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

[waldo]

One of the main reasons for these patrols is to check our response capabilites. The Americans played the same games to check Soviet reactions and may still do with the Russians. Our F-18's were taking pictures of Bears long before the present Conservatives came to power and CF-101's made many intercepts before that.

of course... my calling them Peter McKay photo-ops is in direct relation to Harper Conservatives stoking the fog of the cold-war... and the distant past Russian boogeyman... in support of JSFail.

[waldo]

yes they did just come out of a moderization refit, upgrading them for many things, but they did not refit the airframes and wings, it is those refits that extend life times...

say what? Info I've read repeatedly speaks of the $2 Billion upgrade as extending the life of the CF-18 to between 2017 and 2020... in keeping with the protracted delay of the F-35. More pointedly, given suggestion that with the delay, Canada may not have the majority of it's (presumed) procurement available until after a 2020 date... bringing forth concerns over the (even extended) CF-18 'life period'.

Where is the money going to come from where it always comes from the taxpayers....

except... you're already seeing DND respond to budget constraint. You're already seeing Harper Conservatives offering 'cautious commentary' over previously hyped military commitments (particularly in relation to initial targets versus delivery time frames subject to debt reduction, balanced budgets, deficit reductions, etc.). Priorities must be set. Not every need/want of every branch of the military... and the Coast Guard... can be met. Something has to give. That something should start with a review of Canada's domestic needs versus "global nation building aspirations".

[waldo]

You're not far off........During the Afghan campaign the Hornet fleet was stretched thin for two reasons. First the operational tempo of NORAD was ramped up substantially post 9/11, second reason, the Hornet fleet was undergoing the IMP upgrades from early 2002 to early 2010, to correct deficiencies found within the fleet during operations in the FRY…..namely the block obsolescence of the fleet’s avionics and communication gear.

you appear to be... far off... as to why CF-18s weren't in Afghanistan. This guy, "Major-General C.S. 'Duff' Sullivan"... described as the most senior Canadian over there/in the know, called it a "political decision" as to why the CF-18s were not stationed in Afghanistan. The quote I've seen in a number of articles has the General offering opinion in relation to the completion of the upgrades you speak of; specifically: "Everything is now coagulating and coming together in respect to the F-18. It will be full up and ready to go in the August-September time frame. If deployed, they would be stars over here". A comment that certainly seems to correlate with his suggestion a "political decision" kept the CF-18 out of Afghanistan... one can surmise that reflects on... on what?

[Wilber]

of course... my calling them Peter McKay photo-ops is in direct relation to Harper Conservatives stoking the fog of the cold-war... and the distant past Russian boogeyman... in support of JSFail.

The Russians are still there and so are the Bears but even if they weren't, why are you so comfortable with the idea that they or anyone else should have the ability to fly anything, anywhere they want in Canadian airspace without us having the capability to do anything about it?

[waldo]

The Russians are still there and so are the Bears but even if they weren't, why are you so comfortable with the idea that they or anyone else should have the ability to fly anything, anywhere they want in Canadian airspace without us having the capability to do anything about it?

the capability you ascribe seems a tad compromised when it's been U.S. jets that have, on occasion, responded. What does that suggest about your perceived (Canadian) ability?

Edited October 24, 2013 by waldo

[Wilber]

the capability you ascribe seems a tad compromised when it's been U.S. jets that have, on occasion, responded. What does that suggest about your perceived (Canadian) ability?

It's called NORAD.

[waldo]

It's called NORAD.

hmmm... hey now, isn't Mexico a part of North America? How do they survive without being a part of NORAD?

[DogOnPorch]

The Kh-55 is the standard Tu-95 cruise missile these days. No longer the aircraft sized CMs of the past. It could be conventional or a 200kt nuclear warhead. The Tu-95 can carry several of them at once.

But no worries. The Tu-95 harmless just like those ancient, ineffective B-52s.

[DogOnPorch]

hmmm... hey now, isn't Mexico a part of North America? How do they survive without being a part of NORAD?

What?

[waldo]

What?

what what?

[DogOnPorch]

what what?

Your question should be self-answering as to why Mexico wasn't essential to NORAD.

[waldo]

Your question should be self-answering as to why Mexico wasn't essential to NORAD.

what?

[Wilber]

hmmm... hey now, isn't Mexico a part of North America? How do they survive without being a part of NORAD?

Mexico is not a member of NATO either.

I asked you why you are so comfortable with Canada not having the ability to do anything about other nations operating military aircraft in Canadian airspace. Care to answer.

[DogOnPorch]

what?

Forget it. You're a waste of time.

Here's a Tu-95 from a few months ago. Seems they still fly n' all. Notice the counter-rotating turbo props on each duel Kuznetsov engine.

[waldo]

Mexico is not a member of NATO either.

I asked you why you are so comfortable with Canada not having the ability to do anything about other nations operating military aircraft in Canadian airspace. Care to answer.

when cold war relics are brought out, a Mexico response is more than satisfying! Do you perceive a threat coming in the form of DogOnPorch's ever-present long-range bomber boogeyman? Really?

I've made the pointed distinction of the need to address Canada's domestic needs... versus a strike fighter "high-altitude bomber" presuming to global nation building.

[Wilber]

when cold war relics are brought out, a Mexico response is more than satisfying! Do you perceive a threat coming in the form of DogOnPorch's ever-present long-range bomber boogeyman? Really?

I've made the pointed distinction of the need to address Canada's domestic needs... versus a strike fighter "high-altitude bomber" presuming to global nation building.

So you have no problem with any other nation operating its military aircraft in Canadian airspace without our permission or ability to do anything about it. Thanks.

[Smallc]

What a ridiculous position...we need the ability to patrol and defend our airspace.

[waldo]

So you have no problem with any other nation operating its military aircraft in Canadian airspace without our permission or ability to do anything about it. Thanks.

you've just acknowledged that you have no qualms with the U.S. stepping up (under the guise of NORAD), and supplanting the inability of Canada to "project" domestically. So... you're fine with leveraging NORAD in order to have it provide a capability Canada doesn't (consistently) have. Is that right?

[Wilber]

you've just acknowledged that you have no qualms with the U.S. stepping up (under the guise of NORAD), and supplanting the inability of Canada to "project" domestically. So... you're fine with leveraging NORAD in order to have it provide a capability Canada doesn't (consistently) have. Is that right?

We have a mutual defense pact with the US. Nations that don't have the resources to fully meet their defense needs require allies and we are one of them. Geographically, we are the second largest country in the world with the worlds longest coastline but only a small population located directly between the two most powerful nations on the planet. We are one of those nations but just because we need allies doesn't absolve us of any responsibility to defend ourselves.

It is you who are the one who has no qualms with the US stepping up. If it were up to you, they would do it all while you sat back ragging on them about how much they spend on their military and how their social programs suffer because of it.

[waldo]

We have a mutual defense pact with the US. Nations that don't have the resources to fully meet their defense needs require allies and we are one of them. Geographically, we are the second largest country in the world with the worlds longest coastline but only a small population located directly between the two most powerful nations on the planet. We are one of those nations but just because we need allies doesn't absolve us of any responsibility to defend ourselves.

It is you who are the one who has no qualms with the US stepping up. If it were up to you, they would do it all while you sat back ragging on them about how much they spend on their military and how their social programs suffer because of it.

nice! Is your 'argument' reinforced by making assumptions? My point was to emphasize that, as you've acknowledged, Canada doesn't have the capability to meet your perceived defense requirements. Accordingly, you're quite prepared to leverage a, as you say, "mutual defense pact". So, you're a qualified, discriminating, reserved 'chest-thumper' - yes? Of course, when I repeatedly emphasize the need to qualify Canada's domestic versus "global aspirations", as I've done many times over, as I've just done in a couple of recent posts within this thread, crickets come forward. I've repeatedly emphasized a need for Canada's (domestic) investment in drone surveillance... projecting that beyond surveillance capability gets the usual (and unqualified) responses that the drone tech isn't there yet. If that unqualified response is true... what's the eventuality of an available tech time-frame particularly in relation to suggestions of Canada's (presumed) F-35 procurement being met in a post 2020 period? Even accepting to the unqualified responses challenging drone tech, would Canada's commitment to your referenced "mutual defense pact" not be met, not be satisfied with an emphasis/commitment to (drone) surveillance?

start here: why does Canada need a 'strike-fighter'?

[Wilber]

Drone surveillance. Whoopee. That's like having hi def security cameras and no police force.

[Army Guy]

say what? Info I've read repeatedly speaks of the $2 Billion upgrade as extending the life of the CF-18 to between 2017 and 2020... in keeping with the protracted delay of the F-35. More pointedly, given suggestion that with the delay, Canada may not have the majority of it's (presumed) procurement available until after a 2020 date... bringing forth concerns over the (even extended) CF-18 'life period'.

except... you're already seeing DND respond to budget constraint. You're already seeing Harper Conservatives offering 'cautious commentary' over previously hyped military commitments (particularly in relation to initial targets versus delivery time frames subject to debt reduction, balanced budgets, deficit reductions, etc.). Priorities must be set. Not every need/want of every branch of the military... and the Coast Guard... can be met. Something has to give. That something should start with a review of Canada's domestic needs versus "global nation building aspirations".

Perhaps i did not explain it well enough, the upgrades mean we moderized the aircraft to fight in a modern enviroment to a piont. Without upgrading struture meaning airframe wing roots etc you can not extend the life of any aircraft...be like changing your 8 track for a cd player in your model t....Once the airframe hours are up they to will need to be refitted or the aircraft retired. And that is close to where we will be in the near future.

Concerns over getting the funding for new planes , is being looked at , hence why DND and the government is looking at reductions evry where. like it or not new fighters will be coming , how many, or what they are is a question they have not answered yet. But i can tell you they are not willing to drop this capability. Drone tech is not mature enough, nor has the airforces around the world decided to go unmanned just yet.

Something will give currently it is the size of our Armed forces, as it shrienks so will it's abilities to defend this nation, domestically and abroad. This is what DND has been saying forever there is no more fat to cut, with some exception of what Gen Lesily suggested, and there is not much meat there either....You keep saying that something has to give, eventually someone is going to have to make some hard decisions because our military will soon be reduced to ineffective. When do you see deficit reduction coming to an end, is there a line in the sand or do we wait until we have no deficit. How long will that take ?

As for the coast Guard, they are the countries retarded little brother when it comes to funding. and always have been, all one has to do is look at the equipment they have and it's age and what they don't have....They have been cut past the bone.

Your going to have to give some examples of Canada's global nation building aspirations...

[Army Guy]

you appear to be... far off... as to why CF-18s weren't in Afghanistan. This guy, "Major-General C.S. 'Duff' Sullivan"... described as the most senior Canadian over there/in the know, called it a "political decision" as to why the CF-18s were not stationed in Afghanistan. The quote I've seen in a number of articles has the General offering opinion in relation to the completion of the upgrades you speak of; specifically: "Everything is now coagulating and coming together in respect to the F-18. It will be full up and ready to go in the August-September time frame. If deployed, they would be stars over here". A comment that certainly seems to correlate with his suggestion a "political decision" kept the CF-18 out of Afghanistan... one can surmise that reflects on... on what?

Yes the Gen spoke his mind to the media, he however does not talk for the Commander of the Airforce does he, nor does his remark mean that he has insider info on everything inside the Airforce. Before the Afghan war all the element commanders were doing the same thing puffing up thier chests, beating the war drums it is what we do ,getting a chance to prove your training is something all warriors life for....until they get there then once they have a taste of war it becomes a different story...When asked by the Prime minister , the CDS told him we DND was not ready for a conflict....despite all the chest pumping by his suborintes.

[Guest Derek L]

Drone surveillance. Whoopee. That's like having hi def security cameras and no police force.

That's a good one!

[Guest Derek L]

We have a mutual defense pact with the US. Nations that don't have the resources to fully meet their defense needs require allies and we are one of them. Geographically, we are the second largest country in the world with the worlds longest coastline but only a small population located directly between the two most powerful nations on the planet. We are one of those nations but just because we need allies doesn't absolve us of any responsibility to defend ourselves.

It is you who are the one who has no qualms with the US stepping up. If it were up to you, they would do it all while you sat back ragging on them about how much they spend on their military and how their social programs suffer because of it.

And that right there is all that needs to be said………With NORAD, we get many magnitudes more out of it, then we put in………And no Canadian Government, even Trudeau with his anti military prejudices, toyed with the idea of Canada leaving the treaty……….doing so, from a Canadian perspective is purely asinine.

With that being said, being part of the Treaty, there is an expectation on the American’s part of us contributing a worthwhile force…….And that includes modern fighters that are interoperable with the Americans…….Now call me crazy, but with the decades ahead, the cornerstone of the Americans contribution to NORAD will be the F-35A, so would it not make sense to operate the same aircraft?