# Canada, Australia, U.K. Sign Joint Strike Fighter Agreements



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2006)

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12, 2006 – With the first flight of the Joint Strike Fighter set for this week, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have “re-enlisted” for the program. 

Canada signed on for the project’s production, sustainment and follow-on development phase during a Pentagon ceremony here yesterday. Australia signed on today as part of the U.S.-Australia ministerial meetings at the State Department, and the United Kingdom signed at a Pentagon ceremony today. 

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Defense Department’s program for a “multi-role” stealth air-to-ground strike aircraft. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and allies are developing the system together. 

Canadian Deputy Defense Minister Ward Elcock and U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a memorandum of understanding that calls on Canada to pledge $150 million toward production of the Joint Strike Fighter. Canada already has contributed $150 million to the system-development and demonstration portion of the program. 

“This is a very special event, because it is a very special partnership,” England said during the ceremony. “The United States and Canada share the strongest possible bonds of friendship, family and fundamental values, as well as a common border.” 

“The Joint Strike Fighter program represents a revolutionary approach to both aircraft development and international armaments cooperation,” Elcock said. “It brings together expertise from many different countries and is, as a result, the single largest fighter aircraft program in the world.” 

The United Kingdom has been involved with the Joint Strike Fighter program since its inception 10 years ago and is in to the program to the tune of $2 billion. United Kingdom Minister for Defense Procurement Lord Peter Drayson signed a memorandum of understanding early today in the Pentagon. 

The deputy defense secretary thanked his British counterpart and praised the way American and British forces work together. “We've had this relationship for a long, long time,” England said. “Our forces are engaged today. As we sign this, there's people out there defending freedom together. They do it every day, shoulder to shoulder, and it's the same way our nations are shoulder to shoulder. I'm just delighted that we have brought this to a conclusion today. We look forward to a long relationship with the Joint Strike Fighter program.” 

The British plan for a total buy of up to 150 short-take-off-and-vertical-landing versions of the aircraft for use on two future aircraft carriers. 

Canada also is making a substantial investment in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Canadians plan to buy 80 F-35 conventional-take-off-and-landing aircraft to replace its CF-18 aircraft. The program, led by Lockheed-Martin, will build three variants of the fighter: a conventional model, a carrier model, and a vertical-take-off-and-landing model. The United States has dubbed the aircraft the F-35 Lightning 2. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will use the three aircraft variants. The F-35 will replace the Air Force’s F-16 Falcon, the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ F/A-18 Hornet, and the Marines’ AV-8B Harrier. 

Elcock stressed that the program demonstrates how well the United States and Canada can work together. “The program will allow the United States and Canada to continue to benefit from each others’ wealth of technology and expertise,” he said. 

Canada expects to retire its CF-18 fleet sometime after 2017, Elcock said. “Canada needs to explore what it needs from the next generation of fighter aircraft,” he said. “Our continued involvement in this project will help us determine our future fighter requirements for the Canadian Forces. Certainly, one capability we know we want to have is interoperability with the United States and our allies.” 

Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson signed the memorandum during a ceremony at the U.S. State Department today. “It is an extremely important day for Australia and our air-defense capability,” Nelson said. “The Joint Strike Fighter is most certainly the correct aircraft for Australia in terms of air-to-air combat and its strike capabilities. 

“It will see Australia through the next 30 to 40 years. It is a state-of-the-art aircraft, and we look forward very much to the imminent first flight.” 

Other international partners participating in the program are: the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Denmark and Norway. Other nations, including Singapore and Israel, have expressed interest in the program. 

Officials say plans call for building more than 2,400 F-35 aircraft by 2027.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/12/mil-061212-afps04.htm


----------



## Cdnronin (15 Dec 2006)

*Canada commits up to $500 million to the development of CF-18 replacement * 
MURRAY BREWSTER OTTAWA (CP) - Despite the misgivings of some allies, the federal government is spending an additional half-billion dollars for the final development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a stealth jet meant to replace Canada's aging CF-18s. ........

visit http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_n121383A.xml.html for more ino.


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Dec 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Officials say plans call for building more than 2,400 F-35 aircraft by 2027.


Hmm, so this means that some of those who will pilot these aircraft are not even born yet, or are very young. Also, why wouldn't we (Canada) buy some VTOL (vertical take off landing) types? Would it be the total cost with those and the verson we will buy?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2006)

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> Hmm, so this means that some of those who will pilot these aircraft are not even born yet, or are very young.



New Poster (Picture something like the old 'Uncle Sam' "We want You" Posters)

"Lots of time for You to raise a future CF Pilot!"


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Dec 2006)

'bout time we anticipated future defence needs and got on the ball instead of waiting until 15 years after something should be replaced to deal witrh it...


----------



## stfx_monty (15 Dec 2006)

I think it's important to not that our initial investment has been very lucrative for us so far. That investment will only become more valuable once this beast goes into production. It's not often that our procurement efforts have as much benefit as this. Is it perfect? No, but it's good enough to maintain.


----------



## peaches (15 Dec 2006)

Good to see we are moving ahead on this, but 80 jets will not be enough.........


----------



## aesop081 (15 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> Good to see we are moving ahead on this, but 80 jets will not be enough.........



No one ever said Canada was going to buy JSF


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Dec 2006)

Been posted here also
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54615.0.html


----------



## Navy_Blue (16 Dec 2006)

I think if they were to buy only 80 they would try and justify less maned Airframes for more UAV technology.  If you have UAV's as Recon (even attack in a pinch) and couple that to smart weapons on a stealth maned Aircraft then you would not necessarily need to replace the CF-18 one for one.  

Just a thought tho.


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

As it stands now we have 80 upgraded CF18's, 80 is not enough.  We have 80 jets for a training sqn, continental air defence, CAS support to deployed army ops (or army ops here in Canada, if it ever came to that, God forbid), air interdiction, etc etc....  Some of the 80 jets will be in maint, as you can see we use up 80 jets quickly. 

IMHO we need two full up fighter WINGS minimum.  A dedicated NORAD AD sqn for eastern Canada & western Canada, as well as dedicated CAS/air interdiction sqn east & west, plus an OTS.  Could a combined force of CF-135's & UCAV do it, possibly....

As I have said before Canada is the second largest land mass on earth, 80 fighters is not enough.  Another horrible possibility to consider, we may a some point in the future have to fight a war on Canadain soil, perhaps in the high north, 80 jets won't cut it.....


----------



## gaspasser (16 Dec 2006)

+1 Peaches.  WE need more operational fighters and pilots.  Ones that will stay and not end up with Air Canada.
If / when we get the new CF 135 (is that the new designation?) will any 18's be retired?


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

CF-135 is sorta my designation, just expanding on the current CF numbers system.  Don't want to confuse them with the USAF KC135.I am an Air Weapons Control Officer, I can tell you we do not have enough fighter, no question.  In the cold war days we had 66 Voodoos just for NORAD defence, they did nothing else, NORAD, NORAD, NORAD, and they were good at it.  Our CF5 guys did CAS, all day, every day.  Right now our Cf18 guys, God bless them, they do everything, air defence, CAS, air interdiction, I am surprised they are not doing SAR and cargo drops.

We need to specialize a bit more.  A real fighter wing in Cold Lake should, IMHO, have a fully equipped Air Defence sqn, that's all they do, air "superiority" for western Canada, paired up with a second sqn that does CAS, BAI.  Same thing in Bagtown, with 410 as OTS that can back fill as AD for NORAD at higher DEFCON levels.

Here's an idea how about 5 operational fighter sqns, & a training sqn.  An air defence sqn in Cold lake, paired with a CAS sqn to support 1 CMBG ops, same thing in Bagtown, air defence sqn and a CAS sqn to support 5CMBG, and a fifth sqn in Trenton to provide CAS/BAI support to 2CMBG ops, and 410 OTS in Cold Lake.

18 jets per sqn x 5 sqns = 90, plus 24 in OTS = 114, plus 5 in AETE= 119, plus spares = say up to 138, the original number of Cf18s' ordered.  It is doable....

Pilots will gladly stay in an Air Force, if they can fly...........

Thoughs.........


----------



## Paul Gagnon (16 Dec 2006)

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> While I agree that we need good, modern fighters to fulfil our NORAD commitments, defend the continent (Bears flew near this summer and North Korea is not all that far away), I think our Air Force needs to look a bit closer to the ground.  Having worked on 2 deployments with attack helicopters in support and seeing their value in other theatres and the flexibility they bring for prosecuting the 3 Block War, I think that Canada still needs some form of rotary-wing ground support airframe - I don't care which one, I'm looking at the need for Canada to have that capability...



I definitely agree that we need that capability however I disagree that these should be Air Force resources. It does not make sense to have aircraft that are being used in direct support of the Army in an entirely different command. I have never understood why green and grey helicopters fall under the blue umbrella.


----------



## gaspasser (16 Dec 2006)

_...and I'd also like a GI with kung-fu grip.  A set of crayons...and...and..._
Oh that wold be lovely to have that many fighters and jockies to drive 'em.


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

Why do green & grey helos fall under the blue umbrella, that's all thanks to that military "visionary" Mr Hellier in 1968. I say bring back the RCN & RCAF, IMO. 

I agree 1000% we need attack helos, AH64 or AH1Z would be nice.  The Air Force can provide the force if so equipped, we are a JOINT military, it should not matter the colour of the dress uniform the guy flying wears, we are under joint command.

The problem lies in mindset.  The Canadian Air Force (I am in it) does not from what I have seen have a warrior mentality.  When I was on exchange with the USAF flying AWACS, they have the mind set that "we are at war, or soon would be" all the time.  It was a FIGHTING Air Force.  We in the Canadian Air Force to not approach it with the same sense of urgency, or seriousness, IMHO.


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

Driver,

I realize that there is NO WAY right now we could achieve what I suggested, however we need desperately to rebuild this Air Force.  We don't need a massive 1000 plane force, but we should be striving toward an effective end state.  A small to medium size force can be effective & lethal if so equipped.  Look at the Dutch AF, Aussie AF, small but well equipped for real COMBAT!!!  I am a hard core AF guy, but our AF is in no way a COMBAT AF.  Certain units may be temporally, but overall we are not.  

Rebuild and aim toward something effective........


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> Why do green & grey helos fall under the blue umbrella, that's all thanks to that military "visionary" Mr Hellier in 1968.



That's one you cannot hang on Paul Hellyer.  In fact the current _organization_, if that's the right word, was the Air Force's _revenge_ against Mr. Hellyer's diktats.

In the mid '60s, as the (misnamed) _unification_ process got started, the Navy and the Army *owned* their own air arms - Maritime Air Group was an organic component of Maritime Command as 10th Tactical Air Group (two Wings) was integral to Mobile Command.  The pilots and aircraft were 100% part and parcel of the Army.

There were to Air (Force) Commands: Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command and one formation - an Air Division in Europe.

New aircraft threatened the Air Force's officer heavy rank structure.  Simply put: the (then) next generation fighter could do more with less - especially less pilots.   There were still lots of rotary wing pilots - but they were, for the most part, in the 'Navy' or 'Army' and were likely to become admirals or land force generals - not at all what the Air Force needed to ensure a 'fair' (large) share of the most senior positions.

As a result of the Air Force’s _intrigues_ (the right word, I think) we became the only military organized around means of mobility, but that change came long after Paul Hellyer had left the scene and it flies in the face of what he was trying to do.


----------



## gaspasser (16 Dec 2006)

My post was meant to be sarcastic.  I fully understood where you're coming from, peaches.  We need what we once had.  An effective and combat ready Air Force, Navy and Land Forces with mission capable equipment.  The Land forces need more Griffins and troop transports PLUS attack helos to get thier jobs done.  We seem to be overstretched again with little equipment to pull the jobs off.  We can't be using the same airframe for multiple missions over and over again, they just won't put up with it.  More and different types of fighters is a good thing. No more generic, one plane to do all, winged warriors.  But like on the other thread, I don't think we need AC 130 gunships that can erradicate an entire grid square.  Newer Hercs or transport airframes to get the job done, hence _the new to us _ C-17's.  What will happen to them once we're done overseas?  We can use them for humanitarian drops, etc.  
We also need more people to do the job, not just SOLDIERS but Air Trades and Sea Trades and Purple Trades to cover off for leave and our already exhuasted  deployed forces.
I think we also need to re-open some old bases or make new ones to accomadate these new members.  Or at least make some of what we have into super bases.  I think that one is in the works, but I'm no SME.
In short, we need more to do the job.  We've been telling the government for years and it finally took uncle Rick to kick some butt and get some bucks poured into the military.
I digress, I think.  rant off


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

Driver,

I agree 1000%.  I don't know about that whole superbase thing.  I spent a few yrs on USAF AWACS at Tinker AFB OK.  That's a SUPERBASE, wow.  They idea of a superbase has merrit, few base hospitals, CE sections Base trnsp, MP's OR etc, but on drawback is that it futher isolates us from the Canadian public, the people we recruit from, and ultimatlty serve.

Here's a radical question to throw out there, WHY DO WE NEED AIR FORCE BASE AT ALL??  We need Moosejaw & Cold Lake for sure, pilot training needs to be away from civilian areas, in sanitzed airspace, as does CF18 ops on the Cold Lake Air weapons Range (CLAWR).  Can't be dropping bombs near downtown Ottawa.

But why do we need Comox, there's only 5 CP140's and a SAR sqn there, why not close it, move CP140's & SAR to Victoria with Sea Kings (19 Wg Victoria), just like 17 Wg Winnipeg.  Move 408 sqn edmonton to the Edmonton Itnl, or to Red Deer regional airport, use civi airports.  Trenton, put 436 sqn C130's into London, put C17's in Hamilton airport (its a cargo air hub), base our Airbus sqn in Ottawa, 425 Sqn Bagotville, its one sqn, build a hanger in Quebec City and move them there.  Close 14 Wing Greenwood, move an Aurora sqn to St John's NFLD or Gander, another ot the Halifax intl airport, or maybe Moncton or Charlottetown PEI, move Sea Kings to Halifax intl. 

My model is the USAF ANG/Reserve units they have all over the US.  If we spread out the AF, we could better connect with Canadians, bigger foot print better support, more recruits.  Western Ontario is one the most populated areas of Canada, no CF bases, just res units.

This is just a radical question, thinking outside the box, thoughts..........


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Dec 2006)

The reason we need air force bases, Peaches, is: DLAs (Designated Loading Areas).

You cannot load and unload weapons, or store armed aircraft at civilian airfields in Canada, because we simply do not have the explosive safe distances (the distance you need in case things go catastrophically wrong with a bomb/missile-I seem to recall that the minimum) distance starts at 1000 feet and goes up from there, depending how big a boom the weapon can make- I think you can find the answer in Div Orders online at work, if you look) from civilians or civilian infrastructure at any civilian aerodrome in Canada, that I am aware of.  Even our remaining Air Force bases that have DLAs are getting crowded by the civvies building up to our fence lines.

This is what saved Comox- unless you want to go to NAS Whidbey Island (and depend on the US Navy), the only place you can arm a CF aircraft on the west coast is Comox.

So, yeah- we could base all of our aircraft at Edmonton International, or Vancouver or Halifax or Montreal- but we couldn't arm them, so what's the point?


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

I am just thinking of way that perhaps we could better use our AF dollars.  Just thinking out loud.  Not 100% sure how USAF ANG/RES does it, as I am sure you all know they have bases everywhere.  

My thougth process is that if we did not own the airport, just used a corner of it, maybe it would reduce our operating costs and increase our footprint across Canada.  How does the USAF hold NORAD alert with armed F15's at Portland OR IAP, Great Falls Montana AP, Duluth Minn, Atlantic City NJ, Jacksonville FL etc.....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Dec 2006)

Good question- you would have to ask the USAF how they manage.

I'm guessing that- different countries, different rules.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Dec 2006)

Peaches......

Only 4 CP-140 in Comox


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

Sorry about the YQQ mis-count, thought the DEMONS had 5.  No more CP140A's, is that why??

My whole point here is that the AF, & CF for that matter has a large infastructure budget, just thinking of ways to cut it down, more $$ for ops. less for paying electric bills, snow removal, runway repair & upkeep, us civi ATC etc... If closing a base and co-locating to a civi airport bought us 5 more CP140's (or in future P8's) or a few more fighters, might be worth it.

I know from my time on exchange in the US that their Guard bases were for the most part on civi airports.  Arming of a/c is something I never thought of I admit, thanks for the info.  I know here in NB with the armed alert fighters, itI is a big deal to put them down on a civi airport, even for them to do approaches into one.  Each airport however does have a dangerous cargo plan, perhaps that could be used.

I can assure you all that if it came down to a confilct where Canada itself was under attack, and God forbid it may happen in the future, our CF bases would be gone quickly, and we would be operating what was left off civi airports.


----------



## Navy_Blue (17 Dec 2006)

We are looking at 10 yrs here.  Does anyone think UAV technology could come to a level where it can really provide support to maned fighters??  To become an extention of there operational capability.  If you have a aircraft with attack capabilities (speed, firepower, ect) with the ability to linger on station north of 60 for 24+ hrs does this not negate the need for several manned Aircraft and there pilots and there trainers??  I hate to say it but UVA tech is good now what will it be in 10 to 15 years??


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Dec 2006)

> Then shake up the Air Force so it has a warfighting mentality like the US has (+1 peaches on that) - I don't care what colour uniform the pilots have as long as they are warfighters and know how to follow orders to support the mission without getting any "well the Bde Comd can't order us to fly because we belong to 1 CAD, etc etc etc..."



Command-Sense-Act,

While I am clearly not privy to your experiences dealing with the Air Force, I can tell you that this whole arrangement is a two-way street.  I have had a ship's Captain order me to do stuff with my crew and aircraft that not only violated 1 Cdn Div Orders, but also National Defence Flying Orders, the laws of physics and aerodynamics, and every precept of good airmanship known to mankind.  In short- he gave orders that were impossible to follow without killing myself, my crew and destroying the airplane, not to mention burning his ship to the waterline.  

I fell back on telling him that, if he wanted me to violate my orders that badly, he could put it in writing.  He backed off every time.

I usually attempt to short-circuit this by sitting down with a Captain and discussing with him what I can and can't do for him, before we get into a difficult situation.  Most listen- some won't.

The point of my mini-rant:  It would be nice if some people in the Navy and the Army accepted that we know more about flying than they do.  Watching Blackhawk Down does not make you an expert.  We in the Air Force (for the most part- there is always the odd idiot out there) are not trying to get out of flying in support of the Navy or the Army. Often, however, we are limited by the equipment that the government has seen fit to give us, the experience levels of our crews, our spare parts supplies, or (probably most often), the weather.  If you think we are saying "no" to supporting you on a particular day in an off-hand manner, I can assure you that is not (usually) the case.  We have done a risk assessment and most times have discovered that what you are asking is not possible without (potentially) killing lots of people.

Another thing that I have seen that still shocks me is that many commanders don't actually understand the limits of the "CHOP" message that cuts us to a ship.  There are things that they are allowed to order- and many that they are not, precisely because they do not have the expertise to understand the ramifications of those orders.

And rather than bitch about how we do business without understanding our business, it would not hurt of few more of you to read 1 Cdn Air Div Orders, as well as National Defence Flying Orders.  If you are going to someday command an operation that includes aviation- at least have a cursory understanding of the rules we live with (which, BTW are mostly written in blood).

In summary- I love flying for the Navy (mostly).  I believe in serviceable helos, competent crews, risky missions and finding a way of making the rules work for you.  I do not believe in killing crews and destroying aircraft for no possible pay off.

My two cents worth.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> Sorry about the YQQ mis-count, thought the DEMONS had 5.  No more CP140A's, is that why??



Nope......we never had CP-140A over here.....all of them in YZX

SKT :

+1 on all counts.


----------



## matt mcc (16 Jul 2010)

i was just wondering if anyone could tell me if the f-35 is a twin. I know that was a major selling feature in the deal for the F-18s because of the vastness of the north so it seems kind of stupid that all i can find are singles.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jul 2010)

Butting in here in something I know little about: Airplanes.

So now that this admission of ignorance is out of the way, I just want to correct some apparent misconception on historical aspects. 

Someone proposed a return to the old pre-unification RCN, RCAF, Canadian Army structure for air assets, while others asked why everything belongs to the boys in blue.

Just to make things historically correct, I would like to point out that, in Canada, as opposed to the US, the army has never operated its own aircraft, pre and post unification, this was handled by the boys in light blue.

As for the Navy, contrary to the US and the UK, it had no air assets prior to the beginning of WWII. Early in the war, it became clear that the Battle of the Atlantic would ultimately be won in the air by ASW planes, be they short, medium or long range maritime recce birds. In Canada, these planes all belonged and were operated by the RCAF, but under the operational control of the Navy, in what ultimately became joint operations centers. Towards the end of the war, Canada was given operational command of a few escort carriers. At first, the airmen were "borrowed" from the British Naval Air Arm, but slowly, pilots of the RCAF were substituted in and ask to become naval pilots. As Canada decided to stay in the Carrier business after the war, this separation of duties remained in place: Shipborne flying would be the province of the naval aviators while the maritime patrol task, flown from land, would remain in the hands of the Air Force, with both under the operational control of the Maritime Air Group. This is why you still see lots of pictures of the old Argus in RCAF livery.

While the naval air arm of Canada's Navy did extremely well and earned a well deserved great reputation, it had a short history (about 25 years) as the retirement of our last carrier almost coincided with the unification. All in all, this means that  the Navy has, at all time, exercised control over air assets that belonged to the Air Force and has never been the worse for doing so.

As for the number of planes we need, I am no air expert, but I know geographic size, and particularly that of my country. Only planes in sufficient numbers can provide for its proper defence. Nowadays, neither navies nor armies can safely operate without air cover on any  battlefield. IMHO, Canada needs the following air capabilities, in that order:

1- Patrol and Surveillance from the air - both over our oceans and land mass;
2- Capacity to then intercept and destroy air intrusions;
3- Capacity to intercept and destroy intrusion on (or under) our oceans; 
4- Capacity to deploy the army and its equipment to points of encounter of our own choosing in Canada as may be required to counter land intrusion;
5- Capacity to provide combat air support to the army;
6- Capacity to provide combat air support to the Navy;
7- Airlift in Canada;
8- Airlift abroad;
9- SAR.

IMO, 2, 3, 5 and 6 require acquisition of the F-35, I think in both the A and C versions and 5, 6 could also see the useful employment of a number of "Apache" style Helos, especially, for the 35C's and "attack helos", if the government ever decides to come through with the "Big Honking Ships", which we interpreted in the Navy as amphibious assault ships of some description.

My 2 cents worth.


----------



## airforcemissingthearmy (17 Jul 2010)

peaches, I can't but only wonder about your tough process WRT using civilian airports. By believing we would not have to pay for such thing has snow removal... I'm sorry to say it that way, but in 2010, notting is free. I've been working in or around contracting for the Defence Team for 7 years and I would like to shed some light on your reply. PWGSC, the all mighty body that looks after the moneys we spent and how, will require a new lease contract every year, and believe me, it takes months to get the job done. Further to this, it may come as a shock to many of you, but DND/CF do not pay a cent of insurance on their infra. That would be an added cost. I recall an incident in Cold Lake were a $3 000 000 was lost into a fire... lots of paperwork to explain that one and to fix the bill with the asset owner. We have what we call standing offer on many goods or services including fuel and maintenance.Were would your fuel come from and who would replenish your aircraft's? I can assure you it would have to be from contractors. Of course, since I am part of the purple support trades, I will preach for my church. Logistics, Engineering and TIS and many other support trades would be the first one to suffer from this type of AF assets spreeding and they would be redistributed were needed. What to do in case of deployments witch by the way are getting more and more frequent up North? Recall all members to a civilian airfield for training? Centralization of units was a way used in the 90's to reduce cost. This is how the AF in Edmonton moved to Cold Lake, PPCLI/LDSH/1 CER moved from Calgary and Chiliwak to Edmonton after they closed Griesbach and CFSME moved from Chiliwak to Gagetown to join the CTC with the Infantry/Artillery/Armoured schools. Has for contact with Canadian population, I agree with you at 100%. I was a "combat clerk" at Quebec recruiting centre and the numbers are only but amusing. Quebec itself, most of the applicants are going Army. Chicoutimi, most of the applicants would go...surprise! surprise! Air Force!


----------

