New Fighters

[mad dog 2020]

I am NOT an NDP fan but I was surprised that jack Layton suggested JSS or AOR replacement today in Esquimalt (the Esquimalt part I understand).
I have noticed that with all the disasters maybe new ships would be a better investment.  If we could have sent the Preserver to Haiti.  We have had Katrina, Japan and now Libya. 
Do we really need cadillacs.  At least ships would be built in Canada.
maybe some more C17s.
I think maybe this topic shpi;d be reconsidered.

 

[ballz]

Shared with the usual caveats... http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=28300492

Layton said the NDP would commit to defence spending levels outlined in the latest budget, but noted that his party would have different defence priorities, which include:

- defending Canada and protecting Canadians;

- assisting people when disasters strike in Canada and abroad;

- providing support for peacekeeping and peacebuilding

“We need a made-in-Canada defence plan that ensures our defence procurement needs match our domestic security and foreign policy objectives,” he said.

Between ships and jets I don't know what we need more, but from what I gather, Layton wants the military to be capable of handing out food and water all the time, but not capable of opening a can of whoop-ass, so I'll pass.

Layton knows he's not getting elected anyway, he makes all kinds of promises. I'm wondering when he's going to offer all Canadians a free car.

 

[mad dog 2020]

Usually my spelling and grammar are above standard, however I sometimes speak in short form. And sausage fingers with hunt and peck on an iPad is trying. So sorry.
Think content not perfection or I would be writing for the Globe and Mail.

 

[George Wallace]

Usually my spelling and grammar are above standard, however I sometimes speak in short form. And sausage fingers with hunt and peck on an iPad is trying. So sorry.
Think content not perfection or I would be writing for the Globe and Mail.

Well.  The editorial staff and proof readers at the Globe aren't that great either.

 

[a_majoor]

We better take Taliban Jack's pronouncements on the CF very seriously indeed. I can't imagine Mr Ignatieff NOT triggering a coalition if the CPC wins a minority again; it serves his ambition to be Prime Minister, prevents his ouster as leader of the Liberal Party and gives him a chance to kick Bob Rae in the teeth (which may be the overriding objective).

If/when that happens, Jack Layton will become a cabinet minister, so what he wants to do becomes of great importance (since keeping Jack and Giles happy is the only way Mr Ignatieff remains Prime Minister, evoids a hostile leadership review and keeps his foot on Bob Rae's neck [and by extension, the Young Dauphin as well]).

After the next decade of darkness, the Canadian economy will be in shambles and the Boomer cohort will be making insatiable demands on the treasury; there may be no recovery possible for the CF after that point.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You can't rob Peter to pay Paul - While AORs are a pressing need, keep in mind the CF-18s have been flying since the early 1980s- By the time they get replaced they'll be 40 years old, roughly. You either buy another aircraft (Care to suggest an alternative that would be palatable to the military and government?) or you leave your guys in increasingly worn out hardware, which means you're putting off the inevitable like they did with the Sea King replacement- Nearly 20 years later, and there STILL isn't a replacement.

The aerospace industry up here is excited about the JSF- My profs have been waxing over and over at the potential- And as much as I like the concept of having everything made in Canada, remembering the last ride I took in a LSVW leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Also, I know I sound like a German particular about his grammar, but spell checking and grammar can only help your post.

Considering Protecteur and Preserver have been sailing since 1969 and 1970 I think the Navy has had a pressing need for the AORs to be replaced for a long long time.

 

[ModlrMike]

- defending Canada and protecting Canadians;

- assisting people when disasters strike in Canada and abroad;

- providing support for peacekeeping and peacebuilding

Isn't that what we do now?

 

[Webgear]

The F-35 is a very poor deal for the military. The forces are getting serious ripped off by this program and this purchase.

 

[MJP]

The F-35 is a very poor deal for the military. The forces are getting serious ripped off by this program and this purchase.

While I am convinced by your articulate statement, could you please expand on it for the benefit of others that may be on the fence?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Webgear-

How are things going over at Rabble.ca?  Must be some pretty interesting election debates, huh?

 

[OldSolduer]

The F-35 is a very poor deal for the military. The forces are getting serious ripped off by this program and this purchase.

And just how do you know this? Please explain. Thank you.

 

[Webgear]

I do not believe the cost per aircraft is beneficial for the forces. The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements.

The platform has some serious design flaws in my view. I believe we should purchased another platform.

 

[OldSolduer]

I do not believe the cost per aircraft is beneficial for the forces. The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements.

The platform has some serious design flaws in my view. I believe we should purchased another platform.

Which platform? Are you an aeronautical engineer....what design flaws?

 

[Brasidas]

I do not believe the cost per aircraft is beneficial for the forces. The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements.

The platform has some serious design flaws in my view. I believe we should purchased another platform.

And what other platform should be purchased?

 

[Webgear]

Everyone

I am not trying to be rude or stir up any trouble, I just do not believe the F-35 is the correct choice for the CF.

Jim

I am not an aeronautical engineer, however I do understand roles and capabilities of most platforms.

Brasidas

The Typhoon would be my leading choice. Maybe a slightly older platform such as the JAS 39 Gripen could be looked at.

 

[a_majoor]

And what other platform should be purchased?

Considering the actual offensive roles our air force has played (Persian Gulf War, Kosovo, Lybia) I would think a long range heavy bomber capable of projecting force from Canada was what we really need. Such an aircraft would also have the sensors, range and on station time to patrol the arctic (and the bomb bay could be configured to carry AAM's in that role). Future technologies like railguns or lasers would also profit from a large airframe.

Of course you need a dedicated population that supports the military establishment to start thinking in those terms. The CF-35 is a realistic choice based on our needs, the size of the military establishment and the amount of real support the population of Canada is willing to give.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The Typhoon would be my leading choice. Maybe a slightly older platform such as the JAS 39 Gripen could be looked at.

My problem with those two aircraft are:

They are built in Europe, thus complicating the logistics and training issue

They are designed for Europe, meaning they do not have a great combat radius.  Not a big problem when your country is the size of a postage stamp and you have an airport every 10NM.  Not so good in Canada...

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements.

The last time we had more than a squadron of fighter/bomber aircraft in the air up to no good was May 1945.  With no Cold War we are free to pick and choose our missions.

 

[ballz]

Everyone

I am not trying to be rude or stir up any trouble, I just do not believe the F-35 is the correct choice for the CF.

I don't think anybody is accusing you of being rude or stirring up trouble... it's just kind of customary that when discussing something you actually discuss the "why" behind your belief rather that simply stating the "what." I have no clue about jets and would be interested in hearing WHY you don't like the F-35s for Canada.

Jim also asked your credentials because that would him (and me) decide how much weight to hold in your belief.

So please, now that you've started with a few other posters, please elaborate.

 

[Webgear]

The last time we had more than a squadron of fighter/bomber aircraft in the air up to no good was May 1945.  With no Cold War we are free to pick and choose our missions.

If that is the case, why are we ordering 65 aircraft when only a couple of dozen would suit our recent mission objectives?