Author Topic: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)  (Read 690433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,152
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2100 on: January 01, 2018, 14:33:09 »
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-jets-and-vets

MACKAY: Jets and vets - Toronto Sun - 31 Dec 17


Over two years ago in the general election, the Trudeau Liberals promised a great deal for Canada’s military and for veterans.

A new era of open, transparent procurement was promised to replace the aging CF-18 fighter jet fleet. That included a solemn vow to not buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter, committed to by the previous Conservative government, because said breathlessly by the PM at the time” the plane doesn’t work and won’t work.” Yet, currently six countries have taken delivery of over 300 F-35s and another six have committed to do so.

The previous $9-billion deal for 65 F-35s announced by the Harper Government in 2012 was savaged by opposition, media and ultimately cratered by the auditor general, who used an entirely new metric of life cycle costing over a much extended period of 45 years to inflate the number and spook the public.

Canada would be taking delivery of those aircraft next year had it proceeded.

Recently, in a do-over announcement of a process that will add years and involve the outlay of $19-billion (not using life cycle costing) to purchase the permanent replacement for the CF-18 fleet, a new caveat was added.

The new, open and transparent process for selecting the winning replacement jet may not….wait for it… include Boeing this time. Here we go again.

The proposed 88 new jets delivered sometime post-2025, will not be purchased from a company causing “economic harm” to Canada (read: Bombardier) or which can’t be viewed as a “trusted partner.”

Curiously, just a few months ago, Canada had pretty well sealed a deal to purchase 18 “interim” Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. That was before the Trudeau government hit the brakes on the purchase because of a trade dispute between Boeing and Bombardier, saying that it wouldn’t go through, as Boeing could no longer be considered a “trusted partner.”

Bombardier has, in the meantime, inked an agreement with Airbus to build at least part of the C-Series at the Alabama Airbus plant, while the dumping case against Bombardier is proceeding. Not sure, given how much taxpayer money has flowed to Bombardier recently, that we have emerged on the winning side of this transaction, but I digress.

The Federal government will now reverse its announcement of just a few months ago to buy 18 new Super Hornets from Boeing and, instead, buy used Boeing F-18 Hornets from Australia, relying on a made up capability gap, which no one in the Royal Canadian Air Force really believes to be true.

Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood, commander of the RCAF, testified to the fact there was none before a parliamentary committee a year ago. The former Chief of the Defence Staff General Tom Lawson, said he would prefer to get on with the process for a permanent replacement now and forego the interim process.

Photo Caption - I left in as the dates are interesting. Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence speaks to the military and media as he announces Canada will be acquiring the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lighting II Friday July 16, 2010 in Ottawa. Next to Minister MacKay is Minster Tony Clement. The government of Canada will buy 65 of these Joint Strike fighters and they are expected to be delivered in 2016.

The defence minister, contradicting the general on the gap and himself said recently, that “we don’t need to buy used equipment, we need new aircraft.”

All this clatter provides a convenient out and a solution to a problem created by Liberal double-speak in the last campaign. After two years trying to square the circle of two contradictory promises — an “open” competition and one which excludes the best aircraft, the F-35 stealth fighter, Australia provided an opportune solution to the self-inflicted wound and unnecessary answer to the non-existent capability gap — surplus F-18 fighters that Australia is replacing with the F-35 stealth fighters, the same ones that our PM claims don’t work. All very confusing.

And all very troubling to RCAF pilots, technicians and their families. Which is why so many are leaving the service.

These politically motivated decisions and delays will indeed lead to a capability gap, a real one with souring costs. The Liberal credibility gap between what they say and do leaves the Forces without vital equipment.

This is all to familiar as it is eerily similar to the political mangling of the EH101 contract by the Chretien Liberals after the 1993 election. No “Cadillac helicopters,” he proclaimed for our brave pilots and crew performing courageous lifesaving acts of rescue over the frigid oceans on our coasts.

That clanger cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars in cancellation fees with the fleet still not fully replaced and ongoing wrangling with the ensuing winner (Sikorski) of the new re-styled contract. And then, there were the used submarines bought in that same era and the saga that followed. There is a troubling pattern of behaviour with Liberals and defence.

A similar sad story line applies to promises made to veterans in relation to abandoning litigation involving disability payments and the reintroduction of lifelong pensions for disabled members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The original change was engineered by the previous Liberal Government in 2005. The return to the old system of lifelong pensions has been delayed again, leaving many veterans skeptical of what is coming — perhaps just adding a few dollars to the lump sum disability payment and then spreading that money out over the rest of the veteran’s life, based on actuarial tables.

A simple cost-effective and timely solution to helping disabled veterans with livable pensions, would be to forego the $500 million plus upgrades about to be forked out to Australia for 18 aging F-18 fighters, and just take the pool of money saved and fund disabled veterans.

Add the fact that, with an immediate fighter replacement competition, the RCAF would have its permanent replacement much sooner than 2025. This would surely receive the support of Canadian taxpayers and be viewed as a far more principled path forward. This entirely unprincipled and politically motivated gong show should be a non-starter.

Hopefully, in the New Year, the House of Commons Defence Committee can examine this mess and explore sensible solutions (i.e. an immediate competition which will very likely be won by the F-35, just as it has won every other competition.)

Then, get on with the actual implementation and fulfil our commitments to our citizens and our allies.

Peter MacKay is a former Conservative national defence minister.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Online tomydoom

  • New Member
  • **
  • 6,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 37
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2101 on: January 01, 2018, 17:42:52 »
Kids I


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”
― Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2102 on: January 01, 2018, 20:17:48 »
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-jets-and-vets

MACKAY: Jets and vets - Toronto Sun - 31 Dec 17


Over two years ago in the general election, the Trudeau Liberals promised a great deal for Canada’s military and for veterans.

A new era of open, transparent procurement was promised to replace the aging CF-18 fighter jet fleet. That included a solemn vow to not buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter, committed to by the previous Conservative government, because said breathlessly by the PM at the time” the plane doesn’t work and won’t work.” Yet, currently six countries have taken delivery of over 300 F-35s and another six have committed to do so.

The previous $9-billion deal for 65 F-35s announced by the Harper Government in 2012 was savaged by opposition, media and ultimately cratered by the auditor general, who used an entirely new metric of life cycle costing over a much extended period of 45 years to inflate the number and spook the public.

Canada would be taking delivery of those aircraft next year had it proceeded.

Recently, in a do-over announcement of a process that will add years and involve the outlay of $19-billion (not using life cycle costing) to purchase the permanent replacement for the CF-18 fleet, a new caveat was added.

The new, open and transparent process for selecting the winning replacement jet may not….wait for it… include Boeing this time. Here we go again.

The proposed 88 new jets delivered sometime post-2025, will not be purchased from a company causing “economic harm” to Canada (read: Bombardier) or which can’t be viewed as a “trusted partner.”

Curiously, just a few months ago, Canada had pretty well sealed a deal to purchase 18 “interim” Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. That was before the Trudeau government hit the brakes on the purchase because of a trade dispute between Boeing and Bombardier, saying that it wouldn’t go through, as Boeing could no longer be considered a “trusted partner.”

Bombardier has, in the meantime, inked an agreement with Airbus to build at least part of the C-Series at the Alabama Airbus plant, while the dumping case against Bombardier is proceeding. Not sure, given how much taxpayer money has flowed to Bombardier recently, that we have emerged on the winning side of this transaction, but I digress.

The Federal government will now reverse its announcement of just a few months ago to buy 18 new Super Hornets from Boeing and, instead, buy used Boeing F-18 Hornets from Australia, relying on a made up capability gap, which no one in the Royal Canadian Air Force really believes to be true.

Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood, commander of the RCAF, testified to the fact there was none before a parliamentary committee a year ago. The former Chief of the Defence Staff General Tom Lawson, said he would prefer to get on with the process for a permanent replacement now and forego the interim process.

Photo Caption - I left in as the dates are interesting. Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence speaks to the military and media as he announces Canada will be acquiring the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lighting II Friday July 16, 2010 in Ottawa. Next to Minister MacKay is Minster Tony Clement. The government of Canada will buy 65 of these Joint Strike fighters and they are expected to be delivered in 2016.

The defence minister, contradicting the general on the gap and himself said recently, that “we don’t need to buy used equipment, we need new aircraft.”

All this clatter provides a convenient out and a solution to a problem created by Liberal double-speak in the last campaign. After two years trying to square the circle of two contradictory promises — an “open” competition and one which excludes the best aircraft, the F-35 stealth fighter, Australia provided an opportune solution to the self-inflicted wound and unnecessary answer to the non-existent capability gap — surplus F-18 fighters that Australia is replacing with the F-35 stealth fighters, the same ones that our PM claims don’t work. All very confusing.

And all very troubling to RCAF pilots, technicians and their families. Which is why so many are leaving the service.

These politically motivated decisions and delays will indeed lead to a capability gap, a real one with souring costs. The Liberal credibility gap between what they say and do leaves the Forces without vital equipment.

This is all to familiar as it is eerily similar to the political mangling of the EH101 contract by the Chretien Liberals after the 1993 election. No “Cadillac helicopters,” he proclaimed for our brave pilots and crew performing courageous lifesaving acts of rescue over the frigid oceans on our coasts.

That clanger cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars in cancellation fees with the fleet still not fully replaced and ongoing wrangling with the ensuing winner (Sikorski) of the new re-styled contract. And then, there were the used submarines bought in that same era and the saga that followed. There is a troubling pattern of behaviour with Liberals and defence.

A similar sad story line applies to promises made to veterans in relation to abandoning litigation involving disability payments and the reintroduction of lifelong pensions for disabled members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The original change was engineered by the previous Liberal Government in 2005. The return to the old system of lifelong pensions has been delayed again, leaving many veterans skeptical of what is coming — perhaps just adding a few dollars to the lump sum disability payment and then spreading that money out over the rest of the veteran’s life, based on actuarial tables.

A simple cost-effective and timely solution to helping disabled veterans with livable pensions, would be to forego the $500 million plus upgrades about to be forked out to Australia for 18 aging F-18 fighters, and just take the pool of money saved and fund disabled veterans.

Add the fact that, with an immediate fighter replacement competition, the RCAF would have its permanent replacement much sooner than 2025. This would surely receive the support of Canadian taxpayers and be viewed as a far more principled path forward. This entirely unprincipled and politically motivated gong show should be a non-starter.

Hopefully, in the New Year, the House of Commons Defence Committee can examine this mess and explore sensible solutions (i.e. an immediate competition which will very likely be won by the F-35, just as it has won every other competition.)

Then, get on with the actual implementation and fulfil our commitments to our citizens and our allies.

Peter MacKay is a former Conservative national defence minister.
Mackay acts like he wasn't part of a political party that voted to support the change in life long disability payments and a government that continued to fight vets in court over reinstating life long disability payments.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,772
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2103 on: January 01, 2018, 21:35:15 »
Mackay acts like he wasn't part of a political party that voted to support the change in life long disability payments and a government that continued to fight vets in court over reinstating life long disability payments.

Let us all remember that all parties supported that NVC. And government lawyers are the one advising the former and current government to fight the veterans in court.
Nobody's hands are clean in the entire procurement cluster be it ships, subs, helicopters and now fighter jets. The current one has all the makings of a failure of epic proportions. When you think of Canada, that is saying something.


Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,732
  • Freespeecher
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2104 on: January 03, 2018, 22:14:39 »
At the current rate of activity, the RCAF will be buying block 20 or 30 F-35s. We will have the advantage of being able to look at the operational lessons learned of several air forces and the general user lessons learned from about a dozen air forces by that point.....
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 744
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2105 on: January 03, 2018, 22:16:45 »
Not likely.  More chance that we will be buying F35 (used) from the Polish airforce as they will be retiring them to purchase newer aircraft.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 115,124
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,065
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2106 on: January 03, 2018, 22:27:09 »
Ref Mackay....

Sounds like someone wants to have another crack in the political arena  8)

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2107 on: January 03, 2018, 22:30:24 »
Ref Mackay....

Sounds like someone wants to have another crack in the political arena  8)
He's waiting for the knives to come out after Scheer loses to Trudeau.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 240,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,576
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2108 on: January 05, 2018, 19:38:26 »
Not likely.  More chance that we will be buying F35 (used) from the Polish airforce as they will be retiring them to purchase newer aircraft.

Or our ancient generation air superiority fleet will be swept from the skies by a 5th generation equipped opposition and we'll be facing Dunkirk Part II, or an equivalent rat trap, somewhere on the globe.

Which is never good news for the combat arms, but that's OK because we're young, dumb and full of .... beans :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2109 on: January 05, 2018, 20:19:58 »
He's waiting for the knives to come out after Scheer loses to Trudeau.

Yep.  Also his wife is  getting involved again in the political arena since the lack of "progressive" support for Iranian democracy protestors (as she IIRC is either 1st or 2nd gen Canadian by way of Iran).  Their kid must be older and a bit more self sufficient.

Or our ancient generation air superiority fleet will be swept from the skies by a 5th generation equipped opposition and we'll be facing Dunkirk Part II, or an equivalent rat trap, somewhere on the globe.

Which is never good news for the combat arms, but that's OK because we're young, dumb and full of .... beans :)

Don't worry the US will save us, like they will when NK launches a nuke at us.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,590
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2110 on: January 05, 2018, 20:28:25 »
Don't worry the US will save us, like they will when NK launches a nuke at us.

More likely they'll intercept over Canada, and leave us with the cleanup.


On the plus side, if the debris lands at Jane & Finch...
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2111 on: January 05, 2018, 20:30:52 »
More likely they'll intercept over Canada, and leave us with the cleanup.


On the plus side, if the debris lands at Jane & Finch...

Easy now tiger.  Your inference is troubling.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,689
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2112 on: January 06, 2018, 01:11:05 »
More likely they'll intercept over Canada, and leave us with the cleanup.

...

I thought that was the game plan all along?  The Pinetree line was just over the 49th.  Mid Canada pushed the Kill Zone back north of 60 while the DEW and North Warning Lines made the Arctic Archipelago the dumping ground.

If Canada ever settles the North it is going to mess up the defense strategy right proper!
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,505
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2113 on: January 10, 2018, 15:32:15 »
Piece by Alan Stephenson (fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, holds a PhD from Carleton University and is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces with 3,600 fighter hours flying third generation CF-104 Starfighters and fourth generation CF-18 Hornets):

Quote
Australian Fighter purchase is about saving face

Having created a farce of their own design by insisting Canada needed the sole-source purchase of Super Hornets, the government continues to dig itself deeper. The Trudeau government is willing to squander precious defence dollars on purchasing used fighters for partisan purposes. With its announcement in early December to buy used Australian F-18s, Canadians are still confused regarding the so-called ‘gap’ that these fighters are needed to fill.

When challenged, DND states that “for reasons of operational security the RCAF cannot comment further.” This is overt obfuscation and Minister Sajjan refuses to provide any reasonable explanation for the singular increase in force-readiness that he has demanded of the CF-18 fleet to meet all contingencies simultaneously. Has there been any change in the geostrategic environment to trigger this new requirement? No – no other allied nation has followed suit. Has the Minister increased the readiness of any other Canadian military fleet? No – all other readiness levels remain normal.

When the Super Hornet interim buy was announced, it immediately drew overwhelming criticism due to its lack of transparency and evidence. In order to support this decision, Minister Sajjan made use of alternative facts to create a capability gap that the government alleged demanded this drastic interim measure. Until that point, the Commander of the RCAF was confident the CF-18s would meet operational needs until 2025 before the government “changed the policy with the number of aircraft I have to have”.

Despite the negative assessment of most academics and experts to the government’s plan – including 13 former RCAF commanders who publicly stated that an interim purchase was not necessary at all – the government was determined to move ahead. That was until the Super Hornet’s manufacturer, Boeing, successfully petitioned the US Commerce Department to impose a countervailing duty on Bombardier’s C-series aircraft. Once Boeing’s complaint was negated by a deal between Airbus and Bombardier, the government walked away from the US government-approved purchase of Super Hornets with mock indignation. What happened to the capability gap that was so imminent as to require the $7B sole-source purchase of Super Hornets?

From their stated budget and competition timelines, it is evident that the government never intended to provide the funding for the full fighter replacement in the near-term. The evidence also points to the unsettling realization that the government was willing to use the fighter force as a ‘sacrificial lamb’ in the Bombardier/Boeing dispute, and intended to draw $7B from the fiscal framework of the permanent replacement for the CF-18s to support this veiled intercession. Despite all the evidence against the Super Hornet purchase, it was the pawn being offered by government as an incentive to Boeing to leave Bombardier alone. In effect, a federal subsidy in disguise.

The debate over the CF-18 replacement has never been about filling a military need. It has been all about fulfilling misguided political promises and solving the government’s parochial socio-economic issues over defence requirements.  The evidence leads to the conclusion that the government has been deliberately distorting analysis to firstly favour the purchase of Super Hornets and secondly to further delay the promised competition.

Three key actions provide evidence of the government’s deliberate manipulation of the process: (1) the parliamentary defence committee’s report that intentionally shaped the Super Hornet purchase plan; (2) Minister Sajjan’s alternative facts that created the capability gap; and (3) the immediate reversal of the Super Hornet purchase once it became known Boeing could not be bought. Although the government may have wanted to “invest in new planes”, Minister Sajjan’s response to questions on 12 December, saying that the Australian “option wasn’t available at the time” is yet another bold-faced … terminological inexactitude.

As the former RCAF Commanders pointed out in their open letter to the Prime Minister, purchasing legacy Hornets made the most sense “if your government feels compelled to acquire additional fighters for the interim.” This followed their “serious misgivings about the use of a ‘capability gap’ as the basis for your interim plan.” Given the military would normally quietly procure used equipment for sustainment purposes, the announcement of the Australian fighter purchase was all about the government saving face at taxpayers’ expense regarding the fictitious gap, while the reference to ‘economic harm’ was a puerile attempt to deflect the issue from a case of government manipulation of the procurement process to one of economic indignation.

An interim purchase was never needed; only judicious decision-making, free from politicization by government decision-makers. Continuing this course by unnecessarily spending money on used fighters and not moving quickly to competition will only exacerbate this sad comedy, with increased loss of government credibility and integrity.
http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3836-CGAI-CGAI/9005

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,152
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2114 on: January 10, 2018, 17:02:23 »
Disgusting. As I have asked before: why doesn't the Comd and CCWO (plus a couple of other Generals) of the RCAF resign?

Someone please tell me why it is so important to continue serve at the top when this crap is going on? IMHO, I would not be impressed with the example being shown.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2115 on: January 10, 2018, 18:33:58 »
Disgusting. As I have asked before: why doesn't the Comd and CCWO (plus a couple of other Generals) of the RCAF resign?

Someone please tell me why it is so important to continue serve at the top when this crap is going on? IMHO, I would not be impressed with the example being shown.

You don’t get promoted and make it to the top without being “yes men”. Do more with less is our leaderships moto.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 175,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,191
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2116 on: January 10, 2018, 19:58:47 »
You don’t get promoted and make it to the top without being “yes men”. Do more with less is our leaderships moto.

I'm not trying to be an apologist here, but "do more with less" seems like everyone's motto.  Americans, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis...they all say the same.  Of course, "more" and "less" are relative.

As for resigning to prove a point, realistically what would that achieve (except "ending on a high note") unless everyone in the organization does the same thing?  Would it not be better to stay and try to change things from the inside as far as one can do so? 

Sometimes my cynicism drops ever-so-slightly and I dare to think that the leadership isn't concerned primarily about screwing the rest of us over.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,505
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2117 on: January 10, 2018, 20:44:22 »
But then think of those who afterwards get jobs with LockMart etc. ::)

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,152
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2118 on: January 10, 2018, 20:57:40 »
Quirky:
Quote
You don’t get promoted and make it to the top without being “yes men”. Do more with less is our leaderships moto.

Of course we all know when you get way up in the food chain, to get higher, to get the ORMM in the grade of Commander, Meritorious Service Cross, you have to go with the flow. I have personal experience dealing with the then VCDS and another General with the Reserve Force Pension Plan in the years prior to implementation. Neither lifted a finger. Nothing.

What happened to looking after your troops and promoting their welfare? Allowing troops to not be properly equipped, whether it be  with boots or fighter aircraft? Is that not promoting their welfare? By welfare I mean being able to fight and win with a reasonable chance of living through it.


Dimsum:
Quote
As for resigning to prove a point, realistically what would that achieve (except "ending on a high note") unless everyone in the organization does the same thing?  Would it not be better to stay and try to change things from the inside as far as one can do so?

Not a stab at you. You know, I have heard that rinky dink excuse FOREVER, and what has changed?  It seem the inside is always being changed by Senior Officers/Generals who feel they should stay, for the benefit of the troops, as only they can make things better. Results?

There is always someone waiting for the next promotion, or General Officer scroll presented by the Governor General, followed by cocktails. Thus the incumbent is easily replaced.

If several senior people quit, possibly it would be noticed. Maybe we would not be saddled with used F-18's with no replacement until probably 2030 ish.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,986
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,114
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2119 on: January 10, 2018, 23:36:58 »
Quirky:
Of course we all know when you get way up in the food chain, to get higher, to get the ORMM in the grade of Commander, Meritorious Service Cross, you have to go with the flow. I have personal experience dealing with the then VCDS and another General with the Reserve Force Pension Plan in the years prior to implementation. Neither lifted a finger. Nothing.

What happened to looking after your troops and promoting their welfare? Allowing troops to not be properly equipped, whether it be  with boots or fighter aircraft? Is that not promoting their welfare? By welfare I mean being able to fight and win with a reasonable chance of living through it.


Dimsum:
Not a stab at you. You know, I have heard that rinky dink excuse FOREVER, and what has changed?  It seem the inside is always being changed by Senior Officers/Generals who feel they should stay, for the benefit of the troops, as only they can make things better. Results?

There is always someone waiting for the next promotion, or General Officer scroll presented by the Governor General, followed by cocktails. Thus the incumbent is easily replaced.

If several senior people quit, possibly it would be noticed. Maybe we would not be saddled with used F-18's with no replacement until probably 2030 ish.

The last time there was a mass retirement of senior pers was during unification and it accomplished the same thing one would today. The reality is that there's always someone else waiting in the wings.

angus555

  • Guest
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2120 on: January 15, 2018, 12:12:52 »
Turkey condemns U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish force, labels it ‘army of terror’

If we're getting into the business of repainting aircraft insignia, there might soon be a batch of undelivered F-35's sitting around.

There was talk of blocking delivery of Turkish F-35's a few months ago, even before the Turks committed to buying the Russian S-400's. Never heard anything since. :waiting:


Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,600
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2121 on: January 15, 2018, 12:47:31 »
Turkey condemns U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish force, labels it ‘army of terror’

If we're getting into the business of repainting aircraft insignia, there might soon be a batch of undelivered F-35's sitting around.

There was talk of blocking delivery of Turkish F-35's a few months ago, even before the Turks committed to buying the Russian S-400's. Never heard anything since. :waiting:

Sounds like a situation similar to when the US offered us F-14's that were meant for Iran after the whole iran-contra affair.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2122 on: January 15, 2018, 13:26:23 »
The last time there was a mass retirement of senior pers was during unification and it accomplished the same thing one would today. The reality is that there's always someone else waiting in the wings.

So stand for nothing then.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,152
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2123 on: January 15, 2018, 13:27:28 »
And nothing changes.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 31,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 715
Re: The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
« Reply #2124 on: January 15, 2018, 13:27:53 »
Sounds like a situation similar to when the US offered us F-14's that were meant for Iran after the whole iran-contra affair.

The Imperial Iranian Air Force took possession of their entire order of 80 F-14 Tomcats prior to the fall of the Shah. You may be thinking of the Iranian order for the F-16 Falcon, which ended up being diverted to Israel, right about the same time that the F-16 lost the fighter replacement competition to the F/A-18 Hornet. But that was long before Iran-Contra.