The Canadian Armed Forces Requirements

[automaton 3]

USN and Congress keep finding reasons to fund additional Super Hornets and Growlers, I wouldn't be surprised if the line continues for some time. The USN is apparently luke-warm to the F-35C so far and the F/A-xx is looking 2035ish time frame.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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 hbetween 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.

1. The F35 is projected to drop in price IF original estimated orders were made. That is not the case as the US has cut their orders, we've scrapped it as an option and other nations are considering reducing their orders or scrapping them altogether.

2. Completely false. The Rafale is a multi-purpose aircraft capable of strike, naval and intercepting operations. It's designed to carry a nuclear strike weapon, all NATO strike ordinance as well as the air to air meteor missile which is vastly superior to the AMRAAM (just so happens the F35 can't can't carry the new meteor). The Rafale has two engines, a robust airframe designed for carrier operations (similar to the Hornet) and has SPECTRE electronics warfare suite built on giving it similar capabilities to the Growler. The Rafale can carry more, get there faster and go further than the F35 and is combat proven. There are no question marks, you get a proven aircraft with the Rafale as opposed to smoke and mirrors with the F35. The Rafale project will benefit our nation both economically and technologically. The Rafale has proven through Afghanistan, Libya and now Iraq and Syria that it integrates just fine with other NATO nations. If you think the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and France are going to drop their Eurofighters and Rafales for F35s because of interoperability you've got another thing coming.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/indias-rafa...saster-1496150

http://www.newindianexpress.com/colu...cle2346825.ece

The reason why the India procurement was a disaster is because India wanted to build them and have Dassault honour any problems with the plane. Dassault did not trust them to make their own plane properly because they'd be on the hook for crappy manufacturing. Yeah no wonder it fell apart because Dassault was having no part of that. Now on the other hand Dassault has come right out and offered Canada the ability to build them here. Probably because they have more faith in our abilities.

[dammage79]

Just a quick question. If Canada enters into a procurement agreement with an EU country, why are we estimating costs in USD?

Should we not be converting costs from EURO to CAD?

[Baron von Kriterium]

We can debate what the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) needs or doesn't need but it is a pointless exercise. Why? Because the Government hasn't communicated in a very, very, long time what it wants the CAF to do exactly. The Government needs to define the CAF's mission and until it does so, the military cannot figure out how to execute the mission and what it needs to execute the mission.

The CAF strategic perspective is that you build your defences from the inside out. In order of importance for Canada:

(1) Defence of the National territory;

(2) defence of the North American continent;

(3) Fulfillment of our defence treaty obligations (eg NATO); and

(4) Any other international commitment that we may see fit to undertake.

Now (1) and (2) are Navy/Air Force dependant because Canada, and North-America, is an "Island" in terms of defence.

Nobody is invading Canada any time soon driving tanks/APCs. That means we must have a strong Navy and a strong Air Force. I am sorry to have to say this as an Army guy but the permanent Army of Canada is for the purposes of (3) and (4) only. That means the the primary role of the Army is expeditionary in nature - not a "defence" force in the way continental European armies are.

Now, you can have an Army that meets (1) and (2), but it needs to be light, adaptive and intimately tied to the Air Force.

It is rumored that Gen (retd) Leslie will be the new MND (God forbid). One of his last acts while still in service was to write a transformation report. This report recommended supporting the Army to the detriment of the RCN and RCAF. The report was shelved, thankfully, because it would have been a disaster. Will it be resurrected? Dunno.

[Madman]

Hadn't heard about this opportunity at all.

Top general and defence bureaucrat were at odds over whether to buy French warships
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy...tral-1.3435803

[CaptainCrunch]

And a swing and a miss.

[GoinAllTheWay]

What do you mean, CC?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm no naval expert, but to me if we could have gotten these two ships cheaper then we could build them, and they're a modern platform we should have grabbed them.

These are very good multi-role ships, beyond the standard use of troop deployments. They can be used as supply ships for the fleet when they deploy, something that we don't have now so we have to depend on our allies at a much higher cost.

they are truly multi-role and can be used to assist with disasters of all types, bring in supplies, evacuate populations and can be configured to act as a floating hospital.

The only thing that they can't do is act as fleet oilers, which is in the construction plan for the new navy.

But these ships could have widened the fleet operating areas, assisted in Nato operations and allowed a high level of self sufficiency at a cheaper cost.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Ah, OK, wasn't sure if you meant it was good we missed out. I read the article on CBC today and it sounded like those ships would have checked off a number of boxes that the Navy was looking for.

Just another example of bungled mess. Those ships sounded awesome. Even had a good sized medical facility.

Man oh man.....

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Ah, OK, wasn't sure if you meant it was good we missed out. I read the article on CBC today and it sounded like those ships would have checked off a number of boxes that the Navy was looking for.

Just another example of bungled mess. Those ships sounded awesome. Even had a good sized medical facility.

Man oh man.....

The Minstral's are a great ship in terms of being configurable for a lot of different roles, which to be honest is exactly what the navy needs.

While they're not quit at the level of the new America Class Assault ship, they are equivalent to ships like the Wasp class, and slightly outclass the new Chinese type 71 class ship.

If Canada would have bought these they could have continued to build multi-use Oilers for fueling the fleet at sea, or purchased and reconditioned light tankers to to the job.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Do most Navy's still have oilers? I always wondered why we didn't go nuclear or is that just for large ships like carriers?

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada...cid=spartandhp

Yeah been there done that, it sucks.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Do most Navy's still have oilers? I always wondered why we didn't go nuclear or is that just for large ships like carriers?

Yeah, it doesn't make economic sense to make nuclear based frigates or destroyers which is as large as Canada's navy is going to get in terms of ship sizes.

You will see nuclear propulsion in some cruisers but mostly in carriers. It makes a lot of sense in terms of submarines especially if you need something other then coastal defense subs.

On top of that the cultural change in going to a nuclear navy is immense.

You would need to establish a whole new engineering discipline and training program, and a whole new type of engineering officer and training program in terms of running and maintaining those ships.

I used to advocate paying half a dozen of the American 688I class boats when they started moving them to the beach, but it would take years to transition from a diesel electric fleet to a nuclear fleet. And its to the point now when your on that bleeding edge that obsolete happens a lot sooner.

the Russians for example have caught up and passed the Americans's in terms of their new boats coming off of the line, the Chinese are closing that gap as well.

Even the diesel subs that were actually commissioned in 1990 and were actually a nicely designed boat made to combine a advanced sensor and weapons platform in a diesel platform are pretty much nearing the end of their effective life technology wise and there are better propulsion systems out there that the Germans and other nations are using for their coastal subs.

I think that Submarines are crucial platforms in terms of a nation like Canada that has the arctic sovereignty issue hanging over their heads. There's also no better platform for intelligence gathering then a submarine.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada...cid=spartandhp

Yeah been there done that, it sucks.

You and me both brother.

I had high hopes for the Conservatives when they started, they did a good job in terms of replacing the wost of our kit, upgrading tanks and AFV's dumping the Iltis improving soldiers personal kit and weapons loadouts. Improving funding for the Special Operations Command and investing in air lift capability.

But they only delayed the rust out created by years of mismanagement both by previous Liberal and Conservative Governments.

I initially had high hopes for the new Defense Minister, but when I listen to him, I'm not sure that he's got a grasp on the issues.

But we still have a total failure of the Forces coming and its not that far off if the file keeps getting shuffled to the bottom of the pile.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You and me both brother.

I had high hopes for the Conservatives when they started, they did a good job in terms of replacing the wost of our kit, upgrading tanks and AFV's dumping the Iltis improving soldiers personal kit and weapons loadouts. Improving funding for the Special Operations Command and investing in air lift capability.

But they only delayed the rust out created by years of mismanagement both by previous Liberal and Conservative Governments.

I initially had high hopes for the new Defense Minister, but when I listen to him, I'm not sure that he's got a grasp on the issues.

But we still have a total failure of the Forces coming and its not that far off if the file keeps getting shuffled to the bottom of the pile.

it is ####ing horrible. I don't think that the general populace has any idea of the operation requirements the military has been under since Roto 0 in Yugo.

It has been non-stop of 20+ years, flat out, balls to the wall.

The damage to Kit has been huge, but the damage and draining of people is even worse.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada...cid=spartandhp

Yeah been there done that, it sucks.

Yay!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

it is ####ing horrible. I don't think that the general populace has any idea of the operation requirements the military has been under since Roto 0 in Yugo.

It has been non-stop of 20+ years, flat out, balls to the wall.

The damage to Kit has been huge, but the damage and draining of people is even worse.

The funny thing is that the current government is going to remove the jets and replace them with with nearly 900 training personal on the ground.

First of all, and as stated properly by the Conservatives, that kind of mass deployment is murderous on a forces that basically had its equipment beaten to sh%t, and the force exhausted.

Second of all, and this makes me laugh, we have a romatized view of what training is. You know we teach them to shoot guns, and march all pretty. But training doesn't all happen behind the wire. Training involves special forces operations going on patrol and going into danger areas to train troops there. We've already seen Canadian Operators in active battle against ISIS and we'll see it again.

You can't sit in a camp and teach someone to patrol and do intelligence gathering and select targets and call in air strikes. You know this UCB. You have to go out on that patrol with them teach them field craft and target evaluation and be able to monitor how your trainees are doing on the ground.

If you're going to to this the training will fail every time.

A 900 troop deployment will wear out our troops and put them in harms way again. That's fine its what they do and what they're paid for, but I think the Liberals are being dis-engenous in how they're making everyone think that there's no danger involved and they won't be involved in the fighting.


They will be involved in the fighting and there will be far more mission creep then there was with the air force deployment.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The funny thing is that the current government is going to remove the jets and replace them with with nearly 900 training personal on the ground.

First of all, and as stated properly by the Conservatives, that kind of mass deployment is murderous on a forces that basically had its equipment beaten to sh%t, and the force exhausted.

Second of all, and this makes me laugh, we have a romatized view of what training is. You know we teach them to shoot guns, and march all pretty. But training doesn't all happen behind the wire. Training involves special forces operations going on patrol and going into danger areas to train troops there. We've already seen Canadian Operators in active battle against ISIS and we'll see it again.

You can't sit in a camp and teach someone to patrol and do intelligence gathering and select targets and call in air strikes. You know this UCB. You have to go out on that patrol with them teach them field craft and target evaluation and be able to monitor how your trainees are doing on the ground.

If you're going to to this the training will fail every time.

A 900 troop deployment will wear out our troops and put them in harms way again. That's fine its what they do and what they're paid for, but I think the Liberals are being dis-engenous in how they're making everyone think that there's no danger involved and they won't be involved in the fighting.


They will be involved in the fighting and there will be far more mission creep then there was with the air force deployment.

I am not sure I would have picked the word "funny".

I feel for the troops.

[CaptainCrunch]

valid point of the word choice. But funny does not always mean what it means.