Maple Flag Canceled

[teacher]

Since the budget won’t balance itself the only place Liberals know where to cut is the military. 10 years to study new side arms, replacing old fighter jets with the same aged fighter jets and now this. I’m sure the list will grow. Update? Modernize? Nice try Trudumb.

Postponement of Exercise Maple Flag

4 Wing Cold Lake
Backgrounder: Exercise Maple Flag
News Article / December 11, 2018

RCAF Public Affairs

The RCAF has decided to not conduct Exercise Maple Flag in 2019. The RCAF will use the opportunity to re-focus its resources to update the exercise’s mandate and to modernize the infrastructure used during the exercise. The RCAF will thereby ensure that Maple Flag remains focused and relevant to fighter operations in a dynamic and fluid battlespace, now and into the future.

“After careful consideration, we will not conduct Exercise Maple Flag in 2019. We are planning to ensure we have the right capabilities at hand while working to ensure we are able to meet the evolving training needs of Canada and our Allies,” said Lieutenant-General Al Meinzinger, commander of the RCAF. “By pausing to evaluate Maple Flag, including its role and conduct in future years, I am confident we will be able to deliver a revitalized training experience that will build on the legacy of excellence for which Maple Flag is known in Canada and around the world.”

The exercise is primarily conducted in the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR), a vast, restricted training area of more than a million hectares, located about 70 kilometres north of 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alberta. The Maple Flag pause will also allow the RCAF to upgrade and modernize infrastructure in the training area to ensure the exercise experience remains modern, safe and relevant.

“With the many technological advancements in military aviation over the decades, there has emerged a need for training methods and infrastructure to advance as well,” continued Lieutenant-General Meinzinger. “Our adversaries are innovating, and so must we and our Allies.”

Furthermore, the goal of Maple Flag has always been to prepare national and international participants for conducting operations. As the conduct of operations in a classified environment have become the norm internationally, Maple Flag must adapt to these new requirements to better replicate real-world operational situations. Therefore, the exercise will be adapted to make it a more realistic training environment for everyone involved.

Maple Flag is normally held each year over one or two, two-week periods from late May until late June. 4 Wing has hosted the international training event since 1978, when the primary purpose of the exercise was to re-create the first ten aerial combat missions a fighter pilot could expect to encounter during a conflict. It has evolved to include aircraft such as bombers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft and Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft as well as fighters. It now also integrates Air Force elements such as tactical airlift, tactical helicopters and electronic warfare assets as well as Army elements. Since 1987, the exercise has been cancelled on four occasions, all due to RCAF operational commitments.

The RCAF remains committed to conducting Maple Flag in the future. It is a core activity for the RCAF fighter force and provides personnel with an outstanding opportunity to train on Canadian territory alongside their partners and allies to develop and practice common tactics, techniques and procedures.

“It’s too early to say exactly what changes will take place or what our timeline will be,” said Lieutenant-General Meinzinger. “Our first step is to identify how Maple Flag should look in the future and then develop the processes to make those changes happen.

“The landscape of warfare has evolved, and Maple Flag must also evolve to ensure it remains operationally relevant for ourselves and our joint and combined partners, both now and into the future.”

http://rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article ... g/jpa6gejf

[Meatservo]

Since the original post opened right away with the usual bipartisan political horseshit, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

[Bede]

Since the original post opened right away with the usual bipartisan political horseshit, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

Bipartisan?

[EastCoastWings]

My understanding was that some of the NATO allies were starting to pull out of Maple Flag due to concerns with the CLAWR and infrastructure concerns. There has been talks about putting it on hold for a while now in order to allow them some time to update the range. I don't think this was primarily a budget issue.

[teacher]

Since the original post opened right away with the usual bipartisan political horseshit, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

I think you misread my post. Bipartisan means unbiased or co-operation between opposing groups. Partisan means biased and since I and many Others don't believe a word junior says (since he has yet to answer any real questions or say anything of substance) my comment was 100% “partisan”.

Just like they disbanded the airborne due to “disciplinary issues” yet sources inside informed me that they were on the chopping block as expensive and the Liberals took that excuse and ran with it. I’ve heard for a few years that the equipment there needed updating but canceling out right is a budget move hands down. If you don’t believe than I have “empty pipelines” to sell you (said in the last election to justify pipeline opposition) and a budget that will balance itsel (in order to borrow and spend more money).

H@#$&*t also implies that nothing I said was true yet nothing I said is incorrect or not a direct quote. I could go on but just watch any news cast and you’ll get enough Trudumb H@#$&*t to fill a novel.

[co-joe]

Since the original post opened right away with the usual bipartisan political horseshit, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

Bipartisan?

I think he meant "partisan", or one sided.

[iflyforpie]

I ignored it too.

Maybe present the facts and let people draw their own hyperpartisan conclusions.

The previous government only gave lip service to the military at best. No Canadian politician is a true friend of the military.

[Capt. Underpants]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I know someone who's been directly involved in Maple Flag for years. He claims this has been coming since long before JT took the big chair, saying it was recommended some time back but JT's predecessor axed the idea because he didn't want to look like he was softening on the military.

[Aviatard]

Since the budget won’t balance itself the only place Liberals know [...]

Stopped reading after this also. On less polite forums this is known as shitposting.

[Meatservo]

Since the original post opened right away with the usual bipartisan political horseshit, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

Bipartisan?

I think he meant "partisan", or one sided.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm not used to the term having that much relevance in our country. I think the word I may have been looking for is "hyperpartisan" and I have no respect for it.

The formula now calls for "teacher" to respond to this by calling me a "snowflake" or maybe a rude name ending in "tard". Seems to be the way things go these days. Thanks, America.

[teacher]

I actually would never call a person with opposing political views a name. Having an opinion opposite of one's own does not merit insults. Unless you are the leader of said opposing political party who makes and enacts policies which, in my opinion, are detrimental to the country.

I read a few years ago that Maple Flag needed a serious update but I stick to my opinion that this is a budget cut cop out.

Agreed that no Canadian politician is a friend to the military. Military spending or priorities does not win votes in Canada.

In other news our country of 3 coasts doesn't need another supply ship.....

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... ys-trudeau

Just like internal documents show that modern fighter jets and new side arms can wait as well. You never want to let common sense get in the way of good politics.

[Meatservo]

We can agree that our country's military is woefully neglected by our government, and has been for decades.

[Mostly Harmless]

Since the original post opened right away with the usual bipartisan political horseshit, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

I ignored it too.

Maybe present the facts and let people draw their own hyperpartisan conclusions.

Stopped reading after this also. On less polite forums this is known as shitposting.

Interesting echo chamber you are living in where you instantly dismiss all information because it comes with an opinion attached. Perhaps you could read the article and come to your own conclusions. I realize that is not group think but give it a go...

The previous government only gave lip service to the military at best. No Canadian politician is a true friend of the military.

You do realize the previous government is no longer in power and therefore not a legitimate defense of the current government's actions? If your only reaction to criticism of the current government is "the previous government did....", you are engaging in "What-about-ism" where you try to deflect blame for current situations by inferring that someone else is of equal or worse stature instead of looking for a way in which you can behave better than the other person you don't like. The current government ran on a platform of being better than the previous government and have failed at all attempts to be a more open and transparent government and the spouting of what-about-ism is the only thing I ever hear anyone say. I'm sick of that argument. Let us adjudicate the sitting government on THEIR actions and behaviours and when the next people take over... we will do the same to them as well. Let us start holding our current government (whoever it is) accountable for their action or lack thereof.

[Meatservo]

Since the original post opened right away with the usual bipartisan political horseshit, I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

I ignored it too.

Maybe present the facts and let people draw their own hyperpartisan conclusions.

Stopped reading after this also. On less polite forums this is known as shitposting.

Interesting echo chamber you are living in where you instantly dismiss all information because it comes with an opinion attached. Perhaps you could read the article and come to your own conclusions. I realize that is not group think but give it a go...

No. There is a difference between "an opinion" and the lowbrow nicknames and insults that characterize the degree to which our political discourse has devolved to "petty infighting, hyperpartisan wheel-spinning and party-first agendas" (NoLabels, Newsweek 2016) It's a disgusting hallmark of the continued Americanization of our political atmosphere.

Any post that opens with "Trudumb" or "Libtard", "snowflake", "triggered", "cuck", et cetera, does not get my continued time. In the interests of parity I tried to look for some equivalently lowbrow epithets that are hurled from left to right, and I was unable to find anything as provocative as the unimaginitive, vulgar and repetitive crap used by the right-leaning voting group. It used to be they would resort to this sophomoric name-calling when they were losing an argument, but lately they skip a step and lead off with it more often than not.

In my longish life, I believe I have at one time or another, voted for each major national political party. Do you want to talk about our military and the numerous failings of the government of Canada? I'm all ears.

To me, the cancellation of a military exercise due to unpreparedness and lack of budget serves to cast doubt on the very purpose of military exercises in general. If one is to view war as anything other than just a sport enjoyed by whatever team can field some players, it's troubling that our military has eroded to the point where they can't mount a pretend defense to a pretend conflict that they all knew about ahead of time and agreed to the rules of. The implication is that a real conflict would be utterly beyond their scope. Canadians are funny. We are proud of the historical tenacity, intelligence and bravery of the Canadian fighter, and yet we continue to believe this is just an inherent trait rather than something that needs to be actively created and participated in. It's embarassing.

If our government could approach the modernizing and equipping of our military with even half the vigour and passion they approached making dope legal, we would see some improvement.

[Mostly Harmless]

There is a difference between "an opinion" and the lowbrow nicknames and insults that characterize the degree to which our political discourse has devolved to "petty infighting

I agree, name calling is not helpful by either side.

In the interests of parity I tried to look for some equivalently lowbrow epithets that are hurled from left to right, and I was unable to find anything as provocative as the unimaginative, vulgar and repetitive crap used by the right-leaning voting group.

Well then, you either didn't look very hard or you are applying a personal filter to what you would consider an insult. Never called anyone a "Redneck"? Specifically applied to one province and all of it's residents? Haven't watched any late night talk show or satirical news broadcast in the last 10 years? There is a certain attitude in the entertainment industry that if you don't agree with them, you are not a smart person like they are. To say one side is guilty and the other is not is to be willfully blind or part of the problem.

In my longish life, I believe I have at one time or another, voted for each major national political party. Do you want to talk about our military and the numerous failings of the government of Canada? I'm all ears.

As have I... and there have been good governments and bad in power on both sides of the aisle. The current one is bad. I could into a long diatribe on why I have this opinion but I don't expect it will change your opinion one way or the other. The short version, promises made and not kept, runaway spending, several cabinet members who lied to get their job... who still have their cabinet posts, and 1970's economics brought to you by the current PM's father... whose play book is being used. I also have real issues with only certain family names being allowed to run the country as a legacy because that isn't good for democracy. The military has always been a budget whipping boy since the 1950's... but the last government was on a program to update equipment, rightly or wrongly done in your opinion... the bill had come due.

If our government could approach the modernizing and equipping of our military with even half the vigour and passion they approached making dope legal, we would see some improvement.

I agree. Perhaps they should have tagged the tax revenue from one to pay for the other in the same way Colorado dedicated the first (I can't remember the dollar sum) money to pay for primary education. After that amount was paid (first 2 weeks or so), funds went to general revenue.

I'm in the centre... the actual centre, not the liberal centre... where I am not represented by any party. Fiscally conservative, in favour of small governments who regulate then get out of the way, and socially progressive because I don't want anyone's rights taken away regardless of the reason. Not mine, not yours. Instead I have a party that wants to control every thought in my head through the PC agenda and a party that wants to control all of my actions through a Law and Order agenda. Two paths that lead to the same destination.

There's your political conversation.... but the thread is the cancellation of Maple flag and I agree with your statement that " it's troubling that our military has eroded to the point where they can't mount a pretend defense to a pretend conflict that they all knew about ahead of time and agreed to the rules of. The implication is that a real conflict would be utterly beyond their scope." But read both sides and make up your own mind as to why that arose instead of dismissing arguments out of hand.

[Squaretail]

I read a few years ago that Maple Flag needed a serious update but I stick to my opinion that this is a budget cut cop out.

I think that its a cop out is debatable. FWIW, since I spend a lot of my summer trying to fly into the CLAWR at every opportunity, one can't help but notice the reduction in traffic it has, and Maple Flag as of late has fewer and fewer participants. Notably the Americans haven't shown up in any force the last two years, nor have the larger NATO allies. Now if part of that is the infrastructure of Cold Lake and the CLAWR, or possibly a reduced demand from the participating nations for Maple Flag, recent international politics, one can't say. Obviously as the host nation our own capacity to participate in it is reduced and it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to be running such an exercise that we ourselves can have limited participation. Not mentioned, here is of course that there is ever increasing demand of outside corporate interests in gaining more access to the land the CLAWR encompasses, and no Maple Flag I know will make some people really happy.

in favour of small governments who regulate then get out of the way,

While I get the sentiment of "small government" what we really need is "enough government". After all, you can't say more military, but less government, what does one think the military is? I know, I know, it would be great if we could have less politicians, but I still want enough police, and regulation and "getting out of the way" just don't go together. Personally in many cases I'd just like the government to enforce their regulations. Flight schools are a good example. But if we say that we want the people to do these things to be paid the least we possibly can, and remind them we resent them for doing it repeatedly, its no wonder it only attracts the worst people to do it and frequently makes them worse in the process.

When it comes to our military, there's certainly a lot that could be reformed. Canada just simply doesn't have enough people to man a military that can do everything, at least without resorting to mandatory service like some European countries. So in my opinion we should do fewer things with our military and do them well. For instance, while some may lament the disbanding of the airborne regiment, aside from a morale perspective, Canada training a lot of paratroopers doesn't make a lot of sense. Outside of some very limited applications, the day of the paratrooper ended at the end of WW II. Maintaining that same capability realistically requires a heli-mobile unit of regiment size, which Canada doesn't have to budget or need to fully equip as would be needed to be an effective force. Many aspects of our forces need to be examined similarly, so that expenditure can be more efficiently spent. Canada's procurement process given its small size also seems inefficient and outlandish. Why in most cases we aren't just buying what the Americans are using off the shelf is beyond me. Its bizarre that it took us so long to get new helicopters, or that they're so much to do over a fixed Wing SAR replacement. Machines that are 80% of requirements now as opposed to the perfect custom machine decades later I feel would be better serving our personnel.

[Kejidog]

Like the loser that shows up to a car show with a 1983 chevette Canada’s ageing lacluster jets are the dogs of the dogfighting community. We probably canceled it to save our serving members the embarrassment of flying airframes older than the pilots. And yes i blame the current pile of shit government. They only had since 2015 to at least try to fix the shit show that is our military procurement process.Now If we could only put soxey in an airframe and test out a air to air missile .....

[AuxBatOn]

Like the loser that shows up to a car show with a 1983 chevette Canada’s ageing lacluster jets are the dogs of the dogfighting community. We probably canceled it to save our serving members the embarrassment of flying airframes older than the pilots. And yes i blame the current pile of shit government. They only had since 2015 to at least try to fix the shit show that is our military procurement process.Now If we could only put soxey in an airframe and test out a air to air missile .....

The F-16 is older than the Hornet and they showed up to Maple Flag last year (US and Belgian). It has nothing to do with our jets, number of pilots or politics.

[iflyforpie]

The F-15s are also very old as well.

You do realize the previous government is no longer in power and therefore not a legitimate defense of the current government's actions? If your only reaction to criticism of the current government is "the previous government did....", you are engaging in "What-about-ism" where you try to deflect blame for current situations by inferring that someone else is of equal or worse stature instead of looking for a way in which you can behave better than the other person you don't like.

No.

Whataboutism is an Internet neologism people have latched on to which is used to justify opinions which are divided solidly along partisan lines after they are called out by others.

If you don’t want your insular opinions to be called out, write it the way I wrote it in response... which both calls for a better way to do things and calls out all offending parties.

No Canadian politician is a true friend of the military.

Cheers

[Big Pistons Forever]

After WW2 virtually every family had a direct personal connection with Military service with first or second order family member having served. Now only about 2 % of Canadians alive today are serving or have served in the Military. Many people don't know anybody who has served and the reality is the Military does not represent a significant constituency. Politicians only care where the votes are and the generalized neglect of Canada's military by political leaders goes back to everyone after Brian Mulrooney.

But I think it is also important to understand the other forces that have shaped how we got to where we are today. When I enrolled in the Canadian Forces in the late 70's Canada's foreign policy looked South and East and support to NATO and NORAD was a cornerstone of that policy. Canada's military strategy, doctrine, and tactics were largely shaped by the NATO defence rolls that we had signed up for. For example the Navy was equipped for the Anti Submarine Warfare missions because defense of the sea lanes of communications to the European theater was one of Canada's contribution to the multi-national NATO defense effort against the Soviet threat. Military policy is pretty simple when you have one enemy and you know who it is. The strategic coherence of Canada's foreign and military polices and procurement strategies reflected that.

Big problems arose when the Soviet threat went away and it was time to ask the big picture questions of "Why does Canada have a Military and what should it do ?". No Canadian government since the fall of the Berlin wall has made any serious attempt to answer that question. The issue of Maple Flag is one tiny consequence of Canada's failure to have a rational and coherent defence policy. If we did then you could connect the dots from Maple Flag to gaining and maintaining operational and tactical capabilities that directly support Canada's defence and foreign policy. That would shape answers as to the questions to "What" Maple flag is for and therefore "Why" the investments in range infrastructure need to be made.

The bottomline is simple. Militaries have to be organized and run from the top down and not from the bottom up. That starts with the government articulating "Why does Canada have a Military and what should it do ?" Until that happens nothing is going to get any better. When ever I meet a politician hustling the street or at my door during the election cycle I always ask them that question. Not surprisingly after the momentary deer in the landing lights stare I invariably get some earnest pablum about "our government pledges to support the troops ". However if many, many people asked that question maybe the government might actually start caring enough to provide a real answer......