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

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

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 09:59

and when is that ever going to be enough? Cos what's the diff if someone is a brig gen in charge of a full brigade? Its only 3 battalions vs 1. So even at the chief of army level, that person is not going to fully know what the air force or navy is all about? So only the top chief is qualified? That's certainly not the standard that applies.

Its got to be someone who can see the big picture and understand what drives the armed forces. I do agree the higher one goes, the more one sees of the big picture. But to claim that LTCs don't understand the full picture...interestingly we do have LTCs on this board...

Its easy to say that one decision to ignore means he's incompetent but we don't see are the trade-offs and decisions that underpin the final decision. There will never be a defmin who can satisfy ALL wants of every service. That's unrealistic. If the sole measure of a defmin is how far he accedes to the wants of the services, everyone is a failure.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6399
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 10:33

Honestly, just look at Mark Espers back ground compared to Harjit Sajjan. Which, speaks volumes on who is or isn't qualified...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6399
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 10:39

spazsinbad wrote:Oh for someone's sake stop this. Civilian Governments in the West have civilian DefMins most often. They are political, they usually follow the party line/PM. It is unusual for them to buck the system no matter what the other more experienced advisers say to them. Why? Because it is political. IF they buck the system they usually get fired / replaced.

Actually, most have considerable Government/Military/Civilian Experience. Usually, with multiple degrees and many top assignments.

Good example is the bio from Mark Esper....
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24086
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 10:52

Corsair1963 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Oh for someone's sake stop this. Civilian Governments in the West have civilian DefMins most often. They are political, they usually follow the party line/PM. It is unusual for them to buck the system no matter what the other more experienced advisers say to them. Why? Because it is political. IF they buck the system they usually get fired / replaced.

Actually, most have considerable Government/Military/Civilian Experience. Usually, with multiple degrees and many top assignments. Good example is the bio from Mark Esper....

I would suggest few US SecDefs have been ex-military but I'm not going to research that myself. UK & Oz DefMins are often just civilian political hacks who often don't last long for one reason or another. It is almost as if a DEFmin doesn't matter.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 11:04

Anyone who has watched the series "Yes Minister" would understand what the real roles of ministers are, at least in commonwealth countries.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24086
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 11:16

And despite it all Oz goes well enough eh. Any system has flaws & having a know it all at the top doesn't always work out.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 11:28

Yes minister had something on that:

Sir Humphrey: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to know. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents; they could be captured and tortured.
Bernard: [shocked] You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey: [seriously] By the BBC, Bernard.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24086
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 11:33

What is the obsession with 'Yes Minister'. It was not a documentary but a comedy series of the British persuasion. So what.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 11:49

‘Yes Minister’ remains an unrivalled guide to British politics

Notebook: Even former leaders have attested to its authenticity, writes Sebastian Payne
https://www.ft.com/content/fe329b28-69f ... 7a9fea034f

It also a simple explanation as to why the UK defense minister has never been from the military (except for the current who was a captain)...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24086
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 12:24

Previous one was a woman who was/is in Naval Reserve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary ... or_Defence

I'm still curious about why this all matters in a thread about CANADA. Yes I guess Canadian politics are as boring as ever.

BTW your link above to 'how good is YES MINISTER to real life' is behind a paywall so it remains as funny as ever also.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Mar 2020, 15:53

weasel1962 wrote:Anyone who has watched the series "Yes Minister" would understand what the real roles of ministers are, at least in commonwealth countries.


to completely and publicly screw up their responsibilities?

What does his rank even mean, when its just job to just be a "yes man"?

weasel1962 wrote:Some people think ex-lt cols aren't qualified for the defense minister's role. Strange that they don't say the same for their own country.


I said it depends on the individual not their rank. Which was my point. your attempts to paint people as hypocrites are falling flat. Being a Lt col doesn't automatically mean you're a god in all military affairs, they're not interchangeable. Looking at the way he has performed I would say he's done extremely poorly especially regarding the CF-18 replacement, and pretty easily proven so in fact. Even in terms of optics and politics he got it wrong with the "capability gap" fiasco.

funniest thing in the world to watch him and Trudeau start screaming about a "capability gap" and have the heads of the RCAF and Army say "oh theres no gap" and theres no documentation anywhere of a gap. They couldn't even get anyone on the same page, they clearly gave no heads up to the RCAF or anyone else in the Armed forces for that matter. For those that are slow on the uptake that's comically embarrassing. You have the head of the RCAF basically saying publicly "oh they're lying"

The Super Hornet interim buy which broke the JT campaign promises and was an obvious end around and based on a made up "emergency" fell flat on its a$$. They can't even cheat right. even in their own objectives, they screwed the football monkey style.

So yes I would say based on that alone he's either unqualified, or do a very poor job.


Lastly, and this is important. Him being a Lt Col who actually served, puts a HIGHER standard on him.he should know better. He should be a leader of men, and loyal to his subordinates-- rather than a political master who plays dress up. He should know better. And its showing because the RCAF is now seeing an exodus of personnel. This is all on his shoulders. He can't even retain his people, he playing politics with their very lives, and hes a dishonest, liar and worse they can all see it too.


Its got to be someone who can see the big picture and understand what drives the armed forces. I do agree the higher one goes, the more one sees of the big picture. But to claim that LTCs don't understand the full picture...interestingly we do have LTCs on this board...


I have had Lt Cols who don't know whats going on in their own squadrons or battalions let alone whats even happening with the sister squadron across the way.

This is a textbook false appeal to authority, and then you double down by calling for more appeals to authority with actual posters "you know we have LTCs on this board..." ok and? are they commenting here about this?

Normally I really enjoy your posts, but you are really out of your depth on these last ones.

spazsinbad wrote:I don't quite get what is going on here - one observation is that in Oz the DefMin most often has NO military experience whatsoever - being advised by the combined MIGHT of the ADF bigwigs and of course the PUBLIC Servants in DEFENCE.


yup same in the US, experience helpful but not required.

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:lol, I'm not the one claiming defence ministers being unqualified here.


Serving doesn't mean you're qualified. Being a LTC doesn't mean you're qualified. There's plenty of incompetent LTCs running around. If you think the rank of LTC or a purple heart makes you qualified to be a defense minister, then you need to spend more than 1 day in the military.

In fact, he peddled the "fighter gap" nonsense for Trudeau instead of standing his ground for the military. This makes him completely unqualified for the position. He didn't protect his constituents, the military. He played a political game. If he can't do his job and support the military and the taxpayer, then do the right thing and step down out of conviction. Amazingly, officers are expected to do that instead of vomiting, "I was just following orders". If he has ZERO moral compass, then he is totally unqualified for the position.



yup.

disloyal, inability to perform basic tasks, dishonest. and OPENLY dishonest at that.

"but hes an LTC!!"

Oh in that case, Thats actually worse.
Choose Crews
Offline

jessmo112

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 07:13

Has anyone ever discussed Canada buying the Bee?
Wouldn't this greatly improve, and increase basing options. You could spread out a few forward bases farther north with improvised airfields at times.
And still launch and intercept. Russian bombers coming in. Canadians are always crying about there planes in the far north. This is perfect.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 07:39

The Bee brings nothing to the table where RCAF is concerned but a lot more costs. The RCAF doesn't need flexible basing as no one threatens Canadian air bases in North America. There is no desire to operate a flat top. Even LHDs got canned due to budget constraints. There is thus no material benefit from operating a STOVL.

The F-35A has better range than the B, which is useful for the wide expanse of the Canadian regions. Its a step up from the existing hornet for all the myriad reasons that don't need repeating. Canadian industry will not benefit more from buying the B as the main difference of the lift fan is not going to be built in Canada. Canadian industry will however suffer from losing the F-35 business if they don't procure the A.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2993
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 08:10

I could see some benefits of Canada going with F-35C. They have the longest range/endurance and they could be used from US Navy carriers which could be useful in many situations. I doubt Canada will ever fight anywhere without US armed forces being involved. This would give Canadian forces better global reach and would also augment US Navy fighting capability. Only problem is higher costs and quite a bit more training to cover carrier operations.

Does anybody know if CF-18s have ever operated from US carriers? Could not find anything about that.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 09:16

I could be wrong. I don't know of any non-US FA-18, operating off of a deck. I don't even think there are FA-18 exchange pilots or WSO from those nations on the boats. We have USAF exchange on our FA-18. We have USN exchange on the growler.
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests