Army Guy Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Do you think your 16 year old havind acquired his DL is the best person to select his new car? Would you sign a blank check and send him out to the car lots? That's more or less what the Harper crowd did. As always a "second sober thought" might be a better idea. No, his right derek, i think perhaps maybe the local plumber shop should pick our new fighters, maybe the guys down at the fire hall....i mean what does those boys down at the airforce really know about fighters.....I thought it was them that strapped themselfs into these machines and faught for this country.... We are not sure what or how this new PWSG purchase group is going to work....according to them performance of the aircraft is not the top pri here, it is industry off shoots, price cuts, jobs.....in other words another LSVW program....and we know how that will work... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
waldo Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 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…... but... we're only (presuming) to buy one role! Oh my! Quote
Smallc Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 but... we're only (presuming) to buy one role! Oh my! The F-35A is a direct replacement for the multirole F-16. What are you talking about, exactly? Quote
waldo Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 No, his right derek, i think perhaps maybe the local plumber shop should pick our new fighters, maybe the guys down at the fire hall....i mean what does those boys down at the airforce really know about fighters.....I thought it was them that strapped themselfs into these machines and faught for this country.... We are not sure what or how this new PWSG purchase group is going to work....according to them performance of the aircraft is not the top pri here, it is industry off shoots, price cuts, jobs.....in other words another LSVW program....and we know how that will work... the last Defense White Paper came out in 1994... Canada First in 2008. Word on the street has the "being worked on" upcoming revised/updated defense strategy will properly set policy direction with some degree of consideration that factors fiscal reality within current and anticipated technologies... with resulting procurement needs expected to align with the updated policy directions for the military's role... not the "everything for every military branch" procurement grab-bag that Harper Conservatives have been falsely fronting. And in that vein, real requirements for a new fighter, fitting Canada's real/full needs... short(er)-term, mid-term, longer-term... should be developed. Oh wait, is the civilian PWSG procurement you speak of the beginnings of this??? for the longest time, no requirements definition was publicly available... then the one that finally appeared after all the criticism was simply one that mirrored that of the U.S. (i.e. JSF alignment). Sole sourced, you bet! Quote
waldo Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 The F-35A is a direct replacement for the multirole F-16. What are you talking about, exactly? oh word games now! If you re-read the reply it was addressing "multi-role" in the context of F-35 variants. Canada is only presuming to buy one of those roles/variants. The reply holds clear distinction between "multi-role" and "multi-purpose". According to the U.S. Air Force's top guy, that F-35A is not "air superior"... why, as he says, "it's irrelevant without their F-22s"! Does Canada have any F-22s? Anyway, no worries - as a BombTruck it would seem to fit in quite well with the last decade's actual F/A-18 fighter role! Quote
Smallc Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) The F-18 is not air superiority either. We're pretty much replacing like with like, but instead of getting the naval variant, this time, we're getting the Air Force one. Edited June 13, 2014 by Smallc Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Has Canada ever had a true, pure air superiority fighter "jet" (not interceptor)? There is no conceivable scenario wherein Canada would deploy strike fighters without U.S. / NATO support and air superiority assets. Edited June 13, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Conceivably, for NORAD purposes, a straight air superiority fighter would be better, but, there are none available that would do a better job than the F-35 anyway. Edited June 13, 2014 by Smallc Quote
PIK Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 The F-35 is the only choice. Since we have the best pilots and commanders in the world ,we get to be in command of military operations, but without the F-35 or even without a new destroyer that will never happen. And in years if the shit did hit the fan, any other plane will be destroyed in hrs if not minutes. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Army Guy Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 the last Defense White Paper came out in 1994... Canada First in 2008. Word on the street has the "being worked on" upcoming revised/updated defense strategy will properly set policy direction with some degree of consideration that factors fiscal reality within current and anticipated technologies... with resulting procurement needs expected to align with the updated policy directions for the military's role... not the "everything for every military branch" procurement grab-bag that Harper Conservatives have been falsely fronting. And in that vein, real requirements for a new fighter, fitting Canada's real/full needs... short(er)-term, mid-term, longer-term... should be developed. Oh wait, is the civilian PWSG procurement you speak of the beginnings of this??? for the longest time, no requirements definition was publicly available... then the one that finally appeared after all the criticism was simply one that mirrored that of the U.S. (i.e. JSF alignment). Sole sourced, you bet! A white Paper is just that a bunch of ( well) white papers, that nobody follows anyways for what ever excuse....The new Canada first although not a white paper, is the direction DND is following now or until a new one is drafted....As for the updated policy on procument for DND it's a joke....in regards to what equipment DND wants or needs....those needs and wants have been thrown to the back of the bus in favor for industry benifits, jobs, and kick backs the manufacture is willing to give Canada....more to the piont purchases will become all that more politcalized.....like i said more LSVW like programs are soon to follow....And that program was a huge disaster.....infact very little of our procument has run smoothly, those that have were DND run...Ch-47F, C-17, M777 etc.... DND has pinned it's hopes on the Harper government as it is atleast DND friendly, even they have failed overall, but lets give credit where credit is due, they have atleast place some much needed programs on the planning books.... Every Canadian knows that DND operates on a shoe string budget with the wants far exceeding what any elected government can provide....DND has needs that are in excess of 150 bil....and in todays market, even in future markets the price is to steep.... Who is defining the real needs of our military....not the military, not the government as is so well documant with a current white paper and the lack of will to make purchases.....it looks like they are being defined but what is acceptable to the Canadian tax payer what is the taxpayer willing to swallow.......also well documented, if they had not been so stickered shocked with the F-35 purchase we would already have these planes on the ground..... Do i aree that the purchase of F-35 has been mired in well lets say mountains of shit then i would agree with you....however we are also kidding ourselfs when we scream form the roof tops that we need a crystal clear process, to give everyone that has a dog a piece of the action....the runners in this project have 4 or 4.5 aircraft, who's aircraft in 20 years will be where exactly....at the end of there careers.... Canada's procument practices are not a secret, we have to hold on to equipment well past it's life expectance....in fact one of the requirements for the f-35 was to list costs for 42 years....in 42 years what is the other examples going to look like....well sir how far has the aviation world come in 42 years....the jet age was brand new...now the f-22 has taken flight, and god knows what is on the drawing boards now.... To sum up in 42 years what is the F-35 going to look like, is it going to last longer than the other aircraft....my guess is yes...so what is wrong with sole source, knowing we will have this aircraft for many years to come, why not invest in something that will be a better aircraft in the future....And we wonder why DND wanted to buy the latest and greatest..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 If it was about the best pilots and air superiority, Canada would have purchased F-15's and hired Israeli pilots long ago. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Who is defining the real needs of our military....not the military, not the government as is so well documant with a current white paper and the lack of will to make purchases.....it looks like they are being defined but what is acceptable to the Canadian tax payer what is the taxpayer willing to swallow....... Every Canadian knows that DND operates on a shoe string budget with the wants far exceeding what any elected government can provide....DND has needs that are in excess of 150 bil....and in todays market, even in future markets the price is to steep.... hence prioritization... realistic prioritization within fiscal reality. Joe Taxpayer you speak of isn't willing to accept a government that promises the moon, at least publicly... while trying to score "we support the troops" points! That $150 billion you speak of, rightly or wrongly, needed or not, can't be the reference point. The reality of defense cuts exists, world-wide. Spend less... more wisely. Hence the emphasis on an updated and realistic Defense White Paper/Stategy or whatever you're comfortable labeling it. Do i aree that the purchase of F-35 has been mired in well lets say mountains of shit then i would agree with you....however we are also kidding ourselfs when we scream form the roof tops that we need a crystal clear process, to give everyone that has a dog a piece of the action....the runners in this project have 4 or 4.5 aircraft, who's aircraft in 20 years will be where exactly....at the end of there careers.... Canada's procument practices are not a secret, we have to hold on to equipment well past it's life expectance....in fact one of the requirements for the f-35 was to list costs for 42 years....in 42 years what is the other examples going to look like....well sir how far has the aviation world come in 42 years....the jet age was brand new...now the f-22 has taken flight, and god knows what is on the drawing boards now.... To sum up in 42 years what is the F-35 going to look like, is it going to last longer than the other aircraft....my guess is yes...so what is wrong with sole source, knowing we will have this aircraft for many years to come, why not invest in something that will be a better aircraft in the future....And we wonder why DND wanted to buy the latest and greatest..... and in this era of ever progressive technological advancement, will there ever be another 30+ year life-cycle... let alone 40? Even 20 years... do you realitically expect to see manned fighters in 20 years? For Canada's need (which is what again?), you can't update the Navy, the Air Force, the Army, the Coast Guard, Search & Rescue... and you don't need a "unproven on-paper only F-35" to last 20+ years. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 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. I'm saying it shouldn't be a decision solely by the RCAF. And Chretien got involved in the initial R+D phase. It was Harper who decided to go for this thing without any competition. And his refusal to reveal facts and figures is part of what led to his contempt finding. Somehow all that doesn't give me a lot of faith. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 but... we're only (presuming) to buy one role! Oh my! 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. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 the last Defense White Paper came out in 1994... Canada First in 2008. Word on the street has the "being worked on" upcoming revised/updated defense strategy will properly set policy direction with some degree of consideration that factors fiscal reality within current and anticipated technologies... with resulting procurement needs expected to align with the updated policy directions for the military's role... not the "everything for every military branch" procurement grab-bag that Harper Conservatives have been falsely fronting. And in that vein, real requirements for a new fighter, fitting Canada's real/full needs... short(er)-term, mid-term, longer-term... should be developed. Oh wait, is the civilian PWSG procurement you speak of the beginnings of this??? for the longest time, no requirements definition was publicly available... then the one that finally appeared after all the criticism was simply one that mirrored that of the U.S. (i.e. JSF alignment). Sole sourced, you bet! 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? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 oh word games now! If you re-read the reply it was addressing "multi-role" in the context of F-35 variants. Canada is only presuming to buy one of those roles/variants. The reply holds clear distinction between "multi-role" and "multi-purpose". According to the U.S. Air Force's top guy, that F-35A is not "air superior"... why, as he says, "it's irrelevant without their F-22s"! Does Canada have any F-22s? Anyway, no worries - as a BombTruck it would seem to fit in quite well with the last decade's actual F/A-18 fighter role! 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. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Has Canada ever had a true, pure air superiority fighter "jet" (not interceptor)? There is no conceivable scenario wherein Canada would deploy strike fighters without U.S. / NATO support and air superiority assets. The last one would be the Sabre, and before that the P-51. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 and in this era of ever progressive technological advancement, will there ever be another 30+ year life-cycle... let alone 40? Even 20 years... do you realitically expect to see manned fighters in 20 years? For Canada's need (which is what again?), you can't update the Navy, the Air Force, the Army, the Coast Guard, Search & Rescue... and you don't need a "unproven on-paper only F-35" to last 20+ years. 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…. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 I'm saying it shouldn't be a decision solely by the RCAF. And Chretien got involved in the initial R+D phase. It was Harper who decided to go for this thing without any competition. And his refusal to reveal facts and figures is part of what led to his contempt finding. Somehow all that doesn't give me a lot of faith. 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? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 The last one would be the Sabre, and before that the P-51. So why has this "meme" of a Canadian air superiority requirement been propagated as a reason to decline the F-35A JSF? The Sabres went away in the early 60's, and the CF-105 was a dedicated interceptor, not air superiority fighter aircraft. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 So why has this "meme" of a Canadian air superiority requirement been propagated as a reason to decline the F-35A JSF? The Sabres went away in the early 60's, and the CF-105 was a dedicated interceptor, not air superiority fighter aircraft. 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. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 The F-15 Eagle is still in production with contracts through 2018. It has an exceptional record as an air superiority platform with over 100 combat kills and zero losses. The U.S. will keep them deployed until at least 2025. It does not highlight a gap in Canadian requirements vis-a-vis multi-role aircraft missions, as that was abandoned a long time ago. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 The F-15 Eagle is still in production with contracts through 2018. It has an exceptional record as an air superiority platform with over 100 combat kills and zero losses. The U.S. will keep them deployed until at least 2025. It does not highlight a gap in Canadian requirements vis-a-vis multi-role aircraft missions, as that was abandoned a long time ago. 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. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 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? Even Mike Byers can figure out a SE airplane is less safe than a twin and he ain't even in the RCAF. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 Even Mike Byers can figure out a SE airplane is less safe than a twin and he ain't even in the RCAF. 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……. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.