Helicopter Deal - F-35 All Over Again?

[waldo]

Really. You had no problem with taking a reply I made to On Guard for Thee on the F-35 thread and using it to demand I read a link you posted that had nothing to do with the statement he made, or my reply to him. When I called you on it, you still wouldn't let go. So deal with it.

you make no sense, at all! In this particular case you quoted me and replied with a comment that had no relation to, no bearing on the/my quote. If you wanted to address your post to me... just start it with who you are intending it for. What a concept!

in the other case you continue to whine about, I put up a post with a link and related quote from the recent US Department of Defense Inspector General report that speaks to significant concerns over quality assurance within the JSFail program. You clearly wanted nothing to do with that post... you simply wanted it buried/ignored. What you did do instead was to throw up a nothing reply (a single emoticon, that's it), to the post immediately following mine. Yes, I took the liberty of, as you now say, "calling you on it"... questioning why you responded with your emoticon to another rather innocuous post... and skirted wide, big time wide, around my post that quite obviously doesn't fit your JSFail narrative.

.

You may be right in that the Conservatives should have axed the Cyclone right after they formed government but the howling from the likes of you about how they were just playing tit for tat would have been deafening. Instead, they stuck with it and bent over backward to give Sikorsky a chance to make it work.

make up whatever story you want to fit your partisanship.

Reality is, you have been 100% negative about every acquisition whether it was initiated by the Conservatives or left over from the Liberals. It is fortunate that our military has not had to rely on you for equipment during the past decade.

nice personalization! Again, make up whatever story your partisanship requires.

[Wilber]

nice personalization! Again, make up whatever story your partisanship requires.

Good one.

[Guest Derek L]

As I said above, this is the second time industry has offered “green” airframes to the RCAF to allow a faster transition out of the Sea Kings……Unlike the last proposal by AugstaWestland to the Chrétien government, that would have put forth stripped down EH-101s as a cost saving measure on the assumption that in the future, another deal would be signed to add the mission suite, this time, we’ve already purchased the entire package, it just can’t be delivered.

I would hope Sikorsky plans to add the mission suite at a later date at no extra cost.

Well the word has finally come down from the mountain top:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sea-kings-to-be-retired-next-year-1.2483667

The federal government has decided not to scrap its troubled purchase of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters.Instead, Ottawa will go ahead with its plan to acquire maritime choppers to replace the decades-old CH-124 Sea Kings, which it will start retiring next year.

And:

Public Works Minister Diane Finley said in a release that Sikorsky has agreed to deliver the new helicopters without any additional cost to the federal government.

All the while (and not mentioned yet in the CBC piece), Sikorsky has also agreed to pay $88.6 million in penalties , well ensuring the Cyclones, which will start entering service soon as “green airframes” will be upgraded (well technically the aircraft’s mission suite added) by 2018 at no extra cost.

A news release issued late on Friday afternoon says the air force will have fully capable Cyclone helicopters by 2018..

Which will create a potentially serious “capability gap” for the better part of the next three years……..On a personal note, I’m somewhat disappointed that the AW-101 wasn’t reselected, but I think Sikorsky’s bacon was saved by their 88.6 million acknowledgments of fault (translated into ~1 “free” Cyclone) and the fact that reselecting the AW-101 would at best not see new airframes for several more years, as such, politically the Government has defused another potential faux line of attack by the Opposition.

I will be interested to see how several issues directly related to the Cyclones engines have been resolved, and how we’ll manage with deaf & dumb helicopters on operations over the next three years, but finally the Sea Kings are destined for their final role as gate guards and museum pieces.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well the word has finally come down from the mountain top:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sea-kings-to-be-retired-next-year-1.2483667

Putting this long festering procurement fiasco to bed is probably welcomed by many, regardless of model or contractor. The "start over" crowd really just wanted to continue delays, as delays had become the status quo. Consider how shocking it was to actually procure C-177's and have them show up on schedule from USAF production...must have been considered very rude !

[Guest Derek L]

Putting this long festering procurement fiasco to bed is probably welcomed by many, regardless of model or contractor. The "start over" crowd really just wanted to continue delays, as delays had become the status quo.

It’s a mixed bag really, many both in the navy and MH community wanted the AW-101 with either the Italian or new RN mission suites incorporated, all the while fearing the one examined option that would have seen us (down)select to a MH-60R/LAMPS mk III combo, all the while fostering in a completely new doctrine in how both the navy and MH community operate.

As they say though, a Cyclone in the bag (with a number of Sikorsky owned aircraft already at CFB Shearwater) is better then two AW-101s in the bush….

[bush_cheney2004]

As they say though, a Cyclone in the bag (with a number of Sikorsky owned aircraft already at CFB Shearwater) is better then two AW-101s in the bush….

All of the angst over mission and Canada's "unique requirements" began to ring hollow years ago, not because of the platform circus or contract missteps, but because the Sea Kings were kept in service with significant airworthiness and capability gaps.

[Guest Derek L]

All of the angst over mission and Canada's "unique requirements" began to ring hollow years ago, not because of the platform circus or contract missteps, but because the Sea Kings were kept in service with significant airworthiness and capability gaps.

There’s nothing particularly uniquely Canadian as to our requirements in a Sea King replacement, our doctrinal usage of our helicopters is shared by many in NATO, but until the Cyclone is fully fitted out with it’s new mission suite, capability wise we’ll be at a disadvantage even when compared to the clapped out Sea Kings.

[waldo]

Well the word has finally come down from the mountain top:

All the while (and not mentioned yet in the CBC piece), Sikorsky has also agreed to pay $88.6 million in penalties , well ensuring the Cyclones, which will start entering service soon as “green airframes” will be upgraded (well technically the aircraft’s mission suite added) by 2018 at no extra cost.

oh... you mean the contractor agrees to pay the penalties that Harper Conservatives were giving them a 'free pass' on? The penalties that Harper Conservatives had waved? Those penalties?

On a personal note, I’m somewhat disappointed that the AW-101 wasn’t reselected, but I think Sikorsky’s bacon was saved by their 88.6 million acknowledgments of fault (translated into ~1 “free” Cyclone) and the fact that reselecting the AW-101 would at best not see new airframes for several more years, as such, politically the Government has defused another potential faux line of attack by the Opposition.

somewhat disappointed??? Given your long-standing multiple threads posting history of touting flogging the AW-101... of belittling the Cyclone/Sikorsky, I expected more than... "somewhat disappointed". You sure seemed quite confident Harper Conservatives/DND were lining up to kill off the Cyclone for good!

of course, I would be remiss in not quoting the following and asking for your assessment on whether the Harper Conservative decision was political... or not?

in any case, in your world, when is the Liberal decision to purchase the AW-101 (as in the SAR Comorant version) not a political decision... while the Liberal decision not to purchase the AW-101 (as in the military version) is a political decision??? Warning: don't twist yourself too hard, too tight, in attempting to answer this question!

nice! Your oft expressed preference for the AW-101 allows you to suggest a government purchasing it is not politically guided... while a government not purchasing it, is politically guided! And here I warned you not to twist too hard/tight in answering.

[Guest Derek L]

oh... you mean the contractor agrees to pay the penalties that Harper Conservatives were giving them a 'free pass' on? The penalties that Harper Conservatives had waved? Those penalties?

What Free Pass?

somewhat disappointed??? Given your long-standing multiple threads posting history of touting flogging the AW-101... of belittling the Cyclone/Sikorsky, I expected more than... "somewhat disappointed". You sure seemed quite confident Harper Conservatives/DND were lining up to kill off the Cyclone for good!

I sure did.

of course, I would be remiss in not quoting the following and asking for your assessment on whether the Harper Conservative decision was political... or not?

So staying with the Cyclone isn't politically guided? Or is it? Not sure of your point?

[waldo]

of course, I would be remiss in not quoting the following and asking for your assessment on whether the Harper Conservative decision was political... or not?

in any case, in your world, when is the Liberal decision to purchase the AW-101 (as in the SAR Comorant version) not a political decision... while the Liberal decision not to purchase the AW-101 (as in the military version) is a political decision??? Warning: don't twist yourself too hard, too tight, in attempting to answer this question!

nice! Your oft expressed preference for the AW-101 allows you to suggest a government purchasing it is not politically guided... while a government not purchasing it, is politically guided! And here I warned you not to twist too hard/tight in answering.

So staying with the Cyclone isn't politically guided? Or is it? Not sure of your point?

nice! You ask the very question you're being asked. The point... was that your uber-partisanship for Harper Conservatives had you twisting to claim that no matter what the Liberals did concerning the AW-101, "it was bad/wrong". And now - you just meekly accept that, yes... Harper Conservatives (after 7 years) have finally taken accountability and are continuing with the original direction set by... the Liberals. Your dance with the penalties is quite humourous; again, it was the Harper Conservatives who originally cancelled/waved contract assessed penalties to Sikorsky... and now, when they're back in, you're touting the Harper Conservatives for simply reinstating the contractual penalties! Heelarious.

[waldo]

What Free Pass?

really?

I think the Conservative Government’s handling of the file, namely the refusal to accept the non-complaint, Liberal selected, Sikorsky Cyclone into RCAF service says it all.

oh pleeeese! If that truly was the case, why didn't Harper Conservatives cancel it back in 2006 when the first problems began to show? Gee, that refusal only took 8 years to build towards! Why did Harper Conservatives stumble all through the 8 years, forever forgiving penalties, forever shifting late schedules forward, providing additional funding to the file... that's right - Harper Conservatives can do no wrong - they are not responsible for anything, they are not accountable on any level!

so... if, as you say, "the Conservative Government’s handling of the file, namely the refusal to accept the non-complaint, Liberal selected, Sikorsky Cyclone into RCAF service says it all", what does the Harper Conservative's acceptance of the Cyclone... now say?

.

[Guest Derek L]

nice! You ask the very question you're being asked. The point... was that your uber-partisanship for Harper Conservatives had you twisting to claim that no matter what the Liberals did concerning the AW-101, "it was bad/wrong". And now - you just meekly accept that, yes... Harper Conservatives (after 7 years) have finally taken accountability and are continuing with the original direction set by... the Liberals. Your dance with the penalties is quite humourous; again, it was the Harper Conservatives who originally cancelled/waved contract assessed penalties to Sikorsky... and now, when they're back in, you're touting the Harper Conservatives for simply reinstating the contractual penalties! Heelarious.

Where was the acceptance on my part of the decision to stay with the Cyclone? Several posts back, I clearly highlighted several concerns still with the Cyclone and the operational deficit DND will have until ~2018 with it’s selection.

Doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement of the Cyclone.

[waldo]

Where was the acceptance on my part of the decision to stay with the Cyclone? Several posts back, I clearly highlighted several concerns still with the Cyclone and the operational deficit DND will have until ~2018 with it’s selection.

Doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement of the Cyclone.

it's one thing for you to personally express your reservations of the Cyclone... it's another thing for you to do so without admonishing... or even ever so slightly criticizing Harper Conservatives for the decision. I mean, c'mon... you certainly had enough to go around for the Liberals when you could still attempt to separate Harper Conservatives from the program, from the decision... even after Harper Conservatives have held accountability over that program for almost 8 years now! Can we say H Y P O C R I T E ?

[Guest Derek L]

it's one thing for you to personally express your reservations of the Cyclone... it's another thing for you to do so without admonishing... or even ever so slightly criticizing Harper Conservatives for the decision. I mean, c'mon... you certainly had enough to go around for the Liberals when you could still attempt to separate Harper Conservatives from the program, from the decision... even after Harper Conservatives have held accountability over that program for almost 8 years now! Can we say H Y P O C R I T E ?

So I didn’t admonish the reselection of the Cyclone enough for your liking? Get a grip

[waldo]

So I didn’t admonish the reselection of the Cyclone enough for your liking? Get a grip

no problem... showcasing your personal reservations in the absence of any... any... critical comment directed towards Harper Conservatives is noted! Hypocrite!

[Guest Derek L]

no problem... showcasing your personal reservations in the absence of any... any... critical comment directed towards Harper Conservatives is noted! Hypocrite!

Bye-bye Waldo, time for ignore again.

[waldo]

Bye-bye Waldo, time for ignore again.

remember... the truth will set you free!

[bush_cheney2004]

Why so much crying now ? PM Harper made the same "decision" made PM Chretien and the Liberals:

Why did Canada become involved?

Jean Chretien’s Liberal government recognized in 1997 that Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets were approaching the end of their lives. By signing on to the U.S.-led project then and agreeing to continue participating in 2002, it ensured Canada would be able to influence the design while making Canadian companies eligible for contracts. Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s report said that “securing industrial benefits for Canadian companies continued to be a driving motivation for participation” in 2002.

Then what happened?

Auditor-General Michael Ferguson said the key decision was made in late 2006, when the Conservative government approved Canada’s involvement in the third phase. It was then that Canada agreed to contribute up to $551-million to the aircraft’s ongoing development over the next 40 years — whether it purchased any F-35s or not. The government agreed in principle to purchase 80 F-35s.

Edited January 5, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Why so much crying now ? PM Harper made the same "decision" made PM Chretien and the Liberals:

Why did Canada become involved?

Jean Chretien’s Liberal government recognized in 1997 that Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets were approaching the end of their lives. By signing on to the U.S.-led project then and agreeing to continue participating in 2002, it ensured Canada would be able to influence the design while making Canadian companies eligible for contracts. Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s report said that “securing industrial benefits for Canadian companies continued to be a driving motivation for participation” in 2002.

Then what happened?

Auditor-General Michael Ferguson said the key decision was made in late 2006, when the Conservative government approved Canada’s involvement in the third phase. It was then that Canada agreed to contribute up to $551-million to the aircraft’s ongoing development over the next 40 years — whether it purchased any F-35s or not. The government agreed in principle to purchase 80 F-35s.

I assume this post was meant for the F-35 thread, but drawing your point into this thread and the original intent of the OP (The Government favouring the wares of an American company that has longstanding ties to Canadian industry), like Bell Textron, Sikorsky’s Parent, United Technologies Corporation, has had decades of influence within the Canadian aerospace industry……Not only with the Sea King and now Cyclone, but also Pratt & Whitney Canada, one of the key contributors to the F-35 program.

[bush_cheney2004]

I assume this post was meant for the F-35 thread,

Right....my bad...but it is remarkable to see the convergence you describe, regardless of the aircraft type. Such reflexive spasms of disapproval are too little too late in a game that has gone on for decades, across different ruling parties. Canada's CF-18s and CH-124s could star in their own version of a geriatric "Grudge Match".

[Rue]

I agree with Bush that the latest fiasco over F-35's simply continues a fiasco that started during Pierre Trudeau's era of severe cut backs to the military.

In actual fact it started after WW2 and Canada's navy went from the 3rd largest in the world to one of the smallest today.

Even during the Korean war Canada forces were stripped of vital supplies because of cut backs and given old weapons.

Whether it was Diefenbaker, Harper or Mulroney conservatives, Pearson, Trudeau, Chretien, its all been the same crap.

Bottom line is Canada can afford to be the way we are with no armed forces as we have cruised on the US being next door.

Our contribution to the Northern Hemisphere security compared to the US is not comparable.

We have to smarten up. If we plan on claiming the Northern as our land how will we do that with a handful of aboriginal peoples we won't give weapons to or proper training to and who we call Rangers?

Our Rangers God love them know the waters but they go out in rubber boats for phack's sake.

Our North is regularly transversed by not just the Yanks, but the Russians, Chinese, British, French, Japanese, Danish-we are a joke.

We have no one but ourselves to blame.

Canada was advised to put a navy together of 5 submarines on each coast minimum and to consider an all submarine navy and think outside the box as an option which would mean even more subs than the 5 + 5 or , the 5 + 5 and at least 5 regular patrol ships per coast and 3-5 icebreakers.

That's a sizeable expense. Also our air force had the option of purchasing twice as many Swedish fighters which would have been a better option than

the F35. The last thing we need is a stealth fighter, We need a visible fighter that can be seen showing the flag on regular patrols.

Our best bet was either the Swedish fighter or a mix of Swedish and French fighters.

We have also needed a regular fleet of helicopters for over 40 years.

As for sovereign air patrols along the coast, there is no reason we could not use aircraft designed by Bomardier that are turbo prop.

We are a bunch of duds when it comes to our military. We won't put money into it no different then how we won't put money in our subway systems or how Canadians won't invest in their own country.

[Guest Derek L]

Our Rangers God love them know the waters but they go out in rubber boats for phack's sake.

Would you prefer a more traditional Umiak?

Canada was advised to put a navy together of 5 submarines on each coast minimum and to consider an all submarine navy and think outside the box as an option which would mean even more subs than the 5 + 5 or , the 5 + 5 and at least 5 regular patrol ships per coast and 3-5 icebreakers.

That’s not feasible on cost grounds……I also think it strange you’d sacrifice one of the more visible political tools used by all Canadian governments since the establishment of the RCN…..Gunboat diplomacy is as viable today as it was in 1910.…Yet here:

That's a sizeable expense. Also our air force had the option of purchasing twice as many Swedish fighters which would have been a better option than

the F35. The last thing we need is a stealth fighter, We need a visible fighter that can be seen showing the flag on regular patrols.

Why? The CP-140 and the various contractor leased aircraft used by the DFO provide “visible presence” in the Arctic and along our Pacific and Atlantic coasts……A fighter force is one of deterrence, much like a submarine force….or better put, the thing to be broken out of the glass case once/if the "visible presence" fails.

Our best bet was either the Swedish fighter or a mix of Swedish and French fighters.

No, it wasn't.....the Saab Gripen was the least suited for Canada's needs and the French Rafale....is...well.... French.

We have also needed a regular fleet of helicopters for over 40 years.

What is a regular fleet of helicopters?

As for sovereign air patrols along the coast, there is no reason we could not use aircraft designed by Bomardier that are turbo prop.

In some aspects, namely fisheries and pollution patrol, aide to SAR and as a rudimentary surveillance asset, all complementing the CP-140 fleet (and it’s eventual replacement) much like our previous Tracker force did, then I agree.

[waldo]

We have to smarten up. If we plan on claiming the Northern as our land how will we do that with a handful of aboriginal peoples we won't give weapons to or proper training to and who we call Rangers?

Our Rangers God love them know the waters but they go out in rubber boats for phack's sake.

Our North is regularly transversed by not just the Yanks, but the Russians, Chinese, British, French, Japanese, Danish-we are a joke.

We have no one but ourselves to blame.

other than the annual Harper photo-op trip to the Arctic, just what have Harper Conservatives actually done to support an (extended) Arctic sovereignty claim... particularly, in regards the actions taken by Russia; specifically:

The Cold War is over, but Russia still takes the Arctic seriously. Russian nuclear-powered submarines still sail under the sea ice, where Canada’s diesel-powered submarines cannot venture.

Russia is intent on transforming its Arctic coastline into a commercially viable alternative to the Suez Canal. In 2011, President Vladimir Putin said: “I want to stress the importance of the Northern Sea Route as an international transport artery that will rival traditional trade lanes in service fees, security and quality.”

Russia uses icebreakers to escort commercial vessels, and charges fees for the service. In 2007, it launched the Fifty Years of Victory, a nuclear-powered behemoth able to break 2.5 metres of ice at speed.

Canada’s diesel-powered icebreakers are much older and smaller. Although some money was recently budgeted for refits, there are plans for only one new vessel – and no construction contract has been signed. Canadian icebreakers generally aren’t used for escorting commercial vessels in the Arctic, and when they are, no cost recovery takes place.

Russia is building 10 search-and-rescue stations in the Arctic, each with its own ships and aircraft. The stations will supplement the icebreakers, their on-board helicopters and numerous military bases.

Not a single Canadian search-and-rescue aircraft is based in the Arctic. Helicopters and 45-year-old Hercules planes are deployed from Canada’s more southerly regions. An attempt to procure replacement planes began in 2002, but again, no construction contract has been signed.

Russia has 16 deep-water ports in the Arctic. Canada’s sole Arctic port is at Churchill, Man., nearly 2,000 kilometres south of the Northwest Passage. A plan to transform a disused wharf on Baffin Island into an all-year naval base, announced in 2007, has been delayed and curtailed.

The combination of melting ice and Russian state investment has led to a recent tenfold increase in shipping along the Northern Sea Route, with more than 40 large ships – mostly bulk carriers and oil tankers – sailing through last year.

Traffic through the Northwest Passage is increasing less quickly, due to the absence of good charts, search and rescue, icebreaker escorts and ports of refuge. Sea ice is a rapidly diminishing problem: For the past several summers, the entire waterway has been ice-free.

Harper Conservatives continually project empty platitudes concerning Arctic sovereignty. Of course, fiscal realities prevail... instead of targeting monies toward domestic coast guard, search & rescue upgrades/improvements, ice-breakers and deep-water ports... toward supporting viable sovereignty claims, we get ongoing military procurement failures led by, most notably, the ongoing F-35 debacle. Worse yet, we get Harper Conservatives potentially interfering with the scientific based sovereignty claim process with it's idiotic publicity stunt to claim the North Pole --- Why Canada’s race to claim the North Pole could backfire

Claiming the North Pole makes a catchy Christmastime headline, but overreaching could ensnare Canada’s full territorial claim in the Arctic.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s push to control the North Pole may be good holiday season politics, but it risks stalling an already glacially slow effort to draw Canada’s Arctic borders.

His government filed a partial claim with the United Nations Monday that details how far it thinks Canada’s jurisdiction stretches off the Atlantic Coast, while signalling it will make a pitch for the North Pole in a later submission on Arctic boundaries.

Despite two decades, and nearly $200-million worth of pioneering undersea Arctic research by teams of specialists on icebreakers, in helicopters or camped out in High Arctic wasteland, the 47-page submission to the UN mentions the Arctic just once.

And that’s only to say Canada isn’t ready to say how far its extended continental shelf in the Arctic runs beyond the normal 200-nautical-mile (370-kilometre) limit. The only scientific data in the document is from the Atlantic Ocean.

“More importantly, I don’t think the prime minister, and the Prime Minister’s Office, are literate in deep-sea geology. So if they decided it was important to claim the seabed underneath the North Pole, then they have interfered with an otherwise pretty clear scientific process.”

Claiming the North Pole makes a catchy Christmastime headline. But overreaching could ensnare Canada’s full territorial claim in the Arctic.

That’s because the UN commission shelves a claim if a country formally objects to the details in it, Manicom said. It has done so before with heated claims over the continental shelf in East Asia.

“So if we claim more shelf than we’re scientifically entitled to, and the Russians protest, that will be the end of our claim until we solve this with the Russians,” he said.

“What we risk here is getting into a political dispute, 15 years from now maybe, with Russia about who owns the North Pole, or the seabed under it, which of course won’t be this government’s problem.”

.

[Rue]

In response to Derek:

In response to the Rangers using rubber boats you responded:

"Would you prefer a more traditional Umiak?"

Was that supposed to be witty or funny?

The point was clear-sending some unarmed aboriginals out in rubber boats or kayaks or canoes or anything else is unreasonable-but clearly that is a hard concept for you to understand so its time to giggle at abroriginals right?

In regards to an all sub-marine navy you responded, "That’s not feasible on cost grounds……"

The Canadian nacu requested it as a cost efficient option but clearly you know better then they.

You stated:

"I also think it strange you’d sacrifice one of the more visible political tools used by all Canadian governments since the establishment of the RCN…..Gunboat diplomacy is as viable today as it was in 1910.…"

Ok take a deep breath. Not that you realize but submarines surface. More to the point gun boat diplomacy? No this is not the British on the Yangtze River. This is ocean patrol. You clearly do not understand the difference. Today one can mount a ship from helicopters and submarines.

This is precisely what the Navy stated. You misunderstand patrolling the coasts of oceans. The primary purposes are for illegal fishing and drug smuggling. That requires locating and impeding ship movement. It can be done by many kinds of boats and air vehicles.

In records to my suggesting getting more turbo prop planes from Canadian Bomardier you stated:

"Why? The CP-140 and the various contractor leased aircraft used by the DFO provide “visible presence” in the Arctic and along our Pacific and Atlantic coasts……"

Why do we lease planes from other countries when we can build our own? Is that hard for you to grasp?

You stated:

"A fighter force is one of deterrence, much like a submarine force….or better put, the thing to be broken out of the glass case once/if the "visible presence" fails."

Agreed. Ther all subamrine option is just one. A good armed force is diversified.

In regards to the Saab Gripen you stated it was the least suitd for Canada's needs. Bull. It was never even considered. It was assumed since it would only be built in Sweden that was what would make it unsuitable. There is nothing wrong with the aircraft-compared to the F35 no it does not compare but Canada does not need a stealth craft.

You also stated...."and the French Rafale....is...well.... French."

That means what? Because you don't like the French that is how you judge its aircraft. The Rafale is a high performance fighter-nothing wrong with it.

The French, British and Italians with the Germans had no problems deciding the Tornado another fine craft. With free trade with Europe of course its an option. This we must always buy American mentality with aircraft is bull.

You asked:

"What is a regular fleet of helicopters?"

Sufficient numbers of helicopters to enable enough to be functional and availabel while others are regularly services. The operating hours is determined by use and purpose of the helicopter. There is no fixed number. It depends on operational requirements. You want a number its about 20 per coast.

Derek I concede here and now the options I mentioned are not the only ones and can easily shoot them down yes of course but I am generating options to show there are less expensive ways to build our forces and employee Canadians at the same time as supporting our sovereignty.

The F35 is the product of a corupt lobby.

I had zero problems with the F18 or saying the F14 Tomohawk was the best aircraft of all time.

The Tornado is a fine fighter and so is the Saab which is under-rated. We didn't want it because it was felt it was not compatible with American aircraft in joint missions because of air comunication systems. Not true. They can be modified.

Lol no don't by a Saab car.

[Guest Derek L]

In response to Derek:

In response to the Rangers using rubber boats you responded:

"Would you prefer a more traditional Umiak?"

Was that supposed to be witty or funny?

The point was clear-sending some unarmed aboriginals out in rubber boats or kayaks or canoes or anything else is unreasonable-but clearly that is a hard concept for you to understand so its time to giggle at abroriginals right?

Well what should they use? Our own Navy, Coast Guard, RCMP etc use "rubber boats".

The Canadian nacu requested it as a cost efficient option but clearly you know better then they.

What's the nacu?

Ok take a deep breath. Not that you realize but submarines surface. More to the point gun boat diplomacy? No this is not the British on the Yangtze River. This is ocean patrol. You clearly do not understand the difference. Today one can mount a ship from helicopters and submarines.

I clearly don’t understand what you’re talking about…….

This is precisely what the Navy stated. You misunderstand patrolling the coasts of oceans. The primary purposes are for illegal fishing and drug smuggling. That requires locating and impeding ship movement. It can be done by many kinds of boats and air vehicles.

You're talking out of your arse......the Navy has never suggested replacing the surface fleet with submarines.

"Why? The CP-140 and the various contractor leased aircraft used by the DFO provide “visible presence” in the Arctic and along our Pacific and Atlantic coasts……"

Why do we lease planes from other countries when we can build our own? Is that hard for you to grasp?

Reality.

In regards to the Saab Gripen you stated it was the least suitd for Canada's needs. Bull. It was never even considered. It was assumed since it would only be built in Sweden that was what would make it unsuitable. There is nothing wrong with the aircraft-compared to the F35 no it does not compare but Canada does not need a stealth craft.

Yes it was......Saab itself pulled it last summer.

You also stated...."and the French Rafale....is...well.... French."

That means what? Because you don't like the French that is how you judge its aircraft. The Rafale is a high performance fighter-nothing wrong with it.

It uses French engines, avionics and weapons and costs more then the F-35, well also being a generation older………There is a reason it’s sales have been lacklustre.

The French, British and Italians with the Germans had no problems deciding the Tornado another fine craft. With free trade with Europe of course its an option. This we must always buy American mentality with aircraft is bull.

The French have never operated the Tornado, nor have we, so I fail to see your disjointed point.

Sufficient numbers of helicopters to enable enough to be functional and availabel while others are regularly services. The operating hours is determined by use and purpose of the helicopter. There is no fixed number. It depends on operational requirements. You want a number its about 20 per coast.

What type of helicopters? And why do we need 20 per coast?

Derek I concede here and now the options I mentioned are not the only ones and can easily shoot them down yes of course but I am generating options to show there are less expensive ways to build our forces and employee Canadians at the same time as supporting our sovereignty.

The F35 is the product of a corupt lobby.

I had zero problems with the F18 or saying the F14 Tomohawk was the best aircraft of all time.

The Tornado is a fine fighter and so is the Saab which is under-rated. We didn't want it because it was felt it was not compatible with American aircraft in joint missions because of air comunication systems. Not true. They can be modified.

Lol no don't by a Saab car.

Green 7 square.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Derek L