Whilst we may not like what the pollies do or don't do and what we may think of their levels of intelligence, I would suggest that a bit less of the personal invective would be appreciated.
Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions
- Thread starter John Fedup
- Start date
Sure, those F4s are still available
One liner, sorry, couldn't help myself with this saga.
t68
Well-Known Member
And that was only because of problems and lateness of the project with the F111 otherwise we would not have seen the Phantoms, RAAF were so impressed with them we wanted to keep them, different kettle of fish but agree it an escape clause for the current government
Problem with this plan is who is going to build and pay for the airframes? USN don't have enough as it is, can they afford to give up 18-24 aircraft to help out a 'friend' who is only seeking this option for rubbish political reasons.
Can Boeing 'wear' the cost of $90m plus airframes for a few years and THEN try and find a buyer for second-hand airframes (or hope Canada selects SHornet as it's ultimate fighter Recap choice?)
I rarely see 'hope' as a sound business decision when you are talking an investment of upwards of $2b with the only return being a ten year lease and no certainty beyond that.
I would see a lease of soon to be retired Gripen C/D aircraft as more feasible simply because the aircraft are about to become available. Same is not the case with Super Hornet.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #227
If junior has his way, Canada will proceed with a SH purchase and we will be stuck with them for thirty years minimum. I certainly hope this isn't the case but this is the likely outcome of junior's rigged requirements review.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #228
Yes, the last whitetail would be nice to have but I believe it is going to the ME. While I get the Lativa deployment (compromise to NATO for failing to meet the 2% of GDP for defence), the potential African mission is a waste of resources and money in a region where we have no interest.
At the time the S-3 electronics were cutting edge compared to what was being installed in P-3. So they got S-3 gear with an extra console or two, it made sense.
Airbus Europe is making new wings for the P-3 and several companies makes new sensors and CMS so keeping a P-3 current won't be an issue for a long time.
The Canadian govt has issued an RFI for replacement aircraft for its CF18 Hornets. the article states that this means that the idea of an interim acquisition of F18 E/F Super Hornets is dead. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this is and how long it takes.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #231
Other than better pricing for the F-35, it is doubtful this RFI will offer much above and beyond what the previous government collected a year ago. I would suspect the vendors are getting tire of this endless gong show, especially the Euro vendors as their chances are minimal.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #233
A reasonable assessment of the current situation which is to be expected as this article appears in a Western Canadian newspaper editorial. A few quotes are a little offside but that is to be expected. Reader comments to these articles gives outsiders a good indication of how far out to lunch much of the general public is with regard to the fighter replacement. The same old anti-JSF crap (most of which is obsolete) continues to circulate with little counter-attack from sources in the know! Superior capability means jack$hit in Canada if you can't do the politics as well when selling a product to governments which conduct themselves by polling results, cruel but true.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #234
The F-35 will be at the Abbottsford, BC airshow next week. About time there was some PR counter attack here!
F-35 to make debut in Canada next week, Super Hornets to be at same airshow | Ottawa Citizen
F-35 to make debut in Canada next week, Super Hornets to be at same airshow | Ottawa Citizen
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #235
Here is an article about the F-35's first visit to Canada for the Abottsford BC air show. Note the remark that the USN will be using the SH out to 2040. As we will be using new jets out to 2060, it is likely we will be the sole user from 2040 to 2060 if junior decides in favour of the SH. Doesn't sound like an ideal solution from a support/upgrade POV.
‘It’s here. It’s real:’ Stealth fighters vie for attention from air show attendees — and the Canadian Forces | National Post
‘It’s here. It’s real:’ Stealth fighters vie for attention from air show attendees — and the Canadian Forces | National Post
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
It's been reported today on CBC and Defence Watch that full IOc for the Cyclone fleet won't occur until 2025!!!!!!!!
Absolutely amazing that this is taking place and that Simorsky isn't being penalized. Jim Dorschner writing is a CASR Article a couple of years ago suggested that the RCAF receive a fleet of Pavehawks to support special ops forces. With the JTF shipping Griffons to the Middle East to support the ongoing operations against ISIL this would be a much safer option. Too bad our spineless government won't admit their errors in order to protect political party's.
I hope no other country has to deal with this abomination and waste of taxpayers dollars.
Absolutely amazing that this is taking place and that Simorsky isn't being penalized. Jim Dorschner writing is a CASR Article a couple of years ago suggested that the RCAF receive a fleet of Pavehawks to support special ops forces. With the JTF shipping Griffons to the Middle East to support the ongoing operations against ISIL this would be a much safer option. Too bad our spineless government won't admit their errors in order to protect political party's.
I hope no other country has to deal with this abomination and waste of taxpayers dollars.
Yep India
Seems to me that in defence procurement circles, Canada and India are in a league of their own. I know us Kiwis have had some howlers, but we haven't been that ambitious ..... yet.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #238
The on going Halifax modernization program includes making these frigates "Cyclone" ready. By 2025, most of the frigates will be over thirty years old. WTF bother, just make 3-4 frigates Cyclone capable and use the savings for helicopter spares or weapons.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #239
Here's a link on Cdn House of Commons report on Canada aerial defence along with some recommendations. It is pretty much a rehash of stuff that has been discussed before. It has comments from the premier anti-JSF academic Michael Byers. Of particular note is a recommendation to revisit BMD which pathetic junior will certainly ignore.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/C...06082/421_NDDN_Rpt02_PDF/421_NDDN_Rpt02-e.pdf
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/C...06082/421_NDDN_Rpt02_PDF/421_NDDN_Rpt02-e.pdf
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Why are we so focused on fast air as the only combat capacity of our Air Force. Looking south we see the possible replacement of A10's with very simplistic turbo prop AT6 or A29's. Why can't our Air Force see the benefits that a Hi / Lo mix of assets could provide to operations.
From purely an economic sense it is better to use an AT6 type aircraft to drop ordinance on irregular forces in some hell hole third world failed state. For Canada the fact our successive governments have continually reduced numbers and types has limited our ability to contribute resources to international ops other than as a token gesture.
Imagine our upcoming Africa peace support mission with organic low and slow air cover in the form of a flight of AT6B Wolverine aircraft providing top cover, helicopter escort, light strike and ISR to commanders and the boots on the ground.
The base aircraft is already in service with NFTS and our pilots are all familiar. The weapons fit is the same as that of our F18's.
The mix of aircraft needed by Canada IMHO would be 32, 16 per squadron based at Cold Lake and Bagotville each.
In a deployment such as a possible Mali operation these aircraft, say six, armed with gun pod/ CRV7 rocket pods/ and 500 pound JDAM's along with the EO turret would be very welcomed by Chinook pilots in comparison to the likely INGRESS equipped Griffons as escorts. As convey top cover their ordnance and loiter time would offer exceptional protection.
Iraq just acquired 24 for US$790 million,or CAN$45 million apiece. With its lower operating cost and ease of use in remote locations these aircraft would be a niche capability in NATO and I believe in high demand. Thirty two aircraft including support and training costs would amount to less than CAN$1.5 billion.
These aircraft would be in support of the higher $$$$ fast air not as replacements but our Libtard government would view this as that opportunity to again reduce defence expenditure by reducing a fast air purchase.
With a fleet of 32 Wolverines I would match this with 32 EF18 Growlers and 32 F35A for a well rounded combat Air Force. I do not believe in this day and age one single type or class of aircraft can cover all taskings adequately. We are a moderate power with few external risks to the nation directly. Our overseas commitments require us to be ready to contribute to coalition operations in environments far different than our own country. We need the ability to support our troops with assets that are flexible yet fit for the task.
Talk is cheap about supporting our international obligations. Putting our service men and women in harms way without adequate protection is criminal. Sending our troops to UN missions today is not the same as 50 years ago. We need to walk softly and carry a big stick to wak those who may consider waking us. The insurgents and terrorists don't have air cover. $100 million combat choppers and fast air have too many limitations on today's battlefield. Whether it's overkill or too costly.
When we need to go state on state the fast air will be there for that. But looking at the last two decades low and slow was what we needed.
From purely an economic sense it is better to use an AT6 type aircraft to drop ordinance on irregular forces in some hell hole third world failed state. For Canada the fact our successive governments have continually reduced numbers and types has limited our ability to contribute resources to international ops other than as a token gesture.
Imagine our upcoming Africa peace support mission with organic low and slow air cover in the form of a flight of AT6B Wolverine aircraft providing top cover, helicopter escort, light strike and ISR to commanders and the boots on the ground.
The base aircraft is already in service with NFTS and our pilots are all familiar. The weapons fit is the same as that of our F18's.
The mix of aircraft needed by Canada IMHO would be 32, 16 per squadron based at Cold Lake and Bagotville each.
In a deployment such as a possible Mali operation these aircraft, say six, armed with gun pod/ CRV7 rocket pods/ and 500 pound JDAM's along with the EO turret would be very welcomed by Chinook pilots in comparison to the likely INGRESS equipped Griffons as escorts. As convey top cover their ordnance and loiter time would offer exceptional protection.
Iraq just acquired 24 for US$790 million,or CAN$45 million apiece. With its lower operating cost and ease of use in remote locations these aircraft would be a niche capability in NATO and I believe in high demand. Thirty two aircraft including support and training costs would amount to less than CAN$1.5 billion.
These aircraft would be in support of the higher $$$$ fast air not as replacements but our Libtard government would view this as that opportunity to again reduce defence expenditure by reducing a fast air purchase.
With a fleet of 32 Wolverines I would match this with 32 EF18 Growlers and 32 F35A for a well rounded combat Air Force. I do not believe in this day and age one single type or class of aircraft can cover all taskings adequately. We are a moderate power with few external risks to the nation directly. Our overseas commitments require us to be ready to contribute to coalition operations in environments far different than our own country. We need the ability to support our troops with assets that are flexible yet fit for the task.
Talk is cheap about supporting our international obligations. Putting our service men and women in harms way without adequate protection is criminal. Sending our troops to UN missions today is not the same as 50 years ago. We need to walk softly and carry a big stick to wak those who may consider waking us. The insurgents and terrorists don't have air cover. $100 million combat choppers and fast air have too many limitations on today's battlefield. Whether it's overkill or too costly.
When we need to go state on state the fast air will be there for that. But looking at the last two decades low and slow was what we needed.