George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Inspir said:
Enforcing that would cut the membership by over half. [
The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
Enforcing that would cut the membership by over half. [
Jay4th
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
There is an excellent research paper in the "Vimy Papers" on the CDA institute website about the fighter replacement program. It is called "The Fourth Dimmension"
I found it a grat insight into the procurement of aircraft and how badly it can be screwed up.
I found it a grat insight into the procurement of aircraft and how badly it can be screwed up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-announcement-1.3862210
My apologies if already posted.
I can understand if the government wants to see how the JSF shapes up in a few years, before totally committing to buying them. I can understand purchasing an interm aircraft if it helps with availability & service rates, as it did for the Australians.
I don't understand how a full blown competition was held within a few months, back in the 80's - when all we had was pen, paper, typewriters, and the odd fax machine. And how it can take so much longer today.
My apologies if already posted.
I can understand if the government wants to see how the JSF shapes up in a few years, before totally committing to buying them. I can understand purchasing an interm aircraft if it helps with availability & service rates, as it did for the Australians.
I don't understand how a full blown competition was held within a few months, back in the 80's - when all we had was pen, paper, typewriters, and the odd fax machine. And how it can take so much longer today.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Mmm, the big difference is that the Aussies have them. Real aircraft. With a kangaroo painted on their sides; quite a few flying in combat out in the sand pit as we chat. Ours are, well...(wet finger in air) maybe 6 or 7 years away?
Canadian defence procurement. A shower of sh!te that always commands cross-bench support in government no matter what...
NATO 2% commitment? Arguably the only positive aspect of Trump's otherwise sordid platform was the threat to hold our feet to the fire and get 2% from all countries (only 4 meeting it, IIRC). Us and most of Europe has been living off a peace dividend long past its geo-political sell by date.
And another thing: [
!!!
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Canuck_Jock said:NATO 2% commitment? Arguably the only positive aspect of Trump's otherwise sordid platform was the threat to hold our feet to the fire and get 2% from all countries (only 4 meeting it, IIRC). Us and most of Europe has been living off a peace dividend long past its geo-political sell by date.
And another thing: [
Attachments
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
My bet, we buy 18 super hornets and retire the legacy hornets by 2025 as planned. No new competition is ever held and we end up with a token force only used for continental commitments effectively becoming NZ of the North. Well on our way to becoming even more irrelevant than we were before.
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Points
- 1,160
You are forgetting the Trump factor. The Trump factor in defense, trade protectionism(chicken/eggs/dairy), carbon tax etc. A bunch of amateurs in Ottawa who will soon be put in their place. Mr.IQ 0 and buddy Butts will soon have wet pants.
Having only 18 jets would break our NORAD and Canadian defence commitments. If anything were to happen, it would simply be the CF-18s bing forever upgraded along side the SH.
This is actually good news for the F-35. It pretty much means we're going to buy it, - as it will be one of only 2/3 choices come ~2021. It means to me that the government knows it had to buy the F-35, but has to keep their promise for now.
This is actually good news for the F-35. It pretty much means we're going to buy it, - as it will be one of only 2/3 choices come ~2021. It means to me that the government knows it had to buy the F-35, but has to keep their promise for now.
- Reaction score
- 4,700
- Points
- 1,160
Or it can buy SH, and cook the books for the procurement to overweight the "existing infrastructure and training" card to stick us with an orphan fleet until 2060s.
- Reaction score
- 1,724
- Points
- 1,140
New hangar doors?! I don't know how big you think a SH is but... doors should be the least of our concerns. All of our hangars can fit at least a Herc and some an AWACS.
Rifleman62 said:
I am still hoping that Mr Trump fires Trudeau.
He doesn't have to do it in his first hundred days, and it can even wait until after Hillary, Bill, and their minions are in jail, but someday...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Frustrating (but predictable) play to save face and try to dodge a political bullet from the wall they backed themselves into.
Glass half full, if we get the growler convertible ones and keep them as EW platforms after we take delivery of F35s in 5 years then it will be a positive development... Only if
Glass half full, if we get the growler convertible ones and keep them as EW platforms after we take delivery of F35s in 5 years then it will be a positive development... Only if
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 130
MarkOttawa said:
Can one of the experts give me orientation on this? I don't know much about squadrons and logistics.
Are the gains of the Super Hornet worth the associated headaches of having two fighter types? Is it simple expediency?
Do we need an interim fighter? Are our fighter needs so pressing that we can't wait for a competition to happen? (Or, cynically, is the opposite true? Is this a way of kicking the horrifically expensive fighter purchase down the road, Liberal style?)
Why the Super Hornet? Is there any commonality left between the Hornet and the Rhino? For similar price, why not get Strike Eagles (not the gold-plated Slam Eagle. $100 million is pushing it)?
- Reaction score
- 1,671
- Points
- 1,060
I think I posted this link before regarding fleet requirements single/mixed fighters
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page
the 18 SH should contribute 10 towards the NORAD requirement of 36 leaving the remaining 26 to be covered by the original hornets (46 x0.8 x0.7 = 26). So my guess is that the liberals think they can keep at least 46 of the hornets going in the interim
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page
the 18 SH should contribute 10 towards the NORAD requirement of 36 leaving the remaining 26 to be covered by the original hornets (46 x0.8 x0.7 = 26). So my guess is that the liberals think they can keep at least 46 of the hornets going in the interim
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
suffolkowner said:
All hail the maintainers; perhaps the libs will give 'em a pay raise for the hell they are going to be living/working with to keep in the air. And, while we're at it, how about them SK rotor-head maintainers too. Sigh.
