Argus Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 We're going to buy the F-35 Oh wait, it's not politically expedient, so we'll commission a report and never release the report and then do nothing on the file and punt it to someone else. So they put signing off until after an election. Since the plane wasn't available yet, so what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 do the math! Spend the estimated ~1/2 billion to get the CF-18s to 2025... . Versus spending how many billions purchasing an "interim" aircraft, combined with the added costs of operating a mixed fleet......and even then, any legacy Hornets that we will operate post 2020 will still have to be upgraded to meet the requirements of NEXTGEN air traffic management for use in North America and Europe........so we'll still have to pay for upgrading our current Hornets, or at least a portion, and purchase an "interim" aircraft. now, with YOUR total reliance on an unproven product, start the timeline as to when Canada needs to sign a contract for the F-35 First off, and it can't be stressed enough, when our Prime Minister's father's government selected our current Hornets, they were a "unproven product"...... To answer your question, per the head of the RCAF (and the RCAF itself), we would require a contract signed no later than 2021 to ensure a 4-5 year transition into a new aircraft.....post 2025, increases the risk with our current fleet and would likely require another upgrade, with the understanding that a portion of the fleet would have to be retired due to structural issues. pay monies, get lined up in "the presumptive assembly queue (against all that expected crushing RUSH of foreign nations and respective U.S. military branches" As cited earlier, if required, the Americans are willing to let us jump ahead of them. When's the start and finish of that "production" F-35 Canadian delivery, particularly in relation to 2025? As cited in the other thread over a year ago, the RCAF's conservative plan is five years to transition out of the Hornet and into the F-35 completely...... For more information on the Hornet upgrade and timelines revisit the previous cite......noting the context that the Harper Government decided to go with the life extension and the RCAF is currently in the planning stages.......as cited, the RCAF term the Hornet extension as low-risk through 2025, with post 2025 use as higher risk. Notwithstanding, that will be $2.5 billion needing to have been spent to keep the CF-18s flying... because of the ongoing saga/delay that is the F-35). do the math... and provide the timeline - yes? I'm not sure where you getting $2.5 billion figure? The USN/USMC developed and implemented their life extension for less than $10 million an aircraft. I won't ask for costs nor timeline for the Trudeau Government's sole source of the Super Hornets, none the less, from the RAAF's deal from over a decade ago, we do know the Australians paid over $4 billion (USD) for 24 Super Hornets and 10 years support............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 So they put signing off until after an election. Since the plane wasn't available yet, so what? We'd never be I this situation if they hadn't punted pat not only one election, but two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) who was the guy here forever going on about that (fake/trumped-up/propaganda based) USMC IOC... forever hyping it? Of course, the IOC charade has already been relayed here in prior related F-35 threads. And now this - oh my! And somehow the postured 2019 full-rate production for the F-35 is to be... believed?US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June. Speaking at Boeing's Global Sustainment and Support (GS&S) site at Cecil Field in northern Florida, Bill Maxwell, senior manager F/A-18 operations, said that the USMC has contracted the company to recover 30 legacy Hornets from the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) facility at Davis-Monthan AFB to cover a projected shortfall in numbers and capability as the service transitions over to the JSF. "The USMC wants 30 Hornet aircraft - two full squadrons - recovered from the boneyard and 'reconstituted' for fleet service. These aircraft were never meant to fly again, but Boeing is bringing them to Cecil Field and extending their airframe lives from 6,000 hours to 8,000 hours, replacing all the old avionics with the latest systems, and returning them to the marines," Maxwell said. Boeing Restores 30 F/A-18C+ Models for Marine Corps Maxwell said F/A-18Cs arriving from Davis-Monthan AFB are generally lower-time fighters that hadn’t reached their full service lives. . Edited June 16, 2016 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 wassup USAF - is there a problem? Uhhh... Go Navy! U.S. Senate - 2017 Defense Appropriation Report Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] Production.--The fiscal year 2017 budget request includes 63 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, six fewer than were provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113).In comparison to quantities planned in the fiscal year 2016 budget request, the Air Force's fiscal year 2017 request includes five fewer aircraft in fiscal year 2017 and 45 fewer aircraft from fiscal years 2017 to 2021. The Committee is concerned that the current programmed quantities will not support the fielding of F-35 squadrons, as initially planned. As a result, the Committee recommends an additional $100,000,000 in advance procurement for the F-35A and encourages the Air Force to revisit F-35A procurement quantities in the fiscal year 2018 budget request.The Committee notes that the Navy continues to delay previously planned production increases of the F-35C carrier variant and has budgeted for no more than four F-35C aircraft since fiscal year 2014, even though prior budget requests planned for more aircraft. The fiscal year 2017 budget request again includes only four F-35Cs, two fewer than were provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113). The Committee notes that it is challenging to efficiently manufacture a small number of F-35C aircraft on the same production line as the F-35A and F-35B aircraft, given the unique items associated with the carrier variant. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Navy to maintain, at a minimum, the current procurement plan in the fiscal year 2018 budget request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 once again, concurrency bites the F-35 program in the azz! (notwithstanding the "no worries" here from MLW F-35 fan-boys over that quoted statement I've trotted out a couple of times from Michael Gilmore, the U.S. Department of Defense's director for Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E): "The current 'official schedule' to complete full development and testing of all Block 3F capabilities by 31 July 31, 2017 is not realistic" ... IOT&E will test the F-35's full combat capability, verifying the jets can fly real, operational missions as intended. so... about that "optimistic" full rate production in 2019... where does that slip to now? Gap? What gap? Final F-35 Testing Slips To 2018 (at the earliest) The military’s top weapons tester has been warning for months that the F-35 will not be ready for its final test phase until 2018 at the earliest. On Tuesday, the Pentagon officially acknowledged the schedule slip. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 We're going to buy the F-35 Oh wait, it's not politically expedient, so we'll commission a report and never release the report and then do nothing on the file and punt it to someone else. Which is exactly what the Liberals are doing now. I guess the usual USN, USMC, USAF, GAO and other copious amounts of American procurement data that is readily available will have to do for now, 'cause there ain't boo coming out of Ottawa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) ... 'cause there ain't boo coming out of Ottawa. what's the point of you continuing to pine for the results from the ongoing Defence Policy Review... and what difference does it make to you anyway? Why is Canada just so important to you? Again, you've already been apprised that public consultations are currently underway across Canada. Please be patient: good results aren't cheap - cheap results aren't good! . Edited June 16, 2016 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Which is exactly what the Liberals are doing now. I guess the usual USN, USMC, USAF, GAO and other copious amounts of American procurement data that is readily available will have to do for now, 'cause there ain't boo coming out of Ottawa. Did I say the Liberals aren't punting (if the rumours are true)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Did I say the Liberals aren't punting (if the rumours are true)? OK...but whether they are or not....the end result is more lack of transparency, more military procurement fiasco, more lack of planning, more loss of capabilities for national defense, etc., etc. Not even the United States Navy can do anything about that....except maybe tow some more Canadian ships back to port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Almost no Nato countries have kept those commitments. Only 5 of 28 Nato nations spend the 2% of GDP. Well that sounds like a good excuse....Johnny is not paying his fair share neither am I....So what is the point of signing the agreements, How does that make our nation look on the inter national scene if we can not keep our promises....or commitments....And yet these nations would be the first to claim foul if something was to happen and invoke those very agreements they say they have signed but not lived up to....A major issue within NATO.... Why not just have some balls and pull out of agreements we have no intention of living up to....or re write our commitments....No we can't do that those agreements are our insurance policy in case something does happen.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Do those agreements specify that we must have F-35's? In general terms I believe the NORAD agreement is about defence of North American airspace, and NATO commitments seem to boil down to spending these days (we used to talk about NATO commitment in relation to our forces deployed in Europe). No the agreements do not break it down into what equipment we purchase, but they do say the must be compatible with our allies....Not sure what your driving at here, if your asking if the SH would be compatible then I'd say yes... As I have said before that is a major issue within NATO today, what nations are willing to spend on their agreements or defensive pacts...and while they reduce or cash in on peace bonds, there expectations to be defended however remain at old levels.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Well that sounds like a good excuse....Johnny is not paying his fair share neither am I Is there a reason that we should spend $40B per year on the military? That extra $20B could pay for a lot of healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Is there a reason that we should spend $40B per year on the military? That extra $20B could pay for a lot of healthcare. Where did you come up with the 40 bil dollar figure ? If my math is right that would mean our current spending levels are below 1%, more like .08 % If Canada is going to sign on to a major defensive pact such as NATO and NORAD then it should be prepared to back up those commitments with enough funding to meet them all....If not then re write those agreements, or pull out of them altogether....That's the problem that is being faced with NATO right now, the organization is being weakened to the point it is becoming a paper force only. and would have difficulties meeting or living up to all these commitments.... Our nation signed these agreements under the understanding that it would live up to them.....I guess our word or pledge means nothing... The current state of our military is a joke....one of the largest land masses to service and a military that Luxemburg commits to. Canadians don't get it.....Members of our military have paid with their lives for not having the right equipment...and still that fact has changed nothing....cheaper to bury them than to pay out for something that will save lives....that is until it is their sons or daughters answer the call.... An extra 20 bil would do wonders for our health care system, but even that is not where that money would go to....how much of the 30 bil deficit the liberals are running up is going into health care ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) Canada's economy is just short of $2T - that's where the number comes from. Last year, we spent about $20B - about 1% of GDP. The current status of our military reflects the collective threats to Canada - almost none. Edited June 16, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Canada's economy is just short of $2T - that's where the number comes from. Last year, we spent about $20B - about 1% of GDP. The current status of our military reflects the collective threats to Canada - almost none. Why have a military at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Why have a military at all? The current threats to Canada don't reflect the need for zero military - simply not a large one that requires $40B in spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 The current threats to Canada don't reflect the need for zero military - simply not a large one that requires $40B in spending. We should just gamble, then. Take a chance that nobody invades. Saves billions. That's what we're doing already anyways. If Luxembourg attacks...we'll give those b******ds a run for their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 We should just gamble, then. Take a chance that nobody invades. The likelihood of anyone invading is next to zero (as in, it might as well be zero). Saves billions. That's what we're doing already anyways. If Luxembourg attacks...we'll give those b******ds a run for their money. But my dad can beat up his dad though. Seriously - what is the pressing need for a doubling of Canada's military? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 The likelihood of anyone invading is next to zero (as in, it might as well be zero). But my dad can beat up his dad though. Seriously - what is the pressing need for a doubling of Canada's military? Under Mr JT, the military will be further gutted, I'm sure. As I posted elsewhere, we view our military as a liability. Not as a career choice for our citizens as the US does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 uhhh, all good discussion... but about that CF-18 replacement thingee and criteria that might/should drive decisions:domestic first, you say! Who knew... who knew! April 2016: The statement of requirements is first and foremost written for a defence of Canada role. The fact that it may also have expeditionary capabilities is irrelevant to the discussion because both the number of aircraft and the requirements of that aircraft are built on a solution for...the defence of Canada. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Under Mr JT, the military will be further gutted, I'm sure. As I posted elsewhere, we view our military as a liability. Not as a career choice for our citizens as the US does. Citation needed for your first assertion. There is no proof of that based on statements or the budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Citation needed for your first assertion. There is no proof of that based on statements or the budget. Opinion doesn't need citation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Citation needed for your first assertion. There is no proof of that based on statements or the budget. why bother... clearly, he's hell bent in derailing yet another thread! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Cy how about trudeau own words, out military will be leaner. Code word for gutted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.