bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 ...That's against all kinds of rules and regulations and treaties. It also makes their multi-year tantrum over the F-35 not having gone through a competitive process look like the cynical exercise in hypocrisy it in fact was. ..all while desperately trying to keep F-35 sub-contracting jobs for Canada, and votes for Liberals. Can't make this kind of stuff up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 The initial sales brochure on the F-35 from 1997 "The Affordable Solution - JSF" claimed R&D 6%, Production 54%, total dev & prod 60%, O&S 40%. Fast forward to 2014 when the Pentagon was looking at its figures which worked out to dev & prod -- $397B = 26%, O&S -- $1,100B = 74%, total. That means the F-35 has gone from an initial-operating cost ratio of 60-40 to 26-74, and to top it all off the product costs are also soaring. I knew I should have invested in snack oil in the 90's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Are you sure about that?According to Wikipedia: Army: Canada: ~23,000 soldiers (https://en.wikipedia...i/Canadian_Army) Australia: ~28,000 soldiers (https://en.wikipedia...Australian_Army) Navy: Canada: ~8,000 soldiers (hhttps://en.wikipedia..._Canadian_Navy) Australia: ~14,000 personnel(https://en.wikipedia...Australian_Navy) Active Personnel Canada: 68,250 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Armed_Forces Australia: 57,982 http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/15-16/2015-16_Defence_PBS_Complete.pdf The numbers don't seem to make any sense... If you add up the number in the Army, navy and air force individually (from Wikipedia) you get: Canada: ~45k Australia: ~56K The Australian numbers are pretty much on par (differences may be due to rounding), but the Canadian numbers seem out of wack. Perhaps the Canadian numbers include reservists (whereas the Australian numbers don't, even though they do have reserves). Either way, the claim that Australia has fewer soldiers should at least be viewed with some skepticism. Different sources give different counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 The initial sales brochure on the F-35 from 1997 "The Affordable Solution - JSF" claimed R&D 6%, Production 54%, total dev & prod 60%, O&S 40%. Fast forward to 2014 .... Doesn't matter...Canada couldn't afford it back then either. Just wanted the jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Active Personnel Canada: 68,250 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Armed_Forces Australia: 57,982 http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/15-16/2015-16_Defence_PBS_Complete.pdf As for bases, I'm actually quite surprised by that. And they are currently spending on defense? This years budget is almost 32 bil, and while they're army and airforce componets there Naval resources are much larger, go figure for an island nation.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 If I add up the number of uniformed personnel on the Canadian Forces website I get 44,200 full time and 31,200 reservists for a total of 75,400. I can't find the number of civilian personnel. Most descriptions I find around on a variety of websites from Wikipedia, World Bank, etc. peg the number of full time at around 70,000 and reservists around 30,000. I am guessing that there are about 25,000 civilians that they are including. I can find some reference to the Union of National Defence Employees representing about 19,000 workers. If we assume there are a few thousand non-union civilian employees as well, this is beginning to make sense. Of course now we need to know if the Australian figures include civilian employees or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) The numbers don't seem to make any sense... If you add up the number in the Army, navy and air force individually (from Wikipedia) you get: Canada: ~45k Australia: ~56K The Australian numbers are pretty much on par (differences may be due to rounding), but the Canadian numbers seem out of wack. Perhaps the Canadian numbers include reservists (whereas the Australian numbers don't, even though they do have reserves). Either way, the claim that Australia has fewer soldiers should at least be viewed with some skepticism. Different sources give different counts. The Canadian numbers do not include reservists. You're right though the numbers are out of whack. The Canadian Forces currently has an authorized strength of 100,000 - almost 70,000 regular forces, and almost 30,000 reserves. Edited June 16, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Since I specifically said they spend more, I question your reading comprehension. I again have to question your comprehension. They spend more money than us, and have for about 5 years. They have, at the same time, fewer soldiers and bases, whilst having more equipment. Leaner - learn the definition. They are a third smaller than we are, population wise. In that context, they have a larger military than we do. The difference in spending is explained by the fact that, unlike Canada, they purchase good, front line equipment for their military to give it an all round capability. Canada has purchased virtually nothing for its military in the last ten years other than some used tanks and some cargo planes. In addition, the central goal of Canada's military spending is for political, not military purposes. Australia buys what its military needs. Canada buys whatever will get the most votes in government ridings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) you need a new talking point... the "fig leaf" you're whining about courtesy of Harper/Kenney! again: per your boy Harper and former Defence Minister Jason Kenney: "A line was added to contracting regulations in June and gives the federal cabinet authority to award a deal to a single company if there are urgent “operational reasons” and it fulfills an interim requirement." Except there are no urgent operational reasons. The head of the RCAF testified to that before parliament only last month. Edited June 16, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 They are a third smaller than we are, population wise. In that context, they have a larger military than we do. The difference in spending is explained by the fact that, unlike Canada, they purchase good, front line equipment for their military to give it an all round capability. Canada has purchased virtually nothing for its military in the last ten years other than some used tanks and some cargo planes. In addition, the central goal of Canada's military spending is for political, not military purposes. Australia buys what its military needs. Canada buys whatever will get the most votes in government ridings. Canada outspent Australia until 5 years ago in total dollars. Their seriousness about defence is a very recent trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Canada outspent Australia until 5 years ago in total dollars. Their seriousness about defence is a very recent trend. Canada would have to outspend Australia by more than 35% to qualify given the relative size of the two countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Perhaps the Australians see Canada as an example of what it cannot and should not do: “In a way, Canada has been a bludger,” he said, using an Australian term used to describe a loafer or sponger. “You live off your bigger neighbour next door.” http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-canada-lives-off-u-s-military-protection-while-australia-forced-to-fend-for-itself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 trying to keep this thread related... take the F-35 number @65 jets. Relative to the originally procured 138 CF-18s, that's a significant downsizing; even compared to the current 79 CF-18s in operation. Was the 65 number arrived at by "gutting"... or by evaluation of need subject to, for example, role definition, technology, efficiencies, trimming of the superfluous, etc.? Choosing to interpret "leaner" as "gutting" requires supporting evidence. . A downsizing based on Cold War circumstance......during the Cold War half of our operational Hornet fleet was based in (West) Germany, with the other half based in Canada mainly committed to NORAD, in addition to several squadrons of CF-5 Freedom Fighters (Obsolete junk) based in Canada and intended to go to Norway in the advent of a war with the Soviets. The 65 number in the exact minimum and won't change operational numbers: Our current Hornets are grouped in squadrons and account for ~48 aircraft, with the rest dedicated to conversion training (two seat Hornets), deep maintenance and a small attrition reserve.....65 replacements would still be grouped into squadrons accounting ~48, with the remainder namely in deep maintenance and attrition, largely forgoing conversion training, instead such training with be conducted more so in simulators......... as noted in past threads, its probable that we still would require additional attrition aircraft dependent on any losses down the road.....this of course would be a problem with an aircraft that is no longer produced, hence requiring a larger initial purchase (see the difference in the proposed Danish deal between F-35 vs Super Hornet) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Canada would have to outspend Australia by more than 35% to qualify given the relative size of the two countries. The relative size of the two countries is irrelevant to the size and equipment of their armed forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 The relative size of the two countries is irrelevant to the size and equipment of their armed forces. Then why not compare us to Russia or China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Except there are no urgent operational reasons. The head of the RCAF testified to that before parliament only last month. put that quote forward... show exactly what was stated - the exact words. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 A downsizing based on ............ as noted in past threads, its probable that we still would require additional attrition aircraft dependent on any losses down the road.....this of course would be a problem with an aircraft that is no longer produced, hence requiring a larger initial purchase (see the difference in the proposed Danish deal between F-35 vs Super Hornet) so... a number not based on "gutting" then, hey! It's a shame you couldn't have said that as that was the emphasis point the MLW member was presuming to offer: that "Trudeau leaner" automatically means "gutting". and yes, I recall past focus on "attrition" numbers/cost - except it had to do with Harper Conservatives failing to mention that requirement or cost it in regards those initial "fake/false/trumped-up" proposal they tried to misinform Canadians with. What was that eventual number realized for F-35 attrition? Correct me if I'm wrong but I have a recollection of around 6 or 7... no biggee right? your forever boogie-man claims towards the shutdown of all production lines from all manufacturers... leaving only the magic/mystical F-35... why your claims are legion! Why even try to put that Danish 'farce' forward in regards attrition - those number requirements for the Super Hornet had nothing to do with attrition. but ya... Canada doesn't have a 'boneyard' to tap... like the USMC just did due to the perpetual F-35 delayed machine: wait now - that was you forever going on about the fake/trumped-up/propaganda based USMC IOC... always hyping it? Of course, the IOC charade has already been relayed here in prior related F-35 threads - yes? Why tap the boneyard if the F-35B is, cough - cough, "combat ready"? US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap Quote 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. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Good luck finding that out....it's usually just more regurgitation of readily available U.S. flight hour costs. For some reason in Canada, it is a big DND mystery. easy-peasy... I found the per/hour cost for the CF-18 @ $20,000 (Canadian)... I used what you repeatedly remind us of - I used "America's Google"! as for the F-35: per USAF: 2015 cost per flight hour for F-35: $44,000 (U.S) per hour. per US GAO: 2012 cost per flight hour for F-35: $35,000 (U.S) per hour. per US DoD: 2012 cost per flight hour for F-35: $32,000 (U.S) per hour. of course, LockMart has grand projections on how much that operating cost will come down based on increased production numbers! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Then why not compare us to Russia or China? Australia is the most like country in terms of spending and military size, which is why I used it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 "Again, per the U.S. Pentagon's Undersecretary of Acquisition, Frank Kendall: Pentagon official casts more doubt on Harper’s dire F-35 industry warning" "We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program." . Again, he is clearly referring to those current LRIP contracts that Canadian companies already are producing for........the Lockheed "threat" is clearly referring to far more lucrative production and sustainment contracts.No, we have a representative of one of the World's largest defense contractors stating the obvious......we don't purchase the aircraft, we don't get anymore contracts.............there is no "posturing", but a statement of fact..........And again, per the head of the RCAF, there is no need of an interim type if this government elects to fund the Hornet upgrade.........granting upwards of five years for this Government (assuming its reelected) to award a contract via a "fair & transparent" competition...as it promised......... hey now! No worries - who's your daddy? Why... it's Boeing! Boeing, which is about to mark 100 years of operations in Canada, employs more than 2,000 people at 12 locations and draws from over 600 suppliers across the country for almost all of its commercial aircraft and most of its military platforms, making Canada one of its largest supply bases. Boeing vice-president Roger Schallom also attempted Wednesday to put to rest the notion that Canadian aerospace jobs would be lost if the F-35 isn't selected. Many of the 110 Canadian companies doing business with Lockheed Martin are also working for Boeing on separate contracts. If Boeing's plane is chosen, Schallom said, the company could replace or even exceed the current $825 million in contracts and the up to $10 billion lifetime value of industrial benefits. "We will put in much more work than those numbers. I can't quantify it until we see what the [air force] requirement is, but we will definitely trump those numbers," he said. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Since somebody brought up the Aussies, what keen fun it is to read their comments to the latest wrinkle in the CF-18 replacement fiasco...guess they are watching too: B. Harrison says ....The Canadians have a far inferior defence force than Australia while being around 50% larger in population. It sits under the American umbrella knowing full well that any threat to Canada will mean a response from the U.S. The Canadians still are not sure on what aircraft to purchase even after committing to the JSF and now have fighter aircraft well past their use by date. If their submarine acquisition is anything to go by (what junk those ex- Pommie subs they purchased turned out to be), the purchase of new fighters for the Canadian Air Force will be probably be around the 12th of never. The Canadian psyche is not too dissimilar to the of New Zealand’s. If you have a big powerful ally covering your back, then why do you need to spend lots on defence? http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/06/canada-to-bridge-fighter-gap-with-interim-super-hornet-acquisition/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Since somebody brought up the Aussies, what keen fun it is to read their comments to the latest wrinkle in the CF-18 replacement fiasco...guess they are watching too: B. Harrison says ya ya... prowling the readers comment section - classic move - why bother to actually quote anything from the article itself? I guess by providing a link to it, you presume to legitimize a comment from some anonymous smo... who adds absolutely nothing new! Classic move. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 "countdown to D2.0's excuse list...Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight - New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle" I have no need of an excuse, as said blog post lacked context (as we already hashed), in that said flight testing was intended to set the control laws of the aircraft's avionics..........inversely, you've been remiss in addressing the comments of the Norwegian air force pilot: so confusing - are you actually maintaining the F-35... can "dogfight"? As much as LockMart/supporters want to cast that "Norwegian air force pilot comments" towards 'damage control', even if you accept what is said, those comments weren't in relation to an actual formal head-to-head competition; where's the follow-up demonstration between the F-35 and 'whatever' to reinforce your claim that the F-35/F-16 head-to-head was just, as you said, "to set the avionics control laws"?in any case, when in doubt consult the "Janes bible": JPO counters media report that F-35 cannot dogfight The War is Boring article appears to have accurately recounted the test pilot's experiences and comments (as the JPO seems to be only disputing the interpretation of the pilot's findings not their authenticity) when it says the F-35 performed poorly in close-in dogfighting.For its part, the JPO was quite correct when it stated the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting (some have postulated the aircraft would have been better designated the A-35 rather than the F-35, on account of its weighting towards the attack role), and that aircraft AF-2 used for the test was not fitted with many of the advanced systems that would likely have enabled it to defeat its adversary when fighting on its own medium- to long-range terms.However, while the JPO can point to such discrepancies between the test pilot's comments (as they appeared in the article) and the F-35's mission set, it should be noted that many nations that cannot afford multiple aircraft types are procuring the F-35 as a multirole 'jack of all trades' to perform the full spectrum of missions.Though advanced sensor and missile technology renders the classic dogfight less likely than at any point during the history of military aviation, rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other. The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so.With the F-35 set to become the dominant platform in Western (and allied) use over the coming decades (in many cases procured specifically as an F-16 replacement), its apparent lack of a close-in aerial combat capability will raise concern, especially considering the range of new 'fifth-generation' fighters coming out of Russia and China, such as the PAK-FA and J-20. This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not. ... "until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Based on this list, there are so few operational CF-188s left it would be easy to create an Adopt-a-Hornet program in Canada to raise money for service life extensions. Support your favourite Hornet today ! ...The document lists 77 CF-18s in service at Cold Lake, Alberta and Bagotville, Que. The “to be determined” columns are for “hours at retirement” and the date of retirement. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/rcaf-cf-18s-a-list-of-hours-on-each-airframe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Interesting that you bring up 2040. I wonder which other fighter will be still operating at that time, per the US Navy? why... I"m gonna say the Super Hornet! And yet we have MLW members here playing up the 'Canada will be on its own' theme... that parts will be impossible to source! Its as if some here actually think the U.S. Navy has designs on having the F-35 replace their Super Hornets. Of course, the USN has/had intentions for the F-35C carrier-based variant to complement its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets... and to replace its F-14s and earlier model F/A-18 Hornets. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.