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

Derek 2.0 · December 8, 2015

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.

.

Sure, but it returns to continuity of requirements.......the Australians, through both the Liberals and ALP, know that regardless of what happens with the fight against the IS, Australia still has a requirement for new ships, subs, fighters etc to meet the requirement of "Fortress Australia".

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!

Without a doubt China plays into the equation that is Australian defense policy, with that, Australia (unlike most Western nations) takes an approach that radiates from Australia outwards. After all, Darwin to Makassar is but a ~ 1/2 hour flight for a fighter........historic tensions with Indonesia aside, Australia is also at the forefront of stability and disaster response within the region.

With that, Liberals/ALP don't disagree with a requirement for both new subs and fighters, the question going forwards is what better fills the requirement of long range strike.

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?

The second upgrade (phase II IMP) was but the second part of the 2001 decision. The drawn out timeline (for both Canada and Singapore) is but a reflection of the need to balance the upgrades versus operational needs. Last year's upgrade (center barrel upgrade) is a result of the previous Governments desire to purchase the F-35 once it entered full rate production, which did slide to ~2020, likewise a political calculus to punt the file.

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?

No, Singapore, because of staggered procurement approach, has no intention of replacing relatively young F-16s, when they have far older F-5s, anytime soon.........as confirmed several years ago by their defense minister:

"Singapore is seriously looking at the F-35s to replace our F-16s," the Singapore official told reporters at the Pentagon during a joint news conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

"We're in no particular hurry, because our F-16s are still very operational, and they're due for upgrades. But it is a serious consideration," Eng Hen said.

And why would they be in a hurry when their collective fleet is no older than what our Hornet fleet was when it was decided to upgrade it in 2001.

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.

I'm ignoring things? You "ignored" the second part of the quote that states the F-35 program offers the most combat capability compared to other current DoD programs........ :lol:

overthere · December 8, 2015

The answer to the OP question is clearly no. Trudeau has not listened to our allies.

Our allies -US, Germany, UK in particualr -are responding to the request from France to help in a tangible way in hurting ISIS.

Keep in mind than when this bombing campaign started, ISIS was essentially running amok across Syria and Iraq. The Kurds were holding their own in defence of their territory in the north, but otherwise there was nobody on the ground that could touch ISIS in their daily barbarity. Canada and others undertook to halt the ISIS ground offensive, to buy time for local forces to get organized. That level of organization is certainly not tested, but the air support has hurt ISIS and slowed them considerably at a minimum.

The imminent Canadian abscence from the actual fight is not just symbolic, it is duly noted by the international community and most defintitely by our allies. When some claim "Canada is back" is seen by others as "Canada is backing up", and insulting everybody by pretending we can lead from the rear. If it is intended to gain respect, it is a miserable and comprehensive policy failure, both home and abroad.

And that is a question that needs an answer. Does Trudeau or more likely his advisors think he has so much political capital that he can piss it away by wrong footing this file too.? All he has to do to regain that capital- and some modicum of respect for abroad-is say and act: "our friends and allies need our help. We'll leave the warplanes in place for 6 months, then we are done in that regard and will switch our role to training and surveillance"

It is puzzling and a bit disamying to see him miss the obvious a couple of times on linked files- refugees and ISIS- that matter to Canadians.

waldo · December 8, 2015

The answer to the OP question is clearly no. Trudeau has not listened to our allies.

Our allies -US, Germany, UK in particualr -are responding to the request from France to help in a tangible way in hurting ISIS.

please adjust your talking points accordingly... Germany will not partake in bombing strikes; rather, the German government approved use of Tornado jets for air-reconnaissance only. You know, just like Trudeau Liberals have proposed as a part of Canada's military participation... along with air-transport, air-refueling and training.

Smallc · December 8, 2015

Italy has decided not to join the bombing mission. They question its overall efficacy.

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2015

Then it is settled...no more bombing missions against ISIL.

From now on, it will be lots of training and warm blankets to win the day.

...and selfies...lots of selfies.

Smallc · December 8, 2015

Bombing (strategic bombing) has it's place, to be sure. This war won't be won with bombing (unless you're going to carpet bomb the whole country).

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2015

Bombing (strategic bombing) has it's place, to be sure. This war won't be won with bombing (unless you're going to carpet bomb the whole country).

Nobody expected the war to be won with bombing alone, but it won't be won with zero bombing either.

waldo · December 8, 2015

Then it is settled...no more bombing missions against ISIL.

From now on, it will be lots of training and warm blankets to win the day.

...and selfies...lots of selfies.

there's this bookmarked quote from an MLW member stating 'foreign nationals' have no say... now who said that? Not sure why you insist on playing the 'warm blankets' meme ad nauseum. Let me refresh for you: air-recon, air-transport, air-refueling... and, as you say, "lots of training"... and warm blankies too!

Smallc · December 8, 2015

Nobody expected the war to be won with bombing alone, but it won't be won with zero bombing either.

If Canada stops its 2%, does that mean there will be zero bombing?

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2015

If Canada stops its 2%, does that mean there will be zero bombing?

What if all nations choose to stop their bombing ? What makes Canada so special ...election promises ?

Edited December 8, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

Smallc · December 8, 2015

What if all nations choose to stop their bombing ?

We can all muse about things that aren't going to happen. It doesn't make them any more likely.

What makes Canada so special ...election promises ?

A new government with a new mandate is exactly what makes Canada 'so special', yes. Internal Canadian politics will be decided by Canadians. You can read about it on the internet.

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2015

We can all muse about things that aren't going to happen. It doesn't make them any more likely.

It's not just a policy quip..."trained" forces are still going to need close air support.

A new government with a new mandate is exactly what makes Canada 'so special', yes. Internal Canadian politics will be decided by Canadians. You can read about it on the internet.

Just as I stated many posts ago...it has nothing to do with the "efficacy of bombing".

Same Canadians bitched when the United States shifted focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, and Canada didn't even bother to deploy CF-18s.

Edited December 8, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

Smallc · December 8, 2015

It's not just a policy quip..."trained" forces are still going to need close air support.

Of course they are. That support will continue to be provided by others (forget not that I agree that we should keep up our bombing missions, though very selectively - even more so than now).

Just as I stated many posts ago...it has nothing to do with the "efficacy of bombing".

Italy disagrees. Canada has not used that particular line.

bush_cheney2004 · December 8, 2015

Of course they are. That support will continue to be provided by others (forget not that I agree that we should keep up our bombing missions, though very selectively - even more so than now).

Of course...."by others"....how convenient. Canadian leadership...Trudeau style. Squadrons back home probably need the spare parts !

Smallc · December 8, 2015

Squadrons back home probably need the spare parts !

That is another very real problem that neither party has fixed.

waldo · December 8, 2015

No, Singapore, because of staggered procurement approach, has no intention of replacing relatively young F-16s, when they have far older F-5s, anytime soon.........as confirmed several years ago by their defense minister:

"Singapore is seriously looking at the F-35s to replace our F-16s," the Singapore official told reporters at the Pentagon during a joint news conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

"We're in no particular hurry, because our F-16s are still very operational, and they're due for upgrades. But it is a serious consideration," Eng Hen said.

And why would they be in a hurry when their collective fleet is no older than what our Hornet fleet was when it was decided to upgrade it in 2001.

do you seriously think your quote helps your statements/position in this exchange? "Looking for the F-35 to replace their F16s"... as I read it those stated upgrades weren't to go to the extent they now have in regards increased/enhanced strike capabilities. Again, why would they upgrade to that level if the "supposedly" superior F-35 would have been there... I guess a lot plays out in a short number of years, hey! Considering, by initial procurement scheduling, there should have been over 1000 F-35s off the production line by now... and there's what now... 179 or so... and you yourself called them nothing more than prototypes!

I don't know the original source of this following graphic, last referring to the revised 2011 procurement plan... I looked for something more current but the graphic as is speaks volumes! I can't find the original source of the graphic with google image search... past like failed search attempts have taken, invariably, to something like wordpress, which you can't search internally. In any case, you can find it on many, many blogs. If you have something that puts forward a summary history of procurement... and you feel it counters the following, please provide it. I trust the graphic will be allowed without a source attachment given it presents a proper accounting of planned F-35 procurement, revised throughout the years:

waldo · December 8, 2015

I'm ignoring things? You "ignored" the second part of the quote that states the F-35 program offers the most combat capability compared to other current DoD programs........

somehow, you think a glowing testimonial, offered per party line, just erases the other statements made concerning anticipated F-35 production cuts! I don't expect high-level Pentagon officials to break from party line... when they do, as they have invariably over the years, they're quickly reigned in and LockMart et al. do a full court media press in response to attempt to walk back the comments! In the latest revealing comment from Kendall (U.S. Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), just days ago, he's very clear and precise on those expected F-35 cuts... that you simply choose to dismiss/ignore.

overthere · December 8, 2015

Bombing (strategic bombing) has it's place, to be sure. This war won't be won with bombing (unless you're going to carpet bomb the whole country).

Nobody anywhere has claimed that it would defeat ISIS.

But it has certainly slowed their offensive capability, and before the air attacks they were advancing unhindered. And when ISIS advances, they really punish a lot of people that do not deserve it. Of late our former allies have focused a bit on trying to inflict some economic damage on ISIS oil exports.

Trudeau had some bad luck with the timing of the Paris attacks, and erred politically by making one of his very first acts as PM elect a call to Obama where the CDN media made sure to highlight his commitment to withdrawal of the warplanes. And he keeps compounding that mistake, when all it would take is a deferral to regain that political capital both domestically and internationally. Stubborn? Uncertain? Badly advised? Clueless?

As a nation, we can forgive and he can overcome the first two. The latter two are more scary.

waldo · December 8, 2015

Canadian leadership...Trudeau style. Squadrons back home probably need the spare parts !

American leadership... Obama style... where American's won't support another 'boots on the ground' debacle... so AmericaBombs™ and presumes others will join in to help fix the mess the U.S. started/left.

Smallc · December 8, 2015

when all it would take is a deferral

No one - and I mean no one (outside of this website and a couple others) - is talking about this anymore. He already did defer the return of our jets, and he is keeping our other air assets in theatre.

Topaz · December 8, 2015

Russia has done more with its bombing than NATO has and if Russia does it better, than Canada should stop the bombing and do something else to help. ISIS will be defeat when the US wants it defeated.

Smallc · December 8, 2015

Russia has done more with its bombing than NATO has and if Russia does it better

Citation needed.

socialist · December 9, 2015

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

Sorry...I should have mentioned it was a cite. My mistake and my apologies.

dre · December 9, 2015

If Chretien would have listened to allies we would have got involved in that original fiasco in Iraq. Canada stood its ground and saved hundreds of Canadian lives. Because others are making mistakes does not mean we have to follow.

The funny thing is, this is STILL that original "fiasco". ISIL are the Sunni insurgents that US and its allies were unable to defeat, now they have spilled into Syria. So we DID join the Iraq war! We were a decade late that's all.

dre · December 9, 2015

Nobody anywhere has claimed that it would defeat ISIS.

But it has certainly slowed their offensive capability, and before the air attacks they were advancing unhindered.

They were only advancing unhindered into predominantly Sunni areas, and the reason their advance has slowed is because they already occupy most of those.