Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1489

Thread: Which Fighter Jet should Canada choose?

  1. #201

    Default

    Then a war comes along, and all the Russian planes and tanks get wiped out (like the Israelis have done repeatedly over the last few decades)
    Do not make the assumption that the equipment is poor when the training sucks.

    Russian equipment is very, very capable as proven in the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam.

    While not wanting to take anything away from the Israeli fighting forces they have been dealing with poorly trained military forces using flawed strategy/tactics and second line equipment vs Western most up to date equipment with exceptional training and innovative tactics.

    We have been very fortunate that since the Second World War we have not had front line powers engaged in combat, and should be celebrating that fact, but if there ever is a first line confrontation it will be nether low casualty or one sided.

    Tom
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 20-12-2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason: clarity

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Then a war comes along, and all the Russian planes and tanks get wiped out (like the Israelis have done repeatedly over the last few decades)
    Do not make the assumption that the equipment is poor when the training sucks.

    Russian equipment is very, very capable as proven in the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam.
    It is not an assumption, it is a fact. Towards the end of the cold war, Russia simply didn't have the technology or resources to keep up with the West. Sure, the planes look aerodynamically fine, with thrust vectoring and similar, but they lack sophisticated electronics and missile systems.

    The US learned from the lessons of vietnam, that's how for example, the F15 came about (basically its a giant radar with wings), which still is unmatched and never defeated by Russian fighters (including a lot of action with the IAF) decades after its first engagement (let alone, consider the F22 which outmatches the F15):

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...story/f15.html

    Russia has a fine industry providing easy to maintain / simple second tier jets to second rate military nations, and countries trying to develop their own capability (e.g. India). That isn't go to change.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-12-2011 at 02:30 PM.

  3. #203

    Default

    Russia has a fine industry providing easy to maintain / simple second tier jets to second rate military nations, and countries trying to develop their own capability (e.g. India). That isn't go to change.
    That's funny

    That is what was said of the Japanese before Pearl Harbour and about the Russians before the Korean conflict.

    History shows how those assumptions worked out.

    Read Ben Rich's book...Stealth came from an obscure Russian (Soviet) Mathematical paper and that is but one example of their backward technology.

    Tom

  4. #204

    Default

    ^I think Russia has produced great engineers and scientists. The really great ones are now hired by western companies though.

    The problem is they don't have the commerical industrial capability to compete anymore. Even former russian generals are doubting, for example, the ability of Russian industry to build the next generation fighter, the PAK-FA. There is no serious equivalnet to Boeing, Lockheed, Northorp Grumman or the thousands of private companies that contribute technology to them, in Russia. United Aircraft Company (Sukhoi and Mig) is just surviving day by day on small government hand outs / export contracts, it will be decades before they catch up, let alone take a lead.

    For example, the F22 cost $66.7 billion dollars to develop in historical dollars for only 187 planes. Much of that value has gone straight into the F35. Nobody can compete with that level of R&D knowledge/spend, its a cold war relic (one of many that broke the back of the soviet union), but a cold war relic that will give a lasting advantage for decades.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-12-2011 at 04:43 PM.

  5. #205

    Default

    As I said

    Assumptions...if history has taught anything it is to avoid them.

  6. #206

    Default

    So moa, you state Russia has second rate equipment (a fact, you say), always have, always will (apparently). Then the first two sentences of your link about the F15 states the MiG was the superior to the F4 in air2air combat in 'Nam (bringing about the development of the F15).
    So which is it? Better equipment (at the time) or poor equipment but better combat skills? Both?

    The pendulum of technological advancement particularly in military equipment (funny how a lot of the world's nations have huge budgets for this) swings continuously.

    You love the F35, I get it. Its the flavour of the week. Though its been stated there are some VERY capable alternatives (by some very arbitrary sources), the differences are really subjective to a variety of factors, least of which are the 'gadgets' you find endearing on the F35. IMO your case for the F35 isn't strong enough based on the aircraft itself.
    So taking the aircraft itself out of the equation, you seem to think (or are being influenced by the US military propaganda machine) there will be this huge contractual infrastructure spinoff that would be good for SOME Canadian companies if (that's a big IF) it goes to tender even when history shows Uncle Sam likes shopping at Uncle Sam's. This is a flawed arguement, you've said so yourself "Its not a guarantee, its simply the right to participate..." wow. the right to participate. this isn't a mail in contest. spin, spin.

    See Tom's post above.

    There was a time when it was assumed the sword was the pinnacle of military might, then someone invented the bow and arrow.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    So moa, you state Russia has second rate equipment (a fact, you say), always have, always will (apparently).
    No, but I don't think anyone will be able to replicate the 67billion that went into the F22, or the billions that went into the F15 before that, in the next few decades. If the US decides to, for example, scrap the F35, or not carry on developing, then sure, in time, Russia or China might catch up. They don't have the money to right now though.

    The F15 developers applied the lessons of Vietnam, they included a gun (something that interestingly, may be dropped now that missiles are reliable), and they significantly upgraded the radar (to the point where it comprised a large portion of the front part of the plane). The US went into Vietnam with technology that wasn't ready yet, or optimized.

    Times have changed. The F15 showed that stand off missile attacks do work. The F35 will take that further, building on the F22. Today, its all about electronics, radar integration with other platforms (Awacs, on the ground, etc.), and LO, pilots are becoming less and less important (eventually, they won't be needed at all).

    I'm not a huge F35 fan. I think its been a poorly run project trying to do to many things. I don't think there will be anything in the air aside from an F22 that can match it though. And, if the US proceeds, it will offer more opportunity for our industry than anything else. If the US doesn't proceed, I think Superhornets are a good plan B.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-12-2011 at 06:02 PM.

  8. #208

    Default

    First you say...

    The US learned from the lessons of vietnam, that's how for example, the F15 came about (basically its a giant radar with wings), which still is unmatched and never defeated by Russian fighters
    Then you say...

    The F15 developers applied the lessons of Vietnam, they included a gun
    Then back to...

    (something that interestingly, may be dropped now that missiles are reliable), and they significantly upgraded the radar (to the point where it comprised a large portion of the front part of the plane).
    So lets examine your comments.

    1)
    The US learned from the lessons of vietnam, that's how for example, the F15 came about (basically its a giant radar with wings), which still is unmatched and never defeated by Russian fighters
    Uh no...what they learned in Vietnam was that the level of training in air to air combat was no where near what it needed to be and that the aircraft were not equipped to deal with close quarter combat (no gun, relying on missles).

    The enemy, flying older generation aircraft (Mig 17 and MIg 19 and to a limited extent the MIg 21) were flatly outflying the American pilots and being equipped with a gun (cannon in this case) had a weapon for close quarter combat.

    The American solution (and a good one at that)...
    a) Gun pods rapidly installed on Phantoms and later built in 20mm Cannon (Gattling style)

    b) Top Gun (Navy/Marines) at Miramar and Red Flag (Air Force) in Nevada...schools to retrain the pilots in clsoe quarter air to air combat.

    The results were rapid and worked well for decades, quickly the Americans were able to regain air superiority.

    The lesson

    The man (or woman), the training and the ability to engage in close quarter combat outweighed the technological advantage.

    Move forward

    The western world as a whole has abandoned proven air combat training method in favor of technology. Miramar is gone (no more Top Gun, sorry Tom Cruise) Red Flag is a shadow of what it was and actual flight hours are reduced or even replaced by simulator time.

    After all technology will replace the pilot, don't need guns it will be all by missile.

    This is the same song sung in the 50s and 60s...the outcome will most likely be the same (losses in combat) to come to the same conclusion...put the gun back in and return to real training tactics.

    History does repeat when you don't learn from it.

    2)
    The F15 developers applied the lessons of Vietnam, they included a gun
    Reaffirming what I say above...they learned, put in a gun for close quarters combat.
    The F-15 was to an extent designed to accommodate the darn gun.

    3)
    (something that interestingly, may be dropped now that missiles are reliable), and they significantly upgraded the radar (to the point where it comprised a large portion of the front part of the plane).
    a) Contradicting what they have learned and returning to the fallacy of 50-60 years ago. (BTW love to know where you heard it was being removed as I can't find a reference and my friends in the US tell me it ain't so, but I stand to be corrected)

    b) Every flam'in fighter in the last 50-60 years meets that description! Radar has been an important tool in air combat since the 1940s and integral to combat since the mid / late 50s.

    History repeating a flawed doctrine based on technological superiority...that goes back a few thousand years.

    Tom

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Not 100% related to our fighter issue, but I found it interesting:

    RAF Eurofighter Typhoons 'beaten by Pakistani F-16s'
    As Dialog posted in post #97. And totally relevant to this conversation. yet another example of (in no particular order):
    1) the right plane for the right mission
    2) training trumps gadgets
    3) no unmanned aircraft can replicate real life hands on situations
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    a) Contradicting what they have learned and returning to the fallacy of 50-60 years ago. (BTW love to know where you heard it was being removed as I can't find a reference and my friends in the US tell me it ain't so, but I stand to be corrected)
    My understanding is it will depend on the F35 variant. Variants that don't have a gun (which may be most), will have the option of including it as a weapons pod attachment if ever needed (probably only a ground straffing mission).

    In Vietnam, there was a misplaced belief that an interceptor type aircraft with missiles would eliminate the need for a gun, or extensive combat maneuvorability / training. The technology was not there yet to do this, its as simple as that, and the US paid a price and learned a lesson. Combat school was introduced, training improved, as there was no technology advantage.

    After Vietnam, all aircraft included a gun. However, missiles did start to become effective, the F15 with the Israelis was the first really effective example of this. Yes, only short range missiles, so combat school was still valuable. However, US aircraft were totally dominant in this period, and still are today. Missiles are proven now, we arent going back to WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam dogfighting with a gun.

    More recently, things have changed again. Two technologies have matured. One is beyond visual range missiles. Ideally, an aircraft should be LO, so it can't be easily detected by opposition, and have passive radar / laser / long distance line of sight capability to detect. Another option is to switch the radar on and fire quickly. As this technology matures as expected, combat aircraft without LO will become obsolete, they will be shot out of the sky before even detecting the opposition.

    The second technology, which we see trying to be developed on the F35 (it isn't proving easy), is line of sight firing from a helmet integrated firing sight. It won't be necessary to turn the plane, just turn the pilots head, so it isn't as important that the plane have the best power, or best turning (i.e. it doesn't have to be an F22), what matters is that the missile has that, and that the electronics work perfectly (this is basis of F35). In these situations, sure, combat school will still matter. But, it is becoming less and less important, and pilots will atest to this. The role of pilot is changing to being less of a seat of the pants instinctive dogfighter, to being an expert at handling electronic information and making split second decisions.

    The technology has moved a long way since Vietnam. The idea that a 4th generation plane like an F16 could defeat an F22, simply by having a better trained pilot, is false / not the case. The electronics on the F35 will be far more advanced than the F22, which will offset the aerodynamic superiority of the F22 or any 4 or 4.5 generation aircraft.
    Last edited by moahunter; 21-12-2011 at 10:00 AM.

  11. #211

    Default

    The USSR has historically fared poorly in offensive battles, but have done well when defending something.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The idea that a 4th generation plane like an F16 could defeat an F22, simply by having a better trained pilot, is false / not the case.
    That's what Germany thought with the introduction (albeit, a late intro) of the Me262. Faster? yep. More advanced? possibly. And yet once the Allied pilots on those archaic piston fighters realized the 262 couldn't turn so good or drew the Axis pilot into a close quarters dogfight, down they went. Better yet destroy the jet on the ground.

    Any real world combat scenarios to support that 'idea'? One has a lengthy combat history, the other?.....mmm, not so much.
    But the F22/F35 is dominant in training excercises and simulated combat. Cause that's important.
    Last edited by bpeters; 21-12-2011 at 11:36 AM.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  13. #213

    Default

    And let's not forget the fact that the US lost in Vietnam.

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    But the F22/F35 is dominant in training excercises and simulated combat. Cause that's important.
    US aircraft have already shown themselves to be dominant in real world situations (e.g. F15 as discussed above). That these 5th generation aircraft are dominant over those aircraft in training after more than $100 billion (in total) of R&D investment, is a pretty good indication of where they stand on a world scene, as nobody else has those resources to spend to catch up, let alone lead.

    ^yes, as noted, the US learned from Vietnam, both on training, and technology. They haven't lost since, anywhere (well, maybe the Blackhawke down thing in Somalia).
    Last edited by moahunter; 21-12-2011 at 11:54 AM.

  15. #215

    Default

    My understanding is it will depend on the F35 variant. Variants that don't have a gun (which may be most), will have the option of including it as a weapons pod attachment if ever needed (probably only a ground straffing mission).
    I was referring to your comment the F-15 would have it's gun removed.

    Missiles are proven now, we arent going back to WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam dogfighting with a gun.
    Yep...they said that in the 50s...said it in the 60s, right in there with ICBMs will replace bombers (didn't) and fighters will be replaced with guided missiles (Bomarc)

    Even if you buy into this BVR stuff as removing close quarter combat you contradict with this.
    an aircraft should be LO, so it can't be easily detected by opposition, and have passive radar / laser / long distance line of sight capability to detect.
    Which means aircraft will be far closer when they detect each other, which means close quarter combat, which means....dogfighting.

    The second technology, which we see trying to be developed on the F35 (it isn't proving easy), is line of sight firing from a helmet integrated firing sight.
    This is not revolutionary...it has been in the Army Comanche helicopter for decades controlling both the flexible Gatling gun and the "Hell Fire" missiles.

    and that the electronics work perfectly
    Sureeeeeeeee they will, ask the Iranians about UAVs

    And last but not least....
    The technology has moved a long way since Vietnam. The idea that a 4th generation plane like an F16 could defeat an F22, simply by having a better trained pilot, is false / not the case. The electronics on the F35 will be far more advanced than the F22, which will offset the aerodynamic superiority of the F22 or any 4 or 4.5 generation aircraft.
    1)
    The technology has moved a long way since Vietnam.
    To paraphrase Burt Rutan from a 2000 interview on CBC...if you told me in the early 60s the aircraft in 2000 would be slower, have less range and less payload that the ones we were testing in the 60s I would ask how we lost the war.

    Sorry Moa, the electronics have no doubt advanced, but as they found in Vietnam and other arenas they are not the solution and often the problem. Thinking you have technological superiority is a myth that is repeated sold...and always proven out wrong when combat begins.

    Improvised Explosive Devices are an example in ground combat...simple, cheap, dumb and effective.

    2)
    The idea that a 4th generation plane like an F16 could defeat an F22, simply by having a better trained pilot, is false / not the case.
    Each time this has been said in the history of aerial combat it has been wrong.

    First World War...Fokker D.7 and D.8 vs Camels and SE5s, Fokkers vastly technically superior lost due to training/tactics.

    Second World War
    Finish Brewster Buffalos vs multiples of vastly technologically superior aircraft, Fins won with training and tactics.

    Battle of Britain Hurricanes (80% approx of RAF aircraft) vs Me 109, 109 out performed the Hurricane at every 1/4 and lost due to training and tactics.

    Pacific theater US F4F Wild Cats and other s took a beating against the superior ZERO, till they changed training and tactics.

    Me 262 vs Piston engine fighters, jet vs piston, all advantages to the 262. Overwhelmed.

    Korea...Mig 15 vs darn near everything allied, Mig 15 superior in most ways (except Canadian Sabres, USA ended up by buying 50-60 to catch up). Despite superior numbers Migs lost largely due to superior training and tactics.

    Vietnam...Mig 15/17/19/21 technological inferior to F-4 Phantom, Crusader, Starfighter yet they dominated till the training and tactics changed.

    There are many other historical examples that defy your comment.

    Fer crying out loud WW2 Gloster Gladiator Bi Planes, (3) Faith, Hope and Charity, held off dozens of Luftwaffe Messerschmidt 109s at Malta till reinforced, a Piper Cub (L-2) got a Me 109 kill in WW2, Propeller driven fighters regularly scored against jets in Korea, Propeller driven Sky Raiders knocked down Migs in Vietnam.

    The devotion to the "technological superiority" of F-35 is simply repeating a flawed cycle when taken to these extreme justifications for it's choice and existence.

    When the bugs are fixed down the road I am sure it will be a fine airplane and do its mission well...but I maintain in my view and that of many, many others wrong for the Canadian mission and this devotion to replacing capability with technology will again be proven wrong...they must work in together to be effective and replacing the person, the training and the tactics with "overwhelming tech" will also repeat the past failures.

    My opinions anyways

    Tom
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 21-12-2011 at 12:09 PM. Reason: spelling, grammar

  16. #216

    Default

    Well said and articulated Tom.

    moa, you should have stopped in post #5. Most of your posts after repeatedly seem to imply that 'he who has the latest techno-wizardry, has the better aircraft and thus by default, wins'.
    Maybe you are indifferent to the F22/F35 and you did attempt to promote other aircraft like the SuperHornet (my choice as well) and their pros/cons but consistently came back to the latest gadget filled flying computer (usually the F22/F35) and trumpeted that it is superior by evolution, despite the lack of a body of work, real world combat or actual in-service units. And the thinly veiled claim of jobs isn't supported.

    And that's ok. I certainly don't profess to have the solution but I put a lot of emphasis in the opinions of the men and women flying these fighters in real world combat and the F35 cannot stack up. You say 'yet', and do talk of when all the planes come onstream and the multiple varients are finished for the various tasks for the various nations, etc, etc. That's a lot of hypothesizing and speculation. then there's the cost.......
    Last edited by bpeters; 21-12-2011 at 02:10 PM.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    And that's ok. I certainly don't profess to have the solution but I put a lot of emphasis in the opinions of the men and women flying these fighters in real world combat and the F35 cannot stack up.
    Ummm, can you back that up with someone who has flown the plane or someone in the Canadian forces today? My understanding is that Canadian pilots want the F35, not the superhornet.

    I don't disagree the Superhornet is a good plane, it is. I just think there are a variety of variables that make the F35 a better buy for Canada, including is superior capability, and what it means for our industry. To me, that offsets the extra cost. If things continue to go badly on the program though, my mind could change.

  18. #218

    Default

    First off...serving Canadian Armed Forces personnel are not to comment on political issues publicly. Now frankly it used to be a written policy, but may not be now. Ether way any serving member foolish enough to comment would have serious consequences to face...formally or otherwise.

    That said how about this guy, recently retired:

    This month we will be hosting Major Stephen Fuhr who retired from the Canadian Air Force after twenty years of service as a fighter pilot, flight instructor, and the CF-18 Operational Fleet Manager among other roles. Stephen has been a tireless commentator on the F-35 program, criticizing the plane’s operational limitations, infrastructure demands, and spiraling costs for starters. He has published his opinions on the fighter in Jane’s Defense Weekly and has been interviewed on AM1150, CPAC, and the CBC’s Power & Politics.

    Looks qualified to me!

    Tom

  19. #219

    Default

    ^looks like somebody trying to keep themselves in the news. Here is the source, the Canadian forces:

    TORONTO - The acquisition of F-35 fighter jets is the most cost-effective way for Canada to keep up with its military partners, said a high-ranking military official.

    Major-General Tom Lawson said Monday that the F-35 will enable Canada to continue to adhere to defence agreements with the U.S, as well as play an effective international leadership role.

    "We're not only defending Canada," said Lawson. "We're also doing that with a partner to the south who expects us to meet our NORAD obligations."

    Lawson told a media briefing at a Mississauga hotel that the highly-advanced fighter jets will be an "excellent multi-role" aircraft, capable of using advanced stealth and intelligence-gathering technology.

    The F-35, he said, is the only war plane that met all requirements set out by Canada's military, and the most logical replacement for Canada's 25-year-old fleet of F-18 Hornets.

    The F-35's most attractive feature, said Lawson, is its stealth technology.

    Unlike Canada's current F-18 Hornet, all weaponry and engine parts carried by the F-35 are sealed within the aircraft, making it harder for an adversary to pick it up on radar.

    With surface-to-air weaponry becoming more advanced, said Lawson, it's important to have a plane that can compete militarily for many years to come.
    http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../17101301.html

    Or now we have Japan making the same decision:

    Today, the Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, made the following statement following Japan’s decision to purchase the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Like Canada, countries are choosing this state-of-the-art aircraft over other fighters including the F-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

    “Our government’s priority is delivering our Canadian Forces the aircraft they agree gives them the best possible chance of mission success well into the 21st century,” said Minister Fantino. “Today’s announcement by Japan once again demonstrates that the F-35 is the best aircraft available to replace our aging fleets and address future threats to our sovereignty.”
    http://f-35.ca/2011/canada-welcomes-...5-jet-fighter/

  20. #220

    Default

    Lets dissect this shall we...

    TORONTO - The acquisition of F-35 fighter jets is the most cost-effective way for Canada to keep up with its military partners, said a high-ranking military official.

    Major-General Tom Lawson said Monday that the F-35 will enable Canada to continue to adhere to defence agreements with the U.S, as well as play an effective international leadership role.

    "We're not only defending Canada," said Lawson. "We're also doing that with a partner to the south who expects us to meet our NORAD obligations."

    Lawson told a media briefing at a Mississauga hotel that the highly-advanced fighter jets will be an "excellent multi-role" aircraft, capable of using advanced stealth and intelligence-gathering technology.

    The F-35, he said, is the only war plane that met all requirements set out by Canada's military, and the most logical replacement for Canada's 25-year-old fleet of F-18 Hornets.

    The F-35's most attractive feature, said Lawson, is its stealth technology.

    Unlike Canada's current F-18 Hornet, all weaponry and engine parts carried by the F-35 are sealed within the aircraft, making it harder for an adversary to pick it up on radar.

    With surface-to-air weaponry becoming more advanced, said Lawson, it's important to have a plane that can compete militarily for many years to come.
    http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../17101301.html

    Do you really think for a moment that a currently serving member, much less an officer, would dare to comment against the political masters and expect to not have repercussions...come on now Moa.

    BTW...where are they putting the external fuel tanks...oh yeah externally, bye stealth.


    Today, the Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, made the following statement following Japan’s decision to purchase the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Like Canada, countries are choosing this state-of-the-art aircraft over other fighters including the F-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

    “Our government’s priority is delivering our Canadian Forces the aircraft they agree gives them the best possible chance of mission success well into the 21st century,” said Minister Fantino. “Today’s announcement by Japan once again demonstrates that the F-35 is the best aircraft available to replace our aging fleets and address future threats to our sovereignty.”
    http://f-35.ca/2011/canada-welcomes-...5-jet-fighter/

    and if you have followed Japan's decision making process it has been based on (2) things...economic impacts (sound familiar) and the need to replace it's aging fleet (much worse position that Canada).

    So I would expect if ether the economic impacts change then or there are anymore delays there will be a quick shift back to the Super Hornet.

    Of course Japan has a completely different mission...being a small island (how many times would Japan fit into Alberta?) and having no foreign commitments it is a completely different mission profile.

    Tom
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 21-12-2011 at 05:16 PM. Reason: clarity

  21. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    BTW...where are they putting the external fuel tanks...oh yeah externally, bye stealth.
    You do realize don't you, that tanks can be dropped before entering the combative zone? Or if not drop tanks, simply removed when LO is mission critical.
    Last edited by moahunter; 21-12-2011 at 05:19 PM.

  22. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    BTW...where are they putting the external fuel tanks...oh yeah externally, bye stealth.
    You do realize don't you, that tanks can be dropped before entering the combative zone?
    But not before being picked up on long range conventional radar! Doooh.

    And if the Associate Minister of National Defense was serious about the Governments intent they would have bought enough to actually replace the F-18s not cut the numbers.

    Politics, Politics, Politics

    Tom

  23. #223

    Default

    Today, the Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, made the following statement following Japan’s decision to purchase the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Like Canada, countries are choosing this state-of-the-art aircraft over other fighters including the F-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

    “Our government’s priority is delivering our Canadian Forces the aircraft they agree gives them the best possible chance of mission success well into the 21st century,” said Minister Fantino. “Today’s announcement by Japan once again demonstrates that the F-35 is the best aircraft available to replace our aging fleets and address future threats to our sovereignty.”
    This reminds me of the stuff written about the "Ross Rifle" a marvelous recreational weapon and highly advanced for its day...

    But a piece of garbage in combat that cost many lives in the First World War.

    Another highly political decision.

    History repeats!

  24. #224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    And that's ok. I certainly don't profess to have the solution but I put a lot of emphasis in the opinions of the men and women flying these fighters in real world combat and the F35 cannot stack up.
    Ummm, can you back that up with someone who has flown the plane or someone in the Canadian forces today? My understanding is that Canadian pilots want the F35, not the superhornet.

    I don't disagree the Superhornet is a good plane, it is. I just think there are a variety of variables that make the F35 a better buy for Canada, including is superior capability, and what it means for our industry. To me, that offsets the extra cost. If things continue to go badly on the program though, my mind could change.
    Tom beat me to the reply regarding official comments from Forces personnel. But your understanding? hmmm... perhaps you could provide a quote from a pilot? I posted the link to Stephen Fuhr's full story earlier. Two years retired, pretty current opinion. I hardly think he's a media whore. But hey, it's your understanding that......
    F35; Better buy? The costs keep climbing so I'll get back to you on that. Superior capability? Than what? For what? etc. Better re-read the entire thread, that's a subjective term at best. What it means to our industry? IF it goes through, to me that doesn't offset the cost. In your own words, no guarantees.........
    If things go badly on the program? IF? moa, they have gone badly. (but that depends on your definition of 'badly', does the number have to be a trillion dollars on R&D and still a problematic plane? Is that badly?) I'm not posting links, you know where they are.
    Anyway, I'm not trying to rag the F35, a fine fighter I'm sure in the right circumstance for the right price.
    Last edited by bpeters; 21-12-2011 at 06:31 PM.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  25. #225

    Default Rafale Fighter Wins MMRCA Contract; India ‘Briefs’ Losing European Countries

    A bit of a surprise, most were expecting eurofighter to win. Interesting to compare to Canada's F35 choice, about double the number of planes for a similar price (depending on where f35 cost ends up):

    After an exhaustive technical and commercial evaluation spread over five long years, India on Tuesday selected French jet Rafale over the Eurofighter Typhoon for the gigantic almost $20 billion MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) programme to supply 126 fighters to IAF - the largest such "open-tender" military aviation deal in the world.

    It will take another four to five months for the contract to be inked after the final round of commercial negotiations between the defence ministry and French aviation major Dassault, and the requisite final nod from the Cabinet Committee on Security.

    Under the MMRCA project, the first 18 jets will come in "fly-away condition" from France from mid-2015 onwards, while the rest 108 fighters will later be manufactured in India over six years after a transfer of technology (ToT) to Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL)

    Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/rafale-fi...#ixzz1lI6BiuA5

    Politics may be involved re the earlier US exit, India's rival Pakistan has often purchased US aircraft. Additionally, word is the US refused to transfer technology that India wanted.
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-02-2012 at 10:58 PM.

  26. #226

    Default

    From another forum I frequent...

    http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...l-without-one/

    Seems even the United States is going to a "Plan B" to offset problems with the F-35.

    But it appears our Government is holding fast.

    Time to wake up and at a minimum start dealing with the delays and the upgrading of existing aircraft to bridge the gap...or pick another aircraft.

  27. #227

    Default

    ^it wouldn't surprise me if the CF18's could also be upgraded with AESA radar and similar to extend their life, if need be. I'd sort of like this as I don't think 65 planes is enough, some CF-18's could then continue flying after the roll out. The F35 purchase is as much about gaining access to US contracts for the aviation industry in Canada as it is about an urgent need.

    Here is an interesting test flight review of the Rafale, its a lighter version of the Eurofighter, that is more multi-role, and has carrier variants:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rafale-334383/
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-02-2012 at 05:01 PM.

  28. #228

    Default

    First off…the Rafale, in concept, could be considered a lighter weight Eurofighter.

    It however has no transferable parts commonality, designed and produced by different people so is in reality a totally different aircraft.

    Interesting article

    To me the most interesting take aways are:
    Most advanced Allied air forces now have operational fleets of fourth-generation fighters (defined by attributes such as being fly-by-wire, highly unstable, highly agile, net-centric, multi-weapon and multi-role assets).
    Leaves Canada out both in capabilities and numbers needed to patrol/defend our borders.

    It is worth remembering that stealth-optimised, or fifth-generation fighters such as the Lockheed F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are not only likely to be hugely expensive, but they can only preserve their stealth characteristics by carrying a very limited weapons load in their internal weapon bays.
    Where have I heard this before?.......hmmmm and like France not required for the Canadian mission IMO.

    Therefore, in the current and predicted financial defence climate, it could well be that so-called fourth-generation fighters will remain the aircraft of choice for most nations - perhaps even including the UK
    Makes a tremendous amount of sense.

    While the Dassault Rafale is a great aircraft it does not meet most of the needs of our mission with again the comparatively short range and some other issues.

    But it demonstrates what the French have done well…
    They are designing and domestically producing an aircraft for their mission needs, excellent idea.

    Dassault (pronounced Da Soo as I am told) is an old company (Google Macel Dassault neat guy and history) is a very large producer of business jets and other aircraft, much like Bombardier/Canadair.

    Showing that yes we could using Canadian companies and talent design an aircraft for our specifically Canadian mission, create long term Canadian jobs while keeping most of our dollars here in Canada.

  29. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    First off…the Rafale, in concept, could be considered a lighter weight Eurofighter.

    It however has no transferable parts commonality, designed and produced by different people so is in reality a totally different aircraft.
    It is an interesting history, they started out as the same project, but the French wanted a lighter multi-role design with air-craft carrier capability, and greater involvement of French industry. The British and Germans wanted a heavier short range air superiority design. So the program split, the similarities in the aircraft are still there though. In many ways the French have been proven right, as the Eurofighter is now having to be adapted to perform more multi-missions, which is the way of the world today (to be effective in Afghanistan, Libya, etc., which the Rafale has done surpisingly well).

    Both the Rafale and the Eurofighter, with their delta wing designs, can be considered descendants of the Mirage 2000 and earlier French designs. France already had a long standing fighter production history, something Canada doesn't have. It is actually quite illustrative that the Rafale has been quicker to production and perhaps more cost efficient than the Eurofighter (which is crazy expensive), in that the French weren't starting from scratch (Canada would be, and the cost would be insane just like it was for Eurofighter).

    Up until now it has been a bit of a joke in that no other countries had purchased the Rafale (different from previous French planes like the Mirage which were exported all over the place). That might change now with India selecting it.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-02-2012 at 01:02 PM.

  30. #230

    Default

    Uh pardon?
    France already had a long standing fighter production history
    Keeping in a similar timeline to Dassault

    All produced here, not assembled from parts and all having designed and adapted Canadian modifications and re engineering.

    Hawker Hurricane (with many Canadian Mods), Canadian Car and Foundry
    Dehavilland Mosquito (with many Canadian Mods) Dehavilland Canada
    CT-133 known as the T-Bird, originally a fighter (major Canadian Mods) Canadair

    CL-13 (F-86) Sabre, by the end of the MkVI run the evolution has created a very different aircraft with a much more powerful Canadian engine.

    CF-100 Canuck, first all weather day/night jet fighter interceptor, AVRO Canada
    CF-104 Starfighter, Single seaters were a modified version of the Lockheed version with a revised Canadian built engine. In addition the life extension programs done in Canada brought our designing and engineering capabilities to the fore front on this design. In mostly Edmonton BTW. Original builds by Canadair.
    CF-5 North American Aviation design built by Canadair with Canadian modifications (many adapted for US use) and major retrofits and upgrades by Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg.

    Now this of course is a short list and doesn't include pre Second World War Designs, Dive Bombers, Medium Bombers, Heavy Bombers, Patrol Aircraft, Trainers and others that were produced (not assembled, big difference) in Canada with major mods and redesign. As well as the CF-100 which was a complete Canadian production, design and engine.

    Nor does it include experimentals like the Arrow and the CL-84 and completely excludes the extremely successful commercial designs by Canadians built in Canada.

    We are a long way from starting from scratch.

    Tom
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 05-02-2012 at 01:26 PM. Reason: spelling

  31. #231

    Default

    Another reason that it's more likely we'll choose American planes over European ones is that former politicians are more likely to be involved in business/lobbying with manufactures that are closer to home. Never ignore the idea of politicians feathering their nests for the time that they leave politics.

  32. #232

    Default

    ^true. On a national scale, or a local scale. You only have to look at how many former councilors either work for development companies, or are developers, in Edmonton. There is a reason some councilors don't vote against developments that clearly aren't in the public interest (e.g. destroying farmland for sprawl, even though we have undeveloped holes / infill opportunities throughout the city), they know doing so limits their future career options.

    Canadian companies wanted the F35 contracts, and they got them, and while the Liberal party tries to score points on it now, they were the ones who entered Canada into the joint development consortium (for the same reason).

  33. #233

    Default

    "Edmonton-Calder MLA Doug Elniski said Wednesday he will not be running for re-election, making his riding one of the last in Alberta likely to secure a Progressive Conservative candidate in time for a vote expected this spring.

    "I've got mixed emotions, of course," Elniski said. He will be pursuing a "lucrative contract" in forestry and oil and gas consulting, but said he would not be involved in any provincial government relations."

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...165/story.html


    An excellent example of how it works at the provincial level. He won't be involved in provincial relations but you can bet that his time as an MLA was a big part of why he got this contract.

  34. #234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    "Edmonton-Calder MLA Doug Elniski said Wednesday he will not be running for re-election, making his riding one of the last in Alberta likely to secure a Progressive Conservative candidate in time for a vote expected this spring.

    "I've got mixed emotions, of course," Elniski said. He will be pursuing a "lucrative contract" in forestry and oil and gas consulting, but said he would not be involved in any provincial government relations."

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...165/story.html


    An excellent example of how it works at the provincial level. He won't be involved in provincial relations but you can bet that his time as an MLA was a big part of why he got this contract.
    Uh no

    I know Doug a little and actually talked to him about his decision...
    The offer came from his past private sector work as opposed to his time as a politician.

    Will I won't say I haven't seen it happen in this case I do not believe it is the case.

    And considering none of his political work has involved the industry and lord knows Edmonton Calder has no forestry.

    Tom

  35. #235

    Default

    Back on topic (or closer to)...

    Building (even under license) or re building our own makes even more sense when you consider the politics

    Tom
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 05-02-2012 at 11:08 PM. Reason: spelling wording

  36. #236

    Default Political reality may force Tories to change broken record routine on F-35

    One way around this would be to follow Australia’s lead in ordering a small number of Super-Hornets to bridge that gap, at a much reduced price of around $55-million per plane (and with cheaper training and maintenance costs). The U.S. Navy recently bought additional Super-Hornets, using what had been F-35 cash. Advocates of this plan point out that planes on domestic patrol don’t need stealth capability

    ...

    Given the concerns about the useful lifespan of the CF-18s, and emerging political consideration, the government could solve two problems at once by issuing a tender for a limited number of a cheaper plane to fill the gap, while waiting to see how the F-35 develops. No contracts have been signed, so we’re not yet on the hook, and Canada’s continued involvement would ensure Canadian companies are not cut out of the supply chain.

    There is every chance we will see a softening in the government line in the coming weeks, even if it’s unlikely Mr. Fantino will admit the F-35 is potentially the biggest technological dud since Space Odyssey’s HAL 9000.
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...5-john-ivison/

    I wonder if we might see an interim Superhornet order soon? It might make sense to cost efficiently jump on the current production runs for the US Navy. I hope if they do, they order a reasonable number (say, 60, not 20), which could then be augmented at a later date by F35's once the costs are lower.
    Last edited by moahunter; 14-02-2012 at 01:26 PM.

  37. #237

    Default

    Seems to me to be time to re evaluate the whole strategy...

    Tom

  38. #238

    Default

    ^well if they do, I hope they don't waste millions doing a complicated tender or similar. It isn't really needed, the Superhornet would be an obvious stop gap, given they are an evolved aircraft from the current CF18's. They won't be able to pick up any other 4.5g aircraft for only $55 million a pop, unless go with the single engine F16 (which US airforce is ordering more of), which would be a strange choice given the CF18's were originally selected ahead of it.

  39. #239

    Default

    Buy 60 SuperHortnets & keep the same number of F35's or would they swap one 1-1 or some such? I'd switch all the cash over to SuperHornets, get more planes and leave the F35's for now. We're looking primarily at costal patrol and some NATO missions, neither of which require F35's especially since if we're on a NATO missions the Americans will be there too. (Assuming they don't pull most of their forces partway through to go chase a boogeyman who happens to be sitting on large oil reserves.)

  40. #240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Buy 60 SuperHortnets & keep the same number of F35's or would they swap one 1-1 or some such? I'd switch all the cash over to SuperHornets, get more planes and leave the F35's for now. We're looking primarily at costal patrol and some NATO missions, neither of which require F35's especially since if we're on a NATO missions the Americans will be there too. (Assuming they don't pull most of their forces partway through to go chase a boogeyman who happens to be sitting on large oil reserves.)
    Tend to agree kkozoriz

    We are not and should not be an aggressor...as such Stealth is no where near as an important a consideration.


    My vote...
    80 Super Hornets
    70 of the remaining CF-18s retubbed, overhauled with new engines and avionics.

    All work done in Canada, under a license if required

    New Super Hornets meet NATO/NORAD commitments and beef Domestic capabilities, overhauled CF-18s insure Sovereignty patrol and enforcement.

    The money saved can go into new SAR aircraft (Dash 8s) that can double as patrol aircraft and more SAR helis

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    All work done in Canada, under a license if required
    That doesn't make any sense for the Superhornets, when there are already production lines up and running in the US, which could simply run for a bit longer. This is why the Superhornet cost is so low. Each job you would artificially create by rebuilding that production line here at extra expense, would cost way more than just paying for those unemployed workers full salaries to sit on their bums doing nothing.

    I would go with 65 superhornets, perhaps a few more (in an ideal world around 120). And, augment in the future with F35's when the price is reasonable (or UCAV's depening on how things change in the world in the next couple of decades).
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-02-2012 at 09:22 AM.

  42. #242

    Default

    70 of the remaining CF-18s retubbed, overhauled with new engines and avionics.

    All work done in Canada, under a license if required
    Money stays in Canada, with Canadian companies, creating Canadian jobs, putting money into the Canadian economy and tax base.

    Military ends up with a great piece of lit for Domestic use, tailored to all that they have learned and adapted to our specific missions.

    Yep...makes no sense.

  43. #243

    Default

    OTTAWA - Senior defence officials concede there is currently no Plan B — or back-up proposal — to deal with delays in the F-35 jetfighter program, and insist one is not necessary because of recent upgrades to the CF-18 fleet.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02...tml?ref=canada

  44. #244

    Default

    thanks Kkozoriz

    From the article:
    "The (CF-1 will still be effective, but you'll have slightly lower numbers as we get to maximum fatigue life on air frames,"
    A re tub and overhaul can fix that little problem

    Continuing from the article...
    It's been suggested in political circles that unmanned aircraft might be able to make up the difference, but those in uniform dismiss the idea.
    "I think there's a lot of confusion around what fighters can do. The foremost job of any fighter aircraft ... is air control, which is fundamental to any sovereign action; maintaining control of your own air space.
    "Right now, the only tool that's fully effective right across the spectrum of air control is a fighter — a manned fighter."

    Unmanned aircraft, which Canada plans to purchase some time down the road, would be armed, but only for air-to-ground attacks and the technology allowing for air-to-air interception does not exist, said the air chief.
    "They can't fulfil any of the fighter functions right now," said Deschamps.

    Not that the Government in power will do it...now is the time to put things on pause and re think what we are doing.
    - What is the mission?
    - What do we need in terms of capability and quantity to fulfill that function?


    My opinion


    Tom

  45. #245
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,505

    Default

    Canada to host stealth fighter talks in Washington.

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...ington-120225/
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  46. #246

    Default F35 to be star of next Top Gun movie

    The F-35, the stealthy, deep-strike warplane, has finally landed a combat role – albeit in Hollywood.

    Long-delayed and over-budget, the F-35 has been selected to star alongside Tom Cruise in a sequel of Top Gun, the 1980s flick in which fun-loving naval aviators conquered local girls and the Libyan air force. Mr. Cruise, who memorably played ‘Maverick,’ romancing his hot instructor and out-dueling Soviet-era warplanes in the first Top Gun, is back as a grizzled test pilot in the sequel.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2360165/

  47. #247

    Default

    I wonder how much LM paid to get that in? Talk about product placement.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  48. #248
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Actually it's often the opposite or somewhere in the middle: the US military and it's contractors will provide a lot of help to movie makers free of charge because it's essentially free marketing for them.

  49. #249

    Default

    Yeah, I get that Marcel and do know what you say is more often the case. With the controversy about the F35, that this selection 'seems' showcased using the power of Hollywood. whatev.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  50. #250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The F-35, the stealthy, deep-strike warplane, has finally landed a combat role – albeit in Hollywood.

    Long-delayed and over-budget, the F-35 has been selected to star alongside Tom Cruise in a sequel of Top Gun, the 1980s flick in which fun-loving naval aviators conquered local girls and the Libyan air force. Mr. Cruise, who memorably played ‘Maverick,’ romancing his hot instructor and out-dueling Soviet-era warplanes in the first Top Gun, is back as a grizzled test pilot in the sequel.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2360165/
    Tom Cruise, grizzled???!!!?? What is this, a comedy?

  51. #251
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,505
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  52. #252

    Default

    Flip, flop, flip, flop...

    Tory about-face on F-35 jets as minister denies ‘definitive decision’ on $16B deal

    Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino says the Conservative government has not made a “definitive decision” on whether it will buy the controversial F-35 jets. His comments represent a major about-face for a government that fought an election, in part, on purchasing the stealth fighters.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03...has-been-made/

  53. #253

    Default

    ^well it might be a very smart one, industry has already got a lot of contracts for nothing down.

  54. #254

    Default

    Hadn't caught this article before, interesting read...
    “The problem is the plane was designed by committee and it operates like it was designed by committee. It tries to do a lot of things, and doesn’t do them very well,” said Mr. Staples, president of the Rideau Institute.
    The full article:
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05...raps-the-f-35/

  55. #255

    Default

    ^IMO the project has been poorly run by Lockheed, they should have kept the F35 as a simpler, more stripped down plane, and removed the F35b program which has wasted a lot of money. But, keep in mind, during the cold war there were also huge cost over-runs, and technical problems, even on aircraft like the F16. The difference is, that the budget was unlimited then, now its a different world without the "evil empire" to race against.

  56. #256
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    so what is Laurie "Hawnski" Hawn saying now ?
    Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

  57. #257

    Default

    Want me to ask the next time I see him?

  58. #258
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    Tom , Please do
    Would also like to see him comment in this forum !!
    Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

  59. #259

    Default Government’s resolve wavers in plan to buy F-35 fighter jets

    NDP have to be careful what they wish for, if the Conservatives decide the plane won't be ready in time, they could do what the NDP suggest (in which case, where is the problem?):

    Despite the admission that Ottawa hasn’t ruled out backing out from buying the F-35s, Mr. Fantino continued to insist that the government is committed to the Joint Strike Fighter – even though he acknowledged that no decision has been made on whether to order them.

    “Well, I’m being realistic,” he told reporters later. “Until such time as the purchase is actually signed and ready to go, I think the only appropriate answer for me is to be forthright.”

    The NDP’s military procurement critic, Christine Moore, said Mr. Fantino’s comments were a dramatic change in tone for the government. She said it highlighted the reasons why the government should have held a competitive tender for fighter jets after it came to power, and developed an alternative plan to the F-35s.

    “When you’re talking about an important purchase like this, I think it’s essential to have an alternative solution, and they didn’t even do that,” she said.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2367979/

  60. #260
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #261

    Default

    The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon’s future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday. Congressional testimony by Air Force and Navy leaders, plus a new report by the GAO, heaped bad news on a program that was already almost a decade late, hundreds of billions of dollars over its original budget and vexed by mismanagement, safety woes and rigged test results.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...tories+2%29%29

  62. #262

    Default

    This F-35 steaming pile is starting to really smell.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...hter-jets.html
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  63. #263

    Default

    ^but so far, I understand it has only cost about $200million since the Liberals decided to go with it, compared to way more than that in industry contracts.

    It would be a scandal if the contract was already locked down, at an unlimited price tag. This is a problem for the Auditor General draft report right now, how can they criticise something that doesn't actually comitt the government to spend billions?

  64. #264

    Default

    How about because we'd be starting over at square one since no other places were considered. The whole program was gamed from the start.

    Defence Department never seriously considered buying anything other than the F-35: retired bureaucrat


    "Department of National Defence officials charged with selecting Canada’s next fighter jet met with Lockheed Martin — maker of the F-35 — more times than with all other bidders combined before their billion-dollar decision to select it, access to information documents reveal."

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03...ed-bureaucrat/

  65. #265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^but so far, I understand it has only cost about $200million since the Liberals decided to go with it, compared to way more than that in industry contracts.

    It would be a scandal if the contract was already locked down, at an unlimited price tag. This is a problem for the Auditor General draft report right now, how can they criticise something that doesn't actually comitt the government to spend billions?
    Hardly a scandal but its suspicious/odd FOR exactly those reasons. Its not locked down but its implied that it is a done deal and the gov't has repeatedly said they are committed. Committed? not committed? which is it? Agree on the AG report, looks like part of the plan for the gov't here; how can the AG crack on something that doesn't exist? or does it? or.....

    As mentioned, smells like Bomarc.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  66. #266
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,024

    Default

    So I know that this one website might be a bit biased but they do list the F-35 in the top ten jets available. I guess it will have to be seen weather this acquisition is going to be a good or bad thing. Although at least it should be (I hope) better than the navy's acquisition of subs from the U.K. Too bad we can't find some subs from the U.S. or if the navy acts quickly there are still probably a couple subs left at W.E.M.

    http://www.tiptoptens.com/2011/02/26...raft-projects/
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  67. #267

    Default

    bpeters
    As mentioned, smells like Bomarc.
    Nope smells like Mig
    http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNe...OOLS-HOAX.aspx

  68. #268

    Default

    Stealth is nice but with limitations, Range and Ordinances.

    I think we should take a good look at the F-18 E (Super Hornet), cheaper, versatile, and ideal for Canada's needs. Possibly we could go two rounds something we need now and perhaps the F-35 later.

    Also, there ought be contests for the planes we should be considering.

  69. #269

    Default

    ^A good thing about the Superhornet is we don't have to rush, they will remain in production for some time. The other option is a full refurbishment of the CF18's (makes me a bit nervous though - just thinking of the old Sea King situation if you dither and delay too much). Luckily the CF18's still have quite a bit of life in them, the final option is to reduce their flying hours (which is a bit sad though).

    I'm not sure what the other option to Superhornet is, I doubt woud go with Lockheed F16 (as we originally went with CF18 ), so would be looking at European options like the Rafael and Eurofighter, which are both far more expensive aircraft. The SAAB could be an option, but for similar money might as well get the dual engine Superhornet which will integrate better with the US, and we have all the maintenance / technology right next door.

    It is interesting to see Peter McKay still very much pushing the F35. This makes sense though, he has to represent his Ministry (or he will lose support among his staff).
    Last edited by moahunter; 29-03-2012 at 11:03 AM.

  70. #270

    Default

    Good article summarizing the other options here:

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...Hornets-05739/

    Interesting to read the Rafale could be considered (even though would require new weapons). That would be more interesting than Superhornets I think (but, likely more expensive to).

    http://www.canada.com/technology/Tan...205/story.html

    Meantime, defence industry players in Ottawa are quietly laying the table for what many now expect will be the eventual unwinding of the sole-sourced program, which has been plagued by delays, technical glitches and cost overruns, to be replaced by an international competition. The likeliest contenders, should there be a competition, are U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the F-18 Super Hornet, and Dassault of France, maker of the Rafale.


    Both are twin-engined aircraft, which adds an element of safety in the Far North that the single-engine F-35 does not have. The Rafale, like the F-35, comes with radar-evading stealth technology, and, insiders say, could be built almost entirely in Canada. The Super Hornet has the advantage of being in wide use already around the world, and would be highly "interoperable" both with NATO air forces and with Canada's existing, aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighters.

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Good article summarizing the other options here:

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...Hornets-05739/
    Interesting quote:

    The F-35 has a number of elements in its favor.

    One is the structure of the Canadian Parliamentary system, in which a majority government has no meaningful checks and balances.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  72. #272

    Default

    ^athough the auditors report could be seen as a bit of a check and a balance, pending what happens before the next election.

    I wonder if Peter McKay's head will roll. I don't think Harper would shed to many tears see his old rival from the PC's sink beneath the waves.

  73. #273
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    ^If Steve fires MacKay it would be political suicide, imo. It may fracture the "progressive" and "reformers". A senior bureaucrat will most likely fall on a sword.

  74. #274

    Default

    Perhaps eventually McKay will lose his job but first I think we'll see some smaller fish throuwn under the bus.

  75. #275

    Default

    ^another possiblity is there will be a cabinet reshuffel and McKay will be reassigned to a "lessor" ministry (like environment).

  76. #276

    Default

    Probably something for a different thread, but the whole thing is puzzling. For the first time in possibly decades, the military has a party in power that is willing to back it up on modernizing and upgrading and they blow it in the worst possible way. It's like someone winning the lottery and deciding to blow it all on one wild party.

  77. #277

    Default

    Interesting little article comparing the F35 to the Arrow. This bit spiked my interest:

    Both aircraft were obsolete the day they first flew. The Arrow was a large, fast, high-altitude plane able to intercept subsonic Soviet bombers coming over the Pole. It would not have been much use in a dogfight, or in ground-support roles. And the threat it was designed to counter was in the process of being made obsolete by intercontinental ballistic missiles that would fly far higher and faster than any jet aircraft could hope to do. The argument is less categorical with respect to the F-35, in part because the government has refused to publish information about the threats it is supposed to deal with, or the roles it should be called on to play, but there is much evidence from the Middle East (and the Canada-U.S. border!) that unmanned aircraft can do almost everything fighters can do, and at a fraction of the cost. Current developments will only work to the further advantage of pilotless craft, to the chagrin of Battle of Britain romantics and their descendants in today’s air ministries.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2392765/

  78. #278

    Default

    "
    But that’s not the half of it. Consider the letter of Ferguson’s audit, in the section on life-cycle costs. The initial estimate of US$75-million per plane did not include the cost of drag chutes for landing on short runways, or modifications to the refuelling system that DND knew would be necessary. But more important, the estimates of life-cycle costs — including the higher and real number of $25.1 billion, which DND and apparently the cabinet withheld — were for 20 years only.

    “This practice understates operating, personnel, and sustainment costs, as well as some capital costs, because the time period is shorter than the aircraft’s estimated life expectancy. The JSF Program Office provided National Defence with projected sustainment costs over 36 years.”

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...t-about-f-35s/

  79. #279

    Default

    ^The whole thing has always been hypothetical though, as no contract to purchase was signed, just a vague intention.

  80. #280

    Default

    The Conservative government lied to Parliament and the Canadian people by covering up the true cost of the F-35's before the election. Rather than being clear and transparent as promised, they sought to obscure the true costs of the program when they knew that they planes and associated expenses would be almost $10 billion dollars, roughly 2/3 more, than they were telling us.

    "OTTAWA — The Harper government would have known that the F-35 was estimated to cost $25 billion, not the $14.7-billion figure the public was told in the weeks before the last federal election, Auditor-General Michael Ferguson said Thursday.

    In the most damning assessment yet of the troubled stealth fighter project, Mr. Ferguson said that the $25-billion figure — which was arrived at by the Defence Department in June 2010 and doesn’t include Canada-specific modifications, ongoing maintenance and other costs — “would have been known throughout government” because they were important for long-term budget planning.

    “I can’t speak to sort of an exact date,” he said. “(But) at the point in time, to respond to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s office, it’s my understanding that the government had that number. That was their internal estimate and they should have used that as their opportunity to come forward with the full cost information.”

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04...cal-fraud-ndp/

    You don't have to follow through on a planned crime to be guilty. Conspiracy to commit a crime is also an offence. There's nothing theoretical about the fraud. They knew that the costs they were giving Parliament and, by extension, the pubic were false. Their own documents told them that. This was not a case of outside information suddenly coming into their possession.

  81. #281

    Default

    Michael Den Tandt: Conservatives’ credibility in tatters if the Auditor-General is right about F-35s

    So that’s it then: They knew and they lied. To Parliament. To all of us.

    If Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s word is to be believed — and there is no reason to think that it isn’t — then the federal cabinet and by extension the prime minister, and not just the anonymous gnomes in the Department of National Defence, are directly on the hook for the F-35 boondoggle, in the most egregious sense.

    They knew before the last federal election that the jets would cost billions more than had been stated by DND — at least $10-billion more, around $25.1-billion. They allowed the department to publicly table an estimate of $14.7-billion.

    “I can’t speak to individuals who knew it, but it was information that was prepared by National Defence,” Ferguson told reporters Thursday. “It’s certainly my understanding that that would have been information that, yes, the government would have had.”

    He continued: “That $25-billion number was something I think that at that time was known to government.” And, critically: “It would have been primarily members of the executive, yes.”

    Members of the executive - i.e. the PMO and the cabinet.

  82. #282

    Default

    Big surprise, the Toronto Sun is calling for sacrifices to be thrown under the bus. I guess they didn't read the part of the AG's report where the PMO and cabinet knew about the inflated costs and still allowed the lower, unrealistic figures to be released.

    Time to ground F-35 jetsetters

    Before Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Chief of the Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk resign over the F-35 snafu -- yes, "situation normal, all f-ed up" -- we first want the heads of the generals and defence bureaucrats who kept them in the dark.

    According to Auditor General Michael Ferguson, there are unquestionably high-ranking officials in DND guilty of duping their bosses into somehow believing the F-35 was the only war plane on the table, regardless of sole-sourcing, cost overruns, delivery incapabilities or performance reviews, that would fill the bill of replacing our weary fleet of CF-18 fighter jets.

    MacKay and Natynczyk can resign later, if and when the facts demand such action.

  83. #283
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^The whole thing has always been hypothetical though, as no contract to purchase was signed, just a vague intention.
    Vague? What was vague about this:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Harper--104513194.html
    "Why would you consider buying anything else?" Harper told the Bristol workforce and management. "There is nothing else."
    That's not vague. That is a declaration that Canada was going to buy the F-35, and that there was absolutely no considering anything else.

    Further, Harper, Hawn and others were adamant that the program would cost in the area of 15-17 billion dollars. Not only did they make that claim, they scoffed and heaped derision on the PBO for having the gall to disagree with them:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/politics/story/2011/03/11/pol-hawn-f35s.html
    Hawn's comments come the day after Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page reported his calculations show the jets will cost $29.3 billion between the purchase price and sustainment costs for the fleet over 30 years.
    The budget officer said the "total ownership" cost estimate from the Department of National Defence over the same period amounts to $17.6 billion, based on his calculations.
    Hawn said he disagrees with Page's methodology.
    "Some of the assumptions he made were based on speculation based on price escalation that was based on dollars per pound. That's not the way we buy our planes, dollars per pound," he said.
    Note that the above article also contains this gem:

    "I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate on numbers," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at a news conference in Toronto on Thursday. He said the F-35 is the "only option available" to replace the aging CF-18 fleet and to serve the purposes of the Canadian Forces.
    There was nothing vague about the Conservative government's claims about the costs of the F-35 program, nor their intention to see it through. Despite the fact that a firm contract was not yet signed, there was a signed memorandum of understanding in July 2010 that they would purchase them. Not to mention they derided and scoffed at anyone who pointed out that their numbers were a complete fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/04/john-ivison-f-35-debacle-saw-canadians-nearly-played-for-fools/
    Mr. Ferguson made clear he believes the military wanted the F-35, regardless of cost, and the deal was essentially done when Canada signed a memorandum of understanding that committed the country and Canadian industry to partner in the F-35 production and development process, even while no formal contract was penned.
    So, what is it? Complete and utter incompetence? Or outright dishonesty and contempt of Parliament? Considering the dollars we are talking about here, this being the largest defense procurement in our history, this clearly shows the Conservative government has no interest in being honest and accountable to Parliament or the Canadian people.

    There is no defending this, whatsoever. I wonder if the Conservatives are regretting sticking their neck out to appoint Ferguson as AG? Despite his apparently poor French, I like the cut of his jib so far.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 06-04-2012 at 02:37 PM.

  84. #284

    Default

    The biggest problem with this debacle is the front line military personnel and our capabilities are going to be the biggest losers.

    I have not been a fan of the F-35 choice from day one, yes I believe that when the bugs are fixed it will be a good aircraft, it's just the wrong aircraft.

    The problem is the way this is coming down, politically, the whole replacement program is going to get killed and delayed leaving us with the CF-18 which is in need of replacement.

    The death of the program and delays from it will mean that our front line techs and pilots will be trying to keep a 30 year old airframe going with no direction on how.

    This means that Canada will return to bubble gum patches and short term fixes...ala the Sea King mess.

    So while the political mess has to be dealth with a program to rebuild/build/replace the CF-18 needs to continue.

    So it comes back to
    1) What are the clear mission requirements/howmany aircraft are needed meet them?
    2) What is the real time frame to deal with the replacement?
    3) What are the options within already set budget and the timeliine?
    - Other aircraft?
    - Massive overhaul and refit?
    - New license built aircraft?
    - Other?
    - Mixed fleet?

    My opinion

    Tom

  85. #285

    Default

    Personally, the F-35 single engine fighter with such a short range is very poor choice, especially for the expanse of Canada.

    As I posted earlier F-18 E (Super Hornet) would be my first choice. The Royal Australian Air Force ordered 24 of the F model (twin seater). Funny too how down under the F-35 has been mired in controversy and they opted for the Super Hornet.

    Second choice, perhaps the F-15 SE (Silent Eagle). F-15 is super reliable with a stellar record. Both the F-15 and F-18 airframes are very versatile and proven.
    Last edited by Frank Wilson; 08-04-2012 at 04:46 PM.

  86. #286
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    I don't really care which plane we go with. But what needs to happen is a proper procurement process that starts with our military's needs and goes from there. This entire process has been a complete disaster, and serious questions need to be asked about why our military and it's civilian leadership has made a complete disaster of nearly every large procurement in the past 20 years, from the Sea Kings to our leaky submarines to the Chinooks to the F-35 and probably a couple others that I'm forgetting, they've all had large problems from cost escalations to not having clear requirements (or better yet, rigged requirements).

    Come to think of it, the C-17 procurement seemed to go alright, but maybe I just don't remember correctly.

  87. #287
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I don't really care which plane we go with. But what needs to happen is a proper procurement process that starts with our military's needs and goes from there. This entire process has been a complete disaster, and serious questions need to be asked about why our military and it's civilian leadership has made a complete disaster of nearly every large procurement in the past 20 years, from the Sea Kings to our leaky submarines to the Chinooks to the F-35 and probably a couple others that I'm forgetting, they've all had large problems from cost escalations to not having clear requirements (or better yet, rigged requirements).

    Come to think of it, the C-17 procurement seemed to go alright, but maybe I just don't remember correctly.
    Finally, someone is asking the right question.

    The answer is military procurement is broken and its been broken for quite some time. The whole system is flawed. And it will continue to be flawed because no one knows how to fix it.

    ##editted to add##
    those are just the projects you know about. It gets much worse.

  88. #288

    Default

    One big problem is the lowballing of costs. Each procurement should have to be reviewed by the AG before being made public or a selection made.

  89. #289

    Default

    IIRC the C-17 issue boiled down to three choices: an expanded version of the existing Hercules that had some kind of issue with it (safety? I forget), the Airbus A400M which wasn't even in production when we made the decision and has suffered many delays and cost overruns, and the C-17 which was an established, proven aircraft operated by the US, UK and AUS, and had an existing production run that we could 'easily' order from. It was a no-brainer.

    For political reasons previously discussed, I don't personally view Russian/Ukranian aircraft as suitable for NATO-affiliated countries.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  90. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    IIRC the C-17 issue boiled down to three choices: an expanded version of the existing Hercules that had some kind of issue with it (safety? I forget), the Airbus A400M which wasn't even in production when we made the decision and has suffered many delays and cost overruns, and the C-17 which was an established, proven aircraft operated by the US, UK and AUS, and had an existing production run that we could 'easily' order from. It was a no-brainer.

    For political reasons previously discussed, I don't personally view Russian/Ukranian aircraft as suitable for NATO-affiliated countries.
    The C-17 was also a fast tracked program due to the pressing need for Heavy lift capability, something Canada had lacked for many decades. The USAF had provided Canadian Heavy lift for many decades but had reached a point where, due to their own needs, the answer to us became no.

    The same danger we now face with our fighters, we have relied on the USA, through NORAD, for the majority of our domestic air defense /
    sovereignty patrol needs and frankly the US has it's own issues and ours are rapidly becoming very secondary air, land and sea.

    Carbon-14 is very right
    Finally, someone is asking the right question.

    The answer is military procurement is broken and its been broken for quite some time. The whole system is flawed. And it will continue to be flawed because no one knows how to fix it.

    ##editted to add##
    those are just the projects you know about. It gets much worse.
    Political interference in military procurement since the late 50s early 60s has appeared to dominate the actual needs and it has ranged from devastating budget cuts to the purchase of equipment that was based on what appeared to be everything but the military needs.

    While the men and women of our armed forces have done a fantastic job the General ranks, Federal administration and the governments in power through the years have done alot of damage in my opinion.

  91. #291

    Default

    For political reasons previously discussed, I don't personally view Russian/Ukranian aircraft as suitable for NATO-affiliated countries.
    An airframe is an airframe, it can ether do the job and provide the service or not.

    Engines, avionics, weapons systems can be switched pretty much at will.

    Recent reading on the Russian/Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers shows their airframes not just being adapted to Western block engines, avionics and systems but several airliner type being designed for them.

    Besides...they lover to sell licenses to build their products.

  92. #292
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,024

    Default

    I think one of the major problems over all has been the procurement of any type of vehicle for the military for the past 50+ years. In my opinion there has been one reason or another, that has influenced the proper decision making for any military expenditures. The willingness of having the proper budget for the military in my opinion has been always an issue. Time will tell how this situation plays out but I just wish that the right mix of military and government officials could be found that will make the proper decisions as to what our military needs. Sometimes I think the people who do vehicle procurement for our military are the same type of people that you would not want to go with you when you would be looking for a new car to buy. They either get taken by all the bells and whistles or they get convinced they are getting an amazing deal on the lemon they are about to buy.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  93. #293
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,505

    Default

    F-35 is still popular with canadian aerospace industry.


    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...-industry?bn=1
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  94. #294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Political interference in military procurement since the late 50s early 60s has appeared to dominate the actual needs and it has ranged from devastating budget cuts to the purchase of equipment that was based on what appeared to be everything but the military needs.
    Can you speak to the seemingly apparent will of the military to continue travelling down this wrong path? It does not appear to be all federal interference that has gotten us to that point.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  95. #295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    For political reasons previously discussed, I don't personally view Russian/Ukranian aircraft as suitable for NATO-affiliated countries.
    An airframe is an airframe, it can ether do the job and provide the service or not.
    And airframe designs are owned by companies that operate in highly charged political environments and under governments who do not always operate according to conventions ours and our closest allies/neighbours from whom we have previously boughten military hardware.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Engines, avionics, weapons systems can be switched pretty much at will.

    Recent reading on the Russian/Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers shows their airframes not just being adapted to Western block engines, avionics and systems but several airliner type being designed for them.

    Besides...they lover to sell licenses to build their products.
    Has this happened, esp. outside of traditional eastern/western bloc aliegances (ie Russian planes sold to Syria)? Has Antonov licensed the An-225 to a Japanese firm?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  96. #296
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Wilson View Post
    Personally, the F-35 single engine fighter with such a short range is very poor choice, especially for the expanse of Canada.

    As I posted earlier F-18 E (Super Hornet) would be my first choice. The Royal Australian Air Force ordered 24 of the F model (twin seater). Funny too how down under the F-35 has been mired in controversy and they opted for the Super Hornet.

    Second choice, perhaps the F-15 SE (Silent Eagle). F-15 is super reliable with a stellar record. Both the F-15 and F-18 airframes are very versatile and proven.

    The ideal choice would be the F-22 (Raptor); however, the US will never offer this plane for export not at least for a very very long time, if ever.
    The RAAF is replacing the their F-111 Aardvarks with the Super Hornets as an interim measure. They're still buying 100 F-35s to replaced their F-18A/Bs

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Political interference in military procurement since the late 50s early 60s has appeared to dominate the actual needs and it has ranged from devastating budget cuts to the purchase of equipment that was based on what appeared to be everything but the military needs.
    Political interference is only one problem. The bigger problem is trying to shoehorn military purchases through the same bureaucratic nightmare at PWGSC as every other government purchase. This results in every project with more than 1 competitor lasting 15+ years. How many people do you think end up working with the project when it goes on for that long? How do you keep any continuity?

    Projects need oversight. But they also need to be completed in a timely fashion. The current process gives neither. It's time for a complete overhaul.

    Tom, I don't understand how you can continually bemoan the political interference and then still trumpet some kind of bizarre licenced, built-in-Canada boondoggle. You can't have it both ways.
    Last edited by Carbon-14; 07-04-2012 at 01:25 PM. Reason: typo

  97. #297

    Default

    The conservatives basically gave DND a blank cheque and then tried to hide the bank statements when they came in. DND gamed the system so that the F-35 was the only fighter that could meet the requirements. Those requirements are aimed more to NATO missions overseas than Canadian patrol and defence (i.e. single engine, stealth, reduced range). Remember that the PM has basically agreed with every American military intervention and believes that Canada should follow along, right or wrong.

    "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are still unreliable and where security and advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might."
    - Stephen Harper, May, 2003, speech to the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

    "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are still unreliable and where security and advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might."
    - Stephen Harper, May, 2003, speech to the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

    "Thank you for saying to our friends in the United States of America, you are our ally, our neighbour, and our best friend in the whole wide world. And when your brave men and women give their lives for freedom and democracy we are not neutral. We do not stand on the sidelines; we're for the disarmament of Saddam and the liberation of the people of Iraq."
    - Stephen Harper, Friends of America Rally, April 4, 2003.

    "Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory."
    - Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003.


    "I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."
    - Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25th 2002. As it turned out, Harper wasn't the only one who didn't know all the facts.

    "This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."
    - Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

  98. #298

    Default

    Tom, I don't understand how you can continually bemoan the political interference and then still trumpet some kind of bizarre licenced, built-in-Canada boondoggle. You can't have it both ways.
    Actually you can and the pattern for expedient decisions and license built airframes was set in the 50s and 60s.

    The F-86 (Canadair CL-13) and the CF-104 were both license built (actually superior to the originals) and delivered quickly efficiently and marketed overseas successfully to a number of countries as well as supplying components.

    The Caribou and Buffalo are great examples of made in Canada for the forces and exported to the USA and Australia.

    So yes it can be done if the will is there.

    Key word being "will"
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 07-04-2012 at 02:59 PM. Reason: Added

  99. #299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I don't really care which plane we go with. But what needs to happen is a proper procurement process that starts with our military's needs and goes from there. This entire process has been a complete disaster, and serious questions need to be asked about why our military and it's civilian leadership has made a complete disaster of nearly every large.
    I love the hyperbole Marcel, but its silly. A decision doesn't need to be made until 2014, the CF18's are fine until 2020 (they aren't Sea Kings). Only $200m has been spent, and that was spent by the previous liberal government. Now there are doubts about F35 program, its no big deal to pick another aircraft "off the shelf" if the F35 won't be ready, in fact, manufacturers are lining up to bid. There is no disaster, no planes falling out of the skies, no money wasted (except for that initial 200m, but even that by the Liberals secured various industry contracts).

  100. #300
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    What hyperbole? What did I exaggerate or overstate? Other than the aerospace industry which has extremely vested interests on this issue, there is no one defending the Conservatives on this.

    They either lied to Parliament and the Canadian people, or they're so incompetent they somehow missed internal DND budgets that completely disagreed with what they were saying in public at the same time.

    So which is it? Deceit or incompetence?

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •