Canadian Military News

[speede5]

The trickle down on decisions like this is something people need to consider. NFTC is coming to an end and a new training program needs to be developed. You can't choose your lead in aircraft when you don't know what the fighter is going to be. The Hawk needs to be replaced at the end of this program (2021).

You have an entire base in MJ and part of Cold Lake with futures riding on what is next. It is so frustrating watching politicians make decisions that effect something they have no knowledge of.

Tell DND what you expect of them, give them a budget and let them buy the equipment that fills that role. F#^@

I can see this superhornet thing having 0 economic benefit to Canada. With such a small fleet they will most likely send our pilots south for training, and DND will probably not get heavily involved in the maintenance aspect.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by worth

It is a punt, but there is a need for fighters immediately (from what the govt is saying). Even if we agreed to purchase F-35 tomorrow, when would we see them? 2020? 2025? The UK is scheduled to get their first 24 aircraft by 2023, so I highly doubt it would be any time before then.

We could be flying Super Hornets in 3-5 years, which buys time to select a fighter that will not be inservice until 2030 probably.

Don't see why this selection process needs to take 5 years. They've been going over this ####e for the past 6 or 7 years.

Ultimately I don't have a problem with the Super Hornet purchase. Get that going and then expedite the selection for the fighter that best meets our needs for the 2030's.

And this is fine if you firmly believe that the Liberals will actually do anything on the long term procurement of Canada's next generation of fighters. But they'll do the typical federal government thing which is dither and delay and politicize the whole thing.

The most effective purchases by the government were when we replaced and upgraded our heavy lift capable aircraft and replaced our light armored and utility vehicles. Those purchases were decisive and happened quickly, mainly because the previous governments Conservatives included had allowed the forces to rust out to the point that when we deployed to Afghanistan we were not only embarrassed, but lives were put in danger.

Right now the Liberals are terrified of Justin's remarks about the F-35 and not allowing them to compete because it opens the way for a massive multi-billion dollar lawsuit, and the withdrawal of any contracts that could have gone to Canadian Aerospace which were estimated to add up to about 9 billion dollars worth or work.

And if the Superhornets were a 3 year stop gap to replace the worst of the Hornets, then fine, that's livable, but there are too many instances of meh lets stretch this to 10 or 20 years while we futz around on procuring the next plane.

At the end of the day, despite tales to the contrary, the Superhornet is a different plane from the hornet, parts wise and pilots wise, so we're basically going to do a very expensive transition to the Hornet and then do another very expensive transition to whatever is next.

Unless of course the Liberals just decide to replace our entire fleet with the Super Hornet which to me would be absolutely stupid.

I'm all for reopening the competition for Canada's next fighter because I sincerely believe that in a fair competition the F-35 will beat out the other planes (Gripen, Rafale etc) the costs between planes isn't going to be that different.

I also believe that this Super Hornet purchase is going to be a gong show of epi proportions. The Liberals promised a $61 million dollar fly away cost, but I'm betting after looking at some of the other Super Hornet purchases that have happened recently that its going to probably be 2 to 4 times that much per copy, especially if we push for an expedited delivery.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by worth

It is a punt, but there is a need for fighters immediately (from what the govt is saying). Even if we agreed to purchase F-35 tomorrow, when would we see them? 2020? 2025? The UK is scheduled to get their first 24 aircraft by 2023, so I highly doubt it would be any time before then.

We could be flying Super Hornets in 3-5 years, which buys time to select a fighter that will not be inservice until 2030 probably.

Don't see why this selection process needs to take 5 years. They've been going over this ####e for the past 6 or 7 years.

Ultimately I don't have a problem with the Super Hornet purchase. Get that going and then expedite the selection for the fighter that best meets our needs for the 2030's.

I see your point, and truth be told, I actually agree with you.

However, the scenario I want to avoid is seeing us buy eighteen Super Hornets, and then the decision on the 'real' aircraft gets delayed so many times, that the "temporary" F/A-18's become permanent.

Honestly, I have a feeling that's exactly what's going to happen. Like you said, there's no reason for a competition to take 5 years, and the decision will get punted by each government involved until someone throws their hands up and says 'make do with our new Super Hornets'.

Like speede5 said, this decision should not be made by politicians who know absolutely nothing about the subject.

Ask the RCAF what they think is the best fighter for the job, work out a budget, and let them make the decisions!!

EDIT: Captain beat me to it, and 100% hit the nail on the head.

[undercoverbrother]

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...the-risks.html

While UN peacekeeping is no miracle cure and there are no guarantees of success, when done right and properly mandated and resourced, UN peacekeeping offers the best chance for a society emerging from violent conflict.

I actually struggle to identify examples of successful UN peacekeeping missions.

I note a distinct lack of citing any successful UN peacekeeping missions.

[worth]

I agree with you guys. The only saving grace that would force the government to make a decision is 18 fighters does not make a fleet. I'm sure these suepr hornets will be in service a long time, why wouldn't they be? But 18 planes once the CF-18's are retires are not going to cover our responsibilities NATO and NORAD responsibilities, so they will have to commit buy more planes at some point in time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...the-risks.html



I actually struggle to identify examples of successful UN peacekeeping missions.

I note a distinct lack of citing any successful UN peacekeeping missions.

Personally I think that at this point we shouldn't be looking at the Peacekeeping requirements in any of the nations that Justin is drooling over.

I mean people have this stupid romantic image of lightly armed Canadians in blue berets in helmets driving in lightly armed glistening white jeeps to restore the peace while bravely being willing to sacrifice themselves.

But the truth is somewhat darker. First of all there is a lack of desire by the UN to actually fight for peace. Instead they come out with confusing rules of engagement and refuse to give UN troops the equipment and order of battle needed to actually create and enforce a peace. Second of all, Peacekeeping is the ultimate in terms of public relations, we're going to try to integrate troops from different nations of the world to work together to enforce the peace. Instead you get a confusing and badly thought of command structure and all you end up with is soldiers frozen by inertia.

So why does the UN fail. Because they fail to realize a couple of things.

1) This isn't a nation versus nation battlefield anymore. The peace keeping missions that Canada's government is drooling to get involved in are based around ruthless insurgent groups that will more then likely band together to kill UN troops before going back to kill each other. We're talking roadside bombs, and snipers and suicide bombers and civilian massacres here. The UN is not configured nor ruthless enough to enforce the peace in this kind of environment.

2) That the day of peacekeeping is over, its a failed concept because of the gutlessness of the UN. They don't understand the modern battlefield but they think their reputation will carry the day. That a General can talk to two leaders on the opposite sides and convince them to lay down their arms. Unfortunately the truth is that Peacekeeping has to become Peace Enforcement. You basically should be arming peacekeepers like an army instead of like lightly armed beat cops. You have to have a heavy club that you can swing at whichever side breaks the peace and have the means and the desire to do it. In other words you send in a armored battalion and special forces and planes and everything and you warn both sides to knock it off or you will rain holy hell on both sides, wipe them out arrest their leaders and deliver them for War Crimes tribunals.

If Justin has this desire do do Peacekeeping then he either has to inform the UN that he's only interested in doing it if its a Canada only mission, and that the UN will pay to arm the battlegroup appropriately and the chain of command ends with the leader in the field.

On top of that, he has to recognize that any UN peacekeeping mission isn't going to be smiling troops in white jeeps, this is going to be nasty and protracted and that Canada's Military is going to probably pay a pretty large butchers bill in terms of money and deaths. Neither side in these areas is interested in peace, they're interested in annihilation, genocide and taking over and installing a government based on their viewpoints.

If we aren't going to go in with a willingness to fight properly for the innocents caught in the middle, if we're going in and we're going to stand by while people are slaughtered and the UN can't come up with a proper rules of engagement then we should say no thanks we're out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by worth

I agree with you guys. The only saving grace that would force the government to make a decision is 18 fighters does not make a fleet. I'm sure these suepr hornets will be in service a long time, why wouldn't they be? But 18 planes once the CF-18's are retires are not going to cover our responsibilities NATO and NORAD responsibilities, so they will have to commit buy more planes at some point in time.

The idea behind the F-35's is it would allow us to shrink our fleet to 65 aircraft. When we bought the Hornets we bought I think 138 of them.

The F-35 would allow a fleet that was far more integrated and technologically advanced enough to be able punch above its weight.

The Super Hornet is pretty much an obsolete frame. countries that are purchasing them are usually purchasing them for a secondary role (IE Australia to replace the F-111's I think. Kuwait to act as their fighter bomber while purchasing Typhoons as their advanced multirole fighter).

If we are buying a plane at the end of its lifespan then 18 is far short of what we should be buying, we would be looking at going to a much larger airforce them what we would be buying with the F-35.

[automaton 3]

The 65 aircraft requirement is a bit suspect, as the KPMG report said it allowed for zero attrition losses.

SH will be operated by the USN into the 2040's. It is not bleeding edge like the F-35 with all the associated issues, but it is far from obsolete.

[Azure]

Is $9 billion even that much money for the F-35?

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I actually struggle to identify examples of successful UN peacekeeping missions.

I note a distinct lack of citing any successful UN peacekeeping missions.

I can't think of any either.

If The Star would listen to me, I'd suggest that their reporter visit the UN websites for the African missions that are under consideration. A couple of those are the Central African Republic and Mali. All three of those have significant numbers of child soldiers.

How will The Star view Canadian soldiers having to shoot children?

Our own elected members are still trying to fry the Military Police over Afghan detainees. I can just imagine the outcry the first time some poor trigger puller offs a child soldier to save his own life and CBC features 300 redundant stories complete with blurry video of the bodies. Don't expect a single minute of political defense from Trudeau for doing the right thing.

Regardless of self-defence or otherwise, what will the impact be on the soldiers (ie, PTSD or the new buzz word, 'moral injury')?

With those thoughts in mind, wade through the bureaucratic-jargon on the UN website and actually read those missions' mandates. While there are some that seem valid (eg, protecting civilians), there are a couple (eg, protecting heritage sites), that I think are total BS.

Mind you, even those reasons have not been formally raised as justification, which has so far been limited to: a) help Canada's bid for a UNSC seat; and b) get at least one NDHQ member a bit of coloured ribbon for DEU, both of which are

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

The 65 aircraft requirement is a bit suspect, as the KPMG report said it allowed for zero attrition losses.

SH will be operated by the USN into the 2040's. It is not bleeding edge like the F-35 with all the associated issues, but it is far from obsolete.

I would agree with the number, depending on squadron size it leaves very little room for error.

The SH is pretty much positioned as a secondary naval aircraft going forward. Its a limited add on aircraft and its on the far side in terms of the obsolete cycle.

[worth]

What is the expected squadron size of an f-35? Is it that much different from a traditional formation?

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by worth

I agree with you guys. The only saving grace that would force the government to make a decision is 18 fighters does not make a fleet. I'm sure these suepr hornets will be in service a long time, why wouldn't they be? But 18 planes once the CF-18's are retires are not going to cover our responsibilities NATO and NORAD responsibilities, so they will have to commit buy more planes at some point in time.

I suppose you're right.

But still...five years! There's no reason to take that long, aside from it being conveniently past this government's expiration date.

It basically guarantees that we won't have a new fighter (whatever it ends up being) in service until 2050. We'll limp along with our 18 Super Hornets, and whatever is left of the old CF-18's, until they start falling out of the sky.

This so-called "capability gap" is only going to get bigger if you only have a fleet of 18 working aircraft.

[Fuzz]

Is there any reason we can't use these Super hornets for say, the next decade as the F35 roll in(once they actually prove to be worth it) then sell them off to another country?

[Zulu29]

While I certainly hope that a plane other than the Super Bug gets chosen as the new fleet, the 18 Super Hornets as an interim isn't that bad. First, they are more capable than the legacy hornets with new toys such as AESA radar. Second, as long as they are F/A 18F models they can be prewired to be converted to "Growlers" down the road, these are state of the art electronic attack aircraft which are in high demand. So get a new fleet and have the growlers to support them.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

While I certainly hope that a plane other than the Super Bug gets chosen as the new fleet, the 18 Super Hornets as an interim isn't that bad. First, they are more capable than the legacy hornets with new toys such as AESA radar. Second, as long as they are F/A 18F models they can be prewired to be converted to "Growlers" down the road, these are state of the art electronic attack aircraft which are in high demand. So get a new fleet and have the growlers to support them.

I forgot about that...that assumes they would pick the correct model, though.

The main issue for me is the 5 year timeline...it doesn't take that long to make a decision, they're just punting it down the road. If the Liberals get re-elected, they just bought themselves some time. Otherwise, it's not their problem anymore.

[CaptainCrunch]

Looks like Justin is just as secretive and restrictive as Harper is, especially when it comes to the boondoogle he's creating with the F-35 file

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/201.../#.WDhpx1zkrHW

OTTAWA — More than 200 federal civil servants involved in replacing Canada's aging fighter jet fleet have been forced to swear they will not discuss the project for the rest of their lives.
Revelations of the "lifetime" non-disclosure agreements come as the government prepares to start negotiations with U.S. aerospace giant Boeing to purchase 18 Super Hornets.

Two former military procurement chiefs told The Canadian Press in separate interviews that they had never seen such agreements used for procurement projects before.
"I can't recall anyone in any of my project teams having to do that," said Alan Williams, who served as assistant deputy minister of materiel at National Defence from 2000 to 2005.
"Any of our people, I trust them to use their judgment."
Dan Ross, who oversaw the F-35 project from 2005 to 2012 as assistant deputy minister of materiel, said there are significant technical and commercial secrets at stake with the jet program.
But he said such secrets are protected with existing security classifications, which carry the threat of prison time and have proven more than sufficient.
Both Williams and Ross said the decision to force officials to a lifetime of secrecy was worrying and a heavy-handed attempt to keep them on a tight leash.
The non-disclosure agreements were revealed in records tabled in the House of Commons this week in response to a question from Conservative defence critic James Bezan.
Bezan said he believes the Liberals are trying to hide the fact their decision to buy 18 Super Hornets and put off selecting a replacement for the CF-18s for five years is about keeping Canada from buying the F-35.
"My suspicion is that the Liberals don't want anyone talking about how this has been completely politicized, or that this isn't the plane that National Defence was recommending," he said.

Trust me when I say that the purchase of the Superhornets is going to go bad. The promise of the so called $61 million per plane flyaway is probably going to double or triple based around the Kuwaiti purchase and the Austrailia stop gap purchase.

With Australia the flyaway price came out to about $125 million US per plane. With Kuwaiti the figure can closer to $300 million per plane. Now to be fair there were some growler varients included in the purchase for both nations, something that Canada won't be doing.

But the whole open and honest government that Trudeau was promising is rapidly going out the window and even though DND has promised a so called open competition for the next generation Canadian Fighter, the feeling is that its going to be an unfair competition where the deck is heavily stacked against the F-35 and this gag order is the first step to that end.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Looks like Justin is just as secretive and restrictive as Harper is, especially when it comes to the boondoogle he's creating with the F-35 file

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/201.../#.WDhpx1zkrHW





Trust me when I say that the purchase of the Superhornets is going to go bad. The promise of the so called $61 million per plane flyaway is probably going to double or triple based around the Kuwaiti purchase and the Austrailia stop gap purchase.

With Australia the flyaway price came out to about $125 million US per plane. With Kuwaiti the figure can closer to $300 million per plane. Now to be fair there were some growler varients included in the purchase for both nations, something that Canada won't be doing.

But the whole open and honest government that Trudeau was promising is rapidly going out the window and even though DND has promised a so called open competition for the next generation Canadian Fighter, the feeling is that its going to be an unfair competition where the deck is heavily stacked against the F-35 and this gag order is the first step to that end.

How do you know we won't be getting super bugs prewired to be modified to growlers down the road? I fully agree with you about Trudeau and his muzzling of those on the fighter portfolio. Pretty disgusting. But I wouldn't count the F35 out yet. By the time 5 years rolls around the Eurofighter and Rafale will likely be out of production, leaving only the F35, Saab Gripen or Super Hornet as a replacement. Unless of course some new fighter comes along.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

How do you know we won't be getting super bugs prewired to be modified to growlers down the road? I fully agree with you about Trudeau and his muzzling of those on the fighter portfolio. Pretty disgusting. But I wouldn't count the F35 out yet. By the time 5 years rolls around the Eurofighter and Rafale will likely be out of production, leaving only the F35, Saab Gripen or Super Hornet as a replacement. Unless of course some new fighter comes along.

The Super hornet is coming to the end of its production cycle. The USN isn't going to buy anymore as they push the F-35 replacement, and the small orders that are coming in aren't going to continue.

I don't know if there's a need for a true fleet of Growlers when we're basically going to be down to a 3 or 4 squadron airforce. Plus again, if you look at the Growler upgrade costs they're extremely high.

I would expect that all countries that are pushing forward in terms of military aviation are going to concentrate on building gen 5 or budget gen 5 fighters.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Super hornet is coming to the end of its production cycle. The USN isn't going to buy anymore as they push the F-35 replacement, and the small orders that are coming in aren't going to continue.

I don't know if there's a need for a true fleet of Growlers when we're basically going to be down to a 3 or 4 squadron airforce. Plus again, if you look at the Growler upgrade costs they're extremely high.

I would expect that all countries that are pushing forward in terms of military aviation are going to concentrate on building gen 5 or budget gen 5 fighters.

The Super Hornet line is going to be open for many more years thanks to orders from Kuwait (40 birds) , plus our 18. The US Navy is also pressing Congress to approve more birds for them as well. I want to be clear, I don't think the Super Hornets are a good fleet option, but i do believe they are an acceptable interim plane to allow Canada fulfill operations abroad. I do hope that they are upgraded to growlers, they could be a significant contribution to NATO or other operations.