Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins


Recommended Posts

considering there are 69 so-called training troops there now, that's quite the CF-18 coverage rate, hey... and I guess those planes would only fly when trainers are on the front, hey... which is really the exception to the norm, yes? Of course, your ploy is so naive... there are no 'boots on the ground' in Syria... by your "logic" there should be no CF-18s in Syria, yes? More pointedly, since when do "bomb trucks" provide troop coverage? :lol:

And if Trudeau keeps his word and assigns hundreds more training troops - you think that contact with the enemy will not increase, hey? Or are you implying that any training that we do will only be within protective confines, many miles from any actual combat? As for your silly term of "bomb trucks", you surely noted that the recent attempt to infiltrate Mosul was in fact, spearheaded by precisely that - huge, armoured bomb-trucks, yes? Thank God there was air support to mitigate their effectiveness. Of course, we can always call in the Americans to protect us, yes? The media is still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why we are pulling the jets out - when it's crystal clear that we can and should do all three components - train, participate in aerial combat and support, and supply humanitarian aid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The media is still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why we are pulling the jets out - when it's crystal clear that we can and should do all three components - train, participate in aerial combat and support, and supply humanitarian aid.

are you now a media spokesperson? A coherent explanation has been provided, you simply choose to not accept it. Your trumped up fixation with the symbolism of those 6 jets is so transparent. And yes, having training personnel in active combat is the exception... not the norm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

? Thank God there was air support to mitigate their effectiveness. Of course, we can always call in the Americans to protect us, yes? The media is still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why we are pulling the jets out - when it's crystal clear that we can and should do all three components - train, participate in aerial combat and support, and supply humanitarian aid.

We would not need air support if we were not there. And call in Americans to protect us from a war they caused and they chose to fight - I have no problem with that.

Rather than sniping at the pro-war posters, I will try a coherent explanation:

This is a civil war between Shia and Sunni in the region. It has been going on for years. Canada has no business getting involved in the first place. We have no interests there. There are those who argue that "we fight them there or we will fight them here" are mistaken. Before "they" (whoever they are) look towards North America they have to subjugate the Arab Countries. These Arab countries who are located mere kilometers from the fighting ( and have more than sufficient military to deal with the 50,000 ISIS soldiers) are happy sitting on their $trillions from oil and letting the Americans and Canadians (thousands of kilometers away) spend our money on bombs and sacrifice our people. They must think that we are pretty stupid - and I can understand their view.

Before the USA invaded Iraq, Canada was not a target of any terrorists or Middle East crazies. It is only after we decided on our "me too USA" did we become a target.

We had no business getting involved in the American Middle East foreign policy, we have no business being in Syria/Iraq and we have no business getting involved in American wars.

Saudi Arabia is just one Arab country and in far more danger from ISIS than is North America. Why would a country with a standing army of 250,000 (5 times that of ISIS), 640 aircraft and 2,500 ballistic missiles be content to sit on the sidelines and watch Americans and Canadians fight their war?

We are being played by those oil $billionaires and now some people want Canada to send ground troops.

Good grief!

Get our airplanes and all soldiers out of there and bring them home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL The man that tried to bring sharia law into ONT.

if you were asked to elaborate on that 'sharia law' initiative in Ontario, would you be able properly describe it as nothing more than introducing the same type of Jewish and Catholic arbitration bodies that exist to help settle family disputes... like divorce? Would you be able to state that Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you were asked to elaborate on that 'sharia law' initiative in Ontario, would you be able properly describe it as nothing more than introducing the same type of Jewish and Catholic arbitration bodies that exist to help settle family disputes... like divorce? Would you be able to state that Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991?

In Sharia law,are women given equal treatment to men?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You still didn't answer my question ;)

I suggest you take this point and move it to an appropriate thread. You and MLW member 'PIK' felt emboldened enough to attempt to derail this thread away from its intended topic - the MLW moderator/facilitator have asked members to attempt to keep on thread topic... I took your bait and responded - time to reign it in now. Within an appropriate thread of your choice, I suggest you speak to the actual initiative and draw the pointed parallels I made to the other arbitration bodies I spoke to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't get to take an article, read a quoted price... do some D2.0 math and declare that an official "flyaway cost"! Besides, like I 'needled' you... is that with or without an engine? Surely you remember that extended period of time where you kept touting the cost only to have it pointed out to you it didn't include the cost of an engine! Your declared "simple math" is not an official source for the "flyaway cost".

Not quite, I do remember a time when we discussed the varying purchase prices, both inclusive of Lockheed aircraft prices and P&W prices for the engine, equating to a flyaway cost............said practice is no different for any other program.

None the less, said price would be a flyaway cost, as cited numerous times in this thread, the flyaway for LRIP 7 was $112 million per F-35A, LRIP 8 was $108 million and LRIP 9 & 10 (LRIP 9 signed last month) to be even further lower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no - you stated 2013 and I countered saying French military Rafales were on order on through to 2019... you supplied your own linked article to confirm exactly what I stated. Just what is it you think you're "arguing/discussing" here? :lol: (Again, that didn't even factor the Egyptian order)... and now, subsequently, there are Rafale orders from India and Qatar. Please adjust your "Rafale production line closing date" accordingly!

You're in agreement that sans international orders, per my link, the line would have closed in 2016.....per the then French Defense Minister

Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said June 11 that from 2016, Dassault Aviation would have to count on exports to underpin production of the plane, which is able to fulfil several types of missions.

Mooted by said International orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: "finally on schedule"! You mean the latest iteration of the schedule, right? That was the point of highlighting that U.S. GAO graphic... it only showed 3 of the iterative procurement plans on that graphic... there have been several others, yes? As I said, I fully expect there will be another iteration coming down the pipe given the most difficult/complex testing has yet to be undertaken... and you know what happens in a strategy that develops/produces while testing is still being done, right? Oh wait - are you ready to step-up and categorically state there will never be another schedule change... another shifting of F-35 numbers "down and out"? Down by numbers per year and extended out by numbers of years? Is that what you're prepared to state now? Sure you are!

.

Waldo, as cited, the DoD is purchasing additional F-35s, more than expected, not less.........doesn't jive with your narrative.......In addition, the direction of the Sec Def to the USN, reducing the planned purchase of the Little Crappy Ship in favor of longer range munitions........and additional F-35s.

sorry, I don't know U.S. President Trump's sources in his declaration to "fire" the F-35 program! I just know what he's stated from profiled news accounts... and highlighting that is just gravy! Apparently... Trump doesn't like pork! And, don't forget, Putin says he's a very talented man! (ya just can't make this kinda stuff up... it's gold, real gold!)

The anti-f-35 crowd is in good steed with Trump ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: if Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, "ducking the question"... twice... is your preferred interpretation of "not ruling out the F-35! The article is a helpful reminder on the Trudeau Liberal government's intent to define Canada's requirements prior to actually making a selection choice... as contrasted with what the AG Michael Ferguson found:

.

Ducking the question.........in addition to staying apart of the program, sending government officials to partner nations meetings and continuing to fund the program.......could it be the Trudeau Liberals had an about face once made privy to actual program information versus the trope made-up in the blogosphere?

Hypothetically, if the Trudeau Liberals ended up selecting the F-35 for our Hornet replacement, would the Waldo oppose said selection or start singing a different tune? ;)

Edited by Derek 2.0
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Canadian dollar continues its nosedive, Trudeau won't be buying any fancy replacement strike fighters....more like Cessna 172 Skyhawks.

Has anybody in Canada updated the budget for the "Future CF-18 Replacement Program" capital and life cycle costs in current Canadian dollars ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Canadian dollar continues its nosedive, Trudeau won't be buying any fancy replacement strike fighters....more like Cessna 172 Skyhawks.

Without a doubt, where our dollar sits today, compared to both the USD and Euro, we won't be purchasing anything, unless more money is added or numbers are aloud to drop......a drop in numbers (under 65) will impede our ability to meet our NORAD requirements of course.........as I've said before, no fighters will be bought in this mandate unless this Government adds billions of dollars they don't have........when such a selection doesn't need to be made until after the next election.

Forget fighters, I've heard rumor (from what I consider a reliable source) that FWSAR, which was to be selected early next year, could also be reduced/altered, resulting in either less aircraft purchased or the same number of aircraft purchased, but support costs reduced by operating them from 3 as opposed to 4 bases.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

a drop in numbers (under 65) will impede our ability to meet our NORAD requirements of course.

Not really. We need 8 aircraft at all times for that - so about 24 in combat squadrons. We could buy something like 40 and simply give up expeditionary operations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. We need 8 aircraft at all times for that - so about 24 in combat squadrons. We could buy something like 40 and simply give up expeditionary operations.

Source? I know that isn't the number, and that you won't find said number, since said number has been OPSEC since the 1960s.......and funny enough, even with the reduced Soviet Bomber threat in the 1960s and the end of the Cold War, said number hasn't changed since then through to the present day......what has changed is the number of aircraft available for NATO and expeditionary operations.

The USN, in a low threat environment, needs a deployed squadron of 12 aircraft to maintain 2 aircraft in a 200-300nm circumference around a carrier (a tad smaller then Canada's NORAD region :rolleyes: ), and said squadron is supported by 3-4 times the number of deployed aircraft in fleet replacement squadrons, training establishments and depot level maintenance...........to suggest Canada can maintain its current NORAD's requirements with just 24 operational aircraft is laughable........

Edited by Derek 2.0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if 24 aircraft was the right number (I agree...most certainly is not), then that would just mean faster consumption of service life hours and the need for more replacement aircraft...sooner.

Indeed, assuming a 40 aircraft purchase, off the hop 30-40% of said fleet is going to be in various maintenance cycles....so said figure becomes ~26 aircraft.......lets assume you want to train new pilots with a conversion squadron, since we've cut the operational fleet in half, assume we only need a conversion squadron of 6-8 aircraft......that drops said figure to ~20-18 aircraft......we won't have an attrition reserve, since we won't loose any ;) .......so we still have ~20-18 aircraft, but fighters operate in pairs, so that gives us 10-9 2 aircraft elements......do you want your operational aircraft to practice intercepting aircraft, refueling, exercises and keeping their pilots generally competent in the operation of fast-air? Cut that number in half (more likely 2/3rds).......that results in ~8-10 aircraft being available to NORAD's Canada region 24/7.......The question then, which part of Canada will the USAF and various ANG units defend for us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has, at any moment, 8 aircraft ready for launch. One CF-18 pair at each base, and one pair at each base to back them up. That is all we need to meet our obligations. There is 1 aircraft pair to protect Vancouver, 1 for Calgary/Edmonton, 1 for Toronto, and 1 for Ottawa/Montreal. That's the way it's been for a long time.

You just, in a long winded way, said the same thing as me.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has, at any moment, 8 aircraft ready for launch. One CF-18 pair at each base, and one to back them up. That is all we need to meet our obligations.

Sure...for one alert rotation....you can't run an an air force that way for days, weeks, months, and years.

It's not like a Ford F-150 in your driveway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure...for one alert rotation....you can't run an an air force that way for days, weeks, months, and years.

Of course not. That's why you need 3 x that many so that you can rotate them into that role, and extra fighters for training, attrition, and as spares. Cutting 48 combat fighters to 24 takes you from an order of 65 (the number of jets we will have from 2020 on as the CF-18 numbers are cut by 12) to an order of ~40.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not. That's why you need 3 x that many so that you can rotate them into that role, and extra fighters for training, attrition, and as spares.

Still not enough over the life cycle of all aircraft. Does Canada even have a good baseline for current and projected CF-18 fleet availability with lots of known factors? Many of the ELE studies assume/presume/are dependent on U.S. Navy program and spares support well past 2020.

The cost/risk model(s) have lots of variables that Canada does not control.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has, at any moment, 8 aircraft ready for launch. One CF-18 pair at each base, and one pair at each base to back them up. That is all we need to meet our obligations. There is 1 aircraft pair to protect Vancouver, 1 for Calgary/Edmonton, 1 for Toronto, and 1 for Ottawa/Montreal. That's the way it's been for a long time.

You just, in a long winded way, said the same thing as me.

No, I just called BS on your unfounded assertion.........per our 1996 NORAD agreement, post Cold War and pre 9/11, when we also had a much larger force:

After 1962, Ballistic Missiles Early Warning Systems (BMEWS) were constructed reflecting the emphasis in NORAD to aerospace surveillance and tracking thus reducing the importance of air defense interceptors. As a result of the end of the Cold War, a further decrease of fighter in support of NORAD took place. In peacetime, approximately 36 Canadian interceptor aircraft are assigned to the NORAD mission.

Now post 9/11, and with a resurgent Russia, do you expect said numbers have decreased, stayed the same or increased? :rolleyes:

Link to post
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.

Guest
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.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...