F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Smallc]

Most upper level military people realize you won't stop ISIL with a F 18. It does keep a few of the boys and girls busy, but not effective.

I think it's effective as an immediate solution, when done very selectively. It's far from a solution to the overall problem.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think it's effective as an immediate solution, when done very selectively. It's far from a solution to the overall problem.

The overall problem will exist regardless of how many bombs you drop. Matter of fact, it's a lot to do with what caused this particular problem in the first place.

[Smallc]

The overall problem will exist regardless of how many bombs you drop. Matter of fact, it's a lot to do with what caused this particular problem in the first place.

There is a place for bombing though. It can be effective as a barrier to genocide, as it was used earlier in this case.

[socialist]

There is a place for bombing though. It can be effective as a barrier to genocide, as it was used earlier in this case.

Bombing, when done strategically, can be effective.

Edited December 9, 2015 by socialist

[Smallc]

He was definitely weak with his answers today.

The policy positions were part of the platform the got him elected. He has every right to follow through on them.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is a place for bombing though. It can be effective as a barrier to genocide, as it was used earlier in this case.

Nobody expects that bombing alone will stem the ISIL scourge, but just as it was used in Kosovo and other places, bombing can force a negotiated political solution.

[Smallc]

Nobody expects that bombing alone will stem the ISIL scourge, but just as it was used in Kosovo and other places, bombing can force a negotiated political solution.

It definitely can be. I would like Canada to continue what its doing, whilst also expanding other roles. I understand keeping a promise though.

[On Guard for Thee]

There is a place for bombing though. It can be effective as a barrier to genocide, as it was used earlier in this case.

The best use of it would be destroying the military equipment the Americans left behind iSIL is now using.

[Smallc]

The best use of it would be destroying the military equipment the Americans left behind iSIL is now using.

Definitely.

[bush_cheney2004]

It definitely can be. I would like Canada to continue what its doing, whilst also expanding other roles. I understand keeping a promise though.

FDR on October 30th, 1940 (campaigning for another term):

"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

[Derek 2.0]

no - new defense budget appropriations in Australia for 2016 are operational focused intended to cover the costs of existing military deployments in the Middle East. Stated reasons for the defense white paper delay are to adjust prioritization in the face of ever increasing costs. Ever increasing concerns over activity within the South China Sea has calls for a greater emphasis on navy ship/submarine building... that it be prioritized.

Not at all, the White Paper is to define Australian security needs and procurement through the next decade plus.....operations against the IS are measured in the 10s, perhaps 100s of millions, planned Australian defense spending will be in the tens of billions.

Though the South China sea plays into Australian defense needs, their far greater concern (for the last 50+ years) is another Konfrontasi with the 250 million Muslims to their North..........hence their requirement for a organic long range strike capability.

as for Singapore and their $1Billion decision to upgrade F-16s, you said their existing life span before the upgrades was into the late 2020s, early 2030s. I provided you a link that stated the upgrades would be completed by 2023... why would Singapore upgrade when the planes have, according to you, another decade+ left within them? Your unsubstantiated statements are noted.

Simple, the same reason we started a program to upgrade our Hornets in 2001, spanning most of the "oughts" (and costing over $2 billion), even though we had intended to replace our Hornets starting in 2017 through the early 2020s.

and, again... you simply choose to dismiss the relatively recent calls for F-35 numbers review from both U.S. Senator John McCain and the U.S. Joint Chief. Here's another... breaking news - how will you dismiss this one?

I noticed you stopped short on the quote:

"The F-35 is not — it is impossible in this budget to entirely protect it, just put it that way," Kendall responded. "Dollar for dollar, it probably gives us more combat capability than any other investment we're making, but we have a lot of other things that we have to do as well. So it's not entirely fenced. I can't say it's entirely fenced [off from cuts]."

Furthermore:

At the same time, McCord said to expect some savings from the bomber program compared with the Future Years Defense Program, the result of the contract award sliding to the right. Simply put, because the contract was delayed, less money is needed in FY17 and it can be pushed to the next year.

What else could be cut? Eaglen highlighted Army helicopter procurement as one area that could be slowed. The CH-47F and UH-60M helicopters are operating under a multiyear procurement and so are unlikely to see big production dips. The AH-64E and UH-72 Lakotas are not under multiyear and so may be more attractive targets for the Pentagon, although the Lakota is seen as a priority for training and the AH-64E is expected to enter a multiyear in 2017.

Another target could potentially come from procurement of Naval aviation assets, such as the V-22 or F/A-18, although the latter has proved intensely popular in Congress. And the Air Force, in the midst of a series of large modernization programs, could once again kick funding for the T-X trainer replacement and the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARs) aircraft down the road.

So this begs the question, why would they cut the program that provides the most "combat capability" over any other investment?

[Smoke]

The policy positions were part of the platform the got him elected. He has every right to follow through on them.

Gee, I recall Stephen Harper and Mike Harris doing exactly what they said they would do in their platforms.....yet the left went ballistic. Too bad the same "right" to follow thru on THEIR promises wasn't afforded to them, but well, Liberal hypocrisy ya know....

[Peter F]

Too bad the same "right" to follow thru on THEIR promises wasn't afforded to them,

Was there a coup? An assassination? Was Mr.Harper kidnapped? Was Mr.Harris?

The right to carry through on their promises was indeed afforded them...until finally they were both given the heave-ho by the electorate through elections.

Criticism - even Ballistic criticism - isn't denial of Right.

[waldo]

Not at all, the White Paper is to define Australian security needs and procurement through the next decade plus.....operations against the IS are measured in the 10s, perhaps 100s of millions, planned Australian defense spending will be in the tens of billions.

Though the South China sea plays into Australian defense needs, their far greater concern (for the last 50+ years) is another Konfrontasi with the 250 million Muslims to their North..........hence their requirement for a organic long range strike capability.

gee, thanks for stating the obvious on what the defense white paper is for! The point was that the only new monies allocated outside the reach of the prioritization being worked on within that (now delayed) white paper, are those for existing operational requirements in the Middle East. And as I said, it's the South China Sea that will drive their defense prioritization... all told, China’s actions in the South China Sea are forcing their hand... forcing Australia to make tough decisions on its regional alliances. A most delicate balance considering China is Australia's principal trade partner, notwithstanding China's own significant moves in regards to submarine development. Of course, the extended delays of the F-35 "strike capability" are also a driving factor. How droll of you to reach back 50+ years to play the Muslim card... here's a thought: Muslims within China are a significant minority!

.

Simple, the same reason we started a program to upgrade our Hornets in 2001, spanning most of the "oughts" (and costing over $2 billion), even though we had intended to replace our Hornets starting in 2017 through the early 2020s.

and the F-35 delays had no influence on that 2nd upgrade in 2007? Really? And the last upgrade announcement - where's that at right now? The one announced by Harper Conservatives that was expected to run from 2016 to 2019? You know, the one driven by the fact Canada was to have received its first F-35s in 2016, later delayed to 2017 and then to 2018..... where the CF-18s were to be retired by 2020 when all of Canada’s F-35s were to have been delivered. Any thoughts on what happens to that last planned Harper Conservative intent to extend the life of the Hornets... yet again?

and again, if the F-35 was on time, on money, on capability, there is no way Singapore would upgrade its entire fleet of 62 F-16s... it would have made sense to have a staggered upgrade on a portion of that total... staggered in line with F-35s coming forward. But Singapore has lost all confidence in the F-35... so instead it chooses to upgrade every F-16 with key latest 'strike technologies'... wasn't that what the F-35 was to bring?

.

So this begs the question, why would they cut the program that provides the most "combat capability" over any other investment?

it's really quite telling to watch you squirm and twist/contort... in this latest, you simply choose to ignore the direct statements from Kendall (U.S. Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) that speak to the likelihood of production cuts to the F-35... that it can't be protected from cuts! Just as you did with the statements from U.S. Senator McCain calling for a review on the production numbers over the next decade+... just as you did with the statements from the U.S. Joint Chief concerning a review of the total number of F-35s required.

.

[Smoke]

Criticism - even Ballistic criticism - isn't denial of Right.

Tell that to smallc

[Peter F]

No need. smallc appears to understand that quite well.

[waldo]

Link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-withdraw-jets-fighting-islamic-state-within-weeks-233548384.html

hey now! What kind of an OP is this without any personal comment added?

Yup. Let Trudeau Jr. and his Liberals have their way. We already know he's too stubborn to amend his "promises" in light of new information or circumstances.

those 6 CF-18s are symbolic... they have participated in only 2% of the entire bombing campaign... they come back from 2/3rds of their sorties without ever dropping a single bomb. Many NATO members have chosen not to participate directly in the bombing. Again, Canada's military contribution, as stated during the election campaign and reinforced since, can be better applied in terms of air-surveillance, air-refueling, air transport and training.

[Moonlight Graham]

He's also giving our allies time to replace us. He could have pulled out immediately. He didn't.

I agree. If you're going to pull out, you have to at least do it responsibly. It's not a NATO mission, Canada is a sovereign country that determines its own foreign policy. If we "listened to allies" we would invaded Iraq in 2003.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Peter F]

Link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-withdraw-jets-fighting-islamic-state-within-weeks-233548384.html

Thats a pretty feeble basis for a claim that Trudeau is not listening to Allies. "Diplomatic sources say..."

[Smallc]

Gee, I recall Stephen Harper and Mike Harris doing exactly what they said they would do in their platforms.....yet the left went ballistic. Too bad the same "right" to follow thru on THEIR promises wasn't afforded to them, but well, Liberal hypocrisy ya know....

If you were here before the election had taken place, you'd know I afforded them that right. I was a defender of Harper until about August (and still am on some files).

[Black Dog]

Justin Trudeau’s first Question Period as prime minister was a miserable affair for the government, so exposed is it on two policy positions that never made any sense – beyond being blatant political bait for voters so hungry for change they were prepared to swallow any mendacity.

Nice plagiarism. What other posts of yours are made up of stolen content passed off as original thoughts?

[On Guard for Thee]

Ha ha ha. Now that's a case of BUSTED!

[Big Guy]

Nice plagiarism. What other posts of yours are made up of stolen content passed off as original thoughts?

Maybe socialist is really John Ivison and posts here in between writing columns for the National Post?

[Smallc]

If that's true, he must be David Akin as well, as he's been lifting lines from him over the last few days too.

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe socialist is really John Ivison and posts here in between writing columns for the National Post?

I have doubts about that, Ivison seems consistent.