Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[John Newman]

No where other than in this particular article have I seen any indication that Canada will not reach 1.4% of GDP by 2024-25. That rate of expenditure fully funds both the fighter and frigate replacement projects. This appears to be another poorly researched paper and nothing else.

Ottawa lays out $62-billion in new military spending over 20 years

Canada to boost military budget by 70% after pressure from US to spend more

On eve of NATO summit, a look at Canada's defence spending, by the numbers - CityNews Toronto

Mate,

Actually I don't think the report is as 'poorly researched' as you have suggested.

Back in mid 2017 (which is prior to you joining DT), we had a look at the document the Canadian Government published, and on closer examination of the tables, there was certainly an element of smoke and mirrors in the reporting of the 'numbers'.

The Canadian Government stated in the document that defence spending would increase from the (then) approx 0.9% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP by 2024-2025, on the surface that appears to be an approx 0.5% increase, but if you delve deeper into the figures, you can see that the figures have been fudged.

Your Government did a bit of 'creative accounting' by readjusting and re-baselining the figures by 'adding defence related' spending (by other Government departments) into the overall defence spend and basically said, ''actually we are already spending 1.19% of GDP", in other words, the 0.5% increase will not actually be 0.5% because that figure now also includes the 'other Government departments' spending. (Have a look at Table 2, bottom of page 46):

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/canada-defence-policy-report.pdf

The other interesting table to look at is on Page 98, "Figure 2: Actual and Forecasted Defence Budget (Cash Basis)"

Expenditure is planned to reach C$33.4B in 2027-28, then that table shows a steady 'decline' to about C$27B by around 2030-31.


To give you a bit of a view of what the Australian Government is doing here in regard to defence spending (figures from the 2016 Defence White Paper, page 180), in the current financial year, 2018-19, expenditure is A$36.769B, by 2025-26, expenditure will be A$58.742B. Expenditure in Australia is currently approx. 1.9% of GDP and will reach (and stay at), 2.0% of GDP in the next couple of years.

And when you also consider that the A$ and the C$ are pretty close to parity, it makes the 'real dollar' spend in expenditure between our two nations even more staggering.

Anyway, not trying to burst the bubble of the planned Canadian increase in defence spending to 1.4% of GDP, but when you look at your Governments own figure, it is a lot of smoke and mirrors!!

Cheers,

 

[Novascotiaboy]

It is truly amazing the absolute incompetence of our elected and beauracratic levels of government when it comes to defence spending in this country.

Its been said multiple times before on DT, defence expenditure in Canada is not about warfighting capability but about job creation and job sustainment.

Its terrible for me to say but we need our collective nose bloodied. We, Canadian voters, allowed our government to send our troops to Afghanistan where we lost over 150 lives and many more left injured with insufficient equipment suitable for the job. It doesnt take a DEFPRO to know if roads are mined dont drive on them. Fly above them with helicopters. How many of our troops died needlessly before we acquired Chinooks to allieviate the need for road resupply? Why did we send unarmoured Gwagons. Green uniforms. And the list goes on...

Incompetent leadership. Self serving interests. Political interference.

I am so embarassed by our military procurement system. I feel so sorry for those serving members who really want to do the job they signed on for with equipment fit for purpose and militarily superior on the battlefield.

What a shame things have come to second hand fighter jets, subs and tanks. A flea market military ..soo sad.

 

[John Newman]

It is truly amazing the absolute incompetence of our elected and beauracratic levels of government when it comes to defence spending in this country.

Its been said multiple times before on DT, defence expenditure in Canada is not about warfighting capability but about job creation and job sustainment.

Its terrible for me to say but we need our collective nose bloodied. We, Canadian voters, allowed our government to send our troops to Afghanistan where we lost over 150 lives and many more left injured with insufficient equipment suitable for the job. It doesnt take a DEFPRO to know if roads are mined dont drive on them. Fly above them with helicopters. How many of our troops died needlessly before we acquired Chinooks to allieviate the need for road resupply? Why did we send unarmoured Gwagons. Green uniforms. And the list goes on...

Incompetent leadership. Self serving interests. Political interference.

I am so embarassed by our military procurement system. I feel so sorry for those serving members who really want to do the job they signed on for with equipment fit for purpose and militarily superior on the battlefield.

What a shame things have come to second hand fighter jets, subs and tanks. A flea market military ..soo sad.

Mate,

I feel your pain (and John Fedup's pain too!).

I know you guys are very passionate about Canadian Defence (just as I am about Australian Defence), just glad that I'm not a Canuck!

It is sad that the pollies in Canada don't really 'give a $hit' about defence, but equally as the old saying goes, 'you get the Government you deserve', you lot voted for them (as a Nation), and sadly it appears to be a choice between Dumb and Dumber.

Reading as much media on Canadian defence matters as I can, I'm staggered by the fact that most of the 'comments' by the Canadian punters is not so much about saying that whatever decision is bad (or good), but ALL the punters attack each other politically, "it's their fault, no it's their fault" and on and on it goes. No wonder your politicians can step back and watch the political cat fight that appears in front of them, everyone is too busy screaming at each other.

It appears to me, regardless of political leaning, that ALL Canadian politicians have a couple of motto's that they live by: "Why do today what you can leave until tomorrow" and " let's all make a decision NOT to make a decision".

Not that our Australian politicians are any better, all they do is fling $hit at each other and never agree, except for one thing, and that one thing is "Defence and National Security" for the most part (not 100%, but almost), the Opposition tends to agree with decisions of the Government of the day, and visa versa, yes sometimes when coming to Government they will say they will 'review' a decision (for political purposes), but usually at the end of the day they 'confirm' the decision made by the other side (When was the last time a new Government in Australia overturned a Defence decision by the previous Government? I can't remember).

I don't know how, when or where, but at some stage some political leader in Canada has to come out and put their nuts on the line and say, "Defence and National Security is the No 1 priority!" Simple as that, black and white, no bull$hit! (Will it happen? Not going to hold my breath!).

I'm as frustrated looking from the outside in, I just don't get it? Canada has a larger GDP and population than Australia, but when it comes to spending real dollars for our respective National Security, we $hit on you guys big time (no offence), is a lousy 2% of GDP too much to spend for such wealthy countries such as Australian and Canada? Obviously it is for Canada!


Anyway, the point you made when you said "Its terrible for me to say but we need our collective nose bloodied" is a pretty accurate statement.

From my personal point of view the 'bloodied nose' very real, the attacks on Darwin (where one of my Uncles was based during WWII, and survived), another fought in PNG and survived too, and when the Japanese sent mini subs into Sydney Harbour and the 'mother' sub bombarded the coast (which my Mother saw and lived through), and to the sinking of the hospital ship Centaur off the Queensland coast (my Father, in the Army, was supposed to be on that ship but missed it, fortunately!), and going back further, my Grandfather (on Mums side) served and was injured at Gallipoli (he survived), and further back my grandfather (on my Fathers side), served in, was wounded, and survived the Boer War.

Is a bloodied nose important for the National psyche? Dammed right it is! It is for me that for dammed sure too!

Anyway, rant over!

Cheers,

 

[Calculus]

Mate,

Actually I don't think the report is as 'poorly researched' as you have suggested.

Back in mid 2017 (which is prior to you joining DT), we had a look at the document the Canadian Government published, and on closer examination of the tables, there was certainly an element of smoke and mirrors in the reporting of the 'numbers'.

The Canadian Government stated in the document that defence spending would increase from the (then) approx 0.9% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP by 2024-2025, on the surface that appears to be an approx 0.5% increase, but if you delve deeper into the figures, you can see that the figures have been fudged.

Your Government did a bit of 'creative accounting' by readjusting and re-baselining the figures by 'adding defence related' spending (by other Government departments) into the overall defence spend and basically said, ''actually we are already spending 1.19% of GDP", in other words, the 0.5% increase will not actually be 0.5% because that figure now also includes the 'other Government departments' spending. (Have a look at Table 2, bottom of page 46):

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/canada-defence-policy-report.pdf

The other interesting table to look at is on Page 98, "Figure 2: Actual and Forecasted Defence Budget (Cash Basis)"

Expenditure is planned to reach C$33.4B in 2027-28, then that table shows a steady 'decline' to about C$27B by around 2030-31.


To give you a bit of a view of what the Australian Government is doing here in regard to defence spending (figures from the 2016 Defence White Paper, page 180), in the current financial year, 2018-19, expenditure is A$36.769B, by 2025-26, expenditure will be A$58.742B. Expenditure in Australia is currently approx. 1.9% of GDP and will reach (and stay at), 2.0% of GDP in the next couple of years.

And when you also consider that the A$ and the C$ are pretty close to parity, it makes the 'real dollar' spend in expenditure between our two nations even more staggering.

Anyway, not trying to burst the bubble of the planned Canadian increase in defence spending to 1.4% of GDP, but when you look at your Governments own figure, it is a lot of smoke and mirrors!!

Cheers,

John, if you look a little closer at the document you linked to above ("Strong, Secured, and Engaged"), you will see that the funds are structured in such a way as to meet the requirements of each year based on the expected expenditures coming due in each year. In other words, instead of arbitrarily increasing funding to a certain percentage of GDP, the government looked at what equipment needed to be purchased and when the bills would come due, and allocated sufficient funds in those years. It's all pretty clearly laid out in Strong, Secured, and Engaged. You need to carefully read Sections 2 and 3. Those sections list all the equipment planned for purchase and show how and when they are expecting to have to fund them. The associated budget numbers are in line with the expected costs of all that equipment. In other words, all the equipment listed in the document is fully funded. So, basically, to dumb this down a bit, the government is saying rather than give you x billions of dollars a year, we will give you what you need to pay for this equipment in the years the bills are coming due. You are correct that there is a decline starting in 26-27, but the budget starts to creep upwards again in 2035-36 (Figure 2, page 98).

I stand by my statement earlier. The defence policy document you linked to above clearly shows both the fighters and frigates are fully funded.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

John our country and its populace sufffered similar if not more during our participation in the various wars up to Korea. But the almost 70 years of "peace" albeit the losses of Afghanistan have been lost on the Canadian populace as a whole because most of our military doeant come from the population centres ..a look at the names on the cenotaphs in our rural communities lists the same surnames that populates those communities to this day. Try that in Toronto or Vancouver with the influx of immigrants from non european nations since the 1960s.

Former CDS Rick Hillier was an outspoken supporter of our nations military during his term and during that time the military was in the news front and centre. We need another CDS to do the same ..the current CDS has definately not lived up to my expectations .

 

[Calculus]

@StingrayOZ, a couple of responses to address some of your comments in post 940. Hopefully this will allay some of your concerns, and put to bed some of the misconceptions about the fighter replacement program.

RFP in May: Canada to accept bids for new fighter jet in May — here are the potential competitors
Note: None of the potential bidders are excluded from this competition, despite all the "harm to Canada" hyperbole. $19Billion in "through-life" funding has been set aside for this project.

Dassault pulls out of competition, leaving four contenders: French firm Dassault pulls out of fighter-jet competition: Sources - 680 NEWS

Read here. Good description of some of the recruiting and retention challenges and how they are being managed: Managed shortfall - Skies Mag

Note: The goal is to have 9 new jets at initial operating capability by 2025. There was been no indication Canada was "getting a new fighter jet squadron fully operational by 2025". Under this scenario the last Hornet will be retired in 2032.

I'm not saying any of this will actually happen, by the way, but it is disingenuous of some of the posters on this forum to suggest that there is no replacement plan and that the whole process is flawed.

 

[Boatteacher]

John our country and its populace sufffered similar if not more during our participation in the various wars up to Korea. But the almost 70 years of "peace" albeit the losses of Afghanistan have been lost on the Canadian populace as a whole because most of our military doeant come from the population centres ..a look at the names on the cenotaphs in our rural communities lists the same surnames that populates those communities to this day. Try that in Toronto or Vancouver with the influx of immigrants from non european nations since the 1960s.

.

Perhaps one difference is that Canada never suffered the acute crisis moment that Australia did in WW2 with the imminent and real threat of invasion which highlighted how under prepared we'd been going into the war and how helpless you are if so call allies you thought you could reply on don't come to the party.

Part of that crisis was not having an effective air force and thinking these things could be dealt with at short notice. The lesson was they couldn't and without air dominance all was lost. Same with an inadequate navy.

Whether the immigrant population absorbs these lessons is a question we face too

 

[ngatimozart]

@StingrayOZ it is disingenuous of some of the posters on this forum to suggest that there is no replacement plan and that the whole process is flawed.

Is it disingenuous to claim that the Canadian procurement process is flawed? I think that such criticism is valid and definitely not disingenuous if the people making such claims are offering valid criticisms, do not have vested interests in the processes, Canadian defence and Canadian politics. Yes, I am a harsh critic of it, but you will also note that I am also a harsh critic of my own country's defence acquisition decisions as well, especially the pollies (politicians) component of them. None of the FEYES members have a decent defence acquisition system although the new combined NZ Ministry of Defence - NZDF acquisition project teams are looking professional and the recent review gave them a good report. However, their political masters, Treasury and MFAT (Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade) are another story that would drive a sane man mad.

 

[Calculus]

Is it disingenuous to claim that the Canadian procurement process is flawed? I think that such criticism is valid and definitely not disingenuous if the people making such claims are offering valid criticisms, do not have vested interests in the processes, Canadian defence and Canadian politics. Yes, I am a harsh critic of it, but you will also note that I am also a harsh critic of my own country's defence acquisition decisions as well, especially the pollies (politicians) component of them. None of the FEYES members have a decent defence acquisition system although the new combined NZ Ministry of Defence - NZDF acquisition project teams are looking professional and the recent review gave them a good report. However, their political masters, Treasury and MFAT (Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade) are another story that would drive a sane man mad.

Mozart, you are misrepresenting what I said. My comments are about the fighter replacement program, and nothing else. This was not a blanket comment about the "Canadian procurement process", which has had challenges, for sure. My point is the "Future Fighter Capability Project" project procurement has barely started (see infographic below), so it is disingenuous to make claims that Canada is somehow mucking it up again. There simply is not enough data to make those kinds of statements at this point in time. Also, massive efforts are underway in the DND to streamline and improve the procurement process, so past history is no longer an accurate indicator of future success.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mozart, you are misrepresenting what I said. My comments are about the fighter replacement program, and nothing else. This was not a blanket comment about the "Canadian procurement process", which has had challenges, for sure. My point is the "Future Fighter Capability Project" project procurement has barely started (see infographic below), so it is disingenuous to make claims that Canada is somehow mucking it up again. There simply is not enough data to make those kinds of statements at this point in time. Also, massive efforts are underway in the DND to streamline and improve the procurement process, so past history is no longer an accurate indicator of future success.

Ok, I stand corrected, but I reserve "judgement" on the procurement system until any improvements have bedded in and a series of data points has been established over time.

 

[John Newman]

John, if you look a little closer at the document you linked to above ("Strong, Secured, and Engaged"), you will see that the funds are structured in such a way as to meet the requirements of each year based on the expected expenditures coming due in each year. In other words, instead of arbitrarily increasing funding to a certain percentage of GDP, the government looked at what equipment needed to be purchased and when the bills would come due, and allocated sufficient funds in those years. It's all pretty clearly laid out in Strong, Secured, and Engaged. You need to carefully read Sections 2 and 3. Those sections list all the equipment planned for purchase and show how and when they are expecting to have to fund them. The associated budget numbers are in line with the expected costs of all that equipment. In other words, all the equipment listed in the document is fully funded. So, basically, to dumb this down a bit, the government is saying rather than give you x billions of dollars a year, we will give you what you need to pay for this equipment in the years the bills are coming due. You are correct that there is a decline starting in 26-27, but the budget starts to creep upwards again in 2035-36 (Figure 2, page 98).

I stand by my statement earlier. The defence policy document you linked to above clearly shows both the fighters and frigates are fully funded.

Mate,

I do understand how the 'plan' is structured, eg, spend the extra dollars in those years of acquisition for those major projects, but......

The thing I find hard to reconcile is that whilst the plan is showing an increase in Defence expenditure from now until 2027-28, eg, to a peak of C$33.4B, (and then decrease steadily to about C$27B by around 2030-31, then it levels out for a number of years, and then starts to increase again from around the mid 2030's). Is how the two major re-equipment projects, eg, Classic Hornet replacement with 88 new airframes and 15 new DDG/FFG are both funded and affordable.

Reportedly the Fighter replacement program is costing approx. C$15B and the CSC program approx. C$55B-C$60B.

The Classic Hornet replacement is planned to happen over a period from around 2025-31 (which does align with the increase in expenditure), the CSC project on the other hand, is projected to commence around the same time, but also continue well into the 2030's or later.

Am I missing something? (I don't know?), it's disappointing that the document released by the Canadian Government doesn't actually show ' individual projects, timeframes and budgets allocations'.

As a counter point (and I don't know if you've read it?), but when the 2016 Defence White Paper was released here in Oz, the Government also released the 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Plan, the DIIP makes good reading in that it show projects, timeframes and also budget allocations, so it's pretty easy for the reader to work out when each project is planned to commence (and end) and what the projected program costs are (I'll link it below for you):

http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-Integrated-Investment-Program.pdf


Anyway, I hope you are correct that the Fighter replacement and CSC projects are both fully funded, I on the other hand, are still sceptical that it is the case.

Cheers,

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Mozart, you are misrepresenting what I said. My comments are about the fighter replacement program, and nothing else. This was not a blanket comment about the "Canadian procurement process", which has had challenges, for sure. My point is the "Future Fighter Capability Project" project procurement has barely started (see infographic below), so it is disingenuous to make claims that Canada is somehow mucking it up again. There simply is not enough data to make those kinds of statements at this point in time. Also, massive efforts are underway in the DND to streamline and improve the procurement process, so past history is no longer an accurate indicator of future success.

Except they are mucking it up.

The DOD and public works are doing their jobs fine. The problem is that the prime minister has stated publicly that he will not buy the F-35 . Since lockheed is competing, if they don't win, they now have grounds to sue the govt of Canada for not holding a fair competition.

Also

This report from the auditor general shows how the govt has been melding where they should stay out.

No government (regardless of colour) can resist mucking in where they should stay out when it comes to defence spending. This has been going on for as long as I can remember (at least back to the 60's) and will likely continue as it has always proved to be a good way to win quick votes.

 

[hauritz]

Mozart, you are misrepresenting what I said. My comments are about the fighter replacement program, and nothing else. This was not a blanket comment about the "Canadian procurement process", which has had challenges, for sure. My point is the "Future Fighter Capability Project" project procurement has barely started (see infographic below), so it is disingenuous to make claims that Canada is somehow mucking it up again. There simply is not enough data to make those kinds of statements at this point in time. Also, massive efforts are underway in the DND to streamline and improve the procurement process, so past history is no longer an accurate indicator of future success.

I think the main criticism at this point isn't so much how effective this process will be, but rather why it is being done in the first place.

At one stage Canada had all but signed a contract for the F-35. That fell through mostly because of problems such as delays and cost overruns. Most of the issues that led to Canada not going forward with the purchase have since been resolved. All the while Canada continues to pump money into the program.

Australia faced the same issue but all it did was push the program back a couple of years. Canada restarting the whole selection process at this stage seems an over reaction and frankly just an excuse to push the program back another few years.

 

[John Fedup]

@StingrayOZ, a couple of responses to address some of your comments in post 940. Hopefully this will allay some of your concerns, and put to bed some of the misconceptions about the fighter replacement program.

RFP in May: Canada to accept bids for new fighter jet in May — here are the potential competitors
Note: None of the potential bidders are excluded from this competition, despite all the "harm to Canada" hyperbole. $19Billion in "through-life" funding has been set aside for this project.

Dassault pulls out of competition, leaving four contenders: French firm Dassault pulls out of fighter-jet competition: Sources - 680 NEWS

Read here. Good description of some of the recruiting and retention challenges and how they are being managed: Managed shortfall - Skies Mag

Note: The goal is to have 9 new jets at initial operating capability by 2025. There was been no indication Canada was "getting a new fighter jet squadron fully operational by 2025". Under this scenario the last Hornet will be retired in 2032.

I'm not saying any of this will actually happen, by the way, but it is disingenuous of some of the posters on this forum to suggest that there is no replacement plan and that the whole process is flawed.

All the announcements and fancy infographics from junior mean SFA. I wonder which vendor is going to rush 9 jets to Canada by 2025 when the order won’t come until 2022? LM could and maybe Boeing depending on the actual size of the order and whether it is worthwhile to bump other customers. Neither company has much use for junior. If an economic downturn occurs in 2020-21, the fighter project will be placed on hold indefinitely in a NY minute.

 

[Calculus]

Mate,

As a counter point (and I don't know if you've read it?), but when the 2016 Defence White Paper was released here in Oz, the Government also released the 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Plan, the DIIP makes good reading in that it show projects, timeframes and also budget allocations, so it's pretty easy for the reader to work out when each project is planned to commence (and end) and what the projected program costs are (I'll link it below for you):

http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-Integrated-Investment-Program.pdf

Just read it - thanks. Definitely seems comprehensive.

We have a similar document (the Defence Investment Plan, or DIP), though it is published every year (usually in April, at the start of the fiscal year) and shows expected expenditures for the current and following 4 years.

Here is a link: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/reports/2018/defence-investment-plan-eng.pdf

Anyway, I hope you are correct that the Fighter replacement and CSC projects are both fully funded, I on the other hand, are still sceptical that it is the case.

Skepticism is definitely justified my friend. However, the difference now is all this stuff is published and part of official government (not just Defence) policy, so I feel that for the first time in many years we have a fair chance of achieving some degree of success with regards to the recapitalization of the CF. In other words, the GoC has committed to this stuff, so there are now political implications if they don't deliver on these promises.

NB: Reformatted by Mod to fix BB coding errors.

 

[Calculus]

All the announcements and fancy infographics from junior mean SFA. I wonder which vendor is going to rush 9 jets to Canada by 2025 when the order won’t come until 2022? LM could and maybe Boeing depending on the actual size of the order and whether it is worthwhile to bump other customers. Neither company has much use for junior. If an economic downturn occurs in 2020-21, the fighter project will be placed on hold indefinitely in a NY minute.

The only way I could see your scenario above happening is if the GoC gets out of the fighter business altogether, which, given our NORAD and NATO commitments, is not going to happen. As good as we have become at keeping the Hornets flyable, they will start falling out of the air if we try and operate them beyond 2032.

 

[t68]

Except they are mucking it up.

The DOD and public works are doing their jobs fine. The problem is that the prime minister has stated publicly that he will not buy the F-35 . Since lockheed is competing, if they don't win, they now have grounds to sue the govt of Canada for not holding a fair competition.

If they use that document there's no way they can refuse F35, the most important line against F35 is no longer true,

We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.

If he goes for a more expensive euro product he is actually breaking his promise

 

[Calculus]

If they use that document there's no way they can refuse F35, the most important line against F35 is no longer true,


If he goes for a more expensive euro product he is actually breaking his promise

Not to mention the projected cost of the F35A in 2020 is expected to be $80Mil, making it one of the cheaper options anyway.

 

[John Newman]

Calculus,

Just had a read through of the Canadian DIP that you linked.

There are a lot of words, but what it doesn't do (as compared to the Australian DIIP) is actually break down all those projects into separate line items.

It is impossible to see what each project is, what the timeframe is for projects (start to finish), or the budget allocation for each of those projects.

Now I'm not saying this as a 'pissing contest' between what our respective nations do in regard to their respective DIP and DIIP, but at least in the Australian DIIP you can clearly see all of that information, in the Canadian DIP you can't, why???

Again, this is why myself (and many others) continue to be very sceptical, and regardless of if the current Canadian Government has published all of this (or not), there is a clear history of a 'non bipartisan' approach to Defence in Canada, the problem is that Canadian politicians (from all sides) use Defence to bash each other around the head with.

Until I see actual orders and delivery of equipment (in the appropriate numbers), I'm still not going to hold my breath.

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

All the announcements and fancy infographics from junior mean SFA. I wonder which vendor is going to rush 9 jets to Canada by 2025 when the order won’t come until 2022? LM could and maybe Boeing depending on the actual size of the order and whether it is worthwhile to bump other customers. Neither company has much use for junior. If an economic downturn occurs in 2020-21, the fighter project will be placed on hold indefinitely in a NY minute.

Hi John,

Yes it is a nice fancy and pretty infographic, but the thing I notice mostly is the little line at the bottom, which says:

" * All timeframes are estimated and subject to change"

Hmmm, I wonder why??