U.S. may scrap F35

[Skyhunter]

but for f*ck what does it take to get people to say "sure , I support this because I am a proud citizen and I think national defense is very important" .

Couldn't have said it better!

[2R]

It did not take long to go from "Yes, we can" to "It ain't gonna happen"

The former residents of the Soviet Union spent their way into collapse and when it happened it was not pretty.
Nial Ferguson has made an interesting analogy between the collapse of the Ottomans due to the costs of their military and the present Defence costs.


Everyone will be back on the gold standard by 2015 when the Saudis will only be accepting GOLD for OIL.
I was going to write a comparision about 19th century imperial gun boat diplomacy and the present air bombing diplomacy......there is a knock at the door BRB

[iflyforpie]

What is this "front line" fighter technicality stuff you speak of? Sorry that most countries do not have F22s and Eurofighters, or SU35s. Bottom line, all still have a fighter force. MOST of those countries have a suitable fighter. Minus a few F5s and old F16s and F4s. This empty "front line" statement is very sketchy.

Yet you used 'front line' in your previous rebuttal.

My use of 'front line' stems from Air Command's desire or 'need' to have a fifth generation fighter, of which the F-35 is the only Western one available for sale. I am simply stating that at some point Canada will have to buy something that is less than state-of-the-art when it comes to new fighters.

Secondly, why do we need to be under threat of invasion to justify the purchase of a new jet? That is what blows my mind. I cannot say "wait and see" ... or use the fear card, but for f*ck what does it take to get people to say "sure , I support this because I am a proud citizen and I think national defense is very important" . We do not purchase jet fighters every 5 years. We spend less than most developed countries on our military. Our jets are running out of time. We need to purchase new ones. I am a firm believer that having a ready-capable military is very important. Our air element will be lacking in the next many years, and the current government is being responsible and replacing the CF18 fleet. What would you have them do .... replace them with something that is obsolete? That to me is a true waste of money. Bottom line, we live in a complex world which is not perfect. We need a military. The "US can take us out anywhere anytime" holds no merit as we have not built our society on the foundation of being the worlds superpower. Every century has known armed global conflict. Why do you think this next one will be any different? Bottom line, a few F35s will not make or break the reality of our armed forces. However that still does not dismiss our responsibility to provide a basic force for Canadians as well , our NATO allies.

I agree with most of your statement. I am not 'anti-fighter'. What I am against is wasting taxpayers dollars on a piecemeal defense. You do not spend thousands of dollars to build half a fence around your acreage. You are better off to spend nothing and do something else.

We are buying 65 fighters. That is just over half of the current CF-188 fleet and I am pretty sure that there will be a similar number of two seaters and aircraft placed in storage to reduce the operational number. If the Russians or the PLAAF decides they are going to give us trouble, we wouldn't even have enough missiles to shoot their aircraft down.

What we should be doing is buying double the number of a slightly less capable, but still thoroughly modern fighter. How about the Eurofighter that gives you twin engine reliability and commonality with a large number of NATO nations? Or the Rafale? Or the Super Hornet? How about adding some Super Tucanos that would be just as if not more effective on the battlefield under air superiority conditions (which we would never achieve by ourselves anyways) and long range patrol for a tenth of the cost per unit?

[Skyhunter]

Some corrections for Iflyforpie

Current fleet of hornets is 78, 65 is more than 39. ( that isn't meant to be as sarcastic as it sounds)

F35 only made in single sear versions.

If Canada gets tasked to be part of a NATO effor to go into a hi threat (SAM threat) environment I want our Canadian pilots in something with stealth and 5th generation capability. It's about giving our pilots the best chance for survival while still carrying out the mission. Maybe if collectively we (NATO and friends) have that ability we won't ever need it.

I would like to see twice as many but not for a lesser aircraft.

[iflyforpie]

Thanks for the correction Skyhunter. My data was based on the original 138 minus 18 losses, not time-exed or canabalized airframes of which the F-35 would no doubt be subjected to as well during its operational lifetime. I did say 'over' half.

[fingersmac]

If the F35 falls through, Canada loses the investment the LIBERAL party made. Why would we have to pay cancellation costs if they terminate the program? Makes no sense.

What cancellation costs? We haven't even signed a commitment to purchase these aircraft and are not required to do so until 2013. There are no penalties or cancellation costs associated with Canada and the F35, at least until a contract is signed.

And the initial investment of $150 million was made primarily as a business decision allowing Canadian industries to bid on development contracts. That initial investment spawned more than $350 million in contracts for Canadian companies, research labs and universities and continues to generate a return on investment.

We spend less than most developed countries on our military.

I would have to say we actually spend more than most developed countries on our military. We're ranked 13th in the world on military expenditures last year ahead of Australia, Spain, Turkey, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, South Africa, Austria, New Zealand... the list goes on. Our % of GDP expenditure on the military is 1.5% which is similar to Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Brazil.

[Old Dog Flying]

We could always refurbish a few of these and with enough power and weapons they might get off the ground.

[Beefitarian]

Close ODF but let's give the boys a break and make it tricycle gear. A couple of ground loops at the end of long missions would make for bad press and the cheap skates might lobby to cancel that program next.

[Brewguy]

...If Canada gets tasked to be part of a NATO effor to go into a hi threat (SAM threat) environment I want our Canadian pilots in something with stealth and 5th generation capability. It's about giving our pilots the best chance for survival while still carrying out the mission. Maybe if collectively we (NATO and friends) have that ability we won't ever need it...

Well, at least you got it right with that second part.

There is no way that Canada will spend the money necessary to be able to give us the equipment needed to carry out every possible military role. Nor should we.

Our country is too large, and our population (i.e. tax base) is too small for us to have an Armed Forces that is fully equipped to survive an all-out shooting war with another first world nation. At least not on our own. If we have any hope of ever fighting such a war, it would only be in collaboration with our allies (i.e. NATO).

What we need, is a fighting force that is suitably equipped for defending Canada against the types of threats we are likely to see against us domestically; as well as having something to offer our allies for offensive operations overseas.

In the high-threat scenario that Skyhunter lays out, one of our larger allies could be tasked to take out those threats. In fact, in that type of scenario, the US would likely take out any radar and SAM sites using long range stealth bombers, long before Canada is able to get our fighters into theater.

Again, for offensive operations, we simply have to have something useful to offer. Personally, I think the Eurofighter Typhoon would be a far better choice than the F-35. They'd give us more 'bang for our buck', would easily fit into NATO operations, and would certainly allow us to 'contribute' something to any alliance joint operations. A second engine is also nice to have over the ocean or sparsely settled areas.

My biggest question for all of the F-35 fanboys, is why? If the US cancels, why in gods name would it be a good idea for us to go ahead with them?

[Darkwing Duck]

If the US cancels then we must petition the US for something as substantial as the F35. There would be no other country to support the remaing finacial obligations. It is a sad fact but it is "all for one but one holding all." if we cannot go forward together. We would need the F22 as this is the only fifth gen fighter out there. (I know the lashback, THE F22 IS NOT FOR FOREIGN SALE so can it.) However the F22 is not designed as an attack aircraft so we would then need something to support ground forces as well. With this I will then propose the Super Hornet along with a smattering of attack helos. Either the Appache Longbow or the Super Cobra. I am not a Super Hornet fan as it is already how many years old. If we want classics then but the old '57 F86s. We need new, we need the top drawer, best machine available. We cannot and should not play catchup with any country without the proper tools.

I said it once before, an old B737-200 can do a YVR-Europe trip for a charter on a weekly basis but would it not make sense to get an aircraft that can do it in one hop. How many of you guys are out there flying the wrong aircraft for the job you are doing. Sometimes you need more ummpphh or better field performance. If you are doing the job do it with the right equipment.

And do not come back we can buy old stuff off the shelf. Here is the threat we must be concerned about now. Inferiour or not the Chinese with the J-20 shows us they are no longer a force that cannot build something to rival our best.



http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/chinese-p ... d=13561596

[Expat]

Some corrections for Iflyforpie

Current fleet of hornets is 78, 65 is more than 39. ( that isn't meant to be as sarcastic as it sounds)

F35 only made in single sear versions.

If Canada gets tasked to be part of a NATO effor to go into a hi threat (SAM threat) environment I want our Canadian pilots in something with stealth and 5th generation capability. It's about giving our pilots the best chance for survival while still carrying out the mission. Maybe if collectively we (NATO and friends) have that ability we won't ever need it.

I would like to see twice as many but not for a lesser aircraft.

Some of you guys need to wake up.

I worked in procurement in Ottawa, and can tell you one thing. The need for something, and the want of it, is created by our generals and bureaucrats, wined and dined by companies at every show, every exibition available. Been there, done that...
Second, our nicely decorated generals are very often offered jobs at companies that make a killing, selling us some useless stuff. Been there, seen it...

Now, my more than six years in a war theater, the longest for the US in its history, has tought me a few things...
Interoperability, compatibility, etc... is just plain BS.
The NATO planes flying here are of all origins, and do well thank you.
We see Tornadoes, Rafales, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, all doing their own thing, without a hitch.
The US is even bying now MI-17 helicopters for the Afghan Air Force, and can inter-operate with them.
We are not here talking about transfering target data, acquisition rate of new targets,etc...
We are talking about circle flying high, while special ops helicopters and drones are busting wedding parties...
The chance that we ever go to war against a well trained and equipped force is almost nil. Our present Axis of Evil consists of two countries, weakened be years of sanctions, like Iraq, that would only offer token resistance, if we were ever fool enough to go for them.
The fact that politicians and generals can used these muddled arguments, and make a case for the purchase of F-35s is behond me, behond common sense.

[MrWings]

*slow clap*

Expat hits it out of the park!

[Expat]

If the US cancels then we must petition the US for something as substantial as the F35. There would be no other country to support the remaing finacial obligations. It is a sad fact but it is "all for one but one holding all." if we cannot go forward together. We would need the F22 as this is the only fifth gen fighter out there. (I know the lashback, THE F22 IS NOT FOR FOREIGN SALE so can it.) However the F22 is not designed as an attack aircraft so we would then need something to support ground forces as well. With this I will then propose the Super Hornet along with a smattering of attack helos. Either the Appache Longbow or the Super Cobra. I am not a Super Hornet fan as it is already how many years old. If we want classics then but the old '57 F86s. We need new, we need the top drawer, best machine available. We cannot and should not play catchup with any country without the proper tools.

I said it once before, an old B737-200 can do a YVR-Europe trip for a charter on a weekly basis but would it not make sense to get an aircraft that can do it in one hop. How many of you guys are out there flying the wrong aircraft for the job you are doing. Sometimes you need more ummpphh or better field performance. If you are doing the job do it with the right equipment.

And do not come back we can buy old stuff off the shelf. Here is the threat we must be concerned about now. Inferiour or not the Chinese with the J-20 shows us they are no longer a force that cannot build something to rival our best.



http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/chinese-p ... d=13561596

Hello duck,

Let it be said, that most of the US contractors here use good old iron from armored Toyota Land Cruisers. You are right. Let's not go for inferior products, that could cost the life of our citizens... Especially if they are built by contractors, who have a very short-sighted view, and are only concerned about the profits of the next quarter...Like GM and Ford...

[moocow]

+1 for Expat.

Will the US sell us the F35 with the electronic suite and datalink package that they have? If not, there goes the interoperability. We could do what the Japanese are doing, build your own.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... ghter-2014

[Skyhunter]

Expat wrote "I worked in procurement in Ottawa, and can tell you one thing. The need for something, and the want of it, is created by our generals and bureaucrats, wined and dined by companies at every show, every exibition available. Been there, done that...
Second, our nicely decorated generals are very often offered jobs at companies that make a killing, selling us some useless stuff. Been there, seen it..."

Expat just to be upfront here I am a recently retired Hornet guy. Not a senior officer and have worked in procurement as well. Without saying things that might et me in trouble, I am a firm believer that the f-35 is The right aircraft. My son wants to be a fighter pilot. If he has to go to war I know what I want him in. I will caveat that in the unlikely chance that the US were to bail on the program it would not make sense to continue.

[moocow]

Why would people say if the US bail on the program that it will still continue? Do you think that US will just sell off the entire technical plans to Canada? As far as I understand, none of the partner country have a production license.

[Brewguy]

You have to admit it though Skyhunter, if you were a recently retired RAF Tornado guy, you'd just as likely be saying "I am a firm believer that the Typhoon is The right aircraft. My son wants to be a fighter pilot. If he has to go to war I know what I want him in".

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the F-35's single engine? I'm friends with a number of ex-CF fighter guys, and most of them are quite critical of the concept of a single engine. One of them was involved in the original selection of the CF-18, and said it was the primary reason why a number of other fighters weren't given consideration back in the day (i.e. the F-16).

[Expat]

+1

In car shops, it is called fidelity, or customer loyalty. It basically mean that people love what they know better. It has no scientific value...

[Expat]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... Id=6965648

What did I say before???

[Darkwing Duck]

And your point is what? We all know there is a lot of bureaucratic BS in any gov't. If you can trim the fat whilst still maintaining the same level of production why not. The article never mentioned canceling programs or anything like that.

Why would people say if the US bail on the program that it will still continue? Do you think that US will just sell off the entire technical plans to Canada? As far as I understand, none of the partner country have a production license.

Every country in the program has part of or some of the production license. Hence the reason they signed on. This is not a one nation deal. What the issue is, if the US pulls out they are the majority backer for the cash. So if they disband the project everyone on that iceflow goes with them.

At Skyhunter - Good for you letting us know some of the details in procurement. I have said it before that the guys writing the cheques are just not making the decision of being wined and dined. They are looking at the overall picture from the details given to guys like Skyhunter. It is like any of you going out and buying a Peterbuilt truck to haul a couch. Are you going to let the salesman from Peterbuilt wine and dine and influence you the most based on the steak Tartar you got? I doubt it. It just baffles me that people think the procurements of some things are hugely influenced on the amount of blow and hookers a company offers.

[frosti]

One of them was involved in the original selection of the CF-18, and said it was the primary reason why a number of other fighters weren't given consideration back in the day (i.e. the F-16).

It was a primary reason, but not THE reason. The CF18 was chosen at that time because it was an overall better choice to the F16, not because of the two engines.

The US won't scrap the F35, they have already invested too much money, time and resources. Not to mention there are a number of countries who already contributed large sums of money into the program, which isn't exactly refundable. Come 2016-17 the CF35 will happen at whatever the price may end up being. There just isn't another alternative - and whomever thinks Canada can build our own 5th+ gen fighter is hallucinating. The US will still be the leader in fighter jet technology for decades, don't let those toys from Russia and China fool you, they are still catching up to the level of the F117.

[Mostly Harmless]

I keep wondering how those poor Sabre pilots ever survived? Only one, dangerous, engine on those. Of course, according to one poster here, the CAF has never downed an aircraft in their entire history. So, I guess that minimizes the danger.

[Beefitarian]

Today's Canadians couldn't build sabres. We're not as smart as the master race Americans.

I vote we attach some legally registered long guns to D-jets. Awww crud we will have to import those too since loaning Diamond money is too expensive.

[MUSKEG]

Lending money to Diamond has nothing to do with "expensive". My tax dollars have way better things to go to than proping up a company that is building an aircraft at a time when the market is flooded with Business jets (or toys in many cases). That in my opinion is taking money from the poor and giving to the rich. If your business can't stand on it's own, well I feel bad for you but you can do what I did and get a job and get on with life.

[Beefitarian]

When you say,"Get a job." do you mean in a country that isn't Canada where there's jobs because they have factories that make things like F-35s because they're smart? Or follow The Diamond plant to China and work there?

I like to see my taxes support "Martin & sons ship builders Inc" too, it's terrific.