Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

I just do not understand our procurement system or government unwillingness to take a fact based approach to our military needs. The question is simply, do we want the RCAF to be able to operate with our allies 2040 onwards with a single tac fighter airframe. That or do we want to restrict our activities NORAD only.

No is ever talking about this (well everyone on this forum is) within Canada but this is the choice. Either Canada spends what is has to, or we need to restrict the missions we can get or will get involved in.

J_Can said:

I just do not understand our procurement system or government unwillingness to take a fact based approach to our military needs.

Click to expand...

An apathetic populace on defence matters (a bunch of other things as well) allows our pollies to stuff up everything up when it comes to national defence.

The question is simply, do we want the RCAF to be able to operate with our allies 2040 onwards with a single tac fighter airframe. That or do we want to restrict our activities NORAD only.

Click to expand...

There would be serious consequences to abandoning NATO, politically, militarily, and likely economically. The pollies need to decide if the relatively minor financial savings are worth the risks of leaving NATO. Regardless of fighter selected, the costs won't be much different. Much of the expense for DND is for sovereignty enforcement, NORAD obligations, and HADR.

No is ever talking about this (well everyone on this forum is) within Canada but this is the choice. Either Canada spends what is has to, or we need to restrict the missions we can get or will get involved in.

Click to expand...

Government wants to pretend DND can do all the tasks with the money that is provided. People in the military can't publically disagree until they resign. Only a crisis seems to get these fools to act. Afghanistan is a classic example. Dozens of soldiers dying in the early days because our guys had no decent armoured vehicles or helicopters or the means to get this stuff over there. That eventually got rectified. I wonder how much loss of life in the RCAF and RCN is necessary to get these morons addressing their needs sometime this century.

The Bombardier / Boeing plot thickens. The UK is now involved because Bombardier has a plant in Northern Ireland. Westminster is not amused.

Just read an article that Boeing is setting up a 40 million dollar component manufacturer in Sheffield, nothing the size of of the Belfast operation but then again there is less chance of Sheffield leaving the UK than Northern Ireland (and Scotland)

This article suggests Boeing has given up on the interim SH sale and has decided the trade complaint against Bombardier is more important. The ruling will be made on September 25. Given the "America First" stance of the current administration and the apparently struggling NAFTA talks, the ruling will likely be in Boeing's favour. Perhaps junior will have to flip-flop and make "no SHs" his campaign slogan for the next election.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...-boeings-dispute-with-the-canadian-government

John Fedup said:

This article suggests Boeing has given up on the interim SH sale and has decided the trade complaint against Bombardier is more important. The ruling will be made on September 25. Given the "America First" stance of the current administration and the apparently struggling NAFTA talks, the ruling will likely be in Boeing's favour. Perhaps junior will have to flip-flop and make "no SHs" his campaign slogan for the next election.

The latest update on the Canadian government’s dispute with Boeing | Ottawa Citizen

Click to expand...

Try doing some research before you spout off about Trump and NAFTA and "America First" determining the September 25th ruling. Boeing made its complaint to the US International Trade Commission, an independent US Federal body that has four commissioners on it, not one of whom was appointed by Donald Trump. In fact, three of the commissioners, to include the Chairman and Vice Chairman, were appointed by Barrack Obama. The final commissioner was appointed by George Bush. Not one of these commissioners is a "tool" of Donald Trump or "America First."

pkcasimir said:

Try doing some research before you spout off about Trump and NAFTA and "America First" determining the September 25th ruling. Boeing made its complaint to the US International Trade Commission, an independent US Federal body that has four commissioners on it, not one of whom was appointed by Donald Trump. In fact, three of the commissioners, to include the Chairman and Vice Chairman, were appointed by Barrack Obama. The final commissioner was appointed by George Bush. Not one of these commissioners is a "tool" of Donald Trump or "America First."

Click to expand...

This dispute could escalate if the US government becomes involved. There is a chance that Canada may decide to look to Europe for its next fighter.

Mean while the CF-18 fleet continues to get older.

hauritz said:

This dispute could escalate if the US government becomes involved. There is a chance that Canada may decide to look to Europe for its next fighter.

Mean while the CF-18 fleet continues to get older.

Click to expand...

From a cost point of view, neither the Typhoon or Rafale are going to be competive against the F-35. Thus, if junior wants to keep his no F-35 promise and the trade ruling is in Boeing's favour, the SH is off his list. I guess that leaves Bombardier building Gripens under license. The RCAF will be thrilled.

hauritz said:

This dispute could escalate if the US government becomes involved. There is a chance that Canada may decide to look to Europe for its next fighter.

Mean while the CF-18 fleet continues to get older.

Click to expand...

The US Government is already involved since Boeing made an official complaint to a Federal Agency which, by law, cannot ignore it.

For some reason Canadians just don't understand that any order for F-18s by Canada means very little for Boeing's bottom line. It makes enormous amounts of money from the sale of commercial jetliners and the sale of F-18s to Canada, while desirable, means very little in terms of the stakes involved with its complaint against Bombardier.

If Canada decides to do something as stupid as buying a European fighter instead of the F-18 or F-35, then it deserves what happens to the US/Canada defense relationship. It won't be pretty. The US holds the cards.

The bottom line is that a very ignorant Canadian Prime Minster, trying to be Mr. Macho, made an incredibly stupid decision concerning the F-35 and Canada now has to live with the consequences. That decision was further exacerbated by a puffed-up cop masquerading as a Defense Minister and Battle Planner extraordinaire who tied a commercial dispute to a military contract. He wasn't even smart enough to analyze the situation and to see where Boeing was coming from

Frankly, it's Mickey Mouse time in Canada.

The defence minister, flaws and all, is not the one linking a commercial dispute and defence. That's all on junior. The defence minister has to tow junior's line otherwise he would be out of cabinet. He may be delegated to a less important portfolio for his other mistakes, maybe out altogether with the next cabinet shuffle.

As for the Canadian American defence relationship, most Canadians don't know the relationship nor particularly care IMO. Canadians don't care about defence so the pollies (all parties) just pay lip service to defence. I don't think the US government really cares as Canada hasn't been much of asset other than for NORAD and given the state of the RCAF this benefit is fading fast.

I agree the only sensible option is an American fighter and I think that at some point Trudeau is going to have to swallow his pride and admit the bleeding obvious. There are only two contenders worth considering and one of those is a tarted up fourth generation fighter that probably won't even be in production when Canada finally gets around to making their decision.

If nothing else Trudeau may be able to turn this Boeing fiasco to his advantage and cancel the plans for an interim fighter.

Yes, I think SH interim option is gone, fortunately. Whether "Mr. Selfie" junior is willing to do the right thing and reverse his opinion of the F-35 is debatable given the amount of political heat he will have to endure from the the opposition not to mention the kumbayah flakes in his own party.

John Fedup said:

Yes, I think SH interim option is gone, fortunately. Whether "Mr. Selfie" junior is willing to do the right thing and reverse his opinion of the F-35 is debatable given the amount of political heat he will have to endure from the the opposition not to mention the kumbayah flakes in his own party.

Click to expand...

Someone else might have a better understanding, but I don't really think that ex RAAF legacy hornets are the answer either, sure there's going to be a small surplus of aircraft soon but there going to have to be a transition period for the RAAF, until we have enough in country for a single Squadron we still have to run both aircraft side by side for some considerable time untill either F35 reaches IOC or FOC, the legacy aircraft may not be avalible well into the 20's how would that suit the RCAF?

t68 said:

Someone else might have a better understanding, but I don't really think that ex RAAF legacy hornets are the answer either, sure there's going to be a small surplus of aircraft soon but there going to have to be a transition period for the RAAF, until we have enough in country for a single Squadron we still have to run both aircraft side by side for some considerable time untill either F35 reaches IOC or FOC, the legacy aircraft may not be avalible well into the 20's how would that suit the RCAF?

Click to expand...

My 'understanding' comes from this quote (and there is a graphic I'll look for):

"...The RAAF’s first F-35A squadron will be 3 Sqn, which will re-equip with the jet at Luke AFB in 2018, before returning to Australia to conduct national-specific operational test and evaluation work.

Initial operational capability is scheduled for the service in 2021, and full operational capability of three combat and one training squadrons is planned for late 2023...." http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia39s-first-f-35-gets-airborne-404333/ 01 Oct 2014

Click to expand...

John Fedup said:

As for the Canadian American defence relationship, most Canadians don't know the relationship nor particularly care IMO. Canadians don't care about defence so the pollies (all parties) just pay lip service to defence. I don't think the US government really cares as Canada hasn't been much of asset other than for NORAD and given the state of the RCAF this benefit is fading fast.

Click to expand...

It may be true that Canadians don't care about defense, but it is not true that the US DOD doesn't care. Any attack by air or space is probably coming over Canada. The Pentagon is well aware that terrorists used commercial aircraft to destroy the Twin Towers, damage the Pentagon, almost take out the US Capitol, and kill thousands. That is still an open wound in the US.

Canada is intricately linked to US air defense through NORAD. If the Pentagon decides that NORAD is no longer sufficient to protect the US, it will recommend its dissolution in a heartbeat and come up with a workaround, no matter how expensive.

Canada may be complacent and have a laissez-faire attitude towards these matters but the US doesn't. If the Pentagon recommends the dissolution of NORAD and a complete distancing of the US defense establishment from Canada, it will happen. The Congress and the American people, not the Hollywood nitwits on the Emmys, but the real American people will support it.

t68 said:

Someone else might have a better understanding, but I don't really think that ex RAAF legacy hornets are the answer either, sure there's going to be a small surplus of aircraft soon but there going to have to be a transition period for the RAAF, until we have enough in country for a single Squadron we still have to run both aircraft side by side for some considerable time untill either F35 reaches IOC or FOC, the legacy aircraft may not be avalible well into the 20's how would that suit the RCAF?

Click to expand...

Neither legacy Hornets or new SHs are needed because the interim purchase is just a delaying tactic on a complete fighter replacement. There is no reason why a replacement tender couldn't have been issued last November other than the result (F-35) would have embarrassed junior.

Certainly looks like junior's and Boeing's latest comments mean the SH option is deader than dead.

Boeing fires back in response to Trudeau statement, Bombardier jumps in | Ottawa Citizen

John Fedup said:

Certainly looks like junior's and Boeing's latest comments mean the SH option is deader than dead.

Boeing fires back in response to Trudeau statement, Bombardier jumps in | Ottawa Citizen

Click to expand...

The link chronicles Bombardier's corporate welfare from both the Federal and Quebec governments.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/corporate-welfare-canadas-black-hole-of-transparency/article33956740/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&

As per previous posts, the government has numerous problems with procurement. The attached link is about trucks and how this award was challenged. The loser won the challenge but the government has decided to appeal rather than comply. I guess the same tactic will be used with regard to Leonardo's challenge on the FWSAR award. If the government loses these cases after accepting goods from Mack and Airbus, talk about cluster....oh, BTW, a Quebec subcontractor will be assembling the Mack Trucks for junior's benefit.

The Boeing Bombardier ruling comes out today. It will be in Boeing's favour most likely.
Federal government in court to challenge ruling it bungled $830-million army truck purchase | National Post

John Fedup said:

As per previous posts, the government has numerous problems with procurement. The attached link is about trucks and how this award was challenged. The loser won the challenge but the government has decided to appeal rather than comply. I guess the same tactic will be used with regard to Leonardo's challenge on the FWSAR award. If the government loses these cases after accepting goods from Mack and Airbus, talk about cluster....oh, BTW, a Quebec subcontractor will be assembling the Mack Trucks for junior's benefit.

The Boeing Bombardier ruling comes out today. It will be in Boeing's favour most likely.
Federal government in court to challenge ruling it bungled $830-million army truck purchase | National Post

Click to expand...

Well at least the goverment is consistent :drunk1