The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[McG]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/procurement-minister-contradicts-air-force-head-over-fighter-jets-1.3187510

Federal Procurement Minister says that Comd RCAF is wrong about Canada's fighter requirements and current situation.  Press should just ask the CDS and he will set the record straight.  And it would seems she also implies the MND is qualified to challenge the RCAF's technical assessment of what we need in the air because he has been there "on the ground."

If I wore a tinfoil hat, I would wonder if somebody were trying to run a political divide-and-conquer campaign against NDHQ.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

With all the statements back and forth, is it possible we could see Hood saying screw you, and resigning??

 

[PuckChaser]

With all the statements back and forth, is it possible we could see Hood saying screw you, and resigning??

Maybe he stays in as a screw you to the current government, because unless he does something super serious to get pulled from the command position, they can't do anything about it. If he has time to CRA, he could stay in after his current posting is up even though he knows they'd never pick him as CDS now.

 

[The Bread Guy]

With all the statements back and forth, is it possible we could see Hood saying screw you, and resigning??

As some WAY smarter than me have said around these parts, nobody seems to resign anymore on principle ...

 

[Old Sweat]

If he, as a serving officer, gets in a fight over defence policy with one or more ministers, than he must be fired by the government, be it the PM, the MND or the CDS. Right or wrong, like it or not, civilians call the show. Remember that PM Chretien fired Admiral Anderson, the CDS, after the 1993 election for criticizing the platform position to cancel the EH101 purchase.

 

[Kirkhill]

If he, as a serving officer, gets in a fight over defence policy with one or more ministers, than he must be fired by the government, be it the PM, the MND or the CDS. Right or wrong, like it or not, civilians call the show. Remember that PM Chretien fired Admiral Anderson, the CDS, after the 1993 election for criticizing the platform position to cancel the EH101 purchase.

The issue though, is can the PM fire the General

Quietly

Or by making the General appear incompetent.?

 

[PuckChaser]

If he, as a serving officer, gets in a fight over defence policy with one or more ministers, than he must be fired by the government, be it the PM, the MND or the CDS. Right or wrong, like it or not, civilians call the show. Remember that PM Chretien fired Admiral Anderson, the CDS, after the 1993 election for criticizing the platform position to cancel the EH101 purchase.

Is he in a policy fight thought? I believe all he's stated thus far is the facts. Up until the Liberals changed what he had to provide, he said the RCSF was good to go. After they changed it, he stated there was now a gap. Nothing wrong with the truth, right?

 

[Good2Golf]

The issue though, is can the PM fire the General

Quietly

Or by making the General appear incompetent.?

Yes.  All General/Flag Officers serve at the pleasure of the Crown, and if the PM wants him to move on, the G.G. isn't likely to refuse the "night letter" that Comd RCAF would get.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Ostrozac]

Yes.  All General/Flag Officers serve at the pleasure of the Crown, and if the PM wants him to move on, the G.G. isn't likely to refuse the "night letter" that Comd RCAF would get.

Now, if an officer is asked to resign, and then submits a 4C release, that's pretty straightforward. But if the member refuses to resign, what would be the release item? What's the reference for General Officers being forced out? Can the CDS, MND or PM just direct a 5C release for a BGen+, without any other justification or administrative measures? A quick scan of QR&O I Chapter 15 doesn't seem to single out GO/FO for special release procedures.

Has there ever been a Canadian General/Flag Officer that has been forcibly released in this manner? Admiral Anderson (I suspect) was on paper a voluntary release -- given that he remained in public service as Ambassador to NATO.

 

[Good2Golf]

5C: Completed Service for Which Required. (most likely, if they don't voluntarily take a 4A)

QR&O 15.17 - - RELEASE OF OFFICERS - AGE AND LENGTH OF SERVICE

Likely (3).b.?

(3) Subject to paragraph (5), an officer of the Regular Force shall be released:
a. upon reaching the appropriate age prescribed under subparagraph (1)(a); or
b. after the completion of 30 years of full-time paid service in any of Her Majesty's Forces, including service as a non-commissioned member, if the Chief of the Defence Staff so recommends.

 

[Ostrozac]

Thanks for that. I always found the "retirement age" concept as described in QR&O I 15.17 to be a bit of an impenetrable mess to understand. But would that apply to any officer, not just to GO/FO?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/procurement-minister-contradicts-air-force-head-over-fighter-jets-1.3187510

Federal Procurement Minister says that Comd RCAF is wrong about Canada's fighter requirements and current situation.  Press should just ask the CDS and he will set the record straight.  And it would seems she also implies the MND is qualified to challenge the RCAF's technical assessment of what we need in the air because he has been there "on the ground."

:boke:

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks for that. I always found the "retirement age" concept as described in QR&O I 15.17 to be a bit of an impenetrable mess to understand. But would that apply to any officer, not just to GO/FO?

 

It could.  There are many bits in there that could see a lot of members being released if one chose not to exercise judgement and consideration in the application of existing regulations. 

That said, I'm not certain this is the article, but there are a few people one might ask to see what article they were released under...

Note that QR&O 15-1 notes the Governor General as the release authority for all commissioned officers.  Most certainly, this is done with delegation, but if the G.G., on recommendation from Government, says it's time to go...it's time to go. :nod:

Regards
G2G

 

[Loachman]

It won't take 5 years to train ground and air crews....

Not to convert from one type to another, no.

But as this is claimed to be an increase in number of aircraft, an increase in personnel numbers will be required. A year in the application process, four years at RMC, another couple in the flying training mill...

Or more people get streamed off for fighters, so other already under-staffed communities have to make up the difference.

Or standards get dropped and more of those currently in the system pass.

 

[dapaterson]

Or more folks flying desks get posted to Cold Lake and Bagotville.  The a solid grop (perhaps a majority) of pilots are in non-flying positions; there is no need for more pilots,  just for more of them to fly.

 

[Loachman]

Despite current shortages at Squadrons, we keep getting pushed to provide our share of staff officers in various places.

I'd be surprised if enough fighter pilots could be freed up without somebody else getting stuck in those positions.

Had a reduction in the glut of unnecessary HQ positions been announced and plans initiated, yes, I'd buy that.

Maybe.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And even if we free up pilots by reducing HQ positions, the aircraft won't fix themselves.

I can garauntee that there are not a Fighter Squadron's worth of Avn/AVS/ACS Cpls (ie the worker bees) sitting in staff jobs. There might be a surplus of AERE Officers along with AM Supervisors that could be freed up.

Maybe it is time to revisit the worth of the combat support Sqns?

 

[MarkOttawa]

This would keep Super Hornet line going for some time--perhaps help with costs for RCAF?  Also legacy Hornet spares for us too?

US Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets

The US Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said.

The plan, which is still being finalized, could be implemented as early as part of the fiscal 2018 budget, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

"To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant," said the official.

The Navy also plans to field and deploy a new unmanned carrier-based refueling plane, the official said.

Sources familiar with Navy plans say delays in the fielding of the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, longer-than-expected maintenance times for older model Hornets, and higher usage rates have left the Navy facing a shortfall of about 70 fighter jets in coming years.

If implemented, the plan would provide dozens of new orders for Boeing and keep its St. Louis production line running for several more years.

"We would welcome an opportunity to develop a plan, with the Navy, that would allow us to continue providing the robust capabilities of the Super Hornet well into the future," said Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher.

The company had suffered a setback last month when Congress failed to include 12 Super Hornets in the fiscal 2017 defense authorization bill, opening a potential gap in the Boeing production line until several foreign orders for Kuwait and Canada are finalized. The $618.7 billion bill was passed Friday by the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Senate is expected to vote on the measure next week.

Navy officials say the jets could still be added to the fiscal 2017 budget as part of a supplemental budget that lawmakers are urging Republican President-elect Donald Trump to submit after he takes office...

The older model Hornets could be transferred to the Marine Corps, which has faced its own maintenance issues, including a lack of spare parts.
http://nation.com.pk/international/04-Dec-2016/us-navy-aims-to-buy-more-boeing-f-a-18e-f-super-hornets

Mark
Ottawa

 

[kev994]

Or standards get dropped and more of those currently in the system pass.

That would likely be counterproductive, those that I've seen squeak past that shouldn't have end up failing on a later platform, thus wasting an OTU slot.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes.  All General/Flag Officers serve at the pleasure of the Crown, and if the PM wants him to move on, the G.G. isn't likely to refuse the "night letter" that Comd RCAF would get.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

No arguments on the authority.  I am just speculating on the optics of the pushing/jumping of the Comd RCAF at this particular juncture. 

I can't see it being done tidily if the Comd objects.