• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
180
Points
530
MilEME09 said:
They are organized to be a military not just a institution, 15 brigades in 6 military regions. If we wanted efficacy we would drop down to two army, one air division, not to mention our bureaucracy is overly redundant and meant to keep people employed not be effective.

So basically if we cut the bloated brass, trim the GHQ numbers, amalgamate some units, close some of the lesser needed/used bases, that our current budget would allow us to increase our Armed Forces by 50% in numbers, easily afford 88+ F-35's, get all 15 CSC's, replace the subs, CP-140's, the Kingstons and a bunch of others things??

So, who I have to fire first to get the ball rolling? 
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,309
Points
1,060
Czech_pivo said:
Can someone please explain how Spain, with about 15.5$ Billion USD in military spending and 120k in the Armed Forces can have an Aircraft Carrier, a comparable sized navy to ours, a larger Air Force by about 40%, a larger army and a 5,000 strong naval marine unit in the same pay packet.
I mean, they are looking at the F-35 for their carrier and quite possibly for their remaining 120 F18’s fighters.
Why the difference? Are we so top heavy in Brass as some are saying that large piles of cash are being sucked up needlessly?  Is it our massive size and small population that leads to such large discrepancies and inefficiencies?  Do we pay our soldiers that much more then they do that our bang for the buck is sucked up in payroll?

Spain is also broke, and one of the leading economic basket cases in Europe.... just sayin'  :whistle:
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
180
Points
530
daftandbarmy said:
Spain is also broke, and one of the leading economic basket cases in Europe.... just sayin'  :whistle:

Very true - but another 4yrs of this gov’t and we’ll be neck and neck with them.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
779
Points
1,010
Czech_pivo said:
Can someone please explain how Spain, with about 15.5$ Billion USD in military spending and 120k in the Armed Forces can have an Aircraft Carrier, a comparable sized navy to ours, a larger Air Force by about 40%, a larger army and a 5,000 strong naval marine unit in the same pay packet.
I mean, they are looking at the F-35 for their carrier and quite possibly for their remaining 120 F18’s fighters.
Why the difference? Are we so top heavy in Brass as some are saying that large piles of cash are being sucked up needlessly?  Is it our massive size and small population that leads to such large discrepancies and inefficiencies?  Do we pay our soldiers that much more then they do that our bang for the buck is sucked up in payroll?

The CAF are the second highest paid military in the world considering all the benefits etc...  The cost of people in the CAF is very high.  Spain doesn't have those issues.  The infrastructure costs in Spain are also much lower given that the country is smaller, and doesn't need to spread bases around everywhere, and the fact the US pays for at least one of their large naval/air bases (Rota).  I don't see the US carrying the freight for Halifax and Shearwater combined.

Spain also does not spend very much to keep older equipment going.  We pay quite a bit to ensure our older equipment works.  For example my last NATO the Spanish OHP had a 30mm that they hadn't fired in 15 years.  Their new ships are cheaper to operate than our old ships, so maintenance costs are lower. Which leads me to my next point.  New ships (read CSC) even with the sticker price will be cheaper on a year over year basis than keeping our current ships going.  It's at the point where payments on the new car are less than the repairs/maintenance on the old car.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
55
Points
530
Czech_pivo said:
Can someone please explain how Spain, with about 15.5$ Billion USD in military spending and 120k in the Armed Forces can have an Aircraft Carrier, a comparable sized navy to ours, a larger Air Force by about 40%, a larger army and a 5,000 strong naval marine unit in the same pay packet.
I mean, they are looking at the F-35 for their carrier and quite possibly for their remaining 120 F18’s fighters.
Why the difference? Are we so top heavy in Brass as some are saying that large piles of cash are being sucked up needlessly?  Is it our massive size and small population that leads to such large discrepancies and inefficiencies?  Do we pay our soldiers that much more then they do that our bang for the buck is sucked up in payroll?

One area where they may save money is in wages/benefits. From '99-'03 I was stationed in Naples, Italy at AFSOUTH HQ and I worked with two Spanish Army WO's  and they received a fraction of the benefits that I did. Example, one of them was married and they received very little/no benefits to help them. Mind you, since then their benefits may have improved.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
180
Points
530
Retired AF Guy said:
One area where they may save money is in wages/benefits. From '99-'03 I was stationed in Naples, Italy at AFSOUTH HQ and I worked with two Spanish Army WO's  and they received a fraction of the benefits that I did. Example, one of them was married and they received very little/no benefits to help them. Mind you, since then their benefits may have improved.

I had a sense that this was the case, coupled with a smaller country, these can add up to significantly higher costs, but really that much?
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Czech_pivo said:
Very true - but another 4yrs of this gov’t and we’ll be neck and neck with them.

While I hate to derail this thread, that isn't even remotely true.  Our debt to GDP ratio is small and decreasing, unlike Spain.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
180
Points
530
jmt18325 said:
While I hate to derail this thread, that isn't even remotely true.  Our debt to GDP ratio is small and decreasing, unlike Spain.

So you’re saying that we can afford to spend more on our military and pay our fair share?
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
180
Points
530
jmt18325 said:
While I hate to derail this thread, that isn't even remotely true.  Our debt to GDP ratio is small and decreasing, unlike Spain.

One major thing to remember is that Spain doesn’t have the concept of Provincial Gov’ts that take up debts the size of Ontario’s. Add in Ontario’s debt to the Feds, along with Quebec et al and then talk to me.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Czech_pivo said:
One major thing to remember is that Spain doesn’t have the concept of Provincial Gov’ts that take up debts the size of Ontario’s. Add in Ontario’s debt to the Feds, along with Quebec et al and then talk to me.

I'd love to discuss this further - I just know I'll get in trouble for doing it here.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
64
Points
330
Thread should be split into a discussion into the many differences in the defence realm between us and Spain. Interesting read so far.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
Does Canada really have any other options? 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/one-nation-may-have-no-choice-buy-f-35-stealth-fighter-84806
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
Canada has a NORAD mission so IMO that dictates the type of aircraft and range. So that trims the options to twin engine with some type of stealth capability. It must be able to interoperate with the USAF . Maybe Rafale ?

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/watch-first-look-of-rafale-fighter-jet-for-iaf/videoshow/66604791.cms
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
tomahawk6 said:
Canada has a NORAD mission so IMO that dictates the type of aircraft and range. So that trims the options to twin engine with some type of stealth capability. It must be able to interoperate with the USAF . Maybe Rafale ?

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/watch-first-look-of-rafale-fighter-jet-for-iaf/videoshow/66604791.cms
Rafale already withdrew, as they either could not interoperate to the level required with the US or it was too expensive to do so within the contract. I really like the Rafale but it's not going to happen.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
Maybe the F15X might fit the bill ?

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/30/boeings-new-f-15x-may-replace-an-aging-fleet-of-f-15cd-eagles/
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
697
Points
940
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Why twin engine?

Many argue that due to how vast and remote our arctic is, twin engine is better because if one engine fails they can still limp back to base, vs going down in the middle of no where
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,797
Points
910
tomahawk6 said:
Maybe the F15X might fit the bill ?

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/30/boeings-new-f-15x-may-replace-an-aging-fleet-of-f-15cd-eagles/

Except Boeing isn't offering that to Canada. They are offering the Super Hornet.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
I realize Boeing isn't "offering" the Super Hornet, but could Canada not request that it be offered?  If it was seriously being considered, in an alternative dimension, would Boeing really give up the chance to sell 88 planes to us if we wanted the new F15 instead of the updated F18?
 
Top