USMC general praises Canadian troops.

Posting this here as I suspect it will become political. I hope not but ...

See:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/fisher-canadian-contribution-to-fight-against-isil-744123

This maybe initiating the political aspect but ...

 

is it just me, or does the general look very young for his rank?? hey, it's not so much the age of the weapon, as it is the training, skill, and spirit of the fighter......someone trained with an M1 Garand can do as much damage if not more than someone untrained with an M16 and no spirit ......was he really mocking them, or just commenting on their age?...

 

I've always wondered why the Canadians chose the F/A-18 over the F-16 or some other simpler land based plane.
I liked the way they painted a black cockpit shape on the bottom of theirs though.

 

Why? The F/A-18 is an excellent aircraft, not quite as capable (but very close) as the F-16 in a strict air superiority fighter role, it is better in the ground support role, and overall is superior as a multi-role aircraft.

 

Good thing the General is an American officer so he doesn't take political heat from Mr. Trudeau. However, Marine Generals do have a history of speaking their mind even if it is contrary to the current political line, they're primarily warfighters (with the notable exception of the previous Commandant) and politics isn't real high on their agendas.

 

The F/A-18 was chosen by Canada primarily for the twin engine's, Canada like Australia are very big nations but populated in only a few area's lacking runways capable of handling the aircraft for vast stretches.

An F-16's engine goes out over Europe or America and they will have a decent chance of making it to an airfield, An F-16 loses it's engine over Canada or Australia and they will more then likely have to bail out if they are not near an airfield capable of handling them (Of which we have few, Maybe a few dozen compared to the US and Europe that have hundreds if not more.)

On the Subject of Canada, lwd have you happened to have taken lessons from Tony Abbott? (The Aussie PM), Canada - Canadia - Australia....

 

Mr. Trudeau makes me sick, and I'm embarrassed to say that he'll probably be our next Prime Minister.

Our F/A-18s are fine aircraft. I haven't understood why the government is trying to phase them out in favor of the F-35. They're reaching end-of-life and are in upgrade/refurbishment, so the obvious choice is to replace them -- but I think the money would be better spent on a more versatile and combat-tried aircraft than the F-35. It seems like a lot of the F-35's big selling points aren't particularly useful for our air force. Given that the F/A-18 has served us very well, I think the Super Hornet would be adequate. But enough armchair politicking....its not my place to say one way or the other

 

The General may not have been aware of the statement but I suspect it was in regards to a question asked by a journalist that was. I also suspect it wouldn't have changed his answer much if at all.

 

True, but you have Mattis that was notorious for saying unpolitical correct things. He was finally fired as Commander Centcom by the Obama Administration over his not buying into the party line and voicing his concerns over Mid-East policy.

From Foreign Policy January 18, 2013

Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.
Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way — not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"
Inquiry along these lines apparently was not welcomed — at least in the CENTCOM view. The White House view, apparently, is that Mattis was too hawkish, which is not something I believe, having seen him in the field over the years. I’d call him a tough-minded realist, someone who’d rather have tea with you than shoot you, but is happy to end the conversation either way.
Presidents should feel free to boot generals anytime they want, of course — that’s our system, and one I applaud. But ousting Mattis at this time, and in this way, seems wrong for several reasons:
TIMING: If Mattis leaves in March, as now appears likely, that means there will be a new person running CENTCOM just as the confrontation season with Iran begins to heat up again.
CIVIL-MILITARY SIGNALS: The message the Obama Administration is sending, intentionally or not, is that it doesn’t like tough, smart, skeptical generals who speak candidly to their civilian superiors. In fact, that is exactly what it (and every administration) should want. Had we had more back in 2003, we might not have made the colossal mistake of invading Iraq.
SERVICE RELATIONS: The Obamites might not recognize it, but they now have dissed the two Marine generals who are culture heroes in today’s Corps: Mattis and Anthony Zinni. The Marines have long memories. I know some who are still mad at the Navy for steaming away from the Marines left on Guadalcanal. Mattis made famous in Iraq the phrase, "No better friend, no worse enemy." The Obama White House should keep that in mind.
I’m still a fan of President Obama. I just drove for two days down the East Coast listening to his first book, and enjoyed it enormously. But I am at the point where I don’t trust his national security team. They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated. Harsh words, I know. But I am worried.

 

From the Washington Times, January 28,2015:

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, delivered a harsh critique of the Obama administration’s defense and national security policies this week — without ever mentioning the president or his security team by name.
Gen. Mattis, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, pulled no punches in criticizing policies and strategies ranging from confronting Chinese bullying in Asia and pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan to sharp defense cuts and putting women into combat roles.
The former four-star general, who held the Centcom post from 2010 until his retirement in 2013, said international order is breaking down and requires sustained American leadership to promote freedom. He called on America “to adapt to changing circumstances, to come out now from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values.”
Calling for a “refreshed national strategy,” Gen. Mattis urged Congress to play a key role in crafting a more coherent way forward.
“Doing so requires us to look beyond the events that are currently consuming the executive branch,” he said Tuesday. “There’s an urgent need to stop reacting to each immediate vexing issue in isolation. Such response often creates unanticipated second-order effects and even more problems for us.”
Posing a series of questions for the committee, Gen. Mattis called first for the panel to bolster U.S. intelligence about threats to national security so the military can have more warnings of dangers.
“Today, ladies and gentlemen, we have less military shock absorber in our smaller military, so less ability to take surprise in stride, and fewer forward-deployed forces overseas to act as sentinels. Accordingly, we need more early warning,” he said.
Gen. Mattis said it is also imperative to halt the damage caused by the across-the-board defense spending cuts under the 2011 Budget Control Act. “No foe in the field can wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving today,” he said. “This committee must lead the effort to repeal sequestration that is costing military readiness and long-term capability, while sapping our troops’ morale.”
Noting that U.S. influence in the Middle East is at the lowest point in 40 years, Gen. Mattis urged setting up a new security architecture that would allow the United States to “take our own side in this fight” against political Islam.

“The fundamental question I believe is, ‘Is political Islam in our best interest?’ If not, what is our policy to authoritatively support the countervailing forces?”
Gen. Mattis said violent jihadi terrorists cannot be allowed to hide behind false religious garb and at the same time “leave us unwilling to define this threat with the clarity it deserves.”
Outlining a counterterrorism strategy against the Islamic State in Iraq in September, Mr. Obama said the United States would seek to counter the ideology of Islamic terrorists. The administration, however, has done little in the way of undermining radical Islamic terrorist ideology and appears to have banned use of the term “Islam” in describing terrorist threats.
Gen. Mattis noted that potential U.S. allies around the world are ready to support the United States, but “we have not been clear about where we stand in defining or dealing with the growing violent jihadi terrorist threat.”
On Afghanistan, he indirectly criticized Mr. Obama’s policy of setting a deadline for pulling out U.S. troops and warned that gains in Afghanistan are reversible and could be a repeat of the failures of U.S. policy taking place in Iraq.
“Notifying the enemy in advance of our withdrawal dates or reassuring the enemy that we will not use certain capabilities like our ground forces should be avoided,” he said.
A smaller U.S. military must fight across the spectrum of conflict from nuclear war to counterinsurgency to cyberwar, he said, adding that nuclear forces must be upgraded and possibly reduced to bomber and submarine forces without land-based missiles.
Gen. Mattis called for building more naval power and warships in light of Beijing’s increasing aggression in the South China Sea. “While our efforts in the Pacific to keep positive relations with China are well and good, these efforts must be paralleled by a policy to build the counterbalance if China continues to expand its bullying role in the South China Sea and elsewhere,” he said.
China must be denied “veto power” over the territorial claims, security and economic conditions in the Pacific.
On Russia, Gen. Mattis said “we must ask if the NATO alliance efforts have adjusted to the unfortunate and dangerous mode the Russian leadership has slipped into” — a reference to Moscow’s takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea and continuing armed support to pro-Russian separatist rebels in the eastern part of the country.
Gen. Mattis hit the administration for a lack of detainee policy, an outgrowth of Mr. Obama’s push to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“We have observed the perplexing lack of detainee policy that has resulted in the return of released prisoners to the battlefield,” he said. “We should not engage in another fight without resolving this issue up front.”
In a criticism of the administration’s social engineering policies in the military, such as allowing gays to serve openly and planning to integrate women into combat roles, the retired Marine issued a warning.
“No matter how laudable in terms of a progressive country’s instincts, this committee needs to consider carefully any proposed changes to military rules, traditions and standards that bring non-combat emphasis to combat units,” he said.
“There is a great difference between military service in dangerous circumstances and serving in a combat unit whose role is to search out, close with and kill the enemy at close quarters,” he said.
Fixing the country’s faulty defense strategy is urgent “because in an interconnected age when opportunistic adversaries can work in tandem to destroy stability and prosperity, our country needs to regain its strategic footing,” Gen. Mattis said. “We need to bring the clarity to our efforts before we lose the confidence of the American people and the support of potential allies.”

 

We chose the F18 as a replacement for everything...including the F111. It has proved itself already in combat roles. IMO its a far better all round aircraft than the F16 or any other at the time. Only large militaries can afford specialised aircraft, the rest of us have to choose one that can do the job of many. Micro fractures are plaiguing the old fleet and we HAVE updated to the SuperHornet as im sure Canada has done also...a seriously capable aircraft.."difficult to see, and if you see it, difficult to hit...and if you hit it, difficult to down."
The F-35 is seen as a replacement and will be expected to fill ALL roles of a combat aircraft...as im sure it will elsewhere...i dont understand all the furore of choosing this aircraft...it really was/is a no brainer...Who would have thought the US would have so much problems? Aircraft in the past have been delivered on time and in good condition. We have jumped into the F-35 basket...we should be trying to help not bag them...IMO.

 

Thanks for posting the article we are very proud of our military and it is GREAT to hear things like this from our allies.

KTK

 

We didn't actually choose the F-18 as a replacement for our F-111, in fact we never really replaced them.

As to the F-35, It's either we work to fix them in the hopes the improve or we bite the bullet and jump out of the program sooner then later and buy more Super Hornets with the Advanced package http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1082.

Personnally I'd prefer buying more Super Hornets with the advanced package while developing a twin engine fighter for ourselves, Utilizing a lot of off the shelf tech that has already been developed.

 

Actually we did buy the Hornets with this in mind...we knew the 111s were ageing and that it would be nice but unlikely to be able to replace their capability...the F18s were always going to be multi role...defence white paper ruled out further acquisitions and the Hornet would become "IT". Its why we chose it over the 16.
As for further purchases? I think the US should roll over and allow at least Australia (we have a need now) to buy F-22s...or if we arent going "next gen" we get the Typhoon - Our enemies have geared too much of their defence against US platforms...

Hey all just an opinion.

 

My mistake, I confused the classical Hornets with the Super Hornets.

All that aside we need to cancel the order's for the F-35 or at least put them on hold and open up a tender for our next fighter.

 

Not sure that's contractually possible...we may need to cancel the contract, (the Yanks have already broken it)...and start again...however, the usual problem of having spent money already makes it politically challenging to right turn on this path...

 

True, But some times we need a good politician with some b***s to tell the public to "stfu, Im doing this so our pilot's have the best fighter's they can get and so we don't waste tax payer money long term". People even complained about buying the 24 Super Hornet back in 2006/7, Know no one is complaining but wondering if we should get more.

 

F-111's were supposedly originally purchased by Oz because they could reach Vietnam from bases in Oz.

For that purpose, the F-18 is a tad deficit.

 

Not quite GS, They were mainly purchased due to Indonesia and her sabre rattling around Malaysia. We had requirements to be met with the Commonwealth strategic reserve and the F-111 was the only one that could fly to Jakarta and back without refueling (From Australia). Technically there were other aircraft but they all would have required far larger airfields.

Simple matter is the F-18's had not only become obsolete but become to costly, Got to the point the required 25 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight and it was only getting worse.

If we really want a true replacement for the F-111 we should test the water's about jumping in on the Long Range Strike Bomber program (Formally the Next gen bomber, or 2018 bomber), That or we just do it in the typical Aussie fashion.. Grab an F-18, Bring along a F load of beer and over the weekend turn it into a long range bomber.. While stopping the bogan of the group trying to shove a V8 into it

 

Fluffy dice and a fox tail...
Mate you should see the donks!

As for Canadians...they don't seem to have enough ego to talk themselves up...what I have found, that if you look at the greatest s$&t fights in the last century, there always seem to be Canadians right in the middle of it...doing the job. But don't expect to hear about it...