F-35 is dead

[mcrit]

Akoch, have you served in the CF?

[akoch]

I don't recall anyone attacking Canada lately, ever since 1812 so I did not have a chance. I'm your whiny civilian, too many of whose family members were military and actually fought. And got wounded or actually lost their lives during wars. My exposure to the military world is more than I like. And my attitude is identical, being that CF, US, German, Chinese army or anything else.
To clarify - my personal attitude is not negative, it is not positive either. Yet I do hold a military reserve officer rank and training. It is a necessary evil that needs to be kept in check. This is the fine line that separates a peaceful country that needs defence from an aggressor. The line is pretty much crossed when you stop questioning the military and it stops responding forcing their will on you. It is also crossed when your military starts picking up sides in civil wars in remote countries on other continents.
If anyone does not like my definition of the army psyche he or she is free to post their own.

[bizjets101]

I don't recall anyone attacking Canada lately, ever since 1812 so I did not have a chance.

You missed it, and the CF-18's didn't save us . . .

Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement - agreed upon on October 4, 1987 and signed by the leaders of both countries on January 2, 1988.

[Rockie]

I don't recall anyone attacking Canada lately, ever since 1812 so I did not have a chance.

That's odd, I'm sure several people have had a chance to serve in the Canadian military since 1812 so it's weird you weren't given the opportunity.

Anyway, I think as a reserve officer you should know the difference between military discipline and blind obedience to orders. Every serving military member right down to the newest private is expected to know the difference between a lawful order and one that is not. For example if your superior ordered you to run over somebody in an army truck that would be an unlawful order and you must not comply. So that makes this statement...

One sure is that through the whole process they are trained to follow the orders, not to think about them or contemplate them, or debate them. Unless this mentality is accepted and embraced.. without thinking, you simply can't be a soldier.

...flat out wrong.

It is correct to say though that the military may not openly contradict the government unless the government themselves are issuing an unlawful order. Even then they have to tread very, very, very, VERY carefully because to openly defy the government comes very close to sedition. In a democracy the military is subordinate in every way to the civilian government.

[akoch]

Well, if it only was so simple. Scenario 1 - the country is under attack. No if, buts, no questions asked or anything. You pickup and go, defend your country.
Scenario 2: you are as pilot asked to bomb a civilian bridge in the middle of a European city capital, which happened not too too long ago. The bridge is full of civilians. Not a military target. The country never attempted to attack Canada. They are having a civil war. What are your actions? Somebody chose not to question his superiors and completed the order. Innocent people are dead. You're essentially a murderer. We are still talking about a democratic country here, right?
And these examples can go on and on. Most people prefer not to know about them, or turn blind eye to them. The world is simpler and more pleasant that way.
So I don't want to find myself having to decide what should I do facing an order like this. I express my feelings in attempt that the country does not do it (again).
When the military start telling you "they know better" this is the first sign. I showed why.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Yes, they think they don't need to. Multiple reasons for that.

One sure is that through the whole process they are trained to follow the orders, not to think about them or contemplate them, or debate them. Unless this mentality is accepted and embraced.. without thinking, you simply can't be a soldier. You're plain and simply dangerous to all around you. Should do something else with you life.
End result, such decision making and behaviour model is not conducive to explaining the whiny civilians what they don't need to know anyway.
And not that they can explain it, even if attempted.

AKoch, that's a pretty one-dimensional description of what you refer to in a subsequent post as the "army psyche". It may have limited applicability: for example, to freshly-enlisted infantrymen during their initial basic training. It most assuredly does not accurately describe the level of horsepower sought in modern military personnel, particularly at the officer level where critical thinking is actually required, and so encouraged: hence the emphasis on formal education and training, both prior to and on a continuing basis after joining the military. One small example among many: do you seriously think CF18 pilots aren't trained to think, that they mindlessly somehow mindlessly "follow orders" and stick with a detailed and prescribed script while maneuvering a fast jet in a combat environment? Do you really think there's no room for reacting and improvising tactically as the situation changes? I think what you meant to say is that the military is trained to accept orders and follow the chain of civilian command at a strategic level, and with respect to ends, not necessarily means.

I suspect that the military's role limited role in publicly discussing the F35 procurement fiasco was dictated by government officials who gave them limited scope to get involved in selling the platform publicly. And contrary to what you state above, I suspect that DND personnel are sufficiently intelligent and well-informed regarding the aircraft's capabilities, and the capabilities of the competing platforms, that they could have done a much better job of explaining why they felt the aircraft was the best choice, had they been given the opportunity to do so.

Note I am not for a moment suggesting that the F35 is the best choice: I have neither the required understanding of the strategic doctrine, nor the technical expertise, to make an informed assessment. Much like 99.9% of the posters here on AvCanada.

[Cat Driver]

Every once in a while there is a truly interesting thread on here....

.....this one is getting very interesting.

[Rockie]

Scenario 2: you are as pilot asked to bomb a civilian bridge in the middle of a European city capital, which happened not too too long ago. The bridge is full of civilians. Not a military target. The country never attempted to attack Canada. They are having a civil war. What are your actions? Somebody chose not to question his superiors and completed the order. Innocent people are dead. You're essentially a murderer. We are still talking about a democratic country here, right?

That's why there is something called "rules of engagement" which are set by the political leadership and must be strictly adhered to by all military personnel. In the case you cited of the bridge in Europe, the overall military action would be sanctioned by the United Nations and conducted under the authority of NATO or some other political organization. Nobody (certain rogue nations excepted) is going to sanction ROE's that include bombing a bridge filled with innocent civilians, and anybody who knowingly did so would be in direct violation of those ROE's.

[akoch]

AKoch, that's a pretty one-dimensional description of what you refer to in a subsequent post as the "army psyche". It may have limited applicability: for example, to freshly-enlisted infantrymen during their initial basic training. It most assuredly does not accurately describe the level of horsepower sought in modern military personnel, particularly at the officer level where critical thinking is actually required, and so encouraged: hence the emphasis on formal education and training, both prior to and on a continuing basis after joining the military. One small example among many: do you seriously think CF18 pilots aren't trained to think, that they mindlessly somehow mindlessly "follow orders" and stick with a detailed and prescribed script while maneuvering a fast jet in a combat environment? Do you really think there's no room for reacting and improvising tactically as the situation changes? I think what you meant to say is that the military is trained to accept orders and follow the chain of civilian command at a strategic level, and with respect to ends, not necessarily means.

I suspect that the military's role limited role in publicly discussing the F35 procurement fiasco was dictated by government officials who gave them limited scope to get involved in selling the platform publicly. And contrary to what you state above, I suspect that DND personnel are sufficiently intelligent and well-informed regarding the aircraft's capabilities, and the capabilities of the competing platforms, that they could have done a much better job of explaining why they felt the aircraft was the best choice, had they been given the opportunity to do so.

Note I am not for a moment suggesting that the F35 is the best choice: I have neither the required understanding of the strategic doctrine, nor the technical expertise, to make an informed assessment. Much like 99.9% of the posters here on AvCanada.

I agree that it is very one-dimensional indeed. That was the intention - to make it clear and harsh. If I made a disclaimer or used more colour painting it, it would not have been the same.
Regarding the F35, I personally don't have an opinion. And I do not really mind the spend that much (given the state of debt our country is in it does not make much difference).
http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

What I picked up on is the messages coming from the (apparently) military folks that came across much more arrogant than acceptable from the people who supposedly defend us. I don't have any better explanation for this than the "psyche" I described. This erodes trust. And given how military pretty much shuts up and goes along with really questionable political decisions one has to wonder what is coming. Especially when asked about the reasons and motives, we get not much in response... aside from "shut up you don't know nothing". I guess I've been there, heard that before. Don't want to hear it again as it serves no good.
History never teaches us anything, right?

[akoch]

That's why there is something called "rules of engagement" which are set by the political leadership and must be strictly adhered to by all military personnel. In the case you cited of the bridge in Europe, the overall military action would be sanctioned by the United Nations and conducted under the authority of NATO or some other political organization. Nobody (certain rogue nations excepted) is going to sanction ROE's that include bombing a bridge filled with innocent civilians, and anybody who knowingly did so would be in direct violation of those ROE's.

Well, that action was not sanctioned by UN (in fact directly veto'ed by UN). But yes, NATO went ahead because it felt it could.

What you described is a classical case of a structure created to transfer the responsibility. It allows to dissipate the "guilt" and hide behind the structures. Works, if you are OK with it. I'd would not want to be part of it. And this comes in direct conflict with the "psyche" I described. The reality is that 9 out of 10 especially lower rank military folks do not even realize what they are doing. They just follow the orders. Always has been the case, through all human history. Germans sincerely believed they were bringing future of the humankind to the rest of the unworthy, and were good at following the orders.

Anyway, what is really lacking with the whole F35 story is the transparency and flow of information about the decision making. Which might be because the actual reasons are hard to justify publicly (like really, it was done to help pay Americans for the development), or because the CF leadership does not think we are worthy of the conversation.

[akoch]

Every once in a while there is a truly interesting thread on here....

.....this one is getting very interesting.

Feel free to chime in

[Cat Driver]

My thoughts on the subject of war are tainted by the things I saw during my time working for TF1 in Africa, war is evil and I can see nothing about it that is defensible.

[akoch]

My thoughts on the subject of war are tainted by the things I saw during my time working for TF1 in Africa, war is evil and I can see nothing about it that is defensible.

That's what is different about you and that's what I'm trying to say to people who never saw the ugly face of a military conflict. Once you saw tanks on the streets and had to run around and about them, saw people getting killed a few meters from you... you tend to not like or idealize weapons and military and all things connected all that much. The reality is plain ugly.
But it is romanticized by people, books and movies, and people seem to find ways to defend the "purpose" of it. Hide behind "authorizations" and democratic rules of engagement. When somebody you knew is killed, frankly you don't care. Hope no one has to experience it.

[Cat Driver]

Yes Akoch, the difference between arm chair war sitting at home and the true horror of real war is beyond explaining to thse who have never seen it.

Once one has been traumatized by the sights I don't beieve you ever really recover.

[azimuthaviation]

Nobody (certain rogue nations excepted) is going to sanction ROE's that include bombing a bridge filled with innocent civilians, and anybody who knowingly did so would be in direct violation of those ROE's

So you can find the tribunal that brought the perpetrators to justice in this case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing

The Grdelica train bombing occurred on 12 April 1999 (it was the second day of Serbian Orthodox Easter holidays that year), when two missiles fired by NATO aircraft hit a passenger train while it was passing across a railway bridge over the Južna Morava river at Grdelica gorge, some 300 kilometres (190 mi) south of Belgrade in Serbia. As a result, 14 civilians including children and a pregnant woman were killed and another 16 passengers wounded.

[YYZSaabGuy]

So you can find the tribunal that brought the perpetrators to justice in this case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing

The Grdelica train bombing occurred on 12 April 1999 (it was the second day of Serbian Orthodox Easter holidays that year), when two missiles fired by NATO aircraft hit a passenger train while it was passing across a railway bridge over the Južna Morava river at Grdelica gorge, some 300 kilometres (190 mi) south of Belgrade in Serbia. As a result, 14 civilians including children and a pregnant woman were killed and another 16 passengers wounded.

*Sigh* Thanks, Azimuth, for yet another one-sided posting. It's too bad you couldn't go to the trouble of quoting from the balance of your Wikipedia article, so let me do it for you:

"The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) established a committee during May 1999 to determine whether offences against international law had been committed during the NATO campaign. In its final report to the tribunal's Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, the committee took the view that the attack had been proportionate:

"It is the opinion of the committee that the bridge was a legitimate military objective. The passenger train was not deliberately targeted. The person controlling the bombs, pilot or WSO, targeted the bridge and, over a very short period of time, failed to recognize the arrival of the train while the first bomb was in flight. The train was on the bridge when the bridge was targeted a second time and the bridge length has been estimated at 50 meters ... It is the opinion of the committee that the information in relation to the attack with the first bomb does not provide a sufficient basis to initiate an investigation."[11]

The committee was divided over the question of whether the aircrew had behaved recklessly. It recommended nonetheless "that the attack on the train at Grdelica Gorge should not be investigated by the [Prosecutor]."[11] A.P.V. Rogers comments that the committee "must have considered the first missile strike to be a legitimate action against a military objective, the inference being that any civilian casualties of that strike were not disproportionate, and that the firing of the second missile was an error of judgment in the heat of the moment." [12]

It's called the fog of war, aka s**t happens. I don't imagine the pilot of the F15 felt great about killing innocent civilians. Of course, it's easy to sit around and Monday Morning Quarterback from the safety of your computer, isn't it?

[Colonel Sanders]

Stepping back for a moment ... and I to understand
that the position being espoused here is that Canada
should not buy armed aircraft because civilians might
accidentally die at some undetermined time in the future?

And I understanding that correctly? If so, I can only
wonder what Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz might respond.

[bizjets101]

I hear what you are saying, steeping back I believe the jest of the message, and the root of the debate is as Akoch stated;

Anyway, what is really lacking with the whole F35 story is the transparency and flow of information about the decision making.

period.

Single, Twin, F-18/F-35, even cost - or the fact they HAVE to be replaced, is not the problem.

[xsbank]

Gist. That pretty much sums it up except I say twins!

[shimmydampner]

Stepping back for a moment ... and I to understand
that the position being espoused here is that Canada
should not buy armed aircraft because civilians might
accidentally die at some undetermined time in the future?
.

It would seem that some would like you to believe that. They are the same ones who believe that war is bad and as an extension of that, all things military are evil. Never mind that the presence of a well equipped modern military is a wonderful deterrent from those horrors of war being brought to our front door. These are the same people who say these potential threats are nonsense and imaginary bogeymen created to sell the public on military spending. After all, when was the last time we were attacked, they say, forgetting (or perhaps just too plain ignorant to know) that it was as recently as WWII, and since that time we have had, guess what, a relatively well equipped modern military to act as a deterrent.

[Colonel Sanders]

The really weird thing is that the people who
want Canada to have no military (and thus
depend entirely on the USA) are the people
who hate the Americans the most.

Riddle me that one, Batman.

[mcrit]

Akoch, I call BS. Nobody who had successfully trained as an officer of the CF would display such a complete lack of understanding of the CF military ethos.

Back to the F35; There are a couple of very good reasons that Canada has not been attacked recently. The first and foremost is geography. There are no easy routes to get at us, and even if there were the US would not tolerate hostile activity so close to home. The world however is evolving.
The states are in a contraction, (permanent or not remains to be seen), and the rest of the world is looking at the arctic for resources. The Russians have come out and said they expect to be at war in the arctic in the next decade. There is a very good chance that we will have to defend North American territory in the near future. If we don't have the tools to do it we will lose the battle, and with it a good part of our sovereignty.

[flatface]

CF-18s will not be deployed in support of any action against Syria if poison gas is used against it's own people, quoted from television news last night. Many other military support units are ready to be deployed, the acronyms escape me at the moment. These units would be used to provide clean water, handle poisonous gas weapons, etc.

Why no CF-18s? Syria has very accurate anti aircraft weapons. (quoted from the news)

Is this true or just political spin to push the stealth capability requirement of the CF-18 replacement?

I also read somewhere that stealth technology can be overcome with radar......new software has been developed, using a profile for a stealthy aircraft, (small radar signature but moving at very high speed, much faster than anything with that small a radar signature normally travels). This software will be able to discriminate between stealthy and non stealthy targets, amplify the stealthy profiled targets and display them for offensive and defensive purposes.

[bizjets101]

Nobody who had successfully trained as an officer of the CF would display such a complete lack of understanding of the CF military ethos.

That was too easy . . .

[bizjets101]

Syria = quagmire.

Home to the only Soviet Naval base outside of Russia, the regime is supported by China and Russia - what are we going to do - NOTHING, other than sit back, make idle threats, and hope for the best possible outcome, for the West, meaning the fall of the regime.