The F-35

[st27]

Kicking the can down the road so the Canadian military becomes irrelevant on the world stage..(if we are not there already)....but on the election trail, Trudeau will say he took decisive action to re-equip a military long ignored by the previous Harper government.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, st27 said:

Kicking the can down the road so the Canadian military becomes irrelevant on the world stage..(if we are not there already)....but on the election trail, Trudeau will say he took decisive action to re-equip a military long ignored by the previous Harper government.

According to http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-us.page the following is the expected role of the Canadian Forces.  I question the need for "Engaged in the world", it sounds like a "sound bite" from the Liberals.  If are not willing to provide the funds to equip our forces to be able to fill this role, then perhaps it is time to drop that bit and instead concentrate on the first 2 items and fund those roles. At the same time we need to take a look at The Canadian Coast Guard , clearly define their role and fund the necessary equipment / man power. In my opinion money spent on fighters would be better spent on our Coast Guard.

Special Operations Forces Command, supported by the civilian employees of DND.

At any given time, the Government of Canada can call upon the CAF to undertake missions for the protection of Canada and Canadians and to maintain international peace and stability.

Canada’s Defence Policy presents a new strategic vision for defence: Strong, Secure, Engaged. This is a vision in which Canada is:

• Strong at home, with a military ready and able to defend its sovereignty, and to assist in times of natural disaster, support search and rescue, or respond to other emergencies;
• Secure in North America, active in a renewed defence partnership in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and with the United States to monitor and defend continental airspace and ocean areas;
• Engaged in the world, with the Canadian Armed Forces doing its part in Canada’s contributions to a more stable, peaceful world, including through peace support operations and peacekeeping.

[st27]

Quote

I questionthe need for "Engaged in the world", it sounds like a "sound bite" from the Liberals.

Goes hand in hand with “Canada’s back”.

[J.O.]

Regardless of the words chosen to describe it, there is zero difference between our military's mandate and capabilities today vs those of five or more years ago. Let's face it, our military "strength" is but a peashooter when compared to that of most of our allies. Our country is both too large and too sparsely populated to afford much more. I'd much rather see us put more into the SAR program than spend ridiculous amounts of money on a boondoggle like the F35.

[Kip Powick]

25 minutes ago, J.O. said:

Regardless of the words chosen to describe it, there is zero difference between our military's mandate and capabilities today vs those of five or more years ago. Let's face it, our military "strength" is but a peashooter when compared to that of most of our allies. Our country is both too large and too sparsely populated to afford much more. I'd much rather see us put more into the SAR program than spend ridiculous amounts of money on a boondoggle like the F35.

Agree, the screaming about our responsibility to NATO is rhetoric of days gone by. Put the money into Heavy Transport which can supplement NATO, and SAR

 

Strong at home, with a military ready and able to defend its sovereignty

Another joke line. We are the second largest, (geographically) country in the world with 90% of the population living within 100 miles of the US border.  Who do you think is going to jump on their horses if Canada looks like it will be invaded ? 

If anyone can post any factual data where we are, or have been, extremely fortunate to have fighter aircraft in DND, (post WW2), please do so. 

Time for DND and the Canadian Government to have a honest reality check.

 

[boestar]

Spend the money on getting Viking to build some new Buffalo aircraft for the SAR role.  Add some decent helicopters to that mix. 

Build some proper coast guard cutters and also equip the coast guard with helos.

Tack on a fleet of C-17 type aircraft and a few C5 size birds for heavy lift transport

Then keep a minimal fleet of fighters for escort roles.

 

[Kip Powick]

55 minutes ago, boestar said:

Then keep a minimal fleet of fighters for escort roles.

Escort who?

They don't have enough gas for long range heavy transport and in most cases it is a SAMFU to organize leap frog escorts.

They would not be very effective for escorting CG Ships, again because  range and operational logistics.

IMO even a minimum of fighters in Canada makes no sense.

[boestar]

where would we be today without all the fighter jocks taking up all the head space? 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, J.O. said:

Regardless of the words chosen to describe it, there is zero difference between our military's mandate and capabilities today vs those of five or more years ago. Let's face it, our military "strength" is but a peashooter when compared to that of most of our allies. Our country is both too large and too sparsely populated to afford much more. I'd much rather see us put more into the SAR program than spend ridiculous amounts of money on a boondoggle like the F35.

Our total defence budget for 2018 was  $25.5 billion, 

And just south of us.

Image Credit: U.S. Navy

US Navy’s $13 Billion Supercarrier Just Got Even More Expensive

The U.S. Navy’s most expansive warship ever just got even pricier due to the need to fix a previously undisclosed failure at sea.

By Franz-Stefan Gady for The Diplomat

May 15, 2018

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the lead of vessel of the U.S. Navy’s latest class of carriers, and the most expensive warship in U.S. history, just breached a USD$12.9 billion spending lid set by Congress by USD$120 million bringing total acquisition cost to $13.027 billion, the Navy said in a recent statement.

The additional USD$120 million will be needed to fix the aircraft carrier’s faulty Advanced Weapons Elevator used to transport ammunition from the lower to the upper decks, as well as to repair the the Ford’s propulsion system bearing, which broke down during sea trials in January, the U.S. Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command said in a statement quoted by Bloomberg News on May 11. (This was the second breakdown of the main thrust bearing of the ship’s propulsion system—the first incident occurred in April 2017.)

The ship’s weapons elevators need to be fixed “to preclude any effect on the safety of the ship and personnel,” the Naval Sea Systems command said in a press release. “Once the adjustment is executed, the cost for CVN 78 will stand at $13.027.” Before this increase, Congress had capped total acquisition cost for the USS Gerald R. Ford at USD$12.9 billion. (Originally, the cap was set at USD$10.5 billion in 2007.)

[boestar]

I would love to see the actual cost in material and labour if it were not a government contract.  likely less than 50% 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, boestar said:

I would love to see the actual cost in material and labour if it were not a government contract.  likely less than 50% 

The point is, the US spends 1/2 as much on one ship as we spend on our entire military so perhaps it is time to understand our limitations and equip our military to look after the interests of Canada and stop pretending that we are a "World Power".

[Fido]

On 1/17/2019 at 11:07 AM, Kip Powick said:

SAMFU

Never heard of this.  and Google comes up with "Definition of samfu - a light suit consisting of a plain high-necked jacket and loose trousers, worn by women from China."

[CD]

I've known it as "Self Adjusting Military Foul Up"... 

[Kip Powick]

SAMFU  

Semi-Automatic  Military  F..k   Up

[Fido]

Well now I know

[Guest]

Looks like Germany has ruled out the F35

Germany to give fighter jet order to Airbus or Boeing: sources

•  

 

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany will choose between the Eurofighter and Boeing’s F/A-18 fighter jet to replace its aging Tornado fighter jets, knocking Lockheed Martin’s F-35 out of a tender worth billions of euros, Defence Ministry sources said on Thursday.

The ministry said it would make a final decision after receiving information from Boeing and Airbus about the aircraft, which must be able to carry U.S. nuclear weapons to fulfill Germany’s obligations to NATO, the sources said.

No timetable for a decision was given, but the process could take time since the U.S. government will have to certify both jets to carry the nuclear weapons.

The German air force will also move ahead with long-awaited plans to replace its 33 oldest Eurofighter jets, now used mainly for air policing or training, with new, more capable Eurofighters in coming years, the sources said.

The decision marks a big setback for Lockheed, the top U.S. arms maker, which hoped to add to recent F-35 sales to other European countries, including most recently Belgium.

he decision answers a call by Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), junior partners in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition, who had argued against a rushed decision to buy U.S. aircraft and demanded a more thorough accounting of total costs.

Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen, a conservative, had initially promised a decision on the procurement plans, valued by some experts at over 15 billion euros ($17 billion), by the end of 2018.

 

litary officials said the Tornadoes, which entered service in 1983, need to be replaced urgently because of rising maintenance costs. Sources familiar with the matter said the added costs to extend their service life beyond 2030 could be as high as 8 billion euros.

Sources familiar with the process last year said the ministry wanted to split the order between the Eurofighter, which is built by Airbus, Britain’s BAE Systems and Italy’s Leonardo SpA, and one of the two U.S. planes.

Washington is pressuring Germany to raise military spending and would welcome an order of U.S. jets. But Paris, Germany’s closest European partner, has said that could derail plans to develop a new Franco-German fighter by 2040.

[Maverick]

Airbus open to a fighter plane assembly plant in Quebec ahead of federal bids

The Canadian Press 

Published: Jan 14 at 5:34 a.m.

Updated: Jan 14 at 6:50 p.m.

 

---

MIRABEL, Que. — Airbus is not ruling out the possibility that Quebec will host a fighter plane assembly line and satellite construction plant if the European giant manages to win federal contracts in Canada.

Simon Jacques, head of Canadian operations for the multinational, mentioned the possibility Monday at a company event in Mirabel, an off-island Montreal suburb, where it manufactures A220 jetliners, previously known as the Bombardier C Series.

A call for tenders for 88 new fighter planes is expected from Ottawa before the start of the 2019 election campaign in a bid to replace the government’s aging CF-18s. Airbus makes the Eurofighter Typhoon.

 

"Absolutely," Jacques said, when asked if the assembly line could be in Quebec. “We’re evaluating our options."

Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Saab are all in the running alongside Airbus for the federal contract.

Jacques said the construction of a new assembly line, which would create numerous jobs, would not pose a logistical challenge given the extra space at the Mirabel plant.

He stressed the need for a "Canadian solution,” given that the call for tenders would include local content requirements.

In 2016 Airbus landed its first major contract with Ottawa, which ordered 16 search and rescue aircraft under a $2.4-billion agreement, on top of a pledge for $2.3 billion in maintenance and after-sales service for 20 years. The first vehicle must be delivered by the end of 2019.

The CF-18s put into service in the 1980s were set to be phased out by 2020, but their replacement has turned into a drawn-out saga.

Six years ago, the Harper government abandoned its controversial plans to purchase untendered F-35 fighter jets to take the place of the aging fleet. The Trudeau government, which had subsequently decided to buy 18 Super Hornet aircraft from Boeing — also without a tender — cancelled that purchase in 2017 in the wake of a commercial dispute between Boeing and Bombardier over the C Series.

According to Jacques, Canada is "really committed" to "stimulating competition," which may open a door to a manufacturer other than the U.S.-based Boeing.

"I think it's important for Canada to have a different fleet from what is in the United States [with Boeing]," he said, calling the prospect “a good thing for NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command].”

Jacques suggested Canada could learn from the United Kingdom, which counts counts Airbus and Lockheed Martin aircraft among its fighter fleet.

Airbus executives also said the Netherlands-based company may turn to Quebec for satellite construction if its proposal is accepted up by Telesat Canada, a satellite operator.

The company had solicited offers from Airbus and the France-based Thales Group as part of an Internet service project tied to the launch of "between 300 and 500 satellites,” Jacques said.

"This would change the situation in Quebec," he said, adding that the project would create about 200 new jobs.

Airbus said it is having ongoing discussions with various levels of government, including Quebec and Ottawa, to set up shop in the province if the multinational wins the contract.

Julien Arsenault, The Canadian Press

 

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/airbus-open-to-a-fighter-plane-assembly-plant-in-quebec-ahead-of-federal-bids-275720/

[Guest]

I see the article says Harper abandoned plans to purchase the F35s, well not quite:

Auditor-General to issue new report on F-35 jet in the fall

Lee Berthiaume

OTTAWA

The Canadian Press

Published January 29, 2018Updated January 29, 2018

 

Six years after his explosive report on the F-35 derailed the Harper government's plan to buy the controversial stealth aircraft, federal auditor-general Michael Ferguson is diving back into the fighter-jet file.

Ferguson's staff have been going over internal government records for several months, though the auditor general's office won't reveal exactly what aspects of the program are under the microscope.

The final report is scheduled for release in the fall.

Ferguson's last report on fighter jets in April 2012 was a bombshell which found senior defence officials twisted rules, downplayed problems and withheld information about the Harper government's plan to buy 65 F-35s.

The report forced the government to suspend the project pending a complete review, which eventually pegged the full cost of buying and operating the F-35s at more than $45-billion.

Six years later, Canada still has not chosen a new fighter jet to replace its aging CF-18s.

It is unlikely the auditor-general will find the kind of serious problems with the government's efforts to buy fighter jets as the last time, as the overall procurement system has been revamped with a variety of checks and balances.

The new review could instead turn on the government's plan to buy interim fighter jets and its arguably slow progress in holding a competition to replace the CF-18s, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

"How much benefit and at what cost will Canada obtain fighter aircraft by virtue of going through an interim fighter purchase as well as doing a life extension?" Perry said.

"For me, one of the biggest concerns is that the process from this point forward is not exactly lightning quick."

[Kip Powick]

[Fido]

On 1/31/2019 at 2:47 PM, Maverick said:

possibility

It doen't cost anything to do this

[st27]

Quote

Canada’s Auditor General Michael Ferguson has died from cancer, according to a statement from his office.

 

 

FYI.....

[Wolfhunter]

On 1/17/2019 at 2:07 PM, Kip Powick said:

IMO even a minimum of fighters in Canada makes no sense.

I’m not a fighter guy by any means…. but, for me to agree with your position, I would have to be willing to part with intercept, airborne interdiction, close air support, tactical support of maritime operations, NORAD participation and an FOB presence in arctic sovereignty. I’m just not there yet. I have a brake line flange kit I haven't used in years but I needed it last week.

The navy thought the days of shore bombardment were all over until Libya. The Air Force thought the days of heavy lift helicopters were over until Afghanistan and the army said the same thing about tanks until they had to rent them from Germany.

If you have no shore bombardment, no CAS, no attack helicopter support, no AC130s (send me an angel) and no armed drones all at the same time, you might as well confiscate the satcom radio too, who would I call? Knowing there is a pair of fighters on alert 5 and being able to talk to them can be comforting. 

On the plus side, I could just eat the pigeons.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Wolfhunter

[Kip Powick]

19 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

I’m not a fighter guy by any means…. but, for me to agree with your position, I would have to be willing to part with intercept, airborne interdiction, close air support, tactical support of maritime operations, NORAD participation and an FOB presence in arctic sovereignty. I’m just not there yet. I have a brake line flange kit I haven't used in years but I needed it last week.

The navy thought the days of shore bombardment were all over until Libya. The Air Force thought the days of heavy lift helicopters were over until Afghanistan and the army said the same thing about tanks until they had to rent them from Germany.

If you have no shore bombardment, no CAS and no attack helicopter support, all at the same time, you might as well confiscate the satcom radio too, who would I call? On the plus side, at least I can eat the pigeons.

Years ago, when the RCAF was intercepting the Russian Bombers who were testing the DEW line etc, they would intercept them as the RCAF flew along side of them,  the Navigator, in the back seat of the CF 100/101, would hold up a big sign.......GIVE UP or WE WILL BLOW UP.

Lotta money wasted on fighters because "someone" said...hey, we had fighter pilots in WW2...so we still must need them...Time DND and the politicians had a reality check.

Let the clown down south and ego maniac in the geographically largest country in the world play their games and we''ll  just watch the chaos.

[Wolfhunter]

LOL, glad I'm retired.... and so are the pigeons. BZ to fast air and and all those who serve in CSAR. Cheers

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Wolfhunter

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

Years ago, when the RCAF was intercepting the Russian Bombers who were testing the DEW line etc, they would intercept them as the RCAF flew along side of them,  the Navigator, in the back seat of the CF 100/101, would hold up a big sign.......GIVE UP or WE WILL BLOW UP.

Lotta money wasted on fighters because "someone" said...hey, we had fighter pilots in WW2...so we still must need them...Time DND and the politicians had a reality check.

Let the clown down south and ego maniac in the geographically largest country in the world play their games and we''ll  just watch the chaos.

I have to agree with KIP but the "reality" is that even if we think we need strike fighters, we will never be able to afford a force that could defend us against a major attack.  I would rather see our money spent on units that would be of value within Canada rather than some units that we can lend out to look good to the UN etc.