The F-35 is not dead

[Moose47]

G'day meatservo

I would preferred that Gilles respond to my post, but since you seem to feel the need to jump in let me say this. The posting was in response to his perceived notion that the government was lying about the urgent need for certain equipment in theater. He is certainly entitled to an opinion, but his is not an informed one. I wish he could have sat in on pre-and post deployment briefings. He would have seen that the requirements were real.

Cheers...Chris

[Meatservo]

I just feel the need to jump in because I find "I was there and I know different" to be a perfectly valid counterpoint to an uninformed opinion. A rhetorical question challenging someone to "admit" that they aren't in the military by sarcastically speaking as if they might be is unfortunately a more common debate tactic from many members. A somewhat American-tinged attitude that adds nothing to a debate.

Speak plainly. Tell us you WERE in Afghanistan. Explain, using broad strokes, the need for these aircraft. I find Gilles' opinion to be slightly conspiracy-driven, although my own opinion is similarly uninformed on account of not having been under fire in "the 'Stan" either. I can picture how Chinooks might be "urgently required" by troops who are under fire, but am less certain how a C-17 might be immediately useful to the exigencies of close combat. As it happens I agree with the RCAF having their own heavy-lift capability however.

You have presented yourself as an RCAF officer on this forum on numerous occasions. When someone has a wrong opinion about the Canadian Forces, I personally would find it more becoming for you to answer sensibly rather than with an innuendo-laden retort. That's why I felt the need to jump in. Sir.

Good day to you as well.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

G'day

" The Canadian public and the Canadian press let them have it, because DND pretended that the troops that were under fire in Afghanistan urgently needed them".

I don't know anyone who served there that would say there was any pretending on the part of the government. Tell me again how long you served in the 'Stan'?

Cheers...Chris

I really do not see how serving in Afghanistan make anyone more knowledgeable on the subject than another. But you are not alone on this forum that has this pompous attitude, I can think of a few others that are often guilty of the same. You guys always want to intimidate other people in order to have them stfu.

I'm a pilot in the airline industry. Those that chose, lease and purchase the aircraft that I fly are rarely pilots. Nor do they need to have even been in the sky to do their job. Yet they do it well.

Back to the subject, I didn't mean to say that these big ticket items were or were not needed.
My point was that the urgent war needs were used by the Military and National Defense as leverage to make the public and the press overlook the fact that all these big ticket items were purchased single source without tenders.

Canada was in Afghanistan from 2001, became more actively engaged in combat operations in 2006 and began to wind down its combat involvement in 2010.

From 2001 the cargo airlift was mostly assured by Antonov 124 aircraft secured through a NATO contract (SALIS) and with chartered An-124 and Il-76 aircraft. Personnel flew to and from theatre using the CC-150 Polaris to UAE and from there shuttled using CC-130 aircraft.

The C-17s were delivered in 2007 and 2008, six and seven years into the war, but even after that, much of our lift continued to be done with the An-124 and Il-76. All of our tanks were carried in An-124s.

The first C-130J was delivered in 2010 and only used in Afghanistan as things were winding down.

The CH-47Fs were never deployed to Afghanistan. We used CH-47Ds leased/purchased from the Americans.

I know all this without having served there.

[Rockie]

I wasn't there either, but I'm reasonably certain that troops under fire in "the Stan" would be much happier to see an A-10 - or better yet the 6-7 of them you could get for the price of a single F-35. Let it be noted the A-10 has a radar signature slightly smaller than the USS Nimitz and seemed to do OK.

[trampbike]

Or even better for our $: the Super Tucano!

[Rockie]

Or even better for our $: the Super Tucano!

For CAS that's probably a pretty good platform too, but not in the A-10's league. I should also say that although I wasn't in "the Stan" I did fly and train for the CAS role in a fast jet. Had I been tasked to carry out that role in support of ground troops and A-10's subsequently showed up, I would move out and let the professionals take over.

[7ECA]

Here's another CAS contender, albeit a significantly different type being a slower turboprop. Air Tractor sells it as being a counterinsurgency aircraft, but she looks like she could get the job done.

http://www.802u.com

[trampbike]

Or even better for our $: the Super Tucano!

For CAS that's probably a pretty good platform too, but not in the A-10's league.

Of course not, but it's IS much cheaper, and with even better loiter time.

[AuxBatOn]

Both are good for low risk CAS. Put an SA-8 or worse in the mix and then.... Ask th A-10 guys how many A-10s were shot down in the Gulf War to AAA and SAMs doing CAS.

We need to buy a true multi-role platform, not a CAS machine.

[Rockie]

Absolutely, but the discussion was about what would put a bigger smile on a grunt's face under fire in Afghanistan. A10 or a fast multi-role.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Both are good for low risk CAS. Put an SA-8 or worse in the mix and then.... Ask th A-10 guys how many A-10s were shot down in the Gulf War to AAA and SAMs doing CAS.

We need to buy a true multi-role platform, not a CAS machine.

Wiki:

"The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.[5] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon.

The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict

Four A-10s were shot down during the war, all by surface-to-air missiles. Another three battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base but were written off, some sustaining additional damage in crash landings."

"A-10s flew 32 percent of combat sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The sorties ranged from 27,800 to 34,500 annually between 2009 and 2012. In the first half of 2013, they flew 11,189 sorties in Afghanistan.[91] From the beginning of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s flew 19 percent of CAS operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the F-15E Strike Eagle or B-1B Lancer, but less than the 33 percent of CAS missions flown by F-16s during that time period.[92]

'A single A-10 was shot down near Baghdad International Airport by Iraqi fire late in the campaign."

Thank is a pretty good record the way I see it.

Regardless, I don't think that the type of aircraft is related to how many were shot down but rather how they were used.

Fast jets including B-1 bombers did CAS. But they did this from altitudes where they are safely out of range of AAA and MANPADS. The C-130 gunship also works at safer altitudes. The A-10 needs to get down to do its job, just like helicopter gunships.

The type of work an A-10 does is more similar to what Helicopter gunships do today. How many rotary wing gunships were lost in Iraq, Afghanistan etc ? Dozens. The day it will be decided that Apache gunships will not do CAS below 10,000 feet, to increase the safety of their pilots, it will lose its effectiveness and the pilots lives will be saved at the expense of the grunt on the ground..

AuxBat's argument is like stating infantry soldiers should not exist because more infantry soldiers get killed by small arms fire than tank crews.

Canada has no helicopter gunships and does not plan to purchase any. According to DND plans, the only CAS Canadian ground troops will get is from the F-35. Or from its allies. Lovely.

[trampbike]

Thank is a pretty good record the way I see it.

Why do you think this is so?
Do you think A-10s were flying on the first few days of the first Gulf War? The fast guys had to do a lot of work before the A-10 could go do it's job.

[Moose47]

G'day

I have always been a strong proponent of the A-10. My contacts in Washington hint that the aircraft could be around until 2040. That's providing the Generals who are doing their collective damnedest to get rid of it can be muzzled or see the light of day.

Perhaps we can trade wheat for Su-25 'Frogfoots'.

http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm

Cheers...Chris

[AuxBatOn]

Thank is a pretty good record the way I see it.

So, they lose 7 airframes to enemy fire in an environment that was pretty benign in terms of air defense (the losses happened in Feb 91, well after Iraq's Air Defenses were decimated during the first week of the war), while conducting Armed Recce/CAS. In the same time period (after February), only 6 other attack airplanes (any types: F-16s, F-18s, F-15Es, A-6, etc) were shot down conducting similar missions. And the effect on the battlefield of those other types is pretty similar to the effect the A-10s had. Read about the "Killer Scout" mission the Vipers developed and conducted in Iraq. Effective CAS/Armed Recce is not exclusive to the A-10.

Not so good for the A-10s anymore is it?

Fast jets including B-1 bombers did CAS. But they did this from altitudes where they are safely out of range of AAA and MANPADS. The C-130 gunship also works at safer altitudes. The A-10 needs to get down to do its job, just like helicopter gunships.

Okay, the A-10 needs to be low and slow (which is not necessarily true by the way) to conduct CAS. How does it make a better CAS platform? If you have a sensor suite that enables you to be higher, faster and safer, and have the same effect, why wouldn't you do that? Please enlighten me..

The type of work an A-10 does is more similar to what Helicopter gunships do today. How many rotary wing gunships were lost in Iraq, Afghanistan etc ? Dozens. The day it will be decided that Apache gunships will not do CAS below 10,000 feet, to increase the safety of their pilots, it will lose its effectiveness and the pilots lives will be saved at the expense of the grunt on the ground..

Not at all. Gunships are maneuver elements. They are organic to Army Units. They are the used to the same extent a tank, an artillery piece or an infantry unit is by the ground commander. They are part of the maneuvers. CAS (A-10s, F-18, etc) is a support element. You cannot compare Apaches to A-10s in their roles. If you do, you simply have no understanding of how this whole warfare thing works.

The thing is that we can do things as effectively (and sometimes more effectively) from 10, 20, 30 000'.

AuxBat's argument is like stating infantry soldiers should not exist because more infantry soldiers get killed by small arms fire than tank crews.

Thanks for making me say thing I never actually said or intented to say. In the ideal world where money is no object, I would like an Air Superiority fighter, a Strike Fighter, an Electronic Warfare aircraft, a SEAD/DEAD aircraft and a low intensity warfare aircraft (ie: what you describe as CAS. More like Counter-Insurgency). We simply cannot afford multiple fleets: we will have a single fleet I can almost guarantee you this much. With this in mind, we need to pick something that :

1-Can accomplish our NORAD role,
2-Can accomplish our international role (ie: Strike, CAS, Armed Recce, Defensive Counter Air)
3-Will last us 40+ years without becoming obsolete
4-Capabilities to counter credible threats

With my experience, I think the F-35 is it. No other aircraft will be able to deliver point 3 and likely 4.

Canada has no helicopter gunships and does not plan to purchase any. According to DND plans, the only CAS Canadian ground troops will get is from the F-35. Or from its allies. Lovely.

Replace F-35 by F-18. This was our case for the last 33 years (oh, and the F-35 is a much better CAS platform).

Replace F-35 by F-5. This was our case for the 2 decades preceding the Hornet.

What you make as an issue is actually a non-issue. We've been operating this way for decades.

[2R]

Pom Poms and short skirts are all that cheer leaders need

[Moose47]

G'day 2R

Here are the pom poms.

Sorry, but you'll have to get your own cheerleaders.

Cheers...Chris

[2R]

You are smart not to post picture of cheerleaders and short skirts as some of the Hetrophobic and politically correct Dorothy's might get you banned.

We should run a pool on how quickly the new Government will back peddle the election promise's

[teacher]

On a side note, how long before the other war fighting equipment gets mothballed or decommissioned without replacement. Artillery, new leopards and other equipment deemed not necessary for peace keeping.

I wouldn't put it past the Liberals, that's what Chrétien did in order to spend the money elsewhere.

[Old fella]

Last week I finished reading Kevin Page's (former Parliamentary Budget Officer-PBO) new book Unaccountable: Truth, Lies and Numbers on Parliament Hill, he devoted quite a bit to the F-35 planned acquisition from a budget prospective which he is quite qualified to give. The title of the book says it all.................

[AuxBatOn]

He is the master behind the clumsiest and most innefficient procurement program. No kidding he is trying to defend it...

[YYZSaabGuy]

He is the master behind the clumsiest and most innefficient procurement program. No kidding he is trying to defend it...

Actually, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is the furthest thing possible from being a proponent of any procurement program, including this one. You can find the mandate of the PBO here:http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/ABOUT#PARLANALYST. An excerpt:

The PBO’s mandate is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

By providing independent, authoritative and non-partisan financial and economic analysis, we support parliamentarians in carrying out their constitutional roles of scrutinizing the raising and spending of public monies.

[AuxBatOn]

I was talking about the man, not the position. Read about his life before being the PBO.

[YYZSaabGuy]

He was a career civil servant with, as best I can tell from his Wiki bio, no time spent in DND.
Still not clear how this makes him, in your phrase, the master behind the F35 procurement program, or any kind of defender of that program.

[Troubleshot]

We get it AUX...anyone who questions/comments on the F-35 is a bum, quack, yada yada yada.

I know you want a new toy and towing the company line but Canada doesn't need these jets, especially at this price point which is almost laughable as it stands now.

I hope Trudeau keeps his word and cancels Canada's involvement in the program. I can't imagine a scenario where Canadians will really regret backing out of this purchase, but please connect the dots for me...

[AuxBatOn]

He was a career civil servant with, as best I can tell from his Wiki bio, no time spent in DND.
Still not clear how this makes him, in your phrase, the master behind the F35 procurement program, or any kind of defender of that program.

The procurement process is not a DND process but a PWGsC process.. He's the one that designed it in the late 90s, early 2000s...