F-35 looking more like white elephant

[Mach1]

We need fighters because we are part of something called NORAD. So, we have some responsibility towards defending our own domestic airspace as well as lending a helping hand to our allies that also help to protect our domestic airspace.

Case in point: Canadian fighters were patrolling all of the North American airspace at one point when the US Air Force found cracks in the wings of their F-15's and they needed our help.

We often intercept Russian military aircraft encroaching on our airspace... so what do you, Lost Lake, suggest we do about that? Ignore it and hope they go away? Leave the defence of your own country to someone else because you are cheap... and hope that they aren't too busy or having their own budget issues and are always available? How do you feel about foreign nations having military bases on Canadian soil? Nice big US Air Force bases all over Canada?

I'm not a pro-war person by any means but, this mentality of leaving our defence to someone else and think nothing of the fact that other countries are paying to defend you makes me mad. Idealism is wonderful but reality still says we need a military. Having a military costs money. If you give our defence over to other nations, it is only a matter of time before the other nations get tired of carrying your lazy and cheap ass and stop defending you or worse, they decide to take you over to pay for all their troubles.

Okay, now I am mad... where the hell does this "let the Americans take care of us" attitude come from?! Who are you people? I hope that you never, ever, under any circumstances say anything bad about the US and it's policies or people if you expect them to pay all of your defence costs in both money and lives. If you dis the US on one hand and expect them to rescue your butt in times of trouble, you should be embarrassed right now. Do you believe in your country (Canada) as a nation or not? If you want a Canada, then defend it! Pay for it! And to quote Stoppin' Tom Connors, Goodbye Jim & Jackie, goodbye John & May
We hate to see you leaving, bound for the USA
But if you don't believe your country should come before yourself
Ya can better serve your country, by living somewhere else

[Lost Lake]

We need fighters because we are part of something called NORAD. So, we have some responsibility towards defending our own domestic airspace as well as lending a helping hand to our allies that also help to protect our domestic airspace.

Case in point: Canadian fighters were patrolling all of the North American airspace at one point when the US Air Force found cracks in the wings of their F-15's and they needed our help.

We often intercept Russian military aircraft encroaching on our airspace... so what do you, Lost Lake, suggest we do about that?

Whoa there Mach 1. I am not suggesting that the US patrol our airspace or defend us. Having said that, defend us from who. The Commies who are infringing on our airspace? That was back in the 60's.

When the US had cracked wings, how many military interventions did we engage in. Norad was formed back after WWII. The last airstrike in North America was by US airlines. Do you honestly think that 65 aircraft are going to defend us against some hypothetical air strike? N. Korea are testing ICBM'S. I am just saying that as we are a fairly pacifist country (like it or not) we would be better off using aircraft that are capable of multi tasking in the patrol of our domain. Our biggest threat comes from other countries trying to fish soveriegn waters. I hope we have progressed since WWii and McArthyism. To follow your thinking, every citizen should be allowed to carry restricted weapons in case of invasion. As I posted earlier, when have we actually used a fighter to physically (armed intervention) engage in air warfare to protect our country?

The planet has progressed militarily, politically and socially. We are not a country at risk of being overthrown or targeted by wide scale invasion. we are a buffer between our neighbours to the south and who? Please don't say the Russians. As far as China is concerned, they are already taking us over in the new version of war (financial). F35's can't defend agsainst that.

I am mearly pointing out that times have changed and it's time we changed as well. I think the money could be put to better use in protecting our country from the threats of the 21st century. (Terrorism, financial overthrow of our resources, illegal importation of illegals, encroaching on our fish stocks, etc.) F-35's can't defend against the new age.

By the way, my father fought in the last great war. I stand behind this country 100%. I just don't think $1BB for 65 airplanes is the new solution for the new threats.

[trampbike]

As I posted earlier, when have we actually used a fighter to physically (armed intervention) engage in air warfare to protect our country?

Canada's past and present government thought that being part of NATO, NORAD and supporting UN missions was in thebest interest of the country, for many different reasons, including to protect it (instability in the world, no matter where, is not a good thing for our own security).
We can then say that when fighters were sent abroad to support a coalition, it was, in part, to protect Canada.

I agree with you that air threats are probably extremely low over our territory. It doesn't matter thought, because the minute we stop patrolling our airspace, and more importantly, projecting some air power (dissuasion is much more a factor here than the improbable intervention), you can be sure that the US will do it for us (well... for them!). So, you want Canada's airspace to stay canadian, you need fighters, no matter the threats.

The F35 is not an obvious choice for sovereignty patrols thought. However, Canada wants (...the government wants) to be able to play a real role in future coalitions sent abroad, and in such case the F35 seems to be the only choice available.

[Moose47]

"tudors"

It's Tutors!

"The Commies who are infringing on our airspace? That was back in the 60's."

Where have you been. The Russians still violate our airspace. They gather vital intel every time they are intercepted. Who do you think is up there to greet them when they come into Canadian domestic airspace...Air Canada?

Cheers...Chris

[Mach1]

At no point did I ever say we needed to arm all Canadians. Nor is that my mentality. I said, we need a military, that includes fighters, and we need to pay for it. I didn't say the F-35. I said was that we needed fighters. You said we didn't need fighters and I provided examples of us needing fighters... So, lets keep it to what is said, not what you think I said. In that respect, when I referred to people who want to forgo having any military, that was not directed at one person, but several posts contained within these 34 pages of posts.

The exact number of intercepts carried out by Canadian planes while the US F-15 fleet was down is not a number I have, it was greater than 0 and less than 1000, I'm sure someone here will have actual numbers. Do I think 65 planes are enough, the answer is no. But, 65 is better than 0. You seem to be unaware that we actually face a number of threats on a number of levels, military is one of them but not the only one.

The planet has progressed militarily, politically and socially.

Nice line, too bad it isn't entirely true. The cold ware between two super powers is no where near what it once was. However, Canada is being challenged on our boarders. Several nations are taking a run at us and not all of them are our old enemies. Even the US is starting to challenge Canada on what have been considered to be our boarders for the past 150 years. China is now launching aircraft carriers to project their military might abroad... something they have never done before.

As I posted earlier, when have we actually used a fighter to physically (armed intervention) engage in air warfare to protect our country?

Your argument reads like this. We haven't shot anyone (downed any aircraft) with our fighters in domestic airspace, therefore we don't need fighters. When a war breaks out, we can buy some then. Only when a war breaks out where we need them, we can buy them, wait for delivery, train our people to use them, and then deploy them. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the reason we haven't had to use those fighters is because the threat of them exists?

I have a tool box, I have not had to fix anything this month. But on the rare occasions when I need those tools, it is usually an emergency and it is short notice and I am glad to have them on hand instead of letting my home flood while I wait for someone to build me a pipe wrench.

Yes, in some ways the world has changed, in others it has not. The world is not conflict free at this point in time. Russia is looking to bring back the glory days of being a world super power and they are doing that in part with a resurgence of their military.

Do I think Russia will launch ICBM's to Canada and beyond? No. Do I think that one day the Russians may plant an oil well in our territory and just start working away if we are not vigilant. Yes. Without the ability to back up our claim to sovereignty, how are we going to react to a situation like that? Write a strongly worded letter and hope they see the error of their way?

By the way, my father fought in the last great war.

You know what? I don't really care what your father did... I mean, good for him for standing up when the time came but, it is no reflection on who you are as a person.

Take off the rose coloured glasses and don't replace them with the absolutely paranoid glasses of those who sell fear, then look at the world as it really is not what you want it to be. I look forward to the day when we no longer need fighters or a military at all, I can even see this day happening in my life time, but today is not that day.

[Lost Lake]

Hey mach 1. Settle down. First of all, you should care what my father did. He was one of many who fought so that you could rant on AvCanada without some subversive gov't sensoring you. After 60 years, including the Cuban missile crisis, vietnam, etc. I don't wear rose colored glasses. I'm not sure how armed fighters are going to deter the Russians drilling oil on our land. Straffing them? I think a few hercs full of military would be more effective.

There is no single, simple solution to defending our country from percieved or real threat. I don't pretend to have a solution. I just wonder if there are not better solutions for protecting our country. 65 a/c worth $1BB. I would hazzard a guess that there will be 20% down at anyone time. That leaves 40 odd fighters to defend 4 boarders. That's 10 planes per border. Pretty scary. I am just suggesting that spending money on light armoured patrol aircraft would provide better protection, I just don't see fighter jets being an economical "patrol" aircraft, which would be quicker to detect and deter Ruskies from sneaking into our country.

Just going to twist one up now and listen to John's "Give peace a Chance"

[azimuthaviation]

However, Canada wants (...the government wants) to be able to play a real role in future coalitions sent abroad

So Canada's airforce isnt really to support Canada's sovereignty but rather those of the NTC rats (2011), The KLA (1999), and the Emir of Kuwait (1991).

All who have shown to be stand up characters I may add.

[Rockie]

Did you guys read the MoU? That's where I found the information. Where did you get yours?

An MOU is not a contract, and I'll bet there are about 15 metric tonnes of MOU's sitting in Lockheed Martin's offices explaining in great detail what the airplane will do, when it will be delivered and how much it will cost. None of which mean squat if you've been following this story at all.

and that DOES NOT include pilots, fuel, shoe laces and boot leather.

Why would it include that stuff? Separate issue since even if they received free planes that other stuff still has to be purchased.

Or were you trying to imply they need to have Boeing shoe laces to fly the F-35?

I was making light of our venerable defense minister's feeble explanation to the gullible Canadian public why the jets seem to cost so much. It's as if he waves his hand and like iflyforpie says "these aren't the droid we're looking for".

[trampbike]

An MOU is not a contract

It's not a contract to purchase the airplanes. In this regard you are right.
I still suggest you read it.

If my sources of information (PBO, AG and GAO reports, the MoU, Canada First Defense Strategy paper, NGFC PO presentations, Rideau Institutes report, etc) are not good enough for you (you still imply that I don't follow this story and deny simple facts such as Canada's financial involvment in the development process), then I'd love to know what yours are.
Seriously, find me some pertinent sources of information that I didn't know about, and I'll be happy to read everything and have an intelligent discussion with you.
Turns out that if you are interested too, I have a folder on my computer with about 60 news articles and 20 official documents.

[Rockie]

If my sources of information (PBO, AG and GAO reports, the MoU, Canada First Defense Strategy paper, NGFC PO presentations, Rideau Institutes report, etc) are not good enough for you (you still imply that I don't follow this story and deny simple facts such as Canada's financial involvment in the development process), then I'd love to know what yours are.

Much the same as yours as reported on in the media. With all that information available, and presumably you read newspapers as well, you can't help but see the problems this airplane is presenting. Your belief that Canada will be spared those problems including the drastically increased cost is puzzling. Maybe you put too much faith in what the government and Canadian military are saying.

[trampbike]

I've actually read all of the real reports, not just what the medias decide to make of it.
I'm not convinced the F35 is the best choice.
I'm convinced that the DND and government did a terrible job as far as PR and project gestion go.
I can see many problems related to this aircraft. Other choices seem worst thought.
I don't believe Canada will be spared any cost increase. I only said that the escalating R&D costs are going to be absorbed by the US.
I have almost no faith in this government.

Stop putting word in my mouth. If you want to argue, try to refute some points that I make, don't go further than that. I know (from reading many of your posts on avcanada) that you are a rational and smart person.

regards
Olivier

[Rockie]

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but if it seems that way I apologize. I am in fact refuting a point you made, and one that you appear to contradict yourself on as well:

I don't believe Canada will be spared any cost increase. I only said that the escalating R&D costs are going to be absorbed by the US.

What costs don't you think we'll be spared if not R&D costs? I just don't see how R&D costs can be separated from the total cost of the plane in any way that makes sense. In any event it is simply not realistic to think the Americans will absorb the entirety of R&D when the reason they're selling the thing in the first place is to mitigate the cost of development.

[iflyforpie]

In any event it is simply not realistic to think the Americans will absorb the entirety of R&D when the reason they're selling the thing in the first place is to mitigate the cost of development.

Exactly.

Just ask the Brits when they were trying to purchase the F-111K from the Yanks and costs were spiraling upward combined with the GBP spiralling downward. They said uncle and used old Fleet Air Arm Buccaneers, a technologically inferior but absolutely ingenious aircraft that easily filled the gap the TSR2 and the F-111K left until the Tornado came online.

MOUs/contracts work both ways. If it is in the best interest of the supplier, they can escalate costs or simply cancel and pay the appropriate penalties. Again, the dogged British learned the hard way as they went blindly forward to the Skybolt missile which was supposed to be their sole second strike nuclear deterrent carried by V-bombers... until the US unilaterally cancelled it. The Brits had to build a fleet of ballistic missile submarines to fill the gap!

[Gilles Hudicourt]

The Russians still violate our airspace. ..... Who do you think is up there to greet them when they come into Canadian domestic airspace...Air Canada?

Cheers...Chris

That is a false statement! There has not been one single documented case of any Russian aircraft violating Canadian airspace. Unless you care to provide a reference or a link ? All "interceptions" were done in international airspace. One must not confuse Canadian FIR with Canadian Domestic Airspace. The Russians can legally fly all they want in the Canadian FIR once they remain at least 12 nm from any Canadian coast, where the Domestic Airspace begins.

[Beefitarian]

I was making light of our venerable defense minister's feeble explanation to the gullible Canadian public why the jets seem to cost so much. It's as if he waves his hand and like iflyforpie says "these aren't the droid we're looking for".

Bummer, I would like some Boeing shoe laces.

[2R]

Some questions for those who can pick the fly shit out of the pepper :
How many F-22's could be made in a production run of CF-22's or Typhoons in Canada for 25 billions?
How much would the Government be re-embursed through income taxes if the production run was made in Canada supporting manufacturing jobs in Canada?
How much more effective would a smaller fleet of F-22's or Typhoons be at protecting Canada's interests ?

[AuxBatOn]

2R: The F-22 is somewhere around 200M$ a piece. The production line is closed. It's a marginal contender on the Air-to-Ground scene (ie: not suited for our needs)
Typhoons: Around 150$ a piece. It has its issues...

Believe it or not, the JSF is the cheapest platform AND the best platform. Super Hornets' line close in 2015 and support stops in 2025. Unit price is around 130M$ a piece (including the equipment we need, like radars, jammers, fuel tanks, etc, etc)

JSF will be, on AVERAGE 75-90M$ a piece, including everything we need (radar, pylons, EW, Helmets, etc, etc)

The idea of including the cost of operating the planes over their lifetime doesn't make any sense. All it does is inflate the "new" costs to the eyes of the MPs and the Canadian Public. A comparison with the existing costs of having a fleet of fighters would be more appropriate. For example, it would cost 1B$ less to operate a fleet of 65 F-35 compared to operating 78 CF-18 over 36 years (price if fictional).

[Colonel Sanders]

I know I will be ritually shat upon from a great height for daring to mention this, but ...

Why do we have to have only one aircraft type? Couldn't (eg) two much, much cheaper aircraft types be produced to fulfill the various roles?

To the people that insist we must have just one aircraft type that does everything - does it need to replace the Sea King, too?

Nobody remembers, but decades ago, various air forces (and navys) operated more than one type of aircraft. And they were a whole lot cheaper.

Do you really want to risk a quarter-billion dollar aircraft on close air support? What's wrong with a much, much cheaper (and better) A-10 for CAS? Or a helicopter, for that matter?

I know, I know, we can only buy one aircraft type and it has to do everything, even if that means it doesn't do anything very well and it's hideously complicated and expensive.

Specifically, I don't know why in the world everyone insists that we use the same airframe for interception as CAS. I guess I just don't get the "big picture".

[AuxBatOn]

Specifically, I don't know why in the world everyone insists that we use the same airframe for interception as CAS. I guess I just don't get the "big picture".

The F-16 was initially meant to be a day VMC fighter. 2 heaters and Guns and off you go. Go get 'em boy! With the years and obviously budget restructurings, the Viper was heavily modified to do pretty much everything (and I mean, everything). It's an agile fighter (having been in a Viper, believe me!!), a good interceptor, a good DCA platform, a decent striker, a good CAS platform and a great SEAD/DEAD platform. Yes it is better in some aspects than others, but that's the nature of a multi-role aircraft. We can say similar things about the Hornet. It's an agile fighter, a good interceptor, a decent DCA platform, a great striker, a great CAS platform and an okay SEAD/DEAD platform.

1 aircraft type (especially at smaller scales) is cheaper than 2. Economy of scale (having 2 Operational Training Units, 2 sets of quals to maintain, 2 logistical chains, etc, etc). I don't see what combination of aircraft you can suggest that will give us every capability we need that will come at a cheaper price than the JSF's price tag. It's easy to ramble theoretical crap, but you need to bring up a realistic plan as well... Now, if we were to buy 200-500 aircraft, I'd agree with you... But not for 65 aircraft.

On the subject of doing CAS with the JSF....

Doctrinally, CAS is done when we achieve air superiority. So, Air Threat and SAMs are not much of a problem anymore. With the advent of PGMs, rarely do you see someone diving in dumb iron on targets anymore (did you know the first ever Laser Guided Weapon to be dropped in anger was during Vietnam?). Almost the only time someone dives is to strafe. Technology made it possible to use 1 aircraft to do multiple things.

You may need an aircraft type for a very specific mission you want to be very good at. For example, the F-22. Excellent DCA/OCA platform. I mean, nothing in the world today can even challenge it. But I don't believe that's in Canada's Political Plans.

[Moose47]

Gilles, you can relax. You are absolutely right. I posted that to see if a certain individual knows as much about Canadian air defence as he makes out to. Apparently he does not!

Our primary role here at 22 Wing, North Bay is to provide continuous surveillance, identification, control and warning for the aerospace defence of Canada and North America.

"Custode Pacis"

Cheers...Chris

[Colonel Sanders]

Now, if we were to buy 200-500 aircraft, I'd agree with you... But not for 65 aircraft

A while back I calculated that the inflation-adjusted price for an F-104
in today's dollars was 9 million. Seriously. With the help of simple
arithmetic, how many F-104's could one buy with the current $25B
budget?

$25,000M / $9M = 2,777 aircraft

That's a pretty big fleet. I think the problem is that people expect to
realistically pay between a quarter and a third of a BILLION dollars per
airframe (eg F-22 prices) which is totally insane.

It's too bad that no one remembers where the current F-16 and F-18
came from - the hated and despised Light Weight Fighter (LWF) program.
I know it's heresy, but maybe it's time to again do something that the
military establishment hates.

Anyone with the tiniest amount of interest in the current fleet of fighters
should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweigh ... er_program

did you know the first ever Laser Guided Weapon to be dropped in anger was during Vietnam

Yup. Weren't they trying to hit bridges in North Vietnam?

[Beefitarian]

I'm not following the whole 65 planes concept. Other than buying them off the americans so they will continue to defend us. I know someone here posted angry because of the suggestion that we buy something else like SAR helos and leave the fighters to the US.

Does anyone feel a fleet of 65 planes regardless of how good they are short of being magic can defend our borders? Or should we just hope that continues to be a non issue?

The only thing that sort of makes sense is we probably can't afford to keep 200-500 aircraft in the air.

I guess we just wait for China to take over, then there will be an Airforce here. They won't be using F-35s either.

[Moose47]

"Yup. Weren't they trying to hit bridges in North Vietnam?"

Indeed Colonel. In May 1972 the U.S.A.F used lazer-guided 'smart' bombs to take out the Thanh Hoa (a.k.a Dragon's Jaw) and Paul Doumer bridges.

Cheers...Chris

[2R]

2R: The F-22 is somewhere around 200M$ a piece. The production line is closed.

A closed production line can be re-opened.The recent production run of U-2 airplanes proves that.
If you have ever walked through the Gruman Factory in Savanagh GA you might be suprised to see post office delivery vehicles and canoes being built alongside F-15s.
If They still have the plans it would not be too much trouble to re-start a production run of F-22's and that production could be done in just about any shed large enough to keep them out of the rain
My wag would be thirty F-22's would be a superior force to 65 F-35s leaving enough money for the RCAF to get some A-10's and a few Herc's on wheel skis and a few new Buffalo's

[Colonel Sanders]

Even if the USA did build more F-22's, they would be delivered to the USAF, not any foreign country.