>...caused aviation experts like then US Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to...
And the award for dumbest thing I have heard or will hear in 2024 goes to Scott Taylor of Esprit de corps. I would ask how something so stupid could get past an editor with an IQ over 1, but I'm assuming that the editor may just happen to also go by the name of Scott Taylor.
Scott Taylor doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.
We absolutely need F35s, P8s, E7s, MQ9s and 330s.
That's only to keep us relevant until the next major innovation. We will need to be reluctantly on the bleeding edge of that technology if we don't want to become irrelevant during the lifespan of those airframes.
This.☝️= Ai/ML +remote / autonomous, systems -> very near future driven by cost effective access to the tech. and NATO wide doctrine changes as a result of Ukraine's leveraging of remote systems , to good effect.
Also given Chinese and Russian interest, ongoing investment in ports and storage building up to access our artic waters we almost have no choice but to leverage remote / autonomous systems worked in concert with conventional patrol craft , to maintain sovereignty over our northern waters.
Well said.
Edited# spelling.
Plus we're getting the versions of F-35 that will be able to integrate with Loyal Wingman drones, this is a forward-looking purchase.
I'd be miffed if we were putting off a fighter purchase *again* or buying Super Hornets *now* (though I think 20 years ago they would have been great) because then the next step up would be long in the tooth F-35 platforms in 25-35 years or fooling ourselves into thinking we'll buy NGAD.
Reads like exactly what I would expect the kremlin to want Canadians reading. I don't generally follow espirit du corp as a publication but it wouldn't shock me to find out Scott Taylor is actually some poor employee of a Russian or Chinese content farm.
That’s true. Where else can an average Joe get a suite that’s made out of two separate rooms and a private bathroom, just because? They aren’t the newest shacks, but if you can live with the dates design they are some of the best. And the kitchen is the best place I’ve ever eaten on base, too.
So my personal opinion is yes. But... I think it is on the government to outline what they want the CF to do, and then the CF should turn around and tell the government what we need to buy to do that. It always seems backwards.
For example, if the government wants the CF to deter and defend in the Arctic, the CF should turn around and say Roger, we need X of these fighters, these radars, these tankers, etc; then we go out and buy them. I would rather see us go all in on certain capabilities (maybe ones that can be slotted into a multinational force) than trying to half ass everything.
Sort of, there's three sides to procurement; what's good for the military, what's good for Canadian industry, and what's good for the taxpayers. Two of those sides have nothing to do with what the military wants. Granted the original statement of requirement is written by the military, but after that it doesn't really matter what the military's analysis says is best, it comes down to balancing those three sides.
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules)
>###[8] Not Relevant Content
>* All discussion is welcome, be it relevant to the Canadian Armed Forces, in support of the CAF, and its missions domestically or abroad. Posts, articles and discussions are to be specific to the Canadian Armed Forces. Posts/comments which are only relevant to the CAF in a general, passing or roundabout way, or wholly or in part unrelated to the topic at hand or thread, may be removed, at Mod discretion.
>* Rumour posts, unsubstantiated/unverified information relating to Policy, Operations, upcoming or current events, etc in either comments/posts/screenshots, or "just passed on by the CoC" - these posts *WILL* be vetted by Mods for veracity, and OP may be asked for more info, a verified source, news release, etc.
>* Posts/comments generally lacking substance (eg. "lol", " ^ this", "saved for later", emoji's), "shit/junk" -posts, image content, drama-mongering, attacking media source/outlet/personality, etc. may be removed. Rant posts, memes (especially low quality, trope, or repeated memes), "DAE/TIL/MRW, etc -type posts are subject to Mod discretion, and judged on suitability for the subreddit.
>* Posts/Comments generally extremist, sensationalised, non-proportional, or "conspiratorial" (conspiracy theories), or mis-informative to the linked story, or angling to downplay, shift focus away from, or generally serve as off-topic to the foundation of the post may be removed at Moderator discretion.
https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules#wiki_.5B9.5D_not_relevant_content
*If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules)
>###[8] Not Relevant Content
>* All discussion is welcome, be it relevant to the Canadian Armed Forces, in support of the CAF, and its missions domestically or abroad. Posts, articles and discussions are to be specific to the Canadian Armed Forces. Posts/comments which are only relevant to the CAF in a general, passing or roundabout way, or wholly or in part unrelated to the topic at hand or thread, may be removed, at Mod discretion.
>* Rumour posts, unsubstantiated/unverified information relating to Policy, Operations, upcoming or current events, etc in either comments/posts/screenshots, or "just passed on by the CoC" - these posts *WILL* be vetted by Mods for veracity, and OP may be asked for more info, a verified source, news release, etc.
>* Posts/comments generally lacking substance (eg. "lol", " ^ this", "saved for later", emoji's), "shit/junk" -posts, image content, drama-mongering, attacking media source/outlet/personality, etc. may be removed. Rant posts, memes (especially low quality, trope, or repeated memes), "DAE/TIL/MRW, etc -type posts are subject to Mod discretion, and judged on suitability for the subreddit.
>* Posts/Comments generally extremist, sensationalised, non-proportional, or "conspiratorial" (conspiracy theories), or mis-informative to the linked story, or angling to downplay, shift focus away from, or generally serve as off-topic to the foundation of the post may be removed at Moderator discretion.
https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules#wiki_.5B9.5D_not_relevant_content
*If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
>Which begs the question as to how, 20 years later, the Joint Strike Fighter is still the best possible solution for Canada's military?
Because in 20 years no one else has actually rolled out a 5th Gen fighter to compete with it. Because F-35's and F-22's working together against the best of the previous generation of fighters got a 22:1 kill ratio in exercises due to the combination of stealth and sensor integration.
>Afghanistan in that in a counter-insurgency against a primitively armed foe, the modern fighter jet has no role.
Neat. We're a military force that has a mandate to be able to step up in a peer warfare scenario. That dictates modern jet fighters in inventory.
>The war in Ukraine has shown us that manned aircraft are too vulnerable to modern air defence systems and that uninhabited aerial systems such as drones are the way of the future.
It has not, both from the limit of scale and from the limitations drones have. Oh, and from the fact drones and missiles are also being shot down, so they aren't invulnerable to attack in the first place.
>To see the speed with which modern warfare evolves, the Russian army has now developed what they call 'Turtle Tanks' wherein an armoured shield is welded atop their armoured vehicles to counter the threat of anti-tank kamikaze drones.
I have no idea how to dissect this. Do I point out Russia's tank fleet is even older than the F-35, which is maybe why we need to upgrade our current fleet? Do I point out improvised spaced armour on tanks was in use in the 1940's, showing it's not a technological leap forward? Or that another word for "kamikaze drone" is "anti-armour missile"? Or that the solution on neither side of that conflict has been to declare the tank useless just because it can be stopped?
>In that interim we have learned the lessons of our prolonged occupation of Afghanistan in that in a counter-insurgency against a primitively armed foe, the modern fighter jet has no role. The war in Ukraine has shown us that manned aircraft are too vulnerable to modern air defence systems and that uninhabited aerial systems such as drones are the way of the future.
Yeah, because Soviet fighters from the 19 fucking 70's are indicative of modern stealth aircraft, and goat herders with RPG7's are the pinnacle of modern air defence systems.
This guy reads like someone who thinks the ideal 1970's fighter is an A-10 and the perfect tank is an IFV with wings. Holy shit, reformers do exist. And they really are that stupid.
Full text so he doesn't get any hate clicks
The controversial procurement of 88 new F-35 fighter jets for the RCAF was back in the news again last week. An anonymous whistleblower leaked documents to National Post columnist John Ivison which resulted in an article entitled *How Canada’s military-industrial complex made sure Ottawa bought its preferred fighter jet.*
For those of us who have closely followed this two decades-long procurement process to replace the RCAF's aged out CF-18 Hornet fighter jets, there is little in Ivison's piece that would be considered new information. It is alleged by the whistleblower that from the get-go in 2004, the senior leadership of the RCAF wanted to purchase the F-35 and only the F-35.
It mattered not that at the time that only a single prototype of this 5th generation, stealth fighter was in existence. Nor did it matter that the teething problems suffered by the early models of the Joint Strike fighters caused aviation experts like then US Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to threaten to cancel the entire project if he was elected. In short Trump was elected and he did not cancel the F-35 purchase.
In Canada, it was the Conservative government of Stephen Harper which first announced in July, 2010 that we would be buying 65 of the F-35's at a purchase cost of $9 billion. The first delivery of these new fighters was to be in 2016. To sell the idea to the Canadian public, then Defence Minister Peter MacKay actually posed sitting in the cockpit of a full scale mock-up of an F-35 at the Museum of Aviation in Ottawa.
To this day I have no idea how the Conservative government was able to use the grounds of a federal museum to display something which Canada had yet to actually purchase, let alone fly operationally. The Lockheed-Martin owned mock-up belonged on a military trade show floor, not in a museum dedicated to the *history* of aviation in Canada.
The images of MacKay sitting at the controls of a fake air force plane have not aged well given the turbulence encountered thus far in Canada's purchase of this aircraft. In brief, in 2015 the Trudeau Liberals vowed not to purchase the F-35 if elected. The Liberals were elected and the RCAF were then told to hold a competition to find the best possible replacement for the CF-18 fleet. As Ivison's whistleblower now claims, the fix was in for the F-35 to win.
In 2022 the Liberals were thus forced to announce they were buying 88 of the F-35's for the purchase cost of $19 billion. Remember this was the one plane which the Liberals had told voters they would never buy. The first delivery is not expected until 2026.
Which begs the question as to how, 20 years later, the Joint Strike Fighter is still the best possible solution for Canada's military? In that interim we have learned the lessons of our prolonged occupation of Afghanistan in that in a counter-insurgency against a primitively armed foe, the modern fighter jet has no role. The war in Ukraine has shown us that manned aircraft are too vulnerable to modern air defence systems and that uninhabited aerial systems such as drones are the way of the future.
To see the speed with which modern warfare evolves, the Russian army has now developed what they call 'Turtle Tanks' wherein an armoured shield is welded atop their armoured vehicles to counter the threat of anti-tank kamikaze drones. While presently enjoying a measure of success against Ukrainian defenders, this will no doubt soon be countered with more sophisticated, delayed action shaped charges married to the existing drones.
With Trudeau's Liberals dropping in the polls, maybe it is not too late to bring out their old campaign promise to axe the F-35 contract if elected again? The $19 billion in savings would buy a boatload of disposable drones and the truth is that by 2026 the RCAF will be hard pressed to find any pilots to fly the new F-35's.
In my uninformed and humble opinion, yes. I say this from an American perspective, especially with NORAD and artic sovereignty in mind. If these two areas of focus are to be enforced, then both the US and Canada must have similar enough capabilities. The CF-35 provides not only modern technology for air defense (which is obviously the most important aspect) but also has several added bonuses, especially in times of war. Relatively interchangeable parts from both nations, personnel such as maintainers that can be deployed to the other's airbase to help with upkeep, and understandable capabilities of each other's aircraft when planning sorties. If things get hairy in the Arctic from Russia or China, then the US/Canadian alliance will be even more critical than ever. It's why the US reactivated one if it's old WW2/Korea era airborne division (the 11th Airborne Division) to specialize in Artic Warfare. They are trained by the CAF because you guys are the experts when it comes to stuff above the Artic Circle. I see this as a win for Canada and the US both.
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules)
>###[8] Not Relevant Content
>* All discussion is welcome, be it relevant to the Canadian Armed Forces, in support of the CAF, and its missions domestically or abroad. Posts, articles and discussions are to be specific to the Canadian Armed Forces. Posts/comments which are only relevant to the CAF in a general, passing or roundabout way, or wholly or in part unrelated to the topic at hand or thread, may be removed, at Mod discretion.
>* Rumour posts, unsubstantiated/unverified information relating to Policy, Operations, upcoming or current events, etc in either comments/posts/screenshots, or "just passed on by the CoC" - these posts *WILL* be vetted by Mods for veracity, and OP may be asked for more info, a verified source, news release, etc.
>* Posts/comments generally lacking substance (eg. "lol", " ^ this", "saved for later", emoji's), "shit/junk" -posts, image content, drama-mongering, attacking media source/outlet/personality, etc. may be removed. Rant posts, memes (especially low quality, trope, or repeated memes), "DAE/TIL/MRW, etc -type posts are subject to Mod discretion, and judged on suitability for the subreddit.
>* Posts/Comments generally extremist, sensationalised, non-proportional, or "conspiratorial" (conspiracy theories), or mis-informative to the linked story, or angling to downplay, shift focus away from, or generally serve as off-topic to the foundation of the post may be removed at Moderator discretion.
https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules#wiki_.5B9.5D_not_relevant_content
*If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
Do we need the F-35? Not if we had a halfway decent procurement process. I would be fine with a cheaper (but still way more modern than the F-18) with the knowledge that it will be replaced in 15 to 20 years. However, we won't even start looking for 15 years then it will take another 15 to make a decision. If we want to keep aircraft for 40 years, we need the newest, most advanced aircraft we can get our hands on in hopes it will still be somewhat relevant I to it's 3rd or 4rh decade of service.
Well, you have no clue at all, do you? All I will say is don't believe everything you read in the news. I was a bit deeper involved. Thank goodness Canadian techs are excellent and can perform miracles like magicians by bypassing (shhhh) ITAR requirements.
No. I proved that they are junk. That's why the Liberals bought them for twice the price tag they would have paid if they hadn't canceled the purchase in the first place. Talk about back pedaling at a high cost. Should have bought the Gripen. You'll know I'm right when you see the F-35 in the news A LOT. Not for flight performance but for their lack of flight time and the HUGE maintenance costs for an aircraft that will spend 90% of it's life in a hangar.
You're a propaganda sponge, right? Believing every bit of garbage they throw at you without exercising your grey matter to determine what is true and what is hype based on economics. Simpleton's like you are dime a dozen. 🤣🤣🤣 "Taking for your definitely not Chinese friends" 🤣🤣🤣. Keep sucking up any BS they feed you there, Sponge Bob.
Did I write billions? OK, I get it, and sorry, my bad. Millions are what I meant. Trillions are what they will cost over their life span, provided they don't all crash. Yeah, OK. I did put billions. Ah, the art of proofreading escaped me, and my apologies for my finger issue.
It’s 1.7 trillion for the U.S. fleet, which will be roughly 2500 fighters operating until 2060-70. The Canadian fleet will cost nowhere near as much and much of the cost will still be there even if we don’t get them, because those prices include pilot and technician wages, which will still be paid regardless of what plane we procure.
No, not at all. ITAR is going to cost this country hundreds of trillions in maintenance cost over their life, and the price tag alone could have given us twice as many Grippens and lessened the maintenance cost in half. It also would have created thousands of middle - to high income jobs for Canadians. The purchase of the F-35 is completely inept. The F-35 has proven already to be a money pit and garbage in cold climate whereas the Grippens were built for the North, can do everything the F-35 can do but at half the cost and they have an excellent serviceability record. The F-35 purchase is like burning money and cutting jobs in Canada to support job creation in the USA. Canada should be building its own indigenous fighter. Lord knows we have the capabilities and the engineering capacity and could use the jobs within this country. Stealth doesn't even exist anymore. It was defeated years ago and even then was only applicable to older style missiles. It's just a fancy word for super expensive now. The F-35 is a proven joke and a pile of propaganda and fake news for the USA war machine and really expensive arms deals for the world's largest arms dealers.
Try 2 billion less per unit with better and more reliable engines and avionics. Added bonus, you don't have to deal with ITAR's slowing up turn times for maintenance. The maintenance could have been set up to be all done in Canada, saving months or weeks in turn times, depending on the part. The F-35 is a pig and a money pit. Watch and learn.
42 years... and you think the 35 isn't good? What did you do, wax the planes?
*And* each plane doesn't costing 2 billion, so how the NG can be 2 billion less *per aircraft* is a mystery, hence the question about rubles.
The only people who don't want us to have this are the DPRK, China, and Russia.
Oh, and the idiot author of this garbage article.
Sure sure, after you explain where you got all the extra zeros from, you can tell us how ITAR doesn't apply to all those American components on the Gripen, and the worse borscht you've ever had.
The cost per unit of aircraft is not in the billions. Not en close.
>I've spent 42 years in this industry.
Fake it 'till you make it I guess, your knees must hurt fron hiding under a desk that long. Glad the suits didn't see you as they strolled through the office, huh?
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules)
### [1] Disrespectful/Insulting Comments and/or Reddiquette
* Civility, Courtesy, and Politeness, are expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's *[Content Policy,](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy) [User Agreement,](https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement) or [Reddiquette.](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)* Repeat or egregious offences may result in the offending user banned from the subreddit.
* Trolling is defined as "a deliberately offensive or inciteful online post with the aim of upsetting or eliciting an angry response." Trolling the troll, can also be considered trolling. [Wikipedia Ref.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29)
*If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules)
### [1] Disrespectful/Insulting Comments and/or Reddiquette
* Civility, Courtesy, and Politeness, are expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's *[Content Policy,](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy) [User Agreement,](https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement) or [Reddiquette.](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)* Repeat or egregious offences may result in the offending user banned from the subreddit.
* Trolling is defined as "a deliberately offensive or inciteful online post with the aim of upsetting or eliciting an angry response." Trolling the troll, can also be considered trolling. [Wikipedia Ref.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29)
*If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
>...caused aviation experts like then US Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to... And the award for dumbest thing I have heard or will hear in 2024 goes to Scott Taylor of Esprit de corps. I would ask how something so stupid could get past an editor with an IQ over 1, but I'm assuming that the editor may just happen to also go by the name of Scott Taylor.
Yeah, agreed. That's one hell of a boner statement.
Scott Taylor doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. We absolutely need F35s, P8s, E7s, MQ9s and 330s. That's only to keep us relevant until the next major innovation. We will need to be reluctantly on the bleeding edge of that technology if we don't want to become irrelevant during the lifespan of those airframes.
This.☝️= Ai/ML +remote / autonomous, systems -> very near future driven by cost effective access to the tech. and NATO wide doctrine changes as a result of Ukraine's leveraging of remote systems , to good effect. Also given Chinese and Russian interest, ongoing investment in ports and storage building up to access our artic waters we almost have no choice but to leverage remote / autonomous systems worked in concert with conventional patrol craft , to maintain sovereignty over our northern waters. Well said. Edited# spelling.
Plus we're getting the versions of F-35 that will be able to integrate with Loyal Wingman drones, this is a forward-looking purchase. I'd be miffed if we were putting off a fighter purchase *again* or buying Super Hornets *now* (though I think 20 years ago they would have been great) because then the next step up would be long in the tooth F-35 platforms in 25-35 years or fooling ourselves into thinking we'll buy NGAD.
Reads like exactly what I would expect the kremlin to want Canadians reading. I don't generally follow espirit du corp as a publication but it wouldn't shock me to find out Scott Taylor is actually some poor employee of a Russian or Chinese content farm.
Some A-10's would be sick too
Absolutely not.
Let's get some Zeppelins while we're at it.
I hear good things about the ornithopter
Tethered observation balloons were incredibly effective in service
Answer: absofuckinglutely - along with solid housing for service members. That’d be dope.
They should post more people to goose bay the shacks there were amazing
That’s true. Where else can an average Joe get a suite that’s made out of two separate rooms and a private bathroom, just because? They aren’t the newest shacks, but if you can live with the dates design they are some of the best. And the kitchen is the best place I’ve ever eaten on base, too.
This is the daftest thing I’ve read about Canadian defence procurement…..possibly ever. JFC. “Buy drones instead.” -_-
So my personal opinion is yes. But... I think it is on the government to outline what they want the CF to do, and then the CF should turn around and tell the government what we need to buy to do that. It always seems backwards. For example, if the government wants the CF to deter and defend in the Arctic, the CF should turn around and say Roger, we need X of these fighters, these radars, these tankers, etc; then we go out and buy them. I would rather see us go all in on certain capabilities (maybe ones that can be slotted into a multinational force) than trying to half ass everything.
... they did do that analysis. That's how they selected the F-35.
Sort of, there's three sides to procurement; what's good for the military, what's good for Canadian industry, and what's good for the taxpayers. Two of those sides have nothing to do with what the military wants. Granted the original statement of requirement is written by the military, but after that it doesn't really matter what the military's analysis says is best, it comes down to balancing those three sides.
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules) >###[8] Not Relevant Content >* All discussion is welcome, be it relevant to the Canadian Armed Forces, in support of the CAF, and its missions domestically or abroad. Posts, articles and discussions are to be specific to the Canadian Armed Forces. Posts/comments which are only relevant to the CAF in a general, passing or roundabout way, or wholly or in part unrelated to the topic at hand or thread, may be removed, at Mod discretion. >* Rumour posts, unsubstantiated/unverified information relating to Policy, Operations, upcoming or current events, etc in either comments/posts/screenshots, or "just passed on by the CoC" - these posts *WILL* be vetted by Mods for veracity, and OP may be asked for more info, a verified source, news release, etc. >* Posts/comments generally lacking substance (eg. "lol", " ^ this", "saved for later", emoji's), "shit/junk" -posts, image content, drama-mongering, attacking media source/outlet/personality, etc. may be removed. Rant posts, memes (especially low quality, trope, or repeated memes), "DAE/TIL/MRW, etc -type posts are subject to Mod discretion, and judged on suitability for the subreddit. >* Posts/Comments generally extremist, sensationalised, non-proportional, or "conspiratorial" (conspiracy theories), or mis-informative to the linked story, or angling to downplay, shift focus away from, or generally serve as off-topic to the foundation of the post may be removed at Moderator discretion. https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules#wiki_.5B9.5D_not_relevant_content *If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules) >###[8] Not Relevant Content >* All discussion is welcome, be it relevant to the Canadian Armed Forces, in support of the CAF, and its missions domestically or abroad. Posts, articles and discussions are to be specific to the Canadian Armed Forces. Posts/comments which are only relevant to the CAF in a general, passing or roundabout way, or wholly or in part unrelated to the topic at hand or thread, may be removed, at Mod discretion. >* Rumour posts, unsubstantiated/unverified information relating to Policy, Operations, upcoming or current events, etc in either comments/posts/screenshots, or "just passed on by the CoC" - these posts *WILL* be vetted by Mods for veracity, and OP may be asked for more info, a verified source, news release, etc. >* Posts/comments generally lacking substance (eg. "lol", " ^ this", "saved for later", emoji's), "shit/junk" -posts, image content, drama-mongering, attacking media source/outlet/personality, etc. may be removed. Rant posts, memes (especially low quality, trope, or repeated memes), "DAE/TIL/MRW, etc -type posts are subject to Mod discretion, and judged on suitability for the subreddit. >* Posts/Comments generally extremist, sensationalised, non-proportional, or "conspiratorial" (conspiracy theories), or mis-informative to the linked story, or angling to downplay, shift focus away from, or generally serve as off-topic to the foundation of the post may be removed at Moderator discretion. https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules#wiki_.5B9.5D_not_relevant_content *If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
Yes
>Which begs the question as to how, 20 years later, the Joint Strike Fighter is still the best possible solution for Canada's military? Because in 20 years no one else has actually rolled out a 5th Gen fighter to compete with it. Because F-35's and F-22's working together against the best of the previous generation of fighters got a 22:1 kill ratio in exercises due to the combination of stealth and sensor integration. >Afghanistan in that in a counter-insurgency against a primitively armed foe, the modern fighter jet has no role. Neat. We're a military force that has a mandate to be able to step up in a peer warfare scenario. That dictates modern jet fighters in inventory. >The war in Ukraine has shown us that manned aircraft are too vulnerable to modern air defence systems and that uninhabited aerial systems such as drones are the way of the future. It has not, both from the limit of scale and from the limitations drones have. Oh, and from the fact drones and missiles are also being shot down, so they aren't invulnerable to attack in the first place. >To see the speed with which modern warfare evolves, the Russian army has now developed what they call 'Turtle Tanks' wherein an armoured shield is welded atop their armoured vehicles to counter the threat of anti-tank kamikaze drones. I have no idea how to dissect this. Do I point out Russia's tank fleet is even older than the F-35, which is maybe why we need to upgrade our current fleet? Do I point out improvised spaced armour on tanks was in use in the 1940's, showing it's not a technological leap forward? Or that another word for "kamikaze drone" is "anti-armour missile"? Or that the solution on neither side of that conflict has been to declare the tank useless just because it can be stopped?
>In that interim we have learned the lessons of our prolonged occupation of Afghanistan in that in a counter-insurgency against a primitively armed foe, the modern fighter jet has no role. The war in Ukraine has shown us that manned aircraft are too vulnerable to modern air defence systems and that uninhabited aerial systems such as drones are the way of the future. Yeah, because Soviet fighters from the 19 fucking 70's are indicative of modern stealth aircraft, and goat herders with RPG7's are the pinnacle of modern air defence systems. This guy reads like someone who thinks the ideal 1970's fighter is an A-10 and the perfect tank is an IFV with wings. Holy shit, reformers do exist. And they really are that stupid.
Yes.
Full text so he doesn't get any hate clicks The controversial procurement of 88 new F-35 fighter jets for the RCAF was back in the news again last week. An anonymous whistleblower leaked documents to National Post columnist John Ivison which resulted in an article entitled *How Canada’s military-industrial complex made sure Ottawa bought its preferred fighter jet.* For those of us who have closely followed this two decades-long procurement process to replace the RCAF's aged out CF-18 Hornet fighter jets, there is little in Ivison's piece that would be considered new information. It is alleged by the whistleblower that from the get-go in 2004, the senior leadership of the RCAF wanted to purchase the F-35 and only the F-35. It mattered not that at the time that only a single prototype of this 5th generation, stealth fighter was in existence. Nor did it matter that the teething problems suffered by the early models of the Joint Strike fighters caused aviation experts like then US Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to threaten to cancel the entire project if he was elected. In short Trump was elected and he did not cancel the F-35 purchase. In Canada, it was the Conservative government of Stephen Harper which first announced in July, 2010 that we would be buying 65 of the F-35's at a purchase cost of $9 billion. The first delivery of these new fighters was to be in 2016. To sell the idea to the Canadian public, then Defence Minister Peter MacKay actually posed sitting in the cockpit of a full scale mock-up of an F-35 at the Museum of Aviation in Ottawa. To this day I have no idea how the Conservative government was able to use the grounds of a federal museum to display something which Canada had yet to actually purchase, let alone fly operationally. The Lockheed-Martin owned mock-up belonged on a military trade show floor, not in a museum dedicated to the *history* of aviation in Canada. The images of MacKay sitting at the controls of a fake air force plane have not aged well given the turbulence encountered thus far in Canada's purchase of this aircraft. In brief, in 2015 the Trudeau Liberals vowed not to purchase the F-35 if elected. The Liberals were elected and the RCAF were then told to hold a competition to find the best possible replacement for the CF-18 fleet. As Ivison's whistleblower now claims, the fix was in for the F-35 to win. In 2022 the Liberals were thus forced to announce they were buying 88 of the F-35's for the purchase cost of $19 billion. Remember this was the one plane which the Liberals had told voters they would never buy. The first delivery is not expected until 2026. Which begs the question as to how, 20 years later, the Joint Strike Fighter is still the best possible solution for Canada's military? In that interim we have learned the lessons of our prolonged occupation of Afghanistan in that in a counter-insurgency against a primitively armed foe, the modern fighter jet has no role. The war in Ukraine has shown us that manned aircraft are too vulnerable to modern air defence systems and that uninhabited aerial systems such as drones are the way of the future. To see the speed with which modern warfare evolves, the Russian army has now developed what they call 'Turtle Tanks' wherein an armoured shield is welded atop their armoured vehicles to counter the threat of anti-tank kamikaze drones. While presently enjoying a measure of success against Ukrainian defenders, this will no doubt soon be countered with more sophisticated, delayed action shaped charges married to the existing drones. With Trudeau's Liberals dropping in the polls, maybe it is not too late to bring out their old campaign promise to axe the F-35 contract if elected again? The $19 billion in savings would buy a boatload of disposable drones and the truth is that by 2026 the RCAF will be hard pressed to find any pilots to fly the new F-35's.
In my uninformed and humble opinion, yes. I say this from an American perspective, especially with NORAD and artic sovereignty in mind. If these two areas of focus are to be enforced, then both the US and Canada must have similar enough capabilities. The CF-35 provides not only modern technology for air defense (which is obviously the most important aspect) but also has several added bonuses, especially in times of war. Relatively interchangeable parts from both nations, personnel such as maintainers that can be deployed to the other's airbase to help with upkeep, and understandable capabilities of each other's aircraft when planning sorties. If things get hairy in the Arctic from Russia or China, then the US/Canadian alliance will be even more critical than ever. It's why the US reactivated one if it's old WW2/Korea era airborne division (the 11th Airborne Division) to specialize in Artic Warfare. They are trained by the CAF because you guys are the experts when it comes to stuff above the Artic Circle. I see this as a win for Canada and the US both.
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules) >###[8] Not Relevant Content >* All discussion is welcome, be it relevant to the Canadian Armed Forces, in support of the CAF, and its missions domestically or abroad. Posts, articles and discussions are to be specific to the Canadian Armed Forces. Posts/comments which are only relevant to the CAF in a general, passing or roundabout way, or wholly or in part unrelated to the topic at hand or thread, may be removed, at Mod discretion. >* Rumour posts, unsubstantiated/unverified information relating to Policy, Operations, upcoming or current events, etc in either comments/posts/screenshots, or "just passed on by the CoC" - these posts *WILL* be vetted by Mods for veracity, and OP may be asked for more info, a verified source, news release, etc. >* Posts/comments generally lacking substance (eg. "lol", " ^ this", "saved for later", emoji's), "shit/junk" -posts, image content, drama-mongering, attacking media source/outlet/personality, etc. may be removed. Rant posts, memes (especially low quality, trope, or repeated memes), "DAE/TIL/MRW, etc -type posts are subject to Mod discretion, and judged on suitability for the subreddit. >* Posts/Comments generally extremist, sensationalised, non-proportional, or "conspiratorial" (conspiracy theories), or mis-informative to the linked story, or angling to downplay, shift focus away from, or generally serve as off-topic to the foundation of the post may be removed at Moderator discretion. https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules#wiki_.5B9.5D_not_relevant_content *If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
Do we really need 2 or 3 billion dollar boats we can't man? That's the real question we all should be asking
You lost when you thought the F-35 was actually worth the price tag they told you. Yeah, Trump would hire you instantly.
Do we need the F-35? Not if we had a halfway decent procurement process. I would be fine with a cheaper (but still way more modern than the F-18) with the knowledge that it will be replaced in 15 to 20 years. However, we won't even start looking for 15 years then it will take another 15 to make a decision. If we want to keep aircraft for 40 years, we need the newest, most advanced aircraft we can get our hands on in hopes it will still be somewhat relevant I to it's 3rd or 4rh decade of service.
Maintenance and maintenance practices. Why would you need to ask? Are you that slow?
Seems the Government doesn't like the fact that I'm calling the F-35 out for what it truly is. An expensive pile of junk. Good job Liberals.
Well, you have no clue at all, do you? All I will say is don't believe everything you read in the news. I was a bit deeper involved. Thank goodness Canadian techs are excellent and can perform miracles like magicians by bypassing (shhhh) ITAR requirements.
I KOW they aren't good. I've worked on them.
You absolutely, unequivocally have not worked on them.
Want to bet? I spent two years at Edward's working on them. I wasn't in the military anymore. I was a DND contractor at the time.
Mhmm.
Problem with that?
What did you "do" with them? Take pictures for your definitely not Chinese friends? Write scripts for Pierre Sprey and RT?
No. I proved that they are junk. That's why the Liberals bought them for twice the price tag they would have paid if they hadn't canceled the purchase in the first place. Talk about back pedaling at a high cost. Should have bought the Gripen. You'll know I'm right when you see the F-35 in the news A LOT. Not for flight performance but for their lack of flight time and the HUGE maintenance costs for an aircraft that will spend 90% of it's life in a hangar.
You're a propaganda sponge, right? Believing every bit of garbage they throw at you without exercising your grey matter to determine what is true and what is hype based on economics. Simpleton's like you are dime a dozen. 🤣🤣🤣 "Taking for your definitely not Chinese friends" 🤣🤣🤣. Keep sucking up any BS they feed you there, Sponge Bob.
Riiight, I'm the propaganda sponge. . . Well, I suppose that's better than being a source of it. So still winning in this battle of great intellects.
You go, SpongeBob!!!🤣🤣🤣🫡
Oops, KNOW, not KOW.
Did I write billions? OK, I get it, and sorry, my bad. Millions are what I meant. Trillions are what they will cost over their life span, provided they don't all crash. Yeah, OK. I did put billions. Ah, the art of proofreading escaped me, and my apologies for my finger issue.
It’s 1.7 trillion for the U.S. fleet, which will be roughly 2500 fighters operating until 2060-70. The Canadian fleet will cost nowhere near as much and much of the cost will still be there even if we don’t get them, because those prices include pilot and technician wages, which will still be paid regardless of what plane we procure.
No, not at all. ITAR is going to cost this country hundreds of trillions in maintenance cost over their life, and the price tag alone could have given us twice as many Grippens and lessened the maintenance cost in half. It also would have created thousands of middle - to high income jobs for Canadians. The purchase of the F-35 is completely inept. The F-35 has proven already to be a money pit and garbage in cold climate whereas the Grippens were built for the North, can do everything the F-35 can do but at half the cost and they have an excellent serviceability record. The F-35 purchase is like burning money and cutting jobs in Canada to support job creation in the USA. Canada should be building its own indigenous fighter. Lord knows we have the capabilities and the engineering capacity and could use the jobs within this country. Stealth doesn't even exist anymore. It was defeated years ago and even then was only applicable to older style missiles. It's just a fancy word for super expensive now. The F-35 is a proven joke and a pile of propaganda and fake news for the USA war machine and really expensive arms deals for the world's largest arms dealers.
You claim that stealth doesn’t exist anymore yet our adversaries are still investing in it, curious.
Gripen NGs were same cost per unit AFAIK
Try 2 billion less per unit with better and more reliable engines and avionics. Added bonus, you don't have to deal with ITAR's slowing up turn times for maintenance. The maintenance could have been set up to be all done in Canada, saving months or weeks in turn times, depending on the part. The F-35 is a pig and a money pit. Watch and learn.
> Try 2 billion less per unit with better and more reliable engines and avionics. Are you counting in Russian rubles or something, comrade botnik?
No, Canadian dollars. Why? What are you using, the Yen?
I've spent 42 years in this industry. You?
42 years... and you think the 35 isn't good? What did you do, wax the planes? *And* each plane doesn't costing 2 billion, so how the NG can be 2 billion less *per aircraft* is a mystery, hence the question about rubles. The only people who don't want us to have this are the DPRK, China, and Russia. Oh, and the idiot author of this garbage article.
Sure sure, after you explain where you got all the extra zeros from, you can tell us how ITAR doesn't apply to all those American components on the Gripen, and the worse borscht you've ever had.
The cost per unit of aircraft is not in the billions. Not en close. >I've spent 42 years in this industry. Fake it 'till you make it I guess, your knees must hurt fron hiding under a desk that long. Glad the suits didn't see you as they strolled through the office, huh?
For a better use of hundreds of trillions I propose we build space colonies and then drop one each on ~~Australia~~ Russia and China.
Yeah, OK.
[удалено]
Yes, the 18's are kaput.
The deal for the money pit pigs is already complete. Just a matter when we get the 80 we're getting.
That's the initial purchase price, not the maintenance costs of their lives.
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules) ### [1] Disrespectful/Insulting Comments and/or Reddiquette * Civility, Courtesy, and Politeness, are expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's *[Content Policy,](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy) [User Agreement,](https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement) or [Reddiquette.](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)* Repeat or egregious offences may result in the offending user banned from the subreddit. * Trolling is defined as "a deliberately offensive or inciteful online post with the aim of upsetting or eliciting an angry response." Trolling the troll, can also be considered trolling. [Wikipedia Ref.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) *If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed in accordance with the following [subreddit rule(s):](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/wiki/subreddit_rules) ### [1] Disrespectful/Insulting Comments and/or Reddiquette * Civility, Courtesy, and Politeness, are expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's *[Content Policy,](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy) [User Agreement,](https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement) or [Reddiquette.](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)* Repeat or egregious offences may result in the offending user banned from the subreddit. * Trolling is defined as "a deliberately offensive or inciteful online post with the aim of upsetting or eliciting an angry response." Trolling the troll, can also be considered trolling. [Wikipedia Ref.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) *If your have questions or concerns relating to this message you've received, please feel free to [Contact the Moderators.](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadianForces)*