Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

I am going to start by saying – that if I had it my way, I would purchase 200 F-35s, and 80 F-15s on the side. I mean, the money just comes out of thin air anyway… so why not let the liberals circle jerk around jack Layton – while we acquire necessary state of the art machines to protect Canadian Sovereignty.

Cool!
Then we could buy 179,775 of these disposable jets. Spare parts? Who cares! When it breaks, eject and get a new one!
http://www.raptoraviation.com/aircraft% ... g21UM.html
If we used up one jet per day it would last us 492 years!
(do the math. 16 billion is a LOT of cash)
-istp

We are not Kamikaze pilots

1200NM???
A ho can do that....
No idea who these guys are, but an interesting read....
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html
Having NOT ever looked at any REAL data, my opinion is rather mute, however seems to me like these are resources that could be better spent elsewhere...

Actually, the F35’s combat range is better than the CF-18s, and I would imagine its overall ferrying range would be a bit more as well.

Reason #134882 not to vote for any Liberals.

They make me sick – Never again. I have never seen tax $ get pissed away with such ease in my entire life. Secondly, why does everyone forget …. THAT IT WAS THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT WHO GOT US INVOLVED WITH THE F35 IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!

should we really be following the leader with the arms build up?

We're replacing 80 jets with 65. Sure they're more advanced and reliable aircraft, but that's hardly an arms build up. I'd call it staying up-to-date. Sorta like replacing your Pontiac Fiero with a Saturn Sky.

Reason #134882 not to vote for any Liberals.

So true.

Imagine if they ordered what was 100% needed? 130+ new jets ……. Oh good lord, Armageddon. But if Harper was to attain 300 junk FA/18s in the desert, hell …….then he is NOT providing Canadians with the best equipment to do the job! Same old Liberal Party crap.

I like the F35 and am not a big fan of the liberals, but since there is no deal signed my Mr. Harper should look at the Eurofighter. Why you ask? Because it is kickass cool and that's good enough.

+1!
With the UK going thru massive $$ problems, they'd be happy to sell to us. But, Canada has already sunk a lot of $$ into this program already. Not sure why, we've had no interest in single engine fighters since the F-104, and rightfully so. My vote would be for the F-15 Silent Eagle with the FAST packs/conformal weapons bay! The F-15 has double the range of any F-18, old or Super.

Remember the Liberals will vow to cancel anything. Except the Gun Registry, the census....etc.....

This A/C is 4.5 GEN.-which means he would obviously not be arming Canadians with the best possible equipment! Jack Layton would shit his pants over that one. Also have you looked at the price tag of a typhoon? F-15SE? Rafale? There is no winning when it comes to buying Multi-Role fighter jets . Same political shit when CF-18 was purchased.

The world is the most stable and safest it's ever been.

Actually you are dead wrong. Since the end of the cold war it has been much more unstable as 2 super powers have been replaced by many wannabes and other regional conflicts. Nuclear armagedon no but world wide instability yes. We cannot predict what will happen inthe next few years so it's best to be ready.

Not to pull the fear factor thing, but honestly, has our generation fought a world war? Have we been tyrannized or conscripted? Do any of us have any idea what it is like to actually fight in a worldwide conflict like so many of our Grandparents/Parents? Have any of us had our freedoms literally stripped from us? No, we are spoiled rotten with freedoms and we take lot’s for granted. I personally would rather be well equipped before the next Hitler or whoever comes along(WW2). Do you think earlier generations could imagine a war of such devastation could become reality? Those who think otherwise go back to Bible camp.

Uhh...why don't we just get a few nukes?

When you acquire nukes, you become a target.

I dunno. If Iraq had nukes, would the U.S. have illegally invaded them?

If Obama cured Cancer would the Republicans attack him for not curing HIV? Probably…..

We need to protect our sovereignty and keep the arctic as ours and all the resources that go with it

Helian, do you honestly think that 60 jets are going to protect us from the most likely poacher of our natural resources? Give your head a shake - the Americans would roll over us in a day...

They do spend more on national defense than the other G8 combined…. So I would sure hope so. Please keep in mind we are more American than European. I do not think the quantity of jets in this country VS the states is a realistic stance to take.
Secondly, I will always listen to the men and women in uniform over the Liberal Party.

[Nark]

I'd like to know where some of you get your soapbox to stand on.

Talking about a single engine fighter like it's a Caravan. The numbers? You have no idea what the number 80, or 65 or 15 means when it comes to squadron strength.

The ability to work with allies is lost on most of you. Terms like "Force Multiplier" isn't just a slang term I would see in power-point briefs.

As far as spending money on the Vets: You won't have any if they don't have the tools to fight with, in order to win and come home.

The A and B model CF-18s are hurting. They need to be upgraded.

[modi13]

You make some very good points, we need to be ready. We where not ready before WW1 or WW2, we can not let that happen again. Becasue we where not ready Canada could not contribute anything in the 2 worls wars and had to have the USA do the fighting for US.

We should spend 100% of the federal budget on defense in order to be ready. We need to support the USA 100% to make sure we are going to have to use this improved military.

The biggest threat Canada has today is to Maybe shoot down a passenger jet sometime in the next 30 years. The Only aircraft that can do this is the F35, a F18 Super Hornet is incapable of doing this and this is why we need the F35.

Anyone who disagrees with this is a pinko commie, who want to kill Canadian troops.

no one but the Germans where ready for WW2, Saying Canada needs f35's to be ready because we where not ready for WW2 is just stupid. Calling yourself a conservative and support a non bid contract is stupid. Saying conservatives support our troops and them having then fly single engine aircraft is stupid.

When 80% of are defense budget is for 65 aircraft we don't need, I wounder where the cuts will be to pay for these aircraft. 16 billion double that like the helicopters and you get 32 billion.

The front line troops will get the cuts and end up dying for the sake of a few air force officers doing a few weekend airshows for a living. I would rather give this money to the vets who have come back and really support our troops

This is one of the reasons I don't think anyone who hsn't had military experience should be involved in making decisions that affect it; you really have no comprehension of what the CF requires. First, Canada contributed 1 million troops to the Second World War (1/12 of the total population) and by the end of it we had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world. Second, this entire argument has happened before - a century ago. No one thought Canada would have any need for a standing army, since we had the US and UK to protect us, so all we would need was a militia. Both world wars proved that idea wrong, since we couldn't even protect our own coastline from German and Japanese submarines; even shipping wasn't safe in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is well within Canadian territory. Regardless, Canada hasn't fought a war on its own soil since 1885, but our miltiary has still been extremly active, because that's what we do: we help people. The First and Second World Wars, Korean War and Gulf War were all cases of countries being invaded without justification, and in every case Canada took the side of the invaded. All of our peacekeeping operations, and even the war in Afghanistan, were about creating stability and protecting civilians. Our fighters took a very active role in the Gulf War and Kosovo, where they bombed (one could even say "struck") Serbian troops who were on the verge of committing genocide. The F-18s could have even played a much larger part in suppressing the Iraqi air force directly by engaging in air-to-air combat, and the fact that they didn't doesn't mean that having fighters is unneccessary. For those of you who think that the military has no value whatsoever because of the strength of our allies, or that we wouldn't stand a chance if we were invaded, perhaps you should look at the lessons of the last century. If you haven't tried shooting a rifle that's twenty years old and so worn out that it's entirely inaccurate, or tried to stay warm in a jacket that's been through three tours in the Balkans, you're in no position to be telling our soldiers, sailors and airmen what equipment they should be using. On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35; it's the only plane available that will meet their requirements for the next three or four decades. And I'm sure the CF's top brass has a much better understanding of potential conflicts and the future of our military requirements than anyone posting on this board.

[shitdisturber]

In reality I think the best aircraft for Canada would be the F-22 they just cost too damn much.

Whether it's better or not is a moot point, the F-22 isn't for sale to anybody outside the US border.

[Mrs.Robinson]

. On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35; it's the only plane available that will meet their requirements for the next three or four decades. And I'm sure the CF's top brass has a much better understanding of potential conflicts and the future of our military requirements than anyone posting on this board.

Send me a link to back this up I have seen a poll that shows that our fighter pilots say " our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35". I have 2 friends who fly f18 and they think the f-35 is a bad decision.

Send me a link to this information or your just making things up. Our CF could a should use this money in other equipment and mission (this is my option not making things up). We need a new front line fighter but I think a more cost effective option could be found.

[Mrs.Robinson]

I'd like to know where some of you get your soapbox to stand on.

Talking about a single engine fighter like it's a Caravan. The numbers? You have no idea what the number 80, or 65 or 15 means when it comes to squadron strength.

The ability to work with allies is lost on most of you. Terms like "Force Multiplier" isn't just a slang term I would see in power-point briefs.

As far as spending money on the Vets: You won't have any if they don't have the tools to fight with, in order to win and come home.

The A and B model CF-18s are hurting. They need to be upgraded.

I would rather have an engine failure in a caravan over the arctic any day then in a f35.

In a caravan I could glide to landing, once on the ground I would have shelter and supplies. In the best case scenario, I would have shelter, supplies, and a radio.

An f35 with an engine out would be. Eject, freeze your nuts on the way down. Once down if your not dead you would require first aid, you would be alone, have no shelter and die is not rescued within an hour.

I would chose an engine failure in a caravan any day of the week for me.

I'm sure you have some statistic that says 100% of our fighter pilots think this risk is worth it. Then again Peter MacKay did say that the engine will not fail

[Nark]

yadda yadda...

You are trying to compare a tac air asset to something you might have flown as a civilian. I'm sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on with that.

The mission type and logistics are things that decide what is the best platform required. Not what some anonymous person on the internet thinks. And especially what a Liberal thinks.

[modi13]

Send me a link to back this up I have seen a poll that shows that our fighter pilots say " our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35". I have 2 friends who fly f18 and they think the f-35 is a bad decision.

Send me a link to this information or your just making things up. Our CF could a should use this money in other equipment and mission (this is my option not making things up). We need a new front line fighter but I think a more cost effective option could be found.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1626565799 It's an entire interview with the wing commander from CFB Cold Lake about how the F-35 is the right aircraft for our military. Also, from Global News: "Air force chief Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told the House of Commons defence committee that Russia is already building a "fifth-generation" fighter — which is what the F-35 is — and that China is expected to build one too. If the planned purchase is cancelled, he told MPs, Canada's air force would become "irrelevant" for defence missions with the United States and other countries in the NATO military alliance, many of whom are also buying the Lockheed-Martin aircraft." If the poll said that the pilots "want and need the F-35" doesn't that confirm what I said?
As for it having only one engine, 26 air forces either have or had F-16s, which are single-engined, and I've been able to find only one confirmed case of an accident caused by an engine failure. The USAF has been operating them in Alaska since the 70s or 80s without any of their pilots dying in the wilderness after an engine failure. The F-35's engineering is 30 years more advanced than that, and the chances of having an engine shut down are significantly smaller. Not only that, but do you think our pilots don't have any survival equipment? Do you think they go on missions to the Arctic in Bermuda shorts? I'm sure you could set a Caravan down on a rocky hill like it was a paved runway and set up a nice little camp while the fighter pilot would slam to the ground at terminal velocity sans parachute.
We've already tried using "cost effective" equipment in the military; see the Ross rifle. Buying from the lowest bidder always means that the product will be of inferior quality, and the military is somewhere that we shouldn't skimp. Much more importantly, and this is the point I've been trying to get across, THERE IS NO OTHER FIGHTER AVAILABLE THAT'S IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS THE F-35. The other aircraft that are available are made of technology that's already a decade old, and doesn't come near the capabilities of the F-35. There is no other aircraft that is as advanced or will last as long. Anything else we purchase will be a step sideways from the F-18, and we'll soon find ourselves outdated and outclassed. Just because it's an expensive purchase doesn't mean it should never be made; on the contrary, if we wait another two decades before upgrading to a fifth-generation fighter it will cost us far more in the long run. And the $16 billion to be spent on the program won't be spent all at once, so there won't be cuts to other areas of the military; it will be paid out as the aircraft are delivered, and $6 billion of that cost is for a long-term maintenance program, meaning the money will be spent over the period of the contract.

[Mrs.Robinson]

Send me a link to back this up I have seen a poll that shows that our fighter pilots say " our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35". I have 2 friends who fly f18 and they think the f-35 is a bad decision.

Send me a link to this information or your just making things up. Our CF could a should use this money in other equipment and mission (this is my option not making things up). We need a new front line fighter but I think a more cost effective option could be found.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1626565799 It's an entire interview with the wing commander from CFB Cold Lake about how the F-35 is the right aircraft for our military. Also, from Global News: "Air force chief Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told the House of Commons defence committee that Russia is already building a "fifth-generation" fighter — which is what the F-35 is — and that China is expected to build one too. If the planned purchase is cancelled, he told MPs, Canada's air force would become "irrelevant" for defence missions with the United States and other countries in the NATO military alliance, many of whom are also buying the Lockheed-Martin aircraft." If the poll said that the pilots "want and need the F-35" doesn't that confirm what I said?
As for it having only one engine, 26 air forces either have or had F-16s, which are single-engined, and I've been able to find only one confirmed case of an accident caused by an engine failure. The USAF has been operating them in Alaska since the 70s or 80s without any of their pilots dying in the wilderness after an engine failure. The F-35's engineering is 30 years more advanced than that, and the chances of having an engine shut down are significantly smaller. Not only that, but do you think our pilots don't have any survival equipment? Do you think they go on missions to the Arctic in Bermuda shorts? I'm sure you could set a Caravan down on a rocky hill like it was a paved runway and set up a nice little camp while the fighter pilot would slam to the ground at terminal velocity sans parachute.
We've already tried using "cost effective" equipment in the military; see the Ross rifle. Buying from the lowest bidder always means that the product will be of inferior quality, and the military is somewhere that we shouldn't skimp. Much more importantly, and this is the point I've been trying to get across, THERE IS NO OTHER FIGHTER AVAILABLE THAT'S IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS THE F-35. The other aircraft that are available are made of technology that's already a decade old, and doesn't come near the capabilities of the F-35. There is no other aircraft that is as advanced or will last as long. Anything else we purchase will be a step sideways from the F-18, and we'll soon find ourselves outdated and outclassed. Just because it's an expensive purchase doesn't mean it should never be made; on the contrary, if we wait another two decades before upgrading to a fifth-generation fighter it will cost us far more in the long run. And the $16 billion to be spent on the program won't be spent all at once, so there won't be cuts to other areas of the military; it will be paid out as the aircraft are delivered, and $6 billion of that cost is for a long-term maintenance program, meaning the money will be spent over the period of the contract.

Show me the poll that says OUR pilot WANT and NEED the F35, I could not find the link.

[modi13]

Show me the poll that says OUR pilot WANT and NEED the F35, I could not find the link.

You're the one who said you had it:

I have seen a poll that shows that our fighter pilots say " our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35".

[Mrs.Robinson]

On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35.

you said it not me

I messed up in my quote, again show me the info.

I have 2 friends who fly f-18 and they think the f35 is bad decision. It would be very unscientific for me to conclude that 100% of Canadian fighter pilot do not want the f35. In fact it would make me full of shit to conclude that.


You made a statement, can you back it up.

[modi13]

On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35.

you said it not me

I messed up in my quote, again show me the info.

I have 2 friends who fly f-18 and they think the f35 is bad decision. It would be very unscientific for me to conclude that 100% of Canadian fighter pilot do not want the f35. In fact it would make me full of shit to conclude that.


You made a statement, can you back it up.

I didn't make the claim to have that poll, so I can't show you that, but on top of what I posted above: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/16/one- ... love-them/ ; http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/defence-09-08-2010 "On Aug. 31, Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps said the planned purchase is due to the F-35's stealth capability, so that Canadian pilots can sneak up on enemies. He told the Globe and Mail that stealth is a "deterrent" since knowledge of such capability would alter an enemy's strategy."; and I personally know more than half a dozen Canadian Forces pilots who all want the F-35, not to mention all the other members of the CF I served with who think it's the best choice.

[Mrs.Robinson]

On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35.

you said it not me

I messed up in my quote, again show me the info.

I have 2 friends who fly f-18 and they think the f35 is bad decision. It would be very unscientific for me to conclude that 100% of Canadian fighter pilot do not want the f35. In fact it would make me full of shit to conclude that.


You made a statement, can you back it up.

I didn't make the claim to have that poll, so I can't show you that, but on top of what I posted above: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/16/one- ... love-them/ ; http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/defence-09-08-2010 "On Aug. 31, Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps said the planned purchase is due to the F-35's stealth capability, so that Canadian pilots can sneak up on enemies. He told the Globe and Mail that stealth is a "deterrent" since knowledge of such capability would alter an enemy's strategy."; and I personally know more than half a dozen Canadian Forces pilots who all want the F-35, not to mention all the other members of the CF I served with who think it's the best choice.

How many pilot in the air force? I'm guessing 500 I could be wrong, How many are fighter pilots? I'm guessing 100

lets define more the half a dozen. i thinking it would have to be a number between 7 and 11.

How can you make the statement. "our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35" based on another persons statement who says he know 5 to 11 pilots want these aircraft.

There was not even a mention if they where fighter pilots or not.


I guess facts don't matter to conservatives it all spin and lies. We must attack Iraq or else we will have a mushroom cloud. Because of these lies Canadian Soldiers have died in Afghanistan. Had there not been a diversion of the Iraq war Afghanistan may have succeeded. Because of those Conservative lies Many more Canadians soldiers have died for a War that will be lost.

I don't care what anyone wants in the DND, The Government makes the decisions and we elect the Government. If A government is elected on a platform to disband the military, then that is what the voters wanted.

I'm stuck with Harper's decisions, as he is the government. If this get voted down in the house of commons (i'm not even sure if this can be voted on) then thats what the people wanted.

[modi13]

How many pilot in the air force? I'm guessing 500 I could be wrong, How many are fighter pilots? I'm guessing 100

lets define more the half a dozen. i thinking it would have to be a number between 7 and 11.

How can you make the statement. "our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35" based on another persons statement who says he know 5 to 11 pilots want these aircraft.

There was not even a mention if they where fighter pilots or not.


I guess facts don't matter to conservatives it all spin and lies. We must attach Iraq or else we will have a mushroom cloud. Because of these lies Canadian Solders died in Afghanistan. Had there not been a diversion of the Iraq war Afghanistan may have succeeded. Because of those Conservative lies Many more Canadians soldiers have died for a War that will be lost.

I don't care what anyone wants in the DND, The Government makes the decisions and we elect the Government. If A government is elected on a platform to disband the military, then that is what the voters wanted. I'm stuck with Harper's decisions, as he is the government. If this get voted down in the house of commons (i'm not even sure if this can be voted on) then thats what the people wanted.

Edited. How can you criticize me for basing my perspective of what our pilots want on the opinions of nine or ten pilots, several of whom are fighter pilots, when you're doing the same thing with only two? I provided the sources you asked for, I gave you the information you wanted, and you've ignored all the facts I provided, you hypocrite. I'm not a conservative; I've always voted Liberal. Don't make strawman arguments if you know nothing about me. The purchase of F-35s has nothing to do with the Iraq War, in which we weren't even involved. You haven't provided a single reason not to buy them that's stood up to scrutiny; you've ignored every rational argument that's been presented and plowed ahead as though your opinion is the only one that matters. You know nothing about the military or what it requires to maintain its position as the most capable fighting, peacekeeping and humanitarian force in the world.

[Mrs.Robinson]

You make some very good points, we need to be ready. We where not ready before WW1 or WW2, we can not let that happen again. Becasue we where not ready Canada could not contribute anything in the 2 worls wars and had to have the USA do the fighting for US.

We should spend 100% of the federal budget on defense in order to be ready. We need to support the USA 100% to make sure we are going to have to use this improved military.

The biggest threat Canada has today is to Maybe shoot down a passenger jet sometime in the next 30 years. The Only aircraft that can do this is the F35, a F18 Super Hornet is incapable of doing this and this is why we need the F35.

Anyone who disagrees with this is a pinko commie, who want to kill Canadian troops.

no one but the Germans where ready for WW2, Saying Canada needs f35's to be ready because we where not ready for WW2 is just stupid. Calling yourself a conservative and support a non bid contract is stupid. Saying conservatives support our troops and them having then fly single engine aircraft is stupid.

When 80% of are defense budget is for 65 aircraft we don't need, I wounder where the cuts will be to pay for these aircraft. 16 billion double that like the helicopters and you get 32 billion.

The front line troops will get the cuts and end up dying for the sake of a few air force officers doing a few weekend airshows for a living. I would rather give this money to the vets who have come back and really support our troops

This is one of the reasons I don't think anyone who hsn't had military experience should be involved in making decisions that affect it; you really have no comprehension of what the CF requires. First, Canada contributed 1 million troops to the Second World War (1/12 of the total population) and by the end of it we had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world. Second, this entire argument has happened before - a century ago. No one thought Canada would have any need for a standing army, since we had the US and UK to protect us, so all we would need was a militia. Both world wars proved that idea wrong, since we couldn't even protect our own coastline from German and Japanese submarines; even shipping wasn't safe in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is well within Canadian territory. Regardless, Canada hasn't fought a war on its own soil since 1885, but our miltiary has still been extremly active, because that's what we do: we help people. The First and Second World Wars, Korean War and Gulf War were all cases of countries being invaded without justification, and in every case Canada took the side of the invaded. All of our peacekeeping operations, and even the war in Afghanistan, were about creating stability and protecting civilians. Our fighters took a very active role in the Gulf War and Kosovo, where they bombed (one could even say "struck") Serbian troops who were on the verge of committing genocide. The F-18s could have even played a much larger part in suppressing the Iraqi air force directly by engaging in air-to-air combat, and the fact that they didn't doesn't mean that having fighters is unneccessary. For those of you who think that the military has no value whatsoever because of the strength of our allies, or that we wouldn't stand a chance if we were invaded, perhaps you should look at the lessons of the last century. If you haven't tried shooting a rifle that's twenty years old and so worn out that it's entirely inaccurate, or tried to stay warm in a jacket that's been through three tours in the Balkans, you're in no position to be telling our soldiers, sailors and airmen what equipment they should be using. On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35; it's the only plane available that will meet their requirements for the next three or four decades. And I'm sure the CF's top brass has a much better understanding of potential conflicts and the future of our military requirements than anyone posting on this board.

read the 3rd to last line


look what you wrote




page 3, 3rd post, 3 to last line read it

If this was not you then I'm sorry I must be drunk

[modi13]

read the 3rd to last line


look what you wrote




page 3, 3rd post, 3 to last line read it

If this was not you then I'm sorry I must be drunk

You're absolutely right, and I apologize; I was going by where you said that you had a poll that made that claim. It doesn't change the fact that you're entirely wrong, a hypocrite, and in no position to decide whether we need the F-35 though.

[Mrs.Robinson]

You haven't provided a single reason not to buy them that's stood up to scrutiny;

16 billion or 32 billion if it's done like the helicopters that we bought. Another 20 billion for a midlife upgrade.



we bought 138 cf18's and we are going to get 65 f35s


Do you see something wrong here? in 20 years we will have 20 F35's left and have to buy a newer better aircraft anyways.

[modi13]

16 billion or 32 billion if it's done like the helicopters that we bought. Another 20 billion for a midlife upgrade.



we bought 138 cf18's and we are going to get 65 f35s


Do you see something wrong here? in 20 years we will have 20 F35's left and have to buy a newer better aircraft anyways.

What's your basis for making this claim? Where's your evidence that there will be cost overruns, that there will be a $20 billion upgrade or that the aircraft will all be destroyed? First, we have 103 F-18s left, not 80; 80 are in operational use. Second, the F-18s are 1970s technology, so assuming that the F-35s will become inoperable at the same rate is idiotic. In fact, that's a much better argument for buying a new aircraft: if older aircraft break down at a faster rate, why would we get something designed in the 90s like Super Hornets or Eurofighters? They'll be out of service even faster than the F-35s. Oh, and the contracts for the CH-148 were signed by the Liberal government, and, even though it was an open competition the costs skyrocketed and deliveries were delayed; it has nothing to do with the party that controls Parliament or whether we open the contract for bidding. We need the most capable aircraft we can get, and problems can arise regardless of what it is or who makes it.
Please ensure that you read my previous posts where I explained that the money won't all be spent at once, that 1/3 of it is for long-term maintenance and therefore won't double in cost, and why buying cheap equipment absolutely isn't the best thing for the military. Please refrain from repeating the same arguments which have already been addressed.

[Mrs.Robinson]

16 billion or 32 billion if it's done like the helicopters that we bought. Another 20 billion for a midlife upgrade.



we bought 138 cf18's and we are going to get 65 f35s


Do you see something wrong here? in 20 years we will have 20 F35's left and have to buy a newer better aircraft anyways.

What's your basis for making this claim? Where's your evidence that there will be cost overruns, that there will be a $20 billion upgrade or that the aircraft will all be destroyed? First, we have 103 F-18s left, not 80; 80 are in operational use. Second, the F-18s are 1970s technology, so assuming that the F-35s will become inoperable at the same rate is idiotic. In fact, that's a much better argument for buying a new aircraft: if older aircraft break down at a faster rate, why would we get something designed in the 90s like Super Hornets or Eurofighters? They'll be out of service even faster than the F-35s.
Please ensure that you read my previous posts where I explained that the money won't all be spent at once, that 1/3 of it is for long-term maintenance and therefore won't double in cost, and why buying cheap equipment absolutely isn't the best thing for the military. Please refrain from repeating the same arguments which have already been addressed.

I 'm basing cost from http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... s-red-flag
Sheila Fraser does that name ring a bell..


Where did I say we have 80 f 18's ? What are you talking about
How many f'18 got the Bombardier upgrade?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29881713/
pilot died in a f22 crash. How is that possible for a modern aircraft to crash


Your entire argument is based on your opinion

" In fact, that's a much better argument for buying a new aircraft: if older aircraft break down at a faster rate, why would we get something designed in the 90s like Super Hornets or Eurofighters"

I bet with increased complexity downtime will greatly increase for newer fighters again I'm pulling this out of my a$$.

If I where to say the V2 osprey must have great dispatch reliability and never crash because it so new and modern, then I would be full of shit.


You know as much as I do, but if we do get these Aircraft I hope I am wrong and that the costs don't go much more then 16 billion and that none crash.

[modi13]

I 'm basing cost from http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... s-red-flag
Sheila Fraser does that name ring a bell..


Where did I say we have 80 f 18's ? What are you talking about
How many f'18 got the Bombardier upgrade?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29881713/
pilot died in a f22 crash. How is that possible for a modern aircraft to crash


Your entire argument is based on your opinion

" In fact, that's a much better argument for buying a new aircraft: if older aircraft break down at a faster rate, why would we get something designed in the 90s like Super Hornets or Eurofighters"

I bet with increased complexity downtime will greatly increase for newer fighters again I'm pulling this out of my a$$.

If I where to say the V2 osprey must have great dispatch reliability and never crash because it so new and modern, then I would be full of shit.


You know as much as I do, but if we do get these Aircraft I hope I am wrong and that the costs don't go much more then 16 billion and that none crash.

The Star article doesn't say anything about the F-35 purchase doubling in cost, it says there could be "implications". If you'll note from my previous post, the CH-148 contract was signed by the Liberals after a bidding process, and it's still over budget; it doesn't matter what aircraft we order or how we choose it, if the manufacturer can't deliver it on time it's going to raise costs.
You specifically criticized the F-35 for being a single-engined aircraft, so pointing out that an F-22 crashed from an issue unrelated to its engines is irrelevant. I didn't say that new aircraft couldn't crash, so this is just another strawman. Every generation of aircraft, military or civilian, incorporates technology which enhances safety and reduces the number of accidents. As you specifically addressed the F-35 only having one engine, I was specifically addressing the fact that the F-35 has far enhanced turbofan engineering than Fourth Generation fighters; if a control cable is installed incorrectly or software is corrupted, it won't matter what type of aircraft it occurs on, it will still crash. As for complexity increasing downtime, the examples of the Boeing 777 and Airbus A330 demonstrate that modern aircraft are far more efficient and have a nearly impeccable safety record compared to earlier types.

[North Shore]

^ K, I get it now...one of you guys works for AC, the other JAZZ - good thing no-one's mentioned scope clauses yet!

[Mrs.Robinson]

You specifically criticized the F-35 for being a single-engined aircraft, so pointing out that an F-22 crashed from an issue unrelated to its engines is irrelevant. I didn't say that new aircraft couldn't crash, so this is just another strawman.

"First, we have 103 F-18s left, not 80; 80 are in operational use. Second, the F-18s are 1970s technology, so assuming that the F-35s will become inoperable at the same rate is idiotic"

Assuming F-35's will not become inoperable at the same rate is idiotic again. Stuff happens and I don't think 65 will be enough for a 40 year life of the program. After 30 years we have 103 f-18's from 138 a loss of 35. or you can say 138-80 (which have the upgrades for modern combat) loss of 58

What will 7 f35 do for us in 30 years from now? Well it will not, we will buy another aircraft to replace it

Comparing modern airliners to military aircraft is a terrible analogy. first most modern airliners airframes are based on the same technology as 20 years ago, A 737 NG is more or less then same as an older one but has upgraded avionics and engines. When a commercially airliner is designed they three main considerations are 1. dispatch reliability, economics and safety.


When a military aircraft is built it has one priority , Mission parameters. Can is do the mission so required of it. Every thing else is built around this. This is why the V2 failed, it failed because safety was an after thought. I guess old reliably Russian migs are 6th generation fighters as they require less maintenance then newer ones.

Why did you think military jets have ejection seats? Because they have comprised safety so much that it is needed.

[short bus]

Why did you think military jets have ejection seats? Because they have comprised safety so much that it is needed.

Do you actually believe this crap you're spewing?

[modi13]

"First, we have 103 F-18s left, not 80; 80 are in operational use. Second, the F-18s are 1970s technology, so assuming that the F-35s will become inoperable at the same rate is idiotic"

Assuming F-35's will not become inoperable at the same rate is idiotic again. Stuff happens and I don't think 65 will be enough for a 40 year life of the program. After 30 years we have 103 f-18's from 138 a loss of 35. or you can say 138-80 (which have the upgrades for modern combat) loss of 58

What will 7 f35 do for us in 30 years from now? Well it will not, we will buy another aircraft to replace it

Comparing modern airliners to military aircraft is a terrible analogy. first most modern airliners airframes are based on the same technology as 20 years ago, A 737 NG is more or less then same as an older one but has upgraded avionics and engines. When a commercially airliner is designed they three main considerations are 1. dispatch reliability, economics and safety.


When a military aircraft is built it has one priority , Mission parameters. Can is do the mission so required of it. Every thing else is built around this. This is why the V2 failed, it failed because safety was an after thought. I guess old reliably Russian migs are 6th generation fighters as they require less maintenance then newer ones.

Why did you think military jets have ejection seats? Because they have comprised safety so much that it is needed.

Do you actually think Boeing and Lockheed-Martin intend their fighters to be disposable? Compare the safety record of each generation of fighters to the one before and you'll find that fewer and fewer are crashing; the air forces of almost every country have shrunk dramatically, not just because of the end of the Cold War, but because their equipment is more reliable and capable. Engines, regardless of whether they're military or civilian, have become exponentially more reliable, as with extensions of ETOPS requirements. I didn't say anything about the 737, I said the 777 and A330, which are both modern designs using technology that's less than 30 years old.
Military jets have ejection seats because it enhances safety, not because it's expected that they're going to crash. Try putting ejection seats in an airliner's cockpit which doesn't have a canopy; if you were designing passenger aircraft would you give the pilots the option of bailing out and leaving hundreds of passengers to die?
You have nothing on which to base the assumption that we'll only have 7 F-35s after three decades of service. Here's a little math for you: 138 F-18s purchased, 103 remain. That's 75% remaining. Even using a more conservative calculation based on the number which still remain operational, it's 58%. 7 of 65 is 11%, which is simply absurd. Even if the aircraft will spend more time in maintenance, which there's no reason to believe they will, that doesn't mean that they'll have to be permanently taken out of service. On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced. The F-35 will become obsolete before it gets worn out.
"Stuff happens and I don't think 65 will be enough for a 40 year life of the program." That's why no one asked you; your uninformed opinion is irrelevant. We should leave the decision up to DND and the people who actually know the specifications and capabilities of the aircraft under consideration.

[D_Thissen]

Support our Troops! Give them what the need!

Oh and N.Korea fired shots the the South....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101029/ap_ ... s_tensions