The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Humphrey Bogart]

I have always said the Liberals are far better liars than the Conservative ever were. the Liberals will tell people exactly what they want to hear and then go off and do something else. They rarely closed down any program, just defunded it to the point of bare existence, which allowed them to shove money back into it when the poop hit the fan without making any apparent change in policy, mandate or regulations.

The Conservatives actually shut stuff down, often without doing a great job of consulting broadly beforehand and then recoiling badly from the backlash.

It's what makes them "Liberal"  ;D

 

[jmt18325]

Which goes against what Trudeau campaigned on. He said open and transparent. If he's giving initial direction outside (and perhaps contradictory) to the mandate letters, why aren't they posted? Where's the media crying about a hidden agenda?

Other than speculation, what says that this is actually happening?

 

[Edward Campbell]

you seem different from other conservatives I meet online. I hear there is a leadership race coming up, you sure you don't want to throw your hat in the ring?

You're making exactly the same mistake many Tories make about the Grits (and Dippers, too): that there is some sort of monolithic, united thing, spouting a "party line."

I have discussed, many time, the "civil war," as I call it, that has been waged, off and on, in the Liberal Party since the mid 1960s: Trudeau vs Pearson in the 1960s, then Trudeau vs Turner in the '70s, then the Chrétienistas vs the Martinis for 15 long years in the '90s and 2000s; well, the same thing happened (in the 2000s) and will, I suspect happen again in the next two or three years, in the CPC.

I understand there are Pierre Trudeau Liberals, on the left, and John Manley Liberals, in the centre, in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's party; Liberals need to recognize that similar divisions exist between the centre and the right in the CPC. If that surprises you then I suggest you aren't giving the opposition the attention (or credit) it deserves.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The left was split in distinct parties that made the lines within less apparent. the left were far quicker to paint the right as one monolithic block and not in a good way. Which funny enough goes against their mantra's about sterotyping, but then it's ok against certain groups. The right meanwhile spanned the entire spectrum of centralist to full out Libertarian. 

 

[Altair]

You're making exactly the same mistake many Tories make about the Grits (and Dippers, too): that there is some sort of monolithic, united thing, spouting a "party line."

I have discussed, many time, the "civil war," as I call it, that has been waged, off and on, in the Liberal Party since the mid 1960s: Trudeau vs Pearson in the 1960s, then Trudeau vs Turner in the '70s, then the Chrétienistas vs the Martinis for 15 long years in the '90s and 2000s; well, the same thing happened (in the 2000s) and will, I suspect happen again in the next two or three years, in the CPC.

I understand there are Pierre Trudeau Liberals, on the left, and John Manley Liberals, in the centre, in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's party; Liberals need to recognize that similar divisions exist between the centre and the right in the CPC. If that surprises you then I suggest you aren't giving the opposition the attention (or credit) it deserves.

What surprises me is not you stances, how right or left you happen happen to be, but more your tone and respect shown to the opposition.

Conservatives, red Tories, blue Tories,  whatever have shown utter contempt and disrespect for those on the left.

 

[Lumber]

What surprises me is not you stances, how right or left you happen happen to be, but more your tone and respect shown to the opposition.

Conservatives, red Tories, blue Tories,  whatever have shown utter contempt and disrespect for those on the left.

I would recommend then that you go to cbc news and read the comments section of any news article (any news article, not just political ones) that was written while the CPC was still in power. You will see just how nicely the "left" treated/spoke about the right.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What surprises me is not you stances, how right or left you happen happen to be, but more your tone and respect shown to the opposition.

Conservatives, red Tories, blue Tories,  whatever have shown utter contempt and disrespect for those on the left.

I am sorry but having to deal with the barbs tossed at me from the left over the years (and I came from there so I am even worse in their eyes) they are far more ready to insult your intelligence, humanity, genetic makeup and your love/care for environment or mankind than the right. While I generalize, the right is more likely to argue facts and the left on emotions.

 

[cavalryman]

Conservatives, red Tories, blue Tories,  whatever have shown utter contempt and disrespect for those on the left.

Glad to see that irony isn't yet a lost art. :nod:

 

[a_majoor]

The main difference I see when looking at posts, arguments or discourse between Classical Liberals and Progressives can be summed up with Classical Liberals (i.e. people who believe in individual liberty, unfettered use of property and the Rule of Law; now generally called Conservatives) using dialectical forms of argument, while Progressives generally use Rhetoric when making their point(s):

http://contracabal.org/201-01-02.html

The term “dialectic” loosely describes one-on-one logical or philosophical argument as opposed to the term “rhetoric” that loosely describes mass persuasion. Dialectic consists of questions and answers designed to establish truth through interactive argumentation. Generally associated with an audience of one, dialectic uses neither the pathos nor the uninterrupted, non-interactive speech used to address large audiences by rhetors.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate of what actual platform the RCAF should/could/will be flying in the future

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I hope you all noticed that Altair was paying ERC a compliment: noting that ERC always keeps a polite and respectful tone.

So what say, maybe we all lay off the guy?

 

[PuckChaser]

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate of what actual platform the RCAF should/could/will be flying in the future

Could be anything now, after the Liberals balked on the 31 Dec 15 deadline for the refugees. I'm still willing to bet they punt this football for decision after the next fixed election date, to make it either a wedge issue, or someone else's problem.

 

[jmt18325]

Could be anything now, after the Liberals balked on the 31 Dec 15 deadline for the refugees.

Actually, their platform never mentioned such a deadline:

https://www.liberal.ca/liberals-commit-to-leadership-on-syrian-refugee-crisis/

The mandate letter to the Minister didn't mention it either (it said in the coming months).

The platform did commit to an immediate competition to replace the F-18, as did 2 ministerial mandate letters.

 

[PuckChaser]

Actually, their platform never mentioned such a deadline:

https://www.liberal.ca/liberals-commit-to-leadership-on-syrian-refugee-crisis/

The mandate letter to the Minister didn't mention it either (it said in the coming months).

The media made up the reporting that their timeline was too quick? The NDP made up the fact that they agreed they could do it by Christmas? The Tories were lying when they said they opposed doing it that fast? The refugee resettlement groups were out to lunch saying they couldn't support the super tight timelines?

Your bias is showing. This is another topic, however.

Immediate competition is dubious language. Immediate competition could last 4 years to select an aircraft. You've obviously never seen procurement work. It took 20 years to produce the last time out of Clothe the Soldier, and that's not a multi-billion dollar aircraft procurement.

 

[CBH99]

For those individuals on this board who may have forgotten it, or for those who have never seen it...just watch the movie "The Pentagon Wars".

Replace everything American with Canadian.  And - while I'm the first to admit I have no experience in working in NDHQ or a PMO - something tells me its not that far off from the truth....  (Especially since the movie was based on the original author's firsthand experiences.)

:dunno:

 

[jmt18325]

The media made up the reporting that their timeline was too quick? The NDP made up the fact that they agreed they could do it by Christmas? The Tories were lying when they said they opposed doing it that fast? The refugee resettlement groups were out to lunch saying they couldn't support the super tight timelines?

Your bias is showing. This is another topic, however.

My comment was actually related to the assertion that one written promise was broken, so we can't trust another.
≥.
Also, I agree with you - they promised a commutation.  They didn't at this point promise to buy anything, unlike they did with shipbuilding.

 

[a_majoor]

In theory the fighter competition "could" be very quick, there are only a few aircraft actually in production and the RCAF has a fairly well defined criterion for what they need in a fighter (readers of this thread may note that I don't agree with most choices, but then again I'm not a zoomie  [)

From any sensible technical perspective, we either focus on range and carrying capacity (which in my view should be given much more consideration, given the distances the RCAF has to cover either at home or in an expeditionary context), or the advanced sensor and networking capabilities that the F-35 would offer. Taking the long view, the F-35 will eventually be "talking" to everything in the battlespace, since Western armies and military forces are working towards a fully networked environment, so perhaps this is where we need to be going too, if only to be interoperable with our partners and allies.

In any event, much of the information is right there in Jane's, so informed people can see very quickly what is and is not suitable. One other thing which the Liberals are very quiet about is if *we* choose a lesser aircraft for political or price reasons, we may have to live with the fact we will have far too few aircraft to di the job(s) we want to be able to perform (try explaining that we might need to replace 65 CF-35's with 100 of aircraft "x" to have the same capabilities).

 

[MarkOttawa]

US Navy really wants to keep Super Hornet/Growler line alive, note mention of Canada (lots of further links at original):

Mabus: Get Moving On That F-18 Sale To Kuwait

SURFACE NAVY ASSOCIATION: Navy Secretary Ray Mabus wants the arms export bureaucracy to get a move on and approve Boeing‘s “crucial” sale of Super Hornet fighters to Kuwait.

The Kuwait deal is for 28 fighters, with an option for 12 more. That’s not a huge sale, but in and of itself, it’s enough to keep the Boeing production line active for 14 to 20 months.

“It’s a frustrating process for all parties involved and it speaks to the need to do something about the whole [export control] process,” Mabus told reporters after his remarks to the Surface Navy Association conference. “I don’t think that there’s been any particular slowdown with this program. [There’s] just the long torturous process you’ve got to go through to do any of this, to do any international sale, whether to an ally or not.”..

...the sale would provide a strategically located ally with equipment compatible with the US. Second, it would ensure the F-18 production line in Saint Louis stays open for another few years. (The line also builds the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft).

Once upon a time, the Navy was willing to let the line go cold as it stopped buying Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and started buying Lockheed’s stealthy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter. But lingering anxieties over how well stealth will hold up against advanced adversaries, repeated delays to the F-35 program, coupled with maintenance problems with older-model F-18s, have revived naval and congressional interest in buying more Super Hornets to fill the “fighter gap.”

Boeing has long said it needs to build 24 fighters (the Kuwaitis ordered 28-plus) a year — two a month — to keep the production line economically viable...

As an older design, “competitiveness of the Super Hornet heavily depends upon price,” Aboulafia told me. So the importance of the Kuwait deal, he said, “it’s not just that it guarantees a couple of years, it guarantees a couple of years at a competitive price [to] keep in the game with Canada” [emphasis added] — which is looking for an alternative to the F-35 — “and with the Navy” — which is currently buying Super Hornets “hand to mouth” based on what the service and Congress can wrangle into each year’s budget...
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/mabus-get-moving-on-that-f-18-sale-to-kuwait/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

As an older design, “competitiveness of the Super Hornet heavily depends upon price,” Aboulafia told me. So the importance of the Kuwait deal, he said, “it’s not just that it guarantees a couple of years, it guarantees a couple of years at a competitive price [to] keep in the game with Canada” [emphasis added]

So the Super Hornet's price is at risk of NOT being competitive?  How does that square with "cheaper alternative" meme?  Maybe the gap between the Super Hornet price and the F35 is shrinking?

And with the Canadian dollar being at what it is now even last year's 70 MUSD aircraft - if it existed - would now cost 100 MCAD instead of the 70 MCAD it would have cost in 2013.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook--see:

"F-35 and Canadian Election: Liberals Loose With Fighter Costs"
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/mark-collins-f-35-and-canadian-election-liberals-loose-with-fighter-costs/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Chris Pook--see:

"F-35 and Canadian Election: Liberals Loose With Fighter Costs"
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/mark-collins-f-35-and-canadian-election-liberals-loose-with-fighter-costs/

Mark
Ottawa

Thumbs up on that one Mark.