Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[waldo]

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!

this... this is one of the lamest of your ever present attempts to craft some slight (overt or subtle) toward Canada/Canadians. There's never been any suggestion that the latest modification intent wouldn't be done, wouldn't be funded. You know this. You absolutely know that the related initiative is active and in progress with the RCAF working to determine requirements and build an implementation plan to guide actual work to complete.

but your lame attempt is an inspiration to project upon, once again, the USN being the 'reluctant one'... the reluctant U.S. military branch that really has little want for the F-35. All those cutting remarks from 'Admiral types' played out through earlier MLW F-35 threads... remarks that had to be walked-back to foster a false image of USN "buy in". Following your post lead, perhaps there's an opportunity for U.S. citizens and corporate out-reach to help the USN to finally get on-board with the F-35... to get busy! Go Navy!!!

U.S. Senate - 2017 Defense Appropriation Report

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.

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.

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. 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.

.

[Army Guy]

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.

While the CF is authorized to a maximum strength of 100,000 it will "never" get there, it currently does not have the budget to maintain those numbers , nor the infra structure to house them, give them a place to work etc... nor does it have the equipment necessary to equipped them. It's current budget is not enough to carry our the training necessary for annual training requirements...

The equipment side of the house is even worse for the ARMY which is the forces primary element, meaning it has the most spent on it....Army currently has no logistical veh fleet to speak of, meaning no army trucks a problem that has plague the army for 4 years now. Most of it's current fleet LSVW, MLVW, HLVW are sitting in compounds awaiting to be sold off as scrap, they are currently not road worthy with the exception of about 20 % of the fleet....

Trucks are not sexy, but without them it is imposable for the army to move....funding for this project wes clawed back by the liberal government...but to be fair...under Harpers government they to ignored this massive problem. the army has in some cases rented school busses to move troops around the training areas....or has rented trucks that are not designed for an off road environment....Has parked IFV and Tanks because it could not afford the fuel to move them.

We could go on and on about every veh or piece of equipment in current inventory....but you have the idea....So why do we need to spend more than .08 % of GDP on our military....well training, equipment, would be good reasons....The expansion of our military has been on the books for years, 3 Army brigades has been proven not enough to accommodate an extended mission of only 3500 troops...Yes our military has done it, but at the cost to it's soldiers...

Army is now facing the massive retirement of it's baby boomer generation, over the last couple of years recruitment has not kept up with retirement numbers and will only get much worse over the next several years....when I retired the average age for the army was 38 yrs old and is climbing every year....think about that when the average age of a recruit is 20 years old....Members can serve until they are 60 years of age, ...in an effort to keep it's experienced soldiers. I retired at age 52 , because I could no longer keep up with the younger crowd...I could not imagine being 60....

Our Armed forces are in very bad shape, and the only thing that will save them is funding, or at least someone able to put in the effort to do that....it is on life support as we speak....It is cheaper to bury our soldiers than to give them the right tools for the job.....

[Moonbox]

"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"

waldo you know as well as I do that your link is a partisan hack-job. While I'm not going to argue the test pilot's findings, the article writer certainly put a neat spin on it. The F-35 was designed as a BVR fighter. Period. That it would fail in a visual range dogfight is no surprise. Anyone with even rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics was predicting this years ago (excluding expert cheerleaders armchair generals like Derek who of course argued otherwise). That being said, the plane's hardly going to be dead meat flying. Its advantages elsewhere will more than make up for that.

The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?

[Smallc]

It seems that the Liberals not only intend to buy the Super Hornets, but to upgrade the CF-18s as well.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-doesnt-have-enough-fighter-jets-liberals-say-despite-plans-to-upgrade-cf-18-fighter-fleet

[Smallc]

I actually remember saying that on any given day, we only had 34 CF-18s ready for action. That is less than our NORAD commitment, never mind our NATO commitment.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Our Armed forces are in very bad shape, and the only thing that will save them is funding, or at least someone able to put in the effort to do that....it is on life support as we speak....It is cheaper to bury our soldiers than to give them the right tools for the job.....

That experienced viewpoint has started to get lots more media attention...and it is not just about CF-18 replacement aircraft. Sadly, this commentary recommends not joining Canadian Forces, a time honoured dedication of service to country, because the funding levels are so low:

Why No One Should Join the Canadian Forces

...So what is the root cause of this? I think there are three major flaws that are contributing to this downward spiral. The reason that the Canadian Forces is having such a hard time retaining and recruiting troops is because of budget cuts, the state of the equipment, and the knowledge that if you are injured on the job you will not be properly taken care of by Veterans Affairs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bruce-moncur/canadian-forces_b_6407088.html

[Smallc]

While the CF is authorized to a maximum strength of 100,000 it will "never" get there, it currently does not have the budget to maintain those numbers , nor the infra structure to house them, give them a place to work etc... nor does it have the equipment necessary to equipped them. It's current budget is not enough to carry our the training necessary for annual training requirements...

The equipment side of the house is even worse for the ARMY which is the forces primary element,

In the Canadian context, I'd argue that the air force and navy are far more important.

[waldo]

waldo you know as well as I do that your link is a partisan hack-job. While I'm not going to argue the test pilot's findings, the article writer certainly put a neat spin on it. The F-35 was designed as a BVR fighter. Period. That it would fail in a visual range dogfight is no surprise. Anyone with even rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics was predicting this years ago (excluding expert cheerleaders armchair generals like Derek who of course argued otherwise). That being said, the plane's hardly going to be dead meat flying. Its advantages elsewhere will more than make up for that.

The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?

the linked article was challenged here, without substantiating proof, to suggest the F-35 'could dogfight'. The Janes commentary speaks to the intent behind the linked article, confirming it; again: "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...... This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not..... rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other".

the additional emphasis in that Janes commentary is that nations have factored a presumptive capability of, "close-in aerial combat"... into their purchase intent (real or otherwise... not real until actual purchases occur) - directly mentioning countries expecting to have the F-35 actually replace those capabilities of the F-16.

in regards your statement: "The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?" Notwithstanding the cascade of critical thought/review concerning stealth and defeating it today... today...what gives you any sense that F-35 stealth will be effective?

.

[waldo]

I actually remember saying that on any given day, we only had 34 CF-18s ready for action. That is less than our NORAD commitment, never mind our NATO commitment.

Canada doesn’t have enough fighter jets, Liberals say, despite plans to upgrade CF-18 fighter fleet

Owens said Canada has a certain number of CF-18s committed to defending North America through the joint Canada-U.S. aerospace command, NORAD, on a daily basis. It also has a certain number of fighter jets committed to NATO.

“And when you add these two numbers together, that is greater than the number of planes that we can put into the sky on an average day, which we would call mission ready,” she said. “So that is what we are defining as a capability gap.”

.

[waldo]

Sadly, this commentary recommends not joining Canadian Forces, a time honoured dedication of service to country, because the funding levels are so low:

the way you perpetually demean/belittle/denigrate the Canadian military, Canadian procurement, Canadian participation in NATO/NORAD, Canadian foreign engagements, etc., should anyone accept your hypocritical phrasing that has you now speaking of a, "time honored dedication of service to country"?

.

[Army Guy]

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the government has no plans to cancel those planned upgrades. In fact, Jordan Owens said 26 CF-18s — or about one-third of the fleet — have already undergone structural work to be able to operate to the mid-2020s, and electronic upgrades are planned next.

He also comments that the upgrade has already started, Imagine that....Contacts are already in place and the actual life expectance numbers will be 2025.....But how could that be "a project of this magnitude" which has been covered in detail from start, Why would the Government keep this from the public? Why would they mislead us into thinking that the CF-18 was only good until 2021....

Now they release a part two, trying to substantiate a sole purchase contract, when in fact our F-18 will be operational until 2025 once this Project upgrade is finished. The time line issue has been solved now, Now they state 65 aircraft is not enough..."this is world breaking news" made available to previous liberal and conservative governments.....They had set out how many aircraft the Military would receive funding for.....And now 65 is not enough this gets better everyday.....can't wait until next week....

[Smallc]

Now they release a part two, trying to substantiate a sole purchase contract, when in fact our F-18 will be operational until 2025 once this Project upgrade is finished. The time line issue has been solved now, Now they state 65 aircraft is not enough..."this is world breaking news" made available to previous liberal and conservative governments.....They had set out how many aircraft the Military would receive funding for.....And now 65 is not enough this gets better everyday.....can't wait until next week....

65 isn't enough if you're going to have 42 - 48 available at all times, as we're supposed to. That's not hard to believe.

[Army Guy]

In the Canadian context, I'd argue that the air force and navy are far more important.

I would as well, however if you can not support the Army because it is the cheapest, how can you equip and operate the Navy and Airforce....with todays current budget....you know the one you say should not be increased.....

How much writing has to be on the wall for Canadians to clearly see todays budget levels are not enough....for what little we have.....3 very under manned Army brigades, 77 fighting aircraft, and how many ships again (operational ships), not in refit, not burnt out , not damage in accidents....how can we put out to sea today to defend one of the largest shore lines in the world....

I can see where all the evidence would clearly spell out our military needs to be leaner......what ever that means in liberal speak...

[Argus]

In the Canadian context, I'd argue that the air force and navy are far more important.

And they are more expensive to maintain and are in just as bad shape.

And by the way, if the natives go 'off the reservation' again, what good do you think the air force or navy will do?

Not all of this is on the Liberals. The current decade of darkness began under Harper several years ago, but it will be continued and probably deepened under Trudeau.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

the way you perpetually demean/belittle/denigrate the Canadian military, Canadian procurement, Canadian participation in NATO/NORAD, Canadian foreign engagements, etc., should anyone accept your hypocritical phrasing that has you now speaking of a, "time honored dedication of service to country"?

There is not much to praise in the organization, leadership, or governmental oversight of the Canadian military. Sloppy, uncaring and self-serving all the way around.

Harper started out well, but then, ever the pragmatist, he realized "Hey, why should I bother? Nobody is going to thank me except our base, and they don't have anywhere to go on this issue since the Liberals and NDP would be worse". And given one of the first things Trudeau did was halt all procurement, he's obviously right.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Argus

[Army Guy]

the way you perpetually demean/belittle/denigrate the Canadian military, Canadian procurement, Canadian participation in NATO/NORAD, Canadian foreign engagements, etc., should anyone accept your hypocritical phrasing that has you now speaking of a, "time honored dedication of service to country"?

.

SO we dismiss the article as being BC hype, because it now has no merit.....or is it because the article has merit we just don't want to here it from BC....Or is it that it does not fit into the liberal agenda.....

[bush_cheney2004]

And they are more expensive to maintain and are in just as bad shape.

Not all of this is on the Liberals. The current decade of darkness began under Harper several years ago, but it will be continued and probably deepened under Trudeau.

True, but it goes back even farther than that. It is systemic and predictable. The impact on Canadian Forces recruiting and morale must be significant.

[Smallc]

And by the way, if the natives go 'off the reservation' again, what good do you think the air force or navy will do?

If that's what keeps you up at night, I feel bad for you. That isn't a real concern.

[Argus]

True, but it goes back even farther than that. It is systemic and predictable. The impact on Canadian Forces recruiting and morale must be significant.

The problem is that the Left is reflexively anti-military. The only people who give a damn are conservatives, but we haven't had a conservative PM in fifty years other than Harper, and he was a self-serving pragmatist more interested in how every dollar would get him a vote than in looking after the military. Now we have Trudeau, who's base has zero interest in a strong military, and who will see DND as nothing more than a drain on the money he needs to pay for more votes.

[Argus]

If that's what keeps you up at night, I feel bad for you. That isn't a real concern.

Because civil disorder only happens in other countries. And our natives are all pleased as punch with their lot in life.

Have you considered asking Charles to change your name to BigL? I can't think of a single conservative fiscal or social policy you believe in.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

And they are more expensive to maintain and are in just as bad shape.

And this isn't really true - all 3 branches have old equipment, but also very new equipment. The transport fleet, the frigate fleet, the modernized fighter fleet, the tank force, and now the LAV and light vehicle fleet are all very new. On the other hand, transport trucks, navy supply ships, and fwsar...enough said.

[Smallc]

Because civil disorder only happens in other countries. And our natives are all pleased as punch with their lot in life.

What's the chances of a large civil disturbance requiring military intervention in Canada?

[Argus]

What's the chances of a large civil disturbance requiring military intervention in Canada?

Ask the Belgians.

[Army Guy]

65 isn't enough if you're going to have 42 - 48 available at all times, as we're supposed to. That's not hard to believe.

No it is not....hard to believe, that just now for some reason the numbers don't add up, they have not added up since previous liberal governments started this project after all people freaked out at the 9 bil price tag....imagine what 100 aircraft would have been costed out to........they still did not add up in Harper reign of terror, Today the liberals figured it out......But for the wrong reasons....or maybe they figured it out for their agenda....

SO what now will this be enough to sole source more aircraft.....operating 2 aircraft is going to be even more costly than operating one, plus we will need more of both types.....cha ching.....

Liberals still have a chance to correct all this dog breakfast....Have an open competition and finish this once and for all.....I personal don't care who wins, as long as it is fair, and is the best choice for the military.....By sole sourceing this like harper wanted will only put this whole project in jeopardy, and prolong this whole pile of dog shit we call F-18 replacement project.

[Smallc]

I'm a proponent of adding a third squadron. That is something I'd be willing to spend extra money on.