• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,110
Bids for aircraft are decided by the manufacturers. We just set requirements and companies put their bids forth. We had no say on whether Boeing proposed the A or the C.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,054
Points
1,090
They are more expensive. At this point that will a bigger driver. Other than the biggest driver..we can't let the PM look bad....or eat crow.
We don’t make the PM look bad though. He does that alllll on his own.

If anything we make the PM look good via our commitments.

Canadian jets over Romania? A training mission in Iraq? Another in Ukraine? Commanding a NATO battlegroup in Latvia? Ships sailing the flag all over the world? The military being quite visible in domestic operations?

I’d reckon the reason he doesn’t look even more stupid is because of us, to some degree 🤷🏼‍♂


0.02
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
568
Points
1,040
We don’t make the PM look bad though. He does that alllll on his own.

If anything we make the PM look good via our commitments.

Canadian jets over Romania? A training mission in Iraq? Another in Ukraine? Commanding a NATO battlegroup in Latvia? Ships sailing the flag all over the world? The military being quite visible in domestic operations?

I’d reckon the reason he doesn’t look even more stupid is because of us, to some degree 🤷🏼‍♂


0.02
I totally get it. But 99% of Canadians don't even know we do those missions. Plus the international people that do know want us to do more with better.

And yes the CAF generally goes above and beyond in the missions given them. Thus making the PM look good.

....Hmmm crazy thought....next high profile mission....sandbag it...say its the lack of material support.

I know its not even in the thoughts of the org. (plus the ultimate reason not to...unlimited likably) But in the civil service......
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,701
Points
1,140
I totally get it. But 99% of Canadians don't even know we do those missions. Plus the international people that do know want us to do more with better.

And yes the CAF generally goes above and beyond in the missions given them. Thus making the PM look good.

....Hmmm crazy thought....next high profile mission....sandbag it...say its the lack of material support.

I know its not even in the thoughts of the org. (plus the ultimate reason not to...unlimited likably) But in the civil service......
It has been done in the past - the deployment of a CMBG to Desert Shield/Storm/Strike was canceled early on due to the then CDS JDC told BM the then PM that there where NOT enough Medic's MO's etc, and not enough of a slew more and there would likely be high Canadian casualties compared to the rest of the coalition due to equipment and personnel shortages - so the CF sent the RCAF CF-18's, RCR to guard the planes - and then Iraqi's, and the RCN
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,551
Points
1,090
It has been done in the past - the deployment of a CMBG to Desert Shield/Storm/Strike was canceled early on due to the then CDS JDC told BM the then PM that there where NOT enough Medic's MO's etc, and not enough of a slew more and there would likely be high Canadian casualties compared to the rest of the coalition due to equipment and personnel shortages - so the CF sent the RCAF CF-18's, RCR to guard the planes - and then Iraqi's, and the RCN
Hind sight being what we know, probably would if been okay, but that was also 1991, we are much worse off by comparison today.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,419
Points
1,040
It has been done in the past - the deployment of a CMBG to Desert Shield/Storm/Strike was canceled early on due to the then CDS JDC told BM the then PM that there where NOT enough Medic's MO's etc, and not enough of a slew more and there would likely be high Canadian casualties compared to the rest of the coalition due to equipment and personnel shortages - so the CF sent the RCAF CF-18's, RCR to guard the planes - and then Iraqi's, and the RCN
The casualty figures that they generated for that scenario were massive and far exceeded anything that the entire coalition eventually suffered. There were options. In those days we could have generated an armoured artillery brigade to augment one of the divisions.

Sometimes, I think that Canada's role model is George B McClellan - "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time." Abe Lincoln.

🍻
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,140

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
675
Points
1,060
LM has sweetened the deal for other export orders. I'm sure/I hope they were able to toss in some more industrial benefits our way as I understand it they are still looking to pick up some slack from Turkish industry
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,951
Points
1,360
Article in Skies Magazine. The premise being LM may not have done enough to sell the economic benefits of the F35 program to Canadians.


This is a misplaced assessment, assuming the Canadian federal government is being truthful about the defence procurement process. I.e. that PSPC is managing the process on behalf of the GoC, where suppliers must comply with established operational, support and ITB and VP requirements per a stated (to the vendors) evaluation matrix or mandatory and rated requirements.

Sell? 🤔

To whom?

Canadian citizens (who are in no way part of the procurement process)?

Canadian public servants (who are legally and morally bound to uphold Canadian procurement policies)?

Politicians (who have tossed the hot potato back to public servants to ‘follow and uphold the process’)?

If this truly was a process to assess the most appropriate solution to meet Canada’s needs consisten with its openly stated Defence procurement policy, then there’s no ‘selling’ except through providing a submission that best meets the formally communicated requirements.

Full stop…………..
1643417056045.gif
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,701
Points
1,140
This is a misplaced assessment, assuming the Canadian federal government is being truthful about the defence procurement process. I.e. that PSPC is managing the process on behalf of the GoC, where suppliers must comply with established operational, support and ITB and VP requirements per a stated (to the vendors) evaluation matrix or mandatory and rated requirements.

Sell? 🤔

To whom?

Canadian citizens (who are in no way part of the procurement process)?
You and I both know that public perception is one of the most important aspects to a major procurement.
No Politician wants to get something that they think is going to be perceived poorly, regardless if it is the best tool for the job or not.
Canadian public servants (who are legally and morally bound to uphold Canadian procurement policies)?
Unless the .Gov tells them to buy Bell and not Sikorsky ;)
Oh sorry my Griffon hangover came back around.
Politicians (who have tossed the hot potato back to public servants to ‘follow and uphold the process’)?
Again if the process was totally fair ;)
If this truly was a process to assess the most appropriate solution to meet Canada’s needs consisten with its openly stated Defence procurement policy, then there’s no ‘selling’ except through providing a submission that best meets the formally communicated requirements.

Full stop…………..
View attachment 68307
If only :unsure:
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,460
Points
1,090
"Buy Sikorsky" and "RCAF" may well lead to some less than polite conversations.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,951
Points
1,360
You and I both know that public perception is one of the most important aspects to a major procurement.
No Politician wants to get something that they think is going to be perceived poorly, regardless if it is the best tool for the job or not.

Unless the .Gov tells them to buy Bell and not Sikorsky ;)
Oh sorry my Griffon hangover came back around.

Again if the process was totally fair ;)

If only :unsure:
I see you caught my deeply nested sarcasm in the thirteen periods after my ‘Full Stop’ 😉

‘Griffon hangover’ 😆

I’ll see your hangover and raise you ‘Enabler Guilt’ 🤣
1643654558357.jpeg
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,701
Points
1,140
I see you caught my deeply nested sarcasm in the thirteen periods after my ‘Full Stop’ 😉

‘Griffon hangover’ 😆

I’ll see your hangover and raise you ‘Enabler Guilt’ 🤣
View attachment 68391
Yeah, when no one else bit, I figured I need to push if off the cliff...

"Buy Sikorsky" and "RCAF" may well lead to some less than polite conversations.
I get terrible heartburn when less capable items are bought for political reasons, rather than the CAF getting the proper kit.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,460
Points
1,090
Again, Sikorsky, proper kit, and RCAF will lead to spirited discussions that may include the word "Cyclone".
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,701
Points
1,140
Again, Sikorsky, proper kit, and RCAF will lead to spirited discussions that may include the word "Cyclone".
TBH I really can't fathom why the RCAF/RCN didn't come back to Sikorsky and say - thanks but we'd really like to see something in the SH-60 model ;)
But was the original EH-101 supposed to do SAR, and MH ASW?
 
Top