[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Regina Regina:

Iggy propaganda..... trying to be relevant.

Very true, but the message is gaining resonance. If Steve and the Politburo don't come up with a decent political counter message, we'll still be flying the current CF18's in 20 years.

It's a pity defence procurement is so politically loaded in Canada but it's been this way since the Ross Rifle. If the Tories had been cleverer they would have ensured this procurement was water-tight and transparent. It's neither at the moment.

Personally I believe the F35 is the way to go but perception is everything and the Tories are losing the propaganda war on this one.

I think the Conservatives are surprised by this because none of their other sole-sourced purchases (C-17s, CH-47s, C-130s, etc) bothered the Canadian public very much, but this one is really starting to gain ground with the public.

[EyeBrock]

On those procurements, there weren’t really any viable alternatives except Russian crap.

The F35 really doesn't have serious competition in it's mission areas but a partisan argument can be made for the F18E's, Typhoon and a few other non-runners.

The counter arguments (and lets not start yet another thread on those!) don’t stand up to close scrutiny in my view, which is why a competition in the full glare of a hostile media whipped into a frenzy by Iggy is a good idea and a reasonable way out of this for Stevey boy.

I’m sure the F35 will come out on top and I bet the Tories know that too. What have they got to lose besides votes if they don’t?

Call Iggy’s bluff, hold a competition.

[BartSimpson]

Worse comes to worse, Canada can always buy the UK's castoffs after they deploy the F-35, their new generation of destroyers, their new Merlin helicopters, and etc.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

On those procurements, there weren’t really any viable alternatives except Russian crap.

The F35 really doesn't have serious competition in it's mission areas but a partisan argument can be made for the F18E's, Typhoon and a few other non-runners.

The counter arguments (and lets not start yet another thread on those!) don’t stand up to close scrutiny in my view, which is why a competition in the full glare of a hostile media whipped into a frenzy by Iggy is a good idea and a reasonable way out of this for Stevey boy.

I’m sure the F35 will come out on top and I bet the Tories know that too. What have they got to lose besides votes if they don’t?

Call Iggy’s bluff, hold a competition.

I agree that the C-17 had no other western option but the other two did - for example, the MH-53 Super Stallion has almost the same capabilities as the Chinook (Germany uses them in Afghanistan) and the A-400 has similar capabilities to the C-130J (in use now by several NATO countries). The point is that the Conservatives sole-sourced them all and got away with it, despite efforts by the Libs and NDP to make them an issue. But the fighter contract is probably going to get labelled a "Cadillac" program, so Stevie better do something instead of just photo shoots with pilots.

To me the fighter contract is just another bit of Tory arrogance and now they are getting nailed on it. I find it interesting that Mulroney was accused of similar tactics and he paid the price for it. If Harper isn't careful, this could turn into a major issue that helps knock them back into the opposition.

But I agree, even if there is one clear winner, hold a competition anyways, both for transparency and to take that talking point away from the opposition.

[Canadian_Mind]

The Canadian people realised that the other sole-source purchases were a neccisary evil due to requirement, on what was already tested and proven airframes, armoured vehicle systems, etc.

Big difference between all those and the F-35. F-35 isn't an immediate "we need it today," nor is it a proven platfom.

[EyeBrock]

The A400M is at prototype stage Boots. Nobody actually has one at the moment besides Airbus. I was actually involved in the project a long time ago. I'll wait until it's got a few thousand flying hours under it's belt before I'm convinced it's better than the J model Herk.

The CH53 is a nice aircraft but having spent many an hour in and under Chinooks, I'm pretty happy to see the CF getting them back after they were sold by a past Tory government.

[BartSimpson]

EB, I often wonder why certain platforms like the Chinook, the A10, and etc. are not back in production with upgrades. Seems we spend untold fortunes trying to replace the tried and true when we could just do an upgrade and keep on keeping on.

The Boeing 737 is a good example of this principle at work. The plane first rolled out in 1965 and they're still in production with next generation 737s being planned by Boeing.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The A400M is at prototype stage Boots. Nobody actually has one at the moment besides Airbus. I was actually involved in the project a long time ago. I'll wait until it's got a few thousand flying hours under it's belt before I'm convinced it's better than the J model Herk.

The CH53 is a nice aircraft but having spent many an hour in and under Chinooks, I'm pretty happy to see the CF getting them back after they were sold by a past Tory government.

My bad, the pic I recently saw of the A400 said it was a German plane, but after doing a quick search, I've found that it was just a test flight, the first plane won't be delivered until 2012.

The CH-53/MH-53 might not be the same as a Chinook, but it has similar capabilities.

My point was that had a competition been held in both cases, the Tories wouldn't have been as arrogant to think they could do it with the fighter purchase too. Instead, after the Libs and NDP failed to get it to resonate with Canadian voters, they seem to have done so (at least partially) with the F-35 and now it might come back to bite Stevie & Co. in the ass.

Like I said, many of the criticisms Mulroney faced are also applicable to Harper. Fortunately for Stevie, there is no Reform party waiting in the shadows to help wipe out the Conservatives.

Still, it's amazing how many people refuse to learn from history.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

EB, I often wonder why certain platforms like the Chinook, the A10, and etc. are not back in production with upgrades. Seems we spend untold fortunes trying to replace the tried and true when we could just do an upgrade and keep on keeping on.

The Boeing 737 is a good example of this principle at work. The plane first rolled out in 1965 and they're still in production with next generation 737s being planned by Boeing.

Oh hell, I just heard the B-52 will be getting upgraded engines and they're hoping it will continue to serve the USAF for at least another 20 years

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

EB, I often wonder why certain platforms like the Chinook, the A10, and etc. are not back in production with upgrades. Seems we spend untold fortunes trying to replace the tried and true when we could just do an upgrade and keep on keeping on.

The Boeing 737 is a good example of this principle at work. The plane first rolled out in 1965 and they're still in production with next generation 737s being planned by Boeing.

The reason for modifying old designs instead of creating new ones is that production is cheaper, faster and easier, there is some parts commonality, etc., meaning larger profits for the company that sells them.

The Chinook is back in production, our brand new CH-47Fs won't arrive until 2012 or so. For platforms that have been able to stay relevant (multi-role), they remain in production. Many platforms move through several operational models, like the F-15, F-16, F-18, C-130, CH-47, etc.

Specialized platforms like the Warthog don't usually stay in production because the reason they were created for (attacking massed Soviet armour during WW3) are no longer a possibility. If a nation rises and becomes a threat like that again, I would expect an updated version of the Warthog to be developed.

[EyeBrock]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

EB, I often wonder why certain platforms like the Chinook, the A10, and etc. are not back in production with upgrades. Seems we spend untold fortunes trying to replace the tried and true when we could just do an upgrade and keep on keeping on.

The Boeing 737 is a good example of this principle at work. The plane first rolled out in 1965 and they're still in production with next generation 737s being planned by Boeing.

Well, the Chinook and Herks are well into half a century of service each and they are still being made. I agree that the A10 should be revived. There is a definite role for a battlefield aircraft and choppers just don't have the payload or hot/high performance, or the toughness of a Warthog. Plus they are way more expensive and labour intensive to run.

On the numerous threads we had on the F35, somebody mentioned that we should get a reduced # of F35 airframes (enough for defence of Canada) and buy a cheaper mud-mover that can provide air-support to our army. I'm thinking that this a viable third option.

How about this;

Get 30-40 F35's, whatever Air Command believes they need to defend Canada. Order 30-40 F18E's now. They can do air-defence and ground attack until we get our F35's.

By the time the F35's are operational the F18E's will be midlife and reaching obsolescence as an air superiority fighter, designate them air-support and refit them midlife with dedicated strike role avionics and and a specialist mud-moving weapons array.

The Aussies are doing something similar. It might fit our needs and pocket book better to have the two types of aircraft.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

EB, I often wonder why certain platforms like the Chinook, the A10, and etc. are not back in production with upgrades. Seems we spend untold fortunes trying to replace the tried and true when we could just do an upgrade and keep on keeping on.

The Boeing 737 is a good example of this principle at work. The plane first rolled out in 1965 and they're still in production with next generation 737s being planned by Boeing.

Well, the Chinook and Herks are well into half a century of service each and they are still being made. I agree that the A10 should be revived. There is a definite role for a battlefield aircraft and choppers just don't have the payload or hot/high performance, or the toughness of a Warthog. Plus they are way more expensive and labour intensive to run.

On the numerous threads we had on the F35, somebody mentioned that we should get a reduced # of F35 airframes (enough for defence of Canada) and buy a cheaper mud-mover that can provide air-support to our army. I'm thinking that this a viable third option.

How about this;

Get 30-40 F35's, whatever Air Command believes they need to defend Canada. Order 30-40 F18E's now. They can do air-defence and ground attack until we get our F35's.

By the time the F35's are operational the F18E's will be midlife and reaching obsolescence as an air superiority fighter, designate them air-support and refit them midlife with dedicated strike role avionics and and a specialist mud-moving weapons array.

The Aussies are doing something similar. It might fit our needs and pocket book better to have the two types of aircraft.

It sounds like a good idea, but even the 65 they want to buy isn't nearly enough. Given that CF squadrons are 24 planes each, your plan would create one air superiority squadron, with half at Cold Lake and half at Bagotville (the rest would be spares and/or trainers). With repairs, refit, R&R for pilots, you'd be lucky to have more than three or four planes ready most days.

Why focus on ground support when the CF doesn't seem to want to?

No, your plan is a good one, but I'd use the SuperHornets for Arctic patrols, and the F-35s for patrols south of 60 and for when we join NATO on foreign ops like Afghanistan. If we want air support, I'd say buy a squadron or two of Apache or Tiger gunships.

[EyeBrock]

You don’t have to keep 24 aircraft together Boots. The QRA (Quick-reaction-aircraft) response in the Falklands has 2 on standby for a threat that is 30 minutes away. That’s kinda standard.

When I was up in Goose Bay the CF would send 2 CF18’s for the north east approaches. I don’t think things have changed too much.

The UK has 4 or 5 Stations with 2 fighters on 5 minute standby. The CF has numerous bases that can support 2-4 fighters dotted across the nation. You could easily have a robust response to probing flights with 20 aircraft dotted up north and a squadron in the west and east.

On the attack choppers. It’s a big investment to get a rotary winged air support response up and running. Canada doesn’t really have a history of armed choppers. Griffons with a C6 mounted doesn’t count.

Apaches are expensive and very labour intensive. Having a bomber is a lot easier plus we have experience in that field. A F18E with racks full will get there quicker, be more effective for our bang for buck and it’s do-able.

Getting the Apache or it’s ilk is a step I don’t think Canada is willing to pay for.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Why focus on ground support when the CF doesn't seem to want to?

Because the old axioms of separate operations have given way to the proven success of integrated ops and assymetrical warfare.

A small, efficient, and diverse force can beat the snot out of the most determined armoured division every single time. We learned that lesson in the Battle of the Bulge and applied it in spades in two successive Gulf Wars yet it seems too many people need to be reminded of this.

[Bruce_the_vii]

LOL! Some bad posts here on CKA but the armchair general ones are the worst. These birds have this idea there will be a big, major military power conflict that won't annihilate us. They like the fancy equipment - money is no object either.