Ok, I wanted to continue this discussion with a focus on the individual soldier as the second to last topic in this string. I will hopefully conclude this whole exercise with a discussion around future missions and defining the role of the Canadian Forces sometime next weekend.
Now it would be easy to continue this discussion with a focus on individual kit, but we now know that while the Canadian Forces under Harper have done a decent job of upgrading the individual kit for each soldier, it’s still missing key components like man portable anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons which are crucial in a chaotic battlefield.
Instead, I want to focus on some key numbers.
According to Global Fire Power, Canada currently has 92,000 active military service members spread out between the Army, Navy and AirForce, Canada also has 52,000 member in what is deemed as their reserves, these reserves also include the Rangers, and Supplementary or inactive reserves for a total personal count of 143,000 of those 19,000 are considered to be supplementary reservists who aren’t active so the count reduces to about 124,000.
While the Canadian Forces has increased in size annual from about 113,000 in 2011 there are some areas of concern that need to be looked at.
In terms of statistical breakdowns:
Army 56% 69,440
Air Force 24.9% 30,876
Navy 17.3% 21,452
Communications 1.9% 2356
*based on 124,000 personal count
In terms of rank structure (all Forces)
Junior 59.8% 74,152
Senior NCM 20.1% 24,924
Officer 20.1% 24,924
A quick analysis shows that Canada has a shortage of Junior Ranks, currently there is nearly 1 senior enlisted man of MCPL Rank or higher for between 3 and 4 junior ranks, in addition, there is nearly 1 officer for every 4 NCM. This indicates that either recruiting has fallen off, or that we are simply loosing too many junior ranks after their first enlistment which shrinks the size of the pool of Privates and Corporals.
While Sergeants are considered the backbone of any military, usually the ratio of Sergeants to junior enlisted ranks is in the range of 8 to 1, and officers should be greater than that , frankly this analysis could be flawed, but it appears that the Canadian Forces is middle and top heavy.
Instead of doing an entire breakdown of the Canadian Forces by occupation, I wanted to focus on significant occupations. The areas that I’m going to focus on are Combat Arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillary, Pilots and Front Line Naval Officers. While I don’t have a specific specialization breakdown, the Key Occupations of the Canadian Forces are
While over 36,000 combat troops sounds impressive, this becomes more difficult when you look at specializations. First and foremost 36,000 troops really represents a division in terms of overall strength, out of these trades I believe that half are infantry based trades, which means that our actual deployable combat infantrymen probably range in between 12 and 18,000 at anyone time. This shortage took its toll during Afghanistan where Canada exhausted its core of trained infantry and armored personal and required a lengthy break from any kind of deployment after Afghanistan ended.
Canada has also seen significant shortages in terms of Maritime Naval officers which accelerated the retirement of several ships as they couldn’t be staffed.
The other concern is the size of the administrative pool when you consider that on top of the administrative arm of the Canadian Armed Forces the DND also employs about 25,000 civilian workers who often mirror that which is handled by their uniformed equivalents.
For the Canadian Forces to shift and survive, it needs to grow its non-commissioned pool, and increase the size of its combat arms, as its stands the Military is certainly top heavy and middle heavy, and is overly light on army and naval combat specialists.
Before I conclude for today, there is significance in terms of taking care of your military. A survey done in 2007 (I will try to find something more up to date). showed some troubling trends.
In terms of all military including civilian workers it found that 4% of those surveyed were dissatisfied with their careers, 7.8% had self-perceived or diagnosed mental illnesses, 4.8% of members had what they felt was moderate to serious alcohol reliance and 6.9% were suffering from what is defined as major depression.
Right now the Canadian Forces has fallen down in coming up with a comprehensive plan to help their members and current members and this has been a failure of every single government since the inception of the Forces. At this point the age old attitude of rub some dirt on it and get back to work has to be replaced with a sympathetic mental health and job wellness plan for the Canadian Forces in concert with an effective program for veterans in terms of mental health evaluations and job transistion training for departing members.
At the end of the day if we don’t start taking better care of our troops we’re going to continually see declining recruiting numbers, and poor performances by the existing members.
To be continued
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Very interesting points. With the military in a "down" stage, perhaps now is actually an opportune time to revamp and reorganize it into a more efficient and capable force for future missions?
I wanted to start this last and final segment of this exercise by thanking those who have provided excellent feedback, questions and debating points that have made this posting more than just an exercise in writing and numbers.
This last section is all about defining the current and future missions of the Canadian Forces and is an attempt to bring everything previously into a conclusion.
To me and to simplify things there are four critical missions undertaken by the Canadian Armed Forces:
1) The defense of Canada's borders and waters 2) Search and rescue of people in distress 3) Responses to crisis natural and otherwise 4) International deployments for the UN and NATO
In order to be able to execute the above missions, by its nature the Canadian Armed Forces needs to be more than a sum of its parts, it needs to be a multifaceted force composed of varied front line conditions, well trained members and supported by a proper logistical structure. The best way to bring the requirements of this whole topic into focus we need to look at the current and future missions based on the above 4 definitions.
1) The defense of Canada's borders and waters
Canada is a vast nations with varied climates and environments, from the mountains to the West to the prairies to the arctic to the Canadian Shield, Canada's military can find itself fighting in different environments that require different equipment and training. With a sometimes harsh and extended winter and hot summers Canada's mission can become overly complicated and difficult. Now the predominant debate against having a varied military is that there is little to no chance that an invasion can happen here, and we can depend on America to intervene on our behalf under the NATO treaties. However I will argue that none of us can predict the future, and that things can change.
People tend to forget that the Russians and Germans were fast allies at the start of WW2 and that when the Germans invaded Russia they actually passed freight trains on the way into Germany carrying food and fuel as part of Russia trading agreements with the Third Reich.
With Arctic resources becoming more and more key in terms of various nations future strategies Canada is facing multiple claims to their arctic resources spaces, we are also facing a resurgent aggressive Russia who is rebuilding their Northern Navy and Frontal Aviation Units and a United States that continues to ignore our national waters in the North.
But the key point is simple even if we believe that a future invasion isn't going to happen it's in our best interest to believe that the worst case scenario could happen and train and equip our military to deal with that eventuality. Currently I would argue that the current military is woefully unprepared to defend the arctic. Beyond the lightly armed Rangers Canada doesn't have the ability to generate a quick response to a threat to the Arctic. Our Navy has precious little in the way of frozen water armed assets, and there is a key shortage in terms of aviation responsibility in terms of actual combat or intelligence gathering.
Right now the key or right thinking is that any assault on our arctic sovereignty will come from Russia using a combination of submarine and naval interdiction, and the use of airborne troops and seaborne troops backed up by Soviet Frontal Aviation. Canada needs to be able to fight a delaying action until NATO response can kick in and fight to prevent an enemy from digging in.
In a future scenario where Arctic Resources become more critical Canada has to be able to have a faster response to an Arctic or Arctic waters incursion.
While Canada's naval rebuild could be in fact a smart strategy with the construction of heavier hulled arctic capable armed fighting ships, Canada falls short in terms of modern submarines that can operate efficiently in arctic waters, it's also crucial that Canada makes a decision on the CF-18 replacement, create a deployable arctic trained response force based around airborne transport and enhance key arctic surveillance and intelligence gathering at the undersea, sea and air levels.
As for the defense of the rest of Canada sub arctic, even I find it hard to believe that the American's would ever invade or attack their northern neighbour. For the recent chills in our relations with the United States they still remain our fast and close friend. My scenario involves the above arctic invasion scenario, there is a common notion in the halls of American power that Canada's military for all of its exceptional work is incapable of living up to its agreements under the NATO agreement to provide a force that can defend its own nation.
So what happens if the worst case happens and the Russians invade Canada's arctic territory and America is forced to come to our defense?
Will the Americans fight our battles for us and spill their own blood and simply leave? The more likely solution is that the Americans would use the justification of "Its happened so what's the future solution to it happening again?" In this case the American's will either leave their units in place under a North American defense strategy or the more likely which is to demand the integration of the Canadian Forces into the US Military structure with an American command structure.
Again, the exercise in terms of any future military strategy is to envision the worst case scenario and plan for that eventuality because you're then prepared for anything less serious.
In order to head off these future nightmare scenarios is to show that Canada takes its border defenses seriously and show that we as a nation are capable of defending the integrity of our country and become a good NATO and Norad partner.
2) Search and rescue of people in distress
I will admit that this is the weakest area of my expertise and one that I won't spend a lot of time on. Basically the Canadian Forces needs to be able to provide expertise in search and rescue whether its an individual lost in the mountains, or a sinking ship in our waters or arctic rescue. While Canada certainly has worked hard on training for all of these eventualities the common fact is that our response times to these scenarios is extremely compromised by a lack of front line dedicated equipment. In other words once we get on site, we are extremely good at what we do, but it's our ability to respond quickly and get on scene that are compromised by the rust out scenario that I've talked about in other writing. Canada still has a shortage of front line dedicated search and rescue vessels and aircraft and a large percentage of the equipment that we have is less then reliable and needs to be addressed. Canada also needs to have the search and rescue infrastructure in place that can provide quick, coordinated and competent response, the Conservative Governments closing of rescue stations on the West Coast for example are an example of a short sided strategic decision in which lives could possibly compromised..
3) Responses to crisis natural and otherwise
IN JL Granatstein's excellent book "Who killed the Canadian Military" he lays out a nightmare scenario where two disasters occurred at the same time and Canada couldn't respond to both effectively. What happens if there are let's say major terrorist events in two cities, or let's say that there is a massive earth quake in Vancouver and a massive life threatening blizzard in Toronto at the same time, does Canada have the crisis infrastructure, personal, Logistics and advanced planning to handle both if the Canada Forces is called in to aid. The simple answer is no, even though Canada has done a good job of improving its heavy lift capability in recent years, the shortage of reliable medium ground and air transportation causes a striking concern in being able to get rescue equipment, personal and supplies and infrastructure on site in a timely basis.
We've seen what happens when the worst case scenarios aren't taken seriously and the military isn't prepared for it and hope that they have enough or have done enough. The weather disasters in the States is a prime example of learning on the fly and why it's a bad way to plan. Mistakes in terms of disaster assistance natural or otherwise becomes mathematical in terms of loss of lives, and loss of infrastructure.
If Canada bases its strategy around the rapid response to two crisis' happening simultaneously it becomes logical to assume that they can easily respond to one major incident without waiting for our allies down south for assistance.
Going back to the shortfalls in laid out for the Canadian Army especially in terms of lift and transport capability it becomes key for the replacement or enhancement of the logistics side of the Military, it also becomes key in looking at how our forces are distributed across the country and the equipment that they have access to has to be reliable and up to date.
To be finished tomorrow
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I haven't looked much at the coast guard, but they have their own significant problems as well. The Coast Guard should be a first responder for naval incidences, While the fleet is going through a modernization program, its dependent on the new ship building program. For the most part their far shore capability is lacking while their near and mid point capability isn't bad.
In total the Coast guard I think has about 16 helicopters none of them ship borne, this is a major hole in the coast guard strategy as it takes time for Copters to get on site.
The Conservatives in my mind made a blunder when they shut down coast guard naval stations in BC
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Alrighty, so todays event signified a couple of major shifts in the Governments plans for the Defense programme.
First off: Buh bye F-35. With a Liberal majority it is now pretty much guaranteed that this plane will not be used by Canada.
After listening to the a new elected Ontario Liberal tonight on the subject, I am left to conclude only 3 planes are in Canadas sights. More so only one by my logic deduction but 3 for the sake of argument.
First and foremost and the one I feel they want if the Saab Gripen. Single engine yes, but STOL, specifically designed to operate in the true north of the world, and the cheapest. I think the overall cost is 2 to 1 over the F-35? At least thats what memory serves. And they like #2 on the list have openly stated everything is open sourced and a full transfer of technology is offered. My logic here is since the Liberals want to re-direct some of the moneys put aside for the replacement programme into refurbishing the Navy, they can get 1 and a half time the amount of planes and still have a decent chunk of change left over for the Navy. Really I think this is where they end up at the end of the day.
#2: Dassault Rafale. 3rd cheapest (EDIT: not by much at all), overall a better plane than the Gripen. Same with Saab, Dassault has offered full tech transfer once they by the plane. I feel like Canada would serve well being better trade partners here. Could get the same amount of planes they initially wanted to order and have some money left over for the navy. Not as much but some.
#3 and my least favorite but really would be the easiest transition for the people actually using the things is the F-18 superhornet. Meh. Cheap and they dont need to adapt. Could be the one the end up with. EDIT: after reading some of the earlier posts in this thread, this plane is out because they're stopping production.
I know the F-35 could be the future fighter of the world but its a long ways off and tonight that idea went right out the window tonight. Liberals wan no part of Lockheeds pain in the arse plane.
Alrighty, so todays event signified a couple of major shifts in the Governments plans for the Defense programme.
First off: Buh bye F-35. With a Liberal majority it is now pretty much guaranteed that this plane will not be used by Canada.
After listening to the a new elected Ontario Liberal tonight on the subject, I am left to conclude only 3 planes are in Canadas sights. More so only one by my logic deduction but 3 for the sake of argument.
First and foremost and the one I feel they want if the Saab Gripen. Single engine yes, but STOL, specifically designed to operate in the true north of the world, and the cheapest. I think the overall cost is 2 to 1 over the F-35? At least thats what memory serves. And they like #2 on the list have openly stated everything is open sourced and a full transfer of technology is offered. My logic here is since the Liberals want to re-direct some of the moneys put aside for the replacement programme into refurbishing the Navy, they can get 1 and a half time the amount of planes and still have a decent chunk of change left over for the Navy. Really I think this is where they end up at the end of the day.
#2: Dassault Rafale. 3rd cheapest (EDIT: not by much at all), overall a better plane than the Gripen. Same with Saab, Dassault has offered full tech transfer once they by the plane. I feel like Canada would serve well being better trade partners here. Could get the same amount of planes they initially wanted to order and have some money left over for the navy. Not as much but some.
#3 and my least favorite but really would be the easiest transition for the people actually using the things is the F-18 superhornet. Meh. Cheap and they dont need to adapt. Could be the one the end up with. EDIT: after reading some of the earlier posts in this thread, this plane is out because they're stopping production.
I know the F-35 could be the future fighter of the world but its a long ways off and tonight that idea went right out the window tonight. Liberals wan no part of Lockheeds pain in the arse plane.
Thoughts?
So happy the F-35 flying turkey is out! My gut feeling is we'll pick the Rafale, I sure hope I'm right.
I think you're wrong, the conservatives bungled this, and I have no faith that the Liberals won't ignore this file for the next 4 years.
On top of that, at a cost of about 100 million US per copy, which is fairly close to the F-35 in pure per unit costs, but by the time you add transition, training, changing infrastructure, operating costs you'll end up paying just as much for a inferior plane, that is basically a air to air interceptor with poor to limited ground capability. It was not designed for that. As well its sensor suite and interoperability is poor compared to the F-35.
But it won't matter, Trudeau isn't going to do anything to replace the CF-18.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I think you're wrong, the conservatives bungled this, and I have no faith that the Liberals won't ignore this file for the next 4 years.
On top of that, at a cost of about 100 million US per copy, which is fairly close to the F-35 in pure per unit costs, but by the time you add transition, training, changing infrastructure, operating costs you'll end up paying just as much for a inferior plane, that is basically a air to air interceptor with poor to limited ground capability. It was not designed for that. As well its sensor suite and interoperability is poor compared to the F-35.
But it won't matter, Trudeau isn't going to do anything to replace the CF-18 properly equip the forces.
More to the point.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Alrighty, so todays event signified a couple of major shifts in the Governments plans for the Defense programme.
First off: Buh bye F-35. With a Liberal majority it is now pretty much guaranteed that this plane will not be used by Canada.
After listening to the a new elected Ontario Liberal tonight on the subject, I am left to conclude only 3 planes are in Canadas sights. More so only one by my logic deduction but 3 for the sake of argument.
First and foremost and the one I feel they want if the Saab Gripen. Single engine yes, but STOL, specifically designed to operate in the true north of the world, and the cheapest. I think the overall cost is 2 to 1 over the F-35? At least thats what memory serves. And they like #2 on the list have openly stated everything is open sourced and a full transfer of technology is offered. My logic here is since the Liberals want to re-direct some of the moneys put aside for the replacement programme into refurbishing the Navy, they can get 1 and a half time the amount of planes and still have a decent chunk of change left over for the Navy. Really I think this is where they end up at the end of the day.
#2: Dassault Rafale. 3rd cheapest (EDIT: not by much at all), overall a better plane than the Gripen. Same with Saab, Dassault has offered full tech transfer once they by the plane. I feel like Canada would serve well being better trade partners here. Could get the same amount of planes they initially wanted to order and have some money left over for the navy. Not as much but some.
#3 and my least favorite but really would be the easiest transition for the people actually using the things is the F-18 superhornet. Meh. Cheap and they dont need to adapt. Could be the one the end up with. EDIT: after reading some of the earlier posts in this thread, this plane is out because they're stopping production.
I know the F-35 could be the future fighter of the world but its a long ways off and tonight that idea went right out the window tonight. Liberals wan no part of Lockheeds pain in the arse plane.
Thoughts?
why are we buying the cheapest? Pricing doesn't matter as much in a small airforce where your running planes for the next 30 years. Canada has tried that in the past with planes like the CF-5 which were an atrocious choice at the time.
Personally if you're going to have a small airforce with a long window of replacement, you buy the best plane that you can with the best upgrade path and ride it out from there. The Government did that with the CF-18, which was a very good purchase and not the cheap purchase.
To me, I'm not a fan of the Rafale, its a re purposed air to air straight line interceptor, and its ground capability isn't great. Its upgrade path for the next 30 years isn't there aeither, its built on an late 80's airframe
The Saab Griphen has about half of the payload weight of most other planes, I like the advanced capabilities of the F-35 way better, including its interoperability with other Norad units.
The Superhornet is a dead airframe.
The only different recommendation I would make would be to purchase replacements using the Superhornet, to replace the existing airforce with 65 planes, and then set the expiration date for 12 years, which gives the government a chance to restart the process of finding a new airframe.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
why are we buying the cheapest? Pricing doesn't matter as much in a small airforce where your running planes for the next 30 years. Canada has tried that in the past with planes like the CF-5 which were an atrocious choice at the time.
Personally if you're going to have a small airforce with a long window of replacement, you buy the best plane that you can with the best upgrade path and ride it out from there. The Government did that with the CF-18, which was a very good purchase and not the cheap purchase.
To me, I'm not a fan of the Rafale, its a re purposed air to air straight line interceptor, and its ground capability isn't great. Its upgrade path for the next 30 years isn't there aeither, its built on an late 80's airframe
The Saab Griphen has about half of the payload weight of most other planes, I like the advanced capabilities of the F-35 way better, including its interoperability with other Norad units.
The Superhornet is a dead airframe.
The only different recommendation I would make would be to purchase replacements using the Superhornet, to replace the existing airforce with 65 planes, and then set the expiration date for 12 years, which gives the government a chance to restart the process of finding a new airframe.
EDIT: Interviews with Andrew Leslie and Marc Garneau leads one to believe they go cheapest and dump the extra money into the Navy. It was one of the key platform promises Trudeau sold. Its going to be one of those three.
Curious as to why you think Rafale is so bad at air to ground? They're no worse then Eurofighter at that. And they're effective enough.
MORE EDIT: Here's a quote form an Ottawa sun article this morning about what Leslie said:
Quote:
“We’re going to have to give a lot of help to our navy,” said Leslie. “So our plan is to cap the expenditure levels on the new fighter program and use the savings and direct it all towards the navy. Those will all be very tough calls to make but it’s done.”
The costs savings really won't be significant enough to do much for the Navy addons, plus that money has already been budgeted and contracted, so what Leslie is saying makes little sense to me unless they're going to build additional platforms for the Navy, which makes no need considering that the future and proper composition of the Navy has been configured by the Conservatives.
And it goes back to robbing peter to pay paul.
The airforce especially is highly technology driven. Saying that you're going to go cheap and buying older technology puts you behind the curve in terms of combat effectiveness, especially when you're going to ride that technology for a long period of time.
If you look at the cost per plane of the Rafale, its between a 101 million and 108 million US dollars, that's not including operational costs.
According to the latest Lockheed Martin numbers the F-25 A is going to be between 96 million and 116 million us for the STOL varient which we aren't buying. not including operational costs.
There isn't that big of a savings between the Rafale and the F-35, but mission capability wise the F-35 is going to be a better option.
why don't I like the Rafale? Its designed as a straight line interceptor, air to air platform, then the air to ground was added later. We've often seen where platforms are modified mid stream and they end up not doing anything particularly well.
The F-35 is a smarter airplane, with a better sensor suite. Its got a much longer upgrade curve to it which is essential, and it will interoperate better with our allies better.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The costs savings really won't be significant enough to do much for the Navy addons, plus that money has already been budgeted and contracted, so what Leslie is saying makes little sense to me unless they're going to build additional platforms for the Navy, which makes no need considering that the future and proper composition of the Navy has been configured by the Conservatives.
And it goes back to robbing peter to pay paul.
The airforce especially is highly technology driven. Saying that you're going to go cheap and buying older technology puts you behind the curve in terms of combat effectiveness, especially when you're going to ride that technology for a long period of time.
If you look at the cost per plane of the Rafale, its between a 101 million and 108 million US dollars, that's not including operational costs.
According to the latest Lockheed Martin numbers the F-25 A is going to be between 96 million and 116 million us for the STOL varient which we aren't buying. not including operational costs.
There isn't that big of a savings between the Rafale and the F-35, but mission capability wise the F-35 is going to be a better option.
why don't I like the Rafale? Its designed as a straight line interceptor, air to air platform, then the air to ground was added later. We've often seen where platforms are modified mid stream and they end up not doing anything particularly well.
The F-35 is a smarter airplane, with a better sensor suite. Its got a much longer upgrade curve to it which is essential, and it will interoperate better with our allies better.
Nothing has been contracted with Lockheed, you know that right? Maybe I am misinterpreting what you're saying but there is no paper commitment from the country to Lockheed to buy these planes. Only a dump of 100 million or so to watch the program develop. Also, have you watched this?
Pretty damning to the PC's and how it all went down, and how they didn't even do their own homework. Let alone Lockheed's hesitance to be transparent about their own plane. And makes Steve Lucas seem like a Lockheed employee on the PC payroll.
I know you believe the F-35 is the best option. but it isn't happening anymore barring some miraculous sell job to Trudeau.
So lets talk through the other options more and widdle it down.
EDIT: France has released the Rafale's full cost and it's set at 83 million CAD as of MAR 2004 when this was printed (57.5 million Euro) total (84.7 million CAD today). Si if they've tapped 9 billion for fighters, Canada could get 102 of them maxing out the full 9 billion. If they stick to the 65 plan, it'd be closer to 5.5 billion spent leaving an awful lot of money on the table for the navy. 3.5 billion could help the navy.
Like the compact bullpup layout, but the stackable 12g and 40mm grenade launcher make it one bulky piece of kit. Also, the optic height over bore is very, very high.
Can it replace Colt's C7? I know the Americans had a large bid between manufacturers to find a replacement for their M16, all of which came up short to Eugene Stoner's nearly 60 year old design.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
Like the compact bullpup layout, but the stackable 12g and 40mm grenade launcher make it one bulky piece of kit. Also, the optic height over bore is very, very high.
Can it replace Colt's C7? I know the Americans had a large bid between manufacturers to find a replacement for their M16, all of which came up short to Eugene Stoner's nearly 60 year old design.
What an ugly weapon. I get that it may not end up looking like this, but holy hell. If that is the starting point.
I miss the beauty of the FN.
Spoiler!
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Yeah, I get the idea behind a modular weapons system but it seems so bulky to me. And with forearm rails with underslung attachments, I'm not sure why they would go this route anyways.
To me the 5.56 barrel needs to be closer to the optic. By about 2-3". If anything the 40mm grenade launcher/12 gauge could stand to be farther away from the elcan as both of those weapons are not exactly "precise" anyways.
The FN is a beauty. Wood and blued steel make for a handsome rifle, plus 7.62 makes for more stopping power. Such a shame they are now prohibited in Canada.
Does Canada equip certain troops AR-10's? For DMR purposes or otherwise? I know a bunch of old navy m14's were brought out of the mothballs for American troops when the conflict in the ME started after 9/11. Wide open spaces made for a more effective theater for the 7.62 nato round.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
Nothing has been contracted with Lockheed, you know that right? Maybe I am misinterpreting what you're saying but there is no paper commitment from the country to Lockheed to buy these planes. Only a dump of 100 million or so to watch the program develop. Also, have you watched this?
Pretty damning to the PC's and how it all went down, and how they didn't even do their own homework. Let alone Lockheed's hesitance to be transparent about their own plane. And makes Steve Lucas seem like a Lockheed employee on the PC payroll.
I know you believe the F-35 is the best option. but it isn't happening anymore barring some miraculous sell job to Trudeau.
So lets talk through the other options more and widdle it down.
EDIT: France has released the Rafale's full cost and it's set at 83 million CAD as of MAR 2004 when this was printed (57.5 million Euro) total (84.7 million CAD today). Si if they've tapped 9 billion for fighters, Canada could get 102 of them maxing out the full 9 billion. If they stick to the 65 plan, it'd be closer to 5.5 billion spent leaving an awful lot of money on the table for the navy. 3.5 billion could help the navy.
That cost for the Rafale's is a pipe dream, and I doubt its truthfulness.
The Rafale program was a disaster for India and ended up costing them something like $220 million per copy, and there were problems with using weapons other then the ones designed for that plane.
Every industry release that I've seen for the Rafale is sitting between $98 and 108 million us per copy.
If Trudeau wants to be transparent in this endeavor then he has to include the F-35 and allow them to compete for the contract.
So you don't think Canada has done enough homework on the f-35 to know its never going to add up? It's not Trudeau that needs to add the f-35 to be transparent here. The government's spent close to 20 years looking at it. Seems pretty transparent to me that they choose to walk away from it.
Last edited by dammage79; 10-20-2015 at 12:49 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
