# Canada does not need fighter jets, period - G&M



## dimsum

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-does-not-need-fighter-jets-period/article19503129/?click=sf_globefb#dashboard/follows/

I find it interesting that a former Deputy MND would say something like this.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

It is shocking that a former Deputy MND would write this.  By his estimation then, we don't need a military and we should cede sovereign control of our space (air, land and sea) to the Americans.


----------



## George Wallace

No more shocking than the Senior Serving Dragoon, as CDS, saying we don't need tanks.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I agree with him, and the Americans already control the sea, especially when it comes to submarine ops.


----------



## Remius

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I agree with him, and the Americans already control the sea, especially when it comes to submarine ops.



Here's why I can't agree with him.  He's wearing the goggles from his time.  In fact what he is really saying is that our military should focus on domestic disaster relief and foreign aid operations and peacekeeping.  He was the DMND from 1975 to 1983.  He's obviously an expert on what's been going on since  :

He ignores the Lybian Campaign all together or the fact that we could indeed face threats that might occur.  No one could have predicted what 911 would bring and how the world could change.  Our country divested itself of some valuable ressources that could have been put to good use but instead we were forced to re-invent the wheel in many cases.

Canada has the longest cosat line in the world and vast untapped ressources in the far North that many foreign countries do not recognise as as ours.  We might not need jet fighters now but we might in 15 years.  Or maybe we wil be drawn into a more conventional conflict (because that never happened before right?).

It is a short sighted opinion piece.  We may not need F-35s but we need fighter/multi purpose jet aircraft.  This kind of opinion is dangerous and that kind of thinking does more damage than good.


----------



## Lame

I think there are other more reasonable places to put the money, however i agree that it's not something bad to have.. I feel that saying we don't need them now, will jeopardize the request for them in the future when we might actually need them.. better be safe than sorry..


----------



## Good2Golf

No more surprising/shocking than a former ADM(Materiel) saying, after signing the JSF MOU in 2003, that he had no expectation that Canada would actually buy the JSF...  ???


----------



## Rocky Mountains

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No more surprising/shocking than a former ADM(Materiel) saying, after signing the JSF MOU in 2003, that he had no expectation that Canada would actually buy the JSF...  ???



Jets? My problem is I can't afford a car because it's going to cost me $ 200,000 over the next 40 years - for a Kia!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't worry space aliens will save us, I have it on authority from our ex-MND


----------



## FJAG

Didn't like him then, don't like him now. Here's the US Embassy's assessment of him when Trudeau appointed him. It was right on.

"1. PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE ANNOUNCED MAY 15 THAT
NIXON WOULD REPLACE SYLVAIN CLOUTIER AS DEPUTY MINISTER
IN DND. "BUZZ" NIXON IS 47, FROM ANITOBA, (sic) GRADUATED
FROM ROYAL CANADIAN NAVAL COLLEGE AND AS A COMMANDER
IN RCN. HE HAS ATTENDED UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AND MIT,
AND HAS BEEN WITH PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (CABINET SECRETARIAT)
SINCE 1966. HE IS PRESENTLY DEPUTY SECRETARY TO CABINET
FOR PLANS.

2. DESPITE HIS NAVAL EXPERIENCE 1946-63, NIXON'S REPUTATION
IS THAT OF A QUINTESSENTIAL BUREAUCRAT, AN EXPERT
IN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND IN THE PROCESS
OF GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING. HE IS WELL KNOWN
WITH GOC FOR HIS ABILITY TO PUT ANYTHING IN GRAPH
FORM, AND HIS LECTURES, REPETE WITH MULTI-COLOR
CHARTS AND GRAPHS, ARE SOMETHING OF A JOKE IN OTTAWA.
HE HAS RECENTLY BEEN THE PCO REPRESENTATIVE AT THE
DEFENCE FORCE STRUCTURE REVIEW, WHICH IS STUDYING
CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

PAGE 02  OTTAWA 01909  212204Z

THE SEVERAL OPTIONS FOR CANADIAN ARMED FORCES, WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE COMPOSITION OF CANADA'S
NATO CONTRIBUTION. IN THIS LATTER CONTEXT, A COLLEAGUE
IN THE PCO SAID NIXON "WILL BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THE
VIEWS OF PRIMIN TRUDEAU AND THE CABINET IN DND."

3. EMBASSY DOUBTS THIS APPOINTMENT WILL BE WELL
RECEIVED BY CANADIAN FORCES, WHO ARE ALREADY UNHAPPY
WITH DEFMIN RICHARDSON. THOUGH HIGHLY INTELLIGENT
AND NOT WITHOUT HUMOR, NIXON IS A DRY, RESERVED AND
METICULOUS INDIVIDUAL, CONCERNED MORE WITH THE PROCESS
OF DECISION-MAKING THAN THE DECISIONS THEMSELVES, AND
HARDLY LIKELY TO TAKE A STRONG STAND ON POLICY MATTERS.
THERE IS NO RPT NO INDICATION HE IS ANTI-AMERICAN, BUT
HE IS A FIRM CANADIAN NATIONALIST, A SENTIMENT WHICH
HIS YEARS IN THE PCO HAVE STRENGTHENED.

4. ANNOUNCEMENT WILL ALSO BE A DISAPPOINTMENT TO
ACTING DEPUTY MINISTER DAVID KIRKWOOD, A GOOD FRIEND
OF US WHO HAD BEEN CONSIDERED (AND CONSIDERED HIMSELF)
LIKELY CANDIDATE FOR THIS POSITION. PORTER

http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1975OTTAWA01909_b.html

 ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## George Wallace

FJAG said:
			
		

> 2. DESPITE HIS NAVAL EXPERIENCE 1946-63, NIXON'S REPUTATION
> IS THAT OF A QUINTESSENTIAL BUREAUCRAT, AN EXPERT
> IN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND IN THE PROCESS
> OF GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING. HE IS WELL KNOWN
> WITH GOC FOR HIS ABILITY TO PUT ANYTHING IN GRAPH
> FORM, AND HIS LECTURES, REPETE WITH MULTI-COLOR
> CHARTS AND GRAPHS, ARE SOMETHING OF A JOKE IN OTTAWA.
> HE HAS RECENTLY BEEN THE PCO REPRESENTATIVE AT THE
> DEFENCE FORCE STRUCTURE REVIEW, WHICH IS STUDYING
> CONFIDENTIAL



Just imagine what he could have been today with knowledge on how to use PowerPoint.    >


----------



## Remius

If Canada were exiting the international scene and was pulling itself from NATO, NORAD and whatever else then his point might make a little more sense.  In fact from all indications we are actually pulling from peacekeeping and the kind of stuff he says we are more likely to do in his mind.  

We are still committed to NATO and NORAD and those two things alone justify why we need jet fighters.

@FJAG: Thanks for confirming how irrelevant this guy is.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Look, just by clicking on the links in his own article, you can see that he contradicts his own position:

He states in the article that fighters are not required for ANY of the six defence objectives DND has set for itself. Yet, the very first objective is participation and support of NORAD. I wonder how he thinks we can do that without fighters ???


----------



## GR66

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Look, just by clicking on the links in his own article, you can see that he contradicts his own position:
> 
> He states in the article that fighters are not required for ANY of the six defence objectives DND has set for itself. Yet, the very first objective is participation and support of NORAD. I wonder how he thinks we can do that without fighters ???



Through strongly worded condemnations at the UN of course!


----------



## a_majoor

From a very narrow technical viewpoint he has a point. 

Canada is a long way from places where *we* have gone to project power in the national interest, so something like a fleet of B-1B bombers (with the capability of carrying and firing anti-ship missiles, mines and other naval stores when needed) would actually fit our needs much better. A big platform like the B-1B can also carry long range sensors and be fitted with a load of AAM's in the weapons bay for arctic patrols (and has the range and endurance to do so). B-1's carrying AAMs and decoys can also act as escorts for a package of strike craft going in.

Of course all we have really done in this thought experiment is substituted one platform to carry out offensive roles for another one, so in the larger sense he is full of s**t.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Come to think about it seems only China, the US and Russia make(made) big long range bombers anymore. Maybe we need to make modern Vulcans. A non-US NATO/UN country with long range bombers might prove to be an interesting assets.


----------



## daftandbarmy

"Then German chancellor Konrad Adenauer defended the decision to re-establish that country’s armed forces by remarking that "every country has an army on its soil; either its own, or someone else’s".

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2013/05/27/military-spending-need-not-be-ruinous-to-the-economy

I assume the same applies to the air force above that soil.

The man is an idiot and it's too bad the G&M thought it a good idea to publish his insanity.


----------



## Transporter

Our national defence is based on the notion of collective defence through partnerships in such things as NORAD, NATO, etc. That implies that we contribute what we are able to contribute, and as a G7 nation, I don't believe having fighter aircraft is beyond our financial means, especially when we're only considering buying 65 (not the 120 CF-18's we purchased in the 80's). These aircraft are required for the defense of our partners as much as they are for the defense of Canada. For example, we conduct NATO Air Policing with Iceland, the Baltic states (upcoming), etc. If we can't provide, why should we expect to receive?

Look at it this way. Have you ever been on TD or course with a group of buddies where you all decide to go out for dinner? You call a cab, pile in, and head off to the restaurant. The cab arrives, and everyone digs into their pockets to get some cash to pay the fare, but there's one guy who maybe only throws in a buck or two, which is less than his fair share. You blow it off as maybe he's short on cash (but he makes just as much or more money than you). You have a wonderful meal and the bill comes. You all agree that because everyone pretty much had the same thing, you're just going to split it equally x-number of ways. But this same guy speaks up and says he didn't have a soda, he only had water, so he doesn't want it split equally. Then it comes time for the tip. Everyone leaves their 18%, except that same guy who throws in a dollar.

The next night you're in the mess. Same group of guys. It's Saturday and HNIC is on... Leafs-Habs. Everyone is taking turns buying a round. It's that guy's turn next, but as you take the final few sips of your current beer, he looks around, declares he's not really interested in the game and decides to head to his room.

You gonna invite that guy to do anything with you next time?


----------



## daftandbarmy

And, of course, Russia isn't that big an issue these days so who needs jet interceptors? :

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/30/14874221.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/24/russian-tu-95-bear-aircraft-scotland_n_5208543.html


----------



## pancakes

If Russia desides to piss in our cornflakes over the resources in the north I doubt 65 new fighter jets would be enough to change their mind.  Probing our airspace is one thing but let's not forget all the submarine activity up there under the ice that we are powerless to stop.

On the other hand.  65 new jets are better than none.


----------



## YZT580

With regards to Charles Nixon, he was the deputy minister of defense from 1975 to 1983.  These were the years when defense spending cuts had reduced the army to the point of irrelevance, our NATO air force commitment was reduced from 6 wings to 3.  If he was DM in those years it means that he was seriously involved in 1970 when the Bonnie was scrapped so what we have is an retired liberal defense hatchetman with a hate on for anything in uniform except possibly nurses and the Governor General's Footguards (for show).  It would be nice if the papers actually informed people of their writers' true history instead of concealing it behind a title.


----------



## MarkOttawa

But "Buzz" Nixon sounds so dashing,!  Cf. Buzz Beurling.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

YZT580 said:
			
		

> With regards to Charles Nixon, he was the deputy minister of defense from 1975 to 1983.  These were the years when defense spending cuts had reduced the army to the point of irrelevance, our NATO air force commitment was reduced from 6 wings to 3.  If he was DM in those years it means that he was seriously involved in 1970 when the Bonnie was scrapped so what we have is an retired liberal defense hatchetman with a hate on for anything in uniform except possibly nurses and the Governor General's Footguards (for show).  It would be nice if the papers actually informed people of their writers' true history instead of concealing it behind a title.




In those years, from 1967 to 1984, Jesus H Christ himself could have been DM and the budget would still have been slashed. The prime minister of the day loathed the military and everything about it. It offended him to his philosophical core. He wanted to disarm the country (and he had some, but not enough, support in cabinet). Nixon was, in fact, a tough cookie who used (many would say abused) every trick in the bureaucratic book to foil the PM and his Clerks, Robertson (not really a bitter enemy) Pitfield and Massé.

Yes things were bad in the 70s ~ Rick Hillier never really knew what a "decade of darkness" looked like, he lived through a mere "decade of dimness" in the Chrétien years ~ but the problem was at 24 Sussex Drive, not on the 13th floor of Fort Fumble.


----------



## McG

On that note, let's drop the ad hominem.  If the author's message is wrong, then it can easily be taken apart without need to attack the individual.  The website does not need to find itself in trouble because seine decided to play name-calling of a public person.


----------



## AlexanderM

Yes, we need fighters, agree that 65 is not enough.  Was a report on the news the other day that the f35 is going to cost 1 billion per year, so make it 2 billion and purchase 130, that would be more like it.  We can set aside $2 billion in our military budget for fighters.  We need to have a referendum, find out how many Canandians care about our Sovereignty, might be suprised.  Call it the sovereignty referendum.


----------



## Remius

Ugh.  Referendums cost money and in this case would be a waste of time.  When elections barely gets out half the electorate (or way less in some cases) what makes you think that people would brave the rain or leave their back yard BBQs for this?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...and do we have enough landfill to bury the pilots ego's when it comes back to not buy any??  No wait, they'd be deflated so they'd probably be able to squeeze them in. :-*


----------



## Loachman

Most people are not interested in sovereignty. Many cannot even spell it.

Most just want "free stuff" from governments, but are not motivated enough to even go after that if they can't get an app to do it on their I-phones. Those with a clue are trying to protect their hard-earned money from being gouged by governments in order to pay for "free stuff" that will buy them votes.

People should have to earn the right to vote, like in Starshp Troopers.


----------



## Transporter

Loachman said:
			
		

> Most people are not interested in sovereignty. Many cannot even spell it.
> 
> Most just want "free stuff" from governments, but are not motivated enough to even go after that if they can't get an app to do it on their I-phones. Those with a clue are trying to protect their hard-earned money from being gouged by governments in order to pay for "free stuff" that will buy them votes.
> 
> People should have to earn the right to vote, like in Starshp Troopers.



Most Canadians take their sovereignty for granted. That's both a good thing and a bad thing - good in the sense that they feel safe, secure and not threatened; bad in the sense that they may easily be lulled into a false sense of security. The boogy man is not always around the corner, but he is out there in one way, shape or form.


----------



## daftandbarmy

A good example of why having a lot of 'Jabos' (or drones that can do the same) are important:

This Never-Before-Seen WWII Document Offers An Inside Account Of An Elite Nazi Combat Unit's Collapse

American G.I. John Frankemolle was guarding a group of captured German soldiers in Europe during World War II when an intelligence officer handed him an interrogation of prisoner of war (IPW) report. The officer told Frankemolle to keep the papers to himself and give it back to him after reading it — but that was the last time the two ever saw each other.

Seventy years later, 90-year-old Frankemolle still has that report, which he stored in his Long Island home alongside photos and mementos from his period of service with the U.S. Navy Armed Guard. The two-page Special IPW Report, titled The Odyssey of Goetz Von Berlightngen, is an English translation of a first-hand account written by an unnamed Nazi Schutzstaffel (SS) staff officer in the presence of his American interrogators.

Frankemolle believes he may have one of the last copies of that forgotten document, which his family agreed to share with Business Insider. 

Nazi SS combat troops were Hitler's most diehard and elite soldiers, still notorious for their wartime atrocities. But this officer's account reveals that he and his comrades fought hard — but suffered from waning morale in the months following the Allies' successful D-Day invasion of the European mainland on June 6, 1944. 

You can find the full document at the bottom. But here are the highlights of a jarringly intimate glimpse into the enemy camp during World War II. 

Heading to the front 

The officer's unit, the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division — named after a spelling variation of the medieval German knight  Götz von Berlichingen —  headed from Thouars, France, to Normandy to fight the Allied forces landing there.  "Everyone was in a good mood and eager to see action again — happy that the preinvasion spell of uncertainty and waiting had snapped at last," the German SS officer wrote.

As the motorized column traveled along French roads, it was ambushed from the air by an enemy it had never encountered before. 

"Something happened that left us in a daze," the officer wrote. "Spouts of fire flicked along the column and splashes of dust staccatoed the road. Everyone was piling out of the vehicles and scuttling for the neighboring fields. Several vehicles already were in flames."

The startled soldiers only continued their march after 15 minutes of strafing and bombing. "The men started drifting back to the column again, pale and shaky and wondering that they had survived this fiery rain of bullets. Had that been a sign of things to come? This had been our first experience with the 'Jabos' (Fighter bombers)."


An hour later a second and more effective air attack left the French road strewn with destroyed vehicles and equipment. The officer had this to say:

It dawned on us that this opponent that had come to the beach of Normandy was of somewhat different form. The march was called off, and all vehicles that were left were hidden in the dense bushes or in barns. No one dared show himself out in the open anymore. Now the men started looking at each other. The first words passed. This was different from what we thought it would be like. If things like this happened here, what would it be like up there at the front? No, this did not look like a feint attack upon our continent. It had been our first experience with our new foe — the American.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/never-seen-wwii-document-offers-135955667.html


----------



## GR66

While I think some people still seem to be under the (in my opinion) very mistaken belief that air power alone can win a conflict, disagreement with that premise shouldn't' lead us to underestimate the importance of air power.  Absolute air supremacy is the key to our ultimate military success.  Without that our relatively small militaries are much more vulnerable. 

Obviously we can't and shouldn't fund the RCAF to the point that our other services are ineffective, but combat aircraft definitely need to be a key component of our military forces.  If we're forced to cut capabilities due to budget constraints I think fighters should be one of the last to be cut.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GR66 said:
			
		

> While I think some people still seem to be under the (in my opinion) very mistaken belief that air power alone can win a conflict, disagreement with that premise shouldn't' lead us to underestimate the importance of air power.  Absolute air supremacy is the key to our ultimate military success.  Without that our relatively small militaries are much more vulnerable.



Anyone that believes that is a fool.

I was Armour, but I understand the taking, holding and ultimate possession of an objective. The only group that can take, hold, secure and win the ground battle is the Infantry. All other Arms, be they land, air or sea, are ancillary contributions to the basic Infantry task. They all have their part, but it is the Infantry who meet the end state.

If you don't support their task, you are outside and useless in the parameters of winning the ground war.


----------



## GR66

recceguy said:
			
		

> Anyone that believes that is a fool.
> 
> I was Armour, but I understand the taking, holding and ultimate possession of an objective. The only group that can take, hold, secure and win the ground battle is the Infantry. All other Arms, be they land, air or sea, are ancillary contributions to the basic Infantry task. They all have their part, but it is the Infantry who meet the end state.
> 
> If you don't support their task, you are outside and useless in the parameters of winning the ground war.



No argument there.  Only boots on the ground = control.  Unfortunately Western armies are continually shrinking their numbers of boots on the ground.  The overall sizes of our militaries are decreasing and the "tooth to tail" ratio is decreasing as well.  We have the potential of being outnumbered on the ground and air supremacy is one of the factors that helps us overcome that disadvantage.  If we continue to make the decision to have a small army then we'd be very foolish not to ensure our dominance of the airspace above our forces.  

And to clarify, you are absolutely correct that only a fool would think that air power can hold ground.  However I do think there are _some_ military/political leaders that do believe that air power and other long range precision weapons can advance to the point that an enemy's military capability and political will is so degraded by those attacks that the infantry will not be required to SEIZE the ground but will rather only be required to OCCUPY the ground after the enemy collapses.


----------



## Shrek1985

Loachman said:
			
		

> Most people are not interested in sovereignty. Many cannot even spell it.
> 
> Most just want "free stuff" from governments, but are not motivated enough to even go after that if they can't get an app to do it on their I-phones. Those with a clue are trying to protect their hard-earned money from being gouged by governments in order to pay for "free stuff" that will buy them votes.
> 
> People should have to earn the right to vote, like in Starshp Troopers.



+1

Sadly, the kind of moral welfare advocated in the article is way too popular in our world.

I think a part of the issue is perspective. Again; agree with the above that we need fighters and 65 is not enough.

So I pose the question, in which sphere of influence do canadian defence spending and requirements really sit?

I propose that we think of ourselves, militarily, as a nation; as on par with 1st line European, but moreso American forces. I further propose that in this self-image the appearance matters more to us, as a nation than the reality; it matters more that our troops appear modern, capable and equivalent than that they really be so. Finally, In looking at the budget, it's hard to place an equivalence. I can look at second-rate powers, even 3rd world nations with much larger, better equipped militaries, but suffice to say we prefer to spend very little.

I am happy with none of this.

In the spirit of posing a solution to the problem, though one which I think will be unpopular, politically and emotionally, I have the following. To better frame the situation;

Money; we do not want to spend a lot; this militates against either quantity, sophistication, or both. Baring a major cultural/govermental shift (Loachman) I cannot see this being fixed in any major way. In a wholy hypothetical dicussion, I have ideas, but practical? Nah.

Geography and Geometry; by this I mean considerations of space and time. We have a large nation, with a concentrated (decrepit?) infrastructure. We have a lot of area we need (agreed?) to defend. We also seem to at least makes noises to the effect of wishing to influence "Bad Things Happening" else where, this bespeaks a need for both power projection and an ability to enforce soverignty which is useable and effective.

Procurement; is junk. end of story. the system is corrupt, politicised and ineffective. I think, given the political will, this *IS* fixable, if one is willing to suffer the costs of changing it.

Industry; is bad, but, I think; fixable. I even think that with judicious investment in infrastructure and technology, we could roll back some of our current material problems, such as with ammunition; vast advances in which have been made in the last 30-40 years, none of which have been adopted in a big way, but which might yield cheaper supplies to train with and stock.

Solution; Revoke the condition of appearance and self-image in favour of capability and ability to perform vs not perform. In other words; stop seeing our military as US Military-Lite. 

The US does NOT have the same restrictions on budget as we do and their expanded infrastructure (Military and of military utility) is superior to ours, thus, even the geometric requirements of soveriegnty protection are not as severe as ours. In fact, I think Russia is a closer match in terms of large, sparsely-populated landmass than the US to Canadian Defence Requirements. Europe is also less appropriate as a military role-model in many ways, especially in terms of air power, but better in some ways in how and what they buy, not always literally, but generally. People tend not to build equipment which has capabilities they do not need; ref the Vulcan comment above and the massive support (19 tankers? been a while) required to make the Black Buck mission possible during the Falklands in 82. Which is why I say European airpower is a bad role-model in a literal sense, though it is not all short-ranged.

I think it would be better to have have less-advanced equipment and be able to train on it, than to have not enough of the advanced gear the US and many of our NATO allies possess. Let's face facts; we have 1st world obligations for a military we fund like a 3rd world nation, if we want to at least pretend to be more than an impotent 2nd rate power, it's time we bought within our budget in a quantity which fits our needs and that means buying from people we prefer to look down our nose at. 

Yes, this means less advanced gear; continued 4th generation fighters, rather than the current 5th generation, but; we could have enough fighters to cover our borders and they'd be cheap enough to operate enough to keep our pilots current and trained to a keen egde. I do not think we will be able to do that with the F-35.

I've always heard how good CF pers were; how this overcame our shortfalls in equipment, how we took home trophies in artillery, tank gunnery, naval maneovers and air combat with better trained people in less-advanced equipment. I know, emotionally, this is hard to take. But think pragmatically; how much better is a given cutting edge american system, than the simpler, cheaper 2nd-rate equivalent? Does that advantage overcome having MUCH fewer systems to train with?

There are 2 or 3 problems with this solution.

There is a treaty which mandates that a certain portion of all or most canadian defence purchases either take place in the US, or benefit the US to a certain percentage, say 40% of every deal. That would have to go. This is mentioned in Granatstien's "who killed the canadian military?" but I can't find it online right now.

Naturally there is a huge political bias against buying gear percieved as second rate and this is also a professional concern. On the one hand this is emotional and on the other it's practical. Yes, if we are talking about buying russian-pattern equipment, quality control can be an issue, but it can be mitigated as well. Though I feel this is better done at the source, rather than here for reasons of cost. As far as emotional concerns, I refer you again to my above argument; just how much better is X than Y and does it make up for having 4 or 5 or more times less of X than we could have of Y? Does the lack of training this necessitates by having less equipment to train with still not close the distance? How about issues of supply, replacement and build up in the event of war? Check out the WWII Tank shortage as it relates to Canada for an idea of what that's like.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> There is a treaty which mandates that a certain portion of all or most canadian defence purchases either take place in the US, or benefit the US to a certain percentage, say 40% of every deal. That would have to go. This is mentioned in Granatstien's "who killed the canadian military?" but I can't find it online right now.
> 
> ...



Only one, immediate, comment on a great and interesting post which provides a lot of food for thought: I think you are referring to the Canada/US Defence Production Sharing Agreement. It was signed in 1965 and has been amended several times. It refers to _combined_, Canada/US projects. It doesn't say we have to buy a certain share from the US, nor would it apply, for example, if we decided to replace the entire RCN combatant fleet by signing a similar (bilateral) _sweetheart deal_ with Germany or Korea .. my reading of it, anyway.


----------



## GreenMarine

Just trying to pose some humor on the topic with the picture. 

maybe we need to go with quatity over quality. As said before 65 jets are better then none. However if Canada was to look into cheaper fighters they could in theory cover more airspace or at least look impossing on paper.


----------



## Shrek1985

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Only one, immediate, comment on a great and interesting post which provides a lot of food for thought: I think you are referring to the Canada/US Defence Production Sharing Agreement. It was signed in 1965 and has been amended several times. It refers to _combined_, Canada/US projects. It doesn't say we have to buy a certain share from the US, nor would it apply, for example, if we decided to replace the entire RCN combatant fleet by signing a similar (bilateral) _sweetheart deal_ with Germany or Korea .. my reading of it, anyway.



Thanks ER Campbell, I think that's it. Never have my books when I need em!





			
				GreenMarine said:
			
		

> Just trying to pose some humor on the topic with the picture.
> 
> maybe we need to go with quatity over quality. As said before 65 jets are better then none. However if Canada was to look into cheaper fighters they could in theory cover more airspace or at least look impossing on paper.



...If that thing flies...it would be the Shriner Car of the air. nice!

I shy away from matters of appearance, because when that's all there is, you can't back it up, that said; how much worse, really is a well-maintained 4th Generation fighter with a keen pilot than a 5th generation fighter? 

I have see so much competing data on the F-35 vs less advanced  aircraft, I don't want to touch it, suffice to say "the issue is in doubt".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The problem I have with this entire debate is the fact that is being dominated by every single opinion piece except the one that matters: pilots.

It's like me, as an infantry officer, weighing in on what the Navy needs in a boat.  I can have all the opinions in the world but at the end of the day I really know SFA about anything related to boats.  

I've spoken with a couple of my buddies who are fighter pilots and they all say the F35 is hands down the plane we need.  From an operational standpoint it will out perform any competition that it comes up against due to it's advanced computer system which makes it incredibly easy to fly along with the fact that whatever it's going up against will already be dead before it even realizes the F35 is there.

You only have to look at the respective cockpits of an F18 and an F35 to realize what an improvement the F35 is over the competition in terms of allowing the pilot to focus on what he is there to do, fly the airplane and kill bad guys.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and what about your customers? do their opinions matter? For Canada the equation is simple we are replacing like for a newer like. The question to the RCAF from the army is: Exactly how do you intend to support CAS with the reduced size of the fleet and under what combat conditions will you and won't you support us?

For the US the equation is different they are replacing, like, sort of like and nothing at all alike for a apparently all singing and all dancing platform. So the question above becomes even more pertinent. Is the USAF will to have 12.7, 14.5 and 23mm holes in their new shiny toy and if that does happen, will they come back for more?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin P,

CAS is ONE of the many roles we have (and it is not our primary one).   While you are right, planes don't hold ground, a government may not need traditionnal ground forces altogether to achieve political objectives in certain theaters.  

On the question getting more of a cheaper airplane I ask you:  Which one is cheaper than what the JSF is going to cost?


----------



## mdh

> I've spoken with a couple of my buddies who are fighter pilots and they all say the F35 is hands down the plane we need.  From an operational standpoint it will out perform any competition that it comes up against due to it's advanced computer system which makes it incredibly easy to fly along with the fact that whatever it's going up against will already be dead before it even realizes the F35 is there.



But then you get fighter pilots who say the opposite. It's almost impossible to get a clear picture of this airplane's true capabilities.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/06/f-35-design-problems-make-night-flying-impossible-increase-risk-of-being-shot-down-u-s-pilots-warn/

_*Link removed because of the author*_


----------



## SupersonicMax

The first article is useless as the aircraft is still in Operational Testing and night systems will be integrated before FOC.  It is pure anti-JSF BS.

The second article doesn't mention anything new... The F-18 is the same way.  We are a self escort strike but in a high threat environment, we still need Escorts to carry out our mission, same as the F-35, althought the F-35 is a lot more survivable and the definition of High Threat is different.... 

Having seen it first hand, I can tell you this is what we need for our NORAD mission and for our Deployed Ops.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> and what about your customers? do their opinions matter? For Canada the equation is simple we are replacing like for a newer like. The question to the RCAF from the army is: Exactly how do you intend to support CAS with the reduced size of the fleet and under what combat conditions will you and won't you support us?
> 
> For the US the equation is different they are replacing, like, sort of like and nothing at all alike for a apparently all singing and all dancing platform. So the question above becomes even more pertinent. Is the USAF will to have 12.7, 14.5 and 23mm holes in their new shiny toy and if that does happen, will they come back for more?



Ok but how is the F35 not a significant improvement over early planes?  The HUD gives 360 degree SA and the display operates much like an IPad with all the information being located in a compact design.  Not to mention the computer does all the meanial tasks which frees up the pilot to focus on flying rather than looking at gauges.  This to me only improves their ability to deliver CAS.

Now of course, being rather expensive, maybe CAS is not the best use for these planes but then again when have we ever used our Air Force in modern times to perform CAS?  Our fighter force is used for OCA, Air Supremacy and Strategic Level Bombing.  Think Gulf War 1, the Balkans and Libya.  

At the end of the day, it's all about effects and how you layer them, our fighter force provides the government with certain effects but we also have other assets that can provide similar effects.  I think looking at procuring a packet of AH's would really close the loop on this CAS argument.  Rather then getting PO'ed at fighters for not providing we should look at procuring AH's to fill that capability gap.


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The first article is useless as the aircraft is still in Operational Testing and night systems will be integrated before FOC.  It is pure anti-JSF BS.



Yes.

And exactly the same sort of stuff was excreted by the press when the F18 was at the same stage.

Change the dates of the articles and the designation of the aircraft in them and there is very little difference.


----------



## Loachman

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I think looking at procuring a packet of AH's would really close the loop on this CAS argument.  Rather then getting PO'ed at fighters for not providing we should look at procuring AH's to fill that capability gap.



I vote you for King.


----------



## GR66

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Thanks ER Campbell, I think that's it. Never have my books when I need em!
> ...If that thing flies...it would be the Shriner Car of the air. nice!
> 
> I shy away from matters of appearance, because when that's all there is, you can't back it up, that said; how much worse, really is a well-maintained 4th Generation fighter with a keen pilot than a 5th generation fighter?
> 
> I have see so much competing data on the F-35 vs less advanced  aircraft, I don't want to touch it, suffice to say "the issue is in doubt".



Most of the articles I've read (as noted above) say the F-35 is/will be WAY ahead of any 4th Generation fighter in terms of sensors, data integration and processing/display of information.  The 2nd advantage is the stealth of the aircraft.  On the other hand most accounts unfavourably comparing the F-35 to various 4th Generation fighters seem to focus on flight characteristics...speed, ceiling, turning radius, weapons load, etc.  

As has been discussed in the CAS thread it would seem (in many/most circumstances anyway) that the munition carried by a weapons platform is _often _more important than the platform itself.  I would suggest that the two strengths of the F-35 are really enablers/enhancers of the weapons that the platform carries.  The vastly improved ability of the F-35 to detect, identify and classify enemy targets at range, along with the stealth ability to get into effective munitions range of that target are what make the F-35 the preferred platform.  By comparison a 4th Generation aircraft with  the ability to move faster, higher, with more agility or carrying more munitions is still much more vulnerable if they can't detect and engage the F-35 first.  I certainly claim no expertise in air combat but I'd *guess *that most pilots would rather have the combat advantage at long/medium distance missile range over dog fighting range if given the choice.  The experts can certainly correct me if I'm wrong.

Where I see the problem with the F-35 program is that they have maybe tried to do too much at once, opting for a _revolutionary _improvement instead of an evolutionary improvement over existing aircraft.  By choosing to give the F-35 both the advance sensor systems AND a brand new stealth platform (AND commonality between the conventional/VSTOL/carrier versions AND a new plug and play architecture) they have created a project that will of course be extremely expensive.  It also increases the project risk because failure of any one of the elements (sensors, stealth, airframe, etc.) _might _significantly reduce the advantage of the F-35 over enemy aircraft.

A safer (and much cheaper) approach might have been to work on just one element at a time.  Say develop an existing airframe with the sensors planned for the F-35.  Or maybe develop a new Stealthy common airframe using existing sensor technology.  Once either of those projects are completed you could then work on the next version which adds the next portion of the development.  Either of these evolutionary steps would likely be cheaper and less risky than the F-35, but they would also offer less potential advantage over the competition.  They could do the same thing and evolve their aircraft to match your upgrades.  With the F-35 doing everything at once however you have the potential of leaping ahead of the competition and having the dominant platform for a much longer period of time while the enemy tries to catch up.  In the meantime you would be working on the next revolutionary leap ahead to maintain your dominance.

The problem for Canada is that while the evolutionary approach probably makes more sense in our fiscally constrained small military world, the revolutionary approach is quite possibly the smarter approach for the US and the "West" writ large.  We could certainly look at evolutionary options from other aircraft manufacturers and (hopefully) stretch our defense dollars further, but we'd have to accept that our aircraft would be inferior to the F-35 and would be much more vulnerable to our potential enemies.  

I "get" the F-35 concept.  I "get" why proponents are so keen on the aircraft.  I'm however less certain of what the best choice for Canada is.  Would the cost savings of an evolved 4th Generation fighter be enough to offset the increased vulnerability in combat?  Much smarter people than me will have to make that decision.


----------



## Loachman

GR66 said:
			
		

> Would the cost savings of an evolved 4th Generation fighter be enough to offset the increased vulnerability in combat?



What cost savings?

By buying older technology, we'd just have to replace it sooner, or end up with aging orphan fleets that we cannot economically support because nobody has made parts for years.

I will swim against the current and predict that F35 will end up both the cheapest and most effective solution.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Colin P,
> 
> CAS is ONE of the many roles we have (and it is not our primary one).   While you are right, planes don't hold ground, a government may not need traditionnal ground forces altogether to achieve political objectives in certain theaters.
> 
> On the question getting more of a cheaper airplane I ask you:  Which one is cheaper than what the JSF is going to cost?



Considering the way the role will be handled in the future, I think "Close Air support" as a term is outdated. It implies you will be flying in low attacking targets directly with gun, missiles, rockets and bombs. It is would be better to use a term like "Air Support Bombing" because that is likely what you will do 97%. I just don't see the RCAF or USAF willing to risk a F35 getting taken out by a lucky burst from a quad 23mm while doing a gun run.


----------



## Edward Campbell

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Colin P,
> 
> CAS is ONE of the many roles we have (and it is not our primary one).   While you are right, planes don't hold ground, a government may not need traditionnal ground forces altogether to achieve political objectives in certain theaters.
> 
> On the question getting more of a cheaper airplane I ask you:  Which one is cheaper than what the JSF is going to cost?




Bingo!  Think _strategically_, folks.


----------



## FSTO

Maybe a little off topic but this should worry many pilots who will be relying on this "stealth" technology to get them safely back from a mission.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2014/07/pivoting-with-your-shoes-untied.html

There is one area that we have competitive advantage against, well, the entire world. 

Our advantage is the battle tested, mature and highly effective land attack cruise missile. There is no other similar weapon with the bonafides of the Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile (TLAM). Some claim, but non can prove.

Sure, like the Harpoon it is old and slow - but it works and is good and better than something PPT thick.

The exceptionally reliable fire-and-forget drone would, on the surface, seem to be the one capability we would want to keep. Relative long range, unmanned, precise, and with the right warhead choice - exceptionally flexible across a wide range of targeting requirements.

As we move/pivot towards a dangerous world, as outlined by our friend Seth Cropsey over at DefenseNews; 

... the Defense Department demurred when the Navy asked for an additional 980 TLAMs to increase its inventory of the most up-to-date model. Not only was the request denied, the decision was taken to end production of the Tomahawk in fiscal 2016. No more orders for the missile would be placed after the autumn of 2015.

The termination followed a December DoD decision to cut the number of TLAMs to be ordered from 4,900 to 3,700. No strategic justification was offered to account for the reduction.

Where does this leave the US? The opening salvo of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in 2003, expended well over 800 TLAMs. Twelve years earlier, 250 missiles were fired during Operation Desert Storm. Including operations in Kosovo and the 1998 strike against Iraqi sites suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, the average use of the weapon rounds out at something between 100 and 200 per year.
 He forgot my baby, DESERT FOX at over 325, but let's continue;

The current Block 4 model, which features improved navigation, anti-jamming and retarget­ing systems, began to be delivered 10 years ago. It should be capable of performing combat missions for 30 years if properly maintained, including a recertification at the midpoint of its service life. The midpoint for the first Block 4 Tomahawks will occur in 2019.

But if, as the Defense Department now plans, no more missiles will be ordered after fiscal 2015, the technicians, engineers and contractors who must recertify the missiles will have long since vacated to find other work.
 Is this a smart risk to take? Not if you want to avoid having to put pilots across the beach to take our static targets and want a hedge against the next generation of armed drones - or as I like to call them, reusable TLAM.

FSTO EDIT Love this quote from Gates
President Obama’s first secretary of defense, Robert Gates, noted in an April 2014 interview in the US military’s Stars and Stripes, *“when it comes to predicting where and how we’re going to use military force next over the last 40 years since Vietnam, we have a perfect record: We haven’t gotten it right once.”*

Gates added, “you can’t just predict these things [i.e. the use of force], and we need to recognize our inability to predict them.”


----------



## CombatMacguyver

Loachman said:
			
		

> Most people are not interested in sovereignty. Many cannot even spell it.
> 
> Most just want "free stuff" from governments, but are not motivated enough to even go after that if they can't get an app to do it on their I-phones. Those with a clue are trying to protect their hard-earned money from being gouged by governments in order to pay for "free stuff" that will buy them votes.
> 
> People should have to earn the right to vote, like in Starshp Troopers.



Having just re-read Heinlen's Starship Troopers, I completely agree.  Hell, pretty much everything from that book should be actioned.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the way the role will be handled in the future, I think "Close Air support" as a term is outdated. It implies you will be flying in low attacking targets directly with gun, missiles, rockets and bombs. It is would be better to use a term like "Air Support Bombing" because that is likely what you will do 97%. I just don't see the RCAF or USAF willing to risk a F35 getting taken out by a lucky burst from a quad 23mm while doing a gun run.



A good example of some recent combined arms activity which seems to be supported through some _'close support precision bombing'.
_
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695422/Hamas-Israel-resume-attacks-brief-truce.html


----------



## Shrek1985

CombatMacguyver said:
			
		

> Having just re-read Heinlen's Starship Troopers, I completely agree.  Hell, pretty much everything from that book should be actioned.



I am seeing more and more support for RAH's ideas all over.

I agree with the attack helicopter comment above as well. A damn shame the AH-56 was cancelled, something like that would really close the CAS gap.

As for the F-35...modern equipment in general, I have noticed a trend, as a weapons geek over the last 12-15 years that it has become hard and harder exponentially to get accurate, reliable information. The F-35 is pinacle of the problem. What is real? what is disinformation? what is MFG hype? Impossible to tell anymore. My gut and experience tell me it's probably a lemon, but may not be. That point matters a lot.

The problem is numbers and training. 56-65 is not enough. I know our pilots want the best. We can't afford enough of the best to matter. Sorry, go join the USAF if you want to fly the best and newest, this is canada, we can't afford it. Not in numbers to keep away from quantitative incompetence.

The training thing really worries me as well and it's been a common theme, which is hard to refute; with 65 airframes of the F-35 type, will we be able to get our pilots enough training time to keep them sharp? even if you can refute it, I return to the issue of numbers, which feeds back into training and maintainance. We're going to need to fly the wings off 65 planes to even keep of the barest of appearances for civies.


----------



## eliminator

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> The training thing really worries me as well and it's been a common theme, which is hard to refute; with 65 airframes of the F-35 type, will we be able to get our pilots enough training time to keep them sharp? even if you can refute it, I return to the issue of numbers, which feeds back into training and maintainance. We're going to need to fly the wings off 65 planes to even keep of the barest of appearances for civies.



With the training bit, from what I've been hearing is that the F35 will rely heavily on simulator-based training like never before. To the extent that "training squadrons" will cease to exist. That fact alone (in the minds of the politicians) significantly reduces the aircraft order. Oh and the magically high serviceability rate that the program is touting.  The "65" number is a result of some interesting assumptions.


----------



## FSTO

eliminator said:
			
		

> With the training bit, from what I've been hearing is that the F35 will rely heavily on simulator-based training like never before. To the extent that "training squadrons" will cease to exist. That fact alone (in the minds of the politicians) significantly reduces the aircraft order. Oh and the magically high serviceability rate that the program is touting.  The "65" number is a result of some interesting assumptions.



And we all know the sayings about assuming.

The RCN tried to go all simulator with it's MARS training after the retirement of the training squadron. The results were less than what was hoped. There is now a combination of Simulator, PCT's and MCDV's prior to the officers getting into the fleet.

I have a feeling that the F35 is being oversold and will underdeliver. Nothing to back it up. Just a gut feeling.


----------



## Loachman

FSTO said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that the F35 is being oversold and will underdeliver. Nothing to back it up. Just a gut feeling.



Everybody knew that about the F18 in the late seventies and first year or two of the eighties, too.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> And we all know the sayings about assuming.
> 
> The RCN tried to go all simulator with it's MARS training after the retirement of the training squadron. The results were less than what was hoped. There is now a combination of Simulator, PCT's and MCDV's prior to the officers getting into the fleet.
> 
> I have a feeling that the F35 is being oversold and will underdeliver. Nothing to back it up. Just a gut feeling.



Recently the RAN started awarding BWK simulators to their MARS officers based solely on simulator training in a pilot program.  Wasn't able to find out how that turned out yet, but they seemed to be pretty keen on it.

Based on the abuse the ORCAs take and some of the things I've seen BWKs do, a bit more simulator time might not be a bad thing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I see a lot of stuff crossing my desk done on the big ship simulators to see how ideas work when designing terminals for large ships. Simulators are great and a useful tool, but when you depend to heavily on them you are doing a disservice.


----------



## YZT580

The airlines started relying heavily on simulator training at least two decades ago.  The result is a whole bunch of real good pilots until something happens that they haven't simulated very much.  Then they are not so good.  Air France for example.  Your basic pilot would have stuffed the nose and built up airspeed but that wasn't the procedure that they did in the simulator.  Several other accidents have been preventable with a little bit of basic airmanship common sense.  So what happens in combat to an F35 driver who hasn't flown that particular exercise in a while and is up against a good pilot with lots of stick time in a more maneuverable, faster airframe that isn't linked to an overhead C & C flight?  If the initial missile shots have either missed or been jammed he will get his ass waxed because his advantage is now gone and he is in an inferior airplane.  The advantage of the F35 is the computers: take away or defeat the linkage and it is 65 million dollars worth of a basically crummy airframe and you can bet that all the potential opponents are busy right now figuring out ways to get inside the computers.


----------



## FSTO

Loachman said:
			
		

> Everybody knew that about the F18 in the late seventies and first year or two of the eighties, too.



I had better feelings about the Hornet, which was a purpose built Navy F/B with a couple of engines and that it had real competition with the Eagle, Falcon and (I think) the Mirage.
F35 is..... something and my biggest issue is the single engine.


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Recently the RAN started awarding BWK simulators to their MARS officers based solely on simulator training in a pilot program.  Wasn't able to find out how that turned out yet, but they seemed to be pretty keen on it.
> 
> Based on the abuse the ORCAs take and some of the things I've seen BWKs do, a bit more simulator time might not be a bad thing.


.
The simulator is great but you can never get that pucker factor that comes with driving the real thing. If I hit something is sim, it's "oh well, reset and lets try again". Hit something in real life, well its paperwork, BOI's, pissed off Admirals and all sorts of hurt.


----------



## SupersonicMax

There are a lot of things you will not be allowed to do with the real aircraft in training because of OPSEC.  Those things will only be done in a simulator, until you do it for real.


----------



## observor 69

I'm with YZT580:

"So what happens in combat to an F35 driver who hasn't flown that particular exercise in a while and is up against a good pilot with lots of stick time in a more maneuverable, faster airframe that isn't linked to an overhead C & C flight?  If the initial missile shots have either missed or been jammed he will get his *** waxed because his advantage is now gone and he is in an inferior airplane.  The advantage of the F35 is the computers: take away or defeat the linkage and it is 65 million dollars worth of a basically crummy airframe and you can bet that all the potential opponents are busy right now figuring out ways to get inside the computers."

Yes I got the picture, it's total situational awareness and response. But as YZT says what about when this almost too perfect scenario has a hiccup and it's back to may the best jet fighter win.
I'm still with Canada's fiscal reality of a defence budget that won't compute for F35's. Am I missing something ?


----------



## PuckChaser

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> I'm still with Canada's fiscal reality of a defence budget that won't compute for F35's. Am I missing something ?



Our defense budget gets us biplanes, tugboats, and a 50% reduction in rusted out support vehicles. Doesn't make them the best tools to do the jobs we want them to do, though.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Our defense budget gets us biplanes, tugboats, and a 50% reduction in rusted out support vehicles. Doesn't make them the best tools to do the jobs we want them to do, though.



When are we replacing the seakings again?


----------



## PuckChaser

Brasidas said:
			
		

> When are we replacing the seakings again?



No Cadillac helicopters!  >


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No Cadillac helicopters!  >



Get ready for the happy 75 years of flight anniversary, with the Seaking in the background being held together by duck tape


----------



## GreenMarine

Saw a Facebook post last night entitled Canadian Armed Forces Light! ... I wish I could offer a link.


----------



## Loachman

One can do lots of things in a simulator that one cannot do in the real machine because it's either too dangerous or cannot be done without breaking something in order to create the situation to which one must react. And resetting is a benefit - one can actually do something again to ensure that one recognizes the situation and can react appropriately. Simulator trips are more intensive. Most real flights are uneventful. Simulator trips go from one emergency or other situation to another.

If there are "a whole bunch of real good pilots until something happens that they haven't simulated very much", then there is something wrong with the training programme that is being run, presuming that the simulator itself is not deficient (unlikely).

I'd also posit that the "real good pilots" probably weren't quite as good as they thought, as they'd not be able to practice emergency responses much otherwise. Airlines frown on doing that sort of thing with passengers aboard, as does the CF, hence the increasing use of simulators.

"My biggest issue is the single engine". There are, what, hundreds of fora wherein F16 guys can bemoan their lack of a second engine, right? The only people bitching about the single-engine non-problem seem to be those that will never fly F35, or anything else for that matter.

I've got over 4000 hours on single-engined helicopters by day and night, fair weather or foul, over large expanses of wilderness, water, alligator-infested swamp, major cities, and Liberal-held ridings, and not once, ever, did I see that as a problem.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> "My biggest issue is the single engine". There are, what, hundreds of fora wherein F16 guys can bemoan their lack of a second engine, right? The only people bitching about the single-engine non-problem seem to be those that will never fly F35, or anything else for that matter.



These guys rocked a single engine 45 years ago. Seemed to work out OK:


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> These guys rocked a single engine 45 years ago. Seemed to work out OK:


OK if you're looking for a "disposable" solution, I suppose  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> These guys rocked a single engine 45 years ago. Seemed to work out OK:



Good thing you used Apollo 11 as an example, and not Apollo 1....  :-\


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> .
> The simulator is great but you can never get that pucker factor that comes with driving the real thing. If I hit something is sim, it's "oh well, reset and lets try again". Hit something in real life, well its paperwork, BOI's, pissed off Admirals and all sorts of hurt.



I agree, although with the ORCAs being driven like rentals with zero consequences for damage, at least with simulators you can reset vice sending them for a docking repair.  Also, folks aren't geting anywhere near the seatime they used to get before getting their BWKs, so maybe if the trainers were treated a bit more like real life (ie consequences other then a simple reset) they would be more effective.  As well, ORCA/MCDV experience really doesn't seem to really translate well to driving a warship or tanker anyway, as there is more going on on the bridge and they all handle differently anyway.

Simulators are only as good as the actual programs; but at least with a trainer you can do all kinds of engine change overs, starts/stops and other things that is generally hard on machinery without wearing things down.  It's the same for doing cert 2/3 training; probably won't grant qualifications on just simulator ever, but you can do a lot more with very little risk for trainees by putting the console in simulation mode and just running through all kinds of drills for things that almost never happen in real life (ie engine fires, total MLO failures, etc). It saves literally millions in extra maintenance, as frequent start/stops is just brutal on machinery over the long term, unless it's specifically built to short cycle.


----------



## Privateer

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> As well, ORCA/MCDV experience really doesn't seem to really translate well to driving a warship or tanker anyway, as there is more going on on the bridge and they all handle differently anyway.



Sorry, but I cannot agree with that, and I respectfully suggest that unless you are a ship driver, that you have don't have the experience to say that.  I had the opportunity to drive a HALIFAX class (as 2OOW), and I would have been adrift without my KINGSTON class experience.  Obviously the HALIFAX class has much more going on in terms of weapons, sensors, and helos, but the fundamentals of ship driving (vice fighting) are not much different on a HALIFAX class than an MCDV.  I can't speak to ORCA experience.


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I agree, although with the ORCAs being driven like rentals with zero consequences for damage, at least with simulators you can reset vice sending them for a docking repair.  Also, folks aren't getting anywhere near the seatime they used to get before getting their BWKs, so maybe if the trainers were treated a bit more like real life (ie consequences other then a simple reset) they would be more effective.  As well, ORCA/MCDV experience really doesn't seem to really translate well to driving a warship or tanker anyway, as there is more going on on the bridge and they all handle differently anyway.
> 
> Simulators are only as good as the actual programs; but at least with a trainer you can do all kinds of engine change overs, starts/stops and other things that is generally hard on machinery without wearing things down.  It's the same for doing cert 2/3 training; probably won't grant qualifications on just simulator ever, but you can do a lot more with very little risk for trainees by putting the console in simulation mode and just running through all kinds of drills for things that almost never happen in real life (ie engine fires, total MLO failures, etc). It saves literally millions in extra maintenance, as frequent start/stops is just brutal on machinery over the long term, unless it's specifically built to short cycle.



I am not advocating getting rid of simulators. Simulators have a ton of advantages over the real thing. But to think you can achieve your training objects solely on simulators is not realistic.


----------



## YZT580

and that is exactly what the non-ops and book addict types will advocate and they are the ones who are listened to because they have the textbook qualifications.


----------



## a_majoor

Loachman said:
			
		

> I've got over 4000 hours on single-engined helicopters by day and night, fair weather or foul, over large expanses of wilderness, water, alligator-infested swamp, major cities, and Liberal-held ridings, and not once, ever, did I see that as a problem.



 :rofl:


----------



## Good2Golf

I'm with Loachman, the only engine failures I've had, have been on multi-engined aircraft.  Modern engines are operating at levels of reliability that aircraft manufacturers only dreamed about.  It was the same with commercial airliners when transoceanic certifications were given en masse to twin-engined airliners...ETOPS changed how people looked at reliability of installed power.

I'm not so sure that the learned academics know what 'MTBF' is, let alone what the MTBF is for, say, a F135 engine or the F119 and F100 from which it was developed.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> These guys rocked a single engine 45 years ago. Seemed to work out OK:



Actually, the LM is a "twin" engines: One in the base for landing and another one in the manned module to take off.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, the LM is a "twin" engines: One in the base for landing and another one in the manned module to take off.



You left your hat in your Mom's basement...  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

As I recall, the twin engine controversy was originally created during the last fighter procurement controversy as a way to avoid the F-16 and ensure that we'd buy the F-15.  Then the twin engine F-18 showed up at a lower price point...


----------



## observor 69

By that time anything looked good as long as it wasn't a grossly misemployed outdated CF-104, a CF-5 low-cost fighter for US allies or a wore out time expired CF-101 I was happy.


----------



## Good2Golf

:nod:

If I recall (anecdotally), the desired solution was, in priority:

1. F-15
2. F-14
3. F-16
4. (Y)F-17, which then developed into the F/A-18 when McDonnell Douglas bought the rights to Northrop's YF-17 (itself heavily influenced by the design of the F-5 Freedom Fighter that the CF operated for a time).

Once the F-15 and F-14 were deemed to be cost prohibitive, and at about the same time, the USN moved forward with YF-17>F/A-18 development, the F/A-18 became seen as the "next best thing" to the F-15 Eagle.

I recall reading a paper by then BGen (later CDS) Paul Manson written while he was PD NFA (project director of the 'New Fighter Aircraft" project) that spoke to the desire to have F-15, but that unable to procure that airframe, there was not enough confidence in the fighter force to endorse the F-16, hence the F/A-18 winning the competition. 

Interesting that this round, there was Mary a whisper of F-22...perhaps the Air Force read the lessons learned from 35 years ago?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Transporter

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Interesting that this round, there was Mary a whisper of F-22...perhaps the Air Force read the lessons learned from 35 years ago?



How so?


----------



## Good2Golf

The F-22 is today's F-15, that one might have thought the aspirations of the RCAF may have looked to pursue the 'best of the best.'  Please don't take this as me opinions that we should have pursued the F-22, particularly as it is a costly system for the optimized mission set is was biased towards.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Transporter

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The F-22 is today's F-15, that one might have thought the aspirations of the RCAF may have looked to pursue the 'best of the best.'  Please don't take this as me opinions that we should have pursued the F-22, particularly as it is a costly system for the optimized mission set is was biased towards.
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



F-22 was likely off the table from the get-go given US Federal Law prohibits foreign sales.


----------



## Good2Golf

Technically, the U.S. State Department pursued an exclusion from the Federal Legislation that authorizes FMS, not the other way around. This is not just a nit-picky semantical point, but significant as State would need only seek a Congressional approval of an exception to the exclusion...something a lot 'easier' to do than to amend Federal Legislation (arguably more difficult that the equivalent type of action in Canada).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Transporter

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Technically, the U.S. State Department pursued an exclusion from the Federal Legislation that authorizes FMS, not the other way around. This is not just a nit-picky semantical point, but significant as State would need only seek a Congressional approval of an exception to the exclusion...something a lot 'easier' to do than to amend Federal Legislation (arguably more difficult that the equivalent type of action in Canada).
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Interesting that no country currently looking at the F35 formally pursued the F22 (not to my knowledge anyway, though there were some initial expressions of interest). Cost, I'm sure, was one factor but the non-guaranteed FMS sales approval process you outline above probably didn't do much to bolster confidence that the aircraft would be FMS-eligible anytime soon. Our procurement/selection process is convoluted enough without adding this extra layer of a**-pain.


----------



## AlexanderM

I thought the Americans made it very clear that the F22 wasn't available to anyone.


----------



## Transporter

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I thought the Americans made it very clear that the F22 wasn't available to anyone.



It was considered at one point if I recall correctly, and there was discussion within the US government of potentially developing an export variant, but that never went anywhere.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Privateer said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I cannot agree with that, and I respectfully suggest that unless you are a ship driver, that you have don't have the experience to say that.  I had the opportunity to drive a HALIFAX class (as 2OOW), and I would have been adrift without my KINGSTON class experience.  Obviously the HALIFAX class has much more going on in terms of weapons, sensors, and helos, but the fundamentals of ship driving (vice fighting) are not much different on a HALIFAX class than an MCDV.  I can't speak to ORCA experience.



I have no ORCA class time, but did do a bit on the old YAGs, MCDVs, 280s and tankers.  Actually found YAGs more useful then MCDVs, as they were all ruddered ships.

For the AOPs, the icebreaking is a completely new role and takes a lot of experience.  So unless we let the CG folks pilot it, that will need a lot of simulator time before anyone actually goes into the ice, plus having some experienced CG pilots on the bridge until we have more time under our belts.

Not saying it's a full replacement, but given the lack of sea time and all the competing priorities at sea, an upgrade to our current trainers and much more varied scenarios needs a serious look.   Can't predict everything, but should be able to simulate most high risk common scenarios fairly well.  Also would be nice to inject engineering difficulties in there as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have only a little bit of ice time at the wheel of a 1100 class, it's a case of learning where to hit and how much. Normally a team ballet between the Officer of the watch and Quartermaster. It kind of fun for the first few hours. Mind you I served on the R class which had no auto-pilot so 12hrs at the wheel in 20 minutes stints with another seaman was the norm.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I have no ORCA class time, but did do a bit on the old YAGs, MCDVs, 280s and tankers.  Actually found YAGs more useful then MCDVs, as they were all ruddered ships.
> 
> For the AOPs, the icebreaking is a completely new role and takes a lot of experience.  So unless we let the CG folks pilot it, that will need a lot of simulator time before anyone actually goes into the ice, plus having some experienced CG pilots on the bridge until we have more time under our belts.
> 
> Not saying it's a full replacement, but given the lack of sea time and all the competing priorities at sea, an upgrade to our current trainers and much more varied scenarios needs a serious look.   Can't predict everything, but should be able to simulate most high risk common scenarios fairly well.  Also would be nice to inject engineering difficulties in there as well.




I think simulators have an important role in both training and in 'skill maintenance.' The highlighted bit is, however, vital, in my _opinion_. In Army terms, we can do all the TEWTS (Tactical Exercises Without Troops) and map exercises and research war games in the world, but nothing replaces moving units to the field, conducting training and sustaining the units there. Managing all the "competing priorities" is also a vital part of our training.

I understand that budget problems restrain sea time, flying hours and days in the field; we you need to make better, more imaginative and just plain more use of simulators, all the while being conscious of the fact that it is just a simulator, you're not at sea (or in the air, or ...).


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think simulators have an important role in both training and in 'skill maintenance.' The highlighted bit is, however, vital, in my _opinion_. In Army terms, we can do all the TEWTS (Tactical Exercises Without Troops) and map exercises and research war games in the world, but nothing replaces moving units to the field, conducting training and sustaining the units there. Managing all the "competing priorities" is also a vital part of our training.
> 
> I understand that budget problems restrain sea time, flying hours and days in the field; we you need to make better, more imaginative and just plain more use of simulators, all the while being conscious of the fact that it is just a simulator, you're not at sea (or in the air, or ...).



 :goodpost: Fully agree;  Essentially that's what we do for damage control; you get your basic qualifications at the DC school. confirm your ship specific knowledge on board while alongside (that is maintained with daily alongside exercises), then exercise the entire DC organization at sea.  It's not cheap, but it seems reasonably effective, and makes sure you get the best bang for buck if you properly plan what you are going to do while you are actually at sea.  There are some arguements for fires that the final confirmation at the school should be done with a real diesel fire (gets a lot hotter) so it's more realistic, but the natural gas still does a decent job

That lets you focus on doing unit level training where you can exercise all the different departments together, vice having to start with basic individual skills.


----------

