av8tor

I am in agreement with your comments J.O. but one decision that this government made pre-COVID-19 has turned out to be very short-sighted; namely the evisceration of Public Health Agency of Canada's Global Public Health Intelligence Network. Their primary focus was pandemic surveillance and risk assessment. Their alert system has subsequently re-started, albeit after the proverbial horse has left the barn https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-what-happened-with-canadas-pandemic-alert-system-the-gphin/

Exactly Rich! Canadians have been counselled since last March to avoid unnecessary travel. If a Canadian wishes/chooses to disregard that counsel and travel anyway then they should expect and be prepared for unexpected events and/or changed circumstances. For all intents and purposes, those who have chosen unnecessary travel during this pandemic have also chosen their destiny. Choices have consequences, dire and otherwise. Choose wisely, because making the wrong choice, while wrong, is still a "right". Living with a wrong decision is usually problematic and unpleasant.

There has existed for a long, long time, a rivalry in the Air Force between pilots who fly different equipment. 50 years ago, when I joined up, I wanted to be a fighter pilot but even back in my day there were those who professed to see no purpose for fighter aircraft in the then today’s Air Force and I came to realize that no minds were going to be changed in the oft-times vigorous debates of my day. I have always seen the requirement and necessity for different aircraft types and missions in our Air Force, but of course we are all not like-minded (that’s a good thing) and hence the perpetual debates concerning what aircraft are, or are not required/necessary. History is once again repeating itself. Just like the Liberals under Chretien had cancelled the Sea King replacement, thereby costing us taxpayers hundreds of millions; now the Liberals under Justine have all but abandoned our investment in the development of the F35 and worse, seem comfortable spending a billion plus on end-of-life Aussie F-18’s. I’m in your camp, Wolfhunter: “the next step in lunacy is coming to the conclusion that an air force doesn’t need fighters”. Our small contributions to NORAD and NATO, alliances within which we have been members for many decades, are contributions nonetheless. If Canada as a country is unwilling and/or unable to contribute our share in those alliances, then we risk becoming a shameless satellite to those countries that take up our slack. I suspect most Canadians understand and accept that with any threat to the North American continent, the US will run the show. That does not, however, in my view, rationalize our throwing up our hands and abandoning responsibility for our own defence, however regrettably small our contributions continue to be. As for fighters in our Air Force, I would use the analogy of carrying a set of jumper cables in the trunk of your car: you’ll never need them … until you do. And when you do need them, you need them now. You’ll get no disagreement from me regarding our heavy haulers that in peacetime resupply Canadian embassies and consulates around the world, that in times of crisis provide emergency aid wherever and whenever asked. Our search and rescue people provide yeoman service despite being undermanned and underequipped. They are just two organizations of many within our military that are able to serve Canada and Canadians in times of peace as well as war. Fighters, on the other hand, are combat machines. In times of peace, it’s easy to dismiss them as being unnecessary, even irrelevant and particularly today, certainly expensive. After all, they can serve only as a visible sign of deterrence and only a preparedness to fight. The alternative however, of being caught up in a fight without the equipment you need, will prove to be far costlier than the peacetime expense. The Cold War was my kind of a war wherein no shots were fired. That war was fought through the strength of deterrence. Let’s not forget that, as we struggle with the F-18 replacement. It would appear from the YouTube video above, that the Norwegians haven’t forgotten, but then again, they experienced an occupation by a foreign power whereas we Canadians never have.

An interesting project at Boeing. I wonder if this "directed energy" weapon could be used against fighter aircraft electronics, defeating their electrical and data systems and rendering the aircraft impotent. http://video.boeing....d=1913200772001

Not to make too big a deal of it ... but as any self-respecting pilot knows ... there are only two types of aircraft ... fighters and targets ... the "experts" be damned ... when the balloon goes up, what they think matters little anyway. Now I'll take my tongue out of my cheek too and let all the smart ones resolve the issues of the world.

No need to apologize Kip - I know where you stand and I am in no way trying to change how you feel! I find it somewhat ironic that anyone intimately involved in the program who speaks in its defence is automatically suspect, even biased, but any journalist can spend 30 minutes at a keyboard condemning the project and their words are accepted as gospel. Enjoy the boat! Cheers, Doug

Some background information on what has led us to today, and which should refute the viewpoint that Canadians have been cheated out of the benefits of a competition/tendering process: http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/25/pennie-and-lee-new-planes-needed-for-air-force/ Cheers, Doug

You guys are breaking me up with your drip, drip, drip, water torture assault written by newspaper journalists whose job is to sensationalize issues in order to sell their newspapers. These journalists know (and care) about military aviation and the F-35 about as much as they do about the sex life of the Fraser River sturgeon. And of course these articles have nothing to do with the election campaign underway ... naw, not a chance. However, in the interests of balance you might take a few minutes to read this article: http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/HackettGrantRDSSummer2010.pdf Now it might be fair to say that the authors of this document are as biased for the F-35 as your journalist sources are against it. The difference, in my view, is your journalists have probably already moved on to their next "story" while the authors of the above article are infinitely knowledgeable and involved full time in airpower studies in general, and the F-35 in particular. Feel free to poke holes in their paper anyway; no doubt they're used to the hounds nipping away at their heels. Cheers, Doug

Hey Kip, I know, I know! I love your story of the grizzled old world traveller taking apart the "very young and junior" on your own home territory no less - easy kill. Let's not forget the part where the trash-haulers stay overnight in high-class hotels while we fast movers always get stuck in a barracks somewhere. Or the great meals (steak and lobster) that are enjoyed during the 10 hour drone from Valhalla 1 to Valhalla 2. If you have to sleep off that fuzzy feeling from the night before well then the bunk always beckons, not to mention the loo which is ever-present to accomodate nature's call, be it from Ralph or otherwise! Speaking of short stories, I remember a common acquaintance doing a round-robin in the YWG quadrangle and having to make an unplanned landing in Rivers because nature called. The horrors of it all! That really was too funny! We fast-movers never get to enjoy the luxuries of life that are taken as a given by the heavies of this world. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind on the F-35 or the fighter world, Kip. You're not changing and I get it. Your personal reality is different than mine and I respect that. I think that we both can agree to look back on the past with a great deal of fondness - and towards the future with the same hopes of a better world for us all. As long as it includes the F-35! Cheers, Doug

From my very first day as a young Air Force pilot in the 1960's, I have listened (particularly at beer call) to "heavy" pilots (affectionately referred to as "trash-haulers") dismiss the fighter world as not having a "real" job to do. The fighter world has always been quick to dismiss the trash-haulers as being straight and level cruisers whose gyros topple past 30 degrees of bank and who don't appreciate the fighter world until the shooting starts - then we're supposed to be best buddies. Two different worlds - and it has always been thus. The debate always gets particularly intense when fueled by alcohol. Alcohol usually activates the 3000 psi fingertips that all pilots possess and that inevitably are produced to drive home into the chest of the antagonist, one insignificant point or another. Two diametrically opposed positions and I don't ever recall one side convincing the other of the merits of their argument. Thankfully, decisions such as "do we need a fighter aircraft?" are made at a level that takes into consideration much more than the simple bias of the trash-hauler or the fighter pilot. In the meantime, what's wrong with beating that dead horse, Kip?

I think that's a very reasonable position to take, Kip. To quote from the Williams Foundation article in the Australian Aviation link provided by Dagger above: "... there could be very good reasons for Australia to delay delivery of the F-35 until the production line is mature." But not cancel it: "Still, the Williams Foundation continues to strongly endorse the F-35 as Australia's future air combat capability." I don't want to see our country get swallowed up in a boondoggle come hell or high water simply for the sake of the F-35. But we, together with a number of other countries have been participating in the design and development of this aircraft for the better part of a decade - since its inception. Setbacks, delays, deficiencies are all part and parcel of aircraft design and development. If at the end of the day the aircraft doesn't perform, or the government decides we don't need the aircraft then we move on. In the meantime, let's work with our partners until we come to that fork in the road. Cheers, Doug

These 5th Generation aircraft (F-22 & F-35) are to the Super Hornet what the Hornet was to the 101 & 104. Our replacement aircraft shouldn't be just about the money. False economy comes to mind. As to missions these replacement aircraft might be required to fly in the future - who knows? Who would have thought that we'd have Hornets flying over Libya today? If we're going to stay in the business, let's do it right. http://vimeo.com/3437045 Cheers, Doug