Jump to content

Canadian Defence News


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Those light Inf Bn s are already being augmented by medium weight Brigade groups, not sure where that tidbit came from but it is wrong....the bulk of the next roto in is coming from 2 RCR Gagetown...no light BN there...

My understanding of that bit of the article is that he’s talking about the future state in 2026 and beyond when the NATO Latvia Battle Group is brought up to Brigade strength. And what I understand him to be saying is that at that time in order to keep it at Brigade strength, a Canadian light infantry battalion (or possibly elements of the battalion) will be surged into the theatre from Canada for 6-8 weeks and then return back to Canada. So over and above whatever forces are there for their regularly scheduled 6-month rotation you would get this occasional LI boost for a month or 2 to try and make up for any shortfall in brigade strength. 
 

My first thought was: so does the NATO strategy actually call for light infantry component as part of the brigade or are you just planning to send them because you can’t get enough mech infantry or armoured units?  Sounds like the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

My first thought was: so does the NATO strategy actually call for light infantry component as part of the brigade or are you just planning to send them because you can’t get enough mech infantry or armoured units?  Sounds like the latter.

Almost every Infantry bn is hurting for people right now, i know here in Gagetown they are really hurting and thatf the other 2 BN in Petawawa are in worst shape. they are all hurting...in the light Inf bn's one is a jump company, the other two are light companies, really not much meat left considering the manpower shortage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Almost every Infantry bn is hurting for people right now, i know here in Gagetown they are really hurting and thatf the other 2 BN in Petawawa are in worst shape. they are all hurting...in the light Inf bn's one is a jump company, the other two are light companies, really not much meat left considering the manpower shortage...

I bet this “surge force” is a composite of all 3  LI Bns and/or heavily augmented by Reservists. The article suggested a target of 20% reservists but I suspect it will be more. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ice Keeps CF-18s Grounded – Again

http://canadianaviator.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/RCAF-CF-18-005.jpgMany Ottawans were disappointed when the flypast of four CF-18s scheduled for Remembrance Day ceremonies at the National War Memorial on Parliament Hill didn’t happen. The culprit, reportedly, was ice at their CFB Bagotville base.

As Canada’s contribution to the defence of the North American continent as the northern partner in NORAD, one would think that something as quintessentially Canadian as ice would not prevent the Hornets from taking off. But you’d be mistaken.

CFB Bagotville shares its runways and de-icing equipment with a civilian airport that serves the Saguenay region. As reported by the online news journal POLITICO Ottawa Playbook, each aircraft needed about 10 minutes to de-ice, and must then take off within 15 minutes or be de-iced again. Given that the CF-18s were to proceed to Ottawa in a four-plane formation, it seems logistics got a bit complicated, so the mission was scrubbed.

“Kinda crummy,” 3 Wing Commander Colonel Colin Marks commented.

CF-18s that are on standby for scrambling at short notice, such as to respond to NORAD missions, are reportedly kept in warm hangars. Marks, who has thousands of hours in CF-18s, said he’s only had to de-ice a couple of times.

CF-18s from the only other facility in Canada where they are based, CFB Cold Lake, also had ice problems. Earlier this year Canada’s airspace was “invaded” by, at the time unidentified, flying objects. Cold Lake-based CF-18s were tasked with scrambling for an intercept.

“They were delayed in departing Cold Lake because of freezing rain,” Chief of Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre told a House of Commons committee when asked to explain why it took American F-22s to take down what turned out to be a balloon. “I understand that the airstrip was a bit of a skating rink, as happens in northern Alberta.”


https://canadianaviator.com/ice-keeps-cf-18s-grounded-again/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2023 at 9:10 AM, BeaverFever said:

Canadian military sets stage for purchase of drones and Hellfire missiles; program could cost up to $5 billion

“Following contract award by the end of this fiscal year, we expect the first delivery in 2028.”

Published Sep 22, 2023  •  Last updated 1 day ago  •  3 minute read

MQ-9 Reaper drone Hellfire missileAn MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted drone aircraft fires a Hellfire missile during testing on Aug. 30 in the United States. Photo by US Air Force /HANDOUT

The Canadian military has set the stage for its purchase of a fleet of armed drones by requesting the United States provide it with 219 Hellfire missiles as part of an overall program that could be worth up to $5 billion.

Canada, the U.S. government and American drone manufacturer General Atomics are in the final stages of the purchase of a fleet of MQ-9 Reaper drones that will be operated from a command centre in Ottawa. A contract is expected to be in place by next spring, if not earlier, military and defence industry officials say.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 

In the meantime, the U.S. government announced Sept. 15 that Canada intended to buy 219 Hellfire missiles and assorted other weapons and equipment for the Reaper drones.

That purchase is worth more than $400 million. The money is expected to come from the budget earmarked for the Canadian military’s drone project. That overall program could cost up to $5 billion, according to National Defence estimates.

The U.S. government in a news release noted that the proposed sale of the Hellfire missiles “will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the military capability of Canada, a NATO ally that is an important force for ensuring political stability and economic progress, and a contributor to military, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world.”

The U.S. also pointed out that the missile deal would improve Canada’s ability to meet current and future threats by allowing for drone patrols in its northern arctic region. In addition, it would allow Canada to fulfill its missions with NATO and the North American Aerospace Defence command (NORAD), according to the U.S. government release.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 

Canada’s planned competition for a drone fleet hit a snag in May 2022, when one of the two firms capable of providing such equipment decided to drop out of the competition.

That left General Atomics, which submitted its proposal in August 2022, National Defence spokesperson Jessica Lamirande said.

“Should the finalization phase conclude successfully, contract award is expected within this fiscal year,” she said. “Following contract award by the end of this fiscal year, we expect the first delivery in 2028.”

The Liberal government outlined its plan to purchase armed drones in its 2017 defence policy paper. The aircraft will give the military the ability to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence on overseas missions as well as to attack targets with a variety of missiles and bombs. The Canadian Forces also noted the new capability would give it the capability to use the drones for domestic missions, such as monitoring forest fires as well as public demonstrations.

The MQ-9 Reaper, a more powerful and larger version of the General Atomics Predator drone, has been used extensively in the Pentagon’s controversial program of targeted killings of Islamic extremists and other U.S. enemies. Critics point out that more than 2,000 innocent civilians have been killed during those attacks.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 

The Canadian drones would be capable of being armed for overseas operations. “At all times, they will be operated by qualified RCAF pilots in conformance with all aeronautical rules and regulations and in compliance with rules of engagement and laws of armed conflict,” Lamirande said.

In 2021, then RCAF commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger told The Canadian Press news service that there a ground control centre for the drones would be located in Ottawa.

The actual aircraft would be located in detachments in eastern and western Canada, but specific locations have not yet been revealed by the Canadian Forces.

The drone force will need around 300 personnel, including pilots, technicians and maintainers.

The Canadian Forces has tried for years to get its own fleet of drones capable of operating at longer ranges. During the Libyan war in 2011, senior Canadian defence leaders pitched the idea of spending up to $600 million for armed Predators for that conflict.

Documents obtained by this newspaper showed that military leaders saw the Libyan war as a possible way to kick-start their drone program. The war, however, was in its final stages when the proposal was made and the plan didn’t receive approval from the Conservative government.

During the Afghan war, the Canadian government approved the lease of Israeli-built drones. Those unarmed aircraft operated out of the Kandahar airfield.

 

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-military-sets-stage-for-purchase-of-drones-and-hellfire-missiles-program-could-cost-up-to-5-billionI’

 

Canada delays $3.6 billion Reaper buy until drones can work in Arctic

David PuglieseNov 23 at 10:14 AM
 

FFSQ5ELDKJHZ5L7HKERO726DWA.jpg

VICTORIA, British Columbia - The Canadian military’s acquisition of medium altitude armed drones is being delayed to allow for more development work to enable the aircraft to operate in the Arctic region.

The Remotely Piloted Aircraft System project was to deliver a fleet of drones for the Royal Canadian Air Force that would be operational by 2025. That date has now shifted and the delivery of the first aircraft is expected in 2028.

“The Canadian RPAS configuration will require significant development work in order to address RCAF requirements, which differ from our allies’ requirements,” said Department of National Defence spokesperson Andrée-Anne Poulin told Defense News.

Ottawa is focused on acquiring the General Atomics MQ-9B Reaper in a project budgeted with as much as 5 billion Canadian dollars ($3.6 billion). It’s hoping to have a contract in place by the end of this year or early next year.

The developmental work would require the integration of new systems on the MQ-9B, Poulin said in an email.

“For example, the need to operate at high northern latitudes, including in the Arctic, requires the use of satellites and aircraft antennas and communication components not previously integrated on the MQ-9,” she said. “Similarly, additional testing and qualification work will be required to ensure the RPAS can be operated and maintained in Canadian climatic conditions.”

Poulin said there is also some developmental effort required to integrate the Canadian-made WESCAM MX-20 EO/IR sensor onto the platform.

“Other examples include work required to develop a training solution tailored to RCAF requirements, and airworthiness certification required to support the RCAF concept of operations,” Poulin added.

Mark Brinkley, a spokesman for General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, declined to comment.

In September the U.S. State Department approved a potential Foreign Military Sale to Canada for 219 Hellfire missiles and other weapons and radars to be used by the MQ-9B. The proposed sale is worth an estimated $313 million.

Department of National Defence spokesman Andrew McKelvey said that FMS proposal was developed based on the current planned timelines for the RPAS project. The equipment and weapons expected to be provided through the FMS case will be delivered as and when required to support the RPAS integration, testing and production work that will be performed by General Atomics, he added.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2023/11/23/canada-delays-36-billion-reaper-buy-until-drones-can-work-in-arctic/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this article, P-8 Poseidon  purchase will be announced within the next week:

Minister told industry upgrades to Aurora aircraft a 'Canadian success story' but cautioned not to tell Boeing

Multiple defence industry sources say they expect the Liberal government to announce the deal with Boeing in the coming week to buy the P-8.

Get the latest from David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen straight to your inbox 

Published Nov 28, 2023  •  Last updated 18 hours ago  •  4 minute read

 

CP-140 Aurora aircraftThe Canadian government appears ready to do business with Boeing to replace the Canadian Forces CP-140 Aurora, shown above. Photo by Sgt Frank Hudec

Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne was briefed that high-tech equipment developed for the Canadian Forces Aurora aircraft was world-class and a Canadian innovation success story—but he was cautioned about pointing that out to U.S. aerospace giant Boeing, according to newly released documents.

The information gathered for Champagne about the surveillance and anti-submarine warfare equipment developed by Ottawa-based General Dynamics Mission Systems and other domestic firms, meanwhile, runs counter to the claims being made by top National Defence bureaucrats and officers.

Bill Matthews, deputy minister at National Defence, told MPs on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations on Oct. 17 that the CP-140 Aurora was “losing relevance rather quickly.” Matthews was making the pitch for the immediate purchase of Boeing P-8 aircraft, which defence officials claim is the only plane that can meet their requirements in replacing the CP-140. The potential purchase of the 16 Boeing planes, to be built in Seattle, as well as associated equipment is worth around $7.8 billion. The overall project cost is expected to be closer to $9 billion.

But Canadian firms calling on the Liberal government to reject the sole-source deal to Boeing—and allow a competition—recently pointed out Matthews failed to mention the Canadian Forces is in the midst of spending $400 million to modernize the Aurora into a state-of-the-art surveillance aircraft. Those 14 planes will be delivered by next summer as part of what is known as the Aurora Block IV upgrade. That modernization program includes installation of a system that will make them interoperable with the US and other NATO nations. The upgrades include new air defence systems and sensors, making the Auroras among the most advanced anti-submarine warfare aircraft currently flying.

Briefing materials gathered for Champagne on the Aurora aircraft replacement project, as well as for his meeting with then Boeing International president Michael Arthur in September 2022, back up the arguments from domestic firms.

“The modernization of the CP-140 Aurora is a Canadian innovation success story, delivering world-class capability sourced primarily from Canadian industry with companies such as General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada, MDA, L3Harris and IMP Aerospace,” Simon Kennedy, deputy minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development told Champagne.

In another note for his Boeing meeting, Champagne was also informed that “Canada has developed significant maritime patrol aircraft and multi-mission aircraft capabilities as a result of upgrades Canadian industry has undertaken to the current CP-140 fleet.”

But Champagne was advised that this message should be “responsive only” – a term indicating he should only provide that information if specifically asked about it by Boeing.

The documents were released through the Access to Information law.

Neither Champagne nor his department responded to a request for comment.

Boeing stated it has no comment.

Multiple defence industry sources say they expect the Liberal government to announce the deal with Boeing in the coming week to buy the P-8.

That has sparked anger among Canadian firms and demands by the premiers of Ontario and Quebec that the Liberals stand up for domestic aerospace firms and at least allow Bombardier and General Dynamics Mission Systems a chance to bid on the project to replace the CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft. They argue that Canadian expertise developed in surveillance and anti-submarine warfare will be wasted if the contract goes to the U.S. firm.

MPs and domestic aerospace firms have also raised questions about why standard procurement rules were altered for such an expensive project.

On Nov. 9, the House of Commons committee on national defence called on the federal government to hold a competition for the CP-140 replacement instead of awarding a sole-source contract to Boeing.

Matthews did not respond to a recent request for an interview, but he did provide a statement: “I am proud of the work DND/CAF experts and maintainers continue to do on the CP-140, which continues to perform its duties exceptionally well despite its age. While the Block IV upgrades will ensure the CAF have sufficiently advanced equipment to conduct required operations until 2030, a complete replacement will still be required as the aircraft is losing relevance, while adversaries get more complicated.”

The Canadian Forces originally planned a competition starting next year to replace the CP-140 aircraft. The Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft Project, as it was called, outlined the acceptance of bids in 2027. A total of 23 Canadian and international firms submitted material in response to the federal government’s initial request.

But in the fall of 2022, the approved procurement plan was thrown out the window and National Defence and Public Service and Procurement Canada (PSPC) bureaucrats began pushing the Boeing P-8 as a sole-source deal.

In recent parliamentary hearings, government officials acknowledged they did not examine other potential aircraft in depth or engage in discussions with firms other than Boeing.

PSPC stated in March the Boeing P-8 was the only aircraft to meet the military’s needs, and Canada made a formal request to the U.S. government to offer a fleet of the aircraft.

Over the years, Canadian governments have spent significant amounts of money developing a domestic anti-submarine warfare industry, largely centred on General Dynamics Mission Systems.

General Dynamics Mission Systems originally tried to convince Boeing to install the Canadian-built equipment on the P-8s, but that proposal was rejected.

The U.S. government has pressured Canada to boost defence spending, in particular, acquiring more American-built equipment. In response, the Liberal government has highlighted Canada’s ongoing military equipment projects to U.S. lawmakers, noting Canada is buying the U.S.-built F-35 stealth fighter and will spend tens of billions on joint U.S.-Canadian radar systems and defences. In addition, many of the armaments and ammunition Canada is providing to Ukraine come from U.S. industry via the American government.
 

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/minister-told-industry-upgrades-to-aurora-aircraft-a-canadian-success-story-but-cautioned-not-to-tell-boeing?utm_source=skies-daily-news-news-from-the-web&utm_campaign=skies-daily-news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=news-news-from-the-web&utm_content=V1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

more urgent request for resources , this one coming from the NAVY....Not sure why these messages are not being heard...

Canada's top admiral says navy staff, resource needs in 'critical state' (msn.com)

Yeah that’s the video I posted on Monday. Unfortunately I think messages are being heard but shrugged off.   And then you have frenemy folks like Pugliese who despite his constant reporting on the military’s sad state, insists it’s an issue of mismanagement, not underfunding and opposes funding increases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

found this video about the Airforce, commentary is done by an ex Canadian f-18 pilot...gives more insight into the state of our Airforce, and the F-18 replacement program...

 

I did not listen to the whole thing .

I would like to comment about "old"  military aircraft.

I was in the military aviation field and can tell you that if we had taken care of our cars and trucks the way we do of our military aircraft, we would all still be driving model T's.

Unlike our brethren in the Army (not because of personnel but because of Army economics and logistics I think), we did impeccable and intense maintenance on our aircraft on a very regular and scheduled level. All aircraft have a overhaul cycle where they were taken out of service and spend sometimes well over a year or two being torn down to the rivets and rebuilt. They come out basically new airframes and modified to whatever program is affordable at that time.

Yes, our aircraft are 50+ years old but are reborn every few years.

The reason we need new is not because the aircraft are unsafe or unusable but because technology has left us wanting. Aviation technology and weapon systems advance so rapidly, if we wanted to keep up, we would be under constant modification process and that is affordable and we would spend all our time on the hangar floor..

I am not just speaking about our fighters but all our aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah that’s the video I posted on Monday. Unfortunately I think messages are being heard but shrugged off.   And then you have frenemy folks like Pugliese who despite his constant reporting on the military’s sad state, insists it’s an issue of mismanagement, not underfunding and opposes funding increases. 

There is certainly an amount of mismanagement but, the biggest issue is under funding.

Funding is going to serve the politically correct side instead of the actual operational military side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I did not listen to the whole thing .

I would like to comment about "old"  military aircraft.

I was in the military aviation field and can tell you that if we had taken care of our cars and trucks the way we do of our military aircraft, we would all still be driving model T's.

Unlike our brethren in the Army (not because of personnel but because of Army economics and logistics I think), we did impeccable and intense maintenance on our aircraft on a very regular and scheduled level. All aircraft have a overhaul cycle where they were taken out of service and spend sometimes well over a year or two being torn down to the rivets and rebuilt. They come out basically new airframes and modified to whatever program is affordable at that time.

Yes, our aircraft are 50+ years old but are reborn every few years.

The reason we need new is not because the aircraft are unsafe or unusable but because technology has left us wanting. Aviation technology and weapon systems advance so rapidly, if we wanted to keep up, we would be under constant modification process and that is affordable and we would spend all our time on the hangar floor..

I am not just speaking about our fighters but all our aircraft.

Yeah no doubt multimillion dollar aircraft and aircraft in general need to be meticulously cared for and maintained unlike cars and trucks. In my short time in the Army Reserve I certainly saw soldiers abuse vehicles in ways no aircraft ever could be!

For the CP-140 apparently the issue is  that regardless of serviceability levels that the platform itself, as a relatively low and slow flying turboprop, is no longer appropriate for modern air defences of against near-peer adversaries and limits on electrical load, space etc for the next generation of systems and weapons.  Modern requirements especially for Canada’s increasingly presence in the west Pacific, require planes that can fly higher, faster, scan larger sections of ocean,  conduct missions from greater stand-off distances and be able to house on-board equipment for advanced communications and computing. 
 

I think a small Bombardier fleet would be an excellent cost effective complement to a small P-8 fleet  as opposed to one big expensive P8 fleet. But unfortunately it seems their proposal is simply too little too late so we’re going to purchase more of the costly P8s than we really need and the rest of the CAF will pay the price for it once resources are reallocated accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

There is certainly an amount of mismanagement but, the biggest issue is under funding.

Funding is going to serve the politically correct side instead of the actual operational military side.

Yeah I mean the arguments that he and Scott Taylor put forward to claim CAF is over-funded don’t hold any water. Their argument is based on the fact Canada is the 14th largest military spender in the world, so what we’re #1 largest in land mass except for Russia, #1 in offshore territory, the only country aside from Russia to border 3 oceans, and we have the world’s longest coastline. Of course we have a bigger budget than landlocked countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg. And 14 isn’t so special especially when you consider we are the 9th largest economy. Also they claim that previous claims of CAF doom and gloom didn’t come to pass while obviously many would say they have. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I did not listen to the whole thing .

I would like to comment about "old"  military aircraft.

I was in the military aviation field and can tell you that if we had taken care of our cars and trucks the way we do of our military aircraft, we would all still be driving model T's.

Unlike our brethren in the Army (not because of personnel but because of Army economics and logistics I think), we did impeccable and intense maintenance on our aircraft on a very regular and scheduled level. All aircraft have a overhaul cycle where they were taken out of service and spend sometimes well over a year or two being torn down to the rivets and rebuilt. They come out basically new airframes and modified to whatever program is affordable at that time.

Yes, our aircraft are 50+ years old but are reborn every few years.

The reason we need new is not because the aircraft are unsafe or unusable but because technology has left us wanting. Aviation technology and weapon systems advance so rapidly, if we wanted to keep up, we would be under constant modification process and that is affordable and we would spend all our time on the hangar floor..

I am not just speaking about our fighters but all our aircraft.

I agree 100 % the Airforce has a second to none maintenance program, replacing items becasue they are time expired, well before they break rather than wait until they fail as the army does, has many advantages, but also is expensive...but the main objective is safety, something one cares about when at 30,000 feet and carrying valuable personal. 

On of the things that the video does mention is that although they are sound mechanically, it is the bones like air frames/ wing roots themselves that can not be replaced that erodes with time, these type of fixes don't happen that often...which is one of the concerns with the f-18, once retired they would have been in the air for 50 years, thats a lot of landings and high speed g's that erode the actual life of components such as airframes and wing roots...And while i have zero hours in the Airforce, my brother was a Airframe tech posted with 408 sqn in Edmonton back in the day and thats all he talks about...

We use to have a well thought out maintenance program that included  GOC inspections, ( when vehicles were assigned to one person) which included dozens of stand by your vehicle with all your / vehicles kit laid out everything in top running ordered cleaned to the maxed, freshly painted, these would go on through out a 4 week period and would end with the brigade commander doing the final inspection.. Today vehicles have dozens of drivers, no one really cares about their condition hence the drive it until it explodes attitude then give it to the mechs...driver maintenance is a becoming a thing of the past, we could not even change a headlight bulb due to contracts limitations....it created lazy drivers and poor maintenance standards.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

 

I think a small Bombardier fleet would be an excellent cost effective complement to a small P-8 fleet  as opposed to one big expensive P8 fleet. But unfortunately it seems their proposal is simply too little too late so we’re going to purchase more of the costly P8s than we really need and the rest of the CAF will pay the price for it once resources are reallocated accordingly. 

I think Canadian aerospace is to late to the race on this one, yes the say it has a product that can compete but ifrom what i hear it is nothing more than a drawing right now, and the systems inside are just as untested in the real world... now if they had a working platform in service somewhere they would have a point for a shot at the contract...

Now the P-8 is a proven platform, not sure why they are shutting down the line, it seems thats the only thing that can spur Canada into purchasing stuff is to tell us we are shutting the line down..., C-17 was the same way, the line was shutting down lets hurry and buy some...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Ueah I mean the arguments that he and Scott Taylor put forward to claim CAF is over-funded don’t hold any water. Their argument is based on the fact Canada is the 14th largest military spender in the world, so what we’re #1 largest in land mass, #1 in offshore territory covering 3 oceans, #1 in length of coastline. Of course we have a bigger budget than landlocked Switzerland and Luxembourg. And 14 isn’t so special especially when you consider we are the 9th largest economy. Also they claim that previous claims of CAF doom and gloom didn’t come to pass while obviously many would say they have. 

Don't have much time for both of them, they have forgotten their roots, and while they maybe to close to the flame( the inner circle) they have forgotten just what makes the military tick...and it's not the inner circle... they need to get back to reality instead of all the liberal minded backers of their work...

Lots of waste in the military damn straight Skippy, can it be fixed sure it can, but thats not the direction our government wants to take, instead they are more concerned about diversity, allowing soldiers to become individuals, instead of one team with one objective...and both of the above writers stand behind all of that rhetoric... Taylors hit piece done on the retiring general that dared to speak out on todays system was a prime example of that....They lost they're way a long time ago...to give him credit he had my respect in Afghanistan, when he traveled alone, and created excellent content... now he is a different person...almost anti military...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah no doubt multimillion dollar aircraft and aircraft in general need to be meticulously cared for and maintained unlike cars and trucks. In my short time in the Army Reserve I certainly saw soldiers abuse vehicles in ways no aircraft ever could be!

For the CP-140 apparently the issue is  that regardless of serviceability levels that the platform itself, as a relatively low and slow flying turboprop, is no longer appropriate for modern air defences of against near-peer adversaries and limits on electrical load, space etc for the next generation of systems and weapons.  Modern requirements especially for Canada’s increasingly presence in the west Pacific, require planes that can fly higher, faster, scan larger sections of ocean,  conduct missions from greater stand-off distances and be able to house on-board equipment for advanced communications and computing. 
 

I think a small Bombardier fleet would be an excellent cost effective complement to a small P-8 fleet  as opposed to one big expensive P8 fleet. But unfortunately it seems their proposal is simply too little too late so we’re going to purchase more of the costly P8s than we really need and the rest of the CAF will pay the price for it once resources are reallocated accordingly. 

The maritime patrol scene has dramatically changed in recent decades. I was on Sea King replacement project for a while and there was great debate if that maritime helicopters were actually still needed. That is still being debated.

There are very few subs nowadays and our maritime patrol stuff (CP140 and Cyclone helicopters) is not really necessary in the minds of many. Maritime patrol was never really warfare but more detection and deterrence. Of course, we use them for sovereignty purposes as well.

Anti Sub warfare is primarily detection. Once detected, the game is basically up for the sub. Canada was the best in the world way back when we had the old piston engine CP 107 Argus. We regularly beat the Americans and their P3 Orion's during maritime patrol exercises.

Challengers and Global Express aircraft are not the answer to Maritime patrol, especially if they need to carry any kind of armament.

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Ueah I mean the arguments that he and Scott Taylor put forward to claim CAF is over-funded don’t hold any water. Their argument is based on the fact Canada is the 14th largest military spender in the world, so what we’re #1 largest in land mass, #1 in offshore territory covering 3 oceans, #1 in length of coastline. Of course we have a bigger budget than landlocked Switzerland and Luxembourg. And 14 isn’t so special especially when you consider we are the 9th largest economy. Also they claim that previous claims of CAF doom and gloom didn’t come to pass while obviously many would say they have. 

Scott Taylor and his sidekick former colonel and now lawyer (forgot his name) lost all credibility many years ago when they became the number one dumpster diving access to information salesmen.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I agree 100 % the Airforce has a second to none maintenance program, replacing items becasue they are time expired, well before they break rather than wait until they fail as the army does, has many advantages, but also is expensive...but the main objective is safety, something one cares about when at 30,000 feet and carrying valuable personal. 

On of the things that the video does mention is that although they are sound mechanically, it is the bones like air frames/ wing roots themselves that can not be replaced that erodes with time, these type of fixes don't happen that often...which is one of the concerns with the f-18, once retired they would have been in the air for 50 years, thats a lot of landings and high speed g's that erode the actual life of components such as airframes and wing roots...And while i have zero hours in the Airforce, my brother was a Airframe tech posted with 408 sqn in Edmonton back in the day and thats all he talks about...

We use to have a well thought out maintenance program that included  GOC inspections, ( when vehicles were assigned to one person) which included dozens of stand by your vehicle with all your / vehicles kit laid out everything in top running ordered cleaned to the maxed, freshly painted, these would go on through out a 4 week period and would end with the brigade commander doing the final inspection.. Today vehicles have dozens of drivers, no one really cares about their condition hence the drive it until it explodes attitude then give it to the mechs...driver maintenance is a becoming a thing of the past, we could not even change a headlight bulb due to contracts limitations....it created lazy drivers and poor maintenance standards.

 

Our  Canadian F-18's actually have very few flight hours on them. Less than 8000. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/rcaf-cf-18s-a-list-of-hours-on-each-airframe

All items on an aircraft have an overhaul life. Then they also have periodic inspection. requirements. Main wing spars etc are monitored constantly for any anomalies so, they can last a very long time.  Usage is the killer, not time. We are actually kinda soft on our aircraft usage.

The ones we just bought from Australia are only going to fly about 160 hours per year. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/used-australian-f-18s-will-fly-160-hours-annually-for-rcaf

Tac Hel units like 408 do a lot more flying and more intensive ops than the F-18 ever do. They also rack up many more hours. Out transport aircraft are run ragged. the Hercs spend more time in. the air than on the ground. LOL

Bottom line is we truly baby our aircraft. they will last 50 years, which is about average for all our fleets. Of course safety is paramount. Like they say, it is not a truck or car, you cannot pull over to a cloud at 25,000 feet and fix that flat :)

I also sympathize with the Army, they have to use their vehicles ion a pretty crappy environment all the time and well, we know what that does to vehicles and know what kind of environment they need to be repaired in. There are no nice warm hangars out in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Scott Taylor and his sidekick former colonel and now lawyer (forgot his name) lost all credibility many years ago when they became the number one dumpster diving access to information salesmen.

About 20 years ago I read his book Tested Mettle about Canadian Peacekeepers in former Yugo and found it very interesting and entertaining. Them I lost track of him for a while only to rediscover years later and like @Army Guy said his stuff pretty much always reads as anti-military diatribe and his articles are opinion pieces as opposed to reporting.  Pugiliese OTOH at least sticks to factual reporting. He may be selective in what he reports but I don’t doubt its factual accuracy.  
 

7 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The maritime patrol scene has dramatically changed in recent decades. I was on Sea King replacement project for a while and there was great debate if that maritime helicopters were actually still needed. That is still being debated.

There are very few subs nowadays and our maritime patrol stuff (CP140 and Cyclone helicopters) is not really necessary in the minds of many. Maritime patrol was never really warfare but more detection and deterrence. Of course, we use them for sovereignty purposes as well.

Glad that mindset has now changed (apparently). You would think they’d see the value of maritime patrol and ship-borne helicopters beyond ASW. 
 

7 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Anti Sub warfare is primarily detection. Once detected, the game is basically up for the sub. Canada was the best in the world way back when we had the old piston engine CP 107 Argus. We regularly beat the Americans and their P3 Orion's during maritime patrol exercises.

And we still do beat the Yanks and their P8s with the CP-140:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/rcaf/2022/01/the-407-squadron-defends-the-dragon-belt.html

 

https://skiesmag.com/news/demons-407-squadron-defend-anti-submarine-warfare-title-sea-dragon/?amp

However I noticed during each Ex Sea Dragon, the humidity of the South Pacific wreaked havoc on the CP140’s systems and electronics, this year the gremlins denied us a 3-peat victory but still it was Japanese and their a Kawasaki who took top prize this year, once again not one of the countries flying the P8  

https://skiesmag.com/news/exercise-sea-dragon-407-squadron-cp-140-aurora-test/?amp

 

7 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Challengers and Global Express aircraft are not the answer to Maritime patrol, especially if they need to carry any kind of armament.

Challenger is small but I have confidence in a Global to fill in foe lighter duties. Especially since the Bombardier proposal includes the same wold-beating General Dynamics mission system that we are already using. USAF and US Army have selected the same Bombardier Global 6500 platform for a variety of ISR, EW and airborne comms missions.   But a fleet of Globals on their own probably wouldn’t meet the requirements that are expected of us when operating in the face of Russia or China so I think we probably need a few P8s. But it’s hard for me to see how a Global couldn’t handle the rest in a more cost efficient manner. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P8 announcement could be as early as tomorrow!

 

Boeing poised for sole-sourced military patrol plane deal worth billions: report

By Christopher Reynolds  The Canadian Press
Posted November 29, 2023 10:58 am
 
The federal government is expected to announce as early as Thursday that it has selected Boeing to replace the military’s aging patrol planes in a multibillion-dollar deal, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
 
….Two of the sources, including a senior government official, said the Treasury Board held a special meeting Tuesday night and approved the contract, which a U.S. agency has listed at US$5.9 billion (C$8 billion).
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting point from Forbes earlier this year which might also help explain the pressure on Canada to select the P-8.

The tl;dr version is that the USAF is still in the process of designing its version of the E7 Wedgetail AWACS aircraft, which is based on the same B737 NG airframe that is no longer in production for anything except for the P8. If P8 orders dry up too soon before they are able to start production of the USAF’s E7s, Boeing  might need to permanently shut down the B737 NG production line and will not be able to commence E7 production at all.  AWACS of course is a critical strategic asset and USAF’s existing AWACS fleet is old and decrepit  

 

Navy Shortfall In P-8 Antisubmarine Aircraft Could Be A Problem For The Air Force Too

As noted above, the P-8 airframe is based on the Boeing 737 commercial transport. However, it does not use the 737 MAX airframe that the company currently builds for commercial carriers, it uses a previous variant called the Next Generation, or 737NG.

The problem the Air Force faces is that it wants to acquire a replacement of the aging E-3 AWACS radar plane using the same variant of the 737, and current Navy plans might not keep the production line and workforce intact long enough to be ready for building the Air Force plane.

Designated the E-7, the Air Force’s future radar plane is critical to monitoring global airspace and managing air operations. The service says it needs 26 aircraft, and last month awarded a sole-source contract to Boeing for its development.

The development process probably will not take long, because the AWACS successor will be an evolved version of the Wedgetail radar plane operated by Australia. But the Air Force has a raft of upgrades it wants to install on its version, so Boeing can’t just start turning out more Wedgetails.

If the NG line gaps between the end of P-8 production and the beginning of E-7 production, then the Air Force will need to reconstitute both the work force and the supply chain, a process fraught with uncertainty. Filling out the Navy requirement with ten more P-8s would largely solve the problem, but Boeing assembles Poseidons at a rate of one per month, so it won’t be long before the Navy’s existing order for 128 planes is completed.

 

After that, the only orders keeping the line warm are those from allies. The 737NG line is thus fragile; if the Navy is not funded to its full requirement on P-8 or there are hiccups in allied plans, the Air Force’s follow-on buy faces significant uncertainties.

That is an unwelcome possibility given how decrepit the AWACS fleet has become. The head of Air Combat Command, Gen. Mark Kelly, says his service is “20 years late” developing a successor to AWACS, and describes the existing E-3 fleet as being in “hospice care.” The Air Force can’t tolerate any delays in its replacement plan.

….

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2023/03/08/navy-shortfall-in-p-8-antisubmarine-aircraft-could-be-a-problem-for-the-air-force-too/?sh=3313cc7c2da0

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Annnd it’s official!  Canada officially announces deal for 14 P-8 aircraft to be delivered in 2026-2027 with an option for an additional 2 aircraft. Personally I doubt we will buy the other 2 unless US is still twisting our arm  

 

Wow big year for the RCAF in terms of deals signed 

88 F-35 fighters 

9 (up from proposed 6) Airbus 330 MRTT

14-16 Boeing P-8 (Boeing 737) Multi-Mission Aircraft 

All while magically cutting $1Bn from the shoestring budget of a force experiencing a manpower and recruiting crisis 

 

 

Growing threats to Canada's security drove $10B surveillance plane purchase, minister says

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sole-sourced-deal-boeing-surveillance-aircraft-replacement-1.7044913

 

 


 

image.thumb.jpeg.04235942b9c6937eeb9b8265a768a58f.jpeg

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...