Harpers F35s not quite cleared for takeoff

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Hard to spin this as anything but.

And Andrew Coyne is a very conservative commentator.

Didn't he vote liberal last election?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

Harper Government=CBC speak. I don't recall hearing "Chrétien Government" when the Liberals were in power. Its the most obvious sign of the CBC bias.

This is simply not true.

The PMO directed all federal government agencies to stop using the term "The Government of Canada" and instead start using "The Harper Government" when issuing press releases or otherwise dealing with the media.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1929175/

...a directive went out to public servants late last year that “Government of Canada” in federal communications should be replaced by the words “Harper Government.”

Public servants from four different line departments told The Canadian Press the instruction came from “the Centre” — meaning the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office that serves the prime minister.

[...]

Treasury Board spokesman Robert Bousquet said by e-mail “the use of the expression ‘Harper Government' is not prohibited by either the Treasury Board's Federal Identity Program Policy nor the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada.”

Mr. Bousquet added in a brief phone interview, “In fact it's factual, in that it is the government of the day.”

Indeed, journalists routinely use the “Harper government” to describe Conservative government actions. But the moniker's employment by the government itself is raising hackles among more than just some strait-laced civil servants.

“It is one thing for journalists or even the public to use the more partisan ‘Harper government,' but it is another thing for the state to equate the Government of Canada with the leader of the governing party,” said Jonathan Rose, a specialist in political communications at Queen's University.

[...]

“It is not the Harper Government,” Mr. Cappe said in an interview, tersely enunciating each word. “It is the Government of Canada.

“It's my government and it's your government.”

[Jacks]

Rae calls on Harper to resign.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2391856/

Good luck with that Bob.

He'll really hate it when Harper re-signs, for 4 more years.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Hard to spin this as anything but.

And Andrew Coyne is a very conservative commentator.

He's not conservative. This is big, but he is talking about it as the biggest scandal in history, which even the Harper government begs to differ.

Look, this could be terrible, but is this the first or biggest incompetent bureaucratic blunder/conspiracy? Hardly. And I'm no Harper supporter either

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

He's not conservative. This is big, but he is talking about it as the biggest scandal in history, which even the Harper government begs to differ.

Look, this could be terrible, but is this the first or biggest incompetent bureaucratic blunder/conspiracy? Hardly. And I'm no Harper supporter either

Exactly, they have signed anything yet.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I haven't seen any Strategic publications around the American's moving towards a drone airforce in that quick a time frame.

Until you get a whole other level of AI and a whole other level of completely secure and uninteruptable instand 2 way communication that can't be jammed its not going to happen.

I don't see any nations moving towards a remote controlled airforce. I do see a ton of money being spent by each of the major countries being spent on next generation manned fighter technology with an emphasis on airframe, speed and stealth and advanced avionics and communication links.

I honestly don't see a viable drone alternative for another 3 or 4 generations of jet fighter technology that will be widely integrated.

I doubt you ever will either I suspect it will be like tanks phasing out cavalry, it will happen despite the best efforts of everybody in the USAF upper echelons to prevent it because, 'god damn it we're an air force, we fly our steel steeds into battle, we don't sit in a bunker in New Mexico playing a god damned computor game like a spotty 14 year old'.

None the less the US currently has twice the number of drone pilots to 'real' pilots, fly a massively larger number of drone ops to 'real' ops in the current war, they are now looking to develop a nuclear powered drone that will be able to fly for months at a time and carry a massivly larger payload.

As long as the US and ourselves are not really facing any kind of equal opposition drones will be the most effective weapons system for most conflicts, cheaper, safer easier to deploy. As soon as the first small cheap radar hidden anti aircraft drone works out it will throw everything into question.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

He's not conservative. This is big, but he is talking about it as the biggest scandal in history, which even the Harper government begs to differ.

Look, this could be terrible, but is this the first or biggest incompetent bureaucratic blunder/conspiracy? Hardly. And I'm no Harper supporter either

Considering that it there isn't a signed contract and money hasn't changed hands its hardy the biggest thing out there. While there is a intent to purchase the plane, its not like we would have to pay out Lockheed Martin to cancel, like we did on a certain Helicopter. And its not like we bought in the jets ignoring the problems with them only to find out later that there were significant problems that would cause them to burst into Flames when we started up the engines.



From a Military Standpoint the Helicopter Purchase and the Submarine purchases are bigger.

Make no mistake this is a pretty big blunder, but its not even close to the biggest.

[Hack&Lube]

Once the public sees the F-35s flying over a few CFL games they'll forget all about this

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I doubt you ever will either I suspect it will be like tanks phasing out cavalry, it will happen despite the best efforts of everybody in the USAF upper echelons to prevent it because, 'god damn it we're an air force, we fly our steel steeds into battle, we don't sit in a bunker in New Mexico playing a god damned computor game like a spotty 14 year old'

I'm not saying it won't happen, I am saying that its a long ways away. While the drones have done a decent job of intelligence gathering and to an extent selective targeting. I haven't seen the air to air capabilities, and situational awareness that a actual piloted aircraft has. When you seperate the pilot from the vehicle then the easiest way to ground somebodies airforce is to go after the communication links, either through physical means or through electronic means. Until those issues are overcome an airforce based around drones is not going to happen.

If you define decades away, unless your talking two more generations of manned combat operations then I completely disagree with you.

None the less the US currently has twice the number of drone pilots to 'real' pilots, fly a massively larger number of drone ops to 'real' ops in the current war, they are now looking to develop a nuclear powered drone that will be able to fly for months at a time and carry a massivly larger payload.

That's great, I'm not doubting that, however drones are still currently flying in a single mission environment that concentrates on intelligence gathering and limited ground to ground, against relatively un sophisticated enemies. Drone technology hasn't been tested in a chaotic environment where you have to concern yourself with full 3 dimensional warfare.

As long as the US and ourselves are not really facing any kind of equal opposition drones will be the most effective weapons system for most conflicts, cheaper, safer easier to deploy. As soon as the first small cheap radar hidden anti aircraft drone works out it will throw everything into question.

You can't build your defense strategy around the above strategy, you have to build it around worst case scenarios, while I have no doubt that they will probably develop a drone eventually that can either operate without human intervention, until you can overcome the difficulties that I've labeled above your going to see manned combat capabilities for a long time yet.

Currently, I firmly believe that Drones get their butts handed to them if they faced off against any kind of technology saavy country with a mid modern manned airforce.

[automaton 3]

I'm having trouble seeing this as a big scandal.

No contract has been signed. No cheques have been cut. The Conservatives painted themselves into a corner with their vehement defence of the project but are busy backpedaling

At the end of the day, I suspect we still end up with at least some F-35's. I suspect there will be arguments for a split fleet like the Australians appear to be headed towards. Some Super Hornets first, and F-35s later when the cost comes down and the bugs are worked out.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not saying it won't happen, I am saying that its a long ways away. While the drones have done a decent job of intelligence gathering and to an extent selective targeting. I haven't seen the air to air capabilities, and situational awareness that a actual piloted aircraft has. When you seperate the pilot from the vehicle then the easiest way to ground somebodies airforce is to go after the communication links, either through physical means or through electronic means. Until those issues are overcome an airforce based around drones is not going to happen.

If you define decades away, unless your talking two more generations of manned combat operations then I completely disagree with you.









That's great, I'm not doubting that, however drones are still currently flying in a single mission environment that concentrates on intelligence gathering and limited ground to ground, against relatively un sophisticated enemies. Drone technology hasn't been tested in a chaotic environment where you have to concern yourself with full 3 dimensional warfare.





You can't build your defense strategy around the above strategy, you have to build it around worst case scenarios, while I have no doubt that they will probably develop a drone eventually that can either operate without human intervention, until you can overcome the difficulties that I've labeled above your going to see manned combat capabilities for a long time yet.

Currently, I firmly believe that Drones get their butts handed to them if they faced off against any kind of technology saavy country with a mid modern manned airforce.

I'm not so sure, I think it would be relativly easy and cheap for an Iran or Syria to come up with a smallish cruise missile that can close with US air assets and then launch a couple of air to air's once in range, I have no doubt they couldn't take out an F16 but an AWAC or a globemaster would be a relitively easy target. You could see air war in the very near future being difficult to impossible to support logistically which effectively grounds the fighters.

[worth]

Drones are no where near ready to take over as full time aircraft for the simple fact that drones carry extremly minimal munitions. Jets and bombers have an arsenal of ordinance at their disposal.

Until you start flying an F-16 drone around, it's no contest.

[Azure]

I'm sure stuff like this happens all the time in the government. Only this time the Auditor General did his job and exposed it before it got to late.

[Northendzone]

I wish one day the government would release a report telling me how they actually saved the taxpayers billions of dollars, rather than how they underestimated the cost of something.

How can the folks in government constantly be so bad with budgeting?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by worth

Drones are no where near ready to take over as full time aircraft for the simple fact that drones carry extremly minimal munitions. Jets and bombers have an arsenal of ordinance at their disposal.

Until you start flying an F-16 drone around, it's no contest.

Thus far drones have had the a limited role, and all been on our side, I can't see any reason you couldn't build a very fast limited range rocket powered drone ala a cruise missile, but strap an air to air missile to it instead.
The only reason it hasn't happened is we have had no need for it, but I don't doubt someone somewhere is trying to work out a cheap easy way to deal with US air power.

[Bindair Dundat]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

<snip>...At the end of the day, I suspect we still end up with at least some F-35's. I suspect there will be arguments for a split fleet like the Australians appear to be headed towards. Some Super Hornets first, and F-35s later when the cost comes down and the bugs are worked out.

The Aussies have found themselves in a worse boat than we are as far as remaining airframe life is concerned; their F-18A/B purchase was only 72 airframes. This despite the fact that they took delivery of a portion of their fleet after all of Canada's had been delivered (i.e. many of their machines are "younger" than ours).

In my opinion, Canada sh*t the bed when we let our option to purchase an additional 20 airframes (at the initial contract price) expire; we would be in a much better situation (with regards to the airframe fatigue issue) given all that has happened with the delays to the JSF project, if we would have had these additional machines to dillute/distribute the total hours.

Australia has no option...their A/B's are "timed out"; they can't wait any longer. That's why they are going ahead with their F-18E/F purchase (and as a result, will end up with a very expensive maintainance situation in years to come).

We are in a much better place, relatively speaking.

When we "contracted" our fleet following the pullout from Europe, we put a large portion of our "low hour" machines in mothballs at CFB Mountainview. When funding came through for the IMP in 2001, we had a decent number of "low hour" airframes; these are the ones that we are currently flying. These aircraft have been "gutted" from stem to stern (at the cost of Billions of dollars), re-equipped with "gen 4.5" systems/weapons, and are currently among the most capable F-18A's on the planet.

Most people do not realize this.

We (unlike the Aussies) can afford to wait a little longer for the F-35.

All this said, I am a strong advocate for a "split fleet" for Canada moving forward; this for much the same reason as I advocated for the DND to "exercise" our purchase option for additional CF-18's, twenty-odd years ago. To maintain "currency", our guys need to fly.

I'm not advocating a mish-mash of Gen 4.5's and F-35's though.

What I would push for is a reduced purchase of F-35's...pare the number down to ~ 45 aircraft. These would be solely tasked to our NORAD commitment and optomizied for the air-to-air (interceptor) role. With this number of airframes we could have two squadrons (409 at YOD and 425 at YBG) with 16 operational aircraft each, plus 6 per squadron (for a maintenance pool), and one for the guys at AETE (YOD) to play with.

Then take the rest of the money and buy as many T-50 "Golden Eagle's" (~$20M/ea) as we can. Base them at Cold Lake and Bagotville and have them as the "currency/proficiency" machines; use them as the "lead in" trainers as well. The Korean machine uses a derivative of the F404, so it would allow for retention of AE Tech's (that are currently keeping our CF-18's flying) with a minimum of retraining. The T-50 also would give us a "low cost" alternative for "peacetime" air sovereignty intercepts, operating from the northern FOB's that we have already paid for. These missions would be flown by operational pilots from the two NORAD-tasked squadrons and would be supported by the "QRA" F-35's in Cold Lake and Bagtown if it proved that things were actually going "pear shaped". It also would provide a low cost alternative for forward deployment (in any future "irregular" conflicts in which we may find ourselves involved) as the T-50 is perfectly capable as a bomb truck; even more so if the avionics from our retiring IMP Hornets are fitted/integrated.

For ~$3B we could aquire about 80 "bare bones" T-50's (including maintenance/support) and "shoehorn" many of the expensive avionics systems (from our timed out CF-18's) into them....for a minimal cost.

Food for thought.

As to the "political controversy"?

Meh. It's politics...

[worth]

Forgive my ignorance but I am assuming so much has changed since the 80's that you can't just call up Boeing and ask for 20 more CF-18's to add to the current fleet? Do they even make F-18's anymore? I think Boeing makes the Super Hornet still, right? This plane must me very different from a CF-18? I would think that there would be a lot of similarities so that if a country like Canada had to, they could purchase some Super Hornets in the short term and utilize the same people for maintenance and the same pilots, could they not? Or am I way out to lunch?

If all the avionics and weapon suystems are relativley new of the CF-18's, why can't countries like Canada or Australia order more airframes and cycle those through their current fleet to extend life? Or order airframes and install new avionics and weapons?

I'm thinking that the initial alotment is laid out and purchased, the factory will pump them out and by the time they are done making thousands of these things, they are well on their way to pumping out the next fighter on the list? Basically everyone is stuck with what they have?

[Bindair Dundat]

Originally Posted by worth

Forgive my ignorance but I am assuming so much has changed since the 80's that you can't just call up Boeing and ask for 20 more CF-18's to add to the current fleet? Do they even make F-18's anymore? I think Boeing makes the Super Hornet still, right? This plane must me very different from a CF-18? I would think that there would be a lot of similarities so that if a country like Canada had to, they could purchase some Super Hornets in the short term and utilize the same people for maintenance and the same pilots, could they not? Or am I way out to lunch?

If all the avionics and weapon suystems are relativley new of the CF-18's, why can't countries like Canada or Australia order more airframes and cycle those through their current fleet to extend life? Or order airframes and install new avionics and weapons?

I'm thinking that the initial alotment is laid out and purchased, the factory will pump them out and by the time they are done making thousands of these things, they are well on their way to pumping out the next fighter on the list? Basically everyone is stuck with what they have?

The F-18E is (for all intents and purposes) an entirely different aircraft than the F-18A. Look it up on Wiki.

We are fine until about 2018 as with respect to airframe life; the RAAF is not. Our current machines are state of the art in terms of weapons/avionics suites.

That's why the RAAF are buying F-18E/F's. We don't need to.

[Slava]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04...ditor-general/

The Harper government knew the cost of the jets before the election apparently. Som uch for trustworthy stewards of public money and all that nonsense. Just reprehensible.

[Savvy27]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...top-to-bottom/

There are so many layers of misconduct in the F-35 affair that it is difficult to know where to start. Do we especially deplore the rigging of operational requirements by Defence officials to justify a decision that had already been made? Or should we focus on the government’s decision to buy the planes without even seeing the department’s handiwork? Is the scandal that the department deliberately understated the cost of the jets, in presentations to Parliament and the public? Or is it that its own internal figures, though they exceeded the published amounts by some $10-billon, were themselves, according to the Auditor General, gross underestimates?


It’s all of those things, of course, and more: a fiasco from top to bottom, combining lapses of professional ethics, ministerial responsibility and democratic accountability into one spectacular illustration of how completely our system of government has gone to hell.

Somehow I doubt anything significant will result from these revelations.