Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post11 Oct 2017, 07:55

Just poked B4FC, never saw that level of stupidity in my life.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Oct 2017, 10:42

armedupdate wrote:Just poked B4FC, never saw that level of stupidity in my life.


What have you done?!! :shock:

Do you realise that you just wasted precious minutes of your own life? :wink:
Online

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 841
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post11 Oct 2017, 17:49

mixelflick wrote:This is beyond ridiculous at this point.

What are they going to do, wait for CF-18's to start dropping from the skies? They're flying the wings off those things, and every day that ticks by it puts their pilots in greater jeopardy. Both in peacetime patrols and combat operations overseas...


Umm, no. Canada basically is the international leader in Legacy Hornet airframe management: we've developed maintenence techniques that exceed that of everyone else. All aircraft have been instrumented since the late 1980s early 90s with strain gauges and accelerometers to measure the stress placed on an aircraft. We also have maintained the ability to refurbish the center barrel section of hornets, and have continued to do so over the years, Aus wound down that program around 2010 or so. Anyways the point is that the RCAF won't put its pilots into "unsafe" aircraft.

Conan wrote:
cantaz wrote:We already know that.


I’m sure you’ll also know then, that it isn’t just the Australians you’ll need to deal with to acquire our legacy Hornet airframes, once we are finished with them. This sale will need State Department and ITARS clearances to proceed as well. With the current US President’s er, mercurial nature, any decision by Canada to not buy American, could easily result in said clearances not being forthcoming...


No offence, because I know you're among the more well informed on here, but that's a nearly absurd scenario... given we're much more well integrated into the US system than even you are, for much longer. We also have better high level contacts (and not just with the White House.)
Last edited by hb_pencil on 11 Oct 2017, 19:37, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5170
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Oct 2017, 18:39

armedupdate wrote:Just poked B4FC, never saw that level of stupidity in my life.


Are they still going on about Boeing being the savior of the CF-18 debacle for Canada!?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1139
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Oct 2017, 18:53

I thought B4FC was all pro-Gripen?

I haven't sacrificed any brain cells there in a LONG time, so I don't know...
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post11 Oct 2017, 20:42

hb_pencil wrote:Anyways the point is that the RCAF won't put its pilots into "unsafe" aircraft.


until they get put into a situation where the enemy can actually fire back. Bombing Libya and Iraq isn't exactly a high-threat environment. How about they do some patrols in eastern Ukraine, I wonder how many volunteers there will be to fly that first mission.
Online
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 09:21

hb_pencil wrote:Anyways the point is that the RCAF won't put its pilots into "unsafe" aircraft.


Noone does that without a dire need. They will however have to fork out to make sure they have enough worthy airframes with legacy hornets - even with that, I'm sure very good, maintenance program.
Offline

optimist

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 14:20

I wanted to see his face when he signed the order for $6.4b for 18 super hornets, That only averaged out to $350 mil a copy. So much cheaper than the expensive f-35 :mrgreen:
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/p ... dmail.com&
Offline

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 250
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 14:41

This whole mess makes the Syrian situation seem sane and manageable. If the Canadian government decides to buy the SH's for 350 million apiece, it would be the huge waste of money, not to mention setting the RCAF back however many years. The only option more stupid than that would to buy Australian hornets for probably a large sum of money. They would be buying Hornets that have been used a ton and would be even less capable than the SH's. They could go with a Eurocanard, but they would probably be getting a similar deal to the SH's.

My idea is that Turdeau most of all wants to save face. I bet if both Canada and the US played their cards right the f-35 deal would happen. Turdeau could enter talks about the f-35, and claim that he had significantly brought down the price for the plane single-handedly with his good looks and charm. Trump could say that he, also single-handedly, sold the f-35 yet again with his tremendous dealmaking abilities and bigly charisma.
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 23:17

pushoksti wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:Anyways the point is that the RCAF won't put its pilots into "unsafe" aircraft.


until they get put into a situation where the enemy can actually fire back. Bombing Libya and Iraq isn't exactly a high-threat environment. How about they do some patrols in eastern Ukraine, I wonder how many volunteers there will be to fly that first mission.



Interesting observations. You seem to have an in-depth understanding of RCAF capabilities, and your saying they can't operate in a high threat environment? That's quite an indictment. But couldn't you make the same indictment of most NATO air forces? In Libya Kaddafi had a few effective SAM systems, and the USAF had to take them out. After that we let the other NATO air forces do most of the bombing.

In every conflict since DS the U.S. and the RAF had to do the heavy lifting. SEAD, anti-airfield, AWACS, and ISR missions were carried out by the American, British, and maybe French air forces, which you might call the first tier powers. The others were able to operate in coalition only with them. What I'm asking you is the RCAF any worse off then the Luftwaffe, and isn't that all we exspect from them, the ability to operate in a coalition?
Offline

optimist

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 23:40

I'm pretty sure like the USN with their legacy hornets. CA would acknowledge the CA-18 can't operate in a high threat environment. Even the super hornet is up against the wall now and can't operate in all threat environments with the latest SAM. Without being too fanboyish, it arguably leads the 4.5 gen planes.

someone else needs to do the lifting for the gen 4, including legacy hornets
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Oct 2017, 00:24

tincansailor wrote:What I'm asking you is the RCAF any worse off then the Luftwaffe, and isn't that all we exspect from them, the ability to operate in a coalition?


I believe that I can answer you that question:
- Yes, unfortunately (and I'm saying unfortunately because I'm also Canadian) the RCAF is much worse than the Luftwaffe specially if it had to face an enemy equipped with an advanced and integrated air defence system.
I'm saying this because the Luftwaffe has at least the Tornado ECR variant which is an Electronic Attack variant of the Tornado IDS armed with HARM missiles which is able to deal with high level and advanced air defence systems.
On the other hand the RCAF doesn't even have HARM missiles for its CF-18s in its inventory (and neither any other similar weapon).

You see, the RCAF has for quite a long time a "generalist approach" in terms of equipment. For example they never had dedicated combat Electronic Attack aircraft and even the weapons inventory for their combat aircraft was always limited: For example and again the RCAF never had HARMs, Harpoons (or any other cruise missile) and the RCAF only seem to have acquired their first guided air-to-ground weapons in 1999 (Paveway kits and AGM-65G Maverick missiles) and these were hastily acquired so that the Canadian CF-18s could perform Air-to-Ground missions during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) in 1999 and then we also have the AMRAAM which was first acquired by the RCAF already in this XXI century (while other countries such as Spain and Australia already had AMRAAM 10 years earlier).
So the only aircraft which fits this Canadian/RCAF "generalist" approach and at the same time with this approach being a relevant and efficient and also survivable force, is in my opinion to acquire the F-35.
And there's no other chance for the RCAF since for example if the Canada decides to buy for example buy the Super Hornet you can bet some serious money that Canada would never buy the EA-18G Growler variant (for example).
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post15 Oct 2017, 02:42

You see, the RCAF has for quite a long time a "generalist approach" in terms of equipment. For example they never had dedicated combat Electronic Attack aircraft and even the weapons inventory for their combat aircraft was always limited: For example and again the RCAF never had HARMs, Harpoons (or any other cruise missile) and the RCAF only seem to have acquired their first guided air-to-ground weapons in 1999 (Paveway kits and AGM-65G Maverick missiles) and these were hastily acquired so that the Canadian CF-18s could perform Air-to-Ground missions during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) in 1999 and then we also have the AMRAAM which was first acquired by the RCAF already in this XXI century (while other countries such as Spain and Australia already had AMRAAM 10 years earlier).
So the only aircraft which fits this Canadian/RCAF "generalist" approach and at the same time with this approach being a relevant and efficient and also survivable force, is in my opinion to acquire the F-35.
And there's no other chance for the RCAF since for example if the Canada decides to buy for example buy the Super Hornet you can bet some serious money that Canada would never buy the EA-18G Growler variant (for example).

[/quote]

Thanks for your answer. It seems based on their defense posture that Canada only want's to participate in peace keeping operations, or as a very minor ally in a coalition. It's a shame that a country that played such a major part in the World Wars, and the Cold War is no longer serious about it's military commitments to the Western Alliance. I guess they think they will never have to fight a war by themselves. Any conflict they were involved in would at least have the United States, and the Common Wealth supporting them.
Offline

sdkf251

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 95
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 11:02

Unread post15 Oct 2017, 14:53

"Thanks for your answer. It seems based on their defense posture that Canada only want's to participate in peace keeping operations, or as a very minor ally in a coalition. It's a shame that a country that played such a major part in the World Wars, and the Cold War is no longer serious about it's military commitments to the Western Alliance. I guess they think they will never have to fight a war by themselves. Any conflict they were involved in would at least have the United States, and the Common Wealth supporting them."

Well... on the point of Canada fighting by themselves, to be fair, Canada has not fought a war by itself against another country for a very long time. If I remember correctly, not since the early 1900's or late 1800's.

In the great wars like WW1, WW2 and subsequent wars, Canada has always been part of a coalition or league. If you examine the major military hardware of Canada during these conflicts, they are always designed by a partner. (e.g. Britain and US in WW1 and WW2). They did have a fish war with Spain a while back, but it was not a war per se.

In terms of their NATO commitment, that is another matter altogether. Canada has to have a viable force contribution. With the F-35 becoming more widely adopted it seems the only hindrance to Canada adopting the F-35 is saving face for a politician. Not logical, but that is a big hurdle none the less. I hope more reasonable decision makers see how logical the F-35 is as the new Combat Aircraft of Canada.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Oct 2017, 16:43

tincansailor wrote:Thanks for your answer. It seems based on their defense posture that Canada only want's to participate in peace keeping operations, or as a very minor ally in a coalition.


You're welcome tincansailor, however I don't think that the point you mentioned is accurate and as such this is actually a major problem for the Canadian Forces.
I get impression that for some reason many people (yourself included apparently) seem to look at Canada as a sort of a Sweden of the Americas (Neutral/Peacekeeper posture) but that cannot be further from the truth!

For example during Operation Allied Force, the Canadians were responsible for 10% of all NATO Air-to-Ground (bombing) missions, this despite participating with only 2% of all NATO aircraft.
Later in Afghanistan and namely since 2004 until the end of Canadian combat mission, the Canadian Forces were responsible for the security in the Kandahar province, one of the most violent provinces and "Taliban infested" areas in Afghanistan.
More recently Canadian Forces also participated in NATO's Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya.

I definitely wouldn't consider none of the above (which were the Canadian major military operations since Operation Desert Storm in 1991) and ODS included to be "Peacekeeping operations".



sdkf251 wrote:Well... on the point of Canada fighting by themselves, to be fair, Canada has not fought a war by itself against another country for a very long time. If I remember correctly, not since the early 1900's or late 1800's.

In the great wars like WW1, WW2 and subsequent wars, Canada has always been part of a coalition or league. If you examine the major military hardware of Canada during these conflicts, they are always designed by a partner. (e.g. Britain and US in WW1 and WW2). They did have a fish war with Spain a while back, but it was not a war per se.

In terms of their NATO commitment, that is another matter altogether. Canada has to have a viable force contribution. With the F-35 becoming more widely adopted it seems the only hindrance to Canada adopting the F-35 is saving face for a politician. Not logical, but that is a big hurdle none the less. I hope more reasonable decision makers see how logical the F-35 is as the new Combat Aircraft of Canada.


Definitely!
And even if a country (Canada in this case) only participates in military operations always together with other allies, this doesn't mean or rule out the need of having the capability to engage and destroy every/all kinds of major enemy threats (like for example advanced air defence systems) and if such a partner (Canada again) goes to war hoping that its allies will clear out some of the major enemy threats that this same partner (Canada) doesn't have the capability to do it so, this will probably or likely end up in disaster.
And something like this already happened recently in the history of Canadian military or more precisely in Afghanistan:
- After Canada took the responsibility for the security in the Kandahar province in 2004, Canada didn't bring any tactical helicopters since it hoped to rely on their Allies (namely Americans, British and Dutch) to provide helicopters for its tactical airlift needs (troops and cargo) but what happened next? The Allies also had a great demand and need for their own helicopters and so the Canadian Forces (Army) didn't have the access to (Allied) helicopters that it hoped for and what was the result of this?
In 2008 the Canadian Forces had to hastily purchase 6 (six) CH-47D Chinooks (from the US Army inventory) and sent 8 (eight) of its CH-148 Griffon Utility helicopters as makeshift gunship helicopters to protect the Chinooks and perform Armed Recon missions.

And this has been the sad story of the Canadian Armed Forces:
- Canada goes to war under armed and under equipped, pay dearly with blood and only after the "sh*t hits the fan" is when the Canadian government purchases (often the best) military equipment for their Armed Forces. :roll: :(
Other examples of the above (also in Afghanistan): Arid camouflage for troops (yes, Canadian troops were first sent to Afghanistan with temperate cammo pattern uniforms/gear), Replacement of the Iltis "jeep" with a bit better G-Wagon which by its turn was later replaced by the RG-31 Nyala, purchase of the Leopard 2 MBTs (which replaced the old Leopard 1s), purchase of the Chinook helicopters (seen above), the purchase of the C-17 Strategical Airlifter, etc...
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hb_pencil and 30 guests