Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project

[aviator2010]

Over worked front line troops, with no support, doing back to back tours. This is what has happened in the past and will happen again. Our weekend airshow fighter pilots will not feel much pain from these cuts but at least they will have shinny new state of the art demonstrators

which is used to recruit more troops to relieve the over worked troops in place

[Expat]

Mrs. R,

We agree on this point.
Nothing worse than having contracts cancelled and re tendered at every change of government. As a country, when we sign a deal, we should respect it.
My main point is that we did not even look at other battle proven hardware available from Europe, which are probably a lot less expensive.
Going sole-source for foreign hardware is not a very good move in asserting our sovereignty, vis-a-vis the US.
It is no fun being in a foreign country, and hearing how Canada is just another state...
Even Belarus opposes Russia more than we the US.
The prime responsibility of our Forces is to protect Canada's sovereignty, including economic independance.
When I was in the military, we had riffles from Belgium, Otto Malara guns on our ships, German tanks, dutch sonars, etc...
And P.E.T. bought Airbus to replace our old 707s!
Let's just have shrewd politicians, that can use our purchases to gain respect worldwide, and not the opposite.
If I am not mistaken, Australia is backing out of the F-35 deal...
Happy Halloween from Af!

[Expat]

Over worked front line troops, with no support, doing back to back tours. This is what has happened in the past and will happen again. Our weekend airshow fighter pilots will not feel much pain from these cuts but at least they will have shinny new state of the art demonstrators

which is used to recruit more troops to relieve the over worked troops in place

May be our new role in Af will be pipeline patrol, and we can send these guys there to do it in some small little planes...

[Shiny Side Up]

May be our new role in Af will be pipeline patrol, and we can send these guys there to do it in some small little planes...

Actually if we did have more aviation assets to send over the Afghanistan, it would certainly give us leverage so we would then be able to give our ground troops a well needed rest. Canada is currently expending its ground assets over there because, well, its the only thing when we started this that we could send and fulfil our commitments to NATO. How useful new fighter jets to such an area of operations is debateable, but the fact remains if we would have had the capability of deploying some we might then be giving our boys and girls on the ground a well needed rest. Looking to the future if we have shiny new F-35s to deploy, next time we can belly up to the NATO table and say "No, we're sending some aircraft as our commitment, your turn to pony up the soldiers."

[fish4life]

well said shiny

[Expat]

May be our new role in Af will be pipeline patrol, and we can send these guys there to do it in some small little planes...

Actually if we did have more aviation assets to send over the Afghanistan, it would certainly give us leverage so we would then be able to give our ground troops a well needed rest. Canada is currently expending its ground assets over there because, well, its the only thing when we started this that we could send and fulfil our commitments to NATO. How useful new fighter jets to such an area of operations is debateable, but the fact remains if we would have had the capability of deploying some we might then be giving our boys and girls on the ground a well needed rest. Looking to the future if we have shiny new F-35s to deploy, next time we can belly up to the NATO table and say "No, we're sending some aircraft as our commitment, your turn to pony up the soldiers."

Every country here has boots on the ground. No country is exempt from that. We could have volunteered our CF-18s. What is the difference with owning CF-35s? That would certainly not have helped our boys on the ground, whe were killed with IEDs, or ambushed in night patrols...
I do not know what the press is feeding in Canada, but one has to read the facts...

cdn

[alctel]

I kinda doubt we would send our shiny new planes overseas to run missions either. We'd be completely reliant on others for the infrastructure to run them and if one crashed or got shot down, thats a 1/60th of our air force gone. And ground troops are always going to be more important than just bombers for these kind of missions so we'd still have to send troops.

Also modi13, I have to say that I don't agree with you at all but I really appreciate you trying to explain your points in detail, since most of the time peoples arguments seem to consist of shouting nasty things about 'liberals' (of which I am not one) or yelling SUPPORT OUR TROOPS with their (proverbial) fingers in their ears, so its nice to actually have a discussion.

[trampbike]

@Mrs. Robinson,
I have the regret to inform you that you are a troll. I stopped counting the logical fallacies you used after 2 pages.
I might suggest you take some time reading this 59 pages thread about the F-35 http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/ ... 415.0.html so you have a bit more knowledge, and I also suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy (spend a bit more time on straw man) so one day you might be able to participate in a debate in a constructive way.

@Modi13, I salute your efforts. I can understand your pain...

[alctel]

@Mrs. Robinson,
I have the regret to inform you that you are a troll. I stopped counting the logical fallacies you used after 2 pages.
I might suggest you take some time reading this 59 pages thread about the F-35 http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/ ... 415.0.html so you have a bit more knowledge

I was reading that thread, and it seems to suggest that a lot of people have doubts about buying the F35 and that we were half-blackmailed into bidding on it by Lockheed-Martin so I don't know why you think it backs up your points.

Lots of interesting technical stuff in there though, and interesting information about the acquisition process so thanks for the link!

[trampbike]

My point was not about wether f35 is the good choice or not for Canada. My point was that the way Mrs. Robinson "argues" guarrantees that whatever he says will not be valid

[Mrs.Robinson]

My point was not about wether f35 is the good choice or not for Canada. My point was that the way Mrs. Robinson "argues" guarrantees that whatever he says will not be valid

name me one thing that I said that was not valid? Can you back it up with fact.

[Mrs.Robinson]

On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced.

Can you or anyone here back this up?

If you statement is correct an f35 will remain airworthy if it flys 20 hours a day for 40 years pulling 9 G's the entire time as long as it has regular maintenance

If you don't link my analogy then stop making things up.

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

Interesting indeed, those useless CF18s which many demote through this thread happened to carry out yet another intercept over Canadian Airspace. Oh how the liberals look like idiots today! Just give it a few days though and the Ignatieff loyalist- conspiracy theorists will display their true colors

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/29/no ... rt/?hpt=T1

I still am amused how people have the nerve to state that Canada should:

a) Adopt a platform that is obsolete as opposed to one which is state of the art

b) Use the threats we face in Afghanistan (IEDs etc) , as some sort of concrete fact against the purchase of a new fighter aircraft. (Would be nice for people to pull their head out of one’s ass, and actually understand the difference between air superiority, land forces, and naval forces.) We are a G8 nation, and the fairy tale peacekeeper shit really has to stop. I think the best medicine here for the trolls is to crack open the Canadian Military History books, rather get some psychiatric help to help restore some common sense.

What fully developed nation does not have a ready-able Military? I would rather piss money away with the DND as opposed to the modern day First Nations agenda.

[alctel]

Interesting indeed, those useless CF18s which many demote through this thread happened to carry out yet another intercept over Canadian Airspace. Oh how the liberals look like idiots today! Just give it a few days though and the Ignatieff loyalist- conspiracy theorists will display their true colors

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/29/no ... rt/?hpt=T1

I still am amused how people have the nerve to state that Canada should:

a) Adopt a platform that is obsolete as opposed to one which is state of the art

b) Use the threats we face in Afghanistan (IEDs etc) , as some sort of concrete fact against the purchase of a new fighter aircraft. (Would be nice for people to pull their head out of one’s ass, and actually understand the difference between air superiority, land forces, and naval forces.) We are a G8 nation, and the fairy tale peacekeeper shit really has to stop. I think the best medicine here for the trolls is to crack open the Canadian Military History books, rather get some psychiatric help to help restore some common sense.

What fully developed nation does not have a ready-able Military? I would rather piss money away with the DND as opposed to the modern day First Nations agenda.

I don't really see what your point is here, since half of this reads like a Sun/Tory op-ed but I'll try to make sense of it.

The jets carried out an intercept on an airliner - something they managed perfectly fine, despite being 'useless' as you put it. This really doesn't seem a reason to buy the F35 since virtually any fighter aircraft made in the last 50 years could do this just as well. I don't understand the next bit about people looking idiots or conspiracy theorists so I'll pass on that.

What do you mean by 'obsolete'? No-one is saying we should buy a bunch of Sabres or Meteors or something like that. People are questioning sole-sourcing an extremely expensive stealth fighter/bomber as our only jet aircraft when its main use will be defending sovereignty/intercepts, often over some of the most extreme terrain on earth.

People are bringing up Afghanistan because it's the kind of war that is by far the most likely we will face in the future. Having a few expensive fighter/bombers will not do anything to help the guys on the ground and probably won't even be deployed over there. As to looking up history - if you are trying to compare the world today to pre-WWI or WWII then you should do some reading yourself! Again, I am not really sure what you mean by 'restoring common sense' so I'll skip that part.

As to your last point - if you want to see what happens to a country when they spend half their GDP on their military-industrial complex and virtually nothing on social services, just look south of the border. Extremely high crime rate, 1 in 10 kids on food stamps and wildly out of control (and untouchable) contracting and military waste.

[Mrs.Robinson]

Interesting indeed, those useless CF18s which many demote through this thread happened to carry out yet another intercept over Canadian Airspace. Oh how the liberals look like idiots today! Just give it a few days though and the Ignatieff loyalist- conspiracy theorists will display their true colors

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/29/no ... rt/?hpt=T1

I still am amused how people have the nerve to state that Canada should:

a) Adopt a platform that is obsolete as opposed to one which is state of the art

b) Use the threats we face in Afghanistan (IEDs etc) , as some sort of concrete fact against the purchase of a new fighter aircraft. (Would be nice for people to pull their head out of one’s ass, and actually understand the difference between air superiority, land forces, and naval forces.) We are a G8 nation, and the fairy tale peacekeeper shit really has to stop. I think the best medicine here for the trolls is to crack open the Canadian Military History books, rather get some psychiatric help to help restore some common sense.

What fully developed nation does not have a ready-able Military? I would rather piss money away with the DND as opposed to the modern day First Nations agenda.

I don't really see what your point is here, since half of this reads like a Sun/Tory op-ed but I'll try to make sense of it.

The jets carried out an intercept on an airliner - something they managed perfectly fine, despite being 'useless' as you put it. This really doesn't seem a reason to buy the F35 since virtually any fighter aircraft made in the last 50 years could do this just as well. I don't understand the next bit about people looking idiots or conspiracy theorists so I'll pass on that.

What do you mean by 'obsolete'? No-one is saying we should buy a bunch of Sabres or Meteors or something like that. People are questioning sole-sourcing an extremely expensive stealth fighter/bomber as our only jet aircraft when its main use will be defending sovereignty/intercepts, often over some of the most extreme terrain on earth.

People are bringing up Afghanistan because it's the kind of war that is by far the most likely we will face in the future. Having a few expensive fighter/bombers will not do anything to help the guys on the ground and probably won't even be deployed over there. As to looking up history - if you are trying to compare the world today to pre-WWI or WWII then you should do some reading yourself! Again, I am not really sure what you mean by 'restoring common sense' so I'll skip that part.

As to your last point - if you want to see what happens to a country when they spend half their GDP on their military-industrial complex and virtually nothing on social services, just look south of the border. Extremely high crime rate, 1 in 10 kids on food stamps and wildly out of control (and untouchable) contracting and military waste.

I could not write it any better. As soon as you question the f 35, you are attacked with the following you don't support our troops, DND knows best, We need this for NATO integration (even though most of NATO will not have the f 35).

Nothing is wrong with a competitive bid, If the f35 wins we might get the aircraft on better financial terms, Might get 70 for the price of 65.

In my opinion the C17 was a great decision as it support out troops. We should invest in what Canada does most with it's CF's, that is troops on the ground. I'm sure a Gen 4.5 Fighter with longer legs would be more beneficial and if I'm wrong let the f35 win the competition in a competitive bid.

[Shiny Side Up]

Every country here has boots on the ground. No country is exempt from that. We could have volunteered our CF-18s. What is the difference with owning CF-35s? That would certainly not have helped our boys on the ground, whe were killed with IEDs, or ambushed in night patrols...
I do not know what the press is feeding in Canada, but one has to read the facts...

Never said that everyone else didn't have boots on the ground, also never said having F-35 would help right now. The F-35s are for the future.

I've had how NATO works explained to me once as such. NATO is like a group of old women who like to throw a pot-luck dinner. Depending on the dinner, it will need a certain number of the old gals to do jobs - they can pick and choose which jobs they'd like to do, but when they're turn comes to cook they have to pitch in. Right now Canada can't cook, we can only wash dishes, So whenever our time comes to pitch in, guess what we get to do. Not to say that we don't wash dishes well, even if we have to get one of the other old ladies to give us a ride because we don't have our own car. Guess what we trade for the car ride? Maybe we help Mrs. Germany's turn to wash dishes. We could volunteer to bring potato salad sometime, but last time we did that we had to get Mrs. America to drop it off for us. See where this is going?

Enough with that analogy. I know some of those "boots on the ground" we've had to borrow everything from Land transport to helicopters since Canada has made its commitment to Afghanistan. They're wearing out, they're getting tired of washing dishes because all Canada can supply to her Allies right now is warm bodies. Don't kid yourself when you might think that we could have sent the F-18s over there - that would have required Canada yet again borrowing an Ally's assets and we're tapped out on our dish washing schedule. We're viewed slightly above the nations who send their soldiers on UN missions hoping the richer countries will kit them out when they go. I think we can do better than that. F-35s aren't going to save one of our boots on the ground from a night ambush or an IED. They're deffinitely going to give us some pull when it comes to the next time we have to send the boys and girls into a bad place in the world - especially over the other old ladies at the table who maybe didn't buy any jello salad. Maybe I'm not finished with that analogy - guess who we bought the Jello salad from - Mrs. America - the loudest voice in that group.

[modi13]

If you statement is correct an f35 will remain airworthy if it flys 20 hours a day for 40 years pulling 9 G's the entire time as long as it has regular maintenance

...

When has this ever been a requirement for any aircraft? I never said it would be able to do this, and you can't just make up arbitrary requirements. The F-35 is more capable than Gen. 4 fighters, but that doesn't mean it can handle absurd, completely unrealistic loads. That's like refusing to buy a new car because it can't pull a train 20 hours a day for 40 years. Once again you've made a ridiculous strawman argument and declared yourself the winner because supporters of the F-35 program don't meet your particular, completely idiotic demands.
As for an aircraft remaining airworthy indefinitely: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... -life.html second answer: "That's technically true of every aircraft! Any ac fully maintained could have fatigued components replaced with new ones, allowing the ac to continue flying safely. It is possible to replicate and replace any ac component (apart from the original crew!). Now, whether it is finacially vaible to do so is another story, when you reach the point of lathing individual items to order etc, the cost of the maintenance will outweigh the value of the ac." and http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 509AAwegcw second answer: "An airplane can remain airworthy indefinitely as long as it's properly maintained. As it gets older, more and more maintenance is required, and at some point the owner usually decides that it's cheaper to buy a new aircraft rather than continue to maintain the old. However, an owner who is determined to fly an airplane forever can theoretically do so if he can afford the maintenance. Eventually very major parts of the aircraft have to be replaced, and ultimately the aircraft is practically rebuilt.

Pressurized aircraft often have a useful lifetime measured in cycles, with each cycle being a pressurization followed by a depressurization. Pressurization stresses a large part of the airframe, so once a certain number of cycles has been reached, a major overhaul is required to keep the aircraft airworthy, although anything is possible if the price is right.

Airliners are inspected and maintained in an escalating series of checks, ranging from very simple, frequent maintenance that might only require an hour, to very extensive maintenance that might take weeks and nearly represents a complete rebuild of certain parts of the aircraft.

If your car were as well maintained as an airliner, you'd be able to buy just one car and drive it for the rest of your life, and it would never have so much as a flat tire. And you'd be able to trace every part of the car all the way back to the factory that made it."

[Mrs.Robinson]

If you statement is correct an f35 will remain airworthy if it flys 20 hours a day for 40 years pulling 9 G's the entire time as long as it has regular maintenance

...

When has this ever been a requirement for any aircraft? I never said it would be able to do this, and you can't just make up arbitrary requirements. The F-35 is more capable than Gen. 4 fighters, but that doesn't mean it can handle absurd, completely unrealistic loads. "

So know the f35 can't pull 9 g's, even more reason not to get it


You said

"On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced."

In the English language that means it can last forever or at least 20 hours a day at 9 g's for 40 years.

You stated it lasts forever (On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced.)

Now you tell me the f35 can't do 9 g's


I have one question. Do you make up everything you say?

You where denying something you wrote yesterday even after I quoted yourself 3 times. I know fact and logic confuse you.

[alctel]

Let's leave the personal attacks out of this hey?

[modi13]

So know the f35 can't pull 9 g's, even more reason not to get it


You said

"On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced."

In the English language that means it can last forever or at least 20 hours a day at 9 g's for 40 years.

You stated it lasts forever (On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced.)

Now you tell me the f35 can't do 9 g's


I have one question. Do you make up everything you say?

You where denying something you wrote yesterday even after I quoted yourself 3 times. I know fact and logic confuse you.

WHAT?!?!?!?! Are you mentally handicapped? At what point did I say that the F-35 can't pull 9 Gs? A load isn't just force, it's force over time, and pulling 9 Gs over 20 hours is a significant load. And how could you possibly extrapolate "it can last forever or at least 20 hours a day at 9 g's for 40 years" from "modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced"? How long an aircraft can last says nothing about what loads it has to handle. 737s can be maintained indefinitely; does that mean they have to be able to pull 9 Gs 20 hours a day for 40 years? Nothing you say makes any logical sense.
I corrected myself and apologized for my mistake. If you're still on that then you're an immature imbecile, and I have no problem bringing up the post you made that angered me in the first place: according to you, Canada didn't contribute anything to the Second World War. I know a few vets who are selling poppies for Remembrance Day who would take issue with that stupidity.

[Mrs.Robinson]

So know the f35 can't pull 9 g's, even more reason not to get it


You said

"On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced."

In the English language that means it can last forever or at least 20 hours a day at 9 g's for 40 years.

You stated it lasts forever (On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced.)

Now you tell me the f35 can't do 9 g's


I have one question. Do you make up everything you say?

You where denying something you wrote yesterday even after I quoted yourself 3 times. I know fact and logic confuse you.

WHAT?!?!?!?! Are you mentally handicapped? At what point did I say that the F-35 can't pull 9 Gs? A load isn't just force, it's force over time, and pulling 9 Gs over 20 hours is a significant load. And how could you possibly extrapolate "it can last forever or at least 20 hours a day at 9 g's for 40 years" from "modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced"? How long an aircraft can last says nothing about what loads it has to handle. 737s can be maintained indefinitely; does that mean they have to be able to pull 9 Gs 20 hours a day for 40 years? Nothing you say makes any logical sense.
I corrected myself and apologized for my mistake. If you're still on that then you're an immature imbecile, and I have no problem bringing up the post you made that angered me in the first place: according to you, Canada didn't contribute anything to the Second World War. I know a few vets who are selling poppies for Remembrance Day who would take issue with that stupidity.

Can you give me the unit for this so called Load that is not the only load?

I always thought a force was M* A or kg*m/s^2

So this new unit is (kg*m/s^2)/s



How long this aircraft will last is not know by anyone as it has not even entered service (to my knowledge), but you claim to know all about it.

[modi13]

G force is caused by acceleration, that being either a change in velocity or a change in direction, and acceleration is a function of time. One cannot apply Gs to an aircraft by simply flying straight and level, one must accelerate it in order to apply the force to it. The longer the aircraft is subjected to G forces the greater the stress applied to the airframe. If the load were the same regardless of the amount of time the aircraft flew, why would it matter whether it could handle 20 hours a day for 40 years? One second of that load would destroy the aircraft according to your "logic".
If we shouldn't purchase an aircraft until we know how it's going to last, then should we not purchase them until after other air forces have retired theirs? That's the only way to really know their service life, so in reality we should only be buying the CF-18s now. How could any air force purchase a fighter that's unproven? No one should ever buy new aircraft, according to you. You seem to have no faith whatsoever in engineers or aircraft designers; they have a century of research and experimentation on which to base their calculations, and I'm sure they have a much better idea how long their designs will last than you do.

[Mrs.Robinson]

G force is caused by acceleration, that being either a change in velocity or a change in direction, and acceleration is a function of time. One cannot apply Gs to an aircraft by simply flying straight and level, one must accelerate it in order to apply the force to it. The longer the aircraft is subjected to G forces the greater the stress applied to the airframe. If the load were the same regardless of the amount of time the aircraft flew, why would it matter whether it could handle 20 hours a day for 40 years? One second of that load would destroy the aircraft according to your "logic".
If we shouldn't purchase an aircraft until we know how it's going to last, then should we not purchase them until after other air forces have retired theirs? That's the only way to really know their service life, so in reality we should only be buying the CF-18s now. How could any air force purchase a fighter that's unproven? No one should ever buy new aircraft, according to you. You seem to have no faith whatsoever in engineers or aircraft designers; they have a century of research and experimentation on which to base their calculations, and I'm sure they have a much better idea how long their designs will last than you do.

Ok I understand now. When you said that load is unrealistic (9 g's 20hours/ day for 40 years) you really meant to say that stress/strain is unrealistic. When you said load I thought you meant load factor (live load /dead load).

Any aircraft can last a long time, what generation the aircraft it is does not really have any bearing on it as you claimed. The B 52 will have been in service for 100 years before it finally retires in 2050.

So a first generation Jet bomber lasting a 100 years, How long did the f 117A bomber last?



You said "On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced"

why can't a slightly less modern aircraft not stay airworthy with proper maintenance?

I say any aircraft without an inherent design flaw can stay airworthy with proper maintenance.

[modi13]

So a first generation Jet bomber lasting a 100 years, How long did the f 117A bomber last?



You said "On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced"

why can't a slightly less modern aircraft not stay airworthy with proper maintenance?

I say any aircraft without an inherent design flaw can stay airworthy with proper maintenance.

I wouldn't argue with that; the F-18s could last forever if we wanted to keep them. The problem is that it's not cost effective, which was one of your original concerns, and they're fast becoming obsolete. The F-117 wasn't retired because it was worn out, it was because the B-1 and B-2 were more effective and modern designs. I said many, many posts ago that the F-35 will become outdated before it falls apart.

[Expat]

Some of you guys seem to read a lot about the subject, but how many have spent any time in a war theatre? I have been here more than six years now, and based on observations, no more than 5% of the jet fuel used in Af is burned in fighters. Actually, may be 1%!
Air ops are basically troop transport, VIP flights, and a huge number of re-supply flights! ...And some covert ops...
Most combat and troop relocation is done with helos, and that is where the Canadians call for help. Air support is using most of the time helicopter gunships. Of course, when they have large operations, the fighters go up circling, but it looks more to me that the pilots need air time, than they actually have anything to do up there.

Seriously, what is the need in this war, for multi target acquisition and tracking, EW jamming, etc...,
when everytime they use the fighters for ground attacks, it results in innocents being blown up, and more opposition to our presence here?

Fighters are needed for our sovereignty in Canada! We need to be able to patrol are huge skies. We need many planes, not the most expensive ones... I would say that 200 is a minimum, split in five wings across Canada.
It seems that everytime we update the fleet, it is more expensive, and we have fewer...

When I was in the military, it was known that with older equipment, we constantly beat the US teams at Maple Flag.