Where oh where is our Hornet replacement?

[TaiidanTomcat]

19 minutes ago, Don said:

 “at a cost, time, level of capability and economic value that is acceptable to Canada"... and free oil changes, tire rotations, and lifetime bumper-to-bumper warranty. You'd swear JT and the "sunny ways" crew were shopping for a used car for petes sakes.

 

 

 

It's illegal for the aircraft to be sold at a lower cost than what the US pays. so we can take the 77 million flyaway, and add 7 percent FMS right off the bat before we get into the extras

[11bee]

1 hour ago, 82Whitey51 said:

Yeah, we pretty much do anyway. 

I'm sure the Brits, Canucks, Germans, French and other nations that had KIA's in Iraq and/or Afghanistan will appreciate that outlook.  

 

 

[Don]

2 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

It's illegal for the aircraft to be sold at a lower cost than what the US pays. so we can take the 77 million flyaway, and add 7 percent FMS right off the bat before we get into the extras

Oh I agree completely. But it is truly amazing just how duped it seems many Canadians are into thinking that JT's idea is actually a good one and not the expensive and costly "interim solution" that it will be. Heck, read the comments in the CBC news links and its shocking just how little the commentators know yet they are in lock step agreement with what Sunny and his Liberal "experts" are spouting. Heck I still see people posting about how great an idea the SH is solely because it has two engines...

 

Amazing...or perhaps shocking.

 

 

[phantom]

THe CBC is so over the top Liberal biased its not even remotely funny. Of course they will approve. JT promised them all the money SH took away and then some.

 

However back on a model note. I have to wonder what the breakdown of airframes will be. A mix of E/Fs or all Fs? Hopefully the Libs try to be some what cost effective and base them all at one base not splitting them up, needing more supplies, more simulators etc.

 

Course with only two fighter bases left in Canada its not like splitting them up will make too much difference. My bet is 401 squadron in Cold Lake. But seeing as I said that watch its 433 in Bagotteville. If, and its a HUGE if which I do not see happening, perhaps some could in the future be made into CF-18X Gs. Which might involve bringing back 414 squadron. But certainly not at North Bay.

Edited November 24, 2016 by phantom

[TaiidanTomcat]

2 hours ago, Don said:

Oh I agree completely. But it is truly amazing just how duped it seems many Canadians are into thinking that JT's idea is actually a good one and not the expensive and costly "interim solution" that it will be. Heck, read the comments in the CBC news links and its shocking just how little the commentators know yet they are in lock step agreement with what Sunny and his Liberal "experts" are spouting. Heck I still see people posting about how great an idea the SH is solely because it has two engines...

 

Amazing...or perhaps shocking.

 

 

 

The way the F-35 is reported in Canada is different than in the rest of the world and that's not an exaggeration. it's basically Enron up there.  

 

I can't wait to see what the actual contract cost is on this "Uber cheap" super hornet. it won't stop them, but I want to see the gulp. 

[Scooby]

19 hours ago, Niels said:

If the CAF are smart, they will buy the F/A-18F+ similar to what Australia did, so that when decision on next fighter is taken they can convert the F/A-18F+'s into EA-18G's and introduce a new capability. This will safeguard against "waisted" money on interim fighters ;) My 2cc

 

Australia bought the Super Hornet fleet to replace the F-111 fleet, not as a stop-gap for the F-35.

[Scooby]

This goes to show Trudeau is foolishly standing by his blind election promise. This is Sea King #2.  The entire RCAF community is upset about this.  Replace a 36 year-old fighter with a 23 year old fighter?  Denmark, likely the least corrupt government in the world, did a study that conclusively decided upon the F-35. They are a country that has never formed a majority government, all parties work together for a common cause.which is for the best of the country. Their climate and area of defense is very similar to Canada.  In their study, the unit cost is $80 million per F-35, $93 million for the Super Hornet.  So Canada will be second fiddle on the world stage when we show up with this junk.  This is really going to be tough on the Airforce. To operate two fleets, they will be splitting up their manpower. They will need to build infrastructure to support these 18 jets. Building such as flight simulators are very expensive. As is the training.  Very little of these jets will be built in Canada. All the F-35 jobs will be lost.  Worst of all of this, our airmen and airwomen will not be afforded the best chance of survivability to come home in an F-35.  The Liberals put us into the F-35 program, the Liberals are now going to kill it.  Sad that a politician is playing politics with the life's of our service members.   To think I was alone in a washroom with Justine during the election campaign, I could have saved the planet.

[Antoine]

10 hours ago, chuck540z3 said:

Weren't the first airstrikes in Libya from the French Eurofighters?

 

Nearly fall from my chair with this one!

;)

[Nigel Bunker]

13 hours ago, 82Whitey51 said:

Yeah, we pretty much do anyway.

Perhaps this gentleman would like to take a visit to Headley Court in Birmingham UK and tell all the young men and women there who lost parts of their bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan that the USA did it all there.

[TaiidanTomcat]

7 hours ago, Nigel Bunker said:

Perhaps this gentleman would like to take a visit to Headley Court in Birmingham UK and tell all the young men and women there who lost parts of their bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan that the USA did it all there.

 

 

Don't know if I should respond to this and further derail the thread, with charts and graphs and stuff or just let it go so we can talk about the stupid hornet and Canada going back to the future with sea king scandal 2.0...

 

Look I'll just say, that there is a reason the US feels like it carries a disproportionate share of the burden, and that's because the US shares a disproportionate amount of the burden. they are not alone no, but stating that the US does more does not take away from the sacrifices of allies. just to put it in perspective, the US has taken more losses in A stan than every allied nation there

COMBINED.

 

 http://icasualties.org/OEF/RadControls/Chart/Image.aspx?UseSession=true&ChartID=327b6d5d-b334-3c2f-9523-1cc7ca982738_chart_ctl00$ContentPlaceHolder1$rcNation&imageFormat=Png&random=0.578331386474116

 

so yes, the US is feeling a disproportionate feeling of not only losses, but costs, and the burden of military spending and participation, while our allies adjust their "ROEs" to mitigate their own losses and back home, pump money into social programs the US can only dream of. Which brings us to Canada which is talking about spending on daycare while freaking out about buying a whole 65 airplanes that would last it 42+ years:

 

The US is planning on buying 2400+ F-35s Canada is balking at 65. the US is going to spend 400 billion in procurement alone and over a trillion dollars over the next 60 years for its fleet. Canada is going to spend 9 billion (with 9-12 billion dollars worth of industrial benefits) to buy their F-35s, from there it's going to spend over 42 years for the whole fleet including retirement cost 35 billion dollars.

 

So you can see why some of the yanks may be a little raw. Especially as and I beg your pardon Canada, but Canada is not a poor country. A lot of Canadians are acting like the cost of the F-35 is astronomical and incomprehensible, and its not. I can't believe we are talking about state sponsored daycare, but fighter jets to directly protect you from foreign incursion are somehow surreal. I can't wait until Tim Horton's is nationalized and the government is expected to give every Canadian cradle to the grave coffee entitlements. At this point, it seems like anything is possible. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

11 hours ago, Scooby said:

This goes to show Trudeau is foolishly standing by his blind election promise. This is Sea King #2.  The entire RCAF community is upset about this.  Replace a 36 year-old fighter with a 23 year old fighter?  Denmark, likely the least corrupt government in the world, did a study that conclusively decided upon the F-35. They are a country that has never formed a majority government, all parties work together for a common cause.which is for the best of the country. Their climate and area of defense is very similar to Canada.  In their study, the unit cost is $80 million per F-35, $93 million for the Super Hornet.  So Canada will be second fiddle on the world stage when we show up with this junk.  This is really going to be tough on the Airforce. To operate two fleets, they will be splitting up their manpower. They will need to build infrastructure to support these 18 jets. Building such as flight simulators are very expensive. As is the training.  Very little of these jets will be built in Canada. All the F-35 jobs will be lost.  Worst of all of this, our airmen and airwomen will not be afforded the best chance of survivability to come home in an F-35.  The Liberals put us into the F-35 program, the Liberals are now going to kill it.  Sad that a politician is playing politics with the life's of our service members.   To think I was alone in a washroom with Justine during the election campaign, I could have saved the planet.

 

 

Quoted for truth. one of the best comments I saw was "This would be like buying F-4s in the mid 1980s" (Apologies to Phantom, who would have liked that even if only for interim :) )

Edited November 24, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Raceaddict]

[TaiidanTomcat]

 

Quote

 

OTTAWA — Two former heads of military procurement have slammed the Liberal government's plan to buy 18 Super Hornet fighter jets as a legally dubious waste of taxpayer dollars.

The Liberals announced this week that the government will launch an open competition next year to replace all 77 of the air force's CF-18s — a process that's expected to last up to five years.

In the meantime, they say they will enter negotiations to purchase Boeing Super Hornets without a competition because the air force is facing a critical shortage of warplanes, which poses an "urgent" need.

Such a need is one of the few exceptions in the federal procurement law that lets the government purchase new military equipment as a stop-gap until a full competition can be held.

Applying the exception will let the government "move forward on an expedient basis to obtain the equipment that the men and women of the air force needs," Jessica Turner, Public Procurement Minister Judy Foote's spokeswoman, said in an email.

The previous Conservative government introduced the clause last year to fill a gap after its two resupply vessels were forced to retire early.

The Conservatives subsequently awarded a $700-million contract to Davie Shipyard in Levis, Que., to modify a civilian ship to provide resupply capabilities for the navy until full replacements could be built.

But in separate interviews, Alan Williams and Dan Ross said they don't believe there really is an urgent need, because the government could pick a new fighter jet through an open competition in two years or less.

"I question the whole legality of this," said Williams, who served as assistant deputy minister of materiel at National Defence from 2000 to 2005 and has been a vocal critic of sole-sourcing defence contracts.

"Holding a competition within a year is even doable. It's not like you're starting everything all over again."

They also said operating an "interim" fleet would significantly increase the air force's operational costs, not to mention the billions that will be spent to simply acquire the Super Hornets.

"This was probably the worst possible option," said Ross, who succeeded Williams as assistant deputy minister of materiel and recommended the F-35 to the previous Conservative government.

"The taxpayers will bear the cost of this and it's not necessary."

The government has refused to say how much it expects to pay for the Super Hornets, or what it will do with them if another jet fighter wins the promised competition.

But Ross and Williams predicted the figure could run anywhere between $3 billion and $8 billion, depending on what is included and how long they are kept.

Officials say the cost of the Super Hornets won't hit the government's bottom line or make the deficit any bigger in the short term because there is already $9 billion set aside by the previous Conservative government for the purchase of fighter jets.

However, there is no extra money in the fiscal framework for another tranche of jets. Those planes will need fresh financing to the order of many billions of dollars.

Analysts have long warned that the military is dealing with unrealistic expectations under a tight spending cap, though the government says it will address that problem with a new defence policy next year.

Representatives for Boeing's rivals were quietly grumbling on Wednesday about the government's decision to buy the Super Hornets without a competition.

But none was prepared to make a public fuss, saying instead that they planned to bring their concerns to the government when it launches a competition next year.

 

 

 

just cut into the CF-18 replacement funding for the interim there...

 

Quote

 

You didn’t have to work too hard to grasp Justin Trudeau’s position, in last fall’s Liberal election platform, on Lockheed Martin’s cutting-edge but controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber,” the platform said. That was on page 70 of A New Plan for a Strong Middle Class, and in boldface, by the way, so you couldn’t miss it.

Except, unequivocal though it was, the promise doesn’t seem to have counted for much. No fewer than three cabinet ministers, plus the chief of defence staff, showed up just off Parliament Hill at the National Press Theatre this afternoon to announce a two-part plan to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 jets—and the F-35 remains very much in the multi-billion-dollar, multi-year hunt. Asked how that can possibly be, Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote said it’s because the Liberals promised an “open and transparent competition” to choose Canada’s next fighter jet.

MORE: How far can the feds stretch those aging CF-18s?

 

And it’s true, they did. Just after the promise not to buy the F-35, the 2015 Liberal platform went on to say, “We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft.” How that vow could ever be reconciled with the preceding pledge to disqualify Lockheed Martin’s horse from the race has always been a mystery. But at least, voters might have imagined, the ultimate goal made sense: “We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.”

Are there really many, lower-priced, better options, though? Today’s news conference left all parts of that assertion wide open to doubt. The need to do something, however, isn’t. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was convincing on the need for a coherent plan to close Canada’s jet fighter capability gap. The Royal Canadian Air Force is down to 77 CF-18s from a peak of 138, and those still in the air are more than 30 years old. At times, that leaves Canada short of the planes needed to meet its core NORAD and NATO obligations.

RELATED: Campaign 2015: Is this the moment the Liberals take flight?

 

So Sajjan announced the government will “immediately explore” buying 18 Boeing Super Hornets, off the shelf, to supplement those vintage CF-18s on an interim basis, while launching a five-year competitive bidding process to select a permanent fleet of jets. Why consider only the Super Hornet for the interim fleet, if there really are many options out there? Well, Sajjan and Foote explained that Canada needs a plane that’s “inter-operable” with what the United States is flying, and the Boeing offering fits the bill. No need for a competition, evidently, to figure out the best fit, which makes the notion of a crowded field of genuine contenders for the bigger, longer-term buy seem unlikely.

 

As for that larger purchase to come later, Sajjan was asked directly if he could offer any assurances that it would prove less expensive than the F-35 program, which the former Conservative government had so maladroitly pursued. He did not make any commitment of the sort. Indeed, had Sajjan or Foote said today—as the Liberal platform did last fall—that many attractive, lower-cost options exist, that would have been odd, since the government has decided to remain a fully paid-up partner in the consortium that is developing the F-35.

 

Here’s what today’s news release from Sajjan, Foote and Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains had to say about keeping Canada’s options open when it comes to the Lockheed Martin plane: “Canada will continue participation in the Joint Strike Fighter Program until at least a contract award for the permanent fleet. This will allow Canada to maximize benefits of the partnership and gives Canada the option to buy the aircraft through the program should the F-35 be successful in the competitive process for the permanent fleet.”

 

So the upshot of today’s announcement, for anyone who cares to look at it alongside last fall’s Liberal platform, is as follows. The F-35 is still very much in the running, even though the Liberals promised it would be excluded. The notion that there are many fighter jet options available, as the Liberal platform said, is undermined by the fact that, faced with the need for a suitable interim jet, only the Super Hornet fit the bill. And the appealing idea that whatever jet option is finally selected will be much cheaper than the F-35 appears no longer to be part of the message.

 

 

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-new-liberal-plan-for-fighter-jets-doesnt-abandon-the-f-35/

Edited November 24, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

 

56 minutes ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

Don't know if I should respond to this and further derail the thread, with charts and graphs and stuff or just let it go so we can talk about the stupid hornet and Canada going back to the future with sea king scandal 2.0...

 

Look I'll just say, that there is a reason the US feels like it carries a disproportionate share of the burden, and that's because the US shares a disproportionate amount of the burden. they are not alone no, but stating that the US does more does not take away from the sacrifices of allies. just to put it in perspective, the US has taken more losses in A stan than every allied nation there

COMBINED.

 

 http://icasualties.org/OEF/RadControls/Chart/Image.aspx?UseSession=true&ChartID=327b6d5d-b334-3c2f-9523-1cc7ca982738_chart_ctl00$ContentPlaceHolder1$rcNation&imageFormat=Png&random=0.578331386474116

 

so yes, the US is feeling a disproportionate feeling of not only losses, but costs, and the burden of military spending and participation, while our allies adjust their "ROEs" to mitigate their own losses and back home, pump money into social programs the US can only dream of. Which brings us to Canada which is talking about spending on daycare while freaking out about buying a whole 65 airplanes that would last it 42+ years:

 

The US is planning on buying 2400+ F-35s Canada is balking at 65. the US is going to spend 400 billion in procurement alone and over a trillion dollars over the next 60 years for its fleet. Canada is going to spend 9 billion (with 9-12 billion dollars worth of industrial benefits) to buy their F-35s, from there it's going to spend over 42 years for the whole fleet including retirement cost 35 billion dollars.

 

So you can see why some of the yanks may be a little raw. Especially as and I beg your pardon Canada, but Canada is not a poor country. A lot of Canadians are acting like the cost of the F-35 is astronomical and incomprehensible, and its not. I can't believe we are talking about state sponsored daycare, but fighter jets to directly protect you from foreign incursion are somehow surreal. I can't wait until Tim Horton's is nationalized and the government is expected to give every Canadian cradle to the grave coffee entitlements. At this point, it seems like anything is possible. 

 

Two points - I'd say we are damned lucky to have allies that follow us on some pretty sketchy military adventures (how'd that hunt for WMD's in Iraq work out?, How's the threat of international terrorism looking since we invaded Afghanistan?) and sacrifice their kid's lives and their funds, all in the interest of being a good ally to the US.   When they voice concerns about the legality of a military operation, we mock them (anyone remember "Freedom Fries" or "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys"?). We should feel blessed that any of our allies sign up.

 

With regard to military spending, I think everyone agrees that the majority of our allies are spending a great deal less than they should on defense.  One can make a good point that they feel they can do this because they are part of a military alliance with the US and if things every got really bad, the US has their backs.  This is an issue that needs to be corrected.   They don't have to match the US in this area, just need to make some demonstrable improvements.   If they don't feel that defense is a priority, I'm totally fine with shutting down additional US bases overseas, deactivating the units and putting the saved $ into other programs in need of funding. 

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

2 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

 

Two points - I'd say we are damned lucky to have allies that follow us on some pretty sketchy military adventures (how'd that hunt for WMD's in Iraq work out?, How's the threat of international terrorism looking since we invaded Afghanistan?) and sacrifice their kid's lives and their funds, all in the interest of being a good ally to the US.   When they voice concerns about the legality of a military operation, we mock them (anyone remember "Freedom Fries" or "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys"?). We should feel blessed that any of our allies sign up.

 

 

 

Their Intel said the same things about WMDs BTW. you're looking at this from a completely American centric view. and I know we invaded Afghanistan totally randomly. and they followed for many reasons not least of which is that their own skin is in the game. do we really think international terrorism hinges totally on the US and our actions?

 

And there are lots of people in those same countries that agree, Chuck is an example in this very thread that brought it up but many Canadians feel the same way and lament the loss of their military and are just as unhappy at what they feel is relegation, weakness, even the loss of national identity. the Super Hornet here is a great example. the RCAF might well be a paper force here soon. so even those mean old Canadians themselves think they could/should be doing more which of course means they are disrespecting their dead and wounded. because that's 21st century logic:

 

I cured cancer! 

 

Why do you hate people with AIDS? 

 

Our allies aren't pulling their weight.

 

We are lucky they follow us at all! say that to their dead and wounded!!

 

We  can complain about Iraq but Afghanistan is not an american construct and certainly neither is international terrorism or radical islam.

 

A lot of people in Europe will openly tell you what you feel is an insult. 

 

Evil American: they just really aren't interested in war or the military!!

 

Average European on the street: *shrug* we just really aren't interested in war or the military.

 

Hardly Scandolous! they are open about this. in the US we consider it an insult, in other countries it's just life. many will even go so far as to say they don't need a military they have the US. some take the opposite tac and say the US is nothing more than warmongers and even point out that the US sure does spend more than all their allies combined.

 

I always get a kick out of "open secrets"

 

Once the US decided it wasn't going to do anything about Syria, Europe decided they wouldn't either. the downside is we didn't have to worry about refugees but boy they sure did. can only imagine if Europe had banded together and gone in to Syria (without the US) to stop the war how things would have turned out differently for them. too late now though. that's the problem with war, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. not making a decision is making a decision. 

 

Russia won't care that Canada doesn't want to play anymore. and the US may end up flying over Canada with 5th gen fighters that can actually counter the threat. people have brought that up. the US will protect its northern flank

 

but why does any of this matter? why is the F-35 important? 

 

Airpower has defined the wests military strategy and this is important to maintaining that edge. More importantly airpower has offered the advantage of killing bad guys without sending ground troops that then fill bodybags that then turn the public against the war. the F-35 is largely US funded, the majority of F-35s will be bought and used by the US. Many NATO nations that can afford F-35s are opting for them, putting everyone on the same page and also making good use of an aircraft that is high in quality to make up for the ever shrinking quantity. its not cheap. We get that. But many NATO countries have gone out of their way to maintain the commitment. Which is why Canada is even more vexing. its easy to make it a US vs Canada thing but I can't help but wonder about all the NATO F-35 countries that can't be real happy with Canada right now, especially as it will increase the cost 1 million dollars per F-35 if they don't buy it. 

 

even if people think the US it totally full of it, it sure is odd watching Canada go against the grain in Europe too. 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Gordon Shumway]

If our current government will take up to 5 years to make a  choice, well that means unless somewhere soon Boeing gets more  contracts, its  F-18E/F will be out of production. So what will Canada be left with?

 

F-35

Eurofighter

Rafale (maybe how long will  France keep that line going?}

Gripen NG.

 

This is all a political circle jerk IMO.

 

If our current government still has no true plans to buy F-35  but buys 18 S/H as stop gaps, then  just  stop this circle jerk and  buy 75-80-90 whatever S/H and  freaking move on!

 

If we are going to eventually buy F-35 then  lets get it done  NOW!

 

Eurofighter??? will not be cheap and what kind of spinoffs will  we get for it?

 

God love the Swedes and their sexy little  jet GripenNG, but again what spinoffs will Canada get?

 

Frenchy  Rafale, also gorgeous jet and capable, but it's core  age is as long as S/H is and  it would require mods to make it NORAD inter-operable and /or Canada  buying all French  weapons too.

 

 ONLY IN CANADA YOU SAY!!!

 

[Don]

Perfect solution for JT and the Libs budget Cf-18 Hornet replacement shopping:

RCAF Ground support...don't worry, that white stuff buffs right out (how do you say BRRRRRRRRRRRT in French...?).

 

And for air superiority...again, don't let a good deal pass you by Sunny...these babies come with a free maple tree scented air freshener:

 

 

EDIT: Maple tree scented air fresheners can be substituted for Cannabis scented air fresheners for a nominal up charge (perfectly legal of course).

Edited November 24, 2016 by Don

[Emvar]

Here is my take on things...... I am a total supporter of F-35 but not a token fleet of 65. JT wants to keep a campaign promise of not purchasing the F-35......this interm purchase will put that procurement into a new mandate. So let's say by chance he gets re-elected he buys the F-35 and saves face. I'm sure the plot has been written as Lockheed Martin is not raising a stink. Remember LM is also a contender on the Navy Ship Building front also which we need. 

 

I'd bet that we get the SH ......then Lockheed Martin will propose to take those birds off our hands and sell them to a Country looking to buy....but can't afford new builds. 

 

 

[Emvar]

So from a model building perspective it's win win......

[Scooby]

12 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

Don't know if I should respond to this and further derail the thread, with charts and graphs and stuff or just let it go so we can talk about the stupid hornet and Canada going back to the future with sea king scandal 2.0...

 

Look I'll just say, that there is a reason the US feels like it carries a disproportionate share of the burden, and that's because the US shares a disproportionate amount of the burden. they are not alone no, but stating that the US does more does not take away from the sacrifices of allies. just to put it in perspective, the US has taken more losses in A stan than every allied nation there

COMBINED.

 

 http://icasualties.org/OEF/RadControls/Chart/Image.aspx?UseSession=true&ChartID=327b6d5d-b334-3c2f-9523-1cc7ca982738_chart_ctl00$ContentPlaceHolder1$rcNation&imageFormat=Png&random=0.578331386474116

 

so yes, the US is feeling a disproportionate feeling of not only losses, but costs, and the burden of military spending and participation, while our allies adjust their "ROEs" to mitigate their own losses and back home, pump money into social programs the US can only dream of. Which brings us to Canada which is talking about spending on daycare while freaking out about buying a whole 65 airplanes that would last it 42+ years:

 

The US is planning on buying 2400+ F-35s Canada is balking at 65. the US is going to spend 400 billion in procurement alone and over a trillion dollars over the next 60 years for its fleet. Canada is going to spend 9 billion (with 9-12 billion dollars worth of industrial benefits) to buy their F-35s, from there it's going to spend over 42 years for the whole fleet including retirement cost 35 billion dollars.

 

So you can see why some of the yanks may be a little raw. Especially as and I beg your pardon Canada, but Canada is not a poor country. A lot of Canadians are acting like the cost of the F-35 is astronomical and incomprehensible, and its not. I can't believe we are talking about state sponsored daycare, but fighter jets to directly protect you from foreign incursion are somehow surreal. I can't wait until Tim Horton's is nationalized and the government is expected to give every Canadian cradle to the grave coffee entitlements. At this point, it seems like anything is possible. 

 

Wow, post of the year!

[Gordon Shumway]

TT.

 

I liked  your last post. Please don't give our government  any ideas of Tim Horton's cradle to grave coffee entitlements... they may do it.

 

I remember back in the mid 1980's  Then B.C. Premier Vanderzalm used as a campaign promise lowering the tax on beer, thus reducing the cost and figuring if he promised cheaper beer. B.C.ers would all happily vote for him. That was the mindset of buying off the voting public.

 

As for state subsidized day care, no way. All people can pay to raise their own kids.   All families already get state sponsored daycare   from K through 12 dressed as public education (err, more so  socialistic indoctrination). It is not for the taxpayer to aid in  doing with primary day care.

 

Remember, socialists are just dressed in drag as liberals. 

 

D.J.T. MAGA.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Gordon Shumway

[MacStingy]

Gag order for officials involved.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/24/more-than-200-officials-forced-to-sign-lifetime-gag-order-on-fighter-jets

Another kick at the Hornets nest.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

58 minutes ago, MacStingy said:

Gag order for officials involved.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/24/more-than-200-officials-forced-to-sign-lifetime-gag-order-on-fighter-jets

Another kick at the Hornets nest.

 

 

 

Boy that says a lot without anyone saying a word...

 

Suspicions in the article are correct. the DND has never run a study or examination where the F-35 didn't win.

 

Of the recommendations by DND one was upgrading the CF-18 fleet to last longer. or possibly purchasing second hand legacy hornets from Kuwait (even more plausible now as their Super hornet purchase is a go) that wouldn't require massive new set ups and retraining

 

They never recommended interim super Hornets and blaming the last government complete with gag orders because someone wasn't willing to be a grown up. so the gag order doesn't surprise me because anyone in the know, knows this is political garbage

 

Depending on how fast this plan goes into action it will be years from today (as much as 5) before the first squadron of super Hornets is actually operational, while dipping into the CF-18 replacement funds, while massively increasing operation costs.

 

This makes about as much sense as an "interim marriage" 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[MacStingy]

Didn't Sunnyboy promise that this would be a transparent govt., unlike the Evil Empire of the previous? Where did that go?

[Emvar]

25 minutes ago, MacStingy said:

Didn't Sunnyboy promise that this would be a transparent govt., unlike the Evil Empire of the previous? Where did that go?

Same.....just different colour.