How do we fix the shitshow that is the RCAF? Other than annexation

>>32282073
Vote in a conservative government

Kill all liberals, buy more stuff.

>>32282085
Didn't work when Harper was in power. Any other ideas?

I'm thinking we might need something akin to a coup.

>>32282073
Raise the Canadian Armed Forces overall budget to be more akin to Australia's.

Canada is just slightly higher than half of Australia's budget. We're $18.# billion, they're $34.# billion.

>>32282171
>Canada is just slightly higher than half of Australia's budget. We're $18.# billion, they're $34.# billion.
And yet manage to have over 50% more people. How we haven't been kicked out of NATO and forcibly annexed is beyond me.

>>32282137
>didn't work
>65 F-35A's ready to ink
>the entire RCN revitalization program
>SAR aircraft competition
>TAPV & Leo2 tank purchases

>Libs immediately backtrack on boats & jets, setting back both modernizations by years.
>claim the SAR aircraft competition pick as their own victory
You goof.

>>32282202
Except they weren't ready to ink. All it took was that faggot Sprey spitting ten minutes of bullshit on CBC to torpedo the entire deal.

Which actually reinforces the helplessness of the cause. Any country dumb enough to listen to Pierre Sprey is so far gone a military coup is the only hope.

Obviously the first step is the budget, it needs to be doubled at minimum. Once that is dealt with the next step is the replacement of pretty much everything.

Day one acquisitions and changes:

A minimum of 120 F-35s, either in A or C variant are purchased.

A minimum of 24 EA-18Gs are purchased. Pilots from legacy Hornets can be quickly trained on the Growlers which I'm sure they'll appreciate as they'll be less likely to die.

All CF-18s are immediately retired due to being death traps. If necessary Super Hornets or legacy Hornets can be leased from the US until the CF-35s are ready for delivery.

8 more C-130s are purchased

Liberals are henceforth banned from holding civilian positions within the MoD from this day forward.

>>32282171
This is pathetic

>>32282482
Especially when you realize that Canada has 50% more people and Australia isn't exactly famous for spending boatloads on their military.

It's outright neglect.

>>32282202
Our CoC doesnt even know what to do with the TAPVs. They dont fit the same role as the Coyotes. Also, we dont have the proper infrastructure to support the armoured regiments. Nevermind the fact that well over half of our tanks Leo1 & 2s are all grounded in some way or another.

>>32282876
That's why I vote for a coup.

>>32282932
I'll just wait for the inevitable annexation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1wLtAXDgqg

>>32282073
You guys have it all wrong, it's not a matter of "buy this" or "boost budget here", there are structural issues to Canada's military that need to be fixed before you can even get into that kind of territory.

Canuck defence procurement is a fucking mess. Too much political meddling, this will happen regardless of government or political parties so "vote for these guys" isn't a solution either.

US has the same problem, but has enough money to bludgeon through the inefficiencies.

Politicians should set strategic goals and budget levels, they should not have the ability to micro manage procurement contracts

You need to have procurement be independent of politicians, like it is in say, Australia.

>>32283021
>US has the same problem
No their shit actually seems to work for the most part.

The RCAF is almost quite literally falling out of the sky.

>>32283021
worst part is the "lowest bidder" mentality. it creates more problems than it solves,

>>32282482
And no one outside this thread knows, or cares enough to give a damn.

One has to wonder where the fuck all our tax money goes, because all of our branches of government seem to be constantly starved for funding..

>>32282932
>>32282270
>>32282137
Fuck it, let's start emailing the mid level officers with all the fuckery we know of. Maybe they'll do it.

>>32283052
Structural problems are not the same as budget problems.

USA suffers from the former, Canada suffers from both.

>>32283052
You're missing my point, I mean you have the same problem of political meddling in defence contracts, like with the congress arguing with the USAF over the A10 retirement.

But, they're well funded enough that they can function despite these problems. This isn't an option for Canada.

>>32283083
I think it's gone beyond that. At this point it's a complete detachment from reality, an almost pathological and willful ignorance as to the real world cost of things.

Since we're talking about the Air Force I'll use that as an example: it would not surprise me in the least to learn that the civilian leadership of the CFs thought that a budget of 10 million dollars per airframe to replace the CF-18s was an acceptable amount.

File: Hornet.exe has stopped working.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>32283052
this makes me so fucking salty, both the conservatives and the liberals passing the hot potato of actually dealing with the fucking problem is literally killing pilots REEE

>>32283108
Really all you're saying is one air force manages to function and this other air force does not manage to function. We know, that's the point of the thread.

The question is how do you fix the RCAF so that it does function? Something tells me there's a lot more work to be done than just cleaning up procurement contracts.

ditch the R for fucks sake.

>>32283126
And there's no reason to even do so. Realistically there are only two possibilities to replace the CF-18s, either Super Hornets or F-35s. The difference in price between the two is so negligible it makes no sense whatsoever to not upgrade to the fifth gen.

But regardless the fuck are you waiting for? Like there are literally no other options.

>>32283115
I can't speak about the air force as im army, but i can definitely agree. I've come to the conclusion that the only 'functional' arm of the military are the infantry regiments, CSOR, or JTF2. and that's just because training/equiping boots is a hell of a lot cheaper.

>>32282073
Enter into a mutual defense treaty with the US wherein the US stations personnel and aircraft at Canadian AFB, and every Canadian province joins the US Air National Guard. Canadian pilots do their weekend drills, and extensively train for two weeks a year.

>>32282073
I'd very much like the US to anscluss with Canada. Honestly we're practically the same country, with the amount of trade that occurs between us, the shared culture and history, and military cooperation. Look at how much landmass we'd have. Keep your laws as you see fit, perhaps adopt the legal code of Canada as part of your state constitutions, then adjust as necessary.

>>32283194
>>32283195
Just having the US fix it is the same shitcunt attitude that allowed the Canadian Forces to become such the shitshow it is.

No other country, that claims to be independent, would dare allow their air force and navy to fall into such disrepair as the CFs. The only thing that allows them to do this is the arrogance that comes with being an even more loyal than usual US client state. It's shameful enough without taking into account the poor pilots who have to risk death so that some cocksucker in Ottawa can claim he saved an extra nickel.

>>32283152
The US is shit at defence spending, but they have enough money that they can function despite that.

Create an independent institution, staff it with professional military people, managers and civilian technocrats. Instead of having politicians decide every little detail of defence detail, they hand that institution a bucket of money and a list of strategic priorities. They come up with a spending plan, which the legislature gets a yes/no vote on.

That's what Australia does, and it works brilliantly, planes that actually fly, realistic plans to replace equipment that approaches obsolescence.

Canada probably needs more money as well, but if you don't fix the structural problems first you're throwing money down the drain. If they don't increase the budget they'll have to live with a smaller force that looks more like one of the Nordic countries.

If they expect to function on their current budget, the first step would be to lay off around 15000 army personnel

>>32283284
>which the legislature gets a yes/no vote on.
Welp you just fucked it up.

Word to the wise: never let the Canadian Parliament vote on anything important if you know what's good for you.

If you insist on letting them vote on something let them vote on the colour of the paint or something, but not the actual purchasing of the equipment.

File: 1480725510282.png (436KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1280x720px

>>32283284
>he first step would be to lay off around 15000 army personnel
They're actually trying to get more bodies, but they're failing at even that lmao

>>32283284
>If they expect to function on their current budget
That's the point, they can't expect that because that expectation is fucking insane. There is literally no reason the budget couldn't and shouldn't be twice what it is. The current spending targets are completely delusional.

>>32283374
I feel bad for our defence minister, the nigga has combat experience and probably knows just how fucked our military is but he has to smile and nod along while el mary jane dude and his merry band of fuccbois procrastinate over whether they actually want a military or not

>>32283405
Maybe if he was actually going to war for the funding I'd feel bad for him but all I see is an Uncle Tom willing to go along with any and every stupid plan that weedman and his ilk dream up.

At a certain point you have to make a stand and I refuse to believe that he of all people is not fully aware of just how turbofucked things are right now. To not speak up just makes him complicit.

Ask to become part of the USA.

>>32283268
This. We have no fucking pride. It's a nation of individuals, but at least the individuals in the states have money and competency. Our country is always at the mercy of Ottawa, Quebec, and oil prices out of Alberta. We have smart people, but we're pretty much a group of city-states rather than a country

>>32283463
It was already specified in the OP that easy mode was not allowed.

>>32283468
You want to feel real depressed? Take a look at the Polish Air Force and then the RCAF.

Then consider which between the two would likely win in an air war and which between the two is likely to get F-35s first. Then consider which of the two was a third world communist hell hole without two sticks to rub together only 25 years ago.

>>32283558
What's so special about Polish Air Force? I know they've been trying to modernize but I have no clue beyond that.

File: pepeha.jpg (37KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x386px

>>32283088
Single mothers and brown people for votes.

>>32282642
>Australia isn't exactly famous for spending boatloads on their military
Australia has one of the most expensive, largest and advanced air forces as far as non-superpowers go.

>100-72x F-35As
>12x Growlers
>24x Super Hornets
>8x P-8
>7x MQ-4C
>7x KC-30
>8x C-17
>12x C-130J
>10x C-27J

Hell, an Australian OR-2 (Private fresh out of basic) gets paid more than $60k AUD ($45k USD) a year, not including any home allowances, etc.

File: spurdopeeking.png (2KB, 145x200px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 145x200px

>>32283340
Really? I've sorta thought about trying to get a comission.

>>32285594
CoL is much higher in Australia.

>>32285729
By 7.3%

Do guys fresh out of basic in the US earn $42k a year?

File: gunownershipmeans.jpg (162KB, 996x514px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 996x514px

>>32285742
Aren't we comparing with Canada right now?

>>32282876
You sounds shitty ands whiny like a Dragoon...

File: E-7 Wedgetail.jpg (2MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2400px

>>32285594
Forgot these

>>32285807
We were comparing Australia with the world mean - Canada's well below average on 1st world military spending per capita, so its no point comparing the two.

>>32286660
Good catch

>>32282137
CSIS pls go.

>>32285594
We're getting 15 P8's. Also you forgot the predecessor the AP-3C, we've still got around 12 flying.

>>32287192
Aren't the Orions being retired in the next few years once we have half a dozen or so P-8s?

File: 20161128raaf8185068_0509.jpg (2MB, 3600x2401px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2401px

>>32287192
This is true

>>32287203
Yeah 2019 I believe the P3's will shut up shop.

>>32282073
Oh heck, you keep quiet you.

The RCAF is a good organisation, who work very hard.

If you keep maligning them I'll write another strongly worded post. You have been warned buddy.

>>32287203
Orions are being retired for Posseidons + Tritons + G550 ELINT

>>32283374

Not that guy, but why haven't you acknowledged his point about increased spending being a bad idea given the existing structural problems that need to be fixed first? He's said it like 3 times now.

File: nugs.jpg (196KB, 1105x516px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1105x516px

Since when was this an Australian thread?

>>32287894
Since the RCAF become boring with its outdated planes and 3rd world budget.

File: 1479894651366.jpg (73KB, 650x1000px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 650x1000px

>>32287919
Fair enough

File: rafales.jpg (179KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1600x900px

Would going with the Rafale REALLY be all that worse for Canada than the Super Hornet (I know we're already getting Super Hornets) though? France is a NATO country with NATO compatibility, and the level of technology transfer and local manufacturing in Canada they promised would be a huge boost to our own aerospace sector

>>32282202
>backtrack on boats
I think you mean the Tories told us they'd cost $25 billion, when it turned out to be closer to $100 billion. And that's just the Frigates.

>>32287722
Doesn't fit in with the narrative that Canadians hate the military, and this "we have no pride" shit that's been tossed around lately.

>>32287973
How do you define NATO compatibility? The Rafale doesn't use the AMRAAM, or even JDAMs.

File: thanksoros.png (413KB, 611x571px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 611x571px

>>32282073
Any news on the Super Hornet deal?

>>32288230
No. Weedman still hasn't decided if having a military is harshing his mellow.

>>32288230
It's going to take a little while until there's an actual deal; the announcement of the Super Hornets was only an announcement of intent. There's no word on prices or timeline yet.

>>32287980
>$100 billion
>12 frigates

>$8.3 billion per frigate


Bullshit

File: sumtingwong.jpg (34KB, 635x461px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 635x461px

You guys happy with the new SAR planes? Apparently they wanted the C-27J but the C-295 still seems decent.

>>32288267
The statement of intent will be withdrawn anyway as soon as the libs realize they cost more than 100k each.

>>32287980
>>32288282

Yeah.... that is implausibly expensive. The RN Type-26 program with retarded cost overruns, development delays, unit cuts etc, is coming out at ~£1 bn per ship for the program. If Canada buys an existing design, there's no way it can cost that much.

>>32288330
>>32288282
>>32287980
Are we talking acquisition costs or are we doing the CF-35 thing where suddenly lifetime cost estimates become the standard of measurement?

>>32288302

Watching the Canadian government try to buy 18 new jets with a jar full of coins they found down the backs of their sofas will be priceless.

>>32288356
Even funnier when an international incident occurs when the Americans refuse the purchase as they go ballistic whenever you try to pay them in coins.

>>32288265
ahh this is exactly why I come here in the morning

stay grumpy 4chan

>>32288356
>Alright, alright, I know the sticker price is $200 million per plane, but we all know that's like way above wholesale right? How about we pay $100 million and we'll throw in some maple syrup? Oh, you are the wholesaler? Right... What about some hockey tickets?

>>32288381
Why are you just now waking up at 11 Justin?

>>32283313
Yeah, the lobbying would be the deathbed of any equipment vote.

>>32283284
>15,000 personnel

Isn't the entire Canadian Forces amount up to ±50,000?

Eliminating ±20% of your remaining staff isn't going to fix shit.

>>32288343

I think I found an article with an explanation of where the costs come from.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nsps-naval-ship-procurement-costs-1.3345435

>The project budget was set years ago at $26.2 billion. Of that, $14 billion was to be spent on the design and construction of warships.

>The rest of the budget is for the provision for ammunition, infrastructure costs such as jetties, spare equipment and support.

[........]

>The full cost of 15 of those new warships, including personnel, operating and maintenance costs over 30 years, was set at more than $90 billion.

>With the production cost increases pegged by Kearney, the full warship budget grows to more than $106 billion.

So yes, that is full operating costs and port facilities for 15 warships for 30 years. That sounds a bit more plausible.

>>32282201
>How we haven't been kicked out of NATO and forcibly annexed is beyond me

please

if you could be kicked out of NATO for being a lazy freeloader then only America, Britain France, Estonia and Poland would be left in NATO