“These long-term plans have the habit of having a lot of the money being back-end loaded,” said David Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “The question will be how much money there is and how much of it will be above the existing budget projections.”
Michael Byers, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, said the procurement system is in such disarray that the government will be hard-pressed to quickly beef up Canada’s military capabilities.
Quote:
rof. Byers said the Forces are currently in a state of “extreme crisis,” with the Royal Canadian Navy running out of functioning ships and the Royal Canadian Air Force still years away from getting its new fleet of fighter jets. “The government has inherited a badly broken Canadian Forces and it clearly has a monumental task ahead that is only beginning,” he said.
The challenge is exacerbated by the fact that a large chunk of the new money will be used to refurbish existing equipment or pay for already planned acquisitions. Mr. Perry said Canada needs to spend about $2-billion a year simply to deal with “unfunded capital equipment projects.”
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I was a bit confused by Saijan's messaging in powerplay
He basically said the money to do that was already there, but couldn't answer where it was coming from.
he was really evasive on the fighter jet questions, especially around the intern fighter program.
I wasn't really clear but it sounds like instead of replacing the Victoria Class Submarines which are a basically 30 year old frame without under arctic capabilities, they're going to basically rebuild them from the ground up, which to me, might end up becoming more expensive then going out on the market to get more modern and advanced Air Independent submarines that might have the legs to operate under the arctic.
He did hit on most of the requirements that I've talked about which is a plus. Its up to the government now to carry through, though Saijan stated that even if the government is bounced in the next election, the majority of the preliminary work will be done.
I guess the test comes at the next budget as he basically promised that there will be purchases in terms of personal kit and field communications.
I'm going to download the document this weekend and run through it.
Call me cautiously optimistic though I've seen this all before.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
People forget that the F-18 and the Tomcats had serious developmental issues. The Superhornet still has issues with their O2 system as well.
I mean people think that the development of a highly advanced next generation fighter jet is like building a car. There's always going to be a bug list, that starts big and gets smaller.
I mean frankly people were hanging onto the report that the f-35 lost in a simulated battle to an F-15, but don't mark down the the F-35 was a stripped down model without a lot of the features that make it special.
Then it goes to Red Flag and basically kills everything and people ignore it.
I'm still convinced that this will end up be.
Frankly compare the fix list from 5 years ago to today, and the fact that its now starting to be deployed, and I'm on the side of not a lemon.
And by the time Canada gets their thumb out in terms of buying in 2020-23 unless we're buying a Chinese J-20 or the Russian or India 5gen fighter there won't be much of a battle.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
People forget that the F-18 and the Tomcats had serious developmental issues. The Superhornet still has issues with their O2 system as well.
I mean people think that the development of a highly advanced next generation fighter jet is like building a car. There's always going to be a bug list, that starts big and gets smaller.
I mean frankly people were hanging onto the report that the f-35 lost in a simulated battle to an F-15, but don't mark down the the F-35 was a stripped down model without a lot of the features that make it special.
Then it goes to Red Flag and basically kills everything and people ignore it.
I'm still convinced that this will end up be.
Frankly compare the fix list from 5 years ago to today, and the fact that its now starting to be deployed, and I'm on the side of not a lemon.
And by the time Canada gets their thumb out in terms of buying in 2020-23 unless we're buying a Chinese J-20 or the Russian or India 5gen fighter there won't be much of a battle.
Reports of the F-35's performance at Red Flag are nebulous at best. But you're right, it's looking a lot better than last year.
I guess I'm missing the point of the column where he doubts the performance because of a lack of data to prove what was said.
Its a hot air column.
Look, they said the F-35 performed well, but I don't know if its true because of a lack of full data on my desk.
Did the F-35 shoot down the planes themselves or did they use their data integration systems to assist other planes in shooting them down. I don't know if that matters all that much because that's the point of the f-35 that it coordinates with everything from ships to tanks to troops to other planes to effectively control the combat space.
I tend to think that this is the important mission statement for the excersize
Quote:
“Before where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had—F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles, we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out—now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time. Just between [the F-35] and the [F-22] Raptor we are able to geolocate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized. It’s a whole different world out there for us now...When you pair the F-22 and the F-35 like together with the fourth-generation strikers behind us, we’re really able to dominate the airspace over the Nellis test and training range.”
The F-35A also stayed around after their munitions were dropped to soak up electronic intelligence on the enemy, a role the aircraft is especially adept at.
In terms of NATO, Norad and even UN missions this is ideal. For Canada only its still ideal except that your using the F-35 for both scout and strike which means that your not using 4th generation assets to followup 5th generation scouting. But it also means that the planes can pinpoint for artillary or standoff weapons use.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Government officials look to sit down with various manufacturers at the Paris Airshow next week to talk Interim fighters and possibly kick off the fighter competition.
Somehow this is starting to become a bit of a mess. It was originally the Superhornet, but it sounds like Boeing is on the outs.
Quote:
But the Paris meetings offer an opportunity for U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin, French firm Dassault, Swedish company Saab, and European consortium Eurofighter to make their best pitches on the issue.
Suddenly we're going away from something at least similar in the Superhornet, and go completely mixed mess airforce where we're going to have to have multiple training programs, maintenance, tool and logistics and capability packages.
On top of that, this process of buying Interim jets is now going to probably become the new jet, which means that there' a possibility that we're going to be buying under capable planes.
In terms of Lockheed Martin, we know that the F-35 is probably going to be the jet of the future in Canada, but do they cut us a cheap deal on a strengthened squadron of F-16s? Because I doubt that they send us some not for export F-22s? Maybe they could send us some A-10's to up boost our ground attack (I'm joking here)
Does Dausault sell us some Rafales? When we looked at it last time there were concerns about its ability to operate within NORAD with US planes, also there were concerns about cold weather performance and logistics as well.
Also its fly away cost would probably be in the 100 to 120 million per plane cost minimum
Or Saab and their Griphen E/F which is probably too light of a multirole function with half the load weight of the other plane and its pretty solidly a gen 4 fighter and the problems listed with the Rafale come to mind. The biggest advantage is its probably cheap at between 50 and 80 million roughly us per plane depending on variants
The Typhoon is a good fighter, but again as an interim fighter it has the same issues as the above two. As well its expensive at between 130 million per copy to 160 million per copy US. And has inter operability questions. Its decidedly 4th generation as well.
I think there needs to just be a serious discussion about this whole Interim fighter program as it sounds like its probably going to cost a lot more then the Liberals are promoting for a limited life span aircraft that's going to throw the Airforce into Chaos.
At this point just kick off the fighter competition and make it a crash program (bad choice of words).
Canada operating two distinctive aircraft makes absolutely no sense given the size of our airforce and the way that its run now.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The only issue that I would have with the video is the ascertation of the SU-35's sensor range of 35 miles.
They tend to ignore the Irbis Radar system that the Su-35 carries that has a range of 350 kms.
However the OLS-35 infrared search system is decidedly short range and the assumption is that the F-35 various stealth and countermeasures systems would defeat or degrade the Irbis Radar, and for the most part fighters fly with their radars turned off to avoid detection.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 06-14-2017 at 11:07 AM.
Suddenly we're going away from something at least similar in the Superhornet, and go completely mixed mess airforce where we're going to have to have multiple training programs, maintenance, tool and logistics and capability packages.
I don't think the Superhornet alleviates any of those issues to a degree that matters. It is a completely different airframe and will require all the same type of resources as any of the others mentioned.
Any savings due to similarity would be negligible in the grand scheme. It's not like you can just flick a switch on the simulator to pick the plane you want to fly, or can swap engines between the two fleets.
But ya, we should just get on with a new plane, it isn't just affecting the operational ability of out air force. The future of Portage, Moose Jaw and Cold Lake for pilot training, and the entire pilot training programs future is in limbo waiting for a decision. New trainers are going to be required soon, and there is no point designing a training program and buying aircraft if you don't know what they are going to be flying.
The Following User Says Thank You to speede5 For This Useful Post:
I don't think the Superhornet alleviates any of those issues to a degree that matters. It is a completely different airframe and will require all the same type of resources as any of the others mentioned.
Any savings due to similarity would be negligible in the grand scheme. It's not like you can just flick a switch on the simulator to pick the plane you want to fly, or can swap engines between the two fleets.
But ya, we should just get on with a new plane, it isn't just affecting the operational ability of out air force. The future of Portage, Moose Jaw and Cold Lake for pilot training, and the entire pilot training programs future is in limbo waiting for a decision. New trainers are going to be required soon, and there is no point designing a training program and buying aircraft if you don't know what they are going to be flying.
Yeah, I've said that before, but at least with the Superhornet we'd have a shorter logistics line with Boeing, at least there is some commonality of parts and systems with the Regular Hornet as well.
But I agree that the Superhornet is a different plane in terms of size, characteristics, power plant and sensor.s
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
speede - is the ground handling equipment largely the same? I understood this is part of the rationle for the Supers - yes it is a different airplane, but both are designed to work on a carrier deck and similar enough that there would be some cost savings.
It also fits in our existing hangers/shelters and compatible with our probe and drogue system...?
Not completely sold on this, but I think a reasonable (albeit expensive) hedge, in particular if we were to acquire the Block III version just approved by the US Navy.
I thought it was about 20% larger then the standard hornet something like 4 feet longer and 4 feet wider wind span and 7000 pounds heavier, so I would wonder about hanger and shelter similarities.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The longer we stall, the less an interim purchase makes sense. Might as well hold the competition and get done with it.
I read somewhere a suggestion that we could try to pick up more Classics and spare parts from Australia and the US Navy as they retire them them to help bridge the gap, rather than introducing a whole new interim fleet at substantial cost. Their airframes are probably as well used as ours though.
I don't know if I would want to buy the US naval variants. I'm no expert but their airframes have to be pretty beaten up due to carrier launches and landings.
At this point they should just launch the competition, I mean we know that the Air Force wants 5th generation fighters, which allows us to go with a smaller more cost effective airforce.
(canada bought 140 Hornets, now they are going to 88 5th gen)
At that point the competition shrinks down to
F-22 - yeah no
F-35
Pak-Fa still under development
J-20 we're not buying Chinese
F-35 Yeah its a F-35 with a red star on the back.
Under development/drawing board
Japanese X-2
Turkey TAI-TFX
India HAL AMCA
Maybe we could just wait another 20 years and kick off Canada's search for their 6th generation fighter, now with cup holder.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
