F-35 looking more like white elephant

[AuxBatOn]

How the higher ups made up that decision is not for open forums because of the sensitive nature of the information

But why is the information "sensitive"? The Russians make better aircraft, and I'm sure they know it, so who does it need to be kept secret from?!

The details are sensitive. Why we need such and such technology on the aircraft. And so on.

[Expat]

To do that effectively, you need to be ready to face current and future threat. Yes, the Super Hornet could face the current threat, but definitely not the future threat. At this stage, the JSF is the only aircraft capable of meeting this requirement. How the higher ups made up that decision is not for open forums because of the sensitive nature of the information. Regular Joe doesn't need to know every "why".

Exactly as I said. Political decisions.
As far as threat assessments are concerned, they are here on the internet, in the form of the Joint Chiefs world security assessment, or whatever the document is called.

Aux, you seem to defend the government's decision as if your job depended on it. Kind of hard to think outside the box, when you're in it.
Just to think that the bulk of the air warfare here, in Iraq, and in Libya is carried out with Tornados, F-15s F-16s, and Mirages and Grippens. Where are the F-22s, B-1s, etc...
It seems any plane can carry bombs here...
Canada does not not need a mothballed, or grounded fleet for its defense. The submarines are one exemple.

My point is that it is important at this stage not to follow blindly the US into technical banruptcy, while increasing spending on defense. It shows a complete lack of care for the country, and its taxpayers.

[AuxBatOn]

As far as threat assessments are concerned, they are here on the internet, in the form of the Joint Chiefs world security assessment, or whatever the document is called.

Yes, you can see the unclas version. However, there is more on that subject in the classified "world" than what's published online.

Aux, you seem to defend the government's decision as if your job depended on it. Kind of hard to think outside the box, when you're in it.

I used to oppose the JSF purchase. After some education on the project and the plane, my opinion changed. I truly defend the project because I believe that's what's better for Canada, and to some extent for my health.

Just to think that the bulk of the air warfare here, in Iraq, and in Libya is carried out with Tornados, F-15s F-16s, and Mirages and Grippens. Where are the F-22s, B-1s, etc...

Let's go 20 years back, Gulf War. How many coalition planes were shot down by Iraqi air defence? It was all by very, very old SAM systems (single digit, namely 2, 3, 6 and . And it wasn't only during the first few hours of the war. Forward 20 years, don't you think SAM systems now evolved to the point 4th generation airplane don't stand a leg, at all? Some of the rising powers in the world and some of the shit disturbers have access to very, very good technology wrt SAMs and even Fighter aircraft.

Having been across the border into Libya, I can assure you that more than once, I would have been more comfortable knowing that they couldn't see me. True, you can strap bombs on pretty much anything. Software updates are easier than ever to integrate Air-to-Ground weapons on Air-to-Air platforms. But it's not about strapping bombs onto something. It's about facing a threat.

Where are the F-22s, B-1s, etc...

I believe the bombers were involved in the very first days of the Libyan war (when it was still called Odyssey Dawn). After that, the US took a Support only role (ie: no offensive).

Canada does not not need a mothballed, or grounded fleet for its defense. The submarines are one exemple.

There will be problems with any young fleet. After a few year, those problems will be ironed out. At such time, the Hornets will be decommissioned. The plan is very sound, there is no need to worry about that. The JSF is a solid project, especially the Air Force variant.

My point is that it is important at this stage not to follow blindly the US into technical banruptcy, while increasing spending on defense. It shows a complete lack of care for the country, and its taxpayers.

We do not overspend on defence. Our %GDP spent on defence was 1.5% in 2009, the same as 1996 level (during the big defence cuts) which places us 95th in the world, alongside Nigeria. I'm not saying we need to increase spending greatly, but we should be able to afford the military we need.

The price of the JSF, amortized over the life of the airplane, is actually pretty cheap. Less than 600M$ a year, everything included (maintenance, parts, fuel, training, simulator, infrastructure, etc) for a fleet of 65 aircraft. That's less than 100M$ a year per aircraft.

[sky's the limit]

My point is that it is important at this stage not to follow blindly the US into technical banruptcy, while increasing spending on defense. It shows a complete lack of care for the country, and its taxpayers.

And this is the entire point of the debate.

As many of you know, I have been privy to some pretty "sensitive" things over in Afghanistan, our most recent war, I stand corrected, our second most recent war, and I have yet to hear an argument for these fighters that makes sense to me personally. That includes talking to people who were on the procurement board fairly recently.

Do we need fighters at all? Personally I don't think 50 or 60 fighters of any kind is going to make much difference to anything regarding our own "safety," but I can appreciate the argument that we do. However, the cost associated with a fighter program of ANY kind is colossal, and even the amount of money our F18's already suck from the Air Force's budget is grossly out of proportion to what we have gained in their use, and it has prevented us buying other things in lieu. Things we desperately needed to fight in Afghanistan.

I've tried to stay way out of this one, but it seems (yet again), that everyone on either side has dug in and stopped listening to what's being said. There are some good points on both sides, there are some very intelligent people on both sides of this debate within the Gov't and Military itself, but it must be remembered that this boils down to a political decision. There are some very loud voices in Air Force itself protesting this procurement, and they have a great number of valid points. The Gov't of Canada is no longer interested in listening to its citizens, much less anyone who disagrees with it - they will do as they wish, something they've demonstrated numerous times now.

In the end, whether you support it or not, it is OUR money as Canadians that is going to be spent here, and a lot of it. Money that cannot be spent else where in a country that has seen significant reductions across the board in recent years. How this money is used is everyone's business and given the abomination of Government we have at the moment, and their propensity for kowtowing to the US at every opportunity, I think we need to be extremely skeptical of procurements like this.

Is the F35, or any other fighter for that matter, an incredible piece of technology? Sure it is. But given what I've seen out in our second most recent war, it's entirely the wrong place to be spending this money even within our military - there are just so many needs within it that should probably take precedent. Just my opinion.

stl

[Rockie]

Is the F35, or any other fighter for that matter, an incredible piece of technology? Sure it is. But given what I've seen out in our second most recent war, it's entirely the wrong place to be spending this money even within our military - there are just so many needs that should take precedent. Only my reasonably informed opinion of course.

I am not at all supportive of the F35 for several reasons that aren't important for this point, but I think your overall opinion of fighters comes from a relatively narrow perspective given where you are.

Fighters provide a rapid projection of military force to pretty much anywhere, and I think you will agree Canada has a very large "anywhere" to attend to. Obviously we can't adequately do it all on our own which makes membership in mutual defense treaties like NATO essential to Canada. In our most recent activity in support of NATO our fighters are exactly what was required and they seem to have achieved the objective both militarily and politically. Those defence agreements and our own ability to quickly respond over large distances are becoming even more important to Canada with the rising interest in arctic resources and sovereignty.

Is there an alternative to high speed tactical air power and the strategic element it provides for a country like Canada?

[sky's the limit]

but I think your overall opinion of fighters comes from a relatively narrow perspective given where you are.

Fighters provide a rapid projection of military force to pretty much anywhere, and I think you will agree Canada has a very large "anywhere" to attend to. Obviously we can't adequately do it all on our own which makes membership in mutual defense treaties like NATO essential to Canada.

Agreed Rockie,

But I would say that any of our perspectives are narrow, either for or against, it's a matter of priorities and outlook, exposure and reason.

I understand what fighters provide, but I don't think that Canada needs to rapidly project military force. I don't believe that's our role in the world, and so far, I don't buy the arctic sovereignty argument either as there are many better, and more lucrative ways to establish ourselves in the North, both militarily and through commercial means, but that another conversation.

Our "large anywhere" in my book does not include wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, or any other far flung place the Americans are projecting power into. The politics behind these adventures is something I am very well versed in, and have made my position and reasons well known on here in the past. The simple fact of the matter is we are a very large country with a very small population and tax base, and playing with very expensive items military or not, is everyone's business.

Like it or not, we are in these mutual defence agreements, and because of that I really fail to see why we should spend what for us is very significant amounts of money, to duplicate in a minor way, the extremely large capabilities of others. I'm pretty sure our F18's would not have been missed in Libya, and once again, that we are there at all is a whole other kettle of fish.

Anyway, I'm going to put a tarp on a friend's roof.... this should be fun!

stl

[2R]

[Rockie]

STL

We could discuss this for what to me would be several enjoyable hours. The forum is not anywhere close to adequate so I won't even try. Maybe someday we'll meet up on a patio somewhere...

[sky's the limit]

STL

We could discuss this for what to me would be several enjoyable hours. The forum is not anywhere close to adequate so I won't even try. Maybe someday we'll meet up on a patio somewhere...

I'm in. You name the place... the West Coast is experiencing some stellar weather, ideal for beers and discussion! Lol

Have a great day,

stl

[Big Pistons Forever]

Aux

The 20 year Capital procurement funds available to re-equip the entire Canadian Army, RCN and RCAF is in the region of 35 Billion dollars. Personally I am not against the F 35 per se, what I am against is, spending nearly half of all future capital acquisition dollars without taking a step back and asking.

1) can we afford to replace our current capability with the more expensive next generation kit in all areas, or is it time to start making choices.

2) How good is good enough. Take the air superiority mission. The last generation "best" is the F15. No F 15 has ever in its 30 + year life ever been shot down by another fighter. The F 35 is an order of magnitude better. Defense spending is not unlimited and it is simply unrealistic to expect that Canada should be able to defeat every possible theoretical threat. Before you accuse me of being cavalier about the lives of our pilots, understand that money spent on buying the very best, the F 35, means money not spent on other parts of the Canadian Forces, which potentially means that they become more vulnerable. In a perfect world these kinds of choices should not have to be made but in the real world we can't buy everybody everything.

Maybe you are right and the F 35 is the best choice for Canada, but I think a more fulsome discussion is order before we commit so much money.........

[Spokes]

...
Just to think that the bulk of the air warfare here, in Iraq, and in Libya is carried out with Tornados, F-15s F-16s, and Mirages and Grippens. Where are the F-22s, B-1s, etc...
...

FWIW B-1's and -2's do do strikes here. B-1 strike just a couple days ago.

[2R]

A-10's baby

[Expat]

Obviously we can't adequately do it all on our own which makes membership in mutual defense treaties like NATO essential to Canada. In our most recent activity in support of NATO our fighters are exactly what was required and they seem to have achieved the objective both militarily and politically.

If I dare to think outside the box, I just may conclude that in the foreseable future, may be, just may be, we have no need for NATO at all. How many countries are not part of NATO, and live very well thank you, free of threats and impending invasions?

Understanding the basic fact that NATO is an american invention, brought about to create a military alliance, to oppose the far stronger USSR at the time. NATO then became a political tool, which allowed the US to keep bases anywhere it wished, sell armament, impose its will within and outside the alliance. NATO has become now a cover, a legitimization of US will.
As of now, NATO has dragged us into unwinnable, far away wars, that really have nothing to do with our security.
Canada, as the second largest country in the world, can take care of itself, build its own weapons, suited for the vast spaces.
It may be possible that Canada could achieve more clout internationally, outside military alliances. But then again, it requires an quite independant mind, to consider this option.

[Old Dog Flying]

Canada, as the second largest country in the world, can take care of itself, build its own weapons, suited for the vast spaces.

How many of these would you like ...I weould have placed a question mark here but my keyboard was designed by a Grunt with his lips firmly wrapped...`Never mind Mr Deif... we`ll figure it out

[frosti]

The Gov't of Canada is no longer interested in listening to its citizens, much less anyone who disagrees with it - they will do as they wish, something they've demonstrated numerous times now.

Funny thing, if this was actually true, the Conservatives wouldn't get that majority last election. The JSF purchase was clearly written in their party platform. Seems to me the only people who disagree with this purchase are liberal voters with sour grapes.

Maybe you are right and the F 35 is the best choice for Canada, but I think a more fulsome discussion is order before we commit so much money.........

You know what a colossal waste of money is? The CBC. This atrocity costs $1billion to run annually, just imagine what the Army could do with that extra money.

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

The Gov't of Canada is no longer interested in listening to its citizens, much less anyone who disagrees with it - they will do as they wish, something they've demonstrated numerous times now.

Funny thing, if this was actually true, the Conservatives wouldn't get that majority last election. The JSF purchase was clearly written in their party platform. Seems to me the only people who disagree with this purchase are liberal voters with sour grapes.

Maybe you are right and the F 35 is the best choice for Canada, but I think a more fulsome discussion is order before we commit so much money.........

You know what a colossal waste of money is? The CBC. This atrocity costs $1billion to run annually, just imagine what the Army could do with that extra money.

Adding to your point, please do not forget that it was the Liberal government who got us involved with the F35 program. But go figure, the aircraft is NOW the Antichrist in their eyes.

[cdnpilot77]

Looks like the single stove and costs aren't the only thing to be concerned about. Putting systems that are to be delivered "Less effective than found on the F-18" does not warm my heart to this project.

F-35s face communication problems in Arctic

Canada's new multibillion-dollar stealth fighters are expected to arrive without the built-in capacity to communicate from the country's most northerly regions — a gap the air force is trying to close.

A series of briefings given to the country's top air force commander last year expressed concern that the F-35's radio and satellite communications gear may not be as capable as that of the current CF-18s, which recently went through an extensive modernization.

Military aircraft operating in the high Arctic rely almost exclusively on satellite communications, where a pilot's signal is beamed into space and bounced back down to a ground station.

The F-35 Lightning will eventually have the ability to communicate with satellites, but the software will not be available in the initial production run, said a senior Lockheed Martin official.
It is expected to be added to the aircraft when production reaches its fourth phase in 2019, but that is not guaranteed because research is still underway.

"That hasn't all been nailed down yet," said the official. "As you can imagine there are a lot of science projects going on, exploring what is the best . . . capability, what satellites will be available."

Additionally, Canada's request to have the upgrade placed in the fourth phase will compete with software changes sought by other countries. Norway, for example, wants to use its own missiles on the F-35 rather than U.S.-made weapons.

Communications in Arctic a 'challenge'

Defending the Arctic is one of the Harper government's key justifications for buying the aircraft, which are estimated to cost between $16 and $30 billion, including long-term maintenance.

A Defence Department spokesman denied that the F-35's communications suite will be less effective than that of CF-18s, but acknowledged that so-called beyond-line-of-sight communications is a concern.

"Communications in the Arctic represents a specific challenge to all aircraft due to lack of satellite coverage in the north," said Evan Koronewski in an email response. "Canada is working closely with the other partner nations to ensure Canadian operational requirements for communications in the Arctic are met."

Air force planners recognized the problem last year and are "considering a back-up," said an April 2010 briefing.

A study is looking at whether an external communications pod can be installed on the F-35.

The sophisticated pods, which are carried by the CF-18s, were purchased as part of the $2.6-billion fleet upgrade, which began in 2000.

The briefing to the chief of air staff noted that installing such pods could be made more affordable if other countries participated.

The communications problem is just one of several technical issues the air force is working on.

National Defence has also asked the U.S. manufacturer whether it's possible to install a different air-to-air refuelling system on Canadian F-35s.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/f-35 ... n-arctic-7

[2R]

A-10's on wheel skis for the Artic,baby

The F-35 is the biggest shoot youself in the foot ever conceived by bean counters.
A doing anything plane that to date has done nothing.A plane without an engine.A plane without integrated inflight refueling.and no inter-nato communication capable radio's.And no idea's about the final price.Sure sounds like a liberal project to me.
Although the other obvious weakness's of that plane should be discussed behind closed doors and not on a public forum where the enemy might be able to learn and exploit those weakness's that are so obvious to anyone who has ever watched Top Gun

[Rockie]

Sure sounds like a liberal project to me.

I guess you don't know it's the Conservatives that bought it.

[reality check]

The Gov't of Canada is no longer interested in listening to its citizens, much less anyone who disagrees with it - they will do as they wish, something they've demonstrated numerous times now.

Funny thing, if this was actually true, the Conservatives wouldn't get that majority last election. The JSF purchase was clearly written in their party platform. Seems to me the only people who disagree with this purchase are liberal voters with sour grapes.

Maybe you are right and the F 35 is the best choice for Canada, but I think a more fulsome discussion is order before we commit so much money.........

You know what a colossal waste of money is? The CBC. This atrocity costs $1billion to run annually, just imagine what the Army could do with that extra money.

Adding to your point, please do not forget that it was the Liberal government who got us involved with the F35 program. But go figure, the aircraft is NOW the Antichrist in their eyes.

Ok. Majority of what Mr. Frosti? Did you skip that day in Grade 8 when they taught you how the Cndn electoral process works?

WTF. WTF? Really, you don't see how some bits have changed over the years?

After enjoying the many scandalous side shows we've seen from governments of various colours over the last couple decades, I'd be pretty surprised if this one is going to go any differently.

[frosti]

More anti-JSF rhetoric from reporters with no clue, I guess it's been a while. Must be a slow news day.

[iflyforpie]

Ahh, and yet again one-dimensional politics fails. Was it Conservative because they like war machines? Was it Liberal because they like spending public money? Oh wait, the Liberals balanced the budget and got us into Afghanistan, and the Consevatives got us out of Afghanistan and are spending money like drunken sailors...... AAARRGGGHHHH!!!!

[AuxBatOn]

A plane without an engine.

False. Ours come with the Engine. (Included in the Price)

A plane without integrated inflight refueling.

False. The A model has the Air Force Refueling configuration (boom/receptacle). The B and C models have the Navy configuration (Probe/Drogue)

and no inter-nato communication capable radio's.

False. It has both secure and anti-jam radios. Both compatible with today's equipment.

And no idea's about the final price

In fact, it was said 75M$ a piece and I believe it's pretty firm. That equals to 9B$ for acquisition of 65 jets and the associated infrastructure and 21B$ for long term maintenance.

Although the other obvious weakness's of that plane should be discussed behind closed doors and not on a public forum

They actually should not be discussed in a public forums.

[cdnpilot77]

But Aux, wouldnt you be a little uncomfortable doing an intercept of a Russian Bear in the high arctic without any radio communications available to you?

[AuxBatOn]

But Aux, wouldnt you be a little uncomfortable doing an intercept of a Russian Bear in the high arctic without any radio communications available to you?

Not really. There are always workarounds. The Hornet was not able to effectively communicate with agencies while flying up North before the upgrades and we did just fine.