor). Since you live and breathe LockMart/F-35 you see/interpret no problem with this... of course you do!

.

So you feel Boeing should also be producing aircraft, “just because” Lockheed won the JSF program? Should DoD also be purchasing Boeing’s failed X-32 Joint Strike Fighter just to spread out production? Quite obviously DoD from the onset had staked the JSF competition as a “winner take all” approach because they didn’t want multiple aircraft types, and now, through the natural course, production has waned on the legacy aircraft (F-15, F-16 and F/A-18) and these lines are shutting down.

Shutting down because nobody wants their older legacy aircraft designs. This has nothing to do with Lockheed favouritism, fore if Boeing’s X-32 had of won the same situation would have presented itself, but economics.

no - you don't understand what the article author is saying... or the point I've highlighted several times, a few posts back and several times previously in assorted F-35 related threads. Again, all 'eggs are in one basket' for the U.S.; since Canada appears resolved to always "buy American", that's our basket, as well. But again, you actually believe the LockMart propaganda... you clearly have no concerns as to what reliance on a single prime contractor (and a clearly flawed/failed F-35 plane means). Change the procurement philosophy focused on lowest unit cost... spread those higher unit costs over an extended period and voila... more viable program/product choices instead of a failed/flawed believe that joint fighter programs actually save costs... and don't compromise design/performance, notwithstanding failed predictions of commonality between variants within the joint program. And yes, see the latest Rand report I've been flogging in that regard.

The Clinton administration sought the JSF program from the onset as a “all eggs in one basket” approach because of the failed programs and costly multiple aircraft fleets that were commonplace during the Cold-War……….Despite RAND’s “study”, real world precedent is paramount.

[Guest Derek L]

So the Americans should have multiple platforms in production by multiple contractors because Canada wants a more diverse cross border shopping experience?

In essence, that is what the author of Waldo’s linked piece (who’s company also represents Boeing, Northrop and Lockheed) wants…………Even though reality has proven such an approach as both unwanted and unaffordable by the actual consumer……….

[bush_cheney2004]

In essence, that is what the author of Waldo’s linked piece (who’s company also represents Boeing, Northrop and Lockheed) wants…………Even though reality has proven such an approach as both unwanted and unaffordable by the actual consumer……….

Further, Canada's medium and heavy airlift procurements have benefited from such an arrangement. Unless the usual suspects wish to complain about Hercs and Globemasters as well.

[Guest Derek L]

Further, Canada's medium and heavy airlift procurements have benefited from such an arrangement. Unless the usual suspects wish to complain about Hercs and Globemasters as well.

And for those old enough to remember, the then McDonnell Douglas Globemaster faced much the same criticism during it’s development (delays, too costly, too reliant on developing technology etc) as the F-35 does today…….(uninformed) haters going to hate I suppose.

[bush_cheney2004]

And for those old enough to remember, the then McDonnell Douglas Globemaster faced much the same criticism during it’s development (delays, too costly, too reliant on developing technology etc) as the F-35 does today…….(uninformed) haters going to hate I suppose.

Boeing will shut down C-17 production in 2015, have too few orders to feed the waning supply chain. Canada will have to go shopping for the A400M.

[Guest Derek L]

Boeing will shut down C-17 production in 2015, have too few orders to feed the waning supply chain. Canada will have to go shopping for the A400M.

Not going to happen.....we're all good for airlift now with our new Globemasters and Jerky birds.......That said, I’ve heard, there is a good possibility that Saudi Arabia could purchase a couple of dozen (apparently they’re stalling their purchase of C-130Js and looking towards a split buy) and there is an outside chance that Japan could select it (over a domestic aircraft)…….both of which would/could extend production into the 2017-2018 timeframe…….

And of course, Boeing is also self funding and producing about 12 additional aircraft (sans a current buyer) in the hopes that existing users will pick-up a couple……..I know India, the RAF, RAAF and the RCAF would all like more, but don’t currently have the budgetary room to fit additional aircraft in…….yet.

Post 2015 could change this for the United Kingdom and Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not going to happen.....we're all good for airlift now with our new Globemasters and Jerky birds.......

Boeing cannot continue to bleed money for minimum C-17 buys. They just survived a huge labour gambit in Washington state. Consolidation is real and the defense dollars are drying up.

[Guest Derek L]

Boeing cannot continue to bleed money for minimum C-17 buys. They just survived a huge labour gambit in Washington state. Consolidation is real and the defense dollars are drying up.

Certainly, but as is obvious, Boeing is not adverse to making gambles…….and when they fail, exerting pressure on Congress and the Senate {see KC-X do-over} is their de-facto MO...

Perhaps Boeing is attempting to stall the present inevitable for the new occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave….or even a change of mood this November.

[waldo]

So you feel Boeing should also be producing aircraft, just because Lockheed won the JSF program?

no - the point you keep ignoring is the resultant reliance on a single source prime contractor... whatever contractor that might be. The double-down slam against LockMart simply reflects the associated failings of the F-35 tied to that single source.

The Clinton administration sought the JSF program from the onset as a all eggs in one basket approach because of the failed programs and costly multiple aircraft fleets that were commonplace during the Cold-War.Despite RANDs study, real world precedent is paramount.

that's not the history I've read. JAST had nothing to do with replacing failed programs... the separate STOVL pursuit by the Pentagon's DARPA seems to have made sense. Understanding the ties between the Pentagon and the Clinton admin that brought JAST & Darpa together seems, to me, a bit of a mystery. I'm not clear what precedent you're presuming on. And, much to your obvious consternation, that Rand study I keep flogging is, in itself, a reflection on the real world... the real world of failed joint program undertakings as compared to single-service program pursuits.

[Guest Derek L]

no - the point you keep ignoring is the resultant reliance on a single source prime contractor... whatever contractor that might be. The double-down slam against LockMart simply reflects the associated failings of the F-35 tied to that single source.

And the alternative?

that's not the history I've read. JAST had nothing to do with replacing failed programs... the separate STOVL pursuit by the Pentagon's DARPA seems to have made sense. Understanding the ties between the Pentagon and the Clinton admin that brought JAST & Darpa together seems, to me, a bit of a mystery. I'm not clear what precedent you're presuming on. And, much to your obvious consternation, that Rand study I keep flogging is, in itself, a reflection on the real world... the real world of failed joint program undertakings as compared to single-service program pursuits.

The then McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II program that was cancelled during the prior Bush administration due to it’s high cost and pigeon holed intended role (replacement of the A-6 Intruder) was the first domino in the corporate restructuring in the defence industry and initial signal that going forward DoD wasn’t prepared to fund carte blanche individual single service, big ticket items with the same gusto that it did during the cold war.

Though I’ve stated in the various JSF threads that the complexity of the STOVL requirement was indeed a giant hurdle for both Lockheed and Boeing (and the Boeing X-32 STOVL aircraft ultimately lost the competition for Boeing) and in turn the entire program in both delays and cost, from the perspective of the two tier 1 partners (USA & UK) if the STOVL wasn’t included into the JSF program, it likely wouldn’t have ever been built.

And that was not an acceptable outcome for the USMC, RAF and RN FAA.

[PIK]

I did not say that. But honestly, I don't think Canada can defeat any of the strong nations without help of US no matter Canada has military or not. But ignore this sentence if you really think it is non-sense.

I don't expect send Canadian troops out of Canada to follow US to kill others and make the world more unsafe. I think they should stay in Canada.

Most people agree with me. Most politicians don't.

I think our army would do well against some bigger forces. And if america invaded if would fail unless they went nuclear. Edited January 13, 2014 by Charles Anthony
fixed quotation

[Guest Derek L]

I think our army would do well against some bigger forces. And if america invaded if would fail unless they went nuclear.

No it wouldn’t…..Saddam’s forces were far better equipped at the start of both wars with Iraq……Couple this with very sparse munitions stockpiles across Canada, at most, we’d role over within a week.

[Bonam]

No it wouldn’t…..Saddam’s forces were far better equipped at the start of both wars with Iraq……Couple this with very sparse munitions stockpiles across Canada, at most, we’d role over within a week.

Arab militaries fail because of terrible training, discipline, tactics, and leadership, not because of deficiency in equipment. How many times have their incompetent armies failed to achieve victory against Israel despite outnumbering it 100:1? I suspect Canada's military would not have these problems.

Anyway, Canada can use the same strategy that Russia used to repel Napoleon and Hitler... winter, coupled with the ability to retreat into ever more hostile terrain.

[Army Guy]

Arab militaries fail because of terrible training, discipline, tactics, and leadership, not because of deficiency in equipment. How many times have their incompetent armies failed to achieve victory against Israel despite outnumbering it 100:1? I suspect Canada's military would not have these problems.

Anyway, Canada can use the same strategy that Russia used to repel Napoleon and Hitler... winter, coupled with the ability to retreat into ever more hostile terrain.

Our militaries current state you be lucky to last a week, again'st any other country in the world, as for the US, i give us 48 hours at best...A few Airbourne landings, a couple of Amp landings, a dozen or so cross border entrances...Ya i'd say 48 hrs and Canadian citizens would be flying the red white and blue, singing oh say can you see.....but that is exactly the way Canadians want it.... The men and women of our Military can only do so much with what we as citizens give them....

As for using the same strategy as the Russians, we don't have hidden tanks, or masses of equipment hidden away some where to defeat anyone....perhaps if our split apart and used small unit hit and run tactics, but you really under estamate the US capabilities...and over est ours....by about 1000 times....

Your talking about a nation that has perhaps 80 leo A4 tanks, and maybe 40 Leo II A4 tanks, LAV III IFV that are worn out, F-18 that are older than most NATO aircraft flying today, and only 80 of those....a small hande full of frigs on each coast....we might have a chance if botswana attacked....

[Guest Derek L]

Arab militaries fail because of terrible training, discipline, tactics, and leadership, not because of deficiency in equipment. How many times have their incompetent armies failed to achieve victory against Israel despite outnumbering it 100:1? I suspect Canada's military would not have these problems.

Well all those reasons are very true, how do you think the Arabs would have made out with 3 days to a weeks worth of munitions? For instance, it’s not a stretch to say that some Canadian gun owners have more 5.56mm & 7.62mm FMJ within their own personal collections then most reserve Canadian Mechanized Brigade Groups…..

Anyway, Canada can use the same strategy that Russia used to repel Napoleon and Hitler... winter, coupled with the ability to retreat into ever more hostile terrain.

Canada maybe conducts one (winter) arctic warfare exercise every couple of years for a company sized formation……the Americans have two regular force Infantry Brigades based in Alaska alone…….A “Canadian winter” would be more of a hindrance to Canadian Forces then Americans.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Anyway, Canada can use the same strategy that Russia used to repel Napoleon and Hitler... winter, coupled with the ability to retreat into ever more hostile terrain.

Interesting strategy, as Canadians have certainly not practiced or demonstrated this capability or desire to date, with most living within 200 kilometers of the U.S border.