Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[Todjaeger]

Not having any real insight into Canadian politics except that the newest PM is anti F-35 is the new selection process to rule it out entirely or merely bring in some alternatives? Is he also anything like our former PM Tony Abbott in making captain's calls?

If he is willing to sit aside and let the best product put forth (capability and cost) be chosen then the F-35 may still happen, Though if the F-35 doesn't happen I'd imagine the SH is the most likely successor having similarities with the Classics, already in us with the US etc and leaves open option to acquire the Growler.

Unfortunately given Canada's defence procurement history, being the 'best' product means SFA, IMO. Consider the history of the Merlin and S-92 helicopter procurement programs. Helicopters were needed to replace aging SAR and naval helicopters, a selection programme was run, contracts with cancellation penalties signed, etc. One change in gov't later, the contracted order is cancelled, with a total payment of some CDN$500 mil. IIRC in cancellation and sunk costs lost. A few years afterwards, the need for replacements became more urgent and a new, albeit more limited SAR replacement helicopter programme was run, this time with the Sikhorsky entry being selected (largely because it was different from the Merlin entry the gov't of the day had cancelled a few years before) which still has not reached full service in Canada. This being over two decades after the first contract was signed...

 

[SpazSinbad]

You would not have a link to that by chance?

Cheers

"...Trudeau reiterated Tuesday that Canada remains "a strong member of the coalition against ISIL." However, the prime minister-designate has questioned the value of the bombing campaign.

Asked when he would bring aircrews back to Canada, Trudeau said it would be “done in an orderly fashion.”..." 20 Oct 2015

Liberal Win in Canada Dims Prospects for F-35 Buy
&
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1...m-world-leaders-on-trudeau-win_n_8337272.html

 

[StobieWan]

It could be it's just a very easy first election promise to execute or it could signal a definite withdrawal from the rest of the world. Shame, Canada has some very professional and well regarded forces.

 

[ngatimozart]

It could be it's just a very easy first election promise to execute or it could signal a definite withdrawal from the rest of the world. Shame, Canada has some very professional and well regarded forces.

Maybe not. Think it is just this and refocussing resources to a wider policy with the inclusion of humanitarian relief. The trainers will be remaining with a possible increase in the number of trainers.
Liberal Win in Canada Dims Prospects for F-35 Buy

 

[ADMk2]

"...Trudeau reiterated Tuesday that Canada remains "a strong member of the coalition against ISIL." However, the prime minister-designate has questioned the value of the bombing campaign.

Asked when he would bring aircrews back to Canada, Trudeau said it would be “done in an orderly fashion.”..." 20 Oct 2015

Liberal Win in Canada Dims Prospects for F-35 Buy
&
Justin Trudeau Tells Obama He Plans To Wind Down Mideast Combat

Brave, brave Sir Trudeau?





http://youtu.be/BZwuTo7zKM8

 

[John Fedup]

You would not have a link to that by chance?

Cheers

This site has the story on its homepage.

 

[John Fedup]

Unfortunately given Canada's defence procurement history, being the 'best' product means SFA, IMO. Consider the history of the Merlin and S-92 helicopter procurement programs. Helicopters were needed to replace aging SAR and naval helicopters, a selection programme was run, contracts with cancellation penalties signed, etc. One change in gov't later, the contracted order is cancelled, with a total payment of some CDN$500 mil. IIRC in cancellation and sunk costs lost. A few years afterwards, the need for replacements became more urgent and a new, albeit more limited SAR replacement helicopter programme was run, this time with the Sikhorsky entry being selected (largely because it was different from the Merlin entry the gov't of the day had cancelled a few years before) which still has not reached full service in Canada. This being over two decades after the first contract was signed...

Expect even more $hit from junior. We will be lucky to get SH. Junior will reduce the 65 F-35s to 40-50 SH, maybe even less.

 

[Delta204]

Just to be clear, the Liberals haven't ruled out buying fighters altogether - just that the F-35 was not necessary for the defense of Canada with it's "stealth first-strike capability".

As John mentioned, the Liberals have highly politicized the F-35 during this election and by vowing to cancel it have put themselves in a corner where it is hard to imagine a scenario where they could still possibly choose it.

As others have pointed out already, Canadianized versions of the Rafael and Typhoon are unlikely to be any cheaper than the 35A's. The Gripen is just not a viable option IMO, too small, short range, single engine (even though this is made out to be a bigger issue than it really is) Pretty much leaving the SH as the only likely alternative. Several years ago when Boeing made it's SH proposal it apparently included a significant amount manufacturing that would take place in Canada. This could perhaps offset some of the industrial repercussions from pulling out of the F-35 program. Again, I'll agree with John here, I think a new Liberal fighter procurement could be around 50 SH - as this would still allow Canada to at least fulfill its NORAD commitments.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Expect even more $hit from junior. We will be lucky to get SH. Junior will reduce the 65 F-35s to 40-50 SH, maybe even less.

Well it looks like he intends to fund the navy by cutting the air force.

F-35 now is low risk, its already in production, there are unlikely to be any more delays (which again was Australia's issue, capability gap, not that the plane was too expensive, we would F-22's if the US would sell them and they met the requirements).

I don't see enough money being saved going from F-35 to SH to significantly fund the Navy. Maybe just 48 SH? I know Boeing promised them that they would save $1.6 billion, but I am sceptical of that figure.

IMO I don't see Canada saving money long term with this. IMO the F-35 being a single engine jet, primary western fighter, will become much cheaper to operate in the long run, and will have a long and useful life with many upgrades (a much longer life than super hornets).

The SH is not really going anywhere, if you have them operational now (or more correctly 2009) then fair enough, but ordering them now seems crazy.

Australia decided in May 2007 and got first delivery in July 2009 declaring operational in dec 2010.

So lets say Canada orders Jan 2016. 3 1/2 years later it will be mid 2019 before operational squadron. If you get USN places, if it can be done as quickly. So nearly 10 years after Australia got its first operational squadron Canada will get a SH squadron operational?

2020? You want to start flying SH operationally in 2020? Crazy.

 

[John Fedup]

Well it looks like he intends to fund the navy by cutting the air force.

F-35 now is low risk, its already in production, there are unlikely to be any more delays (which again was Australia's issue, capability gap, not that the plane was too expensive, we would F-22's if the US would sell them and they met the requirements).

I don't see enough money being saved going from F-35 to SH to significantly fund the Navy. Maybe just 48 SH? I know Boeing promised them that they would save $1.6 billion, but I am sceptical of that figure.

IMO I don't see Canada saving money long term with this. IMO the F-35 being a single engine jet, primary western fighter, will become much cheaper to operate in the long run, and will have a long and useful life with many upgrades (a much longer life than super hornets).

The SH is not really going anywhere, if you have them operational now (or more correctly 2009) then fair enough, but ordering them now seems crazy.

Australia decided in May 2007 and got first delivery in July 2009 declaring operational in dec 2010.

So lets say Canada orders Jan 2016. 3 1/2 years later it will be mid 2019 before operational squadron. If you get USN places, if it can be done as quickly. So nearly 10 years after Australia got its first operational squadron Canada will get a SH squadron operational?

2020? You want to start flying SH operationally in 2020? Crazy.

TURDeau Jr. Is anti-defence just like his kumbayah old man. As for saving the RCN at the expense of the the RCAF, forget it, he will screw both services. Look for inferior crap sourced from the trough feeders in Quebec.

 

[StingrayOZ]

TURDeau Jr. Is anti-defence just like his kumbayah old man. As for saving the RCN at the expense of the the RCAF, forget it, he will screw both services. Look for inferior crap sourced from the trough feeders in Quebec.

Well it certainly seems like bad news for the RCAF. I bet the RCN is pretty doubtful too, as the "savings" would seem to be somewhat optimistic and even if they got an extra $1.6b (as predicted by Boeing), how far does that go in rebuilding a navy. About 1-2 locally built destroyers/large frigates?

What about submarines, what about the amphibious ships, what about the frigates?

Australia spends a similar amount to Canada on defence, Canada has a bigger economy/population. Australia seems to be getting a fair bit for its coin these days.

Certainly it will be more expensive to re-establish capabilities in the future if threats change, which is highly likely.

 

[John Newman]

Australia spends a similar amount to Canada on defence, Canada has a bigger economy/population. Australia seems to be getting a fair bit for its coin these days.

Whilst Canada certainly does have a larger population and GDP, the amount of defence spending, compared to here in Australia is dramatically different.

Here in Oz we are spending a bit more than 1.8% of GDP, with the plan to get to 2% in the early/mid 2020's.

On the other hand Canada is now only spending just a fraction over 1% of GDP.

The last 'dollar' figure I saw was that Canada is spending C$20.1B this year and here in Australia we are spending A$31B this year.

And with the Canadian and Aussie dollar being almost at parity (I think the C$ is a little stronger at the moment, C$1 buys around A$1.06).

That basically means that Australia is spending approx. $10B (or 50% more) a year more on Defence than our Canadian cousins.

Imagine if the new DWP here in Oz was being prepared with only $20B to spend (a cut of $10B), there would be a hell of a lot of programs getting the chop! Thank God it's not!

Not a good situation for Canada, that's for sure!

 

[John Fedup]

Whilst Canada certainly does have a larger population and GDP, the amount of defence spending, compared to here in Australia is dramatically different.

Here in Oz we are spending a bit more than 1.8% of GDP, with the plan to get to 2% in the early/mid 2020's.

On the other hand Canada is now only spending just a fraction over 1% of GDP.

The last 'dollar' figure I saw was that Canada is spending C$20.1B this year and here in Australia we are spending A$31B this year.

And with the Canadian and Aussie dollar being almost at parity (I think the C$ is a little stronger at the moment, C$1 buys around A$1.06).

That basically means that Australia is spending approx. $10B (or 50% more) a year more on Defence than our Canadian cousins.

Imagine if the new DWP here in Oz was being prepared with only $20B to spend (a cut of $10B), there would be a hell of a lot of programs getting the chop! Thank God it's not!

Not a good situation for Canada, that's for sure!

Not good indeed! Making matters worse is our totally dysfunctional procurement system that can't order items that are budgeted for further reducing defence spending.

 

[t68]

Highly unlikely maybe his ulterior motive is go low on a 4th gen aircraft and catch up on a 6th aircraft on the F/A-XX that is hoped to replace the Super Hornet in the 2035 time frame::lol2

 

[StingrayOZ]

Whilst Canada certainly does have a larger population and GDP, the amount of defence spending, compared to here in Australia is dramatically different.

Here in Oz we are spending a bit more than 1.8% of GDP, with the plan to get to 2% in the early/mid 2020's.

On the other hand Canada is now only spending just a fraction over 1% of GDP.

The last 'dollar' figure I saw was that Canada is spending C$20.1B this year and here in Australia we are spending A$31B this year.

I was looking at numbers from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_military_expenditure_(constant_US$)

2000-2009 it seemed like the difference was ~3 billion a year. Obviously compounding the problem over time, and things seem to have gone backwards from that. If those numbers are accurate (which they aren't really because of AUD/C$ for eg).

 

[John Fedup]

Highly unlikely maybe his ulterior motive is go low on a 4th gen aircraft and catch up on a 6th aircraft on the F/A-XX that is hoped to replace the Super Hornet in the 2035 time frame::lol2

How about this theory, buy jets that are almost obsolete so that in a few years these jets are too dangerous to risk our pilots lives with, thereby allowing this flake to kumbayah our national defence and foreign policy. POS, just like his old man.:mad2

 

[t68]

How about this theory, buy jets that are almost obsolete so that in a few years these jets are too dangerous to risk our pilots lives with, thereby allowing this flake to kumbayah our national defence and foreign policy. POS, just like his old man.:mad2

Wonder what sportsbet would put the odds at?

 

[StingrayOZ]

How about this theory, buy jets that are almost obsolete so that in a few years these jets are too dangerous to risk our pilots lives with, thereby allowing this flake to kumbayah our national defence and foreign policy. POS, just like his old man.:mad2

It would make more sense than trying to save money. They would be far better off reducing the F-35 buy than buying Super Hornets. With a reduced F-35 buy, this could easily be improved in the future with the addition of more airframes.

With 35 million people, a bigger economy, I don't see why Canada would have to cut defence right back. Canada used to spend twice Australia's $ value on defence in the 70's and 80's and level pegged it during the 90's and 00's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

what remains to be seen is whether there is an industry participation impact

I would imagine that remaining partners will want lockmart to reallocate canadian workshare as they no longer have the basis of the original contracts in place

 

[John Newman]

what remains to be seen is whether there is an industry participation impact

I would imagine that remaining partners will want lockmart to reallocate canadian workshare as they no longer have the basis of the original contracts in place

And tie that in with the report the last few days that the unit cost of the F-35 will increase by approx. $1m per airframe (probably a US$1m too), because of the more than likely loss of the Canadian order of 65 airframes, then as a partner nation I'd be saying to LM, "reallocate the Canadian work share around, a few extra $100m or so to each of the partners".

That would seem to be fair to me, if it's going to cost another $100m or so for the Australian order of 72 airframes, give us a share of Canada's work to balance it out!