Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Is this really what Canadians want thier military to look like...


Recommended Posts

This happens after a military member dies while on duty, opposition parties and selected media outlets do a story, just how old our military equipment is , people read it gasp say holy shit I did not know...then turn the page like nothing happened.... well here is another one of those stories, a similar story broke , the last snowbird crash, investigation found that the aircraft was to old and should be replaced,  they were looking at running a purchasing program....but like everything else it was stuff aside for something else....today the Tudor aircraft is 57 years old bought when Diefenbaker was PM...anyone remember that guy.....parts for these aircraft are taken off old aircraft in storage, or made from scratch.... these aircraft are scheduled to fly for more years than we would like....

It is cheaper to bury soldiers than it is to buy new equipment.... how cheap do we have to be to put one of our own citizens lives in danger so we can save a few bucks... It's time to put these issues to the forefront, and on the election ballet, but they won't we will continue to bury our troops and act like we are all good with those decisions.... It must be a source of pride for a lot of you....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/commentary-snowbirds-face-an-uncertain-future-with-aging-planes-dwindling-budgets/ar-BB14j6gf?ocid=spartanntp

Edited by Army Guy
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Abies said:

Military procurement needs to be redone so gaining new and better equipment is done rapidly but no party really seems interested in tackling the issue.

There's nothing wrong with military procurement. The problem is that the politicians use the military's budget as a kind of regional economic improvement exercise. The military's actual needs are superseded by what the politicians want in the way of jobs for government ridings. Thus we often pay double or triple what is needed for a piece of military equipment so the government can brag about all the jobs they're bringing to individual ridings. And, of course, the negotiations are protracted, and the bidding has an enormous unspoken, underlying aspect involving jobs and money to government ridings and donations and under-the-table promises to government ministers which slows everything way the hell down.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The mainstay of the RCAF is the CF18 which first entered service 37 years ago. There is no replacement on the horizon for at least a decade. At which point they will be 47 years old.

For comparison purposes, the Spitfire, the famed fighter from WW2, was retired from the RAF in 1952, 31 years prior to the introduction of the CF-18. Imagine the CF-18 flying against the Spitfire? That is what our fighters are expected to do now - fly against fighters over 30 years newer and more modern than them. And by the time they are replaced? Well, imagine if Canada was till been flying the Spitfire in the year 2000. Because that is how old and obsolete the CF-18s will be.

 

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Argus said:

The mainstay of the RCAF is the CF18 which first entered service 37 years ago. There is no replacement on the horizon for at least a decade. At which point they will be 47 years old.

For comparison purposes, the Spitfire, the famed fighter from WW2, was retired from the RAF in 1952, 31 years prior to the introduction of the CF-18. Imagine the CF-18 flying against the Spitfire? That is what our fighters are expected to do now - fly against fighters over 30 years newer and more modern than them. And by the time they are replaced? Well, imagine if Canada was till been flying the Spitfire in the year 2000. Because that is how old and obsolete the CF-18s will be.

To be fair. Other than the much maligned F-22 and F-35 (both of which I've also heard of crashes recently) what other fighter jet has really been developed since the F-18?

In the US, the Blue Angels are F-18s. 

I didn't participate in the 100+ page F-35 thread so this issue has probably already been discussed to death. 

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Boges said:

To be fair. Other than the much maligned F-22 and F-35 (both of which I've also heard of crashed recently) what other fighter jet has really been developed since the F-18?

In the US, the Blue Angels are F-18s. 

Well, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the  Dassault Rafale and SAAB Grippen would qualify, as well as the F-35. Perhaps as importantly there are a number of Chinese and Russian fighters which are much more modern.

Edit. The super hornet is also more modern.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

Well, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the  Dassault Rafale and SAAB Grippen would qualify, as well as the F-35. Perhaps as importantly there are a number of Chinese and Russian fighters which are much more modern.

Every time I see a Saab car, I think of the SAAB Grippen. You could fly as it in this Janes flight simulator game in the mid-90's. 

Point is, fighter jet technology is in a bit of a holding pattern. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Every time I see a Saab car, I think of the SAAB Grippen. You could fly as it in this Janes flight simulator game in the mid-90's. 

Point is, fighter jet technology is in a bit of a holding pattern. 

The updated super Grippen began entering service last year. If it's holding it's holding a lot further ahead than the F-18s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

To be fair. Other than the much maligned F-22 and F-35 (both of which I've also heard of crashes recently) what other fighter jet has really been developed since the F-18?

In the US, the Blue Angels are F-18s. 

I didn't participate in the 100+ page F-35 thread so this issue has probably already been discussed to death. 

well the F-18 has many models A and B models,  is what we have, since then there has been C and D models a lot was new during these upgrades, the Super Hornet is a total redesigned aircraft, it is longer, wider, and it's cockpit is completely redone, todays, F-18 E AND F-18F are considered 4.5 generation aircraft, as are the F15EX, F-16V, Grippen E is also completely new....You can not compare these aircraft to there first models. On top of all that the European union are working on a gen 5 /6 aircraft as well as the UK working on the tempest, US has a gen 6 aircraft on the books, Japan is also considering building the F-22 competitor, plus working on a gen 5/6 aircraft as well, not to mention china, Russia, and a few others....

The blue angles now fly the F-18E/F, light years ahead of our F-18 A/B models...Many mods have been done to our fighters, but they would be in keeping up with the basic wpns, and radios Canada is famous for buying kit then waiting generations before upgrading it and then only the minimum is done...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DND writes a spec sheet, specs that explain in great detail what this piece of equipment needs to do, it is then given to PWSG, who are all civilians, no military at all, they then go out and pick several pieces of equipment that THEY think might fit the bill, DND tests them, discloses all the faults what they like or disliked, then the whole file gets taken up stairs to the politicians and they have the final decision, and as argus has explained the key factors are off setting "what can the company do for Canada, in most cases the company is asked to spend the equivalent of money in Canada...or transfer tech, also how many jobs can be provided, how many Canadian companies can be engaged....it sounds good on paper, but it costs 2 to 3 times as much, which translates into less equipment for the military, for example the new SAR aircraft,  the winner was clearly the one who the most off sets, but the inside cabin height is only 6 feet, and when your wearing a helmet the average 6 foot guy is now 6'3'' tall try bending over hours at a time while staying focus on searching for someone....  

Almost every procurement project we have had in the last 40 years has skeletons in the closet...some more famous than others, the LSVW had to be taken to the desert in the US to in order to complete it's testing to see if it would be up to specs...after it had failed 4 times in Canada for driving in the snow...ps there is no snow in the desert...that company was in BC, and has  gone under shortly after the contract was finished ...it was a 4 cyl turbo engine , that had to power a 2 ton truck....it also used a new metal brake pads, every time you touched the brakes it would squeal, that could be heard for km's , just what you needed when your trying not to be seen or heard by the bad guys....The army just shakes it's head, atleast it was new...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is the senators report in regards to issues with DND, and how to fix them....They actually listened to our militaries generals and what they had to say....it makes for a great read, but be prepared for the amount of issues , it should be noted that these are the most critical not all the issues.

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-more-than-100-military-procurement-projects-facing-delays/

https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/canada-worst-military-procurement-system-shimooka-the-hill-times/

http://www.truenorthtimes.ca/2014/06/17/f-35-delayed-department-of-national-defense-submits-wishlist/

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/military-procurement-is-a-national-disgrace/

Edited by Army Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 11:50 AM, Argus said:

There's nothing wrong with military procurement. The problem is that the politicians use the military's budget as a kind of regional economic improvement exercise. The military's actual needs are superseded by what the politicians want in the way of jobs for government ridings. Thus we often pay double or triple what is needed for a piece of military equipment so the government can brag about all the jobs they're bringing to individual ridings. And, of course, the negotiations are protracted, and the bidding has an enormous unspoken, underlying aspect involving jobs and money to government ridings and donations and under-the-table promises to government ministers which slows everything way the hell down.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 3:16 PM, Army Guy said:

DND writes a spec sheet, specs that explain in great detail what this piece of equipment needs to do, it is then given to PWSG, who are all civilians, no military at all, they then go out and pick several pieces of equipment that THEY think might fit the bill, DND tests them, discloses all the faults what they like or disliked, then the whole file gets taken up stairs to the politicians and they have the final decision, and as argus has explained the key factors are off setting "what can the company do for Canada, in most cases the company is asked to spend the equivalent of money in Canada...or transfer tech, also how many jobs can be provided, how many Canadian companies can be engaged....it sounds good on paper, but it costs 2 to 3 times as much, which translates into less equipment for the military, for example the new SAR aircraft,  the winner was clearly the one who the most off sets, but the inside cabin height is only 6 feet, and when your wearing a helmet the average 6 foot guy is now 6'3'' tall try bending over hours at a time while staying focus on searching for someone....  

Almost every procurement project we have had in the last 40 years has skeletons in the closet...some more famous than others, the LSVW had to be taken to the desert in the US to in order to complete it's testing to see if it would be up to specs...after it had failed 4 times in Canada for driving in the snow...ps there is no snow in the desert...that company was in BC, and has  gone under shortly after the contract was finished ...it was a 4 cyl turbo engine , that had to power a 2 ton truck....it also used a new metal brake pads, every time you touched the brakes it would squeal, that could be heard for km's , just what you needed when your trying not to be seen or heard by the bad guys....The army just shakes it's head, atleast it was new...

 

On 5/20/2020 at 7:56 PM, Army Guy said:

Thanks for the insight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 8:50 AM, Argus said:

There's nothing wrong with military procurement. The problem is that the politicians use the military's budget as a kind of regional economic improvement exercise. The military's actual needs are superseded by what the politicians want in the way of jobs for government ridings. Thus we often pay double or triple what is needed for a piece of military equipment so the government can brag about all the jobs they're bringing to individual ridings. And, of course, the negotiations are protracted, and the bidding has an enormous unspoken, underlying aspect involving jobs and money to government ridings and donations and under-the-table promises to government ministers which slows everything way the hell down.

In other words the procurement process is a mess as I said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 12:11 PM, Boges said:

Every time I see a Saab car, I think of the SAAB Grippen. You could fly as it in this Janes flight simulator game in the mid-90's. 

Point is, fighter jet technology is in a bit of a holding pattern. 

Bogey Saabs the car is a piece of doodoo but the jet is a good one.  Good write ups. The F35 has the lobby group that owns both thd Libs and  Tories and they did what Argus mentioned. They offered the most jobs in Canada. The jet is an overpriced nightmare but mp's want it to get jobs in their ridings. Lol you trust American cars these days? Not me. I have a Kia. Its fiberglass but its idiot proof.  The Grippen is the solution.  P.s. I never liked Mats Sundin. Borje Salming yes. IKEA no. ABBA hell no. We could get more Grippens, they are easier to maintain, land on ice, and leave money forvou ef navy.  Ah who are we kidding. Our F18's like everything else will be pushed too far and like our Tudors endanger our pilots. I hear Trudeau will hire summercdtudrnts to fly model jets and they will call them th ed new scales down air force.

Edited by Rue
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.

×
×
  • Create New...