Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[segnosaur]

12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

It looks like by the time that process is competed, and actual jets are delivered, it will be in the mid to late 20's. Can Canada meet it's obligations in the interim...

Yes, yes they can.

As has been pointed out many times before... the current upgrades mean that the bulk of the fleet will remain airworthy until at least 2025, and perhaps longer. While it will take time to run any competition and/or have the planes built and delivered, there is more than enough time to do both of those before our planes are unable to function at all.

and if not then what do you suggest?

How about actually start an open competition? There is nothing preventing the Liberals from doing that right now. Well, except for the political embarrasment they'd feel if the F35 won the open competition (as they have done in other countries).

 

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

As has been pointed out many times before... the current upgrades mean that the bulk of the fleet will remain airworthy until at least 2025, and perhaps longer.

According to the Minister of Defence, we will be unable to meet our commitments to NATO and NORAD with the current fleet. While we currently have 77 aircraft, only about half of them are able to fly at any one time. The bigger problem is the large number of flight hours on them. If an open procurement procedure was started 7 years ago then we wouldn't be in this pickle. Yes, the Liberals have also been slow, they are responsible for 1 of those 7 years. 

[segnosaur]

35 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

According to the Minister of Defence, we will be unable to meet our commitments to NATO and NORAD with the current fleet.

Ah, I think I see where your problem is.

The "Minister of Defense" is a politician. As such, he is as beholden to the party that he is a member of (i.e. he's a Liberal) as he is to the people under his command (i.e. the military). The claim that the current fleet of CF-18s will be adequate until 2025 comes from Lt. General Hood, who is a member of the military, and as such is expected to be both unbiased (at least in public), without the divided loyalties that plague the Minister of Defense.

Given a choice, I would much rather trust the comments of a non-politician who is more or less an expert in the subject matter over a politician who needs to respect party lines and who has never been in the Canadian air force. (He was in the military, but as an officer in the army.)

http://globalnews.ca/news/3089202/canadas-fleet-of-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-fly-beyond-2025-says-air-force-commander/

Edited November 25, 2016 by segnosaur

[Wilber]

Saijan is an elected politician but was a career police and army officer who did one tour in Bosnia and three in Afghanistan. The first Siikh to command a regiment.

[?Impact]

18 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Given a choice, I would much rather trust the comments of a non-politician who is more or less an expert in the subject matter over a politician who needs to respect party lines and who has never been in the Canadian air force. (He was in the military, but as an officer in the army.)

Great, then when Mr. Hood testifies before the Parliamentary committee next week he can say that. Just don't rush a decision that has already been postponed 7 years or more. We need to have ample time to complete a proper evaluation and decision on a permanent replacement to our fighter fleet. 

[segnosaur]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Saijan is an elected politician but was a career police and army officer who did one tour in Bosnia and three in Afghanistan. The first Siikh to command a regiment.

And? What's your point?

I already pointed out that he was in the military. But it was a different branch of military than the air force, and as such he'd be less likely to know the details about aircraft maintenance than someone (like Lt. Gen. Hood) who actually heads the air force.)

And whatever he was in the past (and he does deserve respect for his role in the military), he is still a politician. The Liberal's military plans have been foolish... during the election promising to scrap the F35 to save money to build the navy, ignoring the possibility that the alternatives would be more expensive in the long run. And the Liberals failed to maintain previously planned spending proposals. Even if he were a good soldier in the past, he hasn't exactly been a forceful proponent of doing what's best for the military.

[segnosaur]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Great, then when Mr. Hood testifies before the Parliamentary committee next week he can say that. Just don't rush a decision that has already been postponed 7 years or more. We need to have ample time to complete a proper evaluation and decision on a permanent replacement to our fighter fleet. 

And you don't think ~9 years (the time frame between now and when our planes are supposed to be good for) is "ample time"?

Heck, 9 years is almost the length of time since the F35 was first flown.

[The_Squid]

Let's compare recent Defence Ministers...  

Sajian - military officer

	Order of Military Merit (OMM)	Officer October 17, 2012 Invested June 20, 2014 [18]
	Meritorious Service Medal (MSM)	Awarded August 22, 2012 Military Division
	South-West Asia Service Medal	With Clasp "AFGHANISTAN"
	General Campaign Star	South West Asia Ribbon 2 Rotation Bars
	Mentioned in dispatches	Awarded June 4, 2008
	NATO Service Medal	Former Yugoslavia
	Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal
	Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal	2002 Canadian Version of this Medal [19]
	Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal	2012 Canadian Version of this Medal [20]
	Canadian Forces Decoration (CD)	1 Clasp
	Commendation Medal	From the United States of America

 

Kenney - no degree...  no military service...

Rob Nicholson - lawyer...  no military service...

Peter Mackay - lawyer...  no military service...

Gordon O'Connor - BSc in math....  no military service...

37 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Ah, I think I see where your problem is.

The "Minister of Defense" is a politician.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Great, then when Mr. Hood testifies before the Parliamentary committee next week he can say that. Just don't rush a decision that has already been postponed 7 years or more. We need to have ample time to complete a proper evaluation and decision on a permanent replacement to our fighter fleet. 

 

This will mean more restrictions, reduced flight hours, and higher costs to maintain the existing CF-18 fleet.    This 2014 Evaluation of Options summary report demonstrates that Canada knows it is pushing these aircraft longer than would otherwise have happened based on engineering and operational requirements.    Continued lack of action on the procurement, delivery, and deployment of CF-18 replacements has produced risk and non-risk (political) justifications for upgrades and service life extensions (i.e. added 'D' checks and fatigue testing).    More money will be spent to stave off the awful decision to spend serious money on a new fleet and transition.

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/documents/cf18-eval-eng.pdf

Superficially, it is difficult to believe that the present fleet of 77 aircraft with an already reduced operational availability can be extended for 9-10 years without further flight hours restrictions and de-rated mission capabilities.   Ergo, the reported "gap" is real and caused by political indecision and the usual Canadian way of doing such things when it comes to anything military.

Solutions from "allies" includes scenarios where Canada's air force will have more of a secondary/supporting role compared to strike or even CAP missions.

[?Impact]

12 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Gordon O'Connor - BSc in math....  no military service...

BSc in math & physics, and BA in philosophy 

He served over 30 years in the Canadian Army, starting as a second lieutenant in the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps and retired at the rank of brigadier-general.

He however lied to Parliament about Afghan prisoners, and was rightfully removed from his post.

Edited November 25, 2016 by ?Impact

[Wilber]

28 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

And? What's your point?

I already pointed out that he was in the military. But it was a different branch of military than the air force, and as such he'd be less likely to know the details about aircraft maintenance than someone (like Lt. Gen. Hood) who actually heads the air force.)

And whatever he was in the past (and he does deserve respect for his role in the military), he is still a politician. The Liberal's military plans have been foolish... during the election promising to scrap the F35 to save money to build the navy, ignoring the possibility that the alternatives would be more expensive in the long run. And the Liberals failed to maintain previously planned spending proposals. Even if he were a good soldier in the past, he hasn't exactly been a forceful proponent of doing what's best for the military.

 

The Minister of Defense will always be a politician no matter who is in power. Get used to it.

We don't know how forceful he has been in doing what's best for the military. Maybe we are lucky to have him because I don't think he has the easiest job in that Cabinet.

 

On Edit: My guess is Trudeau would be much happier doing nothing and putting this off until after the next election.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Wilber

[Bonam]

19 hours ago, dre said:

Well almost our entire need is just to fly routine patrols. We don't need bombers. The F35 is specifically designed to bomb random dark-skinned people thousands of miles away. Military interventionalism jeopardizes our national security and we should starve the government of the tools that give it that ability.

 

Which aspect of the F35's design is specifically optimized for bombing random "dark-skinned" people. Do its weapon guidance systems home in on dark skin or something? 

[Wilber]

2 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Which aspect of the F35's design is specifically optimized for bombing random "dark-skinned" people. Do its weapon guidance systems home in on dark skin or something? 

Yes, it is particularly good at finding dark skinned people in the dark.

[Bonam]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Yes, it is particularly good at finding dark skinned people in the dark.

I think that's the real reason we are still talking about replacing an aging fleet of 70-some aircraft with even fewer modern aircraft. Canadians don't think of the military as a vital entity key to protecting Canada's security, but as an inconvenient and politically-incorrect organization that reminds them that the world isn't all sunshine and kumbaya, a vestigial relic of a war-torn human history that they imagine is no longer relevant.

If Canadians were serious about our military, we would have forces comparable to other middle powers like France and the UK, who with only ~60-70% more GDP nevertheless afford military forces orders of magnitude more effective, including multi-modal nuclear deterrent, navies including carriers, and a variety of different purpose aircraft. 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Bonam said:

including multi-modal nuclear deterrent

While Canada was heavily involved in the development of the nuclear bomb, we wisely choose early on not to pursue nuclear weapons development after WW II. While during the early years of the cold war there were nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, including ones that the Canadian Forces were involved in deploying (ie. more than just allowing Americans to stage weapons here) that was slowly wound down and all weapons of mass destruction removed from Canada by the early 70's. This is nothing to do with today's politically-correct sunshine and kumbaya world, this is about continuing the conscious choices of intelligent Canadians for generations.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

While Canada was heavily involved in the development of the nuclear bomb, we wisely choose early on not to pursue nuclear weapons development after WW II. While during the early years of the cold war there were nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, including ones that the Canadian Forces were involved in deploying (ie. more than just allowing Americans to stage weapons here) that was slowly wound down and all weapons of mass destruction removed from Canada by the early 70's.

 

Not true....nuclear weapons were still deployed in Canada as late as 1984....the population was fooled by labeling them "U.S. controlled".

[Bonam]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

While Canada was heavily involved in the development of the nuclear bomb, we wisely choose early on not to pursue nuclear weapons development after WW II. While during the early years of the cold war there were nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, including ones that the Canadian Forces were involved in deploying (ie. more than just allowing Americans to stage weapons here) that was slowly wound down and all weapons of mass destruction removed from Canada by the early 70's. This is nothing to do with today's politically-correct sunshine and kumbaya world, this is about continuing the conscious choices of intelligent Canadians for generations.

The two nations I mentioned (the UK and France) also make choices no less intelligent than Canadians do. They have chosen to develop and maintain their own nuclear arsenals. In a world where US presidents are no longer committed to NATO and say that allies should pay for American security guarantees, it is perhaps time to rethink Canada's policy of letting its military wither away to nothing under the assumption that our benevolent southern neighbor will fight for our national interests as well as its own. 

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, Bonam said:

The two nations I mentioned (the UK and France) also make choices no less intelligent than Canadians do. They have chosen to develop and maintain their own nuclear arsenals. In a world where US presidents are no longer committed to NATO and say that allies should pay for American security guarantees, it is perhaps time to rethink Canada's policy of letting its military wither away to nothing under the assumption that our benevolent southern neighbor will fight for our national interests as well as its own. 

Without Canada's leadership in non-proliferation, I think the chances are fairly good we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Bonam]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Without Canada's leadership in non-proliferation, I think the chances are fairly good we wouldn't be having this conversation.

A claim without any supporting evidence. 

First, it is the presence of nuclear weapons and the cold war mutual-assured destruction balance of power that is responsible for the relative peace humankind has enjoyed since WWII. Major powers no longer dare fight each other, knowing that the destruction would be calamitous. Second, Canada is a bit player when it comes to issues like nuclear non-proliferation... there is no Canadian leadership there. Leadership on the issue of non-proliferation is left largely to the recognized nuclear weapon states, who enforce the non-proliferation order in their own national interest. And even so, nuclear weapons are proliferating, with 9 nations now possessing them and many others in a position where they could develop them within a year if they wanted to. 

Anyway, this is getting off topic enough that I'd like to steer it back. The point I was making is that countries with economies on a comparable scale to Canada (i.e. within a factor of 2) have much more effective and varied military forces (nuclear weapons were only one of three aspects of this that I mentioned). Whether Canadians want nuclear as part of the equation or not (obviously, the popular sentiment among Canadians is not), we could still have a far more effective and better-equipped military. 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Bonam

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Major powers no longer dare fight each other, knowing that the destruction would be calamitous. Second, Canada is a bit player when it comes to issues like nuclear non-proliferation... there is no Canadian leadership there.

You couldn't be further from the mark. First we are talking about non-proliferation so the major powers are not the concern here. Second, leading by example is the best form of leading - period. Canada could have been a very early nuclear power if we wished, we had the expertise and materials. Canada could certainly been ahead of France, and more than likely the UK as well. Canada choose wisely.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Bonam said:

A claim without any supporting evidence. 

 

 

Agreed...in fact, Canada was deeply committed to uranium mining and the nuclear fuel cycle that provided materials for thousands of U.S. and U.K. atomic and thermonuclear warheads.   Proliferation was also aided by policies for India and Pakistan.

This is not entirely off-topic when one considers that Canada can still maintain good graces in the allies club with such offsets despite stalled decisions and deadbeat spending on its own defense, presuming that the U.S. and others will pick up the slack.   As the Aussies put it, "Canada is a bludger nation".

 

[The_Squid]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

BSc in math & physics, and BA in philosophy 

He served over 30 years in the Canadian Army, starting as a second lieutenant in the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps and retired at the rank of brigadier-general.

He however lied to Parliament about Afghan prisoners, and was rightfully removed from his post.

I didn't realize that!   Thanks!

[Derek 2.0]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

the purchase cost is coming down. The lifecycle cost is an idiotic assessment really, since most of it would have to be spent regardless of what aircraft is purchased.

 

As cited, the recent Danish program found the F-35 both more capable and cheaper then the Super Hornet.

[Derek 2.0]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

the Liberals are clamping lifetime gag order on all public servants and military involved in the aircraft assessment.

 

Trudeau's open and transparent government.........

[Derek 2.0]

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

It looks like by the time that process is competed, and actual jets are delivered, it will be in the mid to late 20's. Can Canada meet it's obligations in the interim, and if not then what do you suggest?

Wrong, as cited several pages back, the head of the RCAF testified that with the recent upgrades, our current Hornets could operate out to ~2025, allowing us out to 2021 to select a new aircraft.......The question, when the Danes are able to run a competition in one year, why does it take the Trudeau Liberals 5 years???