Interesting explanations guys…. Thanks….

So bottom line is NOT the actual loss of capability but more a “lets hide the assets” and side line them for a while…..just seems strange to actually bench two SQUADRONS, themselves, airframes I can see…but the personnel get shifted to other “operational” units?…and the aircraft just remain at their respective bases as a generic available aircraft to any of the Squadrons operating there?

Sad that the USAF has to under go these cuts and hobbling’s to save a bit of money, yet they are being sucked dry by the F 35 program?….how can it be justified over all?.

i think they can just make many thin layer of steel (may be 5-6 cm thick) and put one on top of another until you get 5 meters? how hard would that be?, the benefit is that no bunker buster bomb can penetrate it, massive HEAT or kinetic sabot round can but they not effective again structure at all ( they only make a small hole

then the purpose of it being Rolled homogeneous armour, is lost……if you want to build your bunker and cover it with randomly piled sheets of steel, than by all means go ahead…..BUT it is NOT ARMOUR……not to mention that Concrete, and Re inforced Concrete is structural, it holds and retains it;s shape…..how are you going to place 5 meters of steel ( the weight will be enormous) and support it?…

I think to achieve your desired effects…the ONLY way steel would be ok to use is if it was built into a VERY steeply pitched conical roof…using the idea of deflection rather than flat armour……to be able to directly penetrate a steep cone would be substantially harder than a flat surface. HOWEVER should the munition come in from a lesser degree of attack, the effect is reduced significantly

Simply put, the costs will be substantial, and simply not worth the effort…..if it was, it would be common practice the world over by this point. sometimes reinventing the wheel works…sometimes it is just better left alone….

you have no understanding of economics. if they care about currency they can easily cut output by wide margin and price will go up. or do you think only Saudis have computer technology of making cuts?. Predictions were spot on.

High Oil prices were not benefiting Russia due to capital outflow, EU vacations/real estate/ imports that. Lower oil prices will eliminate all those positives for EU.
same situation in Middleast where expensive oil was sold to India/China/Korea/Japan and money was recycled in Euros/Pounds.

Prolong low oil prices very good thing. let see how single commodity countries like Canada/Saudi/Australia/Norway/Brazil/Qatar can afford there import depended military, projects and social system.

Seriously?…again?….

Canada IS NOT a single commodity Country!….

Australia IS NOT a single commodity Country!…see attached chart

Actual Previous Highest Lowest Dates Unit Frequency
26904.00 26457.00 29372.00 435.00 1971 – 2014 AUD Million Monthly
Rich in natural resources, Australia is a major exporter of commodities. Metals like iron-ore and gold account for 28 percent of total exports, coal for 18 percent and oil and gas for 9 percent. Manufactured goods constitute 33 percent of the total exports with food and metal products and machinery and equipment accounting for the biggest share. Agricultural products, particularly wheat and wool make up 5 percent of trade outflows. Australia’s largest export markets are China (27 percent of total exports), Japan (17 percent), South Korea (7 percent), India (6 percent) and the European Union countries. This page provides – Australia Exports – actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news. Content for – Australia Exports – was last refreshed on Wednesday, December 17, 2014.
tradingeconomics.com/australia/exports

now how is that SINGLE commodity?…its NOT, same as Canada is DIVERSE in it’s exports….please try to absorb that this time ….

I have heard ad nauseum that NATO countries should buy the F-35 so members participating in NATO operations will be flying the same aircraft as the USA. My argument against this view has been (a) if the USA has hundreds of F-35’s available for first strike operations, why must other NATO members buy the same kit if their main interest is defence of their own air space (b) purchasing F-35 will reduce the overall capabilites of many NATO countries(less non-F-35 assets available to the countries’ armed forces in general – whether it be military airlifters/navy warships/army tanks or whatever) ie countries will be less able to undertake their own defence or to contribute to NATO operations.

The Netherlands has opted to procure 37 F-35’s. The number is limited due to cost. Due to the number being curtailed by cost, only 4 will be available for NATO operations. Additionally the Netherlands forsees the cost of operating each its F-35’s to be a maximum of €7.7 million per annum. At 200 hours use per aircraft per annum the cost works out to be a maximum of €38,500 per flying hour (about US$45,000 per flying hour).

Source: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/159653/dutch-see-f_35-annual-operating-cost-at-%E2%82%AC285m.html

This consequences of opting for F-35 over more affordable alternatives will be even more distructive to Netherlands capability than I imagined, I fear.

eliquently worded Spitfire.

I would agree whole heartedly, WHY does every Nation need to have the same plane? as you said, doubling , tripling and more up on the same abilities while ignoring the basic needs is fool hearty.

It is pretty obvious at this point that he is just making it up as he goes.

Nobody but Canada operates over cold sparsely-populated regions therefor only he, a Canadian, could possibly understand what it takes to operate in the north.

Forget about Alaska. Ignore Norwegian, Danish, UK, and US operations over the North Sea, Iceland(Operation Ignition), and the Arctic.

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

None of that counts. Only Canada flies over the cold. Only Canadians know.

Now your being just harsh, “making up” what?…….I have NOT excluded Alaska, as I CLEARLY stated earlier while Alaska has harsh weather, mountains and lots of trees etc, it is also home to a VERY substantial number of airports that are available for emergency landings . I have also said that YES the Norwegians DO operate in hostile cold, icy and northern conditions……yet their actual area of operations is much smaller in size when compared to Canada, the UK?…sure they fly over the North Sea and some cold areas…no question….but they also fly multi engined types too don;t they?……..the US ops, well they just go where ever their Aircraft Carriers take them right…..but funny, the US Navy ONLY operates multi engined types right? why is that?

Although many Nations may operate in simular conditions, and face some simular climactic difficulties, the shear size of of Canada is unique, Only Russia and China are relatable to the size …if that is hard for you to understand than I guess geography 101 failed….and as Canada’s north is almost wholly unsettled, there are no support structures in place, no roads, almost no airports/airfields and for a great portion of the year no access to open water either.

SO if the Danes flying in Greenland must count on a ship to pick up a downed pilot due to distances involved and harsh climate…what happens to a downed Canadian pilot, where there is no ship access?…he must wait, injured or not for a fixed wing aircraft to find him, hopefully drop a Search and Rescue team to him by parachute…but the ONLY option to pick him up is by helicopter….and the ranges are ubber extreme….

While I will agree that flying over the North Sea is dangerous, it is also done all the time. There are more options available to rescue a downed pilot, operating from a carrier, a US Navy pilot will have an aircraft over him relatively quickly, and dropping him life rafts etc…..helicopters from the carrier OR ships from the carrier group would be on hand ASAP to pick him up. As for transatlantic flights?….well there is always some risk when in the air, yet transatlantic flights occur hundreds of times every day.

I am sorry, and I tip my hat to the brave and skilled pilots of Denmark, Norway, the UK the US as well……but simply put, Canada IS unique…it’s so unique that for decades Germany ( the old West Germany too) and the UK along with any number of NATO allies have sent their planes and pilots here to fly…WHY?….because Canada has massive , uninhabbited spaces, unique climactic conditions that test pilots and planes and they could do training here they couldn;t do any where else.

I am neither making stuff up , nor posting unreasonabley. It seems like you and some others simply don;t want to hear that a single engined plane may not be suitable for Canada’s needs….either that or you just have an issue with Canada outright.

Funny, I would welcome and easily admit that for an Air force that operates in say very humid, hot jungle type climates, that THOSE pilots would have a specific set of needs, criteria and likely special considerations to survival and bailing out…and being FAR FAR different than what Canada faces. Why is it that you cannot accept that Canada faces differences from what US pilots face generally?…..and certainly they are different than what an RAF pilot would face on a daily, regular basis…..thats just facts of life, we all don;t live in the same climate nor country, and to each of us, our Countries have unique features and dangers. fair or not, sometimes compairing them isn;t really effective, for example, the UK, has a landmass, INCLUSIVE of the Falklands and Northern Ireland, heck even add in Isle of Man if you’d like, roughly equal to that of the Great Lakes in North America, yet the population is roughly 3 1/2 times greater than that of Canada. Would a pilot in the UK really face the same distances and harsh conditions found in Northern Canada?…..no….does the UK get cold?..yes, do they get snow?…a bit…do they have huge emmense spans of empty wilderness?..no…BUT they have their OWN issues, rapidly changing geography ( by that I mean mountains that don;t draw out a long way), they face fog and icy conditions and have a VERY tightly packed built up areas which poses it’s own challenges. I use this only as an example of how things differ, and Denmark, Norway, Belgium etc are all unique as well…..BUT they have one common denominator, smaller land mass sizes.

Jay… You’re ridiculous. I am not going to get more than a couple of minutes of attention to your argumentation. This was the result of a Google search lasting under 90 seconds. it depicts a world map as viewed from the north pole. That’s went first out of the search and made the point.

Political map varies. Geographical… scarcely.

You where talking about Canada not the number of Soviet Union KGB agents lying under the sun of York. So I am back to to my horse before loosing an empire of patience…

my point is this,if your going to do a 90 second google search, at least find a “result” that is concurrent..

now again, your MAP was pointless, it stated nothing, accomplished nothing….I live in Canada, I know what Canada looks like on a map, I am also aware of just how big Canada is…..

anyway…great “chatting” with ya, I hope you don;t loose your Empire of Patience, that may be bad for your horse.

KGB agents? Lying under the sun of York?….WTF are you talking about….

Ok…my point remains…..for Canadian service, the second engine has been considered paramount due to the extreme distances involved and the shear scale of the area covered. I figure it has been viewed as almost as a safety feature for our pilots operating over nothingness thousands of miles from no where.

Ironically, I believe it was you, Tomcat, that was comparing Commercial aircraft engines to be simular to Military fighter engines… I mean, how is that even a valid thought? Airliners hardly fly at high speeds, putting massive stress on their components in Military type missions / flights right?….so, what is the comparison? that newer civilian airliner engines have improved over those of decades ago?….I would hope so…but that hardly gives justification in how “wonderful and safe” the relatively untested and essentially new F35 single engine will be when in service now will it?

The maximum range of CH-149 Cormorants is 450 nautical miles. Count in 10% reserve and 10 minute hovering time and you get a SAR action radius of ~150-170 miles. Now get a map of Canada and draw a scaled down circle corresponding to 300-350 nm diameter around the 103 SAR sqn base at Newfoundland or 442 sqn at Comox, BC and you get the picture of what you’re talking about here.

Right idea MSphere, But there are also S&R Squadrons stationed at CFB Trenton Ontario and a smaller fixed wing S&R Detachment at Winnipeg, Manitoba. Bottom line, the “help” is a LONG, LONG way away, and many many hours of flying time. Needing to stop for refueling numerous times and flying in potential hostile conditions?….just slows it all down even more.

Some people may not have realized, that is the days of GPS and satellite-phones it is no longer an issue. Even before the pilots had to follow a flight plan and still has to today. Just over the cold Ocean it is an issue, because none could survive there for long.

That is a rediculous comment, how does a RCAF pilot being scrambled to an intercept file a flight plan?…..once the Russian aircraft is reached, the RCAF plane will adjust their course and escort said Russian out of Canadian airspace etc. so NO, flying MILITARY missions over totally unexplored wilderness in the far north is an issue. Satalite Phones?….who are you calling?…..a tow truck?…even with GPS getting S&R up to a far north Location and getting to an downed pilot is a huge challenge…..initial S&R would be from fixed wing aircraft, parachuting in SAR Techs, and flight time could be many many hours, perhaps 10 or more, recovery would need to be by chopper, getting a chopper 1000’s of miles quickly does NOT happen.

technology aside, the shear distances is the factor. remember there is next to no support facilities in the North.